Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Media Movies Television

BitTorrent Partners with TV and Movie Companies 155

Posted by CmdrTaco from the why-again-please dept.
An anonymous reader writes "BitTorrent Inc just announced that they teamed up with several TV and Movie companies. The new list of partners includes 20th Century Fox, Paramount PicturesG4, Kadokawa Pictures USA, Lionsgate, MTV Networks (Comedy Central, MTV and more), Palm Pictures and Starz Media. These deals will add a great deal of content to the BitTorrent video store, including popular movies like Mission: Impossible III and X-Men The Last Stand and popular TV-show such as "Prison Break" and "South Park""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BitTorrent Partners With TV and Movie Companies More

BitTorrent Partners With TV and Movie Companies

Comments Filter:

  • Does anyone have details on this one? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the videos are in Linux friendly and non-DRM'd-to-hell format I will be a customer. Can anyone find some solid facts on the details?

    • Not details, but strong suspicions. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot...kadin@@@xoxy...net> on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:04AM (#17032706) Homepage Journal
      I know absolutely next to nothing about its technical details, but since the service is MPAA sanctioned, I can guarantee that it will not be DRM-free. There's no possible way.

      I've been thinking though about how you could do DRM on bittorrent-delivered files, and it seems like a problem. Bittorrent only works because you have many people distributing the same file; if each client's copy is encrypted with a personal key (which is the only way to keep people from redistributing them) then P2P won't work.

      I suspect that they try to dodge this problem by using a client program that's really, really ugly -- lots of obfuscation, use of keys stored on remote servers, encryption of everything that's written to disk, etc. I assume that all peer nodes are authenticated against a central database as well, and that their communication is encrypted or at least obfuscated (and naturally, the whole thing will be a 'Trade Secret').

      There's really not going to be anything good about this service, except as a technical challenge to hackers. Maybe there are some recently-unemployed programmers in Russia who'd like to give it a go?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Gryle ( 933382 )
        I'm not a programmer, but off the top of my head, I'm thinking that each individual file gets an encryption key which you pay $X to get. This lets you download the file. Once the file is downloaded, you need some kind of identification to use it (username/password) which probably costs $Y more. So they make you pay for the download, then pay for the ability to watch it. I'm sure there are more ways around it than I can think of. Someone wanna take a crack at it?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Zantetsuken ( 935350 )
          But what the gp said, is basically that since the technical side of BitTorrent (and other P2P) works by everybody having the same data to distribute. Now take into account that you can't lock/unlock something without storing the key in the file (how do you know they used the right password if you don't even have the right one?). This means that the binary and/or meta-data in the file would be different for each and every purchase, and so since everybody has different data, it can't be redistributed.

          The o
          • They distribute an encrypted version of the file. This file is what's transferred and seeded, etc.

            Upon downloading the file, you use a program to unlock it. The program would interact with a web-service. It would charge your credit card, give you a username/password, and it would decrypt the file and merge in your unique signature. You'd never see the key that's used to decrypt the file. It's never stored on your PC and it's encrypted itself with SSL during the key-retrieval.

            I'm not suggesting this is how i
            • It would be trivial for a DVD-Jon-type to create a piece of softwarwe that can capture the symmetric key that is returned through the web transaction and break that file ... permanently. For every potential user...
              And of course, the "thousands of keys" technique is still predicated on a single symmetric key protecting the file... that's the only one you care about breaking, where you focus your efforts is just different.

              Bittorrent can't be used as a sustainable business model to profitably distribute DRM co
              • As I user I would be a little upset that they were charging me for a movie and then using my bandwidth to distribute it to others.

                It's like buying a TV and then waking up in the middle of the night to find out they have been using your truck to deliver TVs to other people and thus make money.

                To me, it seems like they are taking the wheel we made, making it square and then selling it back to us.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by shaneh0 ( 624603 )
                  AFAIK, they're not planning on using your PC to seed the files. They'll probably be using a network that they own, but nevertheless they'll still need to distribute the same exact file thru all of their nodes for the benefits of BT to be had.
              • SSL hasn't been cracked in 10 years and I'm sure it's not for lack of trying.

