Techdirt. Stories about "bittorrent"

Ridiculous: Short-Sighted, Anonymous Hollywood Exec Flips Out Over Using BitTorrent For Promotions

Mike Masnick — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:13:00 PDT

I had thought that we'd gotten past the point at which Hollywood execs would freak out over the use of a modern, better, more efficient technology to help promote a movie, but apparently in the minds of some of the folks who run the big movie studios, we're perpetually stuck in 2004 or so. That's the only explanation I can figure out for this wacky article from TheWrap, which highlights what appears to be a single (completely anonymous, of course) Hollywood studio big shot absolutely losing his mind over the fact that a major movie is promoting itself by distributing the first 7 minutes for free via BitTorrent, in a marketing deal done with BitTorrent Inc. Indie studio Cinedgim made the deal with BitTorrent to promote their new film Arthur Newman, starring Colin Firth and Emily Blunt, and it seems like a perfectly normal way to promote stuff, but not to one studio exec who can't even bother to stand behind his words by identifying himself.

"It's a deal with the devil," one studio executive told TheWrap. "Cinedigm is being used as their pawn."

A deal with the devil? Funny, I remember most of the major studios doing deals with BitTorrent Inc. six years ago. That was for a poorly planned out and poorly executed video download store, but still. Most people now recognize that there are all sorts of opportunities in going where your customers and fans are. That a Hollywood exec doesn't see that is a bit scary for whichever studio they happen to work for.

"It's great for BitTorrent and disingenuous of Cinedigm," said the executive. "The fact of the matter is BitTorrent is in it for themselves, they're not in it for the health of the industry."

Now that's just funny. As if the studio execs are not in it for themselves? The studios have focused on a business model that sucks the life out of the "health of the industry" for ages, by trying to squeeze out as much money as possible from just a few ideas -- doing remakes and sequels and adaptations, rather than doing anything that is new or unique. And then they use Hollywood accounting to make sure the actual creators almost never get paid any additional money, while they make many times over the amount invested. A statement like that pretends that the exec has the "health of the industry" in mind, rather than his own bottom line.

And, of course, there's a strong argument that this statement is totally wrong as well. Cinedigm really does appear to have a much bigger focus on the health of the industry than this nameless studio exec, because Cinedigm is trying to adapt with the times and to embrace new opportunities.

"I really missed them being at the forefront of the piracy issue," the studio executive said. "I don't remember them going, 'Naughty, naughty, don't use our technology for that.' They don't give a shit."

Huh? Actually, from rather early on, BitTorrent made clear that you shouldn't use their technology to infringe, because BitTorrent does nothing to hide your IP address. When it first came out, in fact, most people talked about how it wasn't a great technology for infringement, given the lack of secrecy involved in using it. Furthermore, from as far back as I can remember, BitTorrent the company (which this exec seems to confuse entirely with BitTorrent the protocol) has worked hard to promote legitimate and non-infringing uses. We already talked about the (failed) partnerships with Hollywood in the past, but the company has long been focused on helping to try to find ways to drag Hollywood execs into the 21st century with a better, more efficient platform for distribution.

Really, this exec just seems to be acting in a knee jerk way against BitTorrent the company without understanding very much at all. Hell, even the idea of releasing the first seven minutes of a movie online for free to drive more views -- that's been done for years. There's almost nothing new here at all. In fact, we wrote about a movie studio doing the exact same thing thirteen years ago when Dreamworks did that with Chicken Run. How could it possibly be a bad thing to release the first 7 minutes of a movie for free, in an effort to convince people that it will be worth their while to go see the full thing? Well, I can think of one way: if you make crap movies where the first seven minutes will convince you not to pay to see the rest. Perhaps that's this exec's problem.

Thankfully, the forward-looking folks at Cinedigm don't seem put off by one anonymous exec at a competing studio:

"Blaming BitTorrent for piracy is like blaming a freeway for drunk drivers, " Jill Calcaterra, Cinedigm's chief marketing officer said. "How people use it can be positive for the industry or it can hurt the industry. We want it help us make this indie film successful."

