Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Media Movies Television

BitTorrent Legit Service Launches 158

Posted by Hemos
from the long-awaited dept.
The launch of the BitTorrent Entertainment Network came out today; there's the AP write-up, which is decent enough but the interview with Bram about it is more interesting. Tangentially, the the education of lawmakers on video DRM is an interesting countweight to all this.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BitTorrent Legit Service Launches

Comments Filter:
  • by writertype (541679) on Monday February 26, 2007 @11:48AM (#18153456)
    Disclaimer: I'm pimping my own story [pcmag.com] on PC Magazine.

    I'd be interested to hear what people think of the new BitTorrent DNA 2.0, which apparently uses QOS to dial itself down in the presence of VOIP, etc. But it also apparently won't be open-sourced, and will be proprietary to the Mainline client.

    And I'm not a big fan of all the snarky comments, myself.

    • er, snarky comments on the BitTorrent site, I mean. :)
    • This new network is also reliant on Microsoft DRM [engadget.com], which rules out Mac OS X and Linux. How nice for Microsoft.
    • by b00le (714402)
      Well, I wanted to add my snarky comment (as a Mac user living in Europe) but the Feedback button just leads to a server error... now why would that be? Ah, well. Here in Italy, downloading files is not illegal as long as you're not doing it for profit, according to a recent court decision. That decision may not make much sense even to me, but at least it means I no longer have to watch Italy's appalling public television, a trackless desert of infantilising mediocrity. Now let's see what Azureus has got for
    • Article has a giant javascript ad that scrolls with the page. Seriously how fucking annoying is that? I have ad and flashblock, couldn't backup off your pc magazine site fast enough. Hmm that wasnt snarky enough.

      You dick!

      There we go.

    • by StikyPad (445176)
      And I'm not a big fan of all the snarky comments, myself.

      Typical.
  • by i kan reed (749298) on Monday February 26, 2007 @11:50AM (#18153474) Homepage Journal
    A lot of linux distros distribute ISOs via bit torrent. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's legal under the GPL. As for non-GPL stuff, what about legaltorrents.com? Legal uses of bit-torrent aren't new.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by KDR_11k (778916)
      Some of those file downloading places (File Front, I think) use torrents, too, as does the TAS Videos website. Bittorrent has become a normal download system and a substitute for FTP and HTTP downloads, although it's not as widely used yet. Some MMOs even use torrents for distributing patches AFAIK.

      I think the difference is that this is an "official" Bittorrent service (i.e. by the guy who invented it although that may not count for much considering the openness of the system) and that it sells stuff that g
    • by argoff (142580) *
      Actually, I think theirs is the illegitamate usage of bit-torrent. Copyrights are not a legitimate property right.
      • by stubear (130454) on Monday February 26, 2007 @12:09PM (#18153740)
        "Copyrights are not a legitimate property right."

        That's funny. There's this 200+ year old document that people like you accuse President Bush of trashing yet you seem toconveniently forget that intellectual property rights were included even before amendments were proposed. There are even older documents in Europe which grant intellectual property rights as well. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with these before making such a bold claim that is simply not true. You may not like them but it doesn't make them illegitimate. I don't like that I can't punch people like you in the face, perhaps I can ignore that law and claim it's an illegitimate restraint of human nature and primal urges to beat the crap out of the weaker of the species.
        • by Digital Vomit (891734) on Monday February 26, 2007 @12:29PM (#18154016) Homepage Journal

          There's this 200+ year old document that people like you accuse President Bush of trashing yet you seem toconveniently forget that intellectual property rights were included even before amendments were proposed.

          There's a world of difference between what "intellectual property" means in that 200+ year old document and what "intellectual property" means today.

        • by argoff (142580) *
          I'm glad you mentioned that, the constitution doesn't give rights. It is only worth anything because it acknowledges some that we already have. Say, what kinds of rights have an expiration date anyhow? The fact that they do have an expiration date is an implicit acknowledgment that they aren't really a right. Also, copyrights are old, but not that old - most the entire Renaissance happened without them. There goes the argument that they propote creative expression. BTW, the constitution was presumed
        • by JesseMcDonald (536341) * on Monday February 26, 2007 @12:56PM (#18154446) Homepage

          ...you seem toconveniently [sic] forget that intellectual property rights were included even before amendments were proposed.