                This is like saying "A dvd john type could just break AES encryption"

                Please. Let's try to have at least a minor understanding of the subject matter before espousing our opinions as facts?
                • DRM and SSL encryption are completely different things.

                  SSL encryption is to allow A to send data to B without C being able to copy it.

                  DRM is to let A to send data to B without B being able to copy it.

                  Except that *by definition* B has to be able to read it. If he can read it, he can copy it.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by shaneh0 ( 624603 )
                    You don't seem to understand. Therefore, I am not going to explain it to you. Go back and re-read what I wrote. The idea is that when you buy the file (after its downloaded) a client application retreives (thru SSL) a private key that's used to decrypt the file you downloaded from BT. The client app decrypts the file, destroys the private key, and merges your client certificate into a predefined space in the binary file, aka DRM.

                    • The client app decrypts the file...

                      And THAT'S where you strike. The only catch is that not only do you have a free-and-clear copy, but so does anybody else (the key is easier to distribute than the now-un-DRM movie itself). In a non P2P model, the content provider can limit the spread of a key that breaks an official file by using seperate per-file encrpytion keys for each registered user.

                      No amount of mucking about with SSL or PKI will fix that problem.
                    • So I download a file that's encrypted, and you give me the private key over SSL. Yes, no one can intercept the private key when you give it to me.

                      Of course if I then choose to distribute the private key anyone anyone can decrypt the original file and play it themselves. As soon as one person breaks the client app to save the private keys, the whole DRM scheme is broken.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shaneh0 ( 624603 )
                      And as soon as someone cracks the PGP client app then PGP is useless to.

                      The thing is, it's much easier said than done.

                      Don't be naive.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shaneh0 ( 624603 )
                      If the client app decrypts the file in memory, then applies user-specific DRM, then writes the file, the only way you're going to to "strike" is thru an exploit in the OS or the client application.

                      Which, as I just mentioned in another comment, is much easier said than done. It's like saying "All you need to do to crack PGP is to "strike" the PGP client." It's true, but you haven't actually seen it done.

                      DRM isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be. The only test is whether it's sufficiently difficult to brea

                    • And as soon as someone cracks the PGP client app then PGP is useless to.

                      The thing is, it's much easier said than done.

                      Don't be naive.

                      Huh?

                      The PGP client app is just a program that does some math. The math is public key encryption. [wikipedia.org] "Cracking" a PGP client app doesn't invalidate the underlaying math but could comprimse the security of those using the cracked app. Attacking an app doesn't always mean you're attacking the math. For example the Buffer overflow in PGP Outlook Encryption Plug-In [mitre.org]

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shaneh0 ( 624603 )
                      "I reckon you should publish that before making your magic unbreakable DRM that's completely resistant to inspection using a virtual machine. Consider it a public service. Then do the DRM thing and become super rich."

                      I was waiting for you to slip into such hyperbolic drivel that you releived yourself of all credibility. I knew it would only be a matter of time, and I was right.

                      I'm not going to go 15 rounds with an A.C. who, apparently, lacks basic reading comprihension skills. The fact is that I never sugge

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shaneh0 ( 624603 )
                      "No, it's not true.

                      In DRM, you are always given both the ciphertext and the key needed to read it. The DRM tries to stop you getting at the plaintext and the key.

                      In PGP, you have the ciphertext and the key. But PGP doesn't attempt to stop you getting at the plaintext - that is the purpose of the tool. It is meaningless to attack the PGP client: what more do you want from it?"

                      This is a perfect example of your jumping to conclusions. Once again you ASSUMED you knew what I meant, so you attacked it.

                      Dude, you s
                    • No.

                      With PGP, I supply it with the key and the cipher text, it gives me the decrypted data.

                      In the DRM example, I provide the application with a key and the cipher text, the application then shows me the content but refuses to give me the decrypted data.

                      In the PGP case I can't break the app - it does everything I ask of it anyway.

