Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media The Internet

NBC To Offer On-Demand Movies Via P2P 173

Posted by Zonk from the getting-closer dept.
RX8 writes "NBC Universal has signed a deal with Wurld Media to make some of their movies available for download via a secure P2P network in 2006. There hasn't been a price released yet, but the movies include what you would get on their existing video-on-demand and pay services plus around 100 older movie titles. Once the material is downloaded, users can only view it for up to 24 hours before it expires."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NBC To Offer On-Demand Movies Via P2P More

NBC To Offer On-Demand Movies Via P2P

Comments Filter:

  • 24 hours? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `todhsals.nnamredyps'> on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:44PM (#14065969) Homepage Journal
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    Oh no, my Slashdot P2P trial has expired! :( HELP!!!!

    • Re:24 hours? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by im_mac ( 927998 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:28PM (#14066384)
      Users will be able to view the material for 24 hours once they begin playback on their computers; once downloaded, the material will be stored on the user's computer for 30 days to act as a resource in the Peer Impact network

      Let me get this straight. I can only watch it for 24 hours but it'll remain on my harddrive for 30 days, 29 of which it is inaccessible to me? Sounds like I should be charging NBC a rental fee.

  • Movies available on P2P (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrtroy ( 640746 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:45PM (#14065974)
    NBC...I have a phone call for you.

    The year 2000 is calling, and wants its idea back.

    • Re:Movies available on P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

      by paranode ( 671698 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:50PM (#14066028)
      No kidding. I don't think these execs really get it. P2P got huge because the downloaders were getting stuff for free. I mean it's good that they are tapping the resource and at least attempting to do something 'modern', but if I'm going to pay money I want real on-demand... not getting on their P2P network and waiting to download the whole thing from peers. I guess you might be able to get it faster than a subscription service like Netflix (considering mail time), but then again you don't have a DVD, you have a video file which you have to play on a computer (or output to your TV if you have that setup).

      Plus the 24 hour thing. What if I can't watch it right away? I would be mad if it expired after 24 hours. I hate DRM but if they are going to use it they should at least protect it in such a way that you can wait to view it or even watch it multiple times on the same computer.

    • 5 minutes ago called. They want their cliched joke back.
  • I'll take "The Odyssey" and "CHiPs Reunion"
  • Must see internet!! Dong...Ding...Dong

  • Note to MPAA and RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:46PM (#14065986)
    If it expires, I won't be buying it.

    Entertainment is to be done at my leisure. I choose the terms, not you.

    Simple as that.

    • Re:Note to MPAA and RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Matt Ownby ( 158633 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:52PM (#14066044) Homepage Journal
      Actually, I believe the MPAA/RIAA and you _agree_ to terms.

      I agree with your point, though... having downloadable content expire is quite lame.

      I can go to McDonalds and rent a new DVD for $1 for a 24-hour time period. Why would I want to download a movie (which would undoubtedly be lower quality than a DVD) for more than $1 (which is what I assume they'd charge) ? I mean, what is the advantage here? Are they new movies that are out in theaters? Because if you can just get them on DVD, where is the value?
      • Why would I want to download a movie (which would undoubtedly be lower quality than a DVD) for more than $1 (which is what I assume they'd charge) ? I mean, what is the advantage here?

        Well, they could actually release movies in HD format which would be twice the resolution as DVD, which is 480p. It would be several years before most people have the equipment to play HD content, even if we can decide on Bluray versus HD-DVD. My guess is that neither format will be anything like as successful as DVD and tha
        • I agree with this sentiment. I am absolutely freaking sick of waiting for the ability to buy or watch anything on demand in HD. In my mind there is absolutely no excuse for not being able to buy the latest movie releases in HD from SOMEWHRE. The problem with DRM is not necessarily that studios want to protect their content but that they can't agree on an implementation long enough to start any kind of product development. So the consumers have to sit on their haunches for 5 years staring at their giant $500

      • Re:Note to MPAA and RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Alsee ( 515537 )
        Actually, I believe the MPAA/RIAA and you _agree_ to terms.

        Wrong. The MPAA/RIAA bribed congress to impose terms.

        The stupid stupid STUPID STUPID idea that people would somehow be criminals subject to FIVE FREAKING YEARS in prison if there were to actually PAY for the movie and then proceed to program (or download from some programmer) their own viewer software, or to program a patch (or download a patch from some programmer) to FIX the disfunctional supplied viewer software.

        My VCR will not erase a show unles
    • If it expires, I won't be buying it.

