• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Warner Brothers to distribute content via Bitorrent (at least intentionally now)

deep

TRIBE Member
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ogy/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060509.gtwsjwarner09

In a sign Hollywood is trying to adapt to a technology it long feared, Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. was expected to say it will sell and rent movies and television shows on-line using BitTorrent Inc.'s peer-to-peer technology.

Peer-to-peer technology has long been blamed for enabling the theft of music and movies on-line. But with Internet and DVD piracy on the rise, Hollywood studios are looking for ways to harness peer-to-peer and other Internet-based technologies. Given that peer-to-peer technology provides a cheap and efficient way to move large files around the Internet, it is looking increasingly attractive to some studio executives, provided the files move with robust copy protection.

Expected to launch this summer, Warner's service will sell and rent movies and television shows the same day they are released on DVD. Releases will include newer titles such as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire as well as library titles including The Matrix. TV shows will include Babylon 5 and Dukes of Hazzard. The content will have heavy-duty security features so they can't be pirated.

By using the peer-to-peer service, people will essentially agree to let Warner and BitTorrent turn their own computers into mini-servers to help distribute entertainment to other customers around the network. The large files get broken down into small pieces, cutting down on bandwidth costs and time needed to transmit them. A customer receiving a movie could get pieces of it from thousands of other computers before it gets reassembled at the destination computer.

Movies can be downloaded more quickly through a peer-to-peer service than through a central server, which can take hours even with a high-speed Internet connection. Even with services such as Movielink LLC that compress the video files, a download can take an hour or two. But when a movie comes from myriad different servers, it comes much faster. BitTorrent says in some tests in a controlled environment movies arrived in as little as 10 minutes, although for most consumers it will likely take longer.

"We've always known peer-to-peer technology represents a huge opportunity for us," said Kevin Tsujihara, president of Warner Bros.' home entertainment group. "If we can convert five per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent of those [illegal peer-to-peer] users to become legitimate users of our product, it can have a significant impact on our industry and Warner Bros."

Prices haven't yet been determined, but they could be lower than those of physical DVDs. "We're working with a user base that is accustomed to not paying for content," said Ashwin Navin, president and co-founder of BitTorrent, who says TV shows might sell for as little as $1 (U.S.).

Many peer-to-peer services have gotten a bad rap from consumers for bundling adware or spyware with their services, and for using too much bandwidth capability, thus slowing their download speeds. But since Warner Bros. is charging for the service, it likely won't burden consumers this way.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060508_693082.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

If you can't beat 'em, get 'em to the negotiating table. That's the sentiment behind the latest deal between movie studio Warner Brothers and BitTorrent, one of the most widely used file-sharing clients. With the number of people sharing files illegally over the Internet still growing, movie studios and record labels are looking to convert scofflaws into paying customers. File-sharing companies, meanwhile, have no choice but to cooperate, given a Supreme Court decision last year that left them open to crippling lawsuits if they fail to change their ways.


Under the deal, announced May 9, Warner Brothers will distribute and sell over 200 Warner Brothers movies and TV programs through the file-sharing program BitTorrent. Titles range from new movie releases Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to hoary TV chestnuts like Dukes of Hazzard and Babylon 5. While final pricing and timing is yet to be decided, the programs are expected to go on sale this summer, and TV shows could cost as little as $1 per dowload. BitTorrent "has such a huge audience that we frankly need to convert over to legitimate buyers of our products. We felt we have to do things like this...so that consumers [have] the ability to buy and use our products the way they want to," says Kevin Tsujihara, president of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group.

NEW BUSINESS MODELS. The agreement comes nearly a year after the landmark Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the justices ruled unanimously that peer-to-peer network Grokster's intent to facilitate illegal activity was "unmistakable." Since that ruling and several later cease-and-desist letters, creators of the major file-sharing networks have been scrambling to find new business models and work out agreements with the major studios and record labels (see BW Online, 10/24/05, "A Hard Ride for eDonkey").

It's the latest step in a steady transition for BitTorrent, which first pioneered "distributed" file-sharing, a technology that harnesses the power of many users at once to download files at high speeds for low cost. In September, BitTorrent announced its new plan to seek partnerships with content owners like Warner Brothers and won $8.75 million in fresh venture capital funding to help develop technology to support it (see BW Online, 9/27/05 "BitTorrent's Grab at Respectability"). Two months later, it announced a sort of cease-fire with the studios, in which it said it would actively work to take down links to copyrighted files found on its BitTorrent.com Web site.

This summer, users of any BitTorrent client will be able to download the Warner content and pay to unlock access to it. "BitTorrent has gone from being a technology company to becoming a media company," says Ashwin Navin, BitTorrent's chief executive. "There is a large user base using BitTorrent to get media. We're trying to offer a good trade-off to users getting stuff for free...to offer a much better experience compared to the piracy experience."

Users of BitTorrent software will still be able to download files illegally if they choose. Because there's no central server that handles files, any current BitTorrent users can simply share and distribute files from each other's computers by finding the files outside of BitTorrent's Web site. File-sharing, much of which is illegal, is still on the rise worldwide. The average number of simultaneous users online using BitTorrent was just under 10 million in March, up 35% from the same month last year, According to BigChampagne, a Los Angeles research firm that tracks file-sharing.

