Slashdot Mirror


The First HD DVD Movie Hits BitTorrent

Ars Technica reports that the first HD DVD movie has made its way onto BitTorrent, showing that current DRM efforts to prevent illegal sharing of copyrighted content are still futile and fighting an uphill battle. From the article: "The pirates of the world have fired another salvo in their ongoing war with copy protection schemes with the first release of the first full-resolution rip of an HD DVD movie on BitTorrent. The movie, Serenity, was made available as a .EVO file and is playable on most DVD playback software packages such as PowerDVD. The file was encoded in MPEG-4 VC-1 and the resulting file size was a hefty 19.6 GB."

24 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Burn the land and boil the sea
    You can't take the sky from me

  2. The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by Boap · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At 20GB this alone will limit pirates as having even 100 of these movies will take up about 2TB of space.

    1. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by solevita · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really - Hard drive space is still cheaper per GB than HD-DVD is. If you want to store big movies, it's cheaper to do so by downloading them than it is to buy them on disk.

      In other words, if you can't afford to keep 100 HD-DVD movies on your computer, you really can't afford to keep then on HD-DVD.

    2. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until the burners become affordable. The limiting factor is really the bandwidth, not the storage space.

    3. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by Chang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure we'll never have a solution for limited drive size ;-)

    4. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you buy 100 HD DVDs you will have spent upwards of $2000.

      With 500GB of storage costing $150 or less, 2TB of storage space will set you back $600.

    5. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, this is a pretty wild way to spend your bandwidth. Supposing you get 150 KB/s sustained on the torrent, your computer's still going to be chewing on it for over 37 hours.

      On the other hand, if you drive to the store and back, you can probably have that HD-DVD in about an hour. That's over 5.5 MB/s of bandwidth. Pick up a few more movies at the same time, and your bandwidth increases to 22 MB/s. Sneakernet has a lot going for it, in this case.

    6. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm sure it'll fit onto a 700meg cd just like all the others - it'll look much the same on a 15inch laptop display. Like mp3s, it's more important to have a fair few to choose from, rather than filling your 300 gig hard drive with 15 highly polished turds.

      This is not meant to be rude. I don't feel I have any right to dictate taste or quality. That said, it's guys like you that keep me off of file sharing networks.

      If you want to compress a perfectly good HD rip down to CD size and watch it, go for it, it's your business. But when I see that stuff being offered to me as if it's some kind of precious gift, I'm flabbergasted. Why would someone give me Budweiser under the label "Chimay" and claim "it's just as good"? Why would I seek such things out?

      Besides the bad music that's rampant on file sharing networks, there have traditionally been quite a lot of bad rips. Often, there's no way to tell except to download and listen, then wonder whether the artist really wasn't as good as you thought, or whether someone didn't know how to work their ripper. Have you ever seen someone download a 128KBPS file from iTunes, then make a CD, import it at 192KBPS and tell you, with sincerity, and even honesty, that they "ripped it at 192KBPS"? Those are the files you're downloading.

      I know Budweiser has it's place. I've been known to down more than a little bit. Sometimes that's all you want or need. I'm more than happy to watch a certain amount of TV or movies on the ol' 13" TV upstairs. But when I'm looking for high quality, why would I want to download something labeled "HD-DVD" that's less than DVD quality? It's idiotic.

      I have some advice for you. If you want to make low-quality, overly-compressed movies for the "I don't care" viewer, save some money and buy it on DVD instead of HD-DVD. Then when you rip it, clearly label the source, source compression if relevant, output format and output compression for everything you rip. That way I'll know to avoid your work.

      Thanks,

      TW
    7. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not necessarily. A download doesn't equate to a lost sale, no matter how much the like of the MPAA and RIAA say so.

    8. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can do that, why not just stick with the DVD and upgrade the players to play MPEG4? Why are we creating new media when we could easily store an HD movie on a dual layer DVD?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by codemachine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, DVD sales have brought back TV series before, so if anything, buying the actual HD-DVD or the regular DVD would be a better move if you want another movie. Showing interest is not enough to help a studio profit.

      Though I assume you knew that anyways. The real news was back when the HD-DVD protection was broken. The fact that rips appeared online was inevitable after that point. One might argue the breaking of the DRM was inevitable too, but still possibly newsworthy to report when it actually happened.

    10. Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually that 800 is KBps(or more likely actually kiloclusters since it tends to be a factor of 10) if you're getting it off most programs. Which is actually 8 Mbps give or take. So you're actually getting your full connection speed. IE and Firefox, and Mozilla, and pretty much every other application I've ever used have been reporting they're speed in KiloBytes(not bits) for as long as I can remember, and I've been on the net for more than a decade.

      Why is it that on slashdot of all places there are still so many idiots. Haven't you noticed that your max download speeds have been 1/10th of your max connection speed for the last 15 years? Did you really think you just couldn't max out that dial up connection when you were connection to a major server? Did it not dawn on you that there had to be some other explanation for that?

  3. Best copy protection? just don't sell anything by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a great idea. Just don't sell the product, or release it for distribution of any kind. I guarantee there won't be any piracy, but you'll have a hard time making money!

    Everyone complained about piracy when tape decks came out, but everyone knows in retrospect that the bootleg tapes, even the good quality ones (which could easily be as good as the one you bought) were actually helping bands get noticed. This is all about just controlling the supply line so that only studio-backed projects can get money. They want the ability to sh*t can a movie by not distributing it, and vice versa, to make money from only the ones they are investing in.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Best copy protection? just don't sell anything by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I think that the only real solution is to not allow the movies to be played on a computer. Only on dedicated set top boxes."