                      In the DRM example, all I have to do is persuade the application to return me the decrypted data and there are lots of ways of doing that, e.g. writing a video driver that streams th
                    • You really don't understand crypto, do you.
                      You can't "crack" PGP anymore than you can "crack" DHM key exchange, or "crack" finding a trivial solution for factoring large composite numbers, or find a weakness in SHA-1.
                      If any of those things were possible, not only would PGP be broken, BUT SO WOULD SSL.

                      Face it. DRM that isn't assisted by resin-blobbed cryptohardware is intractable, especially when using irresponsbile, single-symmetric key encoding schemes. Bittorrent and DRM are NOT a good mix, which is my in
            • I am an armchair crypto buff, so this might be all wrong, but how about if:

              First, you would have to have an account to use this service. That means the "original distributor" has your name, address, phone and credit card numbers. When you sign up, a certificate is generated for you to sign any files you have "purchased". The certificate has a public/private key pair. Doesn't much matter in the scheme of things where the private keys are stored, as the distributor can impress upon you that this key uniquely

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by shaneh0 ( 624603 )
                "Upon completion of the financial transaction, the file is decrypted with the distributor's public key"

                This is basically what I said. But in your example the Public Key would still need to be kept secret. In my example, the distributor encrypts w/ their pub key and the dole out their private key after you purchase the file. The priv key is not revealed to the user, and it's downloaded thru an SSL protected connection.

                The point is, there would need to be one one single encrypted version of the file that gets
              • During the decryption process, wouldn't it be possible to write something that dumps the decrypted data from memory? I think this is how QTFairUse worked, isn't it?
                • This is why I propose the auto-updating, latest-version-required application required for the purchase/decryption/re-encryption process. It could be cracked, but not for long.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by NSIM ( 953498 )
        The need to distribute the same file via BitTorrent doesn't seem like a big problem. Distribute the movie as encrypted in some way and once you've got it you have to get your unique and probably hardware specific decrypt key before you can play it. Decryption of the movie is done on the fly, so the unencrytped version is never stored on disk, doesn't seem like a big technology problem.

      • The DRM will be such that you have to use their player, or a player that is compliant with their DRM. It will then not play until you pay - that video for that player on that machine.

        Yes, someone could crack it - theoretically. So what.

        Don't buy DRM anything!!! It is just heroin and crack for the entertainment industry. If they think they can get away with it because people are buying it, they they will continue to do it. If they get no revenue from it, they will discontinue it. That doesn't mean that

      • my thoughts exactly.. P2P isn't really that interesting for directly funded media.. particularly movies and such. P2P makes sense when the content is FREE.. because everybody can "chip in" on bandwidth. But for Hollywood movies that make millions in profit, it just doesn't fit... if I'm paying nearly full retail for a digital copy the bandwidth cost versus manufacturing cost is an power of 10 cheaper... why would I want to "share" my bandwidth so I can PAY for copyright restricted stuff I can't also share

      • I can't be the only person who's thought this (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Adriax ( 746043 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @02:30PM (#17038094)
        Why not just cut a chunk of the video file out, critical data that will make the file unplayable without, and a nontrivial amount so it can't be reconstructed.
        Take that data, encrypt it with the victim's assigned key, and distribute the video in 2 parts. The encrypted part is personally downloaded, while the bulk data is torrented. Then you just have a special plugin for windows media player or something else that reads both file streams and reconstructs on the fly, never recreating the real file.
        20megs out of a 600meg movie would be trivial for them to serve to people and they'd still get the benefit of 600megs torrented.

      • I know absolutely next to nothing about its technical details, but since the service is MPAA sanctioned, I can guarantee that it will not be DRM-free. There's no possible way.

        In other words, their heads are still up their asses. Gotcha. Thsanks, but when I miss Stargate:SG1 and forget to set my hauppauge to record it, thepiratebay.org and torrentspy.com can fill my timeshifting needs.

        Call me when the DRM is dropped, and THEN I will gladly pay for timeshifted shows I forgot to record myself.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SilentChris ( 452960 )
      "If the videos are in Linux friendly and non-DRM'd-to-hell format I will be a customer."