          Perhaps you stop and reread the Constitution before making such a sloppy argument. The Constitution allows Congress "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". Note that Congress isn't required to enact copyrights and patents; it merely has the ability to do so under the Constitution, with a very specific purpose: promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyrights and patents, in other words, are an attempt at social engineering, one which Congress can enact or withdraw at its leisure. They are also transient ("for limited times") whereas real property rights are permanent, passing from one generation to the next until the property is finally consumed or abandoned by its owner -- even presuming such ever occurs.

          In contract, regular property rights are barely mentioned in the Constitution, because they were already thoroughly established in the Common Law; real property rights formed a background so obvious to the Constitution's authors that they saw no need to make them explicit; copyrights and patents had to be mentioned precisely because they were not part of that background. Congress can revoke them on a whim because they exist purely by Congressional decree. There are some (badly worded and poorly interpreted) clauses which Congress can abuse to violate traditional property rights under very specific circumstances, but as such rights do not originate with Congress it would take more than a simple decree to eliminate them entirely. (It would probably take a major Constitutional amendment, a change in the very nature of the government itself.)

          • by swillden (191260) *

            real property rights are permanent, passing from one generation to the next until the property is finally consumed or abandoned by its owner

            Or until the owner ceases paying property tax. You don't own property, you just rent it from the government.

            • Or until the owner ceases paying property tax. You don't own property, you just rent it from the government.

              Does your property cease to be yours when its stolen by a protection racket for failing to pay their fee? The case with government and property tax is no different. It's still rightfully your property, but it's been stolen from you with no hope of recovery.

              When discussing the actions of a government I prefer to start by judging them according to their own bylaws (e.g. the Constitution), since su

          • by StikyPad (445176)
            Copyrights and patents, in other words, are an attempt at social engineering

            I've been saying this for YEARS. I've seen far too many people completely owned by copyrights and patents. Remember folks: if a copyright or patent ever asks for your password, just say NO.
    • And what about that site by Azureus? What's it called... (looks it up) - zudeo [zudeo.com]. I've dled a vid from there, worked well. IDK if you have to use Azureus though, since I use it anyway.
    • A lot of linux distros distribute ISOs via bit torrent. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's legal under the GPL. As for non-GPL stuff, what about legaltorrents.com? Legal uses of bit-torrent aren't new.

      In terms of media downloads, "legit" is typically a code word for "commercial". As things like Linux distributions are distributed free of charge, they wouldn't qualify under this definition. This is actually a clever bit of marketing, since it downplays the monetary aspect, appeals to people's

  • WMP only??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bugbeak (711163) on Monday February 26, 2007 @11:50AM (#18153478)
    From TFA:
    BitTorrent's content is protected by Windows Media DRM and will only play back using Windows Media Player.

    Is there a DRM alternative that is suitable on all platforms?
    • From TFA:
      BitTorrent's content is protected by Windows Media DRM and will only play back using Windows Media Player.


      Note to Bram: just because you invented BitTorrent doesn't make this whorish attempt to ram defective-by-design DRM systems any more acceptable.

      Is there a DRM alternative that is suitable on all platforms?

      Yes. Strip off the DRM infection using FairUse4M. And then repost it on a torrent tracker. Or don't bother, because somebody else in the fight for our shared culture will already have done tha
      • by KDR_11k (778916)
        Realistically, how else do you propose to sell stuff over a P2P network?

        I think it's quite funny that you're using a program called "Fair Use" and then go on talking about a free tracker that is definitely NOT Fair Use.
        • Realistically, how else do you propose to sell stuff over a P2P network?

          This comes up every time there's a thread about the new "legit" BitTorrent service. I don't think it's possible. If this service attracts enough attention, the DRM is going to be bypassed. I doubt it's even going to be that hard, because the nature of P2P services makes end-to-end DRM impossible. So not only do you have the inherent flaws in the DRM system you choose, but you also have an inherent incompatibility between the DRM (which makes every user's file different) and P2P distribution, which depends on many users wanting files that are bit-for-bit identical with each other.

