ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years, 8 months ago - Alève Mine

When there is need to say out of the blue that something is not bad for somebody, it may mean that it is in fact not the case. (That it is not bad.) I would have an objection then present a solution but I don't have any. (Of the latter.)

10 years, 8 months ago - Andrew Morgan

The problem with BitTorrent is that it's not integrated with the browser (apart from Opera) and it's not integrated with the browser because of its association with piracy (and also because generally it's not as simple as click on a link and download) - some ISPs also throttle BT downloads making it an unreliable option for streaming/downloads.

The potential is definitely there for something like this to work but there's a lot of hurdles to getting the 'average' user legitimately torrenting your film. And of course, the bulk of users with BitTorrent already installed aren't likely to pay for your film anyway.

I'm considering using GoG.com for some of my film projects - they're mostly a gaming site (for now) but they also sell independent films without any form of DRM and that appeals to me.

10 years, 8 months ago - Karel Bata

So first they have to change their name...? LOL

Try this http://nofilmschool.com/2015/11/creators-will-make-90-sales-bittorrent-bundles-paygates

10 years, 8 months ago - Lauris Beinerts

Paddy, try this: https://www.readability.com/articles/89obepwg (it may work, sorry if not)

But you got it spot on - BitTorrent is a platform for exchanging information (the best at it), in itself it is neither good, nor bad for artists.

10 years, 8 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

BitTorrent is entirely agnostic about the traffic it shares, you couldn't describe HTTP as being either good or bad for artists either. That's rather my point, this is not bringing anything significant to the party. It's a bottle of Spar own-brand sparkling diet cola flavour drink.

Why isn't it bad? Well, movies are traded illegitimately using the same protocol, as it's not a bad protocol for doing mass distribution - in fact it's so good many Linux releases use it and all major broadcasters have experimented with variants of it. Seeing as not all illegit users want to be illegit, this provides a low cost* way to get their contribution.

*Low cost... The only reason 10% is a relative bargain is the abusive gouging by Apple and Google for iTunes and similar. They'll slice off 30% and not even say thanks. They effectively monopolise the market. This is a good way to challenge that monopoly in theory - there aren't any direct distribution costs, however major releases will be so stitched up with favoured nations or worse clauses, I suspect blockbusters will not appear early on at least. Also, will they have the promotional budget of Apple, and will the packets even be allowed to flow with so many firewalls blocking by default after a decade of abuse?

10 years, 8 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Heh heh my internet provider (through my office landlord's corporate network ISP) personifies one of the biggest problems - the word BitTorrent appears in the URL, so it's blocked by their idiotic firewall! So I can't read the article, although I've seen what I understand are similar schemes in the past.

There's another problem - BitTorrent is a delivery platform (a very good one for distributing network load), and nothing else. It's peer-to-peer youtube, if you like. The problem film makers have isn't spinning bits off of a disc over a network (I can point you towards various CDN's designed for just this - even on PAYG pricing), it's 1) finding an audience who'll 2) pay for a 3) halfway decent film. Whether delivery costs the distributor 5 or 20 cents isn't the obstacle, it's 1), 2) and 3)!

Now I may have got the entirely wrong end of the stick because I can't read the article, but if I'm halfway close then that's my 2p! Or if I've missed it entirely... well there's the first problem embodied ;-)

10 years, 8 months ago - Peter Ward

I'm sure ISPs will do all they can to throttle BT if they can detect it (where VPN or other SSL tunnelling methods come in); and, to be fair, it is bandwidth-intensive because of the overhead incurred from constantly jumping between download sources. But any threats to established distro channels are a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Plus, the more affordable and accessible content is the less likely people are to pirate and the better chance independent production has.

10 years, 8 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

^^^ and again, bittorrent in the URL, automatically blocked by idiotic corporate firewall.