What is Digg?42 Comments
- dankoleary, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Sweet! Now I get to pay Viacom and Newscorp to use my bandwidth! Oh sweet innovation!
/sarcasm - duke_nate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I would be willing to share a movie i downloaded, if the companys track it, and give a discount on your next purchase for sharing your bandwidth.
- CodeCobalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Umm, or the movie companies can just upload there own content to users. Yes it defeats the purpose of torrents, but honestly, would you upload a movie that you had to pay to download, and everyone else had to pay again to download that file off of you? I wouldn't be able to care about my ratio any less if I was required to pay to download. And I think most others are in the same boat, not paying some company so that they can take advantage of your bandwidth.
I feel that the movie business did this simply so that they could regulate bittorrent to their likings, and actually prevent it from sharing most of our favorite content. - coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If they were smart they'd offer full shows for download for free with commercials intact. Sure they wouldn't get the local stuff in there, but everyone would be happy, they'd be using minimal bandwidth (only enough to seed for a while) and we'd get our shows totally legally.
- negativefx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i've seen puddles of vomit more useful than that site
more aesthetically pleasing too - djscrib, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well the content they're selling IS available on iTunes, Amazon, Movielink, CinemaNow, etc. The only difference is they're trying to do the downloads via Bittorrent instead of HTTP. Thus, unless there is a big price break (which there is not), what's the incentive to use a bittorrent download of the file, when you can do an HTTP download of the same movie which will probably download faster, and require no upstream bandwidth.
If they invent a whole new cheaper pricing model then that's a different ballgame, but with only a few pennies in savings via bandwidth, what sort of price breaks can they reall give that other companies can't. - The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The TV and movie companies are about to get a lesson on the need for a dynamic pricing model in a BitTorrent distribution model. If the price is too high the download speeds suffer and disillusioned, honest buyers migrate to off-shore torrent trackers. If the price is too low, then the media companies risk cannibalizing the profits from brick and mortar outlets. The network would have to implement an automated pricing system that monitors the swarm and adjusts the price to find a balance between performance and value.
- SniperAlf22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, in my case, I'm happy with the news. I'm a technology lover who also wants to obey the law and I happen to have morals. It's not about whether we "can" download illegally but whether we should. In my case, I've decided that TV and music are ok because you can get them for free anyway (on the tv or on the radio), but I've not downloaded movies. Now, I may be wrong for doing that, but I can sleep at night. My point is that now I can download (as long as the price is reasonable) these products without questioning my own morality. Long winded, I know, but hey, isn't that what these comments are for?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's funny...the usual mantra on Digg is that people ARE willing to pay if it were available. Peopel only pirate becuase there is no alternative.
That is what i read on this site all the time. And now you want to change that. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I'm sorry did they say pay to use a torrent to download something? I must be high or something..."
Nope. This is BitTorrent, Inc. that's signed the deals, but as has been covered before, these won't be regular torrents in the sense that you're used to; you won't help bear the burden when others download it. The "I have to use my own bandwidth to download something" people are just whining. - fletchowns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Kind of funny that the number one medium of pirating movies has partnered with the movie companies. Hah!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10So...for the past year you have been whining like the little bitch that you are about how the TV and movie studios just don't "get it" and are so far behind the times.
now that they are embracing the technolgoy, you whine like the bitch that you are anyway.
You just want to whine like hte bitch you are apparently. - zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2About ***** time, and here's why:
I make enough money that I don't need to pirate TV shows. I pay an arm and a leg for cable and HBO, but I still watch most of my TV via bt/tvrss because:
- I will not start watching a new series if I can't catch up from the beginning
- I cannot watch my favorite shows at their regular time
- I like to watch certain shows on my portable at various times (gym, waiting rooms, etc.)
- I consider tivo a unique form of piracy in which both the network and the consumer get screwed
I've been thinking for ages that networks need to:
- create their own high quality torrents in several formats (at least divx)
- provide money or incentives to users who seed and track their torrents
- release torrents before airtime so as to build adoption of the technology and discourage use of pirated torrents.
