Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Paramount Pictures To Release Film On Bittorrent

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the bet-it-sucks dept.

Movies 178

TheyreNotTheir writes "In a little over two months time, the long-awaited horror movie The Tunnel will receive its world premiere. Rather than a traditional theatrical release, the movie – which is set in abandoned real-life tunnels under Sydney, Australia – will make its debut online for free with BitTorrent. Simultaneously it will be released on physical DVD, to be distributed by Hollywood giant Paramount Pictures."

cancel ×

178 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

MPAA will not care (3, Interesting)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515494)

Smart money says people still end up in court being sued for distributing it anyway.

Re:MPAA will not care (3, Insightful)

zethreal (982453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515540)

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Either that or they're planning on recording all the IP's that connect to it for "tracking" purposes.

Re:MPAA will not care (2)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515726)

That's what I was thinking. We must shop at the same hatter.

Re:MPAA will not care (1)

SuperSlacker64 (1918650) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516712)

Aluminum foil, right?

Re:MPAA will not care (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516292)

So encourage all your friends, family etc who never (as opposed to 'never') download movies to grab it, and watch it at one of their places. Go go gadget red herring :)

Re:MPAA will not care (4, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515584)

It's a trap!

Re:MPAA will not care (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516008)

It's a trap!

If it's not it soon will be once I start uploading Uwe Boll movies under the title "The Tunnel: Director's Cut" ;-)

Re:MPAA will not care (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517014)

It's a trap!

If it's not it soon will be once I start uploading Uwe Boll movies under the title "The Tunnel: Director's Cut" ;-)

You have a cruel, cruel soul.

Re:MPAA will not care (1)

robot_love (1089921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517276)

You're a monster!

Re:MPAA will not care (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515952)

I'm sure they will, because despite all the asshole pirates claims of "If movie studios adapted to modern technology we wouldn't pirate", some asshole will rip the non free features off the DVD and put up a torrent.

Re:MPAA will not care (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516174)

Extremely likely. These same assholes are why we have so much ad ware on Android and now these pricks are working overtime removing ad ware from *FREE* applications; thusly ensuring the developers receive no income. These pricks literally have proven piracy is doing financial harm, if its not its sole reason for doing so, to lots of small companies and individuals. To not call them criminals is to be delusional. Worse, a lot of these scum bags will then take their stolen applications and resale them via membership services or ironically, in turn generate revenue from ads.

Re:MPAA will not care (3, Insightful)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516016)

That's at best being terrible at sarcasm and at worst you're being deliberately obtuse. After all, it was posted HERE before that they planned on this all along as a way to drum up interest in the under-budget film already. Source. [slashdot.org]

That aside, I think everyone here who has ever bitched at the MPAA should at least do a little research and find out that, one of the many reasons that they're having trouble funding this film is because they're going against the grain and not opting for a huge distribution model that we so frequently claim to hate.

All I'm saying is, pony up Slashdotters. Put your money where your mouth is and show them that you like the business model by trying it, and pay for it if it's worth it (which is a different story entirely.)

Re:MPAA will not care (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516338)

Oh, please. The MPAA is far too evil and closed-minded to ever get any consideration for this. The MPAA would still be viewed with suspicion if they donated a dollar to a homeless person or a million dollars to an orphanage. And by 'donated' I mean 'gave without suing them afterwards for depriving the MPAA of revenue that they believe was rightfully theirs'.

Re:MPAA will not care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516852)

Your point is well taken in one sense. If it's worth it it should receive community funding and the buisness model should thrive. In another sense I think you're totally off base. The MPAA and most major studios are far beyond earning brownie points for things like this. The MPAA has done too much to ever be trusted as a good citizen. The studios are getting close as well. Some entities/people simply can't be reformed. At the very least the studios would have to disavow MPAA tactics, disband the organization, and begin have about a 20 year span of good faith actions to dig themselves out of what their actions deserve. If it takes that long to be evil you should have to be good for just as long and with just as much dedication if you want your reputation back.

Re:MPAA will not care (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516100)

I also predict that the MPAA will use "lower than average sales" to back up their claims of losses due to P2P sharing and other downloading.

It is really hard to prove a negative or that something isn't happening because of something else. This may be an attempt to create a heavier preponderance of evidence to support their claim of losses due to downloads.