Furthermore, it appears that they're planning to use BitTorrent to promote a number of other films this way as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Skateboard Legend Stacy Peralta Demonstrates His Latest Trick: Cashing In By Going Direct-To-Fan

Mike Masnick — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:00:50 PST

Last August, we wrote about an experiment by famous skateboarder and filmmaker Stacy Peralta to self-distribute his latest film, Bones Brigade, about the famous skateboarding crew Peralta himself had put together a few decades ago (the crew included some of the most famous skateboarders ever: Tony Hawk, Lance Mountain, Steve Caballero, Mike McGill and Tommy Guerrero). Peralta had shown the film at Sundance last year, which is where most filmmakers go to try to "sell" their film to a studio/distributor to go make something of it. However, Peralta turned down all such offers (some for significant money), and instead went the "direct to fan" self-distribution path, using tools like TopSpin, and partnering with companies like BitTorrent as well. That's what we wrote about in August.

Now, as the latest Sundance is underway, TopSpin's Bob Moczydlowsky has a post with some details of how it all went, noting that going direct to fan was massively successful for Peralta, allowing him to both make more money and still retain the rights to the film, rather than selling them off to some other entity.

And now, a year after the Sundance premiere and six months from the start of the direct-to-fan release powered by Topspin, Film Sales Company and our partners awe.sm and The Uprising Creative, Stacy has earned more from direct sales than he would have from the combined total of the domestic and foreign sales offers. And, because a Topspin direct release does not require licensing rights, Stacy and Andrew Herwitz from Film Sales Company were then able to do their own Transactional VOD and Third-party license deals. Stacy and his financing partners quickly recouped the budget of the film, and the copyright remains in their hands for the future.

That really is the key. “I self financed, got the investment back, am now in profit and I own the copyright and will continue to earn all other sales for the next ten years,” says Stacy. “And it is all because I was empowered for the very first time to really do it myself from start to finish. Topspin has done for distribution what the Handycam did for shooting or the Avid did for editing. Topspin put it all in my hands and suddenly everything I needed was within my reach: pure and simple filmmakers democracy.”

They also included a nice little pie chart (to scale), showing how much bigger the pie was with what Peralta ended up doing: This is not to say, of course, that the same thing is true for everyone who tries to go direct to fan. It's right for some people, and not right for others. But the key thing here is that there are more options and many of those options not only leave the actual creators with more control, but also allow them to expand the pie.

One of the more frustrating aspects of discussing these business model issues with some people is their assumption that the "pie" is static (or, worse, shrinking). It's a classic mistake in economics for those who think that everything is a zero sum game. But one of the great things about new technologies and services is how they enable a much broader audience and increase the opportunities, opening up wider possibilities -- especially for creators who really know how to engage with their fans.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Yes, There Are Many, Many, Many, Many Legal Uses Of BitTorrent

Mike Masnick — Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:54:17 PDT

When the VCR first came on the market, nearly 100% of the TV and movie content it was used for was "unauthorized," because the big studios refused to offer films. Of course, thankfully, the Supreme Court eventually made it clear that just because it was "unauthorized," it didn't mean that taping TV for later watching was "infringing." But, if the metric you used to judge whether or not a new technology is a "pirate technology" is what percentage of its use was "unauthorized," you get a very skewed picture. Early on, all sorts of new and innovative technologies are mostly used for unauthorized copies... until the industry catches up. However, people don't often deal with trends very well, and they assume, quite incorrectly, that if a technology is initially used in an unauthorized manner, it must be a "piracy tool" and no amount of discussing how trends and adaptation works will convince them otherwise. Lately, there has been plenty of talk about BitTorrent -- with a few cases here and there pointing out that a high percentage (usually over 90% of works are infringing). The argument being made is that there is little redeeming value with BitTorrent since it's almost exclusively used for infringement.

