BitTorrent Video Download Store Falls Flat

seriously writes "We've all heard about BitTorrent going legit this week with legal movie and TV show downloads. Ars Technica took a look at the service to see how usable it was and ran into a few snags, including not being able to download or even open the video files on some computers. However, the ones that they did manage to open varied a lot in quality. Overall, they blame DRM: 'Without knowing whether browser compatibility and dysfunctional video files are a rare occurrence or not, it's hard to say whether BitTorrent's service is a good one overall. Our initial experiences have been disappointing and frustrating, and guess what the culprit is once again? DRM. Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.'"

Comments

again...

[User 956]

Our initial experiences have been disappointing and frustrating, and guess what the culprit is once again? DRM. Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.'

Once again proving the point that DRM is nothing but punishment for being a paying customer.

Re:again...

[tomstdenis]

No, according to the RIAA it *adds* value for the customer!!! *rolls eyes*

Is a week long enough to tell if a service will work in the long run? Imagine if we used such journalistic skills for companies like Microsoft or McDonalds...

"After a solid 7 hours of being open, it's clear, Microsoft will never make a sale."

Tom

Re:again...

[lymond01]

You have no chance to survive make your time.

HA HA HA HA HA

Re:again...

[ack154]

Um.. I'm not sure if you were trying to work in some other joke I don't know about... but it's somebody set up us the bomb.

Re:again...

[tomstdenis]

whatever, I never played the game [too busy with frogger, damn traffic] and I don't go around the office quoting it or anything.

I'm too cool to know the quote, ya that's it. :-)

Tom

Re:again...

[saskboy]

We don't call DRM Defective By Design, because it works all of the time ;-)

DRM, is there anything good that it can't break? It bugs the heck out of me that only "legit" services use DRM.

Re:again...

[eln]

I guarantee you 99.99% of the people who can quote the Zero Wing "all your base" shtick verbatim have never played the game.

I can make no judgment as to how many of them played Frogger.

Re:again...

[NTesla]

"Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases.."
BECAUSE 50% of Windows XP machines that were used to download DRMed movies were using "borrowed" or keygenned serial numbers :)
[btw, this was meant to be funny]

Re:again...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A day or a week is way too short. However, impressions like these won't help unless of course BitTorrent addresses the problems.

I think that DRM is only relevant for rented downloads, it allows people to pay for a limited time for a lower price. DRM for a personal copy is not something that I accept.

Re:again...

[bobcat7677]

Count me as one of the 99.9%. I never played the game and yet I quote it. Of course I also quote movies I never watched and people I never met.

Re:again...

[StikyPad]

Just like >99.99% of people who can quote the atmospheric composition of Mars have never been there. Poseurs, all of them!

Re:again...

[eln]

I wasn't trying to call anyone a poseur, I was just knocking down tomstdenis' excuse that he didn't know the reference because he had never played the game. Clearly, the vast majority of the people who get the reference have never played the game either.

Re:again...

[Crizp]

This is the one?

MPAA: What happen ?
RIAA: Somebody set up us the bomb.
RIAA: We get signal.
MPAA: What !
RIAA: Main screen turn on.
MPAA: It's you !!
J.Q. Public: How are you gentlemen !!
J.Q. Public: All your video are belong to us.
J.Q. Public: Your revenue stream are on the way to destruction.
MPAA: What you say !!
J.Q. Public: Your business model have no chance to survive make your time.
J.Q. Public: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
RIAA: MPAA !! *
MPAA: Take off every 'Lawyer' !!
MPAA: You know what you doing.
MPAA: Move 'Lawyer'.
MPAA: For great injustice.

Re:again...

[StikyPad]

Ah, I'll blame the /. filters, which made your post appear to be a direct reply to his original.

Re:again...

[Hyperspite]

LOL that made my day.

Re:again...

[Kjella]

I've seen the video capture of the game, close enough? It's hilarious so it makes a good quote but why would you play a game with such a incomprehensible translation, and what would that add to anything?

DRM

[JamDonut]

The industry will learn one day that DRM is not a viable business model, it just gets on peoples chimes....

Re:DRM

[beckett]

Video offerings in Microsoft file format didn't help much for cross platform operability or hopes for future compatibility either.

Re:DRM

[garcia]

Apple has shown that properly written DRM can have a minimal impact on the "user experience".

Excuse me? Huh? Maybe if you have a player that supports AAC it has a minimal impact. Otherwise you have to burn a CD and rip it back to MP3 (which isn't hard but it's more than a minimal impact) to play on your less expensive hardware.

All Apple's DRM has shown is that people don't give a shit as long as they are cool because they all use the same device with white ear buds to play music.

Re:DRM

[Ash-Fox]

Apple has shown that properly written DRM can have a minimal impact on the "user experience". Just because the DRM mechanism used by BitTorrent sucks, I guess the naysayers feel the urge to exclaim, "It was the DRM" (visions of MP and Death with outstretched fingers).

I was sent a gift certificate for the iTunes store. I use Linux, I can't redeem the certificate. You call that "minimal impact"? Some people just wasted quite a bit of money on a useless certificate.

Unfortunately the person that sent it to me didn't even know about DRM (they know about Linux though).

Sorry, 'proper' DRM is interoperable DRM that doesn't infringe on fair rights.

Want to talk about properly written DRM from Apple? I know people who couldn't play older DRM songs they bought from iTunes after they upgraded iTunes. Is that proper?

Re:DRM

[hooded_fang]

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ I'd tend to disagree with you. While Apple uses DRM, it's pretty obvious that aren't 100% on it. I've worked with DRM and its like trying to pull your sportscar with a horse. It doesnt work all that well and probably costs the end user a lot. When it gets to more than its worth you'll see the end of DRM.

Re:DRM

[delinear]

Apple is actually one of the worst examples of a DRM system that is 'properly written' and has 'minimal impact'. Why? Because it adds an extra layer of annoyance for the customer who wants to use their music on different, non-AAC formats while at the same time achieving none of the goals of DRM (since it's trivial, if annoying, to burn a CD and convert to a different format). So not only does it fail as DRM, it annoys users for no good reason whatsoever. It's like a CD retailer telling customers they can rip the CDs and do whatever they want with them, but they have to jump through a big hoop first to prevent piracy.

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[CiaranC]

you must be new here

short term profit

[Original Replica]

Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear

The more we can download all of our media, the less need there is for a giant distibution company. I don't think the big players want legal, easy, inexpensive media downloads.

Re:short term profit

[malsdavis]

The more we can download all of our media, the less need there is for a giant distribution company. I don't think the big players want legal, easy, inexpensive media downloads.

I would have to disagree. The value of the "big players" to the actual content creators' isn't their ability to distribute films, it's their available capital and connections which are used to create insane amounts of marketing, world-wide.

For the independent movie producer, finding a distribution company to manufacture and distribute movies is relatively cheap and easy. What's prohibitively expensive is the TV ads, Billboard Ads, Radio Station ads and all the other publicity (in SONY's case even fake movie reviewers) which ensures the "blockbuster" movies are a hit; usually regardless of their actual quality.

The horrendous (but still very commercially successful) Da Vinci Code movie is a recent example.

Re:short term profit

[Znork]

"used to create insane amounts of marketing, world-wide."

And, of course, the insane amount of marketing is needed to counter the insane amount of marketing that other makers get. Essentially making sure a large part of the capital available from the end-consumer goes, not to fund more movies, but to maintain a pointless marketing war that neither consumers nor creators want or benefit from.

Re:short term profit

[Original Replica]

The mass marketing adavantage/need is beginning to slip as well. Look as far back as "Blair Witch", grassroots internet buzz and viral marketing are overtaking billboards and TV commercials.

Re:short term profit

[gordgekko]

How did that work out for Snakes on a Plane?

Re:short term profit

[Original Replica]

Considering what a complete piece of crap that movie was, pretty well. From:http://theclientside.blogspot.com/2006/08/sna kes-on-brain-when-marketing-works.html "Third, it was still a big huge success. Why? There is no fleeping way that this movie would ever have opened at #1 without the web. Never ever never ever never.... ever. This is an amazing feat. Without the attention from the blogosphere, consumer generated content and the conversations via social media, this film would likely have raked in $1.4 million for the entire weekend.
According to Wiki, it cost $33 million and made $59 million. $26 million is far from a record, but it's still a nice profit.

Re:short term profit

[gordgekko]

True enough, and I didn't mean to imply that SoaP lost money (my apologies if I did) but for every Internet-based campaign that succeeds it seems there are one hundred that don't.

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[jonnythan]

You know, AT is a popular site, especially among slashdot readers.

I read the article before it appeared here. Obviously someone else did because they posted it to slashdot.

I'm not saying the OP read the article, but this article appeared on Ars Technica before it appeared here. This isn't some story that slashdot broke.

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[CrackedButter]

That old line hey, gets em every time.

DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[MMaestro]

Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.

Um, maybe its because most DRM works only by virtually destroying a user's PC? When DRM makers finally agree on a standard (for better or for worse) THEN we'll start seeing progress (on the part of DRM breaking 'hackers').

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[drinkypoo]

Um, maybe its because most DRM works only by virtually destroying a user's PC?

