BitTorrent Gets $8.7 Million in VC Funding

Brandon writes "BitTorrent just got a massive infusion of cash from venture capital firm DCM Doll. It looks like BitTorrent is hoping to cozy up with the content creators. From the article, 'Neither BitTorrent nor DCM have publicly stated how a legitimate service would work, but industry insiders have been busy speculating on how the distributed peer-to-peer service could help movie studios and filmmakers make for-pay content available.' Will this awaken Microsoft's Avalanche?"

Two in a row!

[LoganAvatar]

Dupe: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/27/183246 [slashdot.org] can we go for 3 dupes in a row?

Where have I seen this before?

[tepples]

Slashdot Search: bittorrent [slashdot.org] yields this article [slashdot.org], which claims a $8.75 million figure. Has the funding been cut by $50,000 or something?

Re:Good on 'em

[Frodo Crockett]

I do this without any guilt, because if the MPAA etc would get off their arses and build a decent delivery system where I could pay (a reasonable fee - not the full cost of a cinema ticket!!) to download the latest movies then I would.

Actually, the full cost of a cinema ticket ($8ish dollars where I live) would not be a bad price for a high-quality non-DRM'd movie. Consider that if you went to the theater, you'd have to pay for two tickets, unless the wife is young enough to get in for free. ;) You'd also pay ridiculous prices for sodas, popcorn, and candy at the theater.

MOD PARENT DOWN - PLAGIARISM

[Johnboi Waltune]

This is an exact copy of a post by 'popo' [slashdot.org] from the previous BitTorrent/venture capital thread.

Why would I give up my bandwidth if I have to buy?

[barfy]

Peer to Peer works when it is *SHARING*. Anything else and it is stealing. Cripes.

Re:Good on 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

So because they have yet to deliver the product you desire, you feel no guilt in stealing the the product they already have? I'm failing to see how that absolves you of any moral wrongdoing.

Re:Good on 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah man. If BMW would just get off their ass and build an awesome car for $15,000 I wouldn't have to steal the really expensive ones.

So lets get this straight - you do not feel guilty about breaking the law, because it is THEIR fault that you have to break the law because they didn't make something convenient for you in the way YOU see fit.

Nice logic.

I download movies because I have no respect for the movie industry and am a selfish bastard and just don't care for them to get my money. At least thats being honest about why I do it. Pathetic justifications are really lame dude.

Re:Two in a row!

[sunwolf]

I wonder when the people who are so immensely annoyed by dupes will just stop going to slashdot. It doesn't seem likely - it's still /. and complaining's fun anyway.

But still...the incessant noise about it can get irritating.

Re:Good on 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

I do this without any guilt, because if the MPAA etc would get off their arses and build a decent delivery system where I could pay (a reasonable fee - not the full cost of a cinema ticket!!) to download the latest movies then I would.

Have you considered that it's their content and that they should get to decide how they want to distribute it? What you would do in some alternate universe simply doesn't enter the picture, at least not as the moral aspect is concerned.

I download movies too. I don't pretend I have some moral justification for doing it though.

Re:Good on 'em

[Johnno74]

Ok, I worded that badly - I don't mean to be taking some moral high ground here - I don't have much of a problem downloading movies, but if there was a legitimate alternative, I'd take it.

I beleive they should be (financially) rewarded for their efforts. But having to compete with a free service should hopefully make them eventually provide an alterative that isn't too pricey or restrictive.

If that free alternative wasn't there, or people didn't use it, then the movie industry would have no incentive to start making these deals.