×

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!

BitTorrent Inc. Introduces Ad-Supported Downloads

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the sure-to-be-popular dept.

Television 115

BTJunkie writes "BitTorrent Inc. is experimenting with alternatives to paid downloads on their Entertainment Network, and is now experimenting with advertising supported downloads. This news comes nearly one month after the initial release of the Entertainment Network, a possible sign of failure.'The ad-supported model is currently being tested on episodes by the video gamers network G4, but is likely to be tested on episodes from other publishers in the future. The video ads are short video clips delivered by YuMe Networks, a company that is specialized in IP based video ads. YuMe CEO Jayant Kadambi said that the company expects to deliver more user targeted video ads as soon as BitTorrent Inc. signs more deals with publishers that want to experiment with ad-supported downloads.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

115 comments

Future of downloadable media (4, Interesting)

5, Troll (919133) | about 7 years ago | (#18590229)

SellaBand uses a 'DRM-free and ad supported downloads' business model for their music. You can read how it works http://www.sellaband.com/site/how-it-works.html [slashdot.org]">h ere (steps 6-7):

That together with their crowdfunding business model to fund the recording will be the future I think, or at least will play a big role in it.

Absolutely. (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | about 7 years ago | (#18598953)

The great thing about Sellaband's approach is that it focuses on the part of the equation that really is scarce and valuable: the artist's time and talent. You can easily copy an MP3 file, so it's hard to get people to pay for one.. but you can't copy an artist's time. If you want him to record a song for you, you have to pay him. There's no way around it (unless you kidnap him and force him into slavery, I guess).

However, their model could still use some improvements. For example, they currently set the same price for every artist ($50,000), and they use that money solely to fund the production of an album. The artists don't get a penny of it; they have to rely on ad revenue.

What if, instead, an artist could set his own price and use the money however he wants? Let's say you're a guy with a laptop and a guitar, and you have no desire to sell CDs or go to a studio for professional recording, you just have some ideas for a few songs. Why not charge only a few hundred bucks (which would be held in escrow), record and mix the songs yourself, upload the MP3s when you're done, and then pocket the money? You'd be directly selling your labor, giving yourself a guaranteed income instead of hoping for ad revenue that may never materialize.

Yuk (3, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#18590255)

Anyone else around here sick of all the ads we get bombarded with on a nearly constant basis?

Road signs, radio, tv, t-shirts, hell, even the back of police cars in some cities.

Personally i try to avoid doing businesses with companies that practice 'flooding advertisement'.

Re:Yuk (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18590337)

In general I don't like unsolicited ads, but that is generally limited to things I pay for. I still don't like ads even on free things, but I can at least understand why they exist, especially if a non-free option exists without ads.

Just as long as they realize they *still* can't force me to look at or pay attention to their ads.

Re:Yuk (1)

BiggyP (466507) | about 7 years ago | (#18595253)

Well that's the point, i'd like to think that advertising, no matter how clever it is, will not convince me that i want or need a product in which i've had no previous interest. I don't enjoy watching adverts and thankfully most of the television i watch has no advertising but i generally don't do go out of my way to avoid them because i don't perceive any risk from ad exposure, and struggle to understand those who do, considering that they're already acutely aware of the purpose and presence of advertising.

Re:Yuk (4, Insightful)

Normal Dan (1053064) | about 7 years ago | (#18590355)

I agree. Unfortunately, there is not much one can do about it. Advertising is a way to make a product cheaper and the people want things to be cheep. We are slowly turning into an ad based economy where payment is now offered in the form of ad space. People are already selling their bodies [chinadaily.com.cn] as ad space. I admit it is getting rather ridiculous. But we will continue on this path until we can find a more profitable solution. Companies do follow the profits you know.

Re:Yuk (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 years ago | (#18590965)

Watching an advertisement for Nike (for instance) on television only make watching television cheaper, it doesn't make buying shoes any cheaper, it actually increases the cost of the shoes. So here's the real question. Would you rather have cheaper TV/Internet/Magazines, or would you rather have cheaper "everything else"?

Not really (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 7 years ago | (#18598715)

it doesn't make buying shoes any cheaper, it actually increases the cost of the shoes
The point of the advertising is to pay for itself with the increased flow of profits. If anything, it should make it cheaper.

Re:Yuk (2, Insightful)

Deagol (323173) | about 7 years ago | (#18591483)

Advertising is a way to make a product cheaper and the people want things to be cheep.

Umm.... advertising is a way to influence people buy stuff. See the generic/store brands at your favorite grocer. Cheaper *and* no advertising needed.

In the absence of ads, people are generally smart enough to know what they need, when they need it. The world as we know it wouldn't grind to a financial halt if advertisers were to die off in some mass extinction, in spite of what sales people would like you to think.

Re:Yuk (4, Insightful)

ortholattice (175065) | about 7 years ago | (#18591951)

The world as we know it wouldn't grind to a financial halt if advertisers were to die off in some mass extinction, in spite of what sales people would like you to think.

Without advertising, I doubt so many people would be buying things they don't need and overextending their credit to do so. While the world wouldn't grind to a financial halt, it would slow down significantly, probably causing a major recession/depression. The economy is unfortunately very dependent on the stupid people of the world who use their paycheck as a ticket to shop till they drop for useless crap.

I used to be married to someone like that.

Re:Yuk (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 years ago | (#18592955)

I'm very uncomfortable with this current notion that advertising is the solution to every market imbalance or inefficiency. The traditional model for distributing movies and videos isn't working? "Use Advertising"? Broadcast TV losing viewership to the web? "Put advertising on the web". People not buying newspapers? "Advertising". Video Games? "Advertising".

As ortholattice says, one of the most intractable problems for the US economy today is the extension of expensive credit. The savings rate is MINUS ONE PERCENT. We are told that this is a great and booming economy, but everybody owes more this year than they did last year, and the cost of carrying that credit is more expensive than ever.