No shit man, this has got to stop. I installed Windows Media Player 11, and my laptop display exploded in a puff of orange smoke. Then I installed iTunes, and my hard drive melted into a puddle of metal that burned a hole through my desk and set my pants on fire. Someone must do something!

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[cptgrudge]

Yeah, we'll see progress when a standard DRM method is implemented across the vast majority of digital media the world over.

Just imagine the leaps and bounds in advancement our society will make when that one is cracked!

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[prencher]

Let me guess, it's a dell?

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[CelticWhisper]

SOrry, wroNg answer. Please trY again.

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[shark72]

"Um, maybe its because most DRM works only by virtually destroying a user's PC?"

For what it's worth, I've bought a bunch of stuff from the iTunes store (which makes use of DRM) and I haven't had any problems. Oh, I do get the "beach ball" from time to time, but it's usually due to mail.app, the new version of Adium, or sometimes even Firefox. I've never had a system instability issue which I could trace to the fact that I have a bunch of Fairplay music in a directory somewhere.

I've seen some iTunes store users complain about the limitations of DRM, but they've largely been on the order of "I wasn't able to use a song I bought in Final Cut and then distribute the MPEG" or "I can't easily put my music on a player other than the iPod." In both instances that's the purpose of Fairplay, and not an unintended side effect.

YMMV, of course.

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[lambent]

SONPY? What the hell is a SONPY?

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[g1zmo]

Someone please think of the pants!

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[nih]

Won't somebody think of the children?

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[Kalriath]

In early Macs, that would be the "I'm busy, go away" indicator. In newer Macs, I don't know.

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[Kaenneth]

That's impossible, I worked for a year as a contractor testing WMP install and uninstall. It would never cause 'Orange' smoke to come from any part of your machine, only 'Coral', 'Salmon', 'Goldenrod', or in extreme cases 'Peach Puff' colored smoke.

Re:DRM failed? Say it ain't so!

[gfreeman]

Stop hanging out with Sylar.

Legit is a funny term for an industry cartel

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is clearly anti-consumer. The only way that it's possibly going to get accepted is by collaberation between supposedly competing groups within the entertainment industry. In other words a cartel. Now that probably is actually illegal; it definitely should be. The fact that they can get away with it by buying some politicians and by controlling the media (which they often own) doesn't make it any less criminal.

Let's not confuse "adding DRM" with "going legitimate" please.

Re:Legit is a funny term for an industry cartel

[deviceb]

i pay about as much attention to DRM as the fart i cast last tuesday. the consumer has got to be smoking crack to buy anything with DRM on it.. It (DRM) is clearly anti-consumer right from the start, you just cant support products like that..

DRM to be considered harmful

[Looce]

After HD DVDs and Blu-ray discs being locked out of people who didn't buy DHCP-enabled monitors, video cards and an encrypted video path to view them... This is not even a surprise to me.

In the end, the easiest thing for a consumer to do will be to just open up The Pirate Bay and type the name of a movie they want. It's sure to work wherever they want, provided they have the codec to play it. And if they don't, they can convert it to MPEG-2, or any other such standard.

Consumers do not want to buy a separate version of their music for their iPod, their Zune, their Gigabeat, their [insert name of portable Flash/USB player here], etc. They don't want to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on new technology to hear what they want, either. Audio CDs have worked for nearly two decades. This goes for video as well. The *AA's need to realise that.

Then again, it's what Apple and Microsoft want: to lock people into their player, so that they must buy another if it breaks. Interoperability would just make every player equal... Oh no, we have to actually think of new features for our players instead of just relying on lock-in to bring us sales! What should we do?!

P.S.: Many stories on Slashdot seem to revolve around DRM lately. I have an impression of déjà vu...

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[drinkypoo]

After HD DVDs and Blu-ray discs being locked out of people who didn't buy DHCP-enabled monitors, video cards and an encrypted video path to view them... This is not even a surprise to me.

They're not locked out, they're reduced to a lower resolution. You can still watch them.

In the end, the easiest thing for a consumer to do will be to just open up The Pirate Bay and type the name of a movie they want. It's sure to work wherever they want, provided they have the codec to play it. And if they don't, they can convert it to MPEG-2, or any other such standard.

If they don't have a codec to play it, they probably don't have a codec to convert it.

Consumers do not want to buy a separate version of their music for their iPod, their Zune, their Gigabeat, their [insert name of portable Flash/USB player here], etc. They don't want to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on new technology to hear what they want, either. Audio CDs have worked for nearly two decades. This goes for video as well. The *AA's need to realise that.

Of course, if you buy the CD and rip it, you don't have DRM problems. Just a copyright flag that pretty much all software and even hardware ignores.

Then again, it's what Apple and Microsoft want: to lock people into their player, so that they must buy another if it breaks.

The paranoid among us might believe that Steve Jobs would release an open letter condemning DRM just to take the heat off Apple for using DRM. It might even be true. But I don't that's actually all that likely.

Microsoft, on the other hand, definitely operates through vendor lock-in.

Apple has never been the most open company or anything, but they're not as bad as Microsoft in that way. (They are worse in others; they have been known to attempt to hide evidence of their abuse of customers. So I think they both suck.)

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[kilbo]

After HD DVDs and Blu-ray discs being locked out of people who didn't buy DHCP-enabled monitors, video cards and an encrypted video path to view them... This is not even a surprise to me. What about BOOTP?

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[Looce]

In the end, the easiest thing for a consumer to do will be to just open up The Pirate Bay and type the name of a movie they want. It's sure to work wherever they want, provided they have the codec to play it. And if they don't, they can convert it to MPEG-2, or any other such standard. If they don't have a codec to play it, they probably don't have a codec to convert it. Apologies for this. I didn't write what I thought correctly. I meant, if they don't:

• have the codec in their player of choice, they can convert it with their computer if they have the codec on it (like AVI/DivX, even though DivX players are more and more common);
  
• have the codec at all, ask someone they know for an MPEG-2 version.

Either way, they can always check the torrent site for MPEG-2 versions of movies they want. Or anything they have codecs to play.

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[Looce]

And, if they're not interested in looking at their HD movie on their 20-inch computer monitor, they can move their TV right next to their computer. But there's not enough room in their mom's basement. Then they can burn it to DVD. Except HD content is too big for a DVD. Then they can burn it to HD DVD. But they'd need to get both a HD DVD burner and a HD DVD player. Which they can't use because their set isn't HDCP-enabled. Leaving completely alone the question of whether this is a flame or not, there have been lots of reported cases of DA discs (CD-DA: CD Digital Audio) that were not playable in legally-bought standard home stereos and car radios.

Now, can you tell me for sure whether that will happen or not in the future for legally-bought set-top DVD players? And if that does happen for DVD players, what can the consumer do about it?

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[stubear]

"Microsoft, on the other hand, definitely operates through vendor lock-in."

Yeah, because Apple allows me to run OSX on my Dell M2010 and I can copy all my iTunes music to my Zune or other non iPod MP3 player. Aperature really flies on Vista. I'm so glad Apple wrote that app cross-platform so us PC users can use it too, iWork and iLife also. Wait, you mean I can't do either of these things? I'm shocked, truly shocked. Apple uses vendor lock-in too? To hell you say. I guess Microsoft can finally use their patent on vendor lock-in to kill Apple once and for all.

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[Andy Dodd]

"They're not locked out, they're reduced to a lower resolution. You can still watch them."
Not if your video card is limited to digital output only.

Admittedly, display devices/video cards that have DVI but not VGA are rare, but the fact is that you have to essentially use a DIFFERENT output device to view HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content.

Even if it is the same video card and monitor, switching inputs and video card outputs just for your HD-DVDs is a massive PITA. I speak from experience here.

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

After HD DVDs and Blu-ray discs being locked out of people who didn't buy DHCP-enabled monitors, video cards and an encrypted video path to view them... This is not even a surprise to me.

In the end, the easiest thing for a consumer to do will be to just open up The Pirate Bay and type the name of a movie they want. It's sure to work wherever they want, provided they have the codec to play it. And if they don't, they can convert it to MPEG-2, or any other such standard.

I think you overestimate consumers' technical literacy. All you have to tell them that their monitor/computer isn't completely compatible with the HD video formats, and they'll accept it as something beyond their control. They'll probably just watch the downsized video permanently.

And even if they are outraged enough to explore other options, most of them would be law-fearing enough not to visit the pirate bay. I know it's not illegal of course, but it certainly doesn't sound inviting.

Re:DRM to be considered harmful

[pipatron]

Or just stop bothering and install VLC.

WHY?

[Archangel Michael]

"Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.'""

Why? If failed because it is defective by design. It failed because they (whomever "they" are) don't have control over all the various bits and pieces. It failed because DRM deliberately breaks things, on purpose. DRM fails, unless you have complete and utter control over all aspects of distribution/playback, and simply put, they don't have control over people's PCs. Nor will they ever.

And, it is simply unacceptable. But rather than look at the real problem (DRM), they are blaming the distribution protocol (BT).

One last point: The whole "whatever the cause" is turning a blind eye to the real issue, which is DRM cannot work on systems (not just computers) that they don't control. PERIOD.