      Then I guess you won't be a customer, then. ;)

      The entertainment studios have already laid down the rules. "We're cool with this as long as the consumer is limited as possible". On the Xbox 360, you can buy TV shows -- for only that Xbox. You can rent HD movies -- for only a couple of days. Even the iTunes store is getting slowly backed into a wall (the restrictions on movies and television shows are a lot more onerou
      • 1) Your time isn't monopolized by downloading, but even if it was..
        2) Private trackers will almost always max out your download speeds, except for the first few minutes after a new post, and they'll frequently have a new title available as soon as, or sooner than, iTunes.
        3) The quality on iTunes just plain sucks.
        4) $2 is exactly $2 more than I spend on my morning coffee.

        Personally, I just PVR everything I want to watch. No fuss, no wait, just done, and if I ever want to watch it on something else, (which i
        • "$2 is exactly $2 more than I spend on my morning coffee."

          Free coffee rarely tastes any good. Especially if the company provides it.
    • I agree... I'd sign up if I could legally play it on my Linux box. But heck, I have to break the law just to watch DVD's I paid for. Congress would have to pass a new law just to allow this service on Linux. I doubt this effort is going to break the cycle of stupidity.

  • I'm lost (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by aadvancedGIR ( 959466 )
    Do we now love or hate B. Cohen?

  • seed? no thanks (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    i for one, aint seeding SHIT that i gotta pay for...

    • Re:seed? no thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

      by udderly ( 890305 ) * on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:17AM (#17032866)
      While this is an AC post, it does make a good point. Why should I both pay to view content and, in addition, pay for the bandwidth and storage for its delivery system? Seems kind of ridiculous.

      Step 1. Get TV and Movie companies to provide content
      Step 2. Get end-users to provide storage and bandwidth
      Step 3. Profit!!
    • Flamebait or not it's a good point. If I'm going to pay, why should I have to share my bandwidth? Will I get it cheaper if I use torrent than if I downloaded it directly?

      This just seems like a way for the publishers to lower the operating cost at my expense.

  • So lets get this straight (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tttonyyy ( 726776 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @08:51AM (#17032504) Homepage Journal
    The MPAA are working with BitTorrent Inc (a US company) to move their content away from illegal copies to a commercial business case.

    The RIAA are working against AllofMP3 (a RU company) to move their business away from legally selling material to a non-existant case.

    Something's a bit twisted about that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mikachu ( 972457 )
      There's a difference between a company willing to comply, and a company that isn't. And the reasons for this are simple: AllofMP3 is perfectly legal under russian law. BitTorrent under US law... not so easy to say.

      Not to say I'm defending the RIAA or the MPAA; I hate them both with a passion. But it certainly makes sense, and it's not as sinister as it sounds.

    • Re:So lets get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Threni ( 635302 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:12AM (#17032802)
      > The MPAA are working with BitTorrent Inc (a US company) to move their content away from illegal copies to a commercial business
      > case.

      They'll profit from selling movies.

      > The RIAA are working against AllofMP3 (a RU company) to move their business away from legally selling material to a non-existant
      > case.

      They're not profiting from someone else selling their IP.

      • Re:So lets get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)

        by IAmTheDave ( 746256 ) <basenamedave-sd@ ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:51AM (#17033412) Homepage Journal
        They'll profit from selling movies.

        They'll also save money by distributing said movies using your bandwidth, instead of theirs. They're capitalizing on the idea that "torrents are cool" and hope that by simply inserting the words "download using bittorrent" that the geek side of you will be more willing to buy.

        It's a shame that in some bid to legitimize itself to the media companies, BitTorrent has quite literally been used like a cheap whore. MPAA gets to save money on bandwidth and distribution costs, and your computer gets to run what I can only imagine will be a constantly-running, branded bittorrent client in the background, using up your bandwidth to save the MPAA money.

        BT sold out, or were really stupid - one or the other.

        • BitTorrent has quite literally been used like a cheap whore.

          Uh...unless Bram Cohen has been pimping his employees out for inexpensive sex, I don't think that it's exactly literal. ;)

          What exactly is the motivation behind Bittorrent, Inc.? Its namesake is an open source program with relatively little need for support. They can't really make a "real" business out of that, so they need to partner where they can. What would be an acceptable, "non-evil" way to make money for them, when all they really ha

      • The RIAA are working against AllofMP3 (a RU company) to move their business away from legally selling material to a non-existant > case.