- release good, professional software to manage torrents and help integrate them with TV systems.
- Adapt torrent technology so that ads can be slipstreamed into the torrent based on the end-user's preferences. This is a big one - I don't mind ads and I recognize that they help pay for the shows I enjoy, but there need to be fewer of them and they need to be relevant to me. - szolDat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's like offering pay-per-download option on an open warez FTP...
Well, there goes BitTorrent Inc down the sewer, chocked by rules set by the movie industry. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i guess everyone sells out at some point...
- ipen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can someone explain to me why Bittorrent Inc is even a relevant company? Their technology is freely available and fairly trivial to implement. The only thing they seem to have is the name, and one could argue prior use on the "torrent" name in relation to the technology if they'd developed a torrent client before the incorporation. It might not even be a stretch to say the mark was diluted into common English.
- killn00bz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1im seeing a patern on how illegal downloads start a revolution in the media industry. the bandwidth costs will now go down for the movie studios.
- LanceHardenburg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm sorry did they say pay to use a torrent to download something? I must be high or something...
- djscrib, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm a bit curious what good selling movies/tv via bittorrent actually are. You're talking about a savings of 15 cents/gig IF the file is served entirely from the swarm which is pretty unlikely. So are users willing to expend their upstream bandwidth in the hopes they can buy a TV show for $1.85 instead of $1.99?
If bandwidth cost $1/gig it makes sense, when companies can get dedicated http bandwidth for 9 cents a gig, what cost savings is that really going to pass on to the consumer. Thus, people will just go to torrentspy and get it for free like normal if they're going to go through the P2P hassle. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It's nice that the publisher, the artist and the ISPs all get paid for the content; but how much will this cost me as a consumer?
- crysys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uhh Oh, time to fork the code. Hello OpenTorrent.
Note: I did not RTFA and the above statement is for entertainment purposes only. Do not use if you must drive or operate heavy machinery for 4 to 6 hours. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So I am wondering, do all of us that gave them money when they first stated out get our cut of the deal now? It really makes me want to slap a developer when they take advantage of a community like BitTorrent Inc. has."
No, but remember: you've been able to use BitTorrent to get lots of neat stuff for free, for years.
Many BitTorrent fans think the world will be a better place if the content providers (artists, movie studios, game developers, etc.) just weren't so hung up about making money, and just did their work for the common good to be freely shared via BT. This is fine, but it's funny when BitTorrent users start asking for a "cut of the deal." You know all those DVDs and CDs you've gotten for free via BitTorrent? The creators didn't get a "cut of the deal." If it shouldn't bother them, it shouldn't bother you, either. - Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So I am wondering, do all of us that gave them money when they first stated out get our cut of the deal now? It really makes me want to slap a developer when they take advantage of a community like BitTorrent Inc. has.
- Sblader5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how many times has this happened before??
- zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I have to say, referring to "ripping off" the networks seems like a bit too much. Do you really feel like you owe them your attention during commercial breaks? Do you feel guilty when you change the channel or go to the bathroom instead of watching ads?"
In effect, it's not really ripping off the networks, but the reality is that networks need people to watch ads, or they can't sell ad space, so what you're really doing with tivo is forcing the networks to up the ad ratio and boost product placement in order to get more out of the eyeballs that are still watching and to squeeze something out of the eyeballs that aren't. It effectively screws all the consumers by creating shorter shows with compromised quality. Obviously the solution is not to force ourselves to watch ads, but it is clear to me that the value of our collective eyeballs is dropping and the situation is contributing to all kinds of havoc in the industry (DRM, hardware crippling, lawsuits, etc.).