I just wish the industry technocrats would just look at the obvious. DRM doesn't increase (or maintain) control, it decreases satisfaction in the customer, which makes it .... "simply unacceptable"

Re:WHY?

[cdrguru]

The one way that DRM can work is replacing the "personal computer" in home environments with a dedicated entertainment appliance.

This has numerous advantages for the home user because it can be immune to viruses, spyware and trojans. It can provide a superior entertainment experience apart from what constitutes a "home PC" today. And, it can be cheaper because there will be fewer options and support will be much, much cheaper.

And, because it is controlled, DRM can absolutely work. 100% of the time, just like CSS works on a DVD player today.

Forget WebTV. Think OLPC for home entertainment.

Re:WHY?

[Archangel Michael]

"And, because it is controlled, DRM can absolutely work. 100% of the time, just like CSS works on a DVD player today."

Yes, indeed. So why not just buy/rent DVDs ??? Oh because you want to watch them on your PC flying from NY to Paris, or on your PSP on the commute into NYC from the Hamptons, letting the rugrats watch in the car on the way to grandma's house, or on your cell phone during halftime at the game or ......

The problem is that people want to not only time shift but also format shift what they want to watch, without having to pay for it over and over.

Are you willing to pay for the movie for each of the mediums you wish to view it on? I didn't think so.

Re:WHY?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why? If failed because it is defective by design. It failed because they (whomever "they" are) don't have control over all the various bits and pieces. It failed because DRM deliberately breaks things, on purpose.

Defective
Recorded
Media

Re:WHY?

[CelticWhisper]

I've always used and favoured the (perhaps more accurate, definitely more inflammatory)

Defective
Restricted (or restrictive)
Media

You can substitute "Music" or "Movie" for "Media" where suitable as well.

Re:Why?

[sikandril]

This is what big media fails to see - the key issue is high bandwidth, high quality content. Give us DRM free, DVD quality downloads which stream consistently at 350 KB per second and we'll be happy to pay 1-4$ per movie. Oh you want more? Sorry chump, times have changed and your product has devaluated. You need to give me something which is easier and better than searching for a torrent, waiting for the download, taking the risk of a defective / low quality file etc. It ain't rocket science.

Re:WHY?

[schmu_20mol]

DRM is one point. Please realize that they are not blaming BT as a protocol but as a provider which is a significant difference.

Re:WHY?

[innocent_white_lamb]

The one way that DRM can work is replacing the "personal computer" in home environments with a dedicated entertainment appliance.
 
I believe that device is called "cable television".
 
It has limitations, of course.

Re:WHY?

[trenien]

I can't remember the number of times where I was looking for some obscure movie to download, and finally give up after searching for one hour.

Had such a service been available, I'd have happily forked over a couple of bucks for an hassle free process. Alas, I neither live in the US nor use windows (and plan on never doing either). That means the majors/studios won't see a cent of my money as long as they keep behaving like spoiled brats able only to say 'Mine, mine, gimme, gimme, gimme...'

Re:Why?

[shut_up_man]

I agree, although I suspect they might have a number of permanent seeder clients out on the net to maintain the swarm at any given moment. Otherwise someone might purchase "Gigli" and nobody would have it. I guess they're paying for those seeders, but it does seem a little unwholesome.

The other thing I was thinking, if each of these movies are DRMed, doesn't that mean each movie is unique, making them pointless to try and Bittorrent? Or is it more that the movie is encrypted with a given key, and your DRM player adds that key to its "keychain" so you get access to it?

Re:WHY?

[Jerf]

The one way that DRM can work is replacing the "personal computer" in home environments with a dedicated entertainment appliance.

We have that. We call it a "gaming console", as it also plays games.

You may well have had that in mind when you wrote it; I'm not claiming this is news to you. I bring this up because I want to say that while it wouldn't make me ecstatic, I would be satisfied with the compromise of not being able to play DRM'ed content at all on my "general purpose" computer, and confining DRM'ed content to my "gaming console". (Possibly made cheaper by removing the gaming stuff, although as I'd still want download support and a hard drive on this device that doesn't quite take us down to "(HD-)DVD player".)

In theory, I'm against DRM. In practice, I can deal with it to some degree, on the condition market forces are allowed full play. But "a monopolistic operating system provider mandating the extensive crippling of my computer so it can 'safely' play DRM'ed content" is not acceptable to me. I think that as we get more and more "dedicated entertainment devices", the logic of crippling the general-purpose computer so it can be graciously allowed some small chance to play "premium" content is a bad trade for customers and society at large.

(If Microsoft is ultimately successful at getting the entire industry to make Vista-only hardware, "somebody" needs to re-open monopoly proceedings against Microsoft; I can hardly imagine a clearer demonstration of monopoly power than a software company fully making all hardware companies its bitch, even if some of them go into it willingly.)

Re:Why?

[init100]

The other thing I was thinking, if each of these movies are DRMed, doesn't that mean each movie is unique, making them pointless to try and Bittorrent? Or is it more that the movie is encrypted with a given key, and your DRM player adds that key to its "keychain" so you get access to it?

My guess: Every copy of a certain movie is encrypted with the same key, i.e. all copies are equal. But then you get a decryption key encrypted with a personally unique key separately, that enables you to view the movie.

DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Overall, they blame DRM

OK, I'll get flamed to death, but oh well. To make a statement like that is silly. That's like trying a new piece of software and then condemning all software in that category because one failed. Apple has shown that properly written DRM can have a minimal impact on the "user experience". Just because the DRM mechanism used by BitTorrent sucks, I guess the naysayers feel the urge to exclaim, "It was the DRM" (visions of MP and Death with outstretched fingers). In reality, it was BitTorrents DRM, and hugely important distinction. We cry and moan when one flaw in OSS causes critics to then paint all OSS with the same brush, but we are so quick to do the same when it suits us. But hey, I guess that means that we're only human.

Because "they" want to get paid "again"

[Lead Butthead]

The content industry has already admitted DRM has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with forcing the consumer to pay for the same content, over and over again. It should come as no surprise then, that the downloaded content failed to work (so that the sucker^H^H^H^H^H^H consumer will be compelled to pay for the same content, again.)

Re:Because "they" want to get paid "again"

[infinityxi]

I won't be your google but here is one article:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616 .html

Re:Because "they" want to get paid "again"

[bberens]

I'm not trying to flame you or anything but I'd be interested in press releases or anything of the sort where a media giant expresses that sentiment.

/genuinely curious

Re:Because "they" want to get paid "again"

[toleraen]

You're right, you won't be my google. That article has absolutely no content relating to the industry admitting that DRM has nothing to do with piracy. And a google search just shows a bunch of articles linking back to that one. As much as I like reading ars, their journalists aren't exactly mpaa/riaa insiders.

So asking again, this time non-AC style: Source, please?

Re:Because "they" want to get paid "again"

[infinityxi]

Well I am not defending the position but I believe that's the source the GP post is referring to. I honestly don't believe the industry would disclose the motivation for their DRM to be control and not piracy as it is bad for business. I admit I looked at the article to see if there was any flat out evidence of one executive saying this but i couldn't find any but I unless the original poster has a link I don't know about. I assume he means this article.

Re:Because "they" want to get paid "again"

[Petrushka]

The GP is probably thinking of things like the following passage from Macromedia's recent open letter to Steve Jobs:

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas - vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.

The GP is probably also thinking of John Gruber's (accurate) translation of that section into RealPeopleSpeak:

Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for.

Re:Because "they" want to get paid "again"

[delinear]

I hate that I can't back this up but there was a quote by someone from the British RIAA (BPI?) on BBC Radio One just before Christmas who said the industry acknowledges that DRM is not about controlling piracy. At the time I was really shocked, I mean we all know this already but for them to admit it...

I really wish I'd grabbed the clip from their listen again service because it seems either nobody picked up on this or my google skills are too weak. Anyway, obviously this is in know way proof of anything since it's only my word, but was I really the only person to hear this in the UK (it was on the newsbeat section on the Scott Mills show, between 17:45 and 18:00)?

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[ack154]

He didn't have to read the whole article to post that... he just copied what was in the story above. And that certainly takes less than a minute.

Why bother?

[Creepy Crawler]

Wow. What a crock of shit. I wanted to see what exactly these movies they offered, and well.. They speak for themselves.

In the Sci-Fi category.

4d Man "rent"
A Clockwork Orange "rent"
Alice in Wonderland Broadway production "rent"
Buncha "Alien" movies. "all rent"
Animatrix "own"

Yuck. I wouldnt even download this garbage from Thepiratebay.com , and they're free. I also looked at other sections that piqued my interest, and the similar veneer of crap was about them all.

Why should I pay for a "rental" or a "own" when there are plenty of websites that provide it for free, along with more rights than I would gain with "bittorrent.com" ?

Answer that, and you solve the majority of piracy. And shutting those sites down is not an acceptable answer, as the USA interests are not shared globally.

Re:Why bother?

[chad.koehler]

Copyright infringement is morally wrong? How do you know?

Re:Why bother?

[statemachine]

I tuned out when he called "A Clockwork Orange" garbage.

Re:Why bother?

