RSSBitTorrent Signs Deal With Warner Bros.
By Ed Oswald | Published May 9, 2006, 12:19 PM
BitTorrent said Tuesday that it had struck a content deal with Warner Bros. Entertainment to use the network to distribute movies and television shows. It is believed to be the first of its kind between a file-sharing company and the entertainment industry.
The service would begin this summer, say BitTorrent executives. Television shows could sell for as litlle as $1, half the price of iTunes video downloads. The company's technology has sparked the interest of Hollywood as a easy way to distribute digital content, said BitTorrent president Ashwin Navin.
Navin also said that the company has wrongly been given a bad name by those who have decided to use the file sharing protocol for illicit purposes. He argues that the company itself has never facilitated piracy, and is working to disassociate itself with those who participate in such activity.
BitTorrent has caught on as a way to transfer copyright material due to both its decentralized nature and ability to transfer files in some cases very quickly. The technology breaks files into small pieces that are then distributed to several computers. Once downloaded, these pieces are reassembled into a single file.
Some are not impressed with the deal however, saying BitTorrent is not user friendly. "While BitTorrent might be good and all, it still cannot meet the ease-of-download of iTunes, which like music, is making downloading legal video a mainstream activity," noted technology pundit Om Malik said.
"BitTorrent is a great way to distribute content, but the slow uplink speeds, and individual file sharers-throttling the bandwidth ruins the experience," he continued.
Some of the antagonism towards DRM is justified, when it erodes our rights as consumers. Speaking as an American, there was a time when I enjoyed something called "fair use". DRM strips us of that right, and the DMCA is a law that claims to give me "fair use" rights, while giving corporations a means to take that same right away.
Score: 0
|This complete antagonism toward all DRM is a bit absurd. And while I am no fan of overly restrictive DRM, the material is nevertheless THEIR content. They are entitled to determine how and when it can be used.
And you are of course free to refrain from obtaining it if you don't like the terms.
But this amazing reference to those who OWN the material being 'pigs' by too many users who claim that the owners have no rights and that They, the consumers, have the right to do whatever They like, however They like, while whining about any constraints upon themselves is an infantile rant. Newsflash: you are not buying the rights of ownership to the material! You are buying the rights to 'use' the material in the manner decribed in the EULA.
And while you certainly don't have to agree with those terms, and heaven knows I have allot of problems with them, your choice is limited to simply not procuring it.
And whether or not a legitimate service chooses to use BitTorrent technology has no bearing on its use for other nefarious ends. It neither legitimizes it nor denegrates it. It is simply an very interesting decentralized/distributed delivery system.
And there would have to be some form of DRM allowing for the unique management of the individual copies - otherwise they would simply be distributing the content for all to see in the same manner - which equates to no management and makes absolutely no business sense for a commercially viable operation.
So...wouldn't it be nice if just once folks attempted to discuss the merits of how the technology applies to the anticipated business use model and cut the "this is how the world SHOULD be' self-serving rant of free content - focusing instead on the real world issues they are attempting to address and the strength and weaknesses thereof?
Just what the site needs, another anti-DRM rant. And why limit yourselves? Why not include the issues of hunger, disease and world peace as well? Damn it gets old...
Score: 0
|I find this program to be somewhat releaving. If I could spend $1 to get a full TV Show within a half hour and fast download speeds im down for it. But if they are going to be using DRM this makes me thing they are going to make the data files non-burnable to a dvd or vcd cd. But I am kind of curious to see what they are going to charge for full length movies. All I can say is why not do it the legal way at least then you don't have to worry about getting caught.
Score: 0
|I don't blame BT for the move, it helps their image by working with the studios instead of against them.
I do take issue with 2 points though.
First, by nature of the BT protocol, the studios would be charging users for the right to not only download the material, but UPLOAD it as well. There needs to be some kind of credit system in place.