      If it needs to be returned, I won't be renting it.

      Come on. Everyone knows that it isn't true that an expiration date will keep people from paying for a movie online on-demand anymore then people will stop renting movies from Blockbuster because they have to return the DVD. There'll be millions of people who will pay for a movie that expires. Just not you. And NBC doesn't care about you, so there.

      -Brent

      • I guess DIVX [wikipedia.org] doesn't mean anything to you, then.

        <Insert pity comment about history, learning, and repetition here.>

      • Everyone knows that it isn't true..

        Well, clearly not everyone. There seems no shortage of dissenting opionion in fact,

        ...an expiration date will keep people from paying for a movie online..

        Well, some people, anyway. "All generalisations are false (including this one)".

        anymore then people will stop renting movies from Blockbuster because they have to return the DVD.

        Of course, the people who would be deterred by a rental model, probably don't rent movies from blockbuster in the first place, so

    • "Entertainment is to be done at my leisure. I choose the terms, not you."

      I wish they'd just cram a few commercials into movies and release them out in the wild. There are some movies out there that I just won't spend the $4 to rent them, but I'd tolerate the commercials.

      • Tolerate, or fast-forward though? 'Cuz you're crazy if you think advertisers will want to pay for a format that you can fast-forward through ... and even if they somehow did come up with DRM to make it like a TV (so you have to wait or leave & go the bathroom or whatever, can't just FF through), people would complain, because there'd be very little benefit over TV, and a lot lost (download time, for example).
    • And unless I am getting something for uploading, I will not be doing so. not for stuff I paid to watch.
      Maybe if I got it 30% cheaper if I had a good upload rate I would, otherwise I'd just use my slow upstream speed for something else
  • Starts of nice, then I read a horrible, horrible sentence...

    "Once the material is downloaded, users can only view it for up to 24 hours before it expires."

    What were they thinking?

  • Surprise - Too Little, Too Late (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jeff Mahoney ( 11112 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:48PM (#14066004)
    Once again, a big media company comes out with an idea so they can claim to have a legitimate path for viewers to take advantage of -- but yet still totally miss what they are actually looking for.

    Until these companies actually meet the demands of the people who are looking to download TV/Movies, unauthorized p2p networks will continue to own the market.

    • Re:Surprise - Too Little, Too Late (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MoralHazard ( 447833 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:54PM (#14066062)
      You think that the only killer feature of P2P networks is free content? My friend, you miss something, I think.

      True P2P networks offer tremendous bandwidth efficiency for the distributors of content, which is especially important when you're delivering large content (like, say movies and other media). Think of how quickly Bittorrent downloads of Linux distros took off--it made it so much easier for gazillions of people to get a brand-new release at the same time. No more waiting a week for the Debian FTP servers to be pingable again.

      Plus, the distributor saves money on bandwidth charges, since many of the users will get the content from each other instead of the central servers. Whether this in turn increases the costs of the users remains to be seen, but it probably won't affect their connectivity bills much more than using open P2P networks to get stuff on their own.

      • Re:Surprise - Too Little, Too Late (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jeff Mahoney ( 11112 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:40PM (#14066520)
        No, that's not the point of my post at all. I wasn't addressing the usefulness of a p2p network in this case - rather on the limited usefulness of the content itself.

        There are a few separate issues with how they want to roll this out, and they all revolve around DRM.

        1) The limited lifespan. Most people can deal with this, since as someone else mentioned the "On Demand" services and Blockbuster effectively limit the time you're allowed to enjoy the content.

        2) Attaching DRM to the content means there is a lack of an open standard. I can't very well write a viewer for the content myself, and any attempt to do so would result in angry lawyers contacting me. While the average user doesn't need to be able to author their own viewing application, it means that the developers who write software for operating systems other than ones from Microsoft or Apple can't either, so everyone else loses too.

        These don't seem like big issues to the average home user, but the fact is that most people who are downloading TV shows or movies now aren't average home users. Why would these users give up the freedom and functionality they have now, and pay for the privledge of doing so? This deployment isn't going to meet their demands, and thus the use of unauthorized p2p networks to distribute the content in a format more palatable for those users will continue.
      • Yeah, and think how fast it would have died if your Linux distro was no longer accessible 24 hours after you start the install, but the image file stays on your hard drive for 30 days so others can leech it.

        Yes, P2P is "bandwidth efficient" (read: "distributor doesn't have to ship every bit out through their pipe") but it will not be sustainable until there is reason for people to share. Paying for something, then having it taken away, and still having it use my precious upstream will NOT fly in my house.