          There's no good way to do both. They can layer on the encryption but it's nothing but turd polish; the data that's coming down the wire from the other clients has to be encrypted on a non-per-user basis (perhaps a per-file basis), and then the application of the per-user DRM needs to be done in the client. Which means the layer of encryption that presumably protected it in transit needs to be removed. So if you can play spot-the-key, and grab the per-file key as the client program decrypts it in preparation for applying the per-user DRM encryption, you can get a key that lets everyone decrypt the file.

          In short, you cannot sell content via a service like this. Not going to happen in the long run, I think. What you probably could do, is sell access to the network, where the value is in the subscription to the content and not in the content itself per se. (Of course the movie studios would hate that, since they want to think of each movie "copy" sold as a revenue source.)

          Looking forward, the future of services is to market the services and the access, rather than the content. Digitization and the resulting ease of copying makes it nearly impossible to sell pieces of information as distinct products, like aspirin tablets, in the same way that the content producers have grown used to. The game is up, it's just not going to work any more; they're fighting against inherent problems with DRM, inherent problems with P2P distribution, and inherent problems with the nonconservative nature of information.

          However, what you can sell, is the access to a large repository or service which lets you access a lot of information in an organized and reliable manner. That represents a value to the customer, above and beyond just getting ahold of the movies/books/articles/whatever themselves. If a customer just wants to watch a single movie, say Pirates of the Caribbean, they can just go download a pirated copy. They are always going to be able to go and download a pirated copy. As long as the studios and "legit" alternatives mess around with DRM, it is always going to be easier for them to go download a pirated copy. However, what the studios could sell, would be instantaneous access to all the films ever made by Hollywood in the past century. Doing that -- putting together the database, organizing everything, providing a method of distribution, etc. -- is a value that's separate from the movies themselves, and the organization and logistics aren't readily copied. That wouldn't even require DRM; it wouldn't be practical for an end-user to copy more than a tiny fraction of the available material, so there's no risk. It's like a cable company and your VCR: the amount of content you can tape is never going to compete with the amount of content that's being pushed down to you all the time (I'd need to have 600+ VCRs running continuously in order to capture what Comcast pushes to me). Without DRM, you can use P2P to distribute without layers of useless encryption. To monetize it, you sell access to the network (the network is managed by a central server that tells clients where seeds and other clients are -- you don't pay, it doesn't tell you).

          People don't want to buy content, they want to buy access to streams of content; they don't want to buy data, they want access to repositories of data that contain more stuff than t
          • by TubeSteak (669689)

            However, what the studios could sell, would be instantaneous access to all the films ever made by Hollywood in the past century.
            ...
            That wouldn't even require DRM; an end-user to copy more than a tiny fraction of the available material, so there's no risk.

            I agree that "it wouldn't be practical for an end-user" to grab all the content, but I think you underestimate the dedication of the release groups.

            They are made up of many end-users and will do it just because they can, like they've done with the NetFlix c

            • Sure, but even if a release group grabbed all the content, it would be difficult for them to duplicate the service.

              The value provided in a hypothetical P2P service offered by the movie theaters is greater than just the content that it provides. It's about having all that content right there, waiting for you, with a predictable quality, all nicely sorted and reviewed, perhaps recommended to you by a nice Amazon or NetFlix-like smart system.

              The value is in the service, in the aggregation, organization, and pr
              • Actually that is quite the opposite of what I've found. (Some, not all) release groups are incredibly fussy about how they present their releases; including various data (on the file, on the content of the file, etc) and links to irc channels for help. Just think of the wonderful music those little keygen programs play, I haven't seen that on any small ultra-specific legal app. The only problem is that there is no very stringently organised repository of every warez thing out there, and you have to spend so
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by edmicman (830206)
            I've been saying the same thing for some time now. The "winner" in this whole media ordeal in the coming years will be the person/company (Google?) that gives me access to ALL CONTENT when and how I want it, for a price. Imagine if all historical media content was as ubiquitous as television, or what the Internet is approaching to be. Part of the whole reason people collect DVDs, download torrents, DVR programs, is because they want the security of knowing that that content will be available whenever they
          • Why do they need to be different files? I encrypt the file one way to start out. It's either secure that way or its not. If it's secure when I give it to the first person, how is it any less secure when I give it to the next? There's a monoculture argument, but I would say that it's irrelevant because in this environment anyone who cracks the file is going to post the .avi, not the key. If you read the interview with him, it's windows DRM and Windows Media Player querries the Bittorrent.com server when
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Until they fix the DRM problem, there's always this alternative: http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org].
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by FredDC (1048502)
      IANAL, but where I live, Belgium, there is a law against such a practice. It is illegal to sell things which need another specific thing to be used. I think I'm gonna take a deeper look into this and perhaps contact some consumer groups because according to me DRM implemted like that is illegal over here... And most likely in other places as well.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by minginqunt (225413)
        Oh Noes! Against the law?

