|
BitTorrent in trouble - one fifth laid off
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 7 August, 2008
Peer-to-peer company BitTorrent Inc. is laying off over a fifth of their employees. The company was forced to drop 12 of their 55 employees after a disastrous failure in marketing their online media store. According to Valleywag, the $15 million deal with giant electronics retailer Best Buy was cancelled, because of an FCC ruling on file sharing.
In addition to developing the widely ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
7. August 2008 @ 04:40 |
Link to this message
|
Maybe the MPAA masters ala Sony and Disney want full control over distribution too, and are pulling ranks to thwart bittorrents efforts, or maybe it's bittorrents stance against DRM and again why neither Sony or Disney have signed up?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. August 2008 @ 04:56
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
susieqbbb
Suspended permanently
|
7. August 2008 @ 04:41 |
Link to this message
|
But there lies the problem..
Why do users of p2p networks want to pay for anything when they can get it for nothing.
So placing videos for sale is really worthless
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
7. August 2008 @ 05:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by susieqbbb:
But there lies the problem..
Why do users of p2p networks want to pay for anything when they can get it for nothing.
So placing videos for sale is really worthless
it's a distribution method dude. The problem is finding companies willing to pony up the dollars to use your technology or service and the MPAA masters want to control the whole picture from start to screen as this thwarts independent producers from bypassing their protection racket. unless these corporate thieves get a slice of the pie media is not allowed to be shown don't you know!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. August 2008 @ 05:03
|
|
domie
Member
|
7. August 2008 @ 05:35 |
Link to this message
|
it may be a distribution method but i think susie is right - the attraction of p2p for many of the end users ( us ) is not just the fact that you get it for free - it's the thrill that some of us feel of getting something you are "supposed" to pay for absolutely free of charge.
start charging for the downloads and i reckon the vast majority would ignore it and that's where the real problem is, irrespective of whether the users can afford it or not.
having run a p2p site for years in the past, i can only say that i always had the impression that a lot of the time, whether it be games or software or films , a large proportion of peers downloaded stuff with absolutely no intention of using it, listening to it, watching it or playing it - it was more the kick they got from having it, applying the cracks, simply having the ability to apply it on their PCs without digging into their pockets etc :- not everybody but a lot of people did it just for the hell of having it or having nothing better to do at the time and being bored.
we are all potential collection addicts of whatever the media involved.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. August 2008 @ 05:45 |
Link to this message
|
domie
Thats not the point they have to break ground on a legit service and with the time and money put into it it will fail and then the DRM nazis will come in and make the thing a living rootkit to spy on everythign you do.
The problem is BT should have stayed indapendant and focused on the smaller less...mmm backstabing and "cavity filling" companies.
He'll get money either way but they'll get everythign else.
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
7. August 2008 @ 12:19 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The problem is BT should have stayed indapendant and focused on the smaller less...mmm backstabing and "cavity filling" companies.
I'm inclined to agree there Zippy.
|
Senior Member
11 product reviews
|
7. August 2008 @ 12:53 |
Link to this message
|
one thing I don't like about this "Business model" is the fact that I would pay to get my download, and then, (the way a torrent works), their company would use MY bandwidth to distribute to others without reimbursing me.
...so I say to BitTorrent..... "Where's my money?"...lol
|
|
sgriesch
Junior Member
|
7. August 2008 @ 13:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ugc:
one thing I don't like about this "Business model" is the fact that I would pay to get my download, and then, (the way a torrent works), their company would use MY bandwidth to distribute to others without reimbursing me.
...so I say to BitTorrent..... "Where's my money?"...lol
That's really a legit point as some communications companies are beginning to think about charging by usage. Would you get credit based on the number of movies you are sharing, allowing you to buy new ones at a cheaper price because you are seeding so many? No seeders = no Bit Torrent
|
Senior Member
|
7. August 2008 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
Then there's the thing where torrents work perfectly well and have vast choices all without signing up or paying for anything. What possible draw could a pay-per-torrent site have? Who would use such a thing? What would be the point?
Then again, I can't for the life of me figure out how iTunes is able to get people.
Go figure.
|
AfterDawn Addict
16 product reviews
|
7. August 2008 @ 18:47 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is BT should have stayed indapendant and focused on the smaller less...mmm backstabing and "cavity filling" companies.
I'm inclined to agree there Zippy.
Same here...
|
|
david89
Account closed as per user's own request
|
8. August 2008 @ 01:35 |
Link to this message
|
if they did like music companys finally did on itunes without DRM protection and had right price i think they would sale some untill then forget it.
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
8. August 2008 @ 04:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ugc:
one thing I don't like about this "Business model" is the fact that I would pay to get my download, and then, (the way a torrent works), their company would use MY bandwidth to distribute to others without reimbursing me.
...so I say to BitTorrent..... "Where's my money?"...lol
That's really a legit point as some communications companies are beginning to think about charging by usage. Would you get credit based on the number of movies you are sharing, allowing you to buy new ones at a cheaper price because you are seeding so many? No seeders = no Bit Torrent
that's exactly what's happening in the UK with services like the BBCi Player, Sky Player and 4OD via the Kontiki p2p software that installs and shares bandwidth without the average pc user being aware of this happening and also does not appear in the add remove programmes, which is even more of a crime when you think that the bbc is funded by the UK public.
mostly all isp's in the uk have a fup (fair usage policy) and/or limits which either involve you being charged for every extra gb uploaded or downloaded and/or severely limited if you exceed your usage, and traffic shape 24/7
In reality though they do not need that many seeders to have a blisteringly fast service especially how bittorrent works, if you want to get the file quick you need seeders if you are willing to wait or pay for a service that uses ftp fair enough, but it's not that hard to add up downloads and manage your monthly allowance especially with network management tools that calculate your bandwidth for u and when you have your download simply stop the transfer.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2008 @ 04:56
|
|
bugnot
Newbie
|
8. August 2008 @ 09:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
why should i pay for files when everyone is getting it free. i am an active user of edited. and i get all i want .
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2008 @ 12:32
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
8. August 2008 @ 09:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bugnot:
why should i pay for files when everyone is getting it free. i am an active user of edited. and i get all i want .
what is this some sort of spam?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2008 @ 12:33
|
Member
|
8. August 2008 @ 09:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
so this is called irony right
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
8. August 2008 @ 11:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 13thHouR:
Originally posted by bugnot:
why should i pay for files when everyone is getting it free. i am an active user of edited. and i get all i want .
what is this some sort of spam?
Kinda seems that way, doesn't it?
EDIT: removed link from quote as well.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2008 @ 12:34
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
8. August 2008 @ 12:31 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bugnot:
why should i pay for files when everyone is getting it free. i am an active user of edited. and i get all i want .
what is this some sort of spam?
Well his username was taken right from BugMeNot, so he didn't even register legitimately, I will edit the link out.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2008 @ 12:32
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
9. August 2008 @ 18:17 |
Link to this message
|
Sad to hear about the job losses but i have to say i love the collabaration of the companies involved because its the movie studios are realizing the importance of p2p technology.
|
