Microsoft Patents DRM'ed P2P, Torrent Method

[bobbox1980]

Microsoft the patent troll strikes again. This patent is complete BS. I had a similar idea the moment bit torrent came out, it is an obvious idea.

I hope that there are clear examples of prior art out there that will nullify this patent or using bit torrent to legally distribute copy protected material is going to get very expensive.

 

[Guest]

This and folding@home both take the cake. With folding at home, you get to crack cryptography for the NSA under the ruse of curing cancer(while real cures like DCA don't even get an FDA review). You reckon if enough of us fold@home, that we'll cure cancer? F@H even mooches off of several open-source projects, but don't go asking them for the source-code, it's a ummm... secret.

Now, with this, not only do you get to take part in the DRM police state, but now you even get to provide the file server for them. Is this any better than having your PC turned into a Spam-bot?

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]IzzyCraft[/nom]torrents are a waste of bandwidth and are just cheap method for a company to distrube shit[/citation]
torrents are more reliable

with a normal server, if the server goes down, the content is no longer accessible, but with a torrent, as long as at least 1 peer has 100% of the file, everyone downloading the torrent will still receive data

torrents are less effected by a heavy number of people download

and torrents offered by large companies are still hosted by the server, so the server will accept as many people as it normally would for a http or ftp download but only difference will be it will also use the torrent network, which means if the server goes down or goes under heavy load, everyone will still get fast reliable downloads,

this also has the added benefit of lowering hosting cost, instead of getting multiple servers and hundreds of thousands of dollars in bandwidth to distribute your content, you can have a 1 server and a cheaper but decent connection and use bit torrent to distribute the content and get better performance than if you went with the multiple server and super fast connection with a ton of available bandwidth

 

[The_Prophecy]

Interesting.... too bad I hate DRM, and I hate software patents.

 

[trevorvdw]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]a user getting DRM free bluray content can still use their ancient amd 64 4000+ and geforce 6 home theater PC to watch their favorite 1080P content as the same quality and bit rate by pirating it while a legit customer will need a high end dual or quad core system with the latest video hardware that supports HDCP and also accelerates some of the decrypting of the DRM crap just to watch it[/citation]

So 10% more cpu utilization means you need a 2 - 4x the CPU power and likewise for the GPU? Yes that makes perfect sense....

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]d1st1but3d_c0mput1ng[/nom]This and folding@home both take the cake. With folding at home, you get to crack cryptography for the NSA under the ruse of curing cancer(while real cures like DCA don't even get an FDA review). You reckon if enough of us fold@home, that we'll cure cancer? F@H even mooches off of several open-source projects, but don't go asking them for the source-code, it's a ummm... secret.Now, with this, not only do you get to take part in the DRM police state, but now you even get to provide the file server for them. Is this any better than having your PC turned into a Spam-bot?[/citation]

You know, no one really cares about you and your puppet accounts "os of freedom" and whatnot. Pretty much none of us care about your paranoia, either...

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]trevorvdw[/nom]So 10% more cpu utilization means you need a 2 - 4x the CPU power and likewise for the GPU? Yes that makes perfect sense....[/citation]


I never said 10% higher, if you read the entire post you will see

"a bluray video will usually use like 80-90% CPU usage on a mid range system while the same video, same bitrate and similar file size (DRM removed) will have a 10-20% CPU usage", thats a 70% difference in CPU usage.

when the bluray content is encrypted, it takes a ton of CPU and GPU power to decrypt it, most older videocards will not offer any hardware acceleration for the drm'ed crap which further raises the CPU requirement
but if you get the content with out the DRM generally older videocards will offer acceleration and since there will be no decrypting, you get a much lower CPU usage and better hardware acceleration, which allows for less of a performance overhead which allows older systems to handle the bluray quality content

 

[thedreadfather]

lol trolls

 

[pochacco007]

have you ask yourself why is microsoft so worried about drm?

microsoft do sell their software product directly to the people but that is a small percentage as to what they sell to companies and corporations as well as computer makers such as dell and hp. what exactly are they worried about with drm? people pirated windows back then and microsoft surely didn't went broke.

the purpose of drm is so that you don't have ownership of their product. Microsoft v. Zamos

 

[back_by_demand]

I think using DRM was a bad turn of phrase, but the idea is sound.

1) Content providers needs to get online content to consumers
2) Hosting on a server is expensive on hardware and bandwidth
3) Torrents do not hit bandwidth on a host server
4) Content providers are all for cheaper ways to get it out there

Someone, (Microsoft), has now got as method for legal torrents that only require payment once you have downloaded it and reduce the workload on servers if the download is popular. It is a good idea. Not putting a DRM on the file would mean content providers not wanting to use it and the people who want to legitimately download are not frightened away.

Anyone who think DRM'd content available for download won't work I direct you to iTunes, the only thing changing here is the delivery protocol.

 

[lashton]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]Piracy is not convenient, it requires a user to spend time looking for the content, downloading it and scanning it for infections with multiple scanners, and hoping it is the correct content that they spend all day [/citation]

That is a load of crap, piratyes know where they can get the stuff they want, its faster and more convienient, and some times the "pirated" material is on faster servewr than the DRM company can provide, DRM will never work, not because its CRAP (which it is) but because it poses a challenge to "crackers", what they need to do ir release Movies online with ONLY DRM dont make any version without DRM, problem solved.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]lashton[/nom]That is a load of crap, piratyes know where they can get the stuff they want, its faster and more convienient, and some times the "pirated" material is on faster servewr than the DRM company can provide, DRM will never work, not because its CRAP (which it is) but because it poses a challenge to "crackers", what they need to do ir release Movies online with ONLY DRM dont make any version without DRM, problem solved.[/citation]
He is right, when content is on a central server and it gets lots of hits the whole thing slow down.
When a torrent gets popular the whole thing speeds up.
So torrenting files is faster.
Is it so unbelievable that a company would like to use legitimate torrents as a delivery method seeing as it has so many advantages?

 

[stradric]

[citation][nom]AlexTehNoob[/nom]... Ipods demand your address and credit card before you can sync them to iTunes, which is why I will never own one. If Microsoft goes to uber-intrusive DRM like Apple already has, then guess what? Your choices as a free, non-sheep person are: GNU/Linux/*BSD.[/citation]

That's just blatantly incorrect. #1, you don't need to use iTunes to sync your iPod. You can use Winamp or Songbird or Media Monkey. And #2, you only need to submit a credit card if you want to purchase songs on iTunes.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer Windows over Linux and plenty of reasons to prefer Linux over Windows. It's all a matter of preference. So get over yourself.

 

[Guest]

Don't know why people are getting so worked up about this. If you don't like it then don't use it, simple as. Regular P2P networks will still (and probably always) exist regardless.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]pochacco007[/nom]have you ask yourself why is microsoft so worried about drm? microsoft do sell their software product directly to the people but that is a small percentage as to what they sell to companies and corporations as well as computer makers such as dell and hp. what exactly are they worried about with drm? people pirated windows back then and microsoft surely didn't went broke. the purpose of drm is so that you don't have ownership of their product. Microsoft v. Zamos[/citation]
My guess is that the ownership of the patent is to use Windows-Torrent as a delivery method, not for their own products but for anyone elses. A good example of this would be Steam. Admittedly Steam doesn't use Torrent, but they do use their delivery system for software from many differant vendors. If Steam switched to a P2P instead of from their own servers, would people complain as much as they are about Microsoft? Of course not, it's just the Microsoft haters getting worked up.