Of course, over time, things change. Content creators begin to embrace the new, realize that it might not be evil, and suddenly we see more and more interesting case studies. And that seems to be happening with BitTorrent. The recent MusicMetric analysis of BitTorrent downloads for the first six months of 2012 found that 31% of downloads were for authorized files. Now, you can argue that this is still less than half of all files -- but it's a big step up from the standard claims that somewhere between 1% and 10% were authorized. It seems quite likely that the trend is moving in the right direction.

In an effort to highlight just how much authorized content is shared using BitTorrent, Bittorrent Inc. put together a neat graphic representation of just one day's authorized downloads, creating a massive page that includes a single dot for every authorized download. We've put a snapshot of just a small portion of that image below this post... but that's really only a fragment. If you go to the full page, there's an awful lot of scrolling involved. And that's because it's showing 689,955 authorized downloads. In a single day. Not bad.

In case you're wondering who's actually offering up music that's getting downloaded like this, Eliot van Buskirk tracked down the top ten authorized music acts on BitTorrent, which turns up a few surprises.

Death Grips: 34,151,432

Counting Crows: 26,950,427

Billy Van: 18,702,053

Gods Robot: 12,172,672

Way Too Sick: 9,974,321

Paz: 6,485,001

Bray: 5,878,492

Pretty Lights: 5,005,061

DJ Shadow: 4,349,048

Chester French: 523,356

As Eliot notes, that number one legal download, Death Grips, is signed to a major label deal on Epic (part of Sony Music). The Counting Crows are obviously a big name as well, and we wrote about their decision to use BitTorrent. They're ex-big label, but now independent. Also, DJ Shadow and Chester French were both associated with Universal sub-labels, though I do not know if either are still "signed." Either way, it's interesting to see that it's a mix of artists, including some from major labels and some others. It certainly looks like, perhaps, the idea that BitTorrent is just for infringement may have to be officially considered debunked.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Filmmaker Using BitTorrent & TopSpin To Distribute Free Copies Of Older Movie To Promote New Skateboarding Documentary

Mike Masnick — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:04:00 PDT

Skateboarder and filmmaker (often focusing his films on skateboarding) Stacy Peralta is releasing his latest skateboarding documentary, Bones Brigade: An Autobiography, about the Bones Brigade skateboarding crew -- Tony Hawk, Lance Mountain, Steve Caballero, Mike McGill and Tommy Guerrero -- which Peralta helped put together in the first place. Rather than go the traditional route with releasing the movie (as he's done many times, including with the acclaimed skateboarding documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys), Peralta has decided to go direct to fans. The movie was shown at Sundance earlier this year, where it got some attention and had a bunch of opportunities to go with traditional distribution partners, but instead Peralta figured it was time to take control, noting that the DIY ethic of direct-to-fan is similar to the way skateboarding evolved in the early days:

As skateboarders, as people that have always lived on the outside, have always had to sneak over fences or through the back door, have always had to create our own terrain, we’ve decided to put that ethic towards how we release “Bones Brigade: An Autobiography.” We turned down all of the conventional offers for distribution when we came out of the festival in favor of doing it ourselves.

One part of this DIY approach is that to promote this new movie, Peralta teamed up with BitTorrent and TopSpin to help with direct-to-fan digital distribution and promotion. Via BitTorrent, people can download a "Bones Brigade Bundle," including a bunch of extras, and then using a TopSpin feature (either on the web, or directly in the uTorrent client), if you submit your email address, you can download an entirely free copy of the classic skate film, The Search for Animal Chin, which was released 25 years ago, and featured the members of the Bones Brigade. So the combined effort, from Animal Chin to the Bones Brigade documentary is sort of a "full circle" situation.