Re:MPAA will not care (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516158)

How? If the copyright holder is releasing it for redistribution, then I fail to see how redistribution under their terms could be considered unauthorized, unless the DVD is higher quality and someone rips that and torrents it, in which case Paramount will have a legitimate case since they only authorized the lower-quality version for torrent distribution.

I think their goal on this is simple. I suspect Paramount wants this movie to have absolutely abysmal DVD sales. That way, they can point at the sales figures and say "see? (very_high_percentage) of people will not buy something if it's available for free!" I also bet the DVD will be expensive to make sure this happens.

Either that, or Paramount is truly trying to see how well .torrents do for distribution (maybe the .torrent will be a lower-resolution version with a quick splash screen saying "if you want this in higher quality, please buy the DVD!").

One interesting business model might be to charge some very nominal fee (say $1-2) for a copy of the .torrent file. Their distribution costs are near zero, so any sales that way are pretty much pure profit. This dovetails in with the "lower the price, reduce piracy" discussion from the other day, and gives would-be pirates a way to go legit while building collections of movies.

There will certainly be some (maybe a lot, hard to say) redistribution of the .torrent file, but it'd be interesting to see what would happen with something like this. Would you sell enough zero-overhead copies of the movie at a buck a pop to make up for your $10 per-unit profit on the DVD release? I have exactly 10 movies in my DVD collection, but if you offered me movies at $1-2 a pop I'd probably own several hundred. They'd be impulse purchases, and I wouldn't think twice about buying a movie to watch once.

I think they'd make some good money on it. Especially with older movies that already sell for a few bucks on the bent can rack at Wally World, most of which has to be eaten up by distribution and materials costs. If you didn't care about liner art and packaging, would you pirate it or cough up 75 cents for the .torrent file and a legit license to it?

I think there's some interesting possibilities in this business model. I don't pirate, but I also don't buy a lot of music because it's overpriced in my opinion. I might buy 30 bucks (2-3 albums) in music a year.

When "all of mp3" came out, I bought TONS of music at about 25 cents a song. I probably dropped $150 in the first year. Many turned out to be music I didn't like, but at 25 cents a song I'll take that risk and work on building collections, because it's easier to download a bunch of stuff and spend a little money than wasting my time picking out individual songs to save money. I'd also spend 10 cents each to download a few sample songs for an artist in 128k, then turn around a day later and spend another 25 cents a song on their entire collection at a decent bitrate if I liked the samples.

Will it leak? (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515514)

The question now is whether the film will be leaked onto Bittorrent before the official Bittorrent release.

Re:Will it leak? (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515964)

The more important question is - how will you know it's okay to download it? I mean, what differentiates one movie on bit torrent versus another? It sounds like this just muddies things. After all, if one movie is okay to download on bit torrent (and I don't know what would identify it as being authorized to download by the copyright holder when you're looking at a torrent index) and a movie that isn't?

Re:Will it leak? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516034)

That's the trap. Trick people who don't currently download movies into doing it. Thus increasing the number of people you can sue to make money.

Devious.

Re:Will it leak? (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516752)

I really don't think there's even remotely a shortage of people to sue.

Re:Will it leak? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517086)

It's still good business to increase your customer base give an opportunity. I image suing has become a major revenue stream for the *IAA. So why segregate the rest of the market? Give everyone a chance to be sued.

Just make it so you can throw darts at a phone book and pick names to sue rather then having to actually do some "research" or some such thing.

Re:Will it leak? (0)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516508)

And most Linux distros are available on bittorrent, how can you tell wheather this Windows.7.Ultimate.Retail.l33t-haxxors.torrent on The Pirate Bay is legit or not? Oh please...

Re:Will it leak? (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517284)

There is a far greater difference between "Windows 7" and "Linux" on a torrent site than there is between "this is a fully produced copyrighted film distributed by a big studio that is okay to download over the internet" and "this is a fully produced copyrighted film distributed by a big studio that is not okay to download over the internet". What, you're suggesting that as long as it doesn't say "Uberl33tSCENERLS" in the filename, that makes it legit to download as it must have been placed on the torrents legitimately?

