BitTorrent Becomes Ever More Legit

lily_bt writes "BitTorrent just signed a deal with 4 entertainment distributors to add more than 1,600 titles to its video library. From 'SuperSize Me' to The Three Stooges to Bollywood films, BitTorrent wants to offer the most comprehensive service when it launches its pay service. The best part is that this content will be made available by subscription." From the article: "Once distrustful of peer-to-peer technologies, Hollywood studios appear more willing to partner with companies such as BitTorrent and video-sharing site Guba.com, which last month partnered with Warner Bros. to distribute movie titles. BitTorrent, widely used to both legally and illegally swap copies of copyright movies, has been aiming to turn its technology into a tool used for legal services."

Comments

Subscription

[Spad]

The best part is that this content will be made available by subscription.

Let me guess, it'll be in WMV format, you won't be allowed to burn it to DVD and if you terminate your subscription you'll lose access to any movies you've downloaded so far (Assuming, that is, that you're actually allowed to keep them for longer than 24 hours).

Re:Subscription

[Kadin2048]

I'm interested in their answer to this as well.

This question came up the last time the idea of legitimate, DRM-ed P2P software was discussed, and I didn't see any answer.

The whole advantage of BT versus a direct transfer protocol is the client-to-client aspect, which can only work as long as each client wants the same file. This means that you can't encrypt every file with a per-user/per-file key, and have to rely on the client software to apply the DRM to the final file. (As I believe iTunes does -- or used to do, anyway; wasn't the whole point of pyMusique that it could save files without applying the DRM?)

I have no idea how the system actually works, but if I were going to design something like it, I'd say that you'd have to have files that were encrypted with a per-file global key (this theoretically limits their use to users of the service, rather than just everyone, at least until the files+key escape onto the net) and then encrypt the files as they're written to disk (including the temp files) with a per-download key which would be used to enforce the expiration and single-user nature of the files. The keys would have to be kept inside the application, or inside the Windows Media framework, and the system would depend fundamentally on the security of the client software and the its prevention of user access of the keystore.

Oh, and the peer-to-peer connections between various clients would have to be encrypted with randomly generated keys, so that a user couldn't just capture packets flowing into the machine and reconstruct the un-DRMed file that way. This handshaking could also be used to (attempt to) verify the integrity of the clients to each other, so that a user couldn't inject an untrustworthy client and get un-DRMed content -- although I think it's impossible to block this avenue completely in the long run. (This is the pyMusique approach, at least as I understand it: simulate a client and get the file as normal, but just don't apply the DRM as the 'real' client does. However a P2P based system is more vulnerable to this attack than a centralized, iTMS-like service, since you can't arbitrarily change the handshaking procedure whenever you want: older versions of the client will still be out there, talking to each other, unless you have some sort of remote killswitch or enforced auto-updates.)

That I know of, there are at least parts of the Windows Media DRM system which remain unhacked, including it's key-management functions for DRMed files; although I suspect this is not due to any fundamental features of the system but more because of its limited use right now (and easier ways to bypass it that don't involve breaking the DRM itself, i.e. Audio Hijack). In the long run, a system like this can only work with any kind of security with Treacherous Computing technology that restricts the user from ever accessing the keystore, and even then I'm not sure you can guarantee security that way.

Because what you're trying to do is give the user access to something and keep them from it at the same time, all DRM systems are a bit schizophrenic, and this is no exception.

More noise to hide in?

[also-rr]

No one has managed to place effectice restrictions on HTTP activities because the protocol is too noisy with legitimate activity. Might this now be the same in the future with BitTorrent?

Compensation?

[fuyu-no-neko]

Part of the P2P model is that we (the customer) do the majority of the distribution work. Will BitTorrent suitably compensate us for our work, say by giving us substantial savings over other methods of buying the films? Or will they try to get a free lunch out of us so to speak?

I a parallel would be if the local pizza company offered to sell you a pizza for half price, but only if you delivered a pizza to another customer whilst you're at it.

Re:How is bittorrent a business model?

[DieNadel]

Unless the businessmodel encompasses something like paying for your bandwidth.

I have broadband at home, but I spend most of my time working in the office. It would be nice to let bittorrent use my connection while I'm not using it and when I get home I'd be able to download, say, 3 films or something.

It reminds me of the old time mp3 FTP file sharing: if someone uploads 1MB, then this account would be able to download 10MB.

Anyway, I usually watch a movie a day. If the monthly subscription is cheaper than a cable, or DirectTV pay-per-view or even renting a movie each day, it would be fine by me to only "own" a movie for 24hs.

BitTorrent, Inc. versus "bittorrent"

[Kadin2048]

The article does a really bad job of emphasizing the difference between Bittorrent the download protocol/technology, and BitTorrent, the CA-based company.

It's kind of like what would happen if Yahoo! had named itself "HTTP" back in the early 90s.

What's basically happening here is that a company (BitTorrent) is marketing a service which (I think) uses the bittorrent protocol to share DRMed movies, as part of a subscription service.

From a technical standpoint, this has as much to do with the Pirate Bay's use of BT as Apple's iTunes does with AllOfMP3.com, since they both use HTTP. Which is to say, basically none.

However, from an economic/political standpoint, this could be a good thing depending on how you look at it. Because BitTorrent, Inc. is the 'public face' of the BT protocol, whatever it does reflects on the perception of bittorrrent generally. If it's perceived as being legitimate, then it dampens the kneejerk "bittorrent == piracy" reaction, even though the majority of the traffic using that protocol on the network at any given time may be illegitimate or pirated. This perception is important, since it may be what drives ISPs and others to filter, block, or ratelimit packets on their network. As in many aspects of life, what people perceive to be the truth is far more important than what's actually the case.

I would wager that at some point, as BitTorrent, Inc. tries to clean up its image, that it will probably try to keep other file-sharing systems from using it's name and trademark -- Azureus will have to be a "distributed peer-to-peer simultaneous transfer client" instead of a "Bittorrent client."

Re:cool

[PapaZit]

This leads to an amusing possibility: the MPAA/RIAA suing ISPs for blocking BitTorrent.