It's great to see more filmmakers really embracing both direct-to-fan, but also realizing that things like BitTorrent aren't automatically bad, but have a place in a marketing campaign as well. In this case, it's interesting to see Peralta using a combination of a few different tools to create an integrated and comprehensive campaign not only to market the new film, but also to distribute the old film (the first time it's officially available in digital format). Oh, and if you'd like to download The Search for Animal Chin, there's an embedded widget right below this sentence...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Internet Archive Enables Over 1,000,000 Torrents Of Books, Music And Movies

Mike Masnick — Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:06:00 PDT

We sometimes hear people say that BitTorrent as a technology is only good for infringement. We know that's not true, but then people will point to examples of how frequently it's used for infringement. Of course, that's meaningless when you look at both the larger picture and the nature of trends. When new distribution technologies are introduced, it's not surprising that they're used that way because there's so little legitimate activity on the system. But that changes over time. Remember, when the VCR first came about, nearly all activity on it was described as "infringing" by some, because there was no legitimate content being offered. However, obviously, over time that changed and more and more legitimate content was offered.

Over the years, we've certainly seen an increase in content being offered via BitTorrent, but today there's a big addition: the Internet Archive has enabled over one million torrents of books, music and movies from its collection.

The Internet Archive is now offering over 1,000,000 torrents including our live music concerts, the Prelinger movie collection, the librivox audio book collection, feature films, old time radio, lots and lots of books, and all new uploads from our patrons into Community collections (with more to follow).

And while some ignorant organizations may declare that the Internet Archive is a "rogue site," I think most people recognize that it's a wonderful repository of all sorts of legal content, much of which is now available using the rather efficient distribution technology BitTorrent.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BitTorrent Announces Plans To Help Artists Get Paid While Giving Their Creations Away For Free

Tim Cushing — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:11:12 PDT

In many people's minds (especially those in certain industries), the word "torrent" is synonymous with piracy. This has obviously caused a bit of problem for BitTorrent, Inc., the parent company of BitTorrent client, uTorrent. Despite the fact that uTorrent has legitimate uses, most members of the press and politicians continue to link BitTorrent with the act of copyright infringement, and in some cases, seem to believe that The Pirate Bay and BitTorrent are either related businesses, if not actually the same entity.

Following the footsteps of Youtube, BitTorrent is experimenting with ways to help artists make money while still giving away their work for free. The first experiment goes live today. Torrentfreak has the details:

The idea is simple. BitTorrent Inc. helps artists to promote a bundle of free content to their 150 million users. This bundle includes a piece of sponsored software such as a media player or anti-virus package that can be installed as an option. When a user installs the free software, both the artist and BitTorrent get a cut of the proceeds.

“We believe we can make digital distribution even more viable for creators and fans. So, beginning now, we’ll be testing new ways to drive profitability for creators while delivering even more meaningful media experiences for our users,” BitTorrent CEO Eric Klinker comments on the announcement.

The first artist featured is DJ Shadow, who's releasing a package of exclusives and some sponsored software. Hidden Transmissions From the MPC Era (1992-1996) will be promoted to existing users with banner and text ads and new users will be given that option when installing uTorrent. Getting DJ Shadow on board with free distribution and torrent services is a bit of coup on BitTorrent's part, considering he's made statements in the past decrying what he perceives to be a continuing devaluation of music by file sharing.

[I]f you’re holding your breath, waiting for me to boost my cool-quotient by giving my music away for free, it’s not going to happen. The fact is that I feel my music has value. You may disagree, and that’s fine. But I know how much energy I put into what I do, and how long it takes me to make something I’m satisfied with. Giving that away just feels wrong to me. It’s not about money per se; I can donate a large sum of money to charity and not think twice, but I won’t give my art away. I’d rather sell it to 100 people who value it as I do than give it away to 1000 who could care less. That’s MY choice.

I point out this statement not to "name and shame" DJ Shadow or as a cheap dig at what could be perceived as a hypocritical act, but rather to show that BitTorrent's experiment would seem to have a chance of succeeding. Given DJ Shadow's stance, it's highly unlikely that he would have signed on to give away his music for free (and linked his name with a service often mentioned in the same breath as "copyright infringement") if he didn't see legitimate potential in the plan.