Re:Will it leak? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516554)

That's stupid. Don't feed their fear mongering.

Buying off Walmart - legit; off the back of some guy's truck - not.
I go and watch TV on Hulu or USANetwork.com or Fox.com, I know it's not the same thing as watching it on some random site *cough*piratebay*cough*.
If I go to www.paramount.com and get a torrent file from them then you know it's legit.

The same as anything else - where did you get it? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516910)

If I download software for free from the developer's website, then it is almost certainly legal. If I download software from someone's random rapidshare folder then it probably isn't.

If I torrent a file from the official publisher's website, then I can safely assume it is legal. If I torrent something I randomly found on piratebay then it probably isn't. And if it is, it is almost assuredly available on an official site somewhere, so why bother with piratebay to begin with.

Bittorrent isn't an amorphous cloud like freenet or even gnutella. You got the .torrent file from somewhere, and are using a someone tracker (at least in the original design), so you can judge from those whether it is legit. I have downloaded a bunch of legal files with bittorrent, and never once have I visited a public tracker or torrent search site. It was simply offered as another option on their download page to help save them bandwidth.

Re:The same as anything else - where did you get i (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517394)

So when the same torrent is indexed by numerous sites out there, it suddenly becomes illegitimate, because the user clicked on it through an indexer rather than directly through the site? It's the same content from the same source, either way. You just got the index from a different location. How is it suddenly illegitimate if you ran across it on piratebay, if the tracker inside the torrent is the legitimate server in the first place? Unless they're somehow going to turn it into a private tracker that you have to have an account for before downloading the file via their own bit torrent service (which wouldn't surprise me) so they could lock it down from those who aren't connecting to the tracker with a passkey.

Re:Will it leak? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517358)

When paramount pictures launches a promotional campaign on the web leading to a microsite on their server, which provides the .torrent and legal text related to download, viewing and distribution, and acts as a seed?

Seems pretty straightforward... what's the problem?

Profit? (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515534)

1 - Make movie
2 - Put it on torrent for free
...
3 - Profit?

Re:Profit? (1)

pyalot (1197273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515562)

FTFY 1 - Make movie 2 - Put t on torrent 3 ... 4 - Make a profit suing people

Re:Profit? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515566)

A lot of people (claim?) to buy games/movies/software after "trying them out" from bit torrent downloads.

This will be an interesting business model test.

Re:Profit? (2)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515630)

Same thing I'm wondering. I'm immensely glad a company finally has the foresight to at least give it a try.

Re:Profit? (4, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515674)

Hasnt the Humble Indie Bundle already done this??

Re:Profit? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516230)

No. The Humble Indie Bundle on bittorrent was just regular piracy. Of course it was only pirated because of the invasiveness of its non-existant DRM and its outrageous price of a whole dollar.

Re:Profit? (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516608)

This comment made my morning.

Re:Profit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516806)

Actually the Humble Bundle 2 set up an official tracker for the downloads. This was in response to people who were downloading via BitTorrent because they like that download method better. (Some of them were paying for it, and then downloading it from the torrents.)

Re:Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517378)

Fact is, if somebody posts a bunch of direct links to commercial content on 4chan, a bunch of people are going to download it, regardless of price.

Re:Profit? (3, Informative)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515916)

It's a good idea, but if they really wanted to see if it works then they would release a film with some big-name actors. This just looks like some B-movie pseudo-thriller.

Re:Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516004)

That's exactly what I think this is about. After a year, they will come back and report "Look! We released it for free on BitTorrent and for a price on DVD. The DVDs didn't sell, so you can't say that piracy doesn't hurt sales!"

But it's a really bad test. It appears to be a low-budget horror movie.
#1 I don't think horror movies have much replay value. So, why own it on DVD?
#2 It's low budget. Will the DVD have a lower-than-norml price? If the answer is 'No', it only reinforces #1

Re:Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516088)

I think you missed the biggest point - downloading this movie from BitTorrent isn't piracy since they are releasing it for free there. So this isn't comparable since folks are allowed to do this without violating copyright. This would be more like: "We released it for free and for pay at the same time and none of the folks who knew how to use BitTorrent paid for it." Nothing really about piracy in that.

Re:Profit? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517110)

I think -you're- missing the point. Everything you say is correct, but what's to stop the studio from crying piracy anyway. Silly old things like facts?

