The problem is not in the idea. Indeed cpu cycles, storage and bandwidth are worth something and if anyone building a datacentre scale operation will tell you just how expensive per unit it actually is.
And, despite that, the old TPB managed to get millions to contribute bandwidth and storage space to their 'cloud', with no monetary compensation whatsoever. So, obviously, it is possible, and it does work.
What happens when the only guy with the last 10% of my file isn't online?
Nothing. You don't get the files, But, then again, that means the operators of the service are complete dumbasses who didn't think to host at least one complete copy of the data on their servers. Idiots. And the guys that bankrolled them, morons. So, let's hope they actually think about their bussiness plan for more than five minutes, eh?
Because the additional read/write/seek time involved would kill the lifetimes of your disks.
No, it wouldn't. Says Google. Look it up.
Couldn't have put it better.
The last thing anyone wants is to host other peoples data with an open pipe to a commercial web site.
Guess what? Whenever you're seeding a torrent, you're doing exactly that. And thousands upon thousands of people are jumping at a chance to do it. And they usually get absolutely noting in return (except maybe a better ratio somewhere).
you will store other peoples data on my machine?
What if that 'other peoples data' was a Battlestar Galactica Season 4, that you already have on your disk right now? And, possibly, currently already seeding like mad so you'll get your ratio up on some private tracker?
OK, sign me up.
Indeed.
And you could certainly restrict them to paid accounts.
But why would anyone want to pay for what they can get better for free?
Pirated torrents wouldn't be better if the new TPB offered the same selection and the same quality. It just wouldn't be free, but I bet a lot of people would trade free for legit, if the pricing is anywhere near reasonable. Throw in a possibility of discount if you seed the files, and it becomes even more interesting.
People buy millions of tracks off of iTunes, and they could all get them for free.
Yep. Also, I'm not aware of any part of the bittorrent protocol that provides the facilities for payments etc. that they're fantasising about. No one is going to give up their myriad bittorrent clients for some unproven and proprietary p2p system by the people who destroyed their favourite site, even if its free. And if it's not proprietary, it'll be forked to remove the paytard stuff.
I have no clear idea of their bussiness model, but I can certainly imagine the way it _could_ be done. Have plain old vanilla private torrent site. You can accurately track who DLs and ULs what. Your ratio is a price divider. So, if you UL 4x as much as you DL, you pay 1/4 of the monthly fee. And if the monthly fee is something reasonable to begin with, and they had a library of titles comparable to what TPB today has, I bet a lot of people would just jump at the chance.
So not only are the BBC paying for their bandwidth, and users are paying through the nose for a pretty limited service, BT now want to double dip and charge twice for the same content, with the BBC picking up the bill instead of the customers.
Instead? Nope. They want to charge at BOTH ends of the pipe, server AND consumer. That's like charging you for recieving calls on your mobile because lots of people want to talk to you. Why isn't anyone framing the problem like this? Then it becomes crystal clear what kind of idiocy their demand is.
I pay a monthly fee for for my DSL service, which includes flat rate transfers. So, any bytes that come down the pipe, wherever they come from, their transfer is already paid. The ISP isn't providing the BBC a free service. It's providing a paid service to me, the person who watches BBC content.
This alone is a reason for me to avoid it, and recommend you to do so too.
Dude, you forgot to rant about Wolframs ego. C'mon, if you're going to completely ignore the actual merits of the product at hand, at least do it proprely.
BLISS is ignorance.
