Warner Bros. to team with BitTorrent for movie sales

It looks like BitTorrent has really cleaned up its act ever since it bowed to movie studio wishes and swore to remove pirated content from its search last year. Not only have they managed to send plenty of downloaders elsewhere, but have gotten friendly enough with Warner Bros. to start distributing movies and TV shows via the BitTorrent tech in the US. (Disclaimer: Engadget's parent's parent company is Time Warner, the parent company of Warner Bros. Entertainment.) Just like old Napster vs new Napster, this isn't your father's BitTorrent movie download, since the files will be saddled with BitTorrent's very own DRM tech that won't let you copy the file around, or burn it as a DVD. Luckily, Warner Bros. is claiming that they'll be offering content on the day of its retail availability. On the flip side, it sounds like pricing for TV shows will be similar to that of Apple and Google (though the Reuters mentions $1 per episode, so maybe there is hope for a BitTorrent discount), and DVDs will match retail prices. Seems kind of lame considering the fact that you're saving them bandwidth costs, and obtaining a file that you have less rights to than a traditional disc, but dems the breaks. The service should go live this summer, and provide around 200 titles at launch, including "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" and "Babylon 5." BitTorrent says they're also in talks with other studios, but that's all they'll say about that for now.

[x23 @ May 9th 2006 5:41AM]

hmmm... so it's like this basically:

Napster : Napster 2.0 :: BitTorrent : whatever the hell this is.

[matt @ May 9th 2006 5:55AM]

noone will want to seed a paid for movie, unless they get something free in return

[Simon Betty @ May 9th 2006 6:15AM]

Hmmmmmm not being funny but whom is going to pay for a movie when they can get it for free? they will most be be able to get it free from BitTorrent anyway, seams pointless to me.

[debbi8 @ May 9th 2006 6:16AM]

Too little, too late. TV tuner cards + ability to encode on the fly to a variety of output options has pretty much rendered this whole business of TV show/Old movie downloads for scads of cash almost useless. When they realize that people might pay a movie ticket price (no more!) for a first run movie that can be sent to 1 PC and 1 mobile device, then they may finally be catching on to this whole "internet" thing! I for one wouldn't be adverse to the idea that, if done correctly, paying for new movies that dont usually get the huge buildup of the megalo-hits that appeal to smaller audiences. I already pay $140.00 a month for my cable, when is enough enough?

[rhys @ May 9th 2006 6:43AM]

@ Number 3, Simon:

There are a lot of people using services like iTunes to download music when they could be getting it for free from filesharing networks.

[furtim @ May 9th 2006 6:48AM]

It's a start, anyway. I'm just glad that these companies are finally seeing the potential of online distrobution rather than attempting to squash technological development by banning outright anything that allows file-sharing.

The other stuff, like the pricing, will probably come around to sane levels later.

[Simon Betty @ May 9th 2006 6:54AM]

rhys - i understand what you are saying but if you campire the amount of downloads from iTunes (payed for) to the ones from people using p2p networks then its not a snif on it really. It will ahve a good market i agree but not that much that everytone will turn to it.

[Trumad @ May 9th 2006 8:16AM]

It won't take off. If you can't burn what you buy onto DVD then what's the point? Illegal filesharing and podcasting took off because the files are yours to do what you like with. Even though both are done by amateurs, both are a roaring success.

Even though this new, legal use of bittorrent is supported by a professional company, the quality of the downloads you get is in no way offset by the fact that they control what you can do with it even once you've bought it.

[Mike @ May 9th 2006 8:16AM]

WTF? How come BitTorrent can get pressured by movie studios for allowing users to transfer "movies" but Apple can use the "data" plea to win lawsuits.

It's all unfair and biased towards big business.

Hollywood sucks and is full of pussies. Its the only way they can make money cuz we all know there is nothing fresh coming out of Hollywood.

[citykids @ May 9th 2006 8:39AM]

Trumad,
if I heard correctly, I think you can burn a copy to a DVD, but they will apply some kind of protection that only allows use on the same PC that was used to burn it. How long will it take for somebody to break this? I'm guessing a month!

[Oddmanout @ May 9th 2006 9:11AM]

"...they will apply some kind of protection that only allows use on the same PC that was used to burn it. How long will it take for somebody to break this? I'm guessing a month!"

I'm pretty sure you can already vid-cap such a video stream to a file if your machine's got the guts (and since I used to do it on my old Athlon 1.2ghz [with legally purchased content mind you] I think most machines today could handle it). There was/is of course some degredation in quality, but as pointed out above, like as not the movie sucks anyway...

[MTigerV @ May 9th 2006 9:40AM]

Anyone else notice the "Worlds first HDTV show for the Internet" ad? That title belongs to MacBreak, which is currently avalible in HIGHER resolutions that what BT is pushing

[Kai Cherry @ May 9th 2006 9:49AM]

"Peer Impact has a patent on its incentive scheme..."

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read in a week. You're tellng me someone thinks they have an *enforcable patent* of Upload Ratios?

Bwahaahahaha....thats HILARIOUS :)

"Good Luck with THAT!"

-K

[Matt H @ May 9th 2006 10:35AM]

They have a patent on Incentive schemes that use p2p technology not upload ratios and Peer Impacts p2p technology was around before Bittorent with Furthernet and Packet Chain Protocol.

Abstract of WO2005038617
Methods and computer systems for increasing the revenue stream from a work made available in digital form are provided. The methods and systems of the invention are particularly useful for musical, video, interactive game files, and artistic or commercial works that can be digitally copied and transferred or distributed, such as via the Internet. Embodiments of the present invention advantageously can form part of a greater system that provides access to digital forms of numerous works or groups of works, such as those that are copyrighted, to thereby extend the revenue-producing capabilities for the copyright holder of digital or digitized works to bona fide purchasers of those works. In turn, bona fide purchasers of a work who later provide copies of that work or other authorized works, or provide transfer or distribution bandwidth with respect to that work or other authorized works may receive incentives. Advantageously, no central warehouse of digital content is necessary with the present methods, and users may introduce authorized content into the present system in a controlled manner, through peer-to-peer systems, while realizing economic incentives for doing so. The present systems and methods also provide a myriad of embodiments of incentive and apportioning payment schedules, configurations and properties

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2005038617&F=0

[rjlawrencejr @ May 9th 2006 12:21PM]

#9 Mike, I am not sure I understand what you are arguing. How does yesterday's decision involving Apple have anything at all to do with what is being discussed here?

While I don't always agree with the gatekeeping actions of Hollywood and have downloaded a couple of shows I couldn't get otherwise, let's be clear and agree that however you want to categorize what is being downloaded, the studio does own the bits and they are within their rights to expect some form of payment.

If you are going to rant, at least make sure it is relevant.

[S.A. @ May 9th 2006 5:14PM]

How is this gonna work. Who's going to keep seeding a movie that they had to pay for?

[starwxrwx @ May 10th 2006 1:09AM]

How will the DRM be applied if you share the file?