Re:Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516444)

Movies? No, but I go and see stuff I like again at the cinema (bad enough to have the "you suck as much as a guy who ripped off someone's car" ads thrown at you once if you walk in before/during the trailers, do you want that in your face each time you watch the DVD? The music is good though, every time I hear the start of that ad I kinda feel like standing up and dancing just to take the piss). Music? No, but I go and see bands I like who play concerts nearby. Games? Don't really play them, and don't much see the point in being able to possess a nice shiny unopened dvd case when you'd have to crack that version of the game anyhow (and go through the patch version/crack version minefield) to get the same functionality (i.e. works without CD or DVD in drive/internet connection for verification with publisher's server/remote rectal exam). Software? Again, I'm mostly on FLOSS but again don't see the point.

But two out of four ain't bad.

Re:Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516594)

A lot of people (claim?) to buy games/movies/software after "trying them out" from bit torrent downloads.

This will be an interesting business model test.

Well, trent reznor did something like this with GHOSTS I-IV and it worked very well.
 
But not everyong can be NIN.

Re:Profit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515660)

... = When people download it from BT and realize it sucks balls and therefore don't buy the DVD, claim that it's evidence that the pirates are TEH EVIL!

Note: I have no idea if the movie will be good or not, but it's a fair bet that the studios wouldn't do this with a movie they thought had a decent chance to make $$$ the old-fashioned way.

Re:Profit? (1, Informative)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515734)

It's a straight to DVD release, if I RTFA correctly, so my guess is that they expect it to aspriate orbs.

Re:Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516078)

Trying to cleverly say "sucks balls" and failing with a typo - good job, man.

I can think of a number of reasons why movies go straight-to-DVD (e.g. Unthinkable's cash-strappedness), but in this case.. why ruin a perfectly good (global) experiment with a traditional theatrical run including its delays across theaters globally and the inclination of some people to cam it and upload it?

Direct-to-DVD isn't always in relation to how good a movie is, even if it is usually a good indicator.

Re:Profit? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515978)

Chances are, they're using this to screw over the director or producer or someone else who has a stake in things. Kind of like when a musician is stuck in a shitty contract for two more albums and just releases shit to undermine the label.

Re:Profit? (2)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515770)

1. Make film
2. Put crappy divx on torrent.
3. Put superior dvd on sales.

Guess which version will be more popular...

BTW.. Next blockbuster might follow old Theathe -> rental -> DVD -> cable tv -> public tv model again....

Re:Profit? (1)

SigmundFloyd (994648) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515908)

1. Make film
2. Put crappy divx on torrent.
3. Put superior dvd on sales.

Guess which version will be more popular...

The crappy divx on torrent. What do I win?

Re:Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516950)

Nothing, because you're wrong.

Had you guessed the 700MB x264 rip of the DVD, you'd have won one (1) vintage internet.

Re:Profit? (3, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516050)

What would be clever is releasing the Divx on a torrent, but making the torren pan-and-scan and standard def, mono audio, burned in French subtitles, and corrupt the datastream a little so that every few minutes the picture hangs. Such a torrent might be "good enough" for people that wanted to casually watch the movie, and would divert them from a better pirated copies, particularly if you made sure it was very easy to find, but would be unacceptable if you actually wanted to enjoy watching the movie, and would stimulate you to go buy the real one.

Re:Profit? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516566)

Someone would just rip a good version and upload it.

Re:Profit? (2)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516764)

and would stimulate you to go buy the real one.

I don't think so. Part of the reason people elect to not "go buy the real one" is because "the real one" has built up a reputation for not being as good as the pirate releases. If the torrent is pan-and-scan and has burned-in French subtitles and corruption, people seeing it will think, "Damn, the DVD must have been really bad for the cleaned up and improved version to be as bad as this."

What they ought to be doing, is skip the bittorrent release altogether, but also skip the DVD (offer a for-pay download instead, and in a normal file format+codec and not requiring a specialized client (e.g. iTunes)). Or at least make sure the DVD release doesn't use CSS. Remove all the reasons that people pirate, and publicize like crazy that they've done this. (A lot of people are in the habit of pirating everything, because it's just assumed that all the non-pirate releases have DRM problems, so people working to fix the problem really do need to make a lot of noise, to get people to take the idea of non-piracy seriously again.) They should still go for getting money, but just make sure that a pirate release has no chance of being better than their own product.