We have just started to see an unprecedented level of mortgage forfeiture. People will lose their homes like never before because they used the little bit of equity they had built up in their houses to pay off their credit cards, and they did so by snapping up all the insane adjustable rate mortgages and interest-only home equity loans. It all worked as long as prices went up. With just the merest contraction in the housing market, hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people are going to get hurt when their monthly mortgage payments quadruple.

Advertising. Making you want something you don't need, making you want something you don't want. Making you want something that's bad for you. It's the economic equivalent to religious fanaticism. The "free-market" radicals that have been driving this country and our economy since WWII have lied to us. The free market only serves to shrink the number of people who have power and wealth. The only way this game ends is by the vast majority of us living in near poverty, working 60 hours a week just to live.

I'm looking at a graph published in the Detroit Free Press that was made using US Census data. Since 2000, the average income of Americans has gone down by between 6 and 9 percent. That takes into account the nice raise that you think you got back in January. Yet, your president tells you that we've got the strongest economy in years. What he leaves out is that it's strongest for him and his pals. You and me? Not so much.

Sure, you've got a swell 42" HDTV screen, a nice car, and a couple of the latest game consoles. But only because your credit cards are working harder than ever before. What you really have is indenture to the credit industry. We're getting screwed and advertising is the pimp. As long as you can keep moving up, getting those raises, avoiding layoffs, moving those balances from card to card it'll seem like it's all working. Do you know what those in the credit industry call people who pay their credit card balances in full every month? "Deadbeats". Seriously. They hate people who pay their bills on time and are responsible.

Advertising is not your friend. Neither is "faith-based" finance.

Re:Yuk (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18593863)

>>I used to be married to someone like that.

Yeah, it is always someone elses fault isn't it? It is infact your fault for not seeing such an obvious feature in someone before going into marriage out of all things! Infact, judging from your comment, your divorce probably wasn't because your ex-wife shopped till she dropped, it was probably because she left you because you are a little tightwad bitch. You and your anticonformist thoughts, probably pushed her away. I wouldn't blame her, if I was married to some jackass who thought it was cool to 'take on the man' and not become like the other 'sheeple', I'd drop your ass in a second. You probably use 'sheeple' on a daily basis too, I know you do. Only little fucks like you would say that on your ill conceived high horse. Here's an idea, get your mom's dick out of your mouth, get out of the basement and stop thinking like you know every damn thing and KILL YOURSELF FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE AROUND YOU!!

GOD DAMN I THINK I JUST HAD AN ANEURYSM!!!! I CAN ONLY STAND SO MUCH OF YOU ASSHOLES FUUUUUCK FUCK FUCK CALL A DAMN AMBULE

Buying Luxury = Stupid? (2, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 7 years ago | (#18598755)

Let me highlight some things in your comment.

Without advertising, I doubt so many people would be buying things they don't need and overextending their credit to do so. While the world wouldn't grind to a financial halt, it would slow down significantly, probably causing a major recession/depression. The economy is unfortunately very dependent on the stupid people of the world who use their paycheck as a ticket to shop till they drop for useless crap.
I can't figure out why you hold a grudge against a group that does no personal harm to you, and that thankfully holds up the economy.

I used to be married to someone like that.
Ah.

Re:Yuk (1)

ngworekara (1027704) | about 7 years ago | (#18592667)

For what its worth, I think I've seen enough ads in my life to have paid for every movie, tv show, and cd I've ever stolen off of bittorent. Honestly, I think the equation is still a bit unbalanced, for that reason I'm going to ignore this new service just like I ignored the pay services of Apple, RealNetworks, and bittorrent. Not to mention the pay services of the movie theaters -- at $8 a pop for over the last decade, $6-$7 before for as far back as I can remember -- I'm still busy getting my money's worth.

Oh, let's not forget April 1st's remarkable experiment in ad-based movie distribution, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie. I was really quite impressed with their bravery in that particular case until... well the joke was on me. Sort of, because now I'm going to get it off bittorent. I weep little for Turner broadcasting.

Re:Yuk (1)

Larus (983617) | about 7 years ago | (#18595575)

Unfortunately, there is not much one can do about it.
That's not completely true. Remember the days when pr0n was rampant and carelessly visiting websites at work could be detrimental for your employment? The users as a whole tagged the responsibility on the ISPs to get rid of the obnoxious behavior of such sites. The ISPs either fix it or go bust. Presto, the problem was gone.

The evil solution is to find someone who has the most to lose. Instead of enforcing telemarketing laws, legislatures can always tag phone companies with hefty tax bills proportional to the amount of spam calls received and reported. Unfair? Too bad, the citizens have no right to suffer the flux of annoyance so that phone companies can make a few extra hundreds.

Re:Yuk (2, Interesting)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 7 years ago | (#18590389)

Anyone else around here sick of all the ads we get bombarded with on a nearly constant basis?

Not really.

I use adblock while web browsing, and any site that manages to piss me off with lots of advertising never gets visited twice.

And yet I am still, through my own targeted browsing, led to devices/things I wish to purchase on-line.

I guess this is because, contrary to the statistically defined web browsing individual, I am in fact already aware of the things I want to buy, and quite capable of convincing myself as to their usefulness.

Re:Yuk (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | about 7 years ago | (#18590603)

To be honest, eh whatever, I have seen so many adds that they relay do not affect me much at all. Really I can't think of 1 occurrence when a add made me want to go with a specific product or anything. I literally ignore adds as they have become non effective because of the MASS overdose of adds we all see on a daily basses. When I go to buy something I spend my time doing research, do I buy this brand or that, well I look up the info, O look this has 5 year warranty this one 1 year, guess what I get. And as for things as simple as even milk or smiler items which re still advertised, I see 3 brands of milk for example, I try all 3 and get the one after that I enjoyed the best. I honestly believe adds have lost the majority of there effectiveness these days and its the fault of the people who are spamming us with adds, they have gotten the public to the point that we can just ignore them and move on.

Re:Yuk (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 years ago | (#18592281)

You're wrong.

Advertising is designed by the worlds best psychologists to make you feel unhappy with your life as it is, so you will go buy something. They work even if you ignore them. What you are experiencing is the surrendering to their influence that happens when you just give up under the bombardment and the accompanying rationalization. If you cut yourself off from the constant bombardment of ads for a little while, you'll be shocked.