BitTorrent obviously hopes that showing artists the monetary potential of the uTorrent platform will garner it more recognition as a legitimate platform. Several more campaigns are due to roll out this summer, with BitTorrent closely tracking the response to each experiment.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Network Analysis Reveals Apparent (And Legally Questionable) Attack On Torrent Networks

Leigh Beadon — Thu, 24 May 2012 03:09:00 PDT

Last week, we talked about a Microsoft-funded operation calling itself "Pirate Pay" and claiming to shut down torrents of pirated films by poisoning the P2P network with false data. At the time, former BitTorrent VP John Pettitt had commented that their system sounds ineffective and potentially illegal. Now, an anonymous reader points us to an analysis by Poland's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT Polska) looking at a recent surge of anomalous data on the uTP torrent protocol, which sounds somewhat similar to the description of Pirate Pay. The bulk of the analysis is highly technical, and they offer a few hypotheses for what might be causing the anomalies, the strongest of which is that it may well be a large-scale attempt at disruption:

Data collected from public trackers support this hypothesis. Without delving into details of torrent client reactions it’s plain to see that trackers register small amount of peers downloading analysed resources. It’s possible that it’s an effect of a process which we are currently unable to understand fully and which produce the anomaly. At least one interest group that would benefit from uTP poisoning is easy to point at: multimedia companies and their subcontractors. Conduction of this kind of campaign by these institutions wouldn’t be precedent. It’s also possible that generated traffic is used for BitTorrent network mapping and data gathering for later use in other projects.

Whether this uTP anomaly is directly related to Pirate Pay or not, CERT Polska reaches a similar conclusion about its legality:

Anomaly through it’s nature (large share in daily network traffic) produces visible disruption in IT systems and large amount of our false-positive high-level alerts is a good proof. In terms of Polish law, European Convention on Cybercrime and U.S. Codes (and probably many other sources of domestic law) legality of process producing the anomaly is questionable.

If it's true that the big anti-piracy players are attempting a full-scale network attack on piracy, it's actually kind of funny. Resorting to potentially illegal tactics to combat illegal behaviour doesn't do anything to make people respect copyright—it just galvanizes the idea that it's a battle for control. More importantly, the people working to preserve the network will always be more skilled and more numerous than those working to disrupt it, so the best this can do is give them a chance to hone their skills and shore up security.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Could BitTorrent Be The Distributed Social Network People Have Been Clamoring For?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 12 May 2011 10:00:00 PDT

One of the key things we've been noting over the past few months is how many more people are beginning to recognize the benefits of having systems and services that really are more distributed and decentralized, rather than very centralized. The problems with centralized systems should be obvious: not only are there single points of failure where a single mistake can knock out the entire system, but it also puts a single party in control as well. And that can lead to problems, say, when it comes to handing over private information to the government (or companies) without proper legal process.

Among the areas that have grown up with very centralized systems are various social networks, such as Facebook. In response, there's definitely been a call for alternative, more open and more distributed social networking systems, such as Diaspora, which has received a ton of hype, but still has a long, long way to go.

But could another player enter the space and have the infrastructure in place to make it work? It appears that BitTorrent is betting yes. The company is launching its new, much more user friendly Chrysalis interface for its software, which really goes a long way in moving the software towards being a media manager program: But that's not what's really interesting here. It appears that BitTorrent is effectively trying to move into the distributed social networking space, while also disrupting the business models of various cloud storage offerings at the same time (a twofer!). On the social networking side of the game, the company recognizes that a big part of the success of Facebook is in sharing personal content such as photos and movies, so it's building off of its underlying technology to let groups and individuals create "channels" in which such content can be shared (not in a weakly compressed format either, but fully) and commented on:

If it works, you could see some pretty compelling ideas come to life. For example, it would be easy to build a group around, say, a wedding or a party, and have all attendees easily share their photos and videos from that event, allowing everyone to comment on them, etc. And it could work entirely using the BitTorrent infrastructure underneath -- meaning more efficient and often faster distribution of the content. The channels can be shared widely or narrowly, depending on users' preferences.

