from the torrent-theater dept.
An anonymous reader writes BitTorrent today announced an exclusive partnership with Rapid Eye Studios to launch BitTorrent Originals. In short, the two will identify, produce, and distribute original video content for the BitTorrent Bundle platform, the company's direct-to-fan publishing platform. BitTorrent Originals will be timed exclusives, meaning they will debut on the BitTorrent Bundle platform and only be available there for 30 to 60 days. After the BitTorrent exclusive window closes, each project will be available through other distribution channels.
An anonymous reader writes: FreeNet allows one to share any file. No-one can then find out that you shared it (absolute anonymity) and no-one can find out that someone downloads it. Also, while the file "hovers" around the freenet network, it is not possible to find out where it is physically located. This is great for people in oppressive regimes who want to share sensitive information. When I looked 2 years ago what was available (there's an index page), all kinds of interesting information was available. Last friday I checked again and now 95% of it is childporn. This gives me an ethical problem: I would like to support information sharing of people in oppressive regimes but I definitely don't want to support the sharing for childporn! So what should I and we do? Abandon FreeNet? Or does anyone have a bright idea to filter this stuff? (although that would defeat the purpose of FreeNet). Link to Original Source
NewtonsLaw writes: "I'm pretty sure that everyone reading this will be aware of the movie Iron Sky.
I've been waiting for a long time to watch this movie and finally it has been uploaded to YouTube so I watched it on the weekend.
As the title credits rolled, I rushed off and pre-ordered the BluRay disk of the movie, which isn't due for release here in NZ until December 14th.
I am proof that making your wares available for free can actually promote sales — but only so long as your content is good enough (which Iron Sky certainly is). So, perhaps the reason that the MPAA fears piracy is because it lets people see just how crappy most of their material is *before* they fork over their hard earned cash.
colinneagle writes: Let's cut right to the chase: Ubuntu 12.10 is a totally, 100%, utterly, completely acceptable release. In almost every way, it is very, very similar to Ubuntu 12.04 — which makes a great deal of sense, considering that the two releases are only six months apart.
Are you a current Ubuntu user on 12.04? Upgrade to 12.10...but don't fret about being in a rush to do so. It's a good upgrade, but it isn't going to change your life forever.
Still using an older (read: "Pre-Unity") version of Ubuntu? It’s time to upgrade. The Unity desktop environment and user experience is polished enough now that I can safely recommend it to anyone (even Gnome 2 die-hards).
Using a non-Ubuntu Linux distro? Honestly, if Ubuntu 12.04 didn't pull you away from Fedora, openSUSE, etc...then 12.10 isn't going to either. Then again, if you never gave the last release a try, the new version is a completely acceptable place to jump in.
What if, let's say, you work at Apple? You should probably install Ubuntu 12.10 and live in it for a few weeks. You know, just to see what a well-designed desktop environment — that looks nice while not getting in your way — is like. Link to Original Source