Government-Owned Norwegian TV Station Launches BitTorrent Tracker

from the legitimate-uses... dept

Mon, Mar 9th 2009 2:04pm — Mike Masnick

As some entertainment industry folks continue to insist that BitTorrent tracker search engines have no redeeming value, we keep hearing more and more stories of content providers willingly and eagerly putting up their own torrent trackers, knowing that it's an incredibly efficient means of distributing their content. In the past, we've seen TV networks in Australia and Canada do this with individual shows, and now TorrentFreak is reporting that the government-owned Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) has set up a BitTorrent tracker for distributing a bunch of its shows, noting that: "This type of distribution is reliable, cheap and popular with our audience." Indeed. Not only that, but by running its own tracker, NRK realizes: "we will get better statistics and gather important data about how this technology works." Even better, it plans to share some of that data for others to learn from as well.

The shows will be DRM-free, and it's looking to employ a Creative Commons license on the content "to allow full freedom for our audience." Definitely nice to see someone not going down the same well-trodden road of self-defeat:

"It is important for us to start experimenting with new distribution methods. We don't want to do like the music industry. Running around thinking that people will keep driving down to a record store when they can have the content delivered with the push of a button at home."

If only some others in the entertainment industry would recognize the same thing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bittorrent, culture, norway, sharing
Companies: norwegian broadcasting

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Weird Harold, 9 Mar 2009 @ 2:07pm

Gotta love it. They are doing it for all the reasons that ISPs get freaky on it - they are doing it because "This type of distribution is reliable, cheap and popular with our audience." . Quite simply, if I have a product to distribute and I don't have to pay the bandwidth to distribute it, of course it is cheap. Bandwidth is the biggest single expense of online distribution. Shoveling that cost off to all the ISPs in the world is a nice business model.

WTG Mike, you prove my points for me :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo, 9 Mar 2009 @ 2:32pm
  
  Re:
  Of course, the fact that EVERYBODY is paying for their own bandwidth costs doesn't factor into your ignorant little (alleged) thought process is complete amazing to me.
  
  Think Once,
  Think Twice,
  Then act.
  
  (You twit.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2009 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Some people have more bandwidth than they need and they like sharing with others. I personally finish my download and then delete the torrent from my computer so other people can't consume my bandwidth.
    
    Yes, I'm a selfish, greedy bastard
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 9 Mar 2009 @ 5:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    *YAWN*.
    
    I don't have a problem with YOU using your bandwidth to download for yourself, but setting up a server and helping a company distribute their programming is beyond what your home internet connection was made for.
    
    Basically, the company is shifting their cost to distribute to others off to you. You are no longer getting anything for "FREE!". That has got to suck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - some old guy, 9 Mar 2009 @ 5:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      
      Basically, the company is shifting their cost to distribute to others off to you.
      
      Actually, it's eliminating the cost, not shifting it.
      
      Noone has to upload more than they download, and the protocol is actually so smart now it prefers to peer with those "closest" via the least number of route hops. So ISP's actually save bandwidth as well, cause their customers wind up sharing with each other on the cheap side of the connection, thus GREATLY reducing the bandwidth the ISP needs on the perimeter.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DBQs Make Your Life Richer, 9 Mar 2009 @ 2:41pm
  
  And now I will analyze this as a source:
  As someone who doesn't care for Mike's opinions, Weird Harold is likely to regard any statement made by Mike in a negative light, possibly including an insult in the form of a twist on one of Mike's major talking points, the business model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- You sound like a fucking idiot., 24 Feb 2010 @ 4:27am
  
  Re:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pushy Galore, 9 Mar 2009 @ 2:37pm

@1
When are you going to have a point? Besides the one on your head, I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2009 @ 3:19pm

some subtitles, too
I was going to ask about subtitles, but it appears that they're hosting a few English fansubs as well.

If they're serious about growing their audience via bittorrent, allowing (even encouraging) 3rd-party subtitles is necessary. It's nice to see a network actively supporting this, instead of merely tolerating or being outright hostile to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 10 Mar 2009 @ 5:57am
  
  Re: some subtitles, too
  Ahh sweet.
  I was going to ask about the subtitles.
  