And it's all done in a distributed manner.

That point is where it starts to get pretty interesting. There were recently all of those concerns about Dropbox, but you could see how something like this might provide a very compelling alternative.

That's not to say there aren't huge challenges. While the company has a massive installed base for its technology, many of its users probably have never thought about BitTorrent in this context, and it's not always so easy to enact that kind of context and perception shift. The product is also still early and may be lacking in some random "killer" feature that really makes it catch on. However, it does strike me as really intriguing, and as more and more examples of problems with more centralized systems spring up, you could definitely see more people gravitating to a distributed solution like BitTorrent's. On top of that, the company is working hard to get its software embedded directly into a variety of consumer electronics offerings, making it easier to have the necessary software installed to make use of some of these new sharing features. Finally, as part of the process, the company has also made it really easy to share content even with those who don't already have a BitTorrent client installed -- setting up what's effectively a one-click email download "package," so if you want to send a bunch of pictures to your family, for example, they'll get an email that has them download the client software, prepopulated with the channel in question with all the photos.

As someone who thinks it's important to have more distributed systems and get further away from relying on single centralized systems with too much control, but who's also been skeptical of previous attempts at such distributed systems, I have to say that this is a lot more interesting and compelling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

New Movie, Zenith, Distributed In Segments Via BitTorrent; Funding Needed To Release Next Segment

Mike Masnick — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:12:37 PDT

Last week at SXSW Film, I moderated a panel looking at the role of P2P distribution for filmmakers. It really was a case study session, where we tried to look at different things that fillmmakers have done in embracing file sharing, including some things that worked, and some that didn't. You can listen to the whole panel on the SXSW website, including me with my nearly missing voice (SXSW will do that to you). The focus of the panel was really targeted at indie filmmakers who would likely have difficulties going a traditional route in getting their films out to the market. The panel consisted of me as moderator, Ray Privett, the founder of Cinema Purgatorio, Shahi Ghanem, the Chief Strategist from BitTorrent Inc., and Jamie King, the founder of VODO. Privett kicked us off with a preview of a film that he's helping release via BitTorrent and Vodo, called Zenith. You can see the preview below: A couple days after the panel, the first part of Zenith was officially released, via Vodo and BitTorrent. There were a few very interesting things about the way this is being done. The first is that releasing it via BitTorrent really fits with the nature of the film. That is, the film is a bit of a conspiracy theory about a product that has been lost... and then found. So distributing it via BitTorrent really fit with the nature of the content of the film. On top of that, the film is officially by "Anonymous," trying to build into that sort of internet mythology.

The second part that's interesting is that they're trying to release the film in segments, where the latter segments aren't released unless there have been enough donations for the first segments. It's not clear what will happen if enough donations aren't raised, but it's still an interesting strategy. Others have done this on a production basis, where they say that they need a certain amount to conclude production of later segments. In this case, the entire film is made, but they're trying to release it in sections. I really don't know if this kind of strategy works for films, but it's worth watching.

With Zenith, they are offering typical tiered offerings for people who donate different amounts, including the ability to meet with a character in the film. At lower levels, donors can get their names on the future releases as either a thank you or as an Executive Producer credit.

Anyway, Zenith is another case study worth watching. I have no idea if it will succeed with its current strategy, but in a world where most people tend to think that a film has to be released as a full and complete work, it'll be worth watching to see if it works as a "serialized" film instead.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Khan Academy Embraces BitTorrent