  • Standard Codec ? DRM ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Yoshy ( 665711 ) <philippe@sc3.14159reenshot.ca minus pi> on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:49PM (#14066010)
    The 24 hours part is bad news, not because I'd like to keep the movies but because it means that it will only available to Windows.

  • fair is fair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:49PM (#14066018) Homepage Journal
    Once the material is downloaded, users can only view it for up to 24 hours before it expires.

    And they can only spend my money for 24h before the payment expires, ok?
  • If not, I won't use the service.

  • TITO (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:50PM (#14066024) Homepage Journal
    (white) Trash In, (tv) Trash Out

    Jerry Springer and the dating shows 5th Wheel and Blind Date

    That'll be worthwhile... They could probably offer only one episode of those shows and no one could tell.

    Anyone think they want it to fail so they could lobby Congress to DRM all TCP/IP transmissions?
  • While I'm glad they are taking some steps forward, you can be sure someone will take their DRMed torrent, pirate it, and release it on traditional torrent sites. But nonetheless, if they can find a pricepoint that works with their crippled offering, more power to em.

  • Old tech beats new tech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by johnlcallaway ( 165670 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:51PM (#14066032)
    My 20 year old Toshiba VCR is looking better and better every day. I have yet to find anything it could not record when using the analog video/audio jack feeds....
    • Shhh. They can hear you when you post here! If you think that they won't push to "outlaw" all older technology that doesn't have "safe-guards" in place, you're crazy. While they might not win that doesn't mean they won't try everything in their power, including their increasingly successful smear campaigns, to get you to turn over your contraband.
    • You can keep your 20 year-old VCR. My 4 year-old Hauppuage MPEG capture card also records anything you throw at it (ignores macrovision), and it does so in (slightly) higher quality than DVDs, without aty defects of analog, without needing to buy tapes, rewind, etc.

      The PVR-150 is down to about $60 online, putting it only slightly higher than non-MPEG capture cards, making even old slow systems perfectly capable of capturing. Of course, you can get slightly higher quality with software encoding from a non-

  • Explodes. - No, expires. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ceriel Nosforit ( 682174 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:51PM (#14066034)
    "...users can only view it for up to 24 hours before it expires."

    I was expecting to read "explodes" rather than "expires". I'm glad I was wrong.

    But now I worry that by posting this I might give them ideas.
  • Didn't they realize that such rental schemes would fail when consumers roundly rejected DIVX? Why do they keep trying to force a product we clearly don't like down our throats?
    • "Why do they keep trying to force a product we clearly don't like down our throats?"

      Yes, that's exactly what they are doing. Forcing you.

      As the market at large becomes more accepting of downloaded video material, one of these services will become profitable... NBC is hoping it's them. Plus, they already have brand accetance, so it's not some newfangled acronym for the Mom&pops out there. They're not targeting the slashdot crowd.

  • Why Movies? Do TV. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xstonedogx ( 814876 ) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:53PM (#14066050)
    Why not their television programming?

    If they posted the programming with advertisements intact, eventually they may be able to ask more for advertising, or treat it as a separate advertising space altogether. Plus, the torrents for their shows are going to be out there anyway. This way there is an official torrent that most people are going to want because: they can expect a certain level of quality and there is no risk to them. AND it also increases awareness and availability of their show.

    Heck, if they did this I might even watch some of their shows.
  • NBC can barely get folks to watch its shows for free, so now they are going to charge for a version that expires? I assume this would be more aimed at the Universal Studios titles...

  • To all the naysayers: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonnythan ( 79727 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:57PM (#14066077)
    Everyone seems to be griping about the time limit. I know it goes squarely against the DRM-hating /. masses, but not only is it valid but people will buy into it.

    They've already been doing it for years with movies On Demand, now you can do the same thing on your computer. There are time limits for On Demand and Blockbuster, now it's the limit for your authorized download.

    Big whoop. Just because it gets downloaded to your computer doesn't mean you have the right to watch it as many times as you want, as often as you want, for the rest of your life.

    Get over it already.

    • Re:To all the naysayers: (Score:4, Interesting)

      by OS24Ever ( 245667 ) * <trekkie@nomorestars.com> on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:03PM (#14066135) Homepage Journal
      And look how Blockbuster is turning out, along with their 'late fees'

      One would think with the amount of TV shows being sold on DVD that they'd think there would be a happy digital medium to this. It's OK to sell DVDs, but if it plays on a computer it must explode and go away. I don't get it, the content on my computer isn't going to be as good as a DVD unless I want to download 10GB of stuff, which I don't.

