Slashdot Mirror
Bram Cohen on BitTorrent's Future
Last week, BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen was rumored to be leaving the company he co-founded -- just as it landed big distribution deals with Hollywood. Can the rumors be true? What's in store for online file-sharing? According to the response, Cohen is not leaving; the piece goes on to talk in more detail about some of BT's recent announcements.
This dude sits on some serious cash. If he for example makes cache software which ISP's can use to cut long-distance bills while keeping net neutrality...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
I believe you're referring to this:
For your ears, the answer would be something along the lines of:
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
The main advantage that Holywood would have is a pratically absent distribution cost.
They can encrypt their movies with WMA then distribute that, people could preload their movie whilst at work then unloack the films they want to watch. And the price of the media should trickle down to the consumer. Otherwise paying £10 for a movie when i can get a hard copy on DVD is pretty useless.
Maybe some kind of log in system would work, where you can only watch one movie at a time, and you are charged per view. Maybe than would give Holywood and excuse to make movies you want to watch more than once.
"WN: Do you think your plan will dispel some of the conceptions media execs have about BitTorrent -- that it's just a tool for piracy?
BC: Those preconceptions have already been mostly overcome."
Maybe in his little world, that's true... For the real world, no way. If you say 'bit torrent' to any teenager, they're going to think piracy. There's a few who know that some MMOs use it for updates, and that it could legally be used for data sharing... But hardly any of them USE it for that. (Or know how.)
No, I think to really take off, he'll need to rebrand his stuff. 'Windshare, built on Bit Torrent technology' or something like that. Just calling it Bit Torrent won't fly.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
"just as it landed big distribution deals with Hollywood."
I can't wait until I want to buy a movie drm'ed so bad that I can only watch it on my computer screen after downloading it at 5 KB/s over a week because there are only a handful of seeders and a few thousand lechers, that's how I want to get my movies delivered to me!
for consumers? We essentially pay to download the movie, and pay again (with bandwidth) to distribute it to other people, and on top of that it's DRM'd to hell. What have they (distributors) got to lose?
We can then fire up the same bit torrent clients that the industry have used to corrupt packets of our illegal shares.
BC: We're rolling out with some content DRM'd, using Windows DRM
Somehow, I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.
>He's alrerady admitted that he created Bittorrent in order to trade files illegally.
> In my opinion,s it was all heade downhill from there.
I don't see why. Floppies, DAT tapes, CDs and DVDs have all been used to share illicit content and those media haven't died, except through obsolescence.
Al
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
It's like if the RIAA took the source code for Firefox and made a new browser called "Lamefox", which was highly restritive. They are using the HTTP protocol, but they will have almost zero impact on the current and future users of firefox.
Remember, BT is a protocol, not just a program. Azureus is (IMO) a very good BitTorrent program, that's open source as well.
---FourChannel---
Why in the world would I use *my* upload bandwidth to help the bloated Hollywood junkies make $$$, AND PAY THEM FOR IT ON TOP OF IT?? Do they really think that...
1. I am going to download and seed files that I have to pay to view. (ok...maybe)
2. On top of that, I will then use my expensive connection to allow others to download from me so Hollywood can get a no cost distribution network. (uhhh..no way)
Perhaps if they allowed me free access to the movie if my share rate went over 200% or something, then I would consider it. But they have to be smoking some seriously dumb stuff if they think I am going to pay them for the right to waste my bandwidth.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I would just like to take the opportunity to state for posterity my sworn belief that Bram Cohen will never do anything else of note no matter how long he lives.
He will join the legions of people that came up with one brilliant invention and then spent the rest of their lives trying to come up with something to match it and failing in the most spectacular way.
See Clive Sinclair.
I don't have any evidence at all. I just have a very strong feeling about this.
Actually, the reason it was likely banned was for traffic reasons. Most non-file-sharers users on a campus network average like 200MB or less a day, even if they visit YouTube or install stuff from online every once in a while. File-sharers, however, use 10x as much traffic. This can clog traffic in areas that are somewhat limited, like older buildings still wired with 10MB wired or wireless. Also, at 100KB+ a second, more than a few filesharers would seriously slow internet access to the campus. (I know this because I downloaded an Ubuntu .iso while on campus and got a mean email).
Yes, BitTorrent could provide a way for the media companies to distribute their products at little cost, but everytime another user learns how to use BitTorrent, you've equipped one more person to readily download movies for free, as I do. Now, I don't think that's a bad thing, because as far as I'm concerned the current entertainment industry with their outdated model of "Intellectual Property" can all collapse tomorrow and I wouldn't shed a tear. But I'm guessing that Hollywood doesn't really want to teach everyone how to use TorrentSpy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How would this newer sort of BT experience jibe with those of us who access BT resources against the wishes of our ISPs?
I, for example, am obliged to use Rogers Hi-Speed for my broadband connectivity. In my village in rural Canada I have no other alternative. And, currently, it's a bloody arms race between Rogers and I to keep my BT transfer happening.
I'm randomly switching ports, encrypting traffic, muttering voodoo incantations -- I shudder to think what can of a dance I'll have to do in six months time.
So, if BT has this new, legitimate face will providers like Rogers make peace? Or will movies over BT be a legal use of bandwidth Roger and his ilk decide I'm too irresponsible to be allowed to use?
These stories are free but worth money.
I've seen a couple of blog posts about it, and I think this is a good one that describes it well. The movie execs don't seem to understand what they just paid for. There is a Bittorrent protocol, which we are familiar with, and then there is the Bittorrent, Inc. company. They are not really very related to each other, except that Bram Cohen is kind of involved in both. The media deal was with the Bittorrent company and, specifically, their website: bittorrent.com. The execs don't seem to realize that it has no bearing at all on the continuing use of bittorrent clients by millions of people.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
That is correct and I was aware of it. But my point is actually how purchasing these files changes people's perception of community. There was a day-care nursery in Israel some years ago that had a few problems with parents not picking their children up on time. Someone always had to stay on a little longer to dispatch the last child. So they introduced a fine system in which if you were late, it cost you a few pounds more (or equivalent). The result was an instant increase in both the number of late parents and how late they were. The logic is obvious in retrospect - people no longer cared about putting people out, they were paying for the service. And what is more, when the nursery reverted to the old system, the lateness of parents didn't change back. They had lost it for good.
What I am saying is that for me, and I hope for others, there has always been something kind of nice about the co-operative spirit of the Bit Torrent protocol and I've been willing to donate bandwidth to give something back. A distribution model like this removes this spirit. It is something small and hard to notice, but it is there. Why should anyone do more than is necessary to download a DRM'd movie when they're paying for it? Why should anyone have to pay for the download above and beyond the cost of the movie anyway? This is a big saving for the media companies. Essentially, they are inviting the customer to replace all the packaging, delivery, storage and display costs themselves. Will there be a like saving passed on to the customer? I expect not. The DRM will probably lead to cost rises because you'll start to see pay-per-view models rather than buy to own.
Truth to tell, I think everyone should take a stand against DRM and I'm disappointed when someone in a position to make a fuss sells out.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.