Mike Masnick — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:08:18 PST

We've written a few times before about the Khan Academy, the free online education resource, started by a former housemate of mine, that has turned into a powerhouse in the online education space. I had lunch with Sal a few weeks ago, and he's got some really fascinating things planned for Khan Academy that go way beyond what's there now. If you think it's disruptive to the educational space, you haven't seen anything yet. The latest move by the organization is to team up with BitTorrent to make it even easier and more efficient to spread the educational videos. They're doing this via the BitTorrent app studio platform, which is a development worth watching. The core of BitTorrent has always been the underlying infrastructure it provides, and the company is clearly moving towards enabling others to build a lot more on top of that infrastructure. As more and more people begin to realize the power of BitTorrent as infrastructure, we should start to see a lot more interesting apps come out of it. So this collaboration seems like good news for both sides, with two companies doing very interesting and disruptive things...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BitTorrent Begins Directly Promoting Content Creators Willing To Embrace New Forms Of Distribution

Mike Masnick — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:50:00 PDT

We've covered the Pioneer One and Yes Men video releases via BitTorrent, in combination with Vodo, and now BitTorrent Inc. is trying to ramp up similar efforts as well. This week it's helping to promote a new album released via BitTorrent from the artist PAZ, as it kicks off an effort to help those who embrace BitTorrent for distribution.

One of the obvious benefits of using BitTorrent or other forms of free music distribution is that it makes it easier for people to hear your music. But, of course, you still need to convince them to make that first step and download -- and so these recent efforts to use a BitTorrent release specifically to promote a bit of content is interesting. I imagine that the skeptical response is that "this only works when just a few artists are doing it." That may be true in the present form, but I would bet that if more and more content creators embrace these forms of distribution, in combination with smarter business models, there will be many ways to deal with it, including greater personalization/filters for those who are actively promoting their works via platforms like BitTorrent.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What Comcast/Bittorrent Actually Means: Bittorrent Selling Hardware

Tom Lee — Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:37:59 PDT

Comcast's decision to collaborate with Bittorrent, Inc. attracted a predictably huge amount of attention and analysis. But surprisingly little of it has actually speculated as to what Bittorrent, Inc. is actually going to do for Comcast. When guesses have been ventured, they've frequently suggested that the company will throw its weight around in order to alter the protocol and make it more friendly to Comcast's network. But this is unlikely for exactly the reasons Prof. Felten discusses at that link (though Felten actually argues that altering the protocol is the goal). Instead, I think there are reasons to believe that Bram Cohen's startup will be selling network appliances to Comcast.

There are two problems facing Comcast. (1) the expense that Bittorrent incurs in infrastructure demands and bandwidth bills and (2) the public outcry and potential FCC action invited by its initial artless solution to that problem. Announcing the partnership with Bittorrent, Inc.; pledging to increase upload capacity (as it no doubt planned to anyway); and ceasing to forge RST packets all go a long way toward solving the second problem.

But the first problem -- the expense -- remains, and it may prove to be the area where the new partnership has the most to offer. Have a look at the quote that Torrentfreak got from Bittorrent, Inc.'s Ashwin Navin:

We decided to collaborate with Comcast because they agreed to stop using RSTs, increase upload capacity, and evaluate network hardware that accelerates media delivery and file transfers.

Bittorrent, Inc. has primarily been known for acquiring uTorrent and for working to pitch BT as a content distribution system. But it's also announced partnerships with various hardware manufacturers. And while some of these vendors are probably looking for little more than to be able to slap "Bittorrent approved!" stickers on their consumer-grade routers, others clearly have the expertise to make network appliances. This is what Bittorrent, Inc. may be selling to Comcast.

What will these theoretical boxes do? Despite Comcast's announced intention to be protocol-agnostic, it seems most likely that the devices would serve as P2P repeaters, keeping more of a given swarm inside Comcast's systems and thereby minimizing expensive trips across the network boundary. Contrary to all of the online wailing about bandwidth hogs degrading its neighbors' internet service, this expense was always the real issue: it's telling that forged RST packets were only ever sent for Bittorrent connections that extended beyond Comcast's network. Establishing a repeater product would also add nicely to the company's Bittorrent DNA offering.