    • Re:To all the naysayers: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:35PM (#14066466) Homepage Journal
      There are time limits for On Demand and Blockbuster, now it's the limit for your authorized download. [...] Get over it already.

      People can get copies of their stuff without paying them a cent for it. Get over it already.

      No?

      Then they should stop fucking with us by imposing arbitrary and artificial annoyances such as a 24h deadline.
      You have to return the PHYSICAL media when you rent, that's why we accept that limit: We don't want others to hang on indefinatly to the stuff we want to watch, so we accept that we must return the disc/cassette so that it will be available to others, and so others do the same in order for the content to be available to us.

      But we COPY the content when we download it. It will get deleted when we're done with it, when we need the space, not when they decide they don't want us to have it anymore. Not to mention that in peer-to-peer realities, keeping the copy makes it available to others, not the other way around.

      Their DRM will be circumvented, their content will be redistributed, for free, without their stupid limit, on "pirate" p2p networks, and it will be their damn fault for being TOO GREEDY.
    • "Get over it already."

      The only thing I've gotten over is my initial excitement of their announcement.

      Right now I use NetFlix and two local video rental stores. NetFlix gives me as much time as I want and I get 3 days from the local stores. I need this flexibility as my schedule is frequently unpredictable. If I want something really fast, I have it in my VCR or DVD player within 15 minutes. More obscure stuff comes from NetFlix. Now some company tells me I can download? Great! But wait... After a lo
    • Just because it gets downloaded to your computer doesn't mean you have the right to watch it as many times as you want, as often as you want, for the rest of your life.

      FTFA: Users will be able to view the material for 24 hours once they begin playback on their computers; once downloaded, the material will be stored on the user's computer for 30 days to act as a resource in the Peer Impact network

      It's there for 30 days? Ok, fine.

      It's there for 30 days, but I can use it for just one day?
      No. Fucking. Way.
    • It's an imoral concept which should be illegal - you get over it.
    • No that is not valid, and once they choose to give me my own copy I do indeed do have the right to watch it as many times as I want as often as I want for the rest of my life.

      And don't anyone jump in with some rediculous piracy/copyright_infringment nonsense attack. None of that involves copyright infringment. I certainly didn't suggest anything like sending copies to my "10,000 closest friends".

      My computer is my property. My computer will not do ANYTHING unless I tell it to do something, just like my VCR.
  • Does this spelling of 'world' bother you as much as it does the spelling nazis?

  • When does the clock start ticking? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Morgalyn ( 605015 ) <slashmorg@gmail.com> on Friday November 18, 2005 @04:59PM (#14066095) Journal
    24 hours? Is that from the point of purchase, or the point of completed download? Because if the movie is of a quality worth paying for, that's a significant difference for a lot of users.

    Besides, that's an awfully short period of usage. Why would anyone do that versus renting the movie? It would have to be very cheap. What about the ability to pause the movie, or watch it more than once? Is this going to be like those failed one-viewing DVDs that came out a while ago?
    • It says once it's been downloaded right in the summary

      IMO, it should be 24 hours once you first begin viewing it.
      • Oh, I know it said that in the summary. I tend to not put too much faith in the summaries when it comes to the finer points, though, you know? "Once it's been downloaded" could be "once the first packet has been downloaded" or "once your receipt has been downloaded" and not necessarily "once all of the data has been downloaded and verified". I should have been more clear :)
        If they are going to enforce a 24 hour time period, I think you are right. The only decent thing to do would be to start the clock

  • Repeat of history (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:01PM (#14066114)
    So it looks like we are headed for a repeat of history, where Apple has a store with 80+% of the market and actually makes money, while everyone else wonders why the hell consumers are unhappy with a video solution that is worse than VHS.

    Since the movie/TV industry had years and years to learn the lesson, it's especially odd that they seek marginalization with such ferver.
  • ...except for the fact that downloading takes an unknown amount of time. It's like a pay-per-view, except you don't know when you'll receive the movie.
  • Evidently this 24-hour deal will employ some form of DRM. And when I think DRM, a few things come to mind:
    1) Non-free format
    2) Won't work with Linux

    So, I'll just continue to use zip.ca, or, *gasp* physically *go* to the *video store*!

    • Look, I'm a GNU/Linux fanboy myself, but this is a market driven company.