Any release of a "crippled" product (whether a corrupt datastream, or Bluray DRM, or whatever) is just a way of telling people to go get the movie from pirates. That gets the publisher out of the loop and pretty much eliminates and chances of collecting revenue. The publisher should try to be the best go-to guy, or at least tied for best. Never ever tell potential customers to go somewhere else.

Just like television (2)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516406)

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if rather than fighting this around the world that they will succumb to blatant product placement throughout the movie. Look for lots of Coke cans, iPhones, laptops of a certain variety, certain car manufacture with logo prominent, etc...

Admiral Ackbar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515620)

I think you know where I am going with this.

Putyour money were your mouth is! (5, Insightful)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515642)

Donate and or buy it if you like it , they're testing new grounds and we need to prove we're not hypocrites.
The slashdot crowd seems to follow the "try before you buy" mentality , so if you end up enjoying the movie , put your money were your mouth is.

Re:Putyour money were your mouth is! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515698)

So, you'd advocate a battered housewife go back to the abusive husband as long as he says "I won't hurt you *this* time!" right?

And no, that's not to extreme. If anything, it's not extreme enough. The MPAA destroys families forever through their ridiculous tactics. At least bruises heal.

Re:Putyour money were your mouth is! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515722)

BOARDROOM, INT. DAYTIME

Henchman 1: I know! Let's release a piss poor movie on BitTorrent, asking for donations. When it fails we'll prove it's a failed model!
MPAA Bossman: Brilliant! But... which movie shall we release?
Henchman 1: ???
Henchman 2: ???
Henchman 3: ???
MPAA Bossman: Ha ha, you should see the looks on your faces. *throws a dart at the board* They're all piss poor!
All: Huzzah!

Re:Putyour money were your mouth is! (1)

drwhitt (634345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516398)

ISP Executive: And, even if the movie is moderately successful, our packet-shaping algorithm will make it nearly impossible for these hax0rs to download the darn thing in under 24 hours.
MPAA Bossman: Perfect! Yet another reason that this will be proven a failed model when I file my report for the in-the-bag-legislators, err, studio execs. All: Huzzah! Huzzah!

Re:Putyour money were your mouth is! (3, Insightful)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515936)

Seems like a strawman technique to me though. "Hey everyone, the movie pirates were liars - they didn't buy this terrible movie after downloading it for free off Bittorent!" If it was a half decent movie, I would most likely download it and buy it if I liked it... but a horror movie titled Tunnel? Not interested in even the free version.

Big Box Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515644)

This release will show that awareness leads to sales. This movie will do better at the box office because of this online release. This is great news for the MPAA; we can only hope that they will see the fighting customers interested in their product is about as useful as kicking paying clients out your store and threating to sue them (for looking at the merchandise..)

Anyway, you might not completely agree with my analogy but this is good news for the Net, our freedom and the fight against ACTA.

Re:Big Box Office (1)

hhawk (26580) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515670)

Yes.. music used to pay radio shows illegal payments to promote their songs..

BitT will let Hollywood promote for free.. and I think it will be good for freedom and good for the Net.

Re:Big Box Office (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515976)

I think you missed the part where its world premiere will be direct to BT/DVD... thus, no box office.

Whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515658)

For a second there, I thought they were going to release a film _about_ Bittorrent.

Re:Whew! (1)

KDEnut (1673932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515728)

Me too. I thought: Boy, this out to be even more "Fair and Balanced" than Fox!

Re:Whew! (2)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515798)

Monday... no peers, no seeds. I'm still stuck at 76.4%. The days drag on, and I can't help but wonder: where is my data and why is it taking so long to get here? Could there be some evil force keeping me from my mission? Am I in danger? I can only hope that one day, the bits will flow... like a torrent...

*dramatic music*
*man casually walks away from a giant explosion without looking back at it*

BitTorrent: The Movie
Coming Summer 2012

Re:Whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517370)

You owe me one keyboard!