[marick]

Um... yeah, so the order of the listings on the Sci Fi/Fantasy page is kind of lame. Alphabetical order does that.

My advice to you is to skip past the ones you don't want to see to the ones you DO. For example, I watched "I, Robot" the other night, with a buddy.

It was a 40 minute download (YMMV) for $2.99. And yes, we spent that 40 minutes making popcorn, chatting, and such. The movie was great - my friend's video projector put it up at a whopping 60 inches, and yes, it was good quality at that level.

And no, I didn't try downloading it from ThePirateBay, but now that you mention it, here I go... Ok, I got a torrent, and yeah, it will be another 3 hours 40 minutes until it's downloaded at 64KB/s.

What is your time worth? I'd say on a Friday night, I'd rather pay $2.99 to download a movie in 40 minutes than get it for free in 4 hours. Seems like a good deal to me.

Re:Why bother?

[Creepy Crawler]

The movie is junk.

Have you read the book? That isnt junk.

Just like most of what Phillip K Dick or Asimov wrote: the movies are junk but the books or short stories are awesome.

Re:Why bother?

[hooded_fang]

Okay big boy step off the morally superior box for a bit. Who's morals are you using? I know Im not a big fan of the "Do as I say not as I do" technique the US is trying to force others to adhere to the US copyright laws. They are amongst the worst copyright and IP laws going right now cause they put the power in the hands of lawyers not the content creators. If something isnt morally right then yes you dont do it but the US copyright laws stop at the US border. If you have a problem with my morals then I wont come over to dinner but dont come over to my house and tell me to live like this because YOU think I should. Content should be free. Make it ad driven. Id rather watch the Apple Computers presents Heroes free and legally then pay for it. Do you have a problem with that? Tough luck. It's thinking off the stream and challenging questionable ethics that you espouse that is a huge part of being an individual. Attitudes like yours make it hard for those who try to find legal and useful purposes for such technology. If I choose to copyright my stuff and give it out for free that's my perogative. If I choose to allow advertisers to brand my stuff in order to give it out for free that is also my perogative. Im glad your getting sick because you cant have your technically sound formats. MP3 is crap and so are a lot of the formats available on the stores. Heck, you can get better codecs that are open source these days. The big companies refuse to listen to thier customers and if their customers dont feel that they should pay for crap then the big companies should come up with better stuff. By the way since when did conforming to the rules ever produce anything profound. If we stuck to that way of looking at the world, then the sun would rotate around the world and the Earth would be flat. The companies need to change their attitudes and catch up with the public or someone else will. Ive also grown up and realize that dissent is not a bad thing. Maybe it is you archangel michael that needs to grow up and stand up for something except authority and the perceived status quo.

Re:Why bother?

[kocsonya]

Umm, I wouldn't exactly call the Clockwork Orange crock of shit or garbage... I mean you may not *like* it but it has both literary value (the original novel from Burgess) as well as some cinematographic merit (Kubrick wasn't that bad of a director).

Re:Why bother?

[Mr2001]

Copyright infringement is both morally and legally wrong. Obviously you think Piracy is okay, because you think everything should be free. Ridiculous. There's nothing immoral about copying bits.

Do you think every time you make a calculation using, say, the speed of light, you should have to pay royalties to the heirs of the scientists who first discovered it? Because that's really the same thing, morally speaking. How about paying royalties to the first person to coin the words every time you write "internet", "zipper", "blog", etc.? After all, someone invented those words, so they own them forever and it's immoral to "steal" those words from them, right?

Re:Why bother?

[Archangel Michael]

"Who's morals are you using?"

Mine, and the society's that I live in. We (society) has made an agreement that authors and publishers deserve protection of their works, and have created this thing called "copyright" to do exactly this.

"I know Im not a big fan of the "Do as I say not as I do" technique the US is trying to force others to adhere to the US copyright laws."

I don't know, nor do I care about all the other country's laws, I happend to agree on the principle this country is using, namely that authors and producers of copyrightable works deserve protection.

I suggest that if you don't like this, you work to change it, or your venue (where you live).

"If you have a problem with my morals then I wont come over to dinner but dont come over to my house and tell me to live like this because YOU think I should."

What a crock of shit. I suppose that if I feel I should be allowed to beat my wife and kids, then you would feel "morally" wrong interfering in "my business", right? Or are there "morals" to which there is no debate, and who says? Please give me a list of "morals" that are not negotiable, and "morals" which are. M'Kay?

Re:Why bother?

[Archangel Michael]

"There's nothing immoral about copying bits."

Really? How about alphabet letters? How about numerals? How about words? Do you really believe that there should be no "copyrights" at all? Or you just grand standing and using hyperbole?

Re:Why bother?

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Except we're not talking about copying bits, we're talking about copying a piece of music or movie. There's nothing immoral about chemically propelling a small hunk of lead really fast either, but if you propel it AT someone, things change rather quickly. Context is key - but by all means, don't let me stop you from trying to justify infringement.

PS. The speed of light is a fact, and as such, isn't subject to copyright or trademark.

Re:Why bother?

[Archangel Michael]

"Why should I pay for a "rental" or a "own" when there are plenty of websites that provide it for free, along with more rights than I would gain with "bittorrent.com"?"

Your argument here is that because you can find them elsewhere for "free" (gratis/no cost), along with "more rights" (whatever that means).

"Wrong. When I download from 'those' websites, I get more than I would have purchased (at any price): my freedom."

I hate to break this to you, but you don't gain any freedom by downloading illegally procured copyright protected works. In fact, in your "search" for "freedom" you have created a situation whereby you deny the RIGHTS of others (copyright) to the spoils of their hard work. I highly doubt you sent the author/publisher of the works you've downloaded their rightful renumeration for the works you have illegally procured for yourself.

You think that your "rights" to freedoms enables you to do whatever you want. Well your freedoms do not go as far as you think they do.

"And whose morals are we talking about here? Mine, or your morals you'd like to force everybody to follow?"

Society's Morals. We have copyright to protect the creative works of authors. You seem to think that this is not applicable to you, because of some other "freedom" you think you have. You are in error.

"Where can I BUY media that is the same quality and same freedom in that which I download freely?"

Probably nowhere. But that is besides the point. It isn't your right to decide which format is available to you, is it?

"Is geographic lockout good for copyright? Is preventing time and format shifting good for copyright? Is treating the honest, paying user like a criminal good for copyright? Is including disablers and other forms of obnoxious software on what is supposed to be a media disc good for copyright?"

Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. But all of those are BESIDES THE POINT. It isn't your right to decide this, and if you don't get it the way you want, take it anyway. Copyright is about protecting AUTHORS, not consumers.

"Unfortunately, I cant buy media on terms dictated by fair-use laws and precedent. Hence, I either buy the DVD or download them. I maintain my freedom, unlike those who bought HD-DVD and BluRay and other forms of anti-user control."

I'm not opposed to "fair use". Buy the DVD and rip it all you want. If you watch a movie, pay the price the author wants. if you don't want to pay that price, don't watch the movie.

Anything less is wrong.

Re:Why bother?

[JesseMcDonald]

Ok, I got a torrent, and yeah, it will be another 3 hours 40 minutes until it's downloaded at 64KB/s.

From my experiences with Linux ISOs and similar, for which the BitTorrent link is usually the quickest download method:

1) Wait until you've downloaded a couple of blocks before measuring the speed. Your speed won't peak until you have something to upload due to the nature of the protocol.

2) Assuming you have more than 64KB/s download capacity and there are more than a dozen or so peers (or seeds), try limiting your upload rate to just under your real upload capacity. If you don't your uploads will choke out the ACK packets and download speeds will suffer. (You may have to experiment a bit to find the optimal upload speed.)

The BitTorrent protocol works better than many give it credit for, provided you're not the only peer and you manage your bandwidth properly. It also doesn't hurt to use a client like Azureus with a built-in DHT client, in case the tracker goes down -- or just to pick up additional peers the tracker doesn't know about.

Re:Why bother?

[Aceticon]

I did, except you insist on piracy because it is "free" (without cost). When presented an alternative (technical merits aside) that doesn't involve "free" you then complain you can get it for "free", even if it is illegal (in most jurisdictions).

Actually he pointed out that pirating the movies was more convenient and he had a much beter selection.

He even pointed out that he could get the movies available on that site for free (by pirating them) and still he wouldn't do it.

You're the once concentration on the money aspect when, as it the GP pointed and as has been pointed again and again, what really makes DRMed anything a hard sale is the reduced convenience (and often, the reduced choice).

Now, judging by your response i guess you are thouroughly convinced that your set of morals (piracy is really, really bad) is the beter one. Well, i got news for you - everybody has their own set of morals, and your's ain't beter or worse than everybody else's.

As for your supporting argument that illegal means immoral it fails the real world test: helping escaped slaves was once illegal and yet few would now argue that such an act was immoral.

I suggest you open your mind to the possibility that people will knowingly brake the law by pirating things not because they're bad people, but because the laws are wrong and monopolies have been granted to those which abuse the system (you do know that IP is all based in granting mnopolies to people, right???)

Re:Why bother?

