bittorrent Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Since it's inception, bit-torrent has been the bane of filmmakers, film distributors, and studio shareholders alike. The popular file-sharing protocol has tons of legitimate uses, but there's no question that one of its largest uses is the mass dissemination of copyrighted material without permission of those who own said material; AKA movie piracy. However, a new service called VODO is planning on turning the worst aspect of peer-to-peer downloading into an advantageous new release platform for independent filmmakers.

The project, created by one of the gentlemen behind the movie piracy documentary Steal This Film, functions as an intermediary between downloaders and content creators and works a little something like this: A filmmaker interested in giving out his film for free submits their labor of love to VODO. A jury then approves the film for distribution, at which point it ends up on the VODO homepage as a bit-torrent download which can then be shared freely by users all over the world. Should a downloader enjoy a film and then want to support it, they can go back to the website which works as a portal directly to the filmmaker, be it to make a donation or ask for permission to show the film commercially.

If you like watching movies on your computer, you now have another option for buying legal downloads: BitTorrent. The company, which was once notorious as an outlet for downloading illegal content, just launched BitTorrent Entertainment Network. The peer-to-peer network will offer legal downloads of movies and TV shows from the following major studios: Twentieth Century Fox, Warner, Lionsgate, Paramount/MTV and MGM. BitTorrent faces competition from Amazon, Apple through iTunes and the recently launched Wal-Mart download service. Amazon and Wal-Mart currently offer downloads from the same studios as BitTorrent, plus both have Sony/Universal and Wal-Mart has Disney; iTunes offers only Disney and Paramount entertainment.

BitTorrent Entertainment Network is offering limited-time downloads for movies ranging from $2.99 - $3.99, which is comparable to video-store rentals. You don't own the download permanently, though -- apparently the studios wanted to charge more money for buying downloads than BitTorrent felt was reasonable. And it's Windows only, with DRM protection and requiring Windows Media Player, so Mac and Linux users are left out in the cold. The company is betting that online viewers would rather pay for high-quality downloads than illegally obtain crummy bootlegs for free. I'm a little skeptical, myself -- I'd pay the $3.99 because I'm a big chicken about illegal downloading, but I suspect I'm not a typical BitTorrent user. What do you think?

The movie studios sued Valence Media in February claiming that the company's TorrentSpy website aids in the pirating of movies online. As it goes with any file-sharing network or service, TorrentSpy isn't so much accused of encouraging or permitting pirates but of helping them by way of turning a blind eye. Valence tried to dismiss the suit in March, but the motion was denied. However, Hollywood might be satisfied if TorrentSpy simply ceased indexing pirated files and barred individuals who are guilty of regularly sharing illegal materials.

Well, now Valence Media has launched a counter-attack. The company sued the MPAA on Wednesday for hiring a hacker to obtain information from Valence's computers. The hacker, who is claimed to have been paid $15,000, broke in and collected a large amount of evidence to use against Valence in the original suit (it is unclear from the AP story if the hack was done before or after the original suit was filed). The MPAA is denying the accusations and the hacker has not been identified in the lawsuit, but it was stated that the Hollywood trade group only guaranteed the payment if the information they received was useful.

My guess is that the hacker was not actually paid and so he anonymously ratted the MPAA out to Valence. Whatever the specifics, though, one thing is obvious: The MPAA is a very hypocritical organization if the allegations are true. Can we please just get rid of Dan Glickman and the rest of them? They should be paying more attention to the quality of their industry's product these days than spending so much money on the fight against piracy. I don't mean that I support the criminals, really, but it has to be clear to Glickman now that for every pirate or piracy aid they put away or shut down, new ones pop up in their place. I'm sure there must be more important issues that Hollywood should be concerned with these days.

According to yesterday's press releases, the next step in the increasingly warm relationship between BitTorrent and major movie studios (things got better last fall when BitTorrent agreed to take down links to films offered for illegal download) is here: starting sometime this summer, Warner Brothers will offer both TV shows and movies for download via BitTorrent. In a statement that reflects a surprisingly clear-eyed understand of the possible effects of such a move, Kevin Tsujihara, president of WB Home Entertainment, made it clear that the company doesn't see the agreement as something that will end illegal downloading. (Good thinking, guys.) Said Tsujihara, "If we can convert [five], 10, 15 percent of the peer-to-peer users that have been obtaining our product from illegitimate sources to becoming legitimate buyers of our product, that has the potential of a huge impact on our industry and our economics."

As you might expect, however, there are details aplenty to piss off even those who like the concept, starting with the fact that, though the files will be burnable onto DVD, the resulting discs will be unplayable on all but the computer that did the initial download. Additionally, movies are likely to cost about the same as they would on DVD -- but, one assumes, without the online discounts that are offered by virtually every store these days.

BitTorrent users, what do you think? Are you interested? Could the launch of this system really be a major change in the way films are (legally) distributed, or is it just more evidence that Hollywood doesn't get it?

[via Digg]

Though Amazon reps are still refusing to comment, the unending rumors about their involvement in a possible rival to iTunes turned into news yesterday, when Reuters reported that the company is "in advanced talks with several major Hollywood studios about creating a service that allows consumers to download and copy movies and television programs." The understanding is that the studios involved are Universal, Paramount, and Warner Brothers, and that all three are "enthusiastic" about an agreement, which could come soon. That said, however, it's by no means a done deal.

While the news of a major tech company jumping (maybe) into the movie downloading business would be noteworthy on its own, the fact that the company is Amazon - a retailer of frightening ubiquity - gives the report a completely different scope. Instead of just tech savvy kids doing the downloading (like they do now), Amazon offering the service creates the possibility of middle-American grandparents one-clicking their ways to laptops full of movies. While I'm not sure if this is cool or depressing, it's an image of undeniable power, and yet another sign of how much tech has changed the film industry over the past 10-15 years.

Sure, Hollywood is doing cartwheels trying to stop piracy of movies, shutting down certain internet sites and fining those who help piracy live on, but you can still download movies legally, and for free! That is, movies that are now in the public domain and freely available to redistribute. Public Domain Torrents has some pretty cool titles, such as Metropolis and Night of the Living Dead, while you can also choose to visit the Internet Archive: Feature Films site to browse a few more, like Nosferatu and Dressed To Kill. Not too shabby at all.

[via Lifehacker]