Advertisers, with knowledge and intent, systematically manipulate people to react according to their primitive responses instead of with reasoned responses, contrary to peoples larger self interest and for personal gain.

And they've carved an industry for themselves out of the fact that "Superior Performing Product A" will be ignored in the face of competition from "Inferior Performing Product B" assisted by the pervasive advertising machine.

Their tactics are so effective that to a certain extent they've made themselves the gatekeepers of the so called free market economy.

They're fucking evil.

Re:Yuk (1)

Kingrames (858416) | about 7 years ago | (#18595807)

I think slashdot has found the most bitter person alive(tm).

Wow, like seriously, you wiped the smile off my face and made me regret feeling good all this morning.

Re:Yuk (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 7 years ago | (#18596153)

one slight problem with your analysis. I don't own a television.

Why? Because I was married to a lazy biatch who sat in front of it and neglected our child for years before I finally divorced her and got my kid.

Since then I haven't been able to stand television. For my SF video needs I rely on getting dvds of series I particularly want.

Re:Yuk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18597787)

Advertising is designed by the worlds best psychologists to make you feel unhappy with your life as it is

Unfortunately for them, psychology is an extremely inexact "science". Different people can respond very differently to the same ad.

For example, all my life, I have always gotten a small amount of enjoyment out of refusing to purchase advertised products. When I deliberately do not buy their product, it makes me feel a bit more in control of my life -- it's like an affirmation that I'm in control of what I do. I also experience "schadenfreude" -- I enjoy knowing that their money is being wasted on me. I also fantasize that my refusal to purchase their product is "hurting" them a little bit -- in retaliation for their trying to tell me what I'm supposed to do.

For almost every commercial I see, I get this little internal shudder and I think to myself something like: "my god, that's just stupid", or "why do you think I care about your crap?". Thinking those little thoughts makes me feel a bit superior, and I rather enjoy that feeling.

For me, the big payoff (emotionally) is not buying the advertised stuff. I especially love walking right past the merchandise without stopping -- and I think to myself: "I get to keep my money -- ha ha -- I win!".

Whatever those "world's best psychologists" are doing, it isn't working on me. They made me hate their products. They failed. Of course, I never expected them to succeed, because people's psychologies are vastly different -- what one person likes, another person is bound to hate. And there's nothing they can do about that fundamental fact.

Re:Yuk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18598879)

Of course, I never expected them to succeed, because people's psychologies are vastly different -- what one person likes, another person is bound to hate. And there's nothing they can do about that fundamental fact.
Yes, that must be why advertising has been such a failure.

Re:Yuk (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 7 years ago | (#18598951)

I don't see anything wrong here. Advertising is fair game, and if you aren't "intelligent" enough(since whether or not you like to shop is the be-all and end-all of intelligence measurements), then you may end up holding up the economy! Shocking no? And this manufactured desire, once satiated, will provide the person with some manufactured happiness, at least for a short time. Most people win from this arrangement, yet there is so much resentment here. Why?

Re:Yuk (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#18590729)

Does adblock work in the car? Or while you are walking down the sidewalk?

Online ads are just one small part of the problem.

Re:Yuk (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 7 years ago | (#18592653)

not really, I don't drive.

However, I make a point of not buying anything that pisses me off through obtrusive advertising.

Re:Yuk (1)

zappepcs (820751) | about 7 years ago | (#18590787)

I use adblock too, and have to stop and think about it when people complain of ads. I just don't see them anymore. For the most part, network television convinced me a LONG time ago that if it needs to be advertised there is a >90% chance that you don't need it. I'm tired of people making up diseases to sell me shit http://www.havidol.com/ [havidol.com].

I pretty much not only ignore advertisements but put those items on my 'not going to buy it' list.

Re:Yuk (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 years ago | (#18591215)

I took their test. Wow, looks like I need to see my doctorB. They are just looking to get people on medication they don't need, just look at some of the questions. I stress for success? I like to feel special? I don't like feeling like a wallflower? Life seems better when I have more than others? Really I think about everybody in the world has this condition.

Re:Yuk (1)

zappepcs (820751) | about 7 years ago | (#18591433)

Not to burst your bubble, but your humor is drier than the British, or you didn't realize that was a joke site..... hmmmm

Re:Yuk (1)

alphamugwump (918799) | about 7 years ago | (#18590679)

It's only when they put ads on paid-for stuff that it gets irritating. Tasteful, unobtrusive, contextual ads are just fine with me. Of course, I still block them anyway.

Frankly, I think their best bet would be to make ads that people want to watch. If you go on youtube, a compilation of funny ads is one of the top videos of all time. Put another way, you create a self-replicating meme, and tag on a payload.

Of course, Bittorrent Inc. is probably screwed. The kind of people who use bittorrent are usually not terribly concerned about legality anyway. So asking them to buy a bunch of DRMed crap, and waste their bandwidth on ads is probably not a smart idea. If they set up a nice, clean FTP server with plain old MPEGs, they might get people to pay for it, if they were lucky. They might attract videophiles with too much money, who want to max out their pipes. But if it's bittorrent, you're paying them so they can use your bandwidth.

Re:Yuk (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 years ago | (#18592721)

Frankly, I think their best bet would be to make ads that people want to watch.

This is the same logic as "Their best bet is to have a shower and dress up nice before raping my wife."

What choice is there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18592023)

Take a look at Wikipedia.. zero ads, donation driven. Yet the donations aren't even 1/500th of what Google adwords text boxes would bring in... Going ad free on the Internet today would appear to be an irrational decision. Sure, not everyone is out to make a pile of cash, but even non-profits have missions that having more money can help.

Re:Yuk (1)

tuxic (769908) | about 7 years ago | (#18592543)

Road signs and police cars? That advertising doesn't exist in Sweden, sounds terribly awful. That's supposed to be paid entirely with tax money when done right, no?

Re:Yuk (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#18592663)

Commercial ads using tax money? I dont think that is right.