        They're not profiting from someone else selling their IP.

        Then the RIAA should work to shutdown every music retailer in Russia. Allofmp3 pays the same to the record "industry" (as it were) in Russia as every other music retailer, and the RIAA gets the same cut from every track sold on Allofmp3 as they do from any other legit sale in Russia.

    • It's even more warped when you consider that Sony is a mainstay of BOTH organizations. Though notably I don't see their name attached to this new development.
  • The announcement has nothing on the details which determine if the service will be useful: DRM, resolution, regional accessibility and so on. Wake me when they publish the specs.
  • That's the joy of free software and open protocol, no matter what the creator wants the software to be, its fate is in the community's hands now. Vide the protocol encryption matter, now a de facto standard in the biggest players in the field (utorrent, azureus and bitcomet).
  • I really didn't know there was a BitTorrent Corporation, I didn't know that they were trying to be all legitimate and everything, but I don't think I'll use their store, buy their content or even really notice that they're doing anything. I'm using uTorrent (and formerly ABC after I switched from Azureus) and visiting a small list of torrent sites semi-regularly and generally going about my business. Does this effect the average user like me in any way?

    I'm also curious, if Peerguardian or the like has bl

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      Bittorrent was never designed for copyright infringement. Just because you are abusing it in that way doesn't mean that is the use that most people use it for.
    • I think that it's time to start thinking of BitTorrent the company and bittorrent the protocol as two totally separate entities. The BitTorrent (corporate) movie service will probably use some sort of bittorrent-type P2P sharing technology at its core (the better to save on bandwidth costs and increase their profit margin -- why pay for hosting when your users can do it for you?), it will probably not interact with the bittorrent networks used by Azureus and uTorrent. I can't imagine that they would -- anyt

  • So what's new? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @08:59AM (#17032638)
    including popular movies like Mission: Impossible III and X-Men The Last Stand and popular TV-show such as "Prison Break" and "South Park""

    But I already get those from Bittorrent...

  • Does anyone... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...have a bittorrent link to bittorrent.com, the site seems to be slashdotted.
  • Is it illegal to download/upload television shows that are broadcasted over-the-air on free networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW? Seems to me that it shouldn't be. I have access to those shows for free, so I should be able to get them in another format for free as well.

    • Is it illegal to download/upload television shows that are broadcasted over-the-air on free networks

      absoultly not illegal, if they released the copyright to all the PublicDomain your free to re-broadcast (does even PBS do that???)

      like ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW?

      on not free as in GPL. Their broadcast, and comerical sponsered.
      it is pretty clear re-broadcasting is not allowed by FCC statutes, unless it is exactly synched with the licensed broadcaster (IE you can probably use something like a slingbox and forward

  • Aaaaaay! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:08AM (#17032748) Homepage Journal
    Will they have "Happy Days?" Because I'd love to buy that episode where Fonzie jumps over a shark on waterskis from Bittorrent.

  • My Only Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:17AM (#17032868) Homepage Journal
    I have only one question:

    Will I be able to play the files?

    I'm deliberately not saying what platform I'm on or which media player I'm using, because, if I need a specific media player or platform, the answer to the question is "no".

    • I'm deliberately not saying what platform I'm on or which media player I'm using, because, if I need a specific media player or platform, the answer to the question is "no".

      c'mon, MSDOS is dead already - time to upgrade :P

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by traabil ( 861418 )
      I'm deliberately not saying what platform I'm on or which media player I'm using, because, if I need a specific media player or platform, the answer to the question is "no".

      So, in fact, you don't have a computer, do you?
    • question: can you already play BT movies?

      the answer via your own criteria is also probably no, due the the 800 different mp4/divx implimentations each of which causes divide by zero errors on each other's players and codecs and generally creates a total nightmare for someone like me, who missed an episode of Lost and just wants to watch that one without having to spend 6 hours hunting through download pages and message boards just to get the entire house of cards perfectly balanced on my PC long enough to w
      • ``can you already play BT movies?''

