The First HD DVD Movie Hits BitTorrent 537
Ars Technica reports that the first HD DVD movie has made its way onto BitTorrent, showing that current DRM efforts to prevent illegal sharing of copyrighted content are still futile and fighting an uphill battle. From the article: "The pirates of the world have fired another salvo in their ongoing war with copy protection schemes with the first release of the first full-resolution rip of an HD DVD movie on BitTorrent. The movie, Serenity, was made available as a .EVO file and is playable on most DVD playback software packages such as PowerDVD. The file was encoded in MPEG-4 VC-1 and the resulting file size was a hefty 19.6 GB."
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, there are always more insecure computers to use as temporary storage. Maybe they'll come up with a distributed storage system where the pirated file is split up over 10-20 machines.
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:2, Interesting)
Price of HD players (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Best copy protection? just don't sell anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:3, Interesting)
The CD was safe until we started to accumulate several Gigabytes of storage space. Noone was going to distribute CDs when a single CD would occupy at least a third of the entire drive, not to mention the fact that every measly Megabyte travels at least one minute via Modem.
The latter again was true for the DVD, which was safe until more storage, bigger bandwidth, and also enough CPU power to en- and decode the rips was there: Here, I'd say, one driving factor also was that people were pissed with region codes and CSS, some of them seeing copying/distributing as a way to express their feelings towards such methods.
Now with the HD-DVD we had the storage, we had the bandwidth (what are 19GB these days of flat rates...), and it was *all* about the sports, i.e. how and when the encryption will be at least circumvented. (Still needs to be broken, but then, it's broken by design -- I severely doubt that consumers will tolerate key revocations for standalone players.)
Re:Best copy protection? just don't post anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Why bother? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hollywood is spending billions on DRMs while the pirates are spending just tens of thousands of dollars on figuring out ways to crack the next DRM.
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:5, Interesting)
On 768Kbps DSL, it would take 57 Hours (2.375096451 Days).
On 3Mbps DSL/Cable, it would take 14.59 Hours.
On 5Mbps Cable, it would take 8.755 Hours.
On 30Mbps FTTP, it would take 1.45 Hours.
On a T3 (45 Mbps), it would take 58.7 Minutes.
On a OC-3 (155 Mbps), it would take 16.9 Minutes.
And finally, on an OC-768, it would take 3.94 Seconds.
That last one is 40Gbps....sweet.
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:1, Interesting)
100 HD-DVD movies at $20 each = 2000 dollars.
A quick look says that newegg has 500 gig drives for $144. If each movie is 20 gigs, then you'd need 4 of those drives to store each movie, which comes out to 576 dollars. Assume you can compress each HD movie a bit more, and you can drop the price some more.
The problem is bandwidth. Even with bittorrent, it takes way too long to D/L 20 gigs.
Honestly, the bigger problem for the studios is people taking those 20 gig files and compressing them down more to get better quality rips than from standard DVDs -- especially in a few years from now when we have better compression algorithms utilizing faster processors. (Just like we have now: DVD compressed with MPEG-2 ripped and compressed with MPEG-4 produces decent results)
Re:Yo. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We win (Score:1, Interesting)
Ok there I bit...
There is no such constitutional right... (Score:3, Interesting)
The right to make backups applies specifically to computer software and evolved contemporaneously.
The closest you have as to a right to space-shift is the 1999 judgement in the Rio case that "such copying is a paradigmatic noncommercial personal use." Again, I don't disagree that it should be allowed, but it's not exactly a constitutional right.
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Link? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:4, Interesting)
And that you can go to vcdquality.com to check things out before you download, right?
And that you can download one rar file, check the "keep broken files" box (or append the appropriate flag in Linux), and play it in VLC before you download the whole thing?
Just checking.
Redunant: I won't be downloading anytime soon (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We win [not] (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that without smoothly getting movies into distribution, the movies won't make nearly as much money. The people making the movies have zero interest, in most cases, in actually dealing with theatre chains, HBO, Apple, NetFlix, etc... they want to make movies. The people who provide them with big hunks of probably-going-to-be-lost cash to make the films in the first place only do so because they understand (and have relationships with) the distribution end of the cycle. Of course there are smaller production people who put together self-financed indy films that succeed... but those are rare, and the people that make them are usually very quick to get right on with bigger-budget work that's financed, again, by the sales side of the industry.
You're right that the MPAA isn't a guild of camera operators, or a society of screenwriters. But the people who derive their livings from the making of movies that only make money through sales/distribution by entities that ARE the MPAA's members... they all know that if the studios and all of the other components can't make up for their usual losses with the occasional financial success, then no one in that entier food chain has a job. Writers, accountants, actors, lighting techs, wireframe animators - none of them. MPAA isn't their "voice" per se, but the parts of the business that actually collect the cash that pays all of these people are part of the MPAA - just like the other sub-professions have their own associations.