But yes, we got both types over here in the states. Public busses have done it for decades. Rather disgusting if you ask me.

Even our license plates are advertisements in many cases. ( for the state one lives in )

Re:Yuk (1)

tuxic (769908) | about 7 years ago | (#18592915)

No no no ... tax money *avoids* having any ads. It would be a scandal to have ads supported by tax money, that doesn't make any rational sense :). Public buses here introduced ads sometime around 2000 maybe, it was pretty recently in a historic perspective. Now they have ads both in and outside of the buses. That public bus company has been around since the 1970s (before that I think this city was not big enough to fill that need, I live in a city that is tiny in comparison to United States population and area measures). Also, we have no 100 % privately held bus companies in this city. We have however a recently agreed upon privately run bus company that are licensed by the municipal to handle the traffic (a bit complex). This city has got about 110,000 inhabitants where 30,000 of them are university students. License plates never have advertisements in the traditional sense at least. Some of them have the dealer name listed, I mean the place the car was bought from, along with a web address sometimes. But, as you probably already know, taxes are high in Sweden to cover expenses that other countries cover through ad means instead.

Re:Yuk (2, Insightful)

Wildclaw (15718) | about 7 years ago | (#18593233)

Advertising is an incredible drain on the captialistic society. The costs (to society) of advertising comes from several directions.

* The first is the obvious costs of creating and distributing the advertising including the administration surrounding that process. Note, that when I say the cost to distribute the advertisment, I am talking about the cost for the distributor to distribute the advertisment.

* The second cost is the time wasted by those looking at (or just avoiding) the advertisments. This is an incredible cost. The majority of viewers don't use ad filtering tools or machines like Tivo. Also, while it is possible to time advertising with bathroom breaks, time broken up into small chunks is worth much less than a contiguous period of time.

* The third cost is the direct effect that advertising has on people's purchasing decisions. Advertising directly aims to undermine the consumers information about products by trumphing their own product as the best, and it is very effective at doing that. As everyone should know, the key to an effective market economy is informed consumers. The problem becomes obvious...

* Information pollution is also a cost. Tired of seeing billboards whereever you go? Not to mention that excessive advertising hides real information. The best example of this is search engine optimization. Advertiser pay money to fool search engines, while useful information disappears under loads of paid ads.

The sad thing is that advertising won't decrease anytime soon. Advertising is unfortunally effective, and it is a viscious cycle where the only response is for the opposing businesses is to buy their own advertisment. I would go as far as to say that advertising in its different forms is the bureaucracy of the libertarian society.

Re:Yuk (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 7 years ago | (#18594849)

Anyone else around here sick of all the ads we get bombarded with on a nearly constant basis?

No, it's just you. Everybody else loves ads. And telemarketers.

Re:Yuk (1)

trawg (308495) | about 7 years ago | (#18598317)

I'll happily accept ad-supported TV shows if it means I don't have to pay for them.

I'd happily download an xvid with embedded ads of the latest Sopranos episode, especially if I have the right to format shift it. I wouldn't bother removing the ads - sure, I might skip through them, but they're THERE and I'd probably see them.

This means I wouldn't have to shell out AU$60 to buy part one of Season 6 on DVD.

Patch (5, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | about 7 years ago | (#18590307)

Patch to bypass advertising to be released in about a week. Probably on Bittorrent.

Re:Patch (1)

Butisol (994224) | about 7 years ago | (#18590791)

I'd rate that more insightful than funny. I moved to Firefox primarily because of the enhanced ad blocking functionality. The extra security and those juicy extensions was just icing on the cake.

If I'm looking for free shit, what makes them think I want to see ads for shit I have to pay for? I wouldn't be blowing so much time on the internet downloading warez and porn site rips if I had money to blow.

BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | about 7 years ago | (#18590309)

BitTorrent Inc's biggest problem, ironically, is the success of the BitTorrent protocol. The premise behind the company seems to have been no more sophisticated than "The BitTorrent protocol is a success, we must be able to build a business around it, lets get people to pay for downloads". It demonstrates a serious lack of critical thinking about their own business model (something that is unfortunately common among those that have an early success in their careers, at the BitTorrent guys did).

The flaw in this logic is a failure to understand the success of the BitTorrent protocol. People use BitTorrent because they don't have the money to pay for the bandwidth to distribute what they are distributing because they don't have a revenue model.

However, if you have a half-decent revenue model, such as advertising, revenue easily offsets the bandwidth costs of distributing video from a central server over HTTP, so why put your users through the pain of having to install a piece of client software?

BitTorrent's problem is that anyone that can afford to pay them for their services can probably afford to distribute their content over HTTP from a centralized server, and why wouldn't they given the much lower barrier to entry for their users?

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (-1, Troll)

tonigonenstein (912347) | about 7 years ago | (#18590807)

However, if you have a half-decent revenue model, such as advertising, revenue easily offsets the bandwidth costs of distributing video from a central server over HTTP, so why put your users through the pain of having to install a piece of client software? BitTorrent's problem is that anyone that can afford to pay them for their services can probably afford to distribute their content over HTTP from a centralized server, and why wouldn't they given the much lower barrier to entry for their users?

lines 5-7: warning: redundant paragraph.
lines 1-3: point previously made here.

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (-1, Troll)

tonigonenstein (912347) | about 7 years ago | (#18590859)

However, if you have a half-decent revenue model, such as advertising, revenue easily offsets the bandwidth costs of distributing video from a central server over HTTP, so why put your users through the pain of having to install a piece of client software?

BitTorrent's problem is that anyone that can afford to pay them for their services can probably afford to distribute their content over HTTP from a centralized server, and why wouldn't they given the much lower barrier to entry for their users?

lines 5-7: warning: redundant paragraph.
lines 1-3: point previously made here.

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18592891)

Post #18590859: warning: redundant post. Post #18590807: post previously made here. I love playing tee ball.

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (1)

Don Negro (1069) | about 7 years ago | (#18591563)

(something that is unfortunately common among those that have an early success in their careers, at the BitTorrent guys did).