[Mr2001]

Except we're not talking about copying bits, we're talking about copying a piece of music or movie. Yes, one which is represented by bits. Copying the song or movie == copying the bits. There's nothing immoral about copying music or movies either.

There's nothing immoral about chemically propelling a small hunk of lead really fast either, but if you propel it AT someone, things change rather quickly. Indeed - because someone is harmed when you hit them with a bullet. No one is harmed, however, when you copy a song.

The worst that can happen is the artist won't make a sale because you don't buy a copy from them, but there's nothing inherently wrong with failing to buy copies either. If there were, every movie reviewer would be acting immorally because their negative reviews result in a loss of sales.

Context is key - but by all means, don't let me stop you from trying to justify infringement. Don't worry, you won't.

PS. The speed of light is a fact, and as such, isn't subject to copyright or trademark. All information boils down to facts. If I encode a song in MP3 format and print it out as a big hex string, then I can call up my friend on the phone and say "it is a fact that the following hex string can be decoded to play the song" before reading off the digits. It's no less factual than saying "the speed of light is" before reading off a different set of digits. If you restrict the sharing of strings which encode music, then you are restricting the communication of facts.

Re:Why bother?

[Mr2001]

Really? How about alphabet letters? How about numerals? How about words? Do you really believe that there should be no "copyrights" at all? Yes. Copying information is not immoral (commercially available information, at least). It doesn't harm anyone, it doesn't deprive anyone of anything they already had or were morally owed, and it isn't fraudulent.

Copyright is simply a crutch for people who think that because they work in a certain field, they deserve an exemption from the rules of "work" that everyone else plays by. Everyone else finds someone to pay them before they start working, and they don't do the work unless someone has already agreed to pay. Those who insist on copyright, however, think that they (and only they) should instead be able to do the work up front for free, broadcast it to potential customers, and then restrict what those people can do with the information they've already received--as well as the equipment they're allowed to buy and manufacture--in order to force them to pay... and that this complicated system is necessary because it's somehow unfair to expect them to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Re:Why bother?

[neomunk]

I'm not gonna take my time arguing with you. It is apparent to me that you are a spoiled child with no concept of anything but your personal desires.

And a troll, a big fucking troll, your sig is all the proof of that that anyone needs.

Like someone said earlier, grow up.

Re:Why bother?

[Creepy Crawler]

---Your argument here is that because you can find them elsewhere for "free" (gratis/no cost), along with "more rights" (whatever that means).

You really dont think much. "more rights".. DRM and preventative technology only hurt the honest user. To shape it up, do you think there's more value in a DRMed copy or an un-DRMed copy? Why or why not?

---I hate to break this to you, but you don't gain any freedom by downloading illegally procured copyright protected works.

Why then can I play those files anywhere, and on any OS? For some reason, XviD avi's seem to play anywhere, unlike those HD-DVD's which you need to have an "authorized player", an "authorized disc" , and an "authorized tv" to play.. Yet none of those preventative technologies are available to us mere mortals. Also, given the hatred of your "rights", I assume you do not have or watch children. Tapes were bad enough, but the second a DVD gets a small scratch in it, game over. At least DVD's were copyable, which in my opinion, why they took off the way they did.

Unlike now, projects to protect fair use (BackupHDDVD) are quelled at the behest of the media conglomerates. How do you protect your license for that copy? Well, you cant. The media companies demand that you rebuy and rebuy media you already own a "copyright copy" for. The law protects them (and in the case where it doesnt, they buy politicians to do so). Where's our protection as buyers?

---In fact, in your "search" for "freedom" you have created a situation whereby you deny the RIGHTS of others (copyright) to the spoils of their hard work. I highly doubt you sent the author/publisher of the works you've downloaded their rightful renumeration for the works you have illegally procured for yourself.

Wow. I didnt know that downloading actually walked over there and ACTIVELY PREVENTED rights. Tell me: Who can I pay when I download a foreign film with soft subs done by somebody else? Do I pay the file hoster? Do I pay the director? Do I pay the actors? Do I pay the amateur subtitler for making it accessible to me? I watch more foreign movies and documentaries than anything else.

If a movie I like (not deleted off my network) comes to town, I pay for tickets to watch it. If it comes out on DVD, I buy it, ONLY if the subtitles are correct. I've bought 3-5 anime DVD's only to find out the subtitling I paid for is mistranslated. Sorry, but I dont support that garbage. And frankly, what kind of "rightful renumeration" are you looking for? There are no statutory prices on videos, as there ARE on audio. I wish there were statutes on pricing guides, so I could send copies while paying a specific governmental entity for proper compliance. Russia does just this.

---Society's Morals. We have copyright to protect the creative works of authors. You seem to think that this is not applicable to you, because of some other "freedom" you think you have. You are in error.

Morals are for religion. Politics and what is best for a country is not related to a religion, and in fact can be very detrimental to the people. Still, that is not the topic.

" To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "

There is nothing for "protection", but rather IS called for is promotion of arts and sciences. Also pay attention that the Constitution calls for "limited times". Does 95 years or 75 years +authors death seem Limited? A quote from Wikipedia:

"Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019, unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that."

Yes. Very ethical indeed. And this promotes what again?

---Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. But all of those are BESIDES THE POINT. It isn't your righ

Re:Why bother?

[Creepy Crawler]

I would much prefer that system than the present system.

Authors could be judged upon free or previous content. When they announce a new work being made, they can take bids for how much they think it's worth. Escrow systems arent exactly new to speak of. Blender3D was done in this precise manner so that a source code buyout was produced for GPL purposes.

There was a dilemma that represented the general problem related to this type of escrow for work, but the name eludes me.

Re:Why bother?

[Creepy Crawler]

Dont forget my journal.. Though I should pay more attention to it.

But in reality, I just getting under the fingernails of people like "Archangel Michael". It really is stress relieving. People like that fall for the stupidest ploys and circular logic. I'm amazed that you didnt see it first.

Re:Why bother?

[blackicye]

"
"Is geographic lockout good for copyright? Is preventing time and format shifting good for copyright? Is treating the honest, paying user like a criminal good for copyright? Is including disablers and other forms of obnoxious software on what is supposed to be a media disc good for copyright?"

Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. But all of those are BESIDES THE POINT. It isn't your right to decide this, and if you don't get it the way you want, take it anyway. Copyright is about protecting AUTHORS, not consumers."

So if I'm never going to buy the crap this bastard of an author churns out and will never agree to his conditions, does it matter if I'm downloading said crap?

If there was no way a single red penny of mine would ever be paid to him, does he lose anything?

Re:Why bother?

[Kattspya]

That's because the TPB doesn't enforce ratios. If you use any members only bittorrent site I usually max out my 8Mb ADSL. Just because most torrents on TPB suck doesn't mean other sites don't work as good as or better than commercial alternatives. Hell it's only recently I've been getting speeds above 200KB/s on STEAM which is about the only legal download platform I use.

Re:Why bother?

[Archangel Michael]

"You really dont think much. "more rights".. DRM and preventative technology only hurt the honest user. To shape it up, do you think there's more value in a DRMed copy or an un-DRMed copy? Why or why not?"

Excuse me? I think a great deal about stuff. Here is a little know fact ... you have no "rights" to decide how much / how little DRM is involved in copyrighted works. You don't like DRM, I got it. I don't like DRM either, and probably as much as you don't like it. DRM isn't the issue, and is something the "Pirates" of the world don't get. If you don't like DRM, then don't play their game.

"Why then can I play those files anywhere, and on any OS? For some reason, XviD avi's seem to play anywhere, unlike those HD-DVD's which you need to have an "authorized player", an "authorized disc" , and an "authorized tv" to play.."

Play those DVD's in a VCR. Oh wait, you can't without format shifting. This isn't really about DRM, the movies or whatever. This is about easily (key word) format shifting. Again, all DRM does is make it more difficult. Don't like the game, don't play. I think DRM is as stupid as the next guy, but I don't "pirate" anything because I vote with my $$ and my skillset.

"Morals are for religion. Politics and what is best for a country is not related to a religion, and in fact can be very detrimental to the people. Still, that is not the topic."

Really? So you are really into Mob rule then? Best for a country by who's standards? I didn't bring up "religion", you did. The problem with your definition, is that there is no foundation for any "morality" whatsoever. Even the "golden rule" becomes negotiable. Ever hear of Eugenics? Let's kill off all the weak and deformed people because that would be "better" for society.

"Yes. Very ethical indeed. And this promotes what again?"

Actually, our founding fathers were much smarter than we often give them credit for. However, they were also very religious (something you seem opposed to), and now that we have become more "political" you don't like the results, except this is exactly the result that Politics without a moral background is really ... amoral. The very thing you say is a problem and the very solution you seek is really causing the problem that you are facing. Can't see the forrest because of the trees, can you?

"I love how you can take Fair Use statutes and just shove them under a rug when called upon. "

I didn't shove Fair Use under the rug. Fair Use is something that is apart from Copyright law, yet plays into what you can to with copyrighted material. Copyright law is about protecting authors, Fair Use says what someone is allowed to do after they've aquired LEGAL rights to the work under copyright. Since acquiring copyrighted works without legal authorization is what pirating is all about, fair use doesn't come into play, as legal rights were never secured. Don't throw "Fair Use" into the argument on pirating, because the two don't belong together.