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:3, Interesting)
That does not explain why you then put the rars in a torrent.
Re:Yo. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, before you say that i'm being hypocritical, let me explain:
The digital distribution era has made the old way of doing things obsolete. As you said, for a couple of grand, someone can setup a recording studio and put together a pretty decent album. The problem starts with the record companies.
The record companies sign the artists, front the very large amount of money it takes (under the old system) to record an album , and promotes and distributes the album. The contracts that the artists sign say that the artist gets so much money per album sold...usually around a dollar...only problem is that most of those contracts also stipulate that the artist doesn't see a dime until their $1 per album that they are supposed to get has paid for every single cost that the record company has incurred...from the recording, to the promotion, to the packaging and distribution...from what i've read, except for the HUGE pop artists, most artists would be lucky to see $100k from an album from the record sales...and how many artists release more than a couple of albums? Very few.
Under the old distribution system, the exchange was pretty simple: The artist gave the record company the rights to sell their album in exchange for the promotion. The record companies had a monopoly on the distribution channels...If you were an artist, you didn't get any publicity unless you went to a record company. So the artist got their name out there, and then they were free to exploit that publicity...in the form of concerts, merchandise, public appearances, endorsements, etc...which almost every artist does in one form or another since they make very little, if anything at all, from the sales of their albums.
Okay...now flash forward to today...the internet has sparked self distribution...Now for a couple of thousand dollars, someone can setup a website, produce their own album, and get free publicity on the internet by GIVING away the music. Oh, by the way, if you like the music, buy our CD direct from the source, or get a t-shirt, bumper sticker, poster, or come see us perform!
So...you may now ask what's the difference between the music and movie industries: It's simple...obsolescence. As you've said...you can produce a pretty professional album with a few thousand dollars, and enough time and dedication to make it work...assuming your music is good. Suddenly there is no need for all those people to be working on an album. The times in the music industry have changed...it's time for them to find a new line of work...these modern day candle stick makers are being put out of business by today's light bulb.
When you compare it to the movie industry: It's just not possible to produce a feature length film with only a few thousand dollars...even Memento, which was a great indie film with practically zero special effects and all using no name (at the time) actors cost $9 million...according to wikipedia.
So...lets compare: Cost to produce a low budget album: $5,000. Cost to produce a low budget movie: $9,000,000...cost difference: 1,800%. Cost of album on iTunes: $10. Cost of movie on iTunes: $10-$15. Cost difference: 0%-50%. Something just doesn't add up here.
So, the way I see it: I support the artists/actors, and the people who are truly needed to produce a work. All you need to produce an album is the artists time, and a few thousand dollars in costs to get it recorded...Artists can (and have) distribute/promote their music free over the internet, myspace, etc. They can sell their songs on iTunes using that indie music label (can't think of their name right now). They can use companies like cafe press, or even just have merchandise printed and sell directly using paypal and a $20/mo web hosting account.
The point: Artist can (and have) produce, distribute, and prom
Slashdot: An even slower news source then wikipedi (Score:2, Interesting)
The HD_DVD rip was released on saturday.
The HD_DVD article on wikipedia was updated sunday or monday with the information.
18:26 Jan 16 2007 - I (and hundreds of others) finish downloading the rip.
18:55 Jan 16 2007 - Slashdot finally catches on.
"proof", when you finally get it:
97a2cd952c4e6cd4baebb4da08fbcbfb FEATURE_1.EVO
Serenity's a great movie, but sadly incompatable with my display. Now the problem has been rectified! Thanks, internet.
Re:We win [not] (Score:1, Interesting)
Now that I think of it, the MPAA doesn't actually serve as part of the distribution chain per se, they're simply a lobbying organization that does it's best to maximize profit at the expense of both the creative people and consumer.
I guess that's called "adding value", but since it comes at my expense (on both sides), you'll excuse me if I look on the MPAA with somewhat less reverence than you.
Re:The size will be the limiting factor not DRM. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:We win [not] (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh huh. It's called "an economy." The guy that changes the oil in the car that a set lighting technician drives to work doesn't directly "add to the creative process" either. Nor does the person who grows the food that tech eats. But you don't get well-made, expensive, technically fantastic work without an economy of specialists. If you really think that the lighting technician should be equally concerned with (or would be any good at) raising the money needed to keep a staff of several hundred people working, fed, insured, and in a studio with paid electric bills and working equipment, then you are wildly, spectacularly out of touch. Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? Do you do everything that goes towards the production of what it is that pays your way through life? Or do you specialize, so that you can be better and more efficient at things at which you excel?