Big words from the man who "invented" Freenet. *coughBrandonWileycough*

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (1)

Sanity (1431) | about 7 years ago | (#18592063)

Big words from the man who "invented" Freenet. *coughBrandonWileycough*
If you have something to say, you should say it clearly and I may respond to it. Otherwise, grow up.

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (2, Funny)

stinerman (812158) | about 7 years ago | (#18595921)

I don't know Ian, his UID is lower than yours, so the onus is on you to disprove his remarks.

</sarcasm>

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18592739)

Big words from the man who "invented" Freenet. *coughBrandonWileycough*
Hey Mike, I know he is your friend, but even so you should consider the possibility that his perspective on things may be somewhat colored in a "Brandon friendly" way. Try to find one person involved in Freenet (that wasn't already a personal friend of Brandon's before-hand) that agrees with his version of events.

If your insinuation is that Brandon is the actual inventor of Freenet, perhaps you should take a look at Clarke's original paper on Freenet [freenetproject.org], written long before your friend Brandon was ever involved.

Duh... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18591623)

The success of the BitTorrent protocol was largely due to people who didn't want to pay for things to begin with. Since the protocol is open source, it would be really difficult to charge for a "better" client since the code would just be forked and the pay-for version abandoned. Unfortunately, with something as relatively simple as a BitTorrent there isn't really a support revenue model either. It seems a shame that Bram isn't getting anything out of BitTorrent, but that was his choice up front.

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (3, Insightful)

DieNadel (550271) | about 7 years ago | (#18591715)

BitTorrent's problem is that anyone that can afford to pay them for their services can probably afford to distribute their content over HTTP from a centralized server, and why wouldn't they given the much lower barrier to entry for their users?
This is only true as long as the content is only moderately popular. For really popular content, they'd rather distribute the load among the users downloading it.

Plus, if this turns out to be a highly desirable feature, browsers will soon support P2P without the need for external/plugin software.

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (1)

Sanity (1431) | about 7 years ago | (#18592255)

Weird, I replied to this and my reply appears to have disappeared. Here we go again:

This is only true as long as the content is only moderately popular. For really popular content, they'd rather distribute the load among the users downloading it.
Not so, the more popular the content, the cheaper the bandwidth required for each individual download, meaning that it makes even more sense to distribute from a centralized server.

Plus, if this turns out to be a highly desirable feature, browsers will soon support P2P without the need for external/plugin software.
I wouldn't hold your breath. P2P has been around for at least 7 years now, and I'm not aware of any credible movement towards integrating a P2P client into any popular web browser by default (makers of web browsers these days tend to be very bloat conscious).

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (1)

infestedsenses (699259) | about 7 years ago | (#18593645)

Plus, if this turns out to be a highly desirable feature, browsers will soon support P2P without the need for external/plugin software.
Opera already does this as of version 9 [opera.com].

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (1)

Sanity (1431) | about 7 years ago | (#18594369)

Opera already does this as of version 9.
Yeah, but Opera is what, 1.5% of browser market share (and not climbing)?

Re:BitTorrent Inc. concept flawed from the start (1)

Virgil Tibbs (999791) | about 7 years ago | (#18592231)

BitTorrent Inc.'s problem is that if they don't look as if they are pursuing a business plan which is traditional in terms of what RIIA and MPAA think, they are liable to get their ass's sued to pieces.
we all know that the RIAA and MPAA will sue even if they are just sueing to put BitTorrent Inc. out of business.

How about World of Warcraft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18597499)

Blizzard uses the bittorrent protocol to distribute large patches. As well you can download the complete game (around 3.5 GiB) in the form of a demo. Instead of distributing torrents they distribute there own client/torrent so from the end users prospective they're just downloading a patch program and running it which then takes care of everything except the need for an open port. However if the user is unable to open a port everything will still download fine via HTTP directly from Blizzard. It appears very similar to the way MS distributes many things (with a small program downloaded which downloads more stuff). The point I'm trying to make is that it's still worth while for companies with money to dump some or all of their bandwidth costs back on their users ISPs.

I agree that Bittorrent Inc. is still going to fail but I think it's more because bittorrent users already know where they can get better content for free and without ads delivered by the same method. Companies are just going to have to get used to the idea that they're going to have to have to actually compete with "free" by offering more then free can offer. Most people using paid services, like iTunes, are doing so because they have the money to spend and its nice and easy. It's not because they want to "feel good" about not "stealing" music. Generally society (at least where I live in Ontario, Canada) doesn't view downloading as committing much of a serious crime. It's a crime like speeding on the 401 is a crime. It's something that's against the law but everyone's doing it and no one cares really. So I really doubt anyone is spending money on paid download services because "it's the right thing to do" and companies are still marketing and pricing downloadables without considering what "free" has to offer because they feel there's no way to compete with these "criminals". But clearly they're wrong. You can't get the iTunes experience for free and that's why it's semi successful (still to expensive for widespread use in my opinion). Unfortunately for Bittorrent Inc. you can get the bittorrent experience for free and on top of it bittorrent inc. is practically the last horse out of the gate.

Will it pan out? (3, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | about 7 years ago | (#18590379)

I had spoken with a friend about this sort of thing. I download tv shows because I don't want to watch tv shows on their schedule. And air times for shows are a constant battle of popularity. I don't even mind the commercials. I basically want the equivalent of free tivo. But all the TV shows are generally bittorrented without the commercials.

However, the tv shows need ad-revenue to keep going, even if the could offer the episodes with commercials, they still need to keep cycling the commercials for a flow of revenue. Plus bandwidth problems if using direct downloads for HD quality episodes.

I hoped for something like this. I loathe the current internet-based offerings on the network websites. Small resolutions, and constant re-buffering and queuing the next clip.

I just wonder if they will be able to pull this off without having the commercials easily circumvented. I have no doubt that the commercials can be circumvented, the key word here is /easily/. So that advertisers will still pay to keep the show going as long as those who don't want to go through the fuss of dodging commercials will still sit through it.

