BitTorrent "Bundles" Create Cash Registers Inside Artwork

cagraham writes "BitTorrent has released a new file format called Bundle into closed alpha-testing today, according to VentureBeat. The format allows artists to embed a paywall inside of their work, and then distribute the art for free over BitTorrent. When users open the work they can listen or view part it for free, and are then prompted to either pay a fee, turn over their email address, or perhaps share the work over social media, in order to see the rest. The new format may ease artists concerns about releasing work for free and having to hope for compensation in the future. Artists who have already signed on include Madonna, The Pixies, and author Tim Feriss."

Comments

Re:What stops people from redistribution?

[Sockatume]

The honour system. Bittorrent users would never pirate music from independent artists, they only go after labels' output where the economics don't favour the artist or the consumer.

Stop laughing.

Re:What stops people from redistribution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is laughing. The moment some publishers like Tor started distributing e-books without DRM, there was an increase in e-book sales from these publishers. The Amazon Gateway sort of distorts this a bit, but outside the kindle world (i.e. in the open epub world) it is easier to notice such things.

Re:What stops people from redistribution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha. Not really.
Oh, (a) can play a part, but cheap is good enough. (b) is dumb. No one (statistically speaking) gives a fuck. (c) is the biggest point. Don't believe me? Guess how much my bit torrent use has fallen off since I got a roku and netflix account? I think that Gravity Falls and Game of Thrones are about the only things I bothered hitting torrent up for. So yeah, point c is valid, but the other two are plain wrong.

Re:What stops people from redistribution?

[Urza9814]

I pirate a lot of stuff -- movies, TV shows, video games...

But in the past couple years I've completely stopped pirating music. Why? Well, if I can get a guaranteed high-quality, DRM-free copy of the album in ten seconds for $5, why would I bother spending more time to pirate a copy of unknown quality? Particularly considering how hard to find much of the music I listen to is -- you can find it on Amazon, but it's not on TPB, not on GNUtella, not on slsk, often not even on iTunes...

I'd use Netflix if I could use it the way I wanted -- i.e., integrate it into my custom home theater system. But until Netflix will run on a Raspberry Pi, I'm going to be pirating my movies and TV shows. Of course, the ones that offer a paid download option (or even a donations appreciated download option) get my money. As for video games -- those I usually pirate just because I can't find them anymore. Pirated a bunch of N64 games because I don't have an N64, you can't find the game cartridges anywhere, and they don't offer those games for sale on the Wii store (the ones they do offer I've already purchased)...so I hacked the Wii and pirated the roms. Trying to do the same for Gamecube games now, for the same reason -- I just can't find the game discs even if I wanted to buy them. Give me a $5/game download option and I'd GLADLY skip the freakin' *weeks* I've spent trying to get the damn pirated copies to work...

Re:What stops people from redistribution?

[hairyfeet]

I would agree with that...to a point. One thing we have seen over and over in economics is there is a "sweet spot" when it comes to pricing and ease of use and when that sweet spot is ignored then a black market appears to serve those customers you are foolishly ignoring.

Take video games as an example. While of course lower prices equal more sales there is a point where continuing to lower the price doesn't increase sales simply because all of those that want the product have gotten the product by then. Watching game sales that release sales figures here is what I have observed...for indie games the sweet spot seems to be between $2-$5, unless its mobile in which case its a buck. For big name titles it really depends on how niche the game is, for example a Mirror's Edge or a God sim like Populus seem to do best in the $10-$20 price range while something more accessible to a general audience, your Saints Rows and Borderlands seem to do best in the $20-$40 but the SMART publishers go for the lower end of that curve and make up the difference in impulse buy DLC, your costumes in both and expansions in Borderlands.Finally you have those games with a VERY short shelf life, your Call Of Honor: Gears Of Killzone Halo Edition where everybody buys it for the MP which is quickly dead when the next come out and those can sell a huge amount in the $40-$60 range simply because if you don't buy at release when the next title comes out the previous one quickly becomes a ghost town.

But if you ignore those sweet spots then piracy WILL jump off the scale because time and time again we have seen when a large part of the market isn't being served a black market WILL arise to serve those customers. We have seen this in everything from piracy to Chinese knock offs of popular electronics, if the people think the price for a tablet should be between $100-$150 and the big names all push $400 then somebody WILL come along and give all those potential customers what they want.

I think where most industries seriously fuck up is by saying "Oh if you refuse to bend over and give us every cent we think our precious shit is worth (or that we require to pump up our stock price, see the former head of EA saying games should be $100) then you are the evil and should be destroyed" when in reality a black market is simply a signal that you are doing SOMETHING WRONG, your price is too high, your product has ease of use issues, there is something driving your potential customers across the street to the black market, you fix that issue? Watch the money train pull in.