      1. We want it to catch on fast, so we need low prices -> use P2P to save bandwith expenditures
      2. It should not bring the pricing of the other forms to get the content out of balance -> limit view time to have it compete with the rental market
      3. Hmm, this all needs DRM? I see, Windows users are the most widespread -> forget the other OS's, the Windows market is enough to render it profitable

      These companies are not charities, and

  • movies include what you would get on their existing video-on-demand and pay services plus around 100 older movie titles. Once the material is downloaded, users can only view it for up to 24 hours before it expires.

    Limited selection.
    Pay for it.
    Need to contribute my own P2P bandwidth to get it.
    Must watch it in 24 hours (obviously badly DRM encumbered.

    That's not an appealing package yet to tempt me to your service.

  • Will people give them their bandwidth for free? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mTor ( 18585 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:14PM (#14066233)
    If I pay for a movie/show, I don't want to give my bandwidth for free. They should pay me for giving my bandwidth to them!

    Nice try, NBC!

  • Dear NBC, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:14PM (#14066235) Homepage Journal
    I am willing to pay exactly $0.00 for this "service" you're planning on offering. Copy protection is a form of product defect, and I do not purchase products I know to be defective. You may wish to confer with Sony on this issue.

    On the other hand, if you are willing to offer movies and programs in an unencumbered format (DiVX, MPEG, QuickTime, Ogg Theora, whatever) with no usage restrictions, and no special download clients required, then I'd be very willing to consider as much as $3.00 per show/program downloaded. I'd especially be interested in the old NBC Mystery Movies from the 1970's, including McCloud [imdb.com], Columbo [imdb.com], and McMillan and Wife [imdb.com].

    Please correct your offerings accordingly.

    Schwab

    • Dear Ewhac (Score:3, Insightful)

      by everphilski ( 877346 )
      Copy protection is a form of product defect, and I do not purchase products I know to be defective.

      Do you consider your car to be defunct? Because it employes a form of protection - a key and lock. Very similarly, the video files employ a key and a lock... the files have a DRM lock and the video player can act as a key to a legitimate user for legitimate purposes. Its not broken, it does exactly what it claims to do - it plays in the media players described for the time period advertized.

      -everphilski-
      • Do you consider your car to be defunct? Because it employes a form of protection - a key and lock.

        If they kept the keys after I got the car -then yes.
    • Okay this might be offtopic and modded to oblivion, but, while we are requesting things, please tell someone at Alan Landsburg/Viacom/whatever to release the complete box set of 1970s TV series 'In Search Of...' narrated by Leonard Nimoy. I have been looking for this for a while and it doesn't seem to exist on DVD. It used to be on A&E but it was cut, now it doesn't seem to exist except for the new SciFi one.

      The the skeptical and intelligent approach to many conspiracies/mysteries/supernatural/urb
    • Though 3 is a bit high...

  • Small step, but in the right direction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:18PM (#14066268) Homepage Journal
    To all those who said that P2P "pirate" networks would never bring about significant changes in the business models of big *AA... want some salt with that crow?

    Sure, it's restricted, and it expires, but as long as the black market is out there, the white market will slowly bring itself up to speed until the need for a black market lessens more and more. Eventually the result will be something that works for picky consumers like us and for content providers. All file-sharers everywhere should not underestimate the significance of this move.
    • those who said that P2P "pirate" networks would never bring about significant changes in the business models of big *AA... want some salt with that crow?

      I don't think I've ever seen anyone say any such thing. Everyone I've seen has been saying that the **AA will either be forced to massive change or they will die horribly while attempting to cling to neandertal midsets and obsolete models.

      As for this, it's hardly a step in the right direction. It is an insane attempt to fight technology and fight reality. A
  • In this context, P2P is really meaningless, since it offers no advantage to me, the consumer. The only advantage it offers is for content providers, because they can serve more costumers because customers bear part of the bandwidth cost.

    So since I'm providing bandwidth, do I get a download credit? If I keep files in my share long enough, I should be able to download more files without cost to me, since I'm providing a service to the content providers and they should be compensating me for it.

    --
    Innovati
  • I'm not entirely sure why I would want to use such a crippled service Honestly if Basically it sounds like they are offering to 'let' consumers: pay to download a movie, pay for the bandwidth to do so (not to mention wait a few hours for it to come in) then pay for the upload bandwidth to share for 30 days and then get a movie that will self-destruct 24 hours after I first press play. And since most users don't have Freevo/MythTV type setups to watch downloaded videos on their TV's they will go through all
  • ...... as you can watch that Lost episode that you downloaded via iTunes over and over again. I suspect they'll try this for six months, not make any money and beg Apple to carry their content on iTunes.