        What's that supposed to mean? BitTorrent is just a distribution mechanism. The movies you download through it can be in any format whatsoever.

        ``the answer via your own criteria is also probably no, due the the 800 different mp4/divx implimentations each of which causes divide by zero errors on each other's players and codecs''

        Can't say I've ever had a problem with that. But then, I don't download a lot of movies.

        Anyway, what I was really getting at in my earlier post is th
      • who missed an episode of Lost and just wants to watch that one without having to spend 6 hours hunting through download pages and message boards just to get the entire house of cards perfectly balanced on my PC long enough to watch the damnded thing.

        You should try the CCCP:
        http://www.cccp-project.net/ [cccp-project.net]

        I hear it works well for windows.

        OTOH, you could switch to mplayer on linux and have everything work automatically.
  • I already download all that now off bittorrent. In fact I get most of it in HD from the piratebay store and the isohunt store in better quality than what they are offering on the official bittorrent store.

    Why should I pay to get an inferior product? (inferior in both resolution and filetype)

    If they want to make a go at it and entice people, they need to do two things. 1- make it full HD res and SD res at the highest quality possible, make it a filetype that will play on most anything, and finally create

  • BOGO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PingSpike ( 947548 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:21AM (#17032916)
    You mean I can pay for the movie I'm downloading AND provide the seller with the bandwidth to do it? What a fantastic opportunity for consumers to share the crippling costs that hollywood is enduring!
    • You betcha. Next you can expect your local high-speed internet provider wanting a cut of the "savings" offered by using the bittorrent program. IE, "you normally pay $15 for movies. With this new bittorrent legal distribution, you only pay $10 for your movies. So we should get at least $1 of that savings, because people are only paying for their casual browsing and emailing when they pay for our service."
  • As far as I can tell, this allows them to sell you a product while reducing the load on their servers and thus reducing the cost. In the meantime, it pushes the load onto the consumers' system because of the P2P nature of the distribution. Ok, great, where does it benefit the consumer? Will lower expenses result in lower costs?

    I like that they are being creative, but if they use consumer bandwidth to reduce their expenses, they need to give the consumer something in return. Karma for sharing that gives
    • they need to give the consumer something in return

      I think you are falling into the trap of thinking the media companies think of you, and want to treat you like a valued customer, or a customer at all, rather than a criminal from whom they have a right to be paid money.

  • And it's still... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clickety6 ( 141178 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:24AM (#17032972)
    ... more convenient (= quicker and cheaper) for me to go to the local video store and buy or rent the DVD.

    So where's the incentive for me for downloading it via bitorrent and letting MPAA profit from using my bandwidth ?

    • People have been whining that they can't legally download movies for a while. Now they're making a way in which you can, and they're whining that it's easier to go to a rental store.

      Good old Slashdot.
  • ...when we have a perfectly good tummy to eat our South Park from with the likes of southparkx.net? South Park seems to be an anomaly with regard to downloading TV shows in that Comedy Central allow us to do it, or they at least turn a blind eye, since Matt and Trey don't have a problem with South Park being distributed on the interweb.

    I doubt this extends to DVD rips but I've certainly been able to get a hold of the latest South Park episodes a few hours after they're shown on Comedy Central over the

  • Right idea, wrong protocol (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spyrochaete ( 707033 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:39AM (#17033216) Homepage Journal
    If I'm buying a movie why do I also have to buy bandwidth to distribute it to other purchasers? These movies had best be very cheap or the ordeal won't be worth all the trouble. I very much resented Blizzard for forcing its paying customers to VERY SLOWLY distribute patches over a totally non-configurable proprietary BT client while other games provide max downrate HTTP/FTP distribution.
    • Speaking in the theoretical, let's say some company has significant content they wish to sell in a downloadable way, and want to have people able to download at 500 KB/s consistently.

      If they use HTTP or some other similar strategy, they will have to pay for whatever connection/infrastructure that can support 500 KB/s * num of concurrent clients. To acheive that, the price they need to charge per their business case is 15 dollars a month.