Re:Will it pan out? (3, Interesting)

Mattwolf7 (633112) | about 7 years ago | (#18591157)

ABC.com you can watch most of their shows online with about 3 (unskipable) 30 second commercials, they aren't HD, but I haven't had any re-buffering problems from their website like you say you have.

The answer is in the format (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18591445)

You can fast-forward mpeg-2 and 4 because of keyframes, which are displayed when fast-forwarding. So make sure your VBR-Torrentcasts are dense in keyframes at the commercials, and the message of the commercials can be read in the keyframes.

Re:Will it pan out? (1)

LordNimon (85072) | about 7 years ago | (#18591493)

You could also subscribe to Netflix. About a year after each season is broadcast, it's made available on DVD to rent. That way, you'll have high-quality video, no ads, and you'll be supporting the content creators. Plus, the DVDs often contain uncut episodes, and in the case of a cancelled show, unaired episodes.

Re:Will it pan out? (1)

Jeff85 (710722) | about 7 years ago | (#18592695)

Commercials aren't a huge deal for me, but I really don't want to wait more to download the extra X megabytes per commercial, especially seeing as how my crummy "high-speed" internet connection my apartment provides becomes as slow as dial-up at times. While it hasn't been incredibly bad lately, my speed does seem to get capped at 40-50 KB/sec frequently.

Re:Will it pan out? (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | about 7 years ago | (#18596723)

This is one of the many great things about Heroes. NBC has all the episodes available to watch free online. Each episode will get maybe 3 minutes of advertising, total. And while the advertisement is running, the next section is loading. It's stuff like this that makes me happy as a consumer.
If anyone reading this knows who thought that up, tell them that they get kudos.

Interesting. (2, Interesting)

flitty (981864) | about 7 years ago | (#18590401)

Entertainment is going to have to come up with SOME way to make money. TiVo has killed tv advertising. People (like me) don't want to pay for something like Television. I wouldn't mind a 2 minute commercial at the beginning of my LOST download if I could get it Legally, As fast (or faster) as i can through other means, and without commercials every 10 minutes.

Sounds like a sustainable formula to me. No DRM though, I want to be able to burn it onto a cd and watch it on my Tele, not just my small computer screen. Encode it in H.264, or DiVX or whatever is high quality.

G4 (4, Funny)

businessnerd (1009815) | about 7 years ago | (#18590403)

The ad-supported model is currently being tested on episodes by the video gamers network G4
Why would you test this on content that no one wants to see? Seems like they're just setting themselves up for failure.

Wait, what? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | about 7 years ago | (#18590453)

How will this work? (Link is, predictably blocked at work for having *torrent* in the url).

Downloads only happen when the client is full-screen/ad playing?
Workaround: shut off monitor/speakers, make sandwich

Videos interspersed with ads?
Workaround: Annoying, but use virtualdub to take them out.

Popups/software required?
Workaround: figure it out or just stick to Paarrite Bay

Re:Wait, what? (1)

flitty (981864) | about 7 years ago | (#18590561)

Shhhh. don't tell advertisers that advertising doesn't work. They'll stop paying for stuff.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

WoZzeR (1081201) | about 7 years ago | (#18591069)

As someone who works in the advertising research field, I'll let you in on a little secret.... Advertising DOES work. What people don't seem to realize is that different advertising mediums (web/TV/Print) are geared towards different markets. It's easy to say that the world would be all fine and dandy without ads, but the truth is that advertising actually help bring down the price on many of the products that you are probably using at the moment. Advertisers actually understand this (for the most part), and expect you to ignore the ads that do not pertain to you. You have to look beyond the narrow view that all advertising is being bombarded with what the latest/greatest product is. While you may feel that advertising doesn't affect you, I can almost guarantee that it does. Think about your phone company (cell or landline), what made you go with that service plan. For most of the /. readers, I would assume that had to deal with reading reviews about the service, friends that have the service who seemed to like it, things of that nature. I'm not saying that everyone blindly follows an advertising and says "I have to get one, I'm going to go buy one now", more that people see a product/service advertised and find out more information on it.

Re:Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | about 7 years ago | (#18591465)

advertising actually help bring down the price on many of the products

Not really - it merely shifts the costs, and costs more because of implementation expense. Advertising requires significant expenditure in the people who work in the field. That expense is borne out by the customer - as all expenses eventually are. Advertising is overhead. Overhead should always be minimized.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

BBandCMKRNL (1061768) | about 7 years ago | (#18592853)

Think about your phone company (cell or landline), what made you go with that service plan.

I moved to a different building on campus about 1.5 years ago and lost my cell signal at my desk from my current provider. Now that my contract is up, I'm switching to the only cell provider that provides a cell signal to my desk. Advertising doesn't matter. Of the four providers in my area, only one provides a signal to my desk.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18591993)

Videos interspersed with Ads:

Most people won't bother removing them. Problem solved.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | about 7 years ago | (#18592169)

Unless it requires a proprietory player (which opens up a whole other level of stupid), they'll just be able to fast forward in WMP. I'm not aware of any feature that disables seek in the actual application (web windows can do it), though .wmv or .asf sometimes don't seek by their own nature.

This is a well known dance (4, Informative)

vivaoporto (1064484) | about 7 years ago | (#18590615)

I've seen it twice already. First, in financial troubles, over the air TV broadcasters began to pack the transmission with endless and annoying advertisements. Here in Portugal the 3 major channels (RTP, SIC, TVI) use to roll out ads for 15, 20 minutes, for goodness sake! It is not that rare for people to forget completely what they were watching *, when zapping through the channels. That pushed a lot of people to cable, as initially they were mostly ad free and, thus, worth the price. But as budgets got short, spendings got high and greed kicked in, they began to pack paid channels (like AXN, History Channel and Discovery for instance) with publicity too, not in volume, but enough to annoy. At the same time, cable companies began to offer premium channels with less or no advertisement on them, but you have to pay extra to get them ...

Then, came the internet, and the most tech savvy people began to get access to what they want, ad free and faster than over the legal channels of distribution, going around the artificial international syndication delay, that used to be 12, even 18 months! Most people still don't have access to such goodies, but it is a matter of time until someone with guts and technology creates a high quality YouTube-like system for movies and series.