Second, paying for downloadable TV is kind of a bulls*** tactic. ABC, CBS, Fox, & NBC are all freely available to anyone with an antenna in the US. I pay for cable, as well as a DVR box. My computer has a tv card (another LEGAL item) which allows me to record tv (or any of the other devices I mentioned) in a format that I can then burn to dvd and watch on almost any dvd player in my house (or on my PC/psp for that matter).
I wouldn't mind paying a FEW extra bucks a month if I could dl TV from stations I either don't get, or aren't available to me (BBC and SKY for example.) Make that a part of my cable/internet bill though, not in addition to...
Score: 0
|Yawn...
If the downloads are infected with DRM then I see no advantage to the end user to downloading with bt vs downloading from a traditional http/ftp site other than the persistent nature of the download. The real advantage of this idea is that is saves the content providers money on bandwidth.
And we all believe that they will in turn pass these savings on to the consumer...if you believe that, then I have a great deal on a used bridge.
No thanks, I will just keep buying my used dvd's at $4-$5 dollars a shot and then downloading the rip so I have a backup. I refuse to accept DRM and I refuse to save the pigopolists money so they can increase their margins further while providing nothing extra of value to me.
I don't see the ISPs changing their ways unless there is pressure from the consumer, many of them throttle or block traffic using ports/protocols that are commonly used by filesharing services...of course I bypass this by connecting to my office (where the dual T1's are) via VPN so all my ISP sees is pptp traffic (damn the man). BTW, this also increases my throughput because the $60 router at my house chokes when I start tossing a bunch of bt threads through it (even apart from the isp throttling), this way the Cisco router at my office is the one doing the work - just a suggestion for the tech weenies out there)
Oh, and if you think I am a bad person because I download pirated dvd's I also beat up little girls and take their ipods so you may as well kick me around for that too.
Score: 0
|Maybe this will finally stop ISPs from blacklisting Bittorrent ports. Some of us like to download LEGALY traded music, from places like bt.etree.org, and being stuck changing ports to escape the Cable Modem police is frustrating.
Score: 0
|Technology Pundit? Nothin' personal, but if BitTorrent is ruined by shares throttling the bandwidth, then why ARE people using BitTorrent right now? Its pretty obvious that it works. 2 replies:
1.Sure its not user-friendly at the moment, but I'm sure whatever Warner Bros client they end up using will be nice and easy to use and to throttle your bandwidth.
2.I'm also sure that there will be a credits system in place to create incentives for people to NOT throttle their bandwidth, much like the recent Apple 10.5 Software Update / iTunes credits rumor going around right now.
Score: 0
|If you can't beat them, join them.
Score: 0
|"BitTorrent is a great way to distribute content, but the slow uplink speeds, and individual file sharers-throttling the bandwidth ruins the experience,"
With properly functioning clients throttling does not adversely affect the swarm, as clients that do throttle are offered very few download slots.
Also, even with the limited upload capacity of most consumer net connections, a distribution system that reuses that capacity (BitTorrent for example) is still far more cost effective than a bunch of centralized servers (if eight million people with just 56 kilobits of upload capacity each connect to the swarm they would provide ~56GB/s of extra bandwidth, a connection that wide costs a LOT!!).
Score: 0
|BitTorrent is not a company; it is a protocol. There are no 'BitTorrent executives' and on this basis, the entire article is crap. This is a journalistic failure.
Score: 0
|Actually, Bittorrent IS a company founded by Bram Cohen, the guy who invented the protocol. Check your facts before insulting the veracity of the article.
http://www.bittorrent.com/about.myt
By the way, he is the CEO. There is a COO, and some VPs. You may wish to look up the definition of "executives"
Score: 0
|It's both actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bittorrent
Score: 0
|You need to read the story on Toms Hardware. TV shows are estimated around a $1, but movies would probably be the same cost as a DVD. If it cost as much as a DVD why waist my time downloading it. I could run up the street and buy it for the same price. If thats the case this will die before it starts.