SETTING AN EXAMPLE. Despite that fact, the Motion Picture Association of America says it's important that the BitTorrent company is working with one of its member studios, rather than profiting from illegal file-sharing. "They're helping set an example of doing legitimate business and protecting copyrights online for other companies," says Kori Bernards, spokesperson for the MPAA.

The digital episodes of shows and movies from Warner Brothers will be loaded with special digital rights management software, keeping the files from being distributed illegally. That means that while BitTorrent will take advantage of users' bandwidth to redistribute the bits and pieces of the movie files to other paying customers, it will be impossible for users to share files with their friends, unless those friends pay up.

In addition to marking a truce between a studio and its one-time nemesis, the BitTorrent-Warner Brothers deal is the most recent example of parent Time Warner (TWX)'s interest in the distributed delivery of digital video. In April, Time Warner, CEO Michael Eisner and venture capital firm Spark Capital invested $12.5 million in Veoh Networks, a video Web site that can deliver television-quality downloads to users' computers using distributed delivery. In January, Time Warner launched In2movies.com, an online movie store that used distributed peer-to-peer file-sharing to sell movies in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

EASY DELIVERY. Distributed delivery is attractive because the technology downloads files by collecting bits and pieces of it from many sources, rather than putting the burden on just one source. That means it costs next to nothing for content owners to distribute movies or music -- a huge advantage over the current approach, in which files are streamed over individual servers and the massive amount of bandwidth required for video can run up huge bills.

One example is MovieLink.com, an online movie store that uses direct-server distribution and is owned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. Studios. The movie store cost the studios as much as $150 million over the last four years, despite selling only about 70,000 downloads a month, according to one source with knowledge of Movielink's financing.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
By using the peer-to-peer service, people will essentially agree to let Warner and BitTorrent turn their own computers into mini-servers to help distribute entertainment to other customers around the network.
No you can't have my bandwidth for free to make profit. If you want me to host your files so that you can make money I expect to get something in return.

Besides why would I pay to download a copy off the same network where I can get it for free without copy protection. This is another example of not understanding the problem. The problem isn't the means of distribution its the fact that we have no reason to pay for it. For every MP3 that apple sells on Itunes (which has pretty much hit a plateau) 25 are being taken for free from other sources.
 

Syntax Error

Well-Known TRIBEr
Ditto Much said:
The problem isn't the means of distribution its the fact that we have no reason to pay for it. For every MP3 that apple sells on Itunes (which has pretty much hit a plateau) 25 are being taken for free from other sources.
and before itunes none of that money was going to the record company. the people who already know how to get free shit will always end up pirating anyways. this way at least the studios get a cut. people will pay for content, especially if they're afraid of having the mpaa/riaa knocking at their door.
 

zoo

TRIBE Member
Large companies are continually doing things backwards. Nobody wants to engage in a P2P service where they are paying for content AND distributing the content for the people they are paying in the first place.

Large companies CAN use the idea of distributed data transmission by setting up an array of servers throughout the world so that data can flow from various channels, taking the currently used concept of "high speed regional mirrors" to a much more effective "high speed regional peers" system. These large companies have the money to do this, would be able to control the content fully, and would be providing a great service to end-users: super fast access to content.

The only problem is offering cheap enough prices so that the convenience factor outweighs the cost. Nobody really *wants* to search online for pirated material and download it at 10k/s, or wait for weeks, months, or even years, to find a particular piece of content to become available online.

I could talk about this all day. I really need to figure out how I can enter this field and "fix" things.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
By doing what? Showing them that a distributed torrent network can create a high-availability download service for customers? I'm sure they've already thought of that and are likely deterred by a combination of cost and risk.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

zoo

TRIBE Member
You know very well that the costs are not high, and the security/IP risks are far less than that of a customer-based P2P network.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Well, it isn't that I disagree with you. But in the corporate world, when they look at purchasing servers and coordinating them with a technology with which they are unfamiliar, their costs expand in proportion to the complexity of the project. I'm just trying to think about it pragmatically: many of the managers and IT professionals in the corporate world are up to speed on new technologies and fairly progressive in their approach to driving new business models into the Internet market. So I'm curious why your approach hasn't been considered, or if it has, hasn't been popularized.

The caveat here, is that while there are many progressive industry leaders operating in the corporate world, there are at least as many who are resisting any significant change. I do not know if this is the only reason why we haven't seen new business models surface in cyberspace.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Though I find the upsetting trends around ISP service differentiation and proprietary network infrastructure far more disturbing than this topic.
 

wayne bradbury

TRIBE Member
What I don't understand hasn't happened yet is television shows being available for download after it airs from the network on a website. And for free. The only catch is the show you are after has ads through it so the sponsors still get the ads viewed even in the downloaded form. To me this makes as much sense as when a television show airs. Its the same thing only you choose when you want to watch a show or catch up on some you've missed.
 

salad

TRIBE Member
According to this article, "pricing for a feature film will be about the same as the DVD release", and "it will only play on the initial computer used to make the download".

So let me get this straight ... I need to wait several hours for it to download, Warner Brothers gets to use my bandwidth to serve files to other users who are downloading, I have to pay for the blank media to burn the disc, I don't get any packaging or artwork, the DRM limits the movie to being played on the computer it was downloaded from, and I save no money from the cost of buying it at the store.

So why exactly would I buy this again? Seriously, is there even ONE benefit to this service? The only person it might assist is this guy who is even too large to get in his car and drive to the store (even then he could order it off Amazon).
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top