Distribution by torrent may not solve this problem, but it can help, especially if the networks can knock down the incentives for piracy. Most of the time, people will still skip commercials, but there are probably creative, non-intrusive ways to discourage it. For example, you could introduce 20-second scenes in the middle of a commercial block, with show content that's not directly related to the episode (think, a quick background flashback for a character in heroes, or the kind of bonus material you find in a DVD). People could skip these without missing the show, but curious viewers would stay tuned. And again, if you can slipstream the ads and tailor them to the specific viewer, you could hack down the need for so many ads and give the viewer ads that they actually are interested in.
Alternatively, viewers could pay a premium to get their shows early and get them stripped of ads altogether. If it's not a joke price like they have on iTunes, I'm sure lots of people would go for it. - webgod61, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^
There not really embracing the technology, more than likely this is an attempt at controlling it. All the major movie studios know that any DRM system will eventually be cracked so their trying to stop piracy at the source. Not to say that all BT traffic is piracy. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmmm... where are the open-source naysayers now? Not a viable business model my ass...
- PsychoPNut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He called him a bitch, thats good enough for me.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1VCRs really can't hold a candle to DVRs for timeshifting. The added conveniences are just enough to make it practical to *never watch live TV ever again*, and that's the real benefit of a DVR: not just using it once in a while when you can't watch be there to watch something live, but using it for everything you watch, changing TV from a broadcast medium to a library like a DVD collection or VOD. After a few weeks, all your favorites are automatically recorded, and you never have to think about TV schedules again.
I have to say, referring to "ripping off" the networks seems like a bit too much. Do you really feel like you owe them your attention during commercial breaks? Do you feel guilty when you change the channel or go to the bathroom instead of watching ads? - zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No. Free DVRs only rip off the networks (in theory). Tivo charges for the box and then a monthly fee to help you rip off the networks by skipping commercials. Their success is astounding to me. Granted, I grew up in the vcr era, where I didn't have to pay 100+ bucks a year for "timeshifting", so the notion of doing so, even with the added conveniences of tivo, is just impossible for me to swallow.
- PsychoPNut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1they make their money and run, no one cares
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm a BT fan, and I fully support the creators making money, as long as they do it the same way as everyone else: by charging for the work they do. Instead, they want to do the work for free, and then charge for handing out copies. I call BS on that. It doesn't cost any more time or effort to make a show that 1 million people watch than it does to make a show that only 10 people watch, but they seem to think they *deserve* to make more money from it.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quoting: "I consider tivo a unique form of piracy in which both the network and the consumer get screwed"
Interesting, I've never heard that before. Can you explain? Does this belief extend to free DVRs like MythTV too? - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@fletchowns:
Not really. You've been able to get pirated DVDs en masse for years (in the Middle and Far East anyway). Before that it was the VHS... people use the available media to pirate things, just as the studios use the available media to sell the same. The studio takes longer to catch up with the rest of the world is all. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bit Torrent Partners with TV and Movie Companies... To offer overpriced 2+ hour movie downloads!
- dougmo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I know that many people don't like it.. but VONGO has an incredible delivery method. It is not always the latest new releases but for 9.99 a month it is awesome. You can start watching movies with in minutes of starting a download..
- glafira, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The Beginning of the End
- koryo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Somewhat old news; BT announced they were cooperating with the MPAA for digital distribution a while ago. They announced a partnership with Warner in May:
http://www.bittorrent.com/2006-05-09-Warner-Bros.myt - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Maybe you missed the part about "funding to the tune of $15-25 million." You expect TV and movie companies such as 20th Century Fox and Lionsgate to provide movie downloads free of charge? These companies are laying out capital in a venture with hopes of yielding a healthy profit.
- HypoLuxa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0this is a huge load of crap. yeah i know that we all want the industry to embrace the internet, but i think this is the wrong way to do it. why don't they just offer d/l from an ftp. they must think we're all really dumb to pay to let the industry use our bandwidth...
- smilf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Brilliant!
- krikoko, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Top 50 BitTorrent sites http://www.torrentbus.com
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is