"wonder... I buy 1 dvd. I now have a copyright for 1 copy."

You have the right to view the copyrighted material. Fair Use dictates that you can watch it, when ever, where ever. Fair Use doesn't dictate that you can download a movie off Pirate Bay because it is "free" and "better quality".

The problem you are having is that you are failing to distinguish between "copyright", "Fair Use", "Format Shifting", "Legal", "Moral" and "quality", often shifting the argument between these various things. Your whole point of "But I can download better quality, free (Freedom) movies for Gratis (no cost) " is all a bad argument against DRM. Argue against DRM on the merits of DRM (or lack their of), not on availability/quality of pirate versions.

Re:Why bother?

[Archangel Michael]

"So if I'm never going to buy the crap this bastard of an author churns out and will never agree to his conditions, does it matter if I'm downloading said crap?"

Yes. It matters because it isn't for you to decide, it is his(hers).

What I find amusing is that you would download, and consume the same "crap" you don't find any value to. It appears that it has more value to you than you are willing to admit, since you are so willing to waste your time doing so. Not too bright, are you.

Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[Albanach]

So bittorrent offers films to rent. I can't see a way this can be implemented without DRM. Otherwise you haven't rented it, you now own the file

So, is the argument that we shouldn't be able to rent a film using our computer or is it just a complaint that they use a poorly implemented Microsoft DRM that isn't compatible across platforms. If, say, Real who already offer applications on each platform were to make some DRM that works on *nix, OS X and Windows would the /. crowd then support it?

I can't see how services like this can be delivered without some way to restrict viewing after a period of time. Is there another option I'm missing?

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is the argument that we shouldn't be able to rent a film using our computer or is it just a complaint that they use a poorly implemented Microsoft DRM that isn't compatible across platforms.

The former. The concept of DRM is inherently flawed. You have a choice between either being forced to use a crippled device that is not the general purpose PC that we all know and love, or having DRM which will be cracked with very little effort. You cannot have both.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather leave my computer alone and not be able to rent movies. I personally don't believe that movie rentals, however cool they might be, are so great that they should be an excuse to destroy the most powerful invention of the past few decades.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[Original Replica]

You are correct: you cannot "rent" a download without DRM. The deeper problem, the consumers are basically demanding to own (not license) a movie for the price of rental. If the industry doesn't comply, the consumer goes pirate. Suprise, profit margins just got smaller. The industry needs to stop bitching and accept it. All major profits for a movie must be made in the box office, just like it was before home video.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[Overzeetop]

No, you can't wind this game, especially not on slashdot.

Renting is a antiquated term when viewed with respect to digital media of any type. The biggest issue is that there has been a tiered pricing model in the past based on length of access - that access was limited by a physical medium. Both the software and music industries recognized that there is no "rental" when the data is so easy to reproduce as to be trivial - and in response they made certain that copyright law forbid the rental of the physical media which contained those works (I don't have the citiation, but in the US it is true). For video, it was relatively expensive and/or inconvenient to copy the works, and rental stores flourished. I still remember annual and initiation fees (many north of $100) just to have the priveledge to rent the movies.

The idea of renting something doesn't really make sense in a world where there are no incremental costs to produce, and no exclusivity of use of an item. But there's the problem, too. Most consumers put a lower price expectation on a "loaned" item than to own the item - that's natural because we've all grown up to believe in scarcity. There is no scarcity in digital media - the first copy costs an insane amount to produce; the second costs almost nothing. Now, on the opposite side of that debate are the content providers/producers. They value their end-user item at a fixed cost, as if there were an incremental production, packaging, handling, and delivery cost - just like they've always had. In return for reducing or eliminating most of those costs, a lower fee may be paid for a time-limited use. Except that digital media eliminates nearly all of the incremental costs.

So we're at a stalemate where consumers expect a $2-$3 product and the producers want to sell a $20 product. No, let me correct that - the producers expect to sell a $30 product - the "suggested retail price" - even though consumers are used to finding the traditional product at a significant discount, closer to $20. So you've got a 10:1 expectation gap as a result of the data revolution. Until that gets settled, there will be DRM, and nobody will really be happy.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[CastrTroy]

You're right, you can't have download to rent without DRM. There would be no way to ensure that you didn't watch it after downloading an unprotected source. Really, I don't see any reason why someone would pay to rent a downloadable movie. Playing it on your TV is a lot harder than sticking a DVD in a DVD player. The quality is worse than DVD. It takes longer to download than it does to go to the movie rental store. And that's without any problems encountered due to DRM and files not playing the way they are supposed to.

As far as buying movies through downloads, you definitely don't need DRM. The whole experience would be better without it. Just convert it to whatever format you like, or burn it to a DVD.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[chad.koehler]

If a consumer won't purchase an item because the PRICE is not agreeable, then THAT consumer does not affect the profit margin whatsoever.

Now, in this case, the consumer doesn't have the "right" to participate in copyright infringement, but if they do so, it STILL doesn't affect the profit margin.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, profit margins get larger.

The profit margin on a $20 DVD is probably about 50%. Half of the purchase price goes into manufacturing, shipping, and paying the store.

The profit margin on a $4 online movie purchase could be over 90%. Bandwidth and servers are very cheap and there are basically no other marginal costs to pay.

Online distribution should be win-win, but the big studios seem determined to make it a lose-lose.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[kosmosik]

> I can't see how services like this can be delivered
> without some way to restrict viewing after a period
> of time.

Well technically I guess you would like pay for ability to download the content or something. By any means. Bittorent protocol seems fine here. But it does not really mean. It could be some other protocol like heavy proxying the content to local ISP servers or smth. like that.

I would pay (be f.e. $10 for good movie) then download the file then watch it and keep it on my HD. What is the problem with that?

It is obvious that I could not legally sell this movie/file to someone else. I could not because I dont *own* the file. I am just being licensed to have it on my HD (my purchase history in strore proves that) but I cannot resell it (licensing terms). But I can do whatever I like with it like plugging it to my video iPod or some other gizmo. What is the problem with that?

With DVD you can buy it and then resell it to another person. So legally let the DVD cost $20 than you and your 20 friend come together and buy the DVD together. And then resell it to each other so finally watching it costs you $1. How it is better/more profitable than selling one file $20 that cannot be legally copied? DRM won't stop me from inviting 20 friends and watching the file with them so it is another mistake.

I am speaking in terms like "can" as in legal terms. Since in practical terms you can do WHATEVER you wish. You just download anything you wish from pirate sites and you watch it. No DRM is ever going to stop this. So this is flawed logic right now.

So MAYBE content distributors need to just change their distribution model since renting films in Internet is not exactly the same as renting films in store. It is annalogical to that surfing web is not exactly surfing on ocean. Quite different in fact.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[jamietre]

"I can't see a way this can be implemented without DRM. Otherwise you haven't rented it, you now own the file"

No, you rented it. If you borrow a book from the library, you don't own it. If you rent a video from Netflix, you don't own it. If you borrow a CD from your friend, you don't own it. In each of these cases, I can do whatever the heck I want with it once it's in my house - make a photocopy of a book, burn a CD or DVD copy, whatever. You have always been able to violate the law if you choose to. But the bittorrent downloads have FEWER features than these things - I can't play it on my DVD player, I have to use my computer. And apparently even that doesn't work very well.

As an analogy, I can also drive over 70 miles per hour, do you think cars should be electronically limited to that speed? There's no road in this country with a higher speed limit.

DRM is trying to ensure that people cannot break the law. The problem is, whenever you do that, you don't stop the TRUE lawbreakers, and you punish the regular guy. If we decided (as a society) to electronically limit our cars to the speed limit, well, apart from the obvious awful congestion that would result from nobody being able to pass on the highway, the people who were going to speed a lot anyway would find a hack to remove the limiter. So the scofflaws still do whatever the heck they want, while those of us just trying to be good citizens suffer awfully because we can't exceed the speed limit for a few seconds once in a while to pass a slower moving vehicle in a reasonable amount of time.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[nmos]

So, is the argument that we shouldn't be able to rent a film using our computer.....

I wouldn't use the word "shouldn't", it's just that technology is rapidly making that model impractical. We're aproaching a time when we will be able (from a pure technical perspective) to access any information ever produced whenever and wherever we want. That sort of conveinence is incredibly addicting, just ask anyone who's ever owned a DVR. I've had a Mythtv box for at least 4 years now and there's no way I'm ever going back to being locked into the networks schedule. Likewise, I sometimes rent a movie only to have something come up and I can't actually watch it for a few days. Right now, I just make a copy and watch it when it's convienent. I hardly watch the same movie more than once or twice, even ones I own so the rental store isn't losing anything. If they managed to actually make the DRM on DVDs effective all it would do is discourage me from renting at all. Consumers want more flexability in when/where/how they enjoy their entertainment, not less and fighting that is like fighting gravity, you can win for a while but eventually you always lose. If anything DRM actually hurts the studios because of the increased costs both in dollars and in hastle factor to their customers who do, legally or not, have the option of downloading unrestricted media from Pirate Bay etc. Regular consumers simply arn't going to put up with a service where the movies only work half the time or where their movie only works on their "authorized" tv in the living room but not on the tv in the bedroom where they actually intended to watch it. God help them if they start pulling the keys for existing cracked players in such a way that renting movie X causes movie Y that you purchased 6 months ago to stop working. If the studios want to survive they are going to have to make their products more convienent, more reliable, and at a cost that is low enough that most people prefer it to dealing with the warez scene. DRM is exactly the opposite of this.

or is it just a complaint that they use a poorly implemented Microsoft DRM that isn't compatible across platforms.