Trying to push advertisement to this internet target audience will not work, as getting rid of ads is one of the reasons people go to the internet to look for things. People would even pay for content, they do it every time by buying complete season DVDs (although 70/$60 is kinda bitter to shell out in a single season), as long as the price is not extortive. People will not pay $4 to rent an episode for 24 hours. They can buy the whole season for, let's say, $60, what in the average 22 episodes season + 8 extras mean that they can *own* the goddamn thing for $2/episode. People will not download it to watch ads, they can watch with ads TV already, without the hassle of having to download, or watch it without ads, jumping through a few hoops.

Bottom line is: sell an episode of a serie in an ITunes like system (preferentially without the DRM) for $ 0.99 (fixed price) and people will buy it. Better yet, along with the file transfer, let people watch what they bought in an YouTube style interface, so people don't need to bother with media players, codecs or moving the file around.

* By time I was writing this, I remembered I was watching my favorite soap opera ( gasp!) but the advertisement ran for so long that I completely forgot about it, and lost the whole second half. Damn.

Re:This is a well known dance (1)

symes (835608) | about 7 years ago | (#18590931)

Here in Portugal the 3 major channels (RTP, SIC, TVI) use to roll out ads for 15, 20 minutes, for goodness sake!

Seriously?! I guess we are kind of lucky here in the UK as we have the BBC. But it would be interesting to see channels' market share by %adverts (controlling for content, etc.) to see if the intangible cost to viewers can be worked out... i.e. how much extra would you pay for a reduction in x minutes of advertising? My worry is that content providers are working under the assumption that more ads does not equal less viewing pleasure - which might mean we are all heading for the Portugese model.

Re:This is a well known dance (2, Funny)

beckerist (985855) | about 7 years ago | (#18591491)

I will never call 30 minute commercials "infomercials" again! Instead, I will now forever call them "Portugercials!"

So (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | about 7 years ago | (#18590659)

When do most smart people use bit torrents. Well if you are like me you do not sit there and watch a linux iso, video game you bought, or whatever download for 3 hours. you either let it run in the background or you start it before going to bed. So hoe effective is this if any of us would start the download and go play a game, watch tv or surf the net.

Entertainment Value (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 7 years ago | (#18591041)

Well, it gives you something to do -- read and click on ads -- while waiting for you download completes. That's Entertainment Value.

Too little, too late (1)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | about 7 years ago | (#18591351)

If they'd brought this out years, before Youtube and before illegally torrenting shows for free became so widespread, they might have had a winner. Watching a few ads first is probably sufficiently minor that a lot of people would just live with it...if the ad-free alternatives weren't as easy or easier. Now, pretty much anyone that knows what BitTorrent means, knows where and how to get the illegal stuff, and there's nothing BitTorrent, Inc. can do that can compete with that.

so wait (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | about 7 years ago | (#18591405)

do they help seed, or are you fucked if no one else that likes the same shows as you is stupid enough to seed?

The true price of media is revealed! (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 years ago | (#18591435)

I have always said that £1 is too much to download a TV show, and here is the evidence.

How much can watching an ad be worth in revenue? Certainly not £1 per customer. It's the same on TV - they don't make anything like £1 per viewer on a show. Sure, there are bandwidth costs, but since it's BT you take on some of those yourself anyway (or your ISP does).

I'd pay 10p for a half hour TV show. No DRM, good quality xvid. Plays on everything with my choice of software.

Re:The true price of media is revealed! (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 7 years ago | (#18595071)

It's the same on TV - they don't make anything like £1 per viewer on a show.

Are you sure about that? Advertisers pay millions of dollars during an hour's TV. And that doesn't even include other sources of income that are derived from the show.

Re:The true price of media is revealed! (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 years ago | (#18595529)

From here: http://www.gaebler.com/Television-Advertising-Cost s.htm [gaebler.com]

"For example, a 30-second spot during the 2005 Superbowl sold for $2.4 million. Commercials during less-watched programs are more affordable, but the cost of those commercials may still run in excess of $100,000 per 30-seconds."

About 95 million people watched the Superbowl. That would seem to put it at much less than $1/viewer, or about 2.5 cents (1.25p in real money). Considering they want to charge a few pounds per program...

Not even full episodes (2, Insightful)

hexix (9514) | about 7 years ago | (#18591579)

The ad-supported downloads don't even appear to be full episodes of the G4 shows, just segments. These are already available for free via G4's podcasts, so why in the world would anyone want to go through the trouble of downloading them over bittorrent?

Plus, to make matters worse, the download rate was only 65K/sec, which is pretty very slow for my internet connection. The video quality wasn't even that good, something that would have made the bittorrent.com version better than the podcast version.

Bittorrent.com really needs to stop treating their potential customers like idiots and offer some incentive to use their products instead of the competition. The fact that they use the bittorrent protocol should lower their costs on the bandwidth side, but it increases the complexity on the customer's side. They really need to do something to make up for that (much lower prices or extremely high quality).

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18591723)

So if Google buys YuMe, will it be called it GooMe?

Make ads people want to download (4, Insightful)

monopole (44023) | about 7 years ago | (#18592221)

The problem is that Madison avenue is focused on push advertising rather than pull.

Look at all the ads that are on YouTube as content and actively downloaded. Even on my PVR I rewind and watch again good commercials. The problem with advertising and IPTV is that they force stupid, annoying, and pointless ads in a shotgun fashion assuming a captive audience. Run creative ads and use search terms and the like to target them. I figure Google is going to clean up big time on this on YouTube very soon.

I'm a single guy who doesn't drive but loves anime. If they would kill all the car ads, and the tampon ads and run anime and asian film ads I'd be as happy as a clam, toss in a link to the online store or ticket purchase and I'd be even happier. My democracy player downloads these ads automatically.