Two tier system (1)

vlpronj (1345627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515706)

I think a real option would be to release low-quality versions as free, or discount ($0.99 movies, $0.10 music) downloads. You could certainly get the gist of it, but leave enough distortion to make people considering buying the full version. Plus, smaller file sizes for those low-qual dl's might actually save money? Someone sharing a full quality version wouldn't be able to use the excuse, and the low-quals would be free advertising.

Re:Two tier system (1)

vlpronj (1345627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515812)

I think the poster meant "someone downloading the full quality version wouldn't be able to use the excuse they can't afford the movie". Yeah, I'm positive that's what he meant.

That would probably never work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515946)

release low-quality versions as free, or discount ($0.99 movies, $0.10 music) downloads.

While you present a questionably clever idea there, one of the strongest tenets of the scene is that pirate content's quality and compatibility is orders of magnitude better than that of a free, cheap, or even retail priced, legitimately acquired version of the same. And of course, scene releases often predate official ones, but that's a different story :P.

However, with that said, when YouTube was in its early pre-google days and the availability of "pirate" content there was very high, the absolute shit picture quality made me wonder how anyone could stand to spend more than 5 minutes on the site... so it may indeed be possible that you're right anyway.

Re:Two tier system (1)

kubernet3s (1954672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517250)

Oh wait, wait! I have a better Idea, how about you just offer short clips, like 30-60 seconds, and then.... Oh, they already did that. How am I going to know if something is worth buying unless I actually see the full version? I might buy it and find that I don't want to pay money for it. You've just brought us back fulld circle

Don't trust them (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515744)

It will probably require you to enter a code halfway through the movie. Who says movies can't use the shareware trial model?

From the "last to release movies on DVD company".. (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515762)

The movie probably sucks, however this is surprising since I think it was Paramount that was the last one to start releasing movies on DVD. I don't quite remember the reason they gave, probably piracy or not wanting high quality copies of their movies floating around.

I won't BT it (1)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515780)

To be completely honest, I'm too lazy to download it off bit torrent. If I want to watch it I'll either get it off netflix or buy it off something like amazon.com. This probably isn't a big enough movie to move me to hit the redbox for it.

I suppose I'm representative of a lot of 30-something's. I've got an income. I've got more responsibilities than I care to deal with. My time is precious and I'm more than willing to trade a few bucks to plop down on the couch, pull up the app, and start the movie playing.

Re:I won't BT it (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516014)

Hmm, I tend to bittorrent stuff because I'm too lazy to go the official route.

Bittorrent: (assuming a BT client is installed) click link. Wait. AVI is on my disk.
Official route: a bunch of form filling, trailer watching, requiring a viewer with DRM extensions, etc.

I can watch non-DRM'd AVIs on my TV using my Xbox. I have to watch iPlayer on my laptop. Yes, I could plug my laptop into my TV, but there are various problems with that, which I'm too lazy to describe here, let alone resolve.

Re:I won't BT it (2)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517072)

Yeah, using laziness or "my time is precious" as the reason to not bittorrent, is really weird. There are reasons not to bittorrent, but saving time or effort ain't among them. Nothing is as easy and point-and-click. All I can think of, is that this person's computer is hard-to-use, or he doesn't have an HTPC yet.

Rather deliberate (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515782)

Last time I saw a trailer for this, it looked ridiculous. With a rather small production budget too, it's being set up to fail. "Waaah, when we do what the pirates want, they still won't make us money!"

Of course I won't. I don't have a habit of buying inferior products over an inferior mechanism, so why do they expect visa-versa?

Re:Rather deliberate (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515958)

Vice versa ("with position turned", or some Latin equivalent, instead of "visa" versa, which comes via French meaning roughly "paper that has been seen" and, presumably, turned).

And that would mean you don't buy good products over a good mechanism, because of the way you worded the sentence.

Re:Rather deliberate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516012)

Correcting someone's Latin grammar? That is some elite grammar Nazism [youtube.com] .

Re:Rather deliberate (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516226)

Veni, Vidi, Visa...

Re:Rather deliberate (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516470)

I came, I saw, I brought my flexible friend?

Re:Rather deliberate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516056)

I meant to say a good product over a terrible service. Hope that clears it all up.