        One should always obey the law, no matter how idiotic, obscene, corrupt and morally bankrupt, I presume?

        Or not.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by teh kurisu (701097)

          If you live in a democratic country, then yes. The whole point of democracy is to give the lawmakers legitimacy. Of course, you are free to believe that the democratic process in your country is not fit for purpose (I do of my country)...

          • Original post:

            One should always obey the law, no matter how idiotic, obscene, corrupt and morally bankrupt, I presume? . . . Or not.

            Reply:

            If you live in a democratic country, then yes. The whole point of democracy is to give the lawmakers legitimacy.

            I agree on the second point -- though with a different connotation than you probably intended -- but what difference should it make whether one person or a billion play a part in making the law? If a law is moral (not popular) then one should follow it

            • What difference should it make whether one person or a billion play a part in making the law?

              I believe that any person who will be subject to a law should be able to play a reasonable role in the writing of that law (whether directly or through an elected representative) if they choose. Of course, this is subject to criteria such as soundness of mind (which is a whole other kettle of fish) and criminal record, which incidentally is a subject which, because of European human rights legislation, has thre

              • If the latter is the majority, then I think it's right that everybody abides by that moral code.

                This is the only statement of any consequence in your reply, and (IMHO) it's completely wrong.

                First, what people "should do" -- what it is right for them to do -- is the moral code. It can be evaluated from any given person's point-of-view: your moral code, their moral code, "society's" moral code, etc.

                As you say, the definition of "moral" varies from person to person. Each person is responsible for comin

        • by StikyPad (445176)
          One should always obey the law, no matter how idiotic, obscene, corrupt and morally bankrupt, I presume?

          If a law required you to sacrifice your firstborn, I would say no. However, a law requiring you to touch your nose as you exit your house in the morning would be idiotic, but should still be followed. Clearly there must exist a grey area between the two, and in that grey area, each man must decide for himself what is and is not acceptable. I would argue that if the law is not creating a clear and prese
          • by k8to (9046)

            If a law required you to sacrifice your firstborn, I would say no. However, a law requiring you to touch your nose as you exit your house in the morning would be idiotic, but should still be followed.

            Sir, may i presume the rest of your post was framing for this parody of respect for the law for its own sake?

            • by StikyPad (445176)
              No, I just didn't want to use an example of a real law. You could replace my example with whatever other ambiguous activity or prohibition you chose. Sock-free Wednesdays. Carrying bags in the left hand. (That's actually a "law" for the military so they're always ready to salute). The reason to follow such laws, or rules, isn't for the sake of the rules, but because failing to do so has deleterious effects: First, it agitates people who DO follow the rules, which harms the efficiency of society by foc
      • Does that mean that any computer program that isn't cross platform is illegal in Belgium? For example, a Windows program would be illegal if it required Windows to run, or a PS2 game would be illegal because it requires a PS2 to run? Or is there an exception that allows for the difficulty of porting between such devices?

    • Yeah, it's worse than that. This is the notice I got in the movies section. "it looks like your system doesn't meet the Minimum System Requirements. You can still purchase this title here, but please note that you may only watch it on a Windows XP computer meeting the requirements."
      • You can still purchase this title here, but please note that you may only watch it on a Windows XP computer meeting the requirements."

        To which you respond, "O RLY? That sounds like A CHALLENGE!"

        And you shall not rest until it plays on your Commodore 64.
    • by garcia (6573)
      Is there a DRM alternative that is suitable on all platforms?