      Now with Bittorrent (or something like it), they can skimp a little on
      • I'll consider it a discount when I see the discount. WoW is certainly no discount and they have no qualms about letting their users flounder for days while trying in vain to download a 600MB file. The movie industry sells downloadable movies on some web stores for $15 - substantially MORE expensive that burned media with nice packages that must be shipped physically.

        I will be very (but pleasantly) surprised if the cost savings are passed down to the consumer.
      • If you had a choice between a torrent-like service and HTTP service, the former costing 11$/month and the latter 15$/month, would you still choose to spend more money on the principle of not having your upstream used for their profit?
        I might, since I'm already using all my spare bandwidth to seed stuff that ISN'T commercially available.

    • Re:Right idea, wrong protocol (Score:4, Informative)

      by slashdotmsiriv ( 922939 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @10:39AM (#17034188)
      Because BitTorrent has also partnered with CacheLogic [slyck.com] which provides Internet Caching solutions. You pay your subscriptions to legally access the content and you can now use BitTorrent not only to download from your peers but from strategically placed caches.

      This substantially reduces the cost on a content provider that would otherwise need to provision expensive hardware and bandwidth to deliver content via FTP/HTTP. Now they can use the resources of the downloaders and use CacheLogic's infrastructure to provide service even better than the one current BitTorrent networks have and perhaps even better than they could possibly afford to provide by using FTP-like central servers.

      Users are motivated to pay BitTorrent and content providers, and not download for free, simply because BitTorrent combined with in-network caching gives a better service than plain BitTorrent. Users that don't pay cannot access Cachelogic's infrastructure. If their pricing is reasonable, I can see this scheme taking off rapidly. I know i would pay 5-10$ to download a movie i want to see now in a couple of hours or less, instead of waiting 2-3 days, while using all my uplink and slowing down my browsing speeds. From the article: "In a joint announcement made today by CacheLogic and BitTorrent, a global network of cache servers has been organized under the name "VelociX". VelociX is the network protocol that governs the actions of a theoretical global community of cache servers. With potentially thousands of networked cache servers at the disposal of the end user, network costs are cut and download speeds are increased significantly.

      For example, let's take a look at a CDP enabled client on the prowl for a specific 4.5 gig file. The CDP looks for the closest geographical area for a VelociX swarm, in addition to conventional peers. The VelociX swarm provides the bulk of the file sought after, greatly reducing the reliance on peers. This equates to greatly accelerated download speeds, and since this takes place largely on dedicated servers and not peers, the ISPs costs are reduced. ...

      Unless you plan on downloading authorized content, the network probably isn't for you. In the CacheLogic press release, VelociX will allow "legal content (infringing content is not accelerated) to be inexpensively delivered in minutes instead of hours." Content that is authorized to function on the VelociX network must be manually published via specific hash codes to a central data base."
      • Because BitTorrent has also partnered with CacheLogic which provides Internet Caching solutions. You pay your subscriptions to legally access the content and you can now use BitTorrent not only to download from your peers but from strategically placed caches.

        And how is this better than simply using Akamai's strategically placed caches to automagically download directly from via http?
  • That probably explains why Bram Cohen is (probably) parting company [techcrunch.com] with BitTorrent, Inc...
  • I can recall when the RIAA/MPAA was cracking down on P2P services, proponents of these services argued that they were beneficial for distributing perfectly legitimate files and media (As a distribution channel, for example, for unsigned bands trying to be heard). It wasn't a very compelling argument, at least to the media companies, and they stayed on track in their attempt to demonize P2P services.

    And why shouldn't they? The services did nothing that could make them any money. In most cases, P2P did lit
  • From nytimes.com [nytimes.com] -

    In the new service, BitTorrent's partners will upload authorized versions of their TV shows and films onto the network. No pricing details have yet been announced. Files will be protected by Microsoft's content management system, and files will play right inside the user's Web browser. Users who buy content will have to enter a special encryption key before watching the movie, and they will only be able to view it on two computers -- say, a desktop and a laptop they might bring with them

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close