Re:Rather deliberate (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516002)

Maybe that is the point. It's possibly a shitty movie and perhaps the cost of getting it to theaters, promotion, etc is not worth the estimated return of doing it. So they release it on DVD, throw it out there on BitTorrent for free and hope to get ANYTHING for this movie at this point.

Re:Rather deliberate (1)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516030)

Of course it's going to be a low budget movie , no exec would ever approve busting open tens of millions of dollars on a movie so they can release it for free and "hope for some buys" without a serious dosage of crack in their coffee.

Re:Rather deliberate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516330)

At which point did "the pirates" demand that the studios give something away for free and still hope to make any money off it? That's borderline retarded.

What they should do is provide a better product and/or better service than the pirates. Instead they keep making DVDs and Blurays with unskippable adverts and FBI warnings, with copy protection which makes loading the movies onto media servers impossible (well...), while the pirated versions suffer no such degradation. They keep publishing them on different release dates for different regions, while the pirated versions are available from the same day world-wide. The studios still haven't grasped this concept after 15 years of seeing what a phenomenal added value pirates provide for free, simply by removing restrictions from the product. The rights holders are in a position to one-up the pirates and charge money for the convenience, but they simply don't get it.

The Movie will suck (2)

The Evil Twin (217345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515828)

Release a bad movie as an experiment.
Watch nobody buy it because it sucks.
Point and shout "You see? Nobody will buy this stuff without restrictive copyright law!!!!"

way for them to see who uses BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35515942)

id be afraid to dl - who knows what type of rootkit or grayware is in the file -

Old News (2)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 3 years ago | (#35515996)

I bought twenty-five frames quite awhile ago now, anyone else?

Need more coffee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516028)

I thought from the headline that there was a new movie about Bram Cohen, a la "The Social Netowrk."

Beware (1)

rayg0ld (2009710) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516070)

It's a trick.

No, it got 1.000.000.000.000 downloads in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516272)

Am I the only one who read the title and thought this was going to be a movie about how bittorrent got invented?

Paramount HE is probably only a licensee (4, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516316)

The summary is incredibly misleading, I think. It's not a trick, it's not a trap. Ackbar lied to you.

What's happening is, the creators of the movie (who have always planned on releasing their movie on torrent) now also have a 'hard copy' DVD release planned. The DVD release is being distributed by Paramount HE, but it still seems quite clear that the rights are held by the movie creators, not the distributors as is usually the case. This is similar with what Paley did with Sita Sings the Blues, and it's a Good Thing (TM).

If you people can now stop speculating and go support [thetunnelmovie.net] this initiative, it would be great!!

Old Related News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516422)

http://torrentfreak.com/the-tunnel-buy-a-frame-of-a-bittorrent-only-horror-movie-100617/

Fixed summary (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516434)

"In a little over two months time, the long-awaited horror movie The Tubes will receive its world premiere. Rather than a traditional theatrical release, the movie - which is set in abandoned real-life tubes under Sydney, Australia - will make its debut online for free with BitTorrent [torrentfreak.com] . Simultaneously it will be released on physical DVD, to be distributed by Hollywood giant Paramount Pictures."

There, fixed that for you.

Oh, like radiohead.. not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516488)

Well.. the industry is starting to get a clue that it's old business model is obsolete?

Kind of releasing this like radiohead did with that album of theirs eh.. Hopefully the movie is decent and worth buying to support these people and show that they can make money in the new world..

Somebody please go check the temp in hell!!! (1)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516640)

Because someone in the entertainment business finally gets it!!! I predict that if this film is worth the time wasted watching it + 5 minutes, it will become one of the most heavily viewed widely distributed films EVER!!!

-Oz

With Justin Timberlake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516646)

I honestly thought this meant they were making a movie about the creation of BitTorrrent. "The Anti-Social Network"?

Please dupe this story in 60 days. (2)

Reeses (5069) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516696)

This is the first time I've ever asked for Slashdot to dupe a story.

But, post this again, in 60 days, when the movie is out so I can get it.

Have you learned nothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516896)

It's a tarp!

Read that wrong (1)

bedouin (248624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517120)

I thought they were releasing a movie all about BitTorrent. Funny thing is I'd pay to a download of a movie about P2P if it were well made and objective. This? I won't even download it for free.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>