      It is my opinion that unless a new medium works on the PC, it will never become all that important.

      Think about all the laptop computers that are sold with DVD drives in many cases to allow travelers to watch movies as they travel. If those people can't do that, then they'll just stick with DVD's.

      So the market for the new-fangled-DVD-replacement will be limited to people with large TV's who just want to watch in their living rooms and never watch it anywhere else, despite the fact that we have desktop & laptop computers, slingboxes, Video iPods, Zunes, etc etc.

      I mean, if that's the market, god bless them, but I want to see someone with that pitch before the board of directors.

      Maybe it would be cheaper to just do something where people have to go to a large room and watch it with a bunch of strangers. They'd pay like $8-10, and buy popcorn, and hope the people next to them will shut up and let them watch in peace. Hey! I may patent this idea. I'll call it "Moving Pictures in a Dark Theater" or something snappy like that.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  4. Yo. by neimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not cool. Joss needs the money so he can make more cool stuff. Go buy the DVD.

    'nuff said.

    1. Re:Yo. by Xerotope · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mail him a check for $5. I'm sure that's more than he gets from the studios for an HD-DVD sale.

  5. Probably not a good idea just yet by Rorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, this will just make them work harder to fix up the faults in the encryption software/hardware before they really start to mass-produce players / discs, so releasing a pirated movie this early will just make further piracy that little bit harder.

    However, I really don't understand why the RIAA/MPAA bother at all - There are just to many people out there who find it _fun_ to spend their time cracking things simply because they can, and it is a great challenge to take on. It's not the money, it's not the legality, it's probably not even the fact that they want to rip the movie onto their hard-drive. It's the fact that when the RIAA says "You can't do this", their first thought is "Just watch me". No-one can compete with that, not even multi-billion dollar companies. And I love that fact :)

    Also.. 20gb?! Somehow I enjoy the thought of piracy a lot less when everything I save in not buying movies, I spend in buying hard-drives / bandwidth! :)

    --
    Will program for karma.
  6. Are the pirates winning or the content providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article says there is a battle between the pirates and the content providers and imply the pirates are winning.
    I am not sure that is the case. I have not been interested in a format that has no provision for backup or ability to shift to other players -- like linux laptops. I have no interest in a disk that won't look as good as a DVD if I play it in my 1 year old non-HDMI HDTV.
    If HDDVD disks can now be reliably ripped, I am interested.
    I'll buy a set top player and a computer drive sooner.
    I'll pester Blockbuster to start renting the disks.
    If Muslix64 et al. are blocked, I am back to no interest.

  7. 20GB is a lot now. But it won't always be by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > At 20GB this alone will limit pirates as having even 100 of these movies will take up about 2TB of space.

    I'm sure people made the same observation when DVDs first became available a decade ago. 4.7 or 9GB over dialup or even early cable modems stored onto hard drives barely able to hold a single disc was not a threat to DVD sales either. But bandwidth and storage keep on improving while a media standard like DVD or HD-DVD remains constant for years. The reality is that if an HD movie is fixed at ~20GB the cost to move/store that will soon drop to managable costs.

    With the copy restrictions removed it is an absolute certainly that they WILL be copied. For now just to prove it is possible, to stick it to the man and to prove 313t3 5k177z but eventually it will be as commonplace as Divx;) CD-R copies are now.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  8. Call me paranoid... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...but I bet the MPAA is watching the peer list on this torrent very, very carefully.

  9. For now. Maybe. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think back about 5, or even 10, years. Could you have imagined downloading 3-4 Gigs just for a movie? Or a game?

    When the CD came into existance, it was not thought that copy protection could ever be necessary, people did hardly have the space on their HD to store those 650 Megs on. Today, a CD is not even a deterrent to downloading it, storing is even less a problem.

    Give it a year, and you will probably not even think twice about transfering 20 Gigs just to check out the movie (and deleting it immediately afterwards when you notice that it is indeed copyrighted material, of course).

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:The first and last movie by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That takes care of software players for HDDVD and there will definitely be no software players for Blu-Ray.

    Naive view, at best.

    Though a strange turn on our normal bashing, think about this from Microsoft's POV... They sold their souls to the MPAA by including DRM from the kernel on up. If the MPAA then backstabs Microsoft by not letting Windows machines play HD content...

    I think it would run something like, "In response to overwhelming consumer outcry, we've decided to strip all DRM (except WGA, of course) from Vista. We sincerely apologize to our users, and hope you'll forgive us for erronously trusting the content industry."

    Microsoft doesn't give a damn about us, but it doesn't care about Hollywood, either. It only plays nicely with the MPAA so long as the MPAA provides the ball.

  11. Yes, Look for my 3000 UUEncoded posts by meanween · · Score: 4, Insightful

    May take a while to find them all :)

    --
    http://www.guster.net : Mmmmm fresh Guster.
  12. Re:We win [not] by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Case closed. Give it up, MPAA, your days are numbered. Just like Windows, soon you won't be needed anymore.

    Ah, because "Serenity" (since that's the movie in quesiton) would have been just as good if made collaboratively by a bunch of volunteers with little or no budget and no expectation of making enough money to pay back good acting, writing, animation, and other talent? Who do you think the MPAA is, anyway? It's a trade association populated by the companies that moviemakers, actors, writers, tech people and all the rest choose to work for. People compete to work for these companies, and to make projects that will be well received and which will reward the risks taken.

    You may have no use for the trade association these creative people support, but you'd better also have no use for films as good as Serenity. No money, no Serenity. You don't "win" anything by ripping off the very people that you're hoping will scrape together the money, talent, and time to make another movie you'll like.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.