P2P File Sharing Going Legit (or not?)
P2P filesharing has been under assult since the days of Napster, but has rarely been embraced for good by a major company. Most recently, the sheer and massive popularity of sharing files based on the Bittorrent file protocol has garnered a lot of legal attention from the folks at the MPAA and RIAA. But now we are seeing two emerging trends, an ISP is harnessing the power of bittorrent for legitimate delivery of files, and a new bittorrent adaptation that removes the trackers that proved to be the Achilles heel of bittorrent usage which the MPAA exploited so successfully. These trends are pointing towards possible embrace by mainstream companies for this very useful technology. And at the same time, we are hoping that a band of "technophobe piracy freaks" doesn’t squash such technologies in their infancy. For more on the power of Bittorrent and it’s huge impact on video downloads, read a great article (pdf) from none other than Kevin Werbach, a professor at The Wharton School. What’s Bittorrent? Read below…
Bittorrent shoots down the arguments that today’s broadband connections are too slow for downloading movies and that it’s a painful experience for most broadband users, hence, we (the movie studios & content owners) shouldn’t think about offering a on-demand movie service via the web for the next dozen years. Bittorrent basically creates an instant peer2peer network among people who have a particular file and those who are in the process of downloading it. Then, the file is split into chunks and shared instantly among the peers. This has several advantages over typical linear download networks. First, the files don’t need to be completed to be shared, this increases propagation rapidly and also increases bandwidth for downloads. Second, bandwidth is shared by all peers and not just the original poster of the files; this saves costs to companies with large distros (linux, microsoft patches, movies, etc). Third, the files are protected with a hash check preventing insertion of dummy data (like the RIAA used to do on Kazaa) and bad chunks are re-downloaded. Since everyone is downloading and uploading at the same time, you can be technically accused of distributing pirated content if this happens. All bittorrent downloads rely on a small torrent file that describes the content to be downloaded and a tracking website that keeps an eye on available copies among current or available downloaders. So, if you thought downloading movies, linux or personal videos is a pain with huge costs, then you are stuck in the 90s.
January 26th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Fascinating stuff Vele, and thanks for posting Prof. Werbach’s article. I do take issue with a couple of items though.
#1 - I agree that BitTorrent’s reliance on trackers is certainly an achilles heel for operators of pirate torrent sites. But the MPAA’s apparent victory in wiping out SuprNova.org and other similar sites is an empty victory. It hasn’t even put a dent into piracy. If anyone doubts that, look at the numbers of seeders/downloaders on LokiTorrent.com or Torrentz.com which have picked up where Suprnova left off. The MPAA won’t win the piracy war, and I think they know that, but they will buy themselves time like the record labels did. Stepping back, I find it ironic that it’s really the “bad guys” (pirates) that are driving innovation. Movie studios, cable operators, and music labels alike have their users begging for a different model and, IMHO, deserve every bit of hardship they suffer with piracy (which is actually much less hardship than they would have the public and the artists believe). From an economic standpoint, the labels and movie studios aren’t as concerned about piracy as they are the loss of distribution control. In this era, once a successful artist or director has developed a brand of his own, there is less need to rely on the studio (which historically provided value through physical distribution and sales/marketing). If I am U2, why should I be giving 80% of the CD revenue to middlemen? The reason the studios/labels make a stink about piracy (and sue their customers) is to intimidate the artists/production companies to play up the value of their legal enforcement capabilities. In essence, they’re saying “You don’t want to go out on your own… piracy will engulf your profits and you don’t have the resources to sue. We do. That’s why you need us.”
Ironically, the force of video piracy (and not the powerful media corporations) is what is pushing innovation and preparing the world for video on demand. Make no mistake, illegal is illegal, but consumers win in the end. I don’t think iTunes and iPods would be more than a niche today if it weren’t for Napster and Kazaa preparing the way.
#2 - That being said, I don’t think video piracy will have as steep a curve or as high an adoption rate as music had. Yes, fatter pipes may make the “cost” (in terms of waiting hours/days for a sub-DVD quality movie) lower, and that will make video piracy more attractive. But there is still a fundamental difference between video and music. First of all, you listen to music over and over. And over. Generally, you rent/see a movie once, maybe twice. The attraction of owning a film for the mass market is just not as high as owning music. Second of all, movies are more of a social experience wheras music is an individual experience. The prospect of getting together with friends or family on the weekend and huddling around a computer waiting for a movie to download is just not going to happen. Third, the vast majority of people don’t want to watch a movie on a computer. This represents an additional “cost” of piracy. You either watch it (alone) on your computer, or you burn it to a DVD. But again, the likelihood that the mass market will go to the trouble to do all of this and burn a DVD for *one viewing* of a movie is just not as likely as it was with music.
January 27th, 2005 at 12:37 am
Ryan, excellent follow-up. I totally agree with #1. Buying time is the game for the movie studios because they haven’t changed their mindset from defending a channel to exploiting the technologies for new business. Hollywood’s new basket to bet all their eggs is HD-DVDs. We’ll see if this proves the catalyst to bring pc-tv integration, or a flop with the backlash of DRM and another assault on p2p tech. It just provides more fodder for incredible innovation in p2p file sharing.
On #2, I agree with the fundamental differences in the usage scenarios, but I’m not sure it’s as dire (rather safe) as you think; it’s not Napster-like, but it’s no pick-nick either. Movies maybe social in enjoyment, but searching and downloading movies doesn’t have to be and herein lies the problem. In fact, the obstacles you are mentioning are really technology obstacles: faster pipes, faster DVD burning (intermediate solution), poor PC-TV connectivity, etc. Many of these are addressed as we speak, some by tech companies (media center PC, play@tv, roku), some by programmers. Just 2 years ago I had no faith in movie downloading, but today a linux distribution of 700MB takes a couple of hours to download on an ordinary 3mpbs comcast connection using bittorrent. This is a typical size of a movie file on movielink.com and cinemanow.com. Mass adoption may be an enabler-device away.
This should be an exciting discussion on the upcoming Digital Media panel at the Wharton Tech Conference on 2/25/05
January 27th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Great points. On #2 again, I think you’re probably right that mass adoption may be an enabler-device away. My guess would be that, with video on demand rolling out at the end of this year and intensified competition in the DVD rental market, there won’t be enough time for piracy to reach Kazaa-era proportions for video. I think we’ve seen that piracy will likely never go away, but much of the mass market can be steered away if media companies have a combined legal strategy and suitable innovation speed (neither by itself is enough). I’m just thinking the movie studios will ultimately not have as rough a go as the record labels did. My 2c anyways.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:41 am
Yo Ryan
” Third, the vast majority of people don’t want to watch a movie on a computer. This represents an additional “cost” of piracy.”
First - One can dl movies in DivX format (.AVI) - which compresses an average movie to around 700Mb. A dl of such a file with a Bittorrent client and a broadband connection would take an hour or so.
Secondly
Today it’s no problem to connect a PC to a TV
The new generation of (external) DVD players is capable of playing Divx files.
There are also cheap harddisk devices on the market like LaCie Silverscreen (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10481) to which you can copy movie- and/or music files from your PC and thereafter connect the device to a TV or an audio player. The harddisk contains software with which you can run any kind of media file you like -
A third option is the new Lama box (http://www.lamabox.nl/) a device which can be connected directly to various P2P networks AND the TV simultaniously
Creativety seems endless - poor RIAA and MPAA - *lol*