      Yeah, it's called UNDRM and it works on every platform!
  • ToS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kelz (611260) on Monday February 26, 2007 @11:51AM (#18153494)
    Somewhat crippling ToS from the site (you must download and watch movies/TV shows before 30 days, can only watch it for 24 hours after first playing); and the kicker: $3.99 for rentals. Imo at least the charge should be half that. There is no distibution cost other than keeping the tracker/site up, and you can only watch it for a day! If I watched even 3 movies a month, it'd cost less to just go through netflix, and I could keep them as long as I wanted.

    However, it is still good to see BT somewhat more in the public eye. Maybe it'll catch on and more people will realize that they're being ripped off.
    • by davef139 (790691)
      I agree $3.99/movie is pretty steep. But there are more hidden costs im sure. For 1 bandwidth/storage networks isnt cheap, plus you can get it on demand more of a convience factor.
      • Redbox rents movies at $1 / day. Limit is like 6. It probably looks suspcious that I rent the limit and then return them all the next day...

        I really don't see how $4 for one day use any time over a month is fair. I'm not even getting anything physical out of the deal, plus I'm spending my bandwidth to get it. I DVD will play on my entertainment center, and as much as I like to sit at the computer all day, I have my memory foam recliner for a reason.

        Now if the movies were say $0.50 (or lower.. come on, h

  • by radarsat1 (786772) on Monday February 26, 2007 @11:57AM (#18153564) Homepage
    So I watched a few parts of the Oscars last night. I always find it a bit frustrating, because I don't ever find the time to go see many new movies in the theater, so when the Oscars roll around they are always talking about tons of movies I haven't seen yet. On the other hand, it makes me write down a few titles so I can plan on looking them up later.

    When I saw this announcement, I went to the site and saw they they had a few movies I wanted to see. Not such a bad selection, and even some free stuff! Hell I'd pay for it if its a reasonable price, I thought.

    I clicked on a movie to see how much it would cost to download and watch. $3.99 to "Rent". Oh shit, I thought to myself. Rent. That means, DRM. I looked at the bottom of the page:

    Usage Rights
    You may watch this on one computer. You have 30 days from the transaction to download the file and 24 hours to watch it after you first click play. See full terms of service.

    System Requirements
    It looks like your system doesn't meet the Minimum System Requirements. You can still purchase this title here, but please note that you may only watch it on a Windows XP computer meeting the requirements.


    Well. Funny, I don't USE windows. Hm, guess I'm not part of their target demographic. Oh well, I'll just head over to isohunt then, or walk down to the movie store and get something older. I'm a little disappointed, but .. not really surprised.
    • by KenSeymour (81018)
      That's funny. We rented "The Departed" a week and a half ago from our local video store.

      We only watched it once. But we don't watch movies on a computer.

      They are turning their backs on the enourmous market of people who want to watch movies on
      their computers, but are only willing to do it on Linux or Mac OS. ;)
  • I don't see any: Stargate (SG-1 or Atlantis), House M.D., the only Star Trek is movie 7,no American Idol episodes..

    So when can I buy the crap I actually want?

  • by Cereal Box (4286) on Monday February 26, 2007 @12:00PM (#18153606)
    I can see it now... $4 to rent a reduced-quality movie for 24 hours, with DRM. Geeks everywhere will demand the studio masters to be downloadable without DRM for a nickel a pop (and even that may be too costly for some).
    • by babyrat (314371) on Monday February 26, 2007 @01:18PM (#18154824)
      Without either confirming or denying my geekiness...Why would you predict anything less than disappointment?

      Without having tried the service, I'm guessing that for the same amount of money ($4) and less time, I could drive (or bike) to the video store, rent a DVD and get home and be watching it in less time than it would take to download - if this was a new release I would have 48 hours to watch - if it was not a new release I would have a week to watch it.

      Oh yeah - I could watch it on any TV to which I could hook up a $30 DVD player.

      If I watched 5 movies per month, a blockbuster online subscription would be much cheaper and allow me to watch many more movies for the same effort (pointing and clicking) and would not require my to have a broadband internet access at my house (which I do have, but many don't).

      I highly doubt that the quality of the downloadable movies is higher than that of a DVD, and I would expect that it is actually inferior to the quality of a DVD.