Whatever the specifics, minimizing network expenses is a reasonable goal that Comcast is certain to continue to pursue. Hopefully Bittorrent Inc. will help them find a way to do so without antagonizing their customers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comcast Realizes Blocking By Protocol Is A Problem; Asks BitTorrent For Some Help

Mike Masnick — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:54:30 PDT

Well, well, well. After stubborn silence, non-denial denials, and (finally) a "but we have to!" defense, combined lawsuits and FCC threats, it appears Comcast has realized that its traffic shaping efforts have turned into something of a "rootkit moment." In an announcement this morning, the company has teamed up with BitTorrent Inc. (the company, not the wider protocol itself) in order to come up with "protocol agnostic" ways to manage its traffic. It's not giving up on traffic shaping -- but it will be based on overall bandwidth use, rather than what applications you're using. Lotus Notes users rejoice.

Of course, announcements, by themselves, mean nothing. Let's wait and see what sort of systems Comcast actually puts in place before we judge whether the end result is better or not. Though, it does confirm what we noted recently: this really is a problem that can be solved by technology -- which Comcast just didn't want to implement. Comcast's unwillingness to come up with a more reasonable technology solution earlier (while Verizon and others have been exploring them) is its own fault. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if this has any impact on the lawsuits and the FCC investigation. Other than that, let's see what Comcast actually does (and how upfront they are about it) before saying this is a full win. In the meantime, just getting Comcast to budge a little has to be seen as a short-term victory.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BitTorrent Entering The CDN Space?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:03:00 PDT

BitTorrent has often received a bad reputation for being associated with "piracy," when it's simply a system for more efficiently distributing online content. If you blame BitTorrent for piracy, it's like blaming FTP or Usenet for piracy. They're certainly tools used by people sharing unauthorized content, but they're hardly limited just to that sector. That's why it's a little silly for the folks at Internet News to suddenly declare that "BitTorrent Goes Legit with Content Delivery Service." BitTorrent, itself, has always been "legit." What's really interesting here is that the folks behind BitTorrent are actually looking to expand the usefulness of the basic BitTorrent concept by using it to enter the content delivery space.

As we noted over the summer, there's growing competition in the Content Delivery Network (CDN) space, once dominated by Akamai. The idea is to help larger content providers handle large amounts of bandwidth efficiently, traditionally by placing copies of the content at various servers around the world. This does two things: offload the bandwidth from a single source and also bring the content physically closer to different areas, thus decreasing some of the latency issues. Of course, BitTorrent can do both of those things in potentially a much more efficient manner, by using the excess of bandwidth of all different people to simply handle small parts of the transfer. While BitTorrent tries to position its offering as something that can work with the CDN's of the world, if it really works well, it could effectively obliterate the need for a traditional CDN. If you thought that the traditional competition in the space was obliterating profits, having something like BitTorrent's Delivery Network Accelerator could completely upend the market. While the press may go for the sensationalistic "piracy" angle (which this has nothing to do with), if this works, it could change the basic economics for large publishers in distributing content online -- and that's quite a big deal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Turns Out The MPAA Did Get Access To TorrentSpy Execs' Email

Mike Masnick — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:27:25 PDT

The MPAA has been pushing the courts to force TorrentSpy to spy on its users -- something TorrentSpy refuses to do, noting that it would break their own privacy policy and is simply ethically questionable. It should come as no surprise, of course, that the MPAA has no such qualms. In fact, it came out today that the MPAA had, in fact, been snooping through TorrentSpy's executives' emails. So, which organization looks more ethically challenged? This stems from a case TorrentSpy filed last year, after finding out that a former co-worker gave the MPAA access to TorrentSpy emails. While a court has found that the MPAA's actions did not violate wiretap laws, it's still pretty questionable. What appears to have happened, is that a former TorrentSpy employee who had access to the company's email system set it up so all executives' emails also forwarded to a gmail account he owned. He then sold access to that gmail account to people at the MPAA. Clearly, the MPAA knew that the TorrentSpy execs thought these emails were private, and yet they still eagerly paid up for access to them, which is really sleazy. TorrentSpy is appealing the case, but they'd probably have a much stronger case against the former employee who set up the email forwarding system in the first place.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story