Score: 0
|"If it cost as much as a DVD why waist my time downloading it."
When he could instead read books and find out one day that there are different meanings to the words, 'waist', and 'waste'. ;)
Score: 0
|You mean they mean different things even though they sound the same ?? *Snicker*
Some may buy them online as they may live remotely and are too lazy to drive to where ever they are sold. I think it's a good move on BitTorrent's part.
It's a great philosophy, to work "with" these people instead of operating in the dark side. This just shows that BitTorrent is trying to be an ethical company, they aren't out here to dis other companies.
Score: 0
|I got no problem with it. Just wondering what kind of restrictions, and what the quality is.
Suppose I'll have to spend a $1 to find out...
Score: 0
|Who is Om Malik, and how did he get to become a "Noted technology pundit" without ever grasping the difference between a front end program like iTunes and a protocol like BitTorrent?
Score: 0
|Sounds like an auto-generated KOTOR II name.
A network with ease-of use problems? Sounds like a client issue, not a network issue.
*sigh*
Score: 0
|He is an individual person just like every one of us.
I guess we can all call ourself technology pundit. :)
Score: 0
|I am glad to see someone step up to todays technology of BitTorrent. Opera browser builds in BT. I would like to see Warner Bros push Opera on their website as a means of a client. BT is free folks. Don't be scared of it.
Score: 0
|Since when do you need an agreement with BitTorrent to host a torrent tracker? But don't say anything to the WB. It's good to see Bram get something back for all he has given us.
Score: 0
|Doh! Not another anti-RIAA/MPAA forum again! Let the flames begin.
Score: 0
|I guess they have a choice between telling us how the world SHOULD be, or dealing with the world as it is.
It sure would be nice to hear more coherant discussion dealing with the latter! ;-)
This is an interesting concept in content delivery...but I can't help but wonder about some of the AACS components and how sharing among peers will be personalized to a enable the granular control desired by the content owners regarding eDRM and the individual person/device. After all, the studios are not interested in simply seeding the universe with universally accessible copies of the movies! ;-)
Unless the model is modified, each person would receive an identical bit copy of the file, and there would be no way to differentiate between my use and someone else's use. So I guess I need to go back and do some research, as I am sure someone has already thought of this and what the scheme is to create an identical yet uniquely identifiable copy of the file. (Sounds like I am asking for a debate with teh Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz! ;-) And if this aspect has been effectively addressed, it seems an effective method for Software distribution as well.
Score: 0
|Well if they are $1 a piece, I am not sure if it would be worth while for me to bother copying it from a friend or else where... 1 dollar per movie is pretty good. Especially if I can select the movie and get it within hours. This is a HUUUUUUGE step forward for the good. Good bye netflix... blockbuster is allready almost out of the picture.
Score: 0
|$1 per TV show. They never quoted prices for movies.
Either way, it will be interesting to see what kind of quality they're offering, and what kind of DRM they apply to it.
Score: 0
|It will be interesting to see how the companies that will utilize .torrent protocols control the access to those protocols.
And yes, it should be interesting to see if this concept catches on with other distribution companies, especially software companies. This could be the logical conclusion to Steam software ... inexpensive downloads quickly would effectively counter software piracy. At least in theory.
Score: 0
|What I don't understand is how a company could think that they should be able to charge me the same amount for a DVD without a case, insert, and with reduced usability. (You can't burn these to DVD and watch them on a DVD player for example, because the movie will be DRM'd as this is the only -thus far- concieved way of sharing a movie via bit torrent.)
Score: 0
|The likes of CBS FOX etc should sell their programmes to companies and have them watermark it, then let the companies upload them for free using the BT protocol. This would save the companies millions in advertising especially at prime time. TV is all but finished after this happens, in 20 years time the only tv that will be available will be live sport and shuttle launches and maybe the odd crowning of a monarch in Britain.
Get the advertisers on board, surely its cheaper to buy a programme than paying for primetime advertising.
Score: 0
|