  • It's good to know that I get their product for 24 hours but they get my bandwidth for 30 days. I don't mind using my bandwidth to share with my peers using P2P when it's an open torrent but if they want me to pay for the show and continue distributing it for them for 30 days, they are crazy. If we're stuck with the expiration rule, the clock should at least start when the user stops sharing it. Either that or subsidize my broadband.
  • Let me guess....

    It will either be at a horribly low resolution like 320x200

    OR

    at a crappy bitrate like 700kb/s

    I'll start buying movies online when the quality is DVD or BETTER, and NOT before that.
  • Let's see... If I buy a movie on PPV, I can record a copy for personal use (for example, showing the girlfriend the next time she's over), using either my trusty old VCR, or my (formerly new & sparkling) PVR system, and if I go the PVR route, that means a quick and easy burn to DVD for archiving, vs. the lower quality, but still watchable VCR.

    If I go to rent a movie, it's much more a gray area as to whether I can temporarily archive a copy for personal use, but the potential stil exists. Obviously it
    • Rather than spending $5 to download a movie that is going to 'expire' in 24 hours, what about a constant per-minute rate for an on-demand, live, un-recordable broadcast? Suppose that the average film is 100 minutes long, then a $.05 per minute rate would achieve the same effect as a $5 rental, but if I decide to stop watching halfway through, i've only spent $2.50, and I can shell out the $2.50 a week later when I want to pick the film back up.

      A local version of what I've watched of the film could be st
  • Most of us associate P2P with a lack of DRM. But they use our bandwidth to distribute movies thereby saving them money while using the same old crappy DRM and we're supposed to be happy?

    Getting Sony's rootkit via a P2P network doesn't make you any less infected.
  • The good news is that they can use this technology to bypass the FCC and rich, campaign contributing religious folk who don't know how to use their V-Chips. Thousands are already downloading TV shows with Bittorrent and RSS listings services/apps but the shows are still limited because they're tainted by the fear of big brother. This could change that.
  • P2P is well suited for distributing free material, but I don't really see it as suitable for distributing paid content. It seems like the whole business model is broken.

    With free material everyone understands that by contributing disk space, bandwidth, and electrical power (to run their computer when they're not using it) they are helping share the burden of distributing the material. Why would I want to do this if I have to pay for the material anyway? Some might argue that I'm helping to keep the pri

  • But it should only cost me $1 to download. And, it should download SCREAMINGLY fast. P2P doesn't cut it. They need to quit being pussies and pony up for some seriously fast servers and gobs of bandwidth.

  • Unless it's dirt cheap (as in '10 cents' or something similarily irrelevant), nobody will pay for something that goes poof after 24 hours.

    Most of the stuff up on current P2P networks are not worth the effort to download, and they cost 0c and never expire. What makes NBC Universal think their *P2P* (as in 'you'll be sharing your bandwidth') offering has any chance whatsoever if their offering has 'costs money' and 'yours for only 24 hours' added to the deal, if even the current stuff on P2P is rarely worth t
  • Users will be able to view the material for 24 hours once they begin playback on their computers

    It's right there in TFA for all to read. Oh wait, this is slashdot.

    Seems to me, though, that this is the only part they got right about this inherently flawed business model.
  • It seems the only reason to get such stuff is to 'vote' for more with your money - but since Firefly is gone - what could that be.

  • Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but it seems like if you're paying NBC for content, then you have to download it via P2P, you're basically footing their bandwidth bill for them. If I'm having to pay for content, I want to download it directly and reliably from the source, just like the iTunes store.

    Why should the customers be spending their bandwidth seeding the files for NBC?

  • Isn't this the same Wurld that does adware [spywareguide.com]? I remove a lot of spyware from people's machines, I know I've seen Wurldmedia being removed before.
  • "NBC Universal has signed a deal with Wurld Media to make some of their movies available for download via a secure P2P network in 2006..."
    NBC/Universal may not have known this, but most of these movies have already been available for download via a secure P2P network for the past 3 years or so; BitTorrent uses SHA-1 for hashing, and is thus secure against fraudulant data injections. Silly NBC.
  • The article didn't seem to get into the technical details on how the p2p actually worked. Knowing how DRM works, each person's version of the file is going to be different, or else it wouldn't be drm right?

    I was curious on how this would actually work on 2 aspects, and both revolve around the p2p functionality.

    1. How exactly is the p2p sharing going to work? Are they going to be removing the drm from each file and then sending the bits across and then on the other end, re-drming the file with the a differen

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close