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."
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. I realize that the cat is out of the bag now, but I think this is the only way to prevent these movies from being copied by the average Joe. Look at the GameCube and it's proprietary discs. While it's possible to get pirated games, it's just too much trouble for the average joe to bother. As it stands right now, I don't think too many people would buy into a technology that wouldn't play on your computer, since we already have DVD, and that plays fine on the computer. There was a lot less piracy going on when you had to dub the tape, instead of just clicking on a link. There is a big difference in terms of how much stuff you can pirate when you are putting music on tapes versus putting them on a hard disk. And the quality of the copy was pretty inferior.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I believe VC-1 can get 90 mins of 1080i down to 5GB. Look at some of MSFT's HD video samples on their web site - 60MB/min, which is ~5GB/90 min. Much better than MPEG2. Obviously they haven't compressed it that much in this case.
Actually, assuming you maxed the dial-up out at 56 Kbps every second and didn't waste anything on overhead, you could finish downloading it in 32.57275132 days. Not too bad, but probably easier to run to buy it, buy an HD DVD Player, hook it up, watch the movie, return both.
On 768Kbps DSL, it would take 57 Hours (2.375096451 Days).
On 3Mbps DSL/Cable, it would take 14.59 Hours.
On 5Mbps Cable, it would take 8.755 Hours.
On 30Mbps FTTP, it would take 1.45 Hours.
On a T3 (45 Mbps), it would take 58.7 Minutes.
On a OC-3 (155 Mbps), it would take 16.9 Minutes.
And finally, on an OC-768, it would take 3.94 Seconds.
That last one is 40Gbps....sweet.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
There are currently 154 HD DVD titles in stock, ready to ship at Amazon.
You are aware that Movie.Name.Codec.Source.MediaType-ReLEAseGROUP actually means something, right?
And that you can go to vcdquality.com to check things out before you download, right?
And that you can download one rar file, check the "keep broken files" box (or append the appropriate flag in Linux), and play it in VLC before you download the whole thing?
Just checking.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
I know that there are costs involved in producing music...just as there are costs in producing movies...however, the costs involved are on a MUCH larger scale in movies as they are in music.
Now, before you say that i'm being hypocritical, let me explain:
The digital distribution era has made the old way of doing things obsolete. As you said, for a couple of grand, someone can setup a recording studio and put together a pretty decent album. The problem starts with the record companies.
The record companies sign the artists, front the very large amount of money it takes (under the old system) to record an album , and promotes and distributes the album. The contracts that the artists sign say that the artist gets so much money per album sold...usually around a dollar...only problem is that most of those contracts also stipulate that the artist doesn't see a dime until their $1 per album that they are supposed to get has paid for every single cost that the record company has incurred...from the recording, to the promotion, to the packaging and distribution...from what i've read, except for the HUGE pop artists, most artists would be lucky to see $100k from an album from the record sales...and how many artists release more than a couple of albums? Very few.
Under the old distribution system, the exchange was pretty simple: The artist gave the record company the rights to sell their album in exchange for the promotion. The record companies had a monopoly on the distribution channels...If you were an artist, you didn't get any publicity unless you went to a record company. So the artist got their name out there, and then they were free to exploit that publicity...in the form of concerts, merchandise, public appearances, endorsements, etc...which almost every artist does in one form or another since they make very little, if anything at all, from the sales of their albums.
Okay...now flash forward to today...the internet has sparked self distribution...Now for a couple of thousand dollars, someone can setup a website, produce their own album, and get free publicity on the internet by GIVING away the music. Oh, by the way, if you like the music, buy our CD direct from the source, or get a t-shirt, bumper sticker, poster, or come see us perform!
So...you may now ask what's the difference between the music and movie industries: It's simple...obsolescence. As you've said...you can produce a pretty professional album with a few thousand dollars, and enough time and dedication to make it work...assuming your music is good. Suddenly there is no need for all those people to be working on an album. The times in the music industry have changed...it's time for them to find a new line of work...these modern day candle stick makers are being put out of business by today's light bulb.
When you compare it to the movie industry: It's just not possible to produce a feature length film with only a few thousand dollars...even Memento, which was a great indie film with practically zero special effects and all using no name (at the time) actors cost $9 million...according to wikipedia.
So...lets compare: Cost to produce a low budget album: $5,000. Cost to produce a low budget movie: $9,000,000...cost difference: 1,800%. Cost of album on iTunes: $10. Cost of movie on iTunes: $10-$15. Cost difference: 0%-50%. Something just doesn't add up here.
So, the way I see it: I support the artists/actors, and the people who are truly needed to produce a work. All you need to produce an album is the artists time, and a few thousand dollars in costs to get it recorded...Artists can (and have) distribute/promote their music free over the internet, myspace, etc. They can sell their songs on iTunes using that indie music label (can't think of their name right now). They can use companies like cafe press, or even just have merchandise printed and sell directly using paypal and a $20/mo web hosting account.
The point: Artist can (and have) produce, distribute, and prom