As mentioned overnight cash advance alltel cell free phone ringtones…

I believe in BitTorrent, the medium and the message. I believe in giving back what I’ve taken, I’m scrupulous about making sure my ratio is at or above 1.0 for every large file I take.

So some idiot with a competing commercial product is talking down the free opposition? Yawn, wake me when it’s over.[/quote]

so you are an honest thief ?[/quote]

Every content provider out there taking money for their product should answer that question, Mark.

The quality (and I’m talking the content, not bells and whistles and FX) has gotten poorer and poorer because some ivory tower coke-head producer thinks they know what we want because some pent-up focus-group told their one of their underlings that they were horny as hell and very representative of the rest of us.

I will continue to find what I want, when I want it. No company will tell me what I will do. No basketball team owning pundit will dissuade me from doing what I want. Talk to me when the so-called news corps stop pimping the lies they tell us 24/7 as news. The issue of content ownership is so small when compared to the extremely egregious crimes perpetrated by all your friends at FoxNBCABCCBSA&EHistoryChannelESPN et al. I mean you do rub elbows with those types, right? The owners and managers of these sweatshops of profit-centric, disingenuous, mealy-mouthed ‘news’ holes. This is why the rich should stay cloistered in a room with all their money. They are irrelevant to the average person’s day to day struggles, and they really don’t want to hear what WE think of THEM.

Hypercasting, Mark. It really is the future.

To take Mark’s own words – a majority of people out there don’t wanna know about BT or illegal downloading. Well, if the “law-abiding” public do outnumber the pirates, what is the problem? Everyone (except Sony) embraced mp3′s fairly easily. Lots of the people who download mp3′s now pay for them, and live with the ridiculous limitations of only being allowed to store them on one portable device. So what’s to say if someone introduced a legal BT network (a more effective BT network would also get sign-ups from so called “pirates”) that allowed people to catch their favorite shows legally, you think people wouldn’t sign on?

After all, if it costs me $1.99 for a TV show, but if I can get store credit by having a positive seeding ratio – people might buy into that.

The argument for the lack of commercial viability of BT is not that there won’t be a way to make it happen – it’s that big corporations don’t want to think about it or explore it because it doesn’t make them money now.

But the minute someone makes a viable business model, everyone’s going to line up, take their cut and try to sell us more crap online.

[quote comment="42711"]First, I understand BT. Have used it. Invested in it. Worked with it. Its not some special sauce. Its easy.[/quote]
Well good for you but I do see some contradiction in that very last sentence to your original point. You seem to think that commercial adoption of BT will be hindered by a lack of understanding from n00bs and ease of use. It is extremely easy to use for an early adoption technology, but you seem to change your mind an awful lot, don’t you? Just for point of reference, we were doing many things manually via command lines years ago that are now quite automated in a cute GUI. BT’s transparency is increasing as well. The World of Warcraft updater is an excellent example. People often don’t even know they are using it. What makes you think this can’t be applied to other applications as well, such as the app provided from X media store?

[quote comment="42711"]what some of you seem not to understand is
1. i didnt say it would die. as 1 person who obviously read what i wrote stated, what i wrote was in a commercial context.[/quote]
Oh, but I do and I am replying to this, taking that into account.
[quote comment="42711"]2. If you think that BT for illegal download is going to work exactly the same as it is for paid download or streaming, you might want to take a closer look[/quote]
This is quite a broad swipe. Naturally, there will be permission to access type systems in place on commercial closed source clients, just like you need a WoW account to use its updater’s BT implementation. This only reflects the infancy. It’s really a realm of endless possibilities when considering how content might be controlled and is highly dependent on what you are using the distribution system to accomplish, As to seeding, you have to admit it could be practical in certain instances where the client just runs but may be subject to QoS within your OS(built-in to Windows, but seldom used, installable in Linux) so that it is transparent to any other activity on your computer. A streaming service where the user seeds a stream with a QoS aware client could be in the future someday.
[quote comment="42711"]3. Does anyone really believe that if Itunes switched to BT for video delivery they would lower the price ? or any other content provider for that matter ?[/quote]
Slow down Mark on your rant. I believe there are companies in this world that will pocket anything they can because they can. There are also some great smaller content and software providers that charge for their product to make a living and are truly trying to be innovative and not gouge the consumer. BT could enable them to cut back their price a bit and allow them to turn a little more profit for the small companies that actually make a marginal profit. BT is already great for open source and freeware that occupies hundreds of megs or even gigs on your drive, If a content control is enabled(see above), the less greedy ones might lower the price while getting some profit they did not have. A few independent companies do things for the same reason as freeware makers, but they need to put food on the table, which is everyone’s right to do in exchange for their work.

[quote comment="42711"]4. BT bigots should try turning the argument around. what if Fox, Parmamount, NBC/GE, any major media company immediately switched to open source BT, let me tell you what the headlines will be.

“Internet Users Subsidize Fox Billion Dollar Content Business”
Did you know that you pay for your copy of The Simpsons twice ? Thats right. You pay for the content from the Fox site, then you pay for the bandwidth that delivers it to other buyers.