      I am supposed to be happy with paying the same amount of money for a lower quality less convenient option than I already have?

      I think a nickel a pop would be a bit too cheap for what they are offering, but I think that $1/download would probably still be too costly for what you get.

  • The files are Windows-only. What a disaster.
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This service is totally useless...
      The files are Windows-only.


      Yeah, because nobody uses Windows anymore...
  • Quality? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pyite69 (463042) on Monday February 26, 2007 @12:03PM (#18153664)
    Are they distributing in high definition, or at least DVD quality? Or is this yet another "advancement" where all they do is lower the quality?
  • Too bad we can't use them here in Canada because Rogers decided it will throttle all Bittorrent traffic (1/2 kb/s up and down if you're lucky). Of course there were workarounds but Rogers eventually shut those down. Perhaps news of a "legitimate" download service will convince them to change their mind.

    Switch to DSL you say? Unfortunately Bell/Tek-savvy do not currently offer service into my area so i'm SOL. I'd love to hear any (Bitcomet port 1720/1755 workarounds) right about now.
  • Finally the big studios are getting with the program and embracing new technology ... OHNOES!! Have you seen the usage requirements/restrictions? Once again they have shot themselves in the foot.

    Instead of giving the people what they want, they are following down the same stupid path as always. At least some good will come of this...

    Now the average person who wasn't really familiar with BitTorrent can learn how and what it is used for from this site and then go to another site and download it for free.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by multisync (218450)

      OHNOES!! Have you seen the usage requirements/restrictions?


      And, from this one [slashdot.org]:

      Oh Noes! Against the law?


      Is there a box I can un-check somewhere in the preferences so I don't have to look at messages that contain the phrase "oh noes?"
      • >Is there a box I can un-check somewhere in the preferences so I don't have to look at messages that contain the phrase "oh noes?"

        It's right next to the "No Family Guy References" button.
  • Now that BitTorrent owns uTorrent, doens't it make sense for them to now restrict uTorrent from downloading copyrighted material? How long before Warner Bros, etc demand that Bit Torrent put the reins on uTorrent?

    Looks like it's time to develop another Bit Torrent client.
    • by Don Negro (1069) *
      There's nothing in the mainline client that restricts you to downlaoding stuff from the web store. You can use it to download any thing with an associate .torrent file. You act like the DRM is built into the protocol somehow. It's not.

      uTorrent is most likely going to go on being uTorrent.
  • $3 per movie and I still have to use my outbound bandwidth? I can rent movies from the local rental shop for cheaper than that and still have the option to watch them on the living room DVD player. Between 50 and 75 cents seems like a more reasonable price point, particularly if I'm helping to cover their distribution costs.
  • All the movies available for download are old... we're talking like already-past-VOD-old, which is about 2-3 months older than DVD release. As in these movies have all been on DVD for 4 or more months.

    When are the movie execs going to realize that PPV and PTD (pay to download) are only going to really take off when you can download the movie the same day it comes out on DVD?

    Downloading and/or VOD means less distributions costs for distributor, faster and cheaper movie for customers. If they decreased the nu
  • Well I guess we can welcome Bram to the ranks of "slick talking" company executives (only he's not very slick). His snipe about Cuban is an extension of an ongoing argument (well...a couple of comments) between the two on Bittorrent, its cost, and legit traffic.

    Mark Cuban started things off [blogmaverick.com] and Bram Cohen responded [livejournal.com]. Bram's problem is that he mischaracterizes Cuban's argument when he makes his case. For example, right in the title of his blog entry, Bram claims Mark predicts the downfall of Bittorrent.

  • Any realistic DRM scheme for downloads must involve encryption with a customer-specific key. Otherwise I can just copy the file. But that kind of encryption makes it impossible to give everyone the same file. I take that back; the player could be locked-down and refuse to play things unless it receives authorization from a remote server. That seems like it'd be far easier to break, though.
    • Since DRM has been proven insecure over and over again, it is simply a matter of time before your R&D is completely subverted by pirates who will just re-encode/recapture your media and release it with no DRM for distribution. Hell most DRM laden crap is just that, crap. Low quality etc. As many have said before, pirates are after the highest quality rips not the garbage, so *shrug* it's a 50:50 proposition honestly. Put the money into keeping shit most pirates wouldn't touch, semi-offlimits (to the
  • by davidwr (791652) on Monday February 26, 2007 @01:25PM (#18154948) Homepage Journal
    For "purchased" items I want a perpetual-use, use-anywhere, one-use-at-a-time, as-many-copies-as-I-need, no-DRM, honor-system "like a book" license, "enforced" only by a customized copy that can be traced back to me if it gets spread around the world. I expect to pay no more than I would at a video store or mail-order for a DVD.