This case was worse than that because half the media didn't even work on Windows. Still, I've been dealing with copy protection schemes for 15+ years and I have yet to ever see one that didn't cause more problems for legitimate customers than for criminals.

Re:Is the objection to DRM or Microsoft DRM

[Maximum Prophet]

If I've seen something once, doesn't my brain own it? Shouldn't I be able to summon back memories of scenes at will?

Ack!!! Don't let the walnut brained dinosaurs at the RIAA and MPAA know this. They may not be able to remember such things, but we can't let them know that there are people who can. Damnit man, you've let the secret out of the bag, now the goon squad's going to be on your doorstep tommorrow morning. Ah, well, you'll be happier after the surgery. Try not to slip on you own drool.

Tried it.. worked ok

[Panaflex]

I think I had the same problem - his Windows Media settings were wrong. In order to use the DRM you have to "Allow scripts" in the DRM settings. I bought and downloaded it on Linux, played it in Windows WMP10.

I would have been up in arms as well - but I noticed the yellow banner which told me to enable scripts.

The movie I tried (Broken Arrow) worked and the quality was fine. I consider it about the same as a movie ticket - but I do wish they'd allow more than 1 day to watch the movie after you start watching it(yes, I know you have 30 days to begin watching it - but I wanted to check to make sure it worked first). If I were buying the video I would have been much more annoyed with the DRM - but since it was a rental I wasn't too irked.

Download time was 1 hour (255 KBytes/second average download)

Re:Tried it.. worked ok

[scribblej]

The movie I tried (Broken Arrow) worked and the quality was fine.

If you are trying to tell me the quality of the movie, "Broken Arrow," was acceptable, I have to call BS. I don't think you ever watched it.

Re:Tried it.. worked ok

[funkdancer]

I beg to differ... Hans Zimmer's fantastic score just rocks and totally carries the movie throughout.
I think I'm going to have to dust off my LD and play this one tonight... :)

why?

[joemawlma]

Let's see... The majority of people who actually know and care about bittorrent are already getting their downloads for FREE and without DRM. I can't imagine why this would be off to a bad start.

Re: "What about BOOTP?"

[Looce]

What about it? BOOTP is a network protocol from which DHCP orignated.

Underpants Gnomes, where are you?

[multipartmixed]

I've figured out the ????!

1. Make really large files full of random numbers and pretend they're movies
2. Market the hell out of some fictional movies.
3. Sell the files and tell people they can't view them because of the DRM
4. Profit!

Note that I haven't actually to pay for the cost of making a movie here. It's sheer genius!

Re:Underpants Gnomes, where are you?

[Paulrothrock]

That reminds me of a Foxtrot cartoon where the kid was distributing random bits and that any resemblance to the source code to Windows XP was purely coincidental.

Re: "What about BOOTP?"

[TheNinjaroach]

I see you're covering ground patrol this week.

Wake me up When We have Watermarking

[bill_mcgonigle]

Seriously, guys, if you want to stop copying, just watermark the videos before download and I'll be happy to buy them. I'm not going to share them so that's fine, but I need to be able to work with them. Put my name and home phone number in there, I really don't care.

You've got to get over your Control-Freak needs to tell people where, when, and how they can use their media (DRM) so you can get on with making a profit by actually selling huge amounts of it.

Once you give up on the idea of selling me Back to the Future 25 different times over the next half century this is all going to work out well for you.

Re:Wake me up When We have Watermarking

[Fred Ferrigno]

The watermark is so they can go after you if you do anything that violates the copyright. It's slightly less onerous than DRM because it doesn't restrict use that has nothing to do with copyright infringement, such as making backups. It's a compromise that acknowledges that the content producers have a legitimate reason to want to stop copyright infringement. Not everyone is a pirate; some people would rather pay to have a legitimate copy even if it were inferior.

Unfortunately, it's fundamentally impossible to design an effective watermark that doesn't interfere with the content. No one likes that, including the content producers.

ethical issue

[BalkanBoy]

DRM is attempting to solve an ethical issue via technological means. Kind of like using trigger locks on revolvers and pistols to stop someone from killing people...

The only sad thing is that it takes the creators of such futile technologies approximately a decade of losing face before they give in to decreased or no revenue, and/or outright failure of such technologies.

wtf chimes

[crabpeople]

Whats with that phrase, 'get on peoples chimes'. Im seeing it everywhere since about two weeks ago. Is this some sort of guerrilla doorbell marketting campagne?

Re:wtf chimes

[multisync]

Whats with that phrase, 'get on peoples chimes'. Im seeing it everywhere since about two weeks ago. Is this some sort of guerrilla doorbell marketting campagne?

I don't know. I tried squirting it on to Google, but the links just pointed back here ...

Mmmm, okay, lets see

[SmallFurryCreature]

If I go into a newly opened restaurant, give my order and seven hours later I would still be waiting for my food, I would NOT give that restaurant another chance.

You seem to have an amazingly silly idea of how you sell things. In the real world you get your stuff in order and THEN launch. I know I know, this the computer industry, home of the patch and beta release, but regular stores like McDonalds do NOT work that way.

Why on earth you label a regular business with Microsoft or for that matter an IT company is beyond me.

You can rest assure that when McD launches a new hamburger they will have at least done some testing to see that the majority of customers are in fact able to digest it. They also do not attempt to stop you from feeding that burger to your dog, splitting a cola with your friends or use the ice cubes to cool your overheated radiator.

If the article is accurate then it is extremely bad, but expected, news for the site. Crippling DRM, inability to just take the customers money (imagine if McD refused to sell you food because it thought you were from the wrong country) and just plain not being able to match up with the ease of downloading the same stuff for free.

I could have gotten all the stuff he payed for, for less and play it without WiMP. Oh and used the money for snacks and drinks.

You know the funny thing? It is not that I am cheap, I got money to burn, and never had a trouble renting or buying stuff before. Just that it has gotten so much easier to just fire up a torrent.

Frankly this looks the same as when napster went legit. Too little, too late.

Re:Mmmm, okay, lets see

[The_DoubleU]

You know the funny thing? It is not that I am cheap, I got money to burn, and never had a trouble renting or buying stuff before. Just that it has gotten so much easier to just fire up a torrent.

It is the same here.
I have money, I'm willing to spend it. But I want value for money.
I buy CD's but only for 10 Euro or less. I had an exception to that rule in the past year and it was for an indie band "Sikth".

The problem is DRM doesn't deliver value.
I download music from eMusic and it is easy. Download + add to my library (iTunes), done!
But if I can't find an artist on eMusic, the new CD is still 20 Euro's. I'll download it and wait a half year then by the CD
If they would have made it availale online with no DRM they could have my money already

I download TV shows via bittorrent, a day after US release I can watch it.
I would be happy to pay for it but I have my conditions.
No DRM! Respect me and I respect you.
Make it available in Europe!
Make it cheaper! You deliver a low/reduced quality product. You have less distribution costs.

Re:Mmmm, okay, lets see

[Torsoboy]

You'd wait 7 hours for your order before leaving? That's some serious dedication for a hamburger!

Re:Mmmm, okay, lets see

[snickkers]

"[McDonalds] also do not attempt to stop you from [...] splitting a cola with your friends" Actually, the Hungry Jacks (Burger King) down the road won't let me split my coke with my mate. Bloody DRM! ... although, that might be because they have a self-serve all-you-can-drink machine for refills.

fail on purpose

[Loconut1389]

Is there any chance bittorrent is doing this to make a mockery of DRM and send subliminal messages to just download the (illegal) torrent instead?

Why?

[init100]

Why would anyone sponsor the big movie companies with their bandwidth, storage and cpu power? I fail to see why anyone would want to do that without receiving a piece of the action, i.e. monetary compensation. This is just a plot by the movie companies to be able to sell movies and have the users pay for the infrastructure.

DHCP vs HDCP

[bogd]

DHCP - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, a protocol for assigning dynamic IP addresses to devices on a network

HDCP - High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection, a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to control digital audio and video content

Re:DHCP vs HDCP

[Looce]

Haha, I didn't even see that letter switch, even in the preview. Sorry about that typo. Yes, it's HDCP.

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[pembo13]

Don't subscribers get the stories earlier?

Why sell over Bittorent

[ZwJGR]

Why are they bothering to sell files over bittorrent?

Bittorrent is by definition a "Peer-to-Peer" protocol.
--- There are no peers ---
There are only the clients and the source.
Hence it would be infinitely simpler to just use a perfectly ordinary HTTP (or whatever), download service from the source to the client, client--server.