That will excite consumers about these companies.

and remember, those same companies create their own media players on their websites to stream. That shows yo uwhere there heads are at in terms of control

and then there is of course the issue of trackers and how fast content is delivered and using which resources. Think all the media cmpanies want to be treated equally and in accord with what the BT TRackers think is fair ?[/quote]
Nice rant but content control IS possible. It could even be applied by something as simple as their tracker refusing to give peers under the same conditions a normal download would be refused coupled with a content key transparently sent to your client to open the content to be readable on your pc. You are shortsightedly looking at the open source clients used for “free downloads”. Once again, this is just a base for the implementation and by no means a finished product. BitTorrent is a protocol that many applications can use, but is not the products themselves, I can see the streaming player application again possibly providing free previews from Fox and the like, which the companies already do with their own bandwidth. It would be wise to pass some of the savings on and market it alongside regular service and state the facts. You save money by helping them out. A good QoS-aware app would have minimal-no impact on network performance and most consumers would use the method that will eventually be faster and possibly save them a little change, provided it’s a transparent implementation. Implementation and marketing is everything when it comes to any technology.

[quote comment="42711"]5. The BT community seems to think their world is the mainstream world. Its not. Guess what, MOST people follow the law and dont download illegally. They dont want to know what bt is. They want Lost when they want lost. So they go to Itunes or wherever to get it because its easy and there is a brand they trust associated with it.

Now if Adobe does P2P attached to a flash client, it has a chance to work because its all there[/quote]
Now you are really getting stupid, no offense sweetie. I am just shocked that you have argued competently here throughout and ignored hard facts here. Let me see, The Pirate Bay alone generally records serving 4 million torrents a day!! Yes they are the largest but that is just 1 tracker. To say that is not mainstream is absolutely ludicrous, especially considering BitTorrent is relatively in infant form without many vital changes since its inception. I also say LOL at “trust iTunes” as well as other stores when their policies are what force many people to go “download illegally”! Noone wants DRM clogged mp3s(or even worse, wma) that can only be had with 1 program. Ironically, this DRM was conceived to protect content and increase their profits, All it’s really doing is causing distrust and making people pirate, Some DRM is known to spy on you and mess up functions on a computer while some simply has locked people out of their bought music forever. An increase in bitrate of content would not hurt either. BT can help with that. Please wake up from your fantasy world. I disagree with you, but you were doing ok with some facts until now,

[quote comment="42711"]6. Talk to ISPs about how their bandwidth is used by BT. they hate it because BT downloaders are efficient. they find ISPs where they can upload at high speeds. Which in turn clogs the ISPs bandwidth. Which in turn pisses them off. If you havent noticed, on the last network segment of every ISP there is a bandwidth SHORTAGE.

Not the backbone, not the interconnects. That last segment of DSL, that last node of Cable. THEY DONT HAVE ENOUGH BANDWITH for seeders

Particularly given that BT users tend to just leave their PCs on all the time and are happy queing up every movie and TV show theythink they might watch at sometime. Which in turn means they are continuously uploading and downloading content.

To make matters worse, they are using bandwidth at some multiple of the size of the original files they wanted. So to the last mile, which already has a shortage of bandwidth, BT clients are huge bandwidth hogs.[/quote]
Here you go flip flopping again now talking about what pirates do when you have stated that your argument is for commercial purposes. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, I’m sorry. Do you really think people will be queuing up paid BT downloads the same as free BT downloads are queued up? I really don’t think so, Maybe about the same as normal paid downloads because it will be controlled by how much money a person wants to spend, I don’t see anyone queuing up itunes downloads for day and night, That would be quite expensive. As network strain for ISPs go, remember we have a primitive implementation of an excellent protocol. Extra bandwidth use is a given, but how much it impacts a network is not, In it’s current state, I agree with you, A good QoS-aware app can detect when the network is getting under heavy load but such cues as latency, Look at a Windows app called cfosspeed. It can control your network throughput based on latency either to maximise your bandwidth usage -OR- to make sure your ping times don’t suffer. What is to stop a commercial torrent app from monitoring such clues? We both know that your vision of the world will also need upgrades from ISPs. It’s an inevitable fact that they cannot escape. A well designed torrent application could almost eliminate the excess impact on network performance that is typically a payload of torrents,

[quote comment="42711"]7. For those who think that BT is going mainstream quickly. BitTorrent.com downloads hasnt sold shit worth of legit content.They announced their deals how long ago and do you know anyone who has done anything but download for free from them or any BT host ?[/quote]
As I said, it pretty much has. Where have you been? Maybe for not what companies want it to be mainstream form but that’s another story, I also never accused Bram of being smart beyond this protocol. Experienced marketers with good coders could get the job done, I’m sure, We just need to demand it out of them.

[quote comment="42711"]BT is a great technology. But for a great technology like this , there has to be a slamdunk winner from a business perspective. Just like IPod/Itunes created a real business(even if the music industry itself is a mess), P2P needs a slamdunk winner that draws mainstream users to the technology in a way where the technology doesnt matter.[/quote]
And I still have yet to see what makes you have so little faith that such a marketer focused on innovation will come around, Despite what some may say, Apple was once a great innovator, since you commonly cite itunes as an example, Blizzard has already made the technology not matter and has proven BT valid for updates. Maybe OS updates are next for Linux users? Users don’t even know they are using it, unless they look things up. You seem to not be aware of many of the latest developments, as well as potential in numerous areas, WoW was a few years ago and numerous considerations for Linux have been discussed. Commercial companies are late adopters but they often copy things done in Linux way back.
[quote comment="42711"]And for all of you haters…Kiss my Ass.[/quote]
Not a hater, just a critic. I would much rather spend my time hating the RIAA, MPAA, BPI, BRIEN, etc.