In the same fashion NewType magazine runs a DVD in every issue which has about three single anime episodes and a pile of trailers. While it's effectively pure advertising, its one of the most popular features, and when they discontinued it, readers made them bring it back. I've ended up buying many entire series based on the previews on those disks. That's focused and effective advertising.

The most effective email advertising I've ever encountered is the favorites search option on eBay. I get emails on a regular basis for stuff I'm actively seeking. I read every email and end up purchasing a reasonable percentage of items.

Re:Make ads people want to download (0)

dangitman (862676) | about 7 years ago | (#18595161)

Even on my PVR I rewind and watch again good commercials.

Goog commercials? Sir, such a thing does not exist.

Television producers should move to torrents (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | about 7 years ago | (#18592829)

I totally foresee a future in which bittorrent becomes the "mainstream" medium, television is rendered obsolete, and big-name television producers stop "broadcasting" shows, they just upload them to bittorrent -- with the commercial breaks put right into the video file. As it is now, when people rip video from television and upload it, they take the time to remove the commercials -- because hey, you're already going to all of the trouble to rip it, upload it, and attach your name to it, why not make it quality? Pirating is all about your rep. But if the producers just played into the torrent fad, then no one would have to rip the videos themselves -- and since the videos are being handed to people on a silver platter, my guess is that no one would bother to take the time to recut the video to be commercial-free and upload it again to another torrent (which would be illegal and probably have less seeds/leeches as a result). Of course, people would probably be quite likely to skip the commercials while watching, but whether or not they skip them would probably depend on the product being advertised -- a commercial would probably have about 5 seconds to grab the viewer's attention, lest it be skipped. Since you're uploading these programs to the internet (and don't have to deal with the cable provider), you can pick and choose your own targeted advertising ... I wonder how advertising for shows gets picked now? Also, it isn't as if people don't "skip" the commercials on television already -- they walk away to use the bathroom, get something to eat, or even just change the channel until the commercials are over. Doesn't this sound like a win-win situation? The consumers get the product for free, whenever they want it, and the producers reach a MUCH larger audience with their advertising (thereby increasing advertising revenues -- also, since the popularity of a torrent can easily be gauged by keeping track of how many people have/are downloading it, the popularity of a torrent could become the new "ratings" system, determining how valuable getting commercials onto that file would be for an advertiser). One final thing, I wonder how much cheaper it would be to upload a TV show onto bittorrent than it would be to get it on a cable channel? I don't know all of the specifics, but it seems totally feasible that the television producers could make more money than they do now by using free torrents to distribute their shows -- even while providing the product for free! After all, free product = more users = better advertising profits.

Television producers should move to bittorrent (2, Insightful)

justinlee37 (993373) | about 7 years ago | (#18592931)

I totally foresee a future in which bittorrent becomes the "mainstream" medium, television is rendered obsolete, and big-name television producers stop "broadcasting" shows, they just upload them to bittorrent -- with the commercial breaks put right into the video file.

As it is now, when people rip video from television and upload it, they take the time to remove the commercials -- because hey, you're already going to all of the trouble to rip it, upload it, and attach your name to it, why not make it quality? Pirating is all about your rep.

But if the producers just played into the torrent fad, then no one would have to rip the videos themselves -- and since the videos are being handed to people on a silver platter, my guess is that no one would bother to take the time to recut the video to be commercial-free and upload it again to another torrent (which would be illegal and probably have less seeds/leeches as a result). Of course, people would probably be quite likely to skip the commercials while watching, but whether or not they skip them would probably depend on the product being advertised -- a commercial would probably have about 5 seconds to grab the viewer's attention, lest it be skipped. Since you're uploading these programs to the internet (and don't have to deal with the cable provider), you can pick and choose your own targeted advertising ... I wonder how advertising for shows gets picked now?

Also, it isn't as if people don't "skip" the commercials on television already -- they walk away to use the bathroom, get something to eat, or even just change the channel until the commercials are over.

Doesn't this sound like a win-win situation? The consumers get the product for free, whenever they want it, and the producers reach a MUCH larger audience with their advertising (thereby increasing advertising revenues -- also, since the popularity of a torrent can easily be gauged by keeping track of how many people have/are downloading it, the popularity of a torrent could become the new "ratings" system, determining how valuable getting commercials onto that file would be for an advertiser).

One final thing, I wonder how much cheaper it would be to upload a TV show onto bittorrent than it would be to get it on a cable channel? I don't know all of the specifics, but it seems totally feasible that the television producers could make more money than they do now by using free torrents to distribute their shows -- even while providing the product for free! After all, free product = more users = better advertising profits.

PS Sorry about double-posting, I tend to forget paragraph tags when I'm excited about an idea.

Actual datapoints (1)

mattr (78516) | about 7 years ago | (#18594231)

Well sorry, I wrote a long post but decided it is too close to my own business. Anyway these guys are just getting started, or else they have tunnel vision. All they need to do is talk to people who have already done the market research and have seen lower tech systems actually now working and drawing money. I'd be really surprised if they don't have some successes, the question is probably how to do so while maintaining flexibility for the future. FWIW the market already exists in Japan and I've been thinking Zudeo could be an interesting tool to develop it.

From the "Still NOT Getting It Dept." (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | about 7 years ago | (#18599335)

What is it with these people, I get the tv i want now with no commercials, (thank you all you bt posters, i love each and everyone of ya), have for over 2yrs now, why go back. I tell you what, bring back Dead Like Me and Serenity, and I'll watch your commercial laden swill... til someone posts it elsewhere with the ads cut... :) CAT OUT OF BAG, these are not code words they are old adages, they get that way for a reason. We got a taste of free music, we still have it; we now have free tv and I don't want to go back. The place i live now still has the previous occupants cable hooked up (cabalco cable did not bother to disconnect it yet), so once in a while I try to watch tv but GODDAMN THE COMMERCIALS every 5 minutes, I would start reading again... :)

Advertising Downloads... (1)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | about 7 years ago | (#18599655)

I think i've heard of this somewhere before...
Hmmm...download free stuff for just the price of seeing a few ads. Its brilliant!! Hey we could call it Adware...
Oh, wait...Never mind.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...