Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
you must be new here
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.
We are all just people.
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.
That old line hey, gets em every time.
Jonathanjk.com
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').
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.
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...
"Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.'""
.... "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
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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.
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
/. crowd then support it?
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
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?
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)
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
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.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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 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.
HDCP - High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection, a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to control digital audio and video content
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.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
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.
.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.)
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
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