    For rented items, I'm willing to accept time- and device-restrictions. If I rent a DVD from NetFlix, I don't expect to play it on anything but a DVD player. I expect to pay no more than I would at a video store or DVD-rental-by-mail service for a similar product for a similar rental period.

    The advantages of a well-done digital rental service are that when ordering, I can
    • Specify the destination device, e.g. "Windows Media Player" or some other device that may or may not exist yet
    • Specify the rental time limit to begin watching, e.g. 30 days after payment
    • Specify the rental time limit to finish watching, e.g. 24 hours after first playback or 30 days after payment
    • Extend my rental without downloading the whole thing all over again
    • Specify if I'm willing to watch commercials before, after or during the media and if those commercials will be in the form of breaks, border ads, or product-placement ads. If I want to pay more for a "no commercials" option I can do that too. Of course I can also provide marketing information in exchange for further discounts, coupons for other products, etc.
    • by StikyPad (445176)
      Specify the destination device, e.g. "Windows Media Player" or some other device that may or may not exist yet

      Please select from the following format options:

      XViD
      MPEG-14
      WMV-XD
      TechniDepth 4D
      iMplant
      PhalseMemory
      ASCII
    • by dr.badass (25287)
      "enforced" only by a customized copy that can be traced back to me if it gets spread around the world.

      This would not be possible without some sort of DRM.
  • Contrary to popular belief, Internet broadband is not limitless or even abundant. Companies that sell you 'unlimited' connections for $100 / month are grossly overselling,, it only works if the customers use, on avg. less than %10 of that. (This is why there is such a push to destroy net Neutrality, *someone* has to subsidize the underpriced connections now that more and more people are downloading GIGS per month.) Using bit-torrent to distribute paid-for material is grossly abusing an already broken sy
    • by ZorinLynx (31751) *
      Internet connections are already so asymmetric (at least in the US) that it takes about fifteen people seeding to use up as much *upstream* bandwidth as one person downloading.

      ISPs such as Bellsouth consume TONS of downstream bandwidth from their customers downloading data, but hardly any upstream bandwidth since A) customers don't generally upload much compared to what they download, and B) customer upstream bandwidth is typically a small fraction of downstream.

      Might as well utilize those upstream pipes, r
    • by MooUK (905450)
      And this is purely and simply the fault of the internet companies' false advertising. It's very simple: if you cannot provide what you are offering, do not offer it.
      • by dr.badass (25287)
        And this is purely and simply the fault of the internet companies' false advertising

        ISPs rarely, if ever, guarantee available bandwidth or latency. If they do, it is an exception to their normal service, like having a static IP address.

        It's very simple: if you cannot provide what you are offering, do not offer it.

        If they did only sell only what they could guarantee, you'd likely be capped at something like 100kbps, regardless of how much bandwidth is available at any given time. What is the advantage of h
  • by l3v1 (787564)
    Another US only service.

    Nothing more to add.
     
  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by inexplicable_fool (897497) on Monday February 26, 2007 @02:27PM (#18156012)
    Finally there's a way of getting DRMed WMV files to me that costs the content distributor less! Thank God, now they can afford enough ammo to hunt the poor with.
  • The title is confusing. Let's stop that mixing of genres for once.
    Torrent sites are just as "legit" as this new commercial site. Torrent is a technology, sites offer links to trackers, torrent applications are just applications. NONE of them are "un-legit".
    People who rip and provide files using this technology are not.

  • And yet, the videos still can't be burned to DVD-Video. No one wants a movie/episode that can't burn to dvd so they can watch it on their tvs. The only people who wouldn't care is those who have HTPCs hooked up to their televisions.

    This service is completely useless for the majority of people. It will go belly up.

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg

Working...