Bittorent is perfect for downloading the latest ultra-popular freshly pirated movie, or downloading all six Slackware 11 isos at high speed (as there were so many peers after it was released), but using Bittorent to download a file from a point source, when there are probably negligble other seed/leech sources is simply counterintuitive, and ultimately a suboptimal use of the protocol.

Its no surprise that download speeds may be rubbish, that's a quirk of the protocol (and a function of its probable non-popularity).

As for the DRM, any half-baked excuse for an almost sentient attempt at a life form with more than working brain cell and with its head not buried in the sand (or in its wallet), could tell that DRM simply doesn't work, and merely annoys the user. This has been discussed to death over the last few years in great detail, and if even enormous companies like Apple can twig and get the hint by making their legally obligatory DRM as unobtrusive and transparent as possible (they partially succeded), then these "five movie studios" can do so too...

Overall I judge this as a method of "testing the waters", rather than a serious attempt at making money, or providing a service. Ultimately the conclusion is inevitably negative.

Re:Why sell over Bittorent

[/dev/trash]

Bram has to eat ya know?

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[jonnythan]

Where?

Here?

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[Mister Whirly]

Let's be honest now, has Slashdot ever really "broke" a story? When you are a site that primarily links to other news sites, I wouldn't expect it to happen very often...(if at all) Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think I am forgetting something...
Oh yeah, "You must be new here"

Re:Bittorrent sucks.

[laffer1]

Where are these magical good trackers you speak of? Direct downloads are almost always faster. I can get download faster from source forge than I can most torrents.

His connection might suck because his ISP limits his traffic. With my previous cable provider (charter), I was unable to multitask on the connection. One download would work fine, but say 2-4 or bit torrent would cut my bandwidth in half. I figure there wasn't enough upstream for the downstream I had anyway. Adding bit torrent throttled didn't help much. Many trackers setup ratios so if you cap your speed they don't give you data as quickly either. Even now I'm on a 8:1 download:upload ratio with my isp.

As for the router, I tried an SMC, airport express and a FreeBSD dedicated amd 2300+ with dual gigabit nics as a router. I understand where this guy is coming from. Few websites are hosted on a T1 anymore. There are a few people could have specialized needs (like me) that run them on cable modems which have equivalent upstream to a T1 though.

The only positive experience I've ever had with bit torrent is downloading WoW updates.

Netflix got it right

[exhilaration]

As long as you're using Windows and IE, Netflix's Watch Now offering is superb. It's worked 100% of the time for me. Though I'm no fan of DRM, Netflix took Microsoft's DRM and built something superb. If you want to see what it looks like, you can watch this video

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[jonnythan]

OK, I'll try not to do it again.

DRM or bad programming?

[Karlt1]

I am a part time fitness instructor who buys a lot of singles from iTunes. I currently have over 500 "DRM infected songs". I have no problem copying the files from my Mac to my Windows XP laptop over a home network, backing up the files, copying them to my iPod and copying them off at work, burning a CD, using the songs as background music for the title sequences when making a DVD, using them with KeyNote or basically any other app that can embed Quicktime. The only time DRM has been a slight hinderance is when I need to edit the song with Audacity or do DJ style mixing with MixMeister. Then I have to use a CDRW to burn and rip. While DRM might be bad, shoddy programming is even worse.

Re:DRM or bad programming?

[Slashcrap]

Nobody is interested in hearing how comfortable or well designed your Apple branded handcuffs are.

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[larry bagina]

The stories they do "break" mostly turn out to be hoaxes, slashvertisements, or stuff that's just plain wrong (eg, see the 10x faster sorting technique story from a couple days ago). /. is better off posting roland piqueel, apple, and google testimonials.

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[MooUK]

Possibly the odd book review. And I suppose that you could consider it similar to breaking a story if the original story was on some obscure blog of limited popularity.

Watchable on TV/DVD?

[k3str3l]

I would frankly be happy to pay itunes, bittorrent, whoever for a downloaded copy of a TV show that I could then burn to DVD and watch on my TV. Currently, I can do that easily if I go the illegal route, but itunes makes sure to prevent me...unless I buy one of their AppleTVs.

Does anyone know if BitTorrent makes it difficult to put content onto a DVD-player readable DVD?

Legit?

[Petrushka]

Um -- when was BitTorrent not legit?

Re:You must be a quick reader...

[jonnythan]

Well, of course.

I do think one huge event in /.'s history worth mentioning, though, was 9/11.

With the way that the internet was brought to its knees that day, Slashdot was the most reliable, up-to-the-minute source of information I could find.

Re:Bittorrent sucks.

[theurge14]

Sounds like Mr Grumpy Grumps needs a Mac with Xtorrent on it.

DHCP

[chrwei]

DHCP-enabled monitor
does that require a gigabit lan? or it just for SNMP traps? that'd be cool the set a trap for when the boss turn his off, then I'd know its safe to leave early!

Tried it. It sucked. Now how do I pay the artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I decided to go legit. Been working on a windows laptop lately so the OS restriction wasn't stopping me from enjoying the brave world of new media downloads.

My friends told me that Little Miss Sunshine was a wonderful heartwarming film. Sounded like a perfect mood lifter. So I headed over to Bittorrent.com, signed myself up and with little hassle got myself a nice link to a .torrent. I started downloading the movie with the Bittorrent client and was getting reasonable service. (100 KB/s from each of two bittorrent.com servers and 20 KB/s from a real peer. Not the beautiful image of piece of the file flying to me from all over the net, but I was getting what I wanted and it was during the first few hours of the service going live.)

The problems started when I tried to play the movie. I launched the downloaded file in windows media player 11, and immediately hit a roadblock. There were some messages to respond to, perhaps signing in with my BT.com username + pw, then a message stating that I had a limit of 2 machines to try this on. Click OK. Number goes to on. Sure. Giving me an extra. OK. Then I get the message the the good folks at ARS got about WMP "encountering a problem." Cancel and retrying gets me nowhere, so I try the "Web help" option" which turns out to be a page about updating the sound drivers. I try windows update - nothing there. I try the freshest drivers from the sound card manufacturer. I still get the same message. I Google the error code. Many links later I get one helpful tidbit from a support forum (non-MN) to downgrade to WPM 10. Desparate I go for it. I use add/remove to downgrade to WMP 9, my previously installed version. I try to play the movie just to see what will happen even though I know BT.com tells me to use 10 or 11. Now I get a message telling me that I'm out of licenses. I guess I'm out $3.99, too.

Having paid for the movie, I decide to download it the old fashioned way. It took the pressure of having to watch it in 24 hours off, which is nice since I'm pretty busy and might like to watch it over a couple of nights. The download took a bit longer, but it worked. The movie played when I hit play. I was touched by the experiences of the quirky people. I had no headaches fiddling with driver updates, support forums, WMP downgrades, time-limited and disappearing licenses. I'll probably delete the file soon, as I don't watch too many films twice. Kind of like a rental. I just wish they would make it easier for me to pay them. I mean what do I do for my next rental? Do I go to BT.com, pay ignore their DRM torrent and find my own? Seems kind of silly. If I'm paying I'd like to get the higher download speeds. (YYMV, but my "community torrents" go slower that the one I got from BT.com.) This method would also work for when I switch back to Linux.

Any suggestions? I do believe in paying the artist - enough so that I'm willing to pay the media giant that stands between us.

-Jon

Re:Bittorrent sucks.

[r.muk]

What can one say, but: .. If you think sex is a pain in the ass, then you're doing it wrong ...

My ideas

[codeboost]

First, I think that "BitTorrent" is a bad name for a legal download service, since Torrent is a another word for 'free movies/shows'. They should have named the service differently.
Second, the fact that they rely on user's codecs is an error, since various codec packs can create a real mess on the computer and many users simply don't understand *why* they have to install codecs in order to be able to play X or Y.
Third, you have to select/purchase the movie from the web-browser, download it with bittorrent and watch it with a media player. At least 3 applications are involved, which is somewhat distracting and annoying.
Projects like democracy player (http://www.getdemocracy.com/) are much more integrated and don't require you to switch from app to app to whatch a movie.
In my view, the best app which does everything right is LiberTV (http://www.libertv.ro/), which is a romanian service, and should launch internationally soon (http://www.libertv.tv/).
The downloads go several megabytes per second, no codecs needed (except for quicktime for some videos) and you can start watching the movie in several seconds, because files are split into smaller parts before being transfered with a bittorrent-like protocol. So users have a 'click and watch' attitude towards the app, not 'click, install, launch, switch, download, switch, play, crash, try again, damn DRM!' :).

Re:Tried it. It sucked. Now how do I pay the artis

[snaz555]

Any suggestions?

I have a suggestion: contact BT customer support and they'll help you resolve this. It's a well-understood WMP settings issue with a simple fix.

Re:Bittorrent sucks = Your not smart enough to use

[laffer1]

I know how to configure a piece of software thank you. I know about all the ports I have to open for bit torrent. Even without a firewall enabled, I still have problems. Its not me.

Its either the ISP and/or shitty trackers. I really wish people who have good luck with bit torrent would stop assuming everyone experience low performance is an idiot. Clearly I can do something right since WoW works fine for patching.