  I have said it before and I will say it again, there is tons of content out there. As time progresses more and more people will want me to see their content. I see no reason to pay for it when there is already tons of free content out there. I shall have to download some of these shows to check them out. The people who want me to pay before I even see it or hear it are insane. The stuff I really like, I buy the DVDs of or something similar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Craig, 9 Mar 2009 @ 3:37pm

Link in story wrong?
The link to something similar in Canada points to the story on what happened in Australia.

As a rouge-blooded Canadian I'd like to see that story, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 9 Mar 2009 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Link in story wrong?
  The link to something similar in Canada points to the story on what happened in Australia.
  
  As a rouge-blooded Canadian I'd like to see that story, eh?
  
  Oops. It's now fixed, but if you'd like to go directly, it's here:
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/145717615.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric V, 9 Mar 2009 @ 3:59pm

Although I usually agree with Mike's opinions, this time I have to disagree as well. I really don't like having to use bit torrent for anything. I is extremely inefficient, unreliable, and too slow. If ISPs continue to roll out bandwidth caps it will cost the users even more. If you want the content online pay to distribute it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2009 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re:
  one: bandwidth caps just shouldn't exist, you pay for a certain speed and you should get that speed any time. We aren't talking about a scarce resource here. In America we haven't come close to the speeds that other countries have and they get those faster speeds for the same price or cheaper than we get our slow connections. Once the cable is in place as long as the company doesn't over-sell the lines they wouldn't see a price difference of maintaining the lines whether everyone used their connection full bore or they never used it. It isn't like routers have a magical, arbitrary limit on how much data they can process each month.
  
  two: torrents are very reliable and any inefficiencies or speed problems are due to poor configuration and/or an inactive torrent (which is why you should use multiple trackers and DHT to get more seeders).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eric V, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Regarding inefficiencies, when I have a small home network with 5 computers on it and only 1 running bit torrent, The 1 will fuck up the QOS for all the others. I have to keep all p2p protocols throttled to nearly useless speeds to keep the other users happy
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- some old guy, 9 Mar 2009 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, when people have problems with BT being flaky, unreliable, inefficient, whatever theres one of two things going on.
  
  Either your ISP is fucking with you connection 'cause they hate you, or your router is crying for mercy because it's not being adequately powered or cooled.
  
  If you ask your isp, and they say they are not throttling BT, then its time to get a new router.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 9 Mar 2009 @ 5:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    BT is unreliable and flaky because people shut down their machines, disconnect from the net, nobody actually has to keep a full copy, the only guy with the parts you need is playing a game and turned the bandwidth down to 10bps, etc.
    
    BT is a very inefficient protocol, because it is way too dependent on too many moving parts. Sort of like Mike's opinion of the music business. Your average download might involve 20 or 30 different people, that many networks, routing, and all that stuff. Instead of a single effecient connection between you and the company's server, you have all sorts of connections to all sorts of places, most of which are not effecient for moving data.
    
    BT is good for companies because distribution costs are NIL. It's the only reason anyone does it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - some old guy, 9 Mar 2009 @ 5:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, weird harold, the reason Blizzard distributes its large game patches via bittorrent is because the ISP's prefer it that way It's an incredibly massive reduction in bandwidth at the ISP's gateway, and all of blizzards customers can get that 300mb patch in a matter of minutes.
      
      It's a win for everyone.
      
      Why youre railing against it for business use is just... ignorant?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2009 @ 5:42pm

What planet is this?
What planet did I wake up on this morning? Industry people with a clue. Amazing.

Now, if the BITTORRENT IS EVIL crew would get a clue. Yes, I am helping pay their distribution costs and that makes it not free. But it is incredibly cheap. I know the cost, and if I want to shut down my torrent after I get my download I am able to do so.

Overall Bittorrent is incredibly efficient. Instead of making my packets hop through a couple of dozen routers from the far side of the world I may be getting them from just down the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Mar 2009 @ 6:58pm

NRK are Pirates!
They are PIRATES, you hear me?! They use software implemented by the PIRATE Bay! Pirate pirate pirate terrorist drugrunner pirates!

Damn, dirty Swedes!

Norwegians, whatever. Same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2009 @ 8:20pm

If Torrents are unreliable of distribution, why does the music industry hates it?

I hope they implement this kind of distribution in our country as ISPs charge us, not with our bandwidth usage but with a regular monthly fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric V, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:10pm

I am not saying bit torrent is evil. If you have only 1 computer on your home cable or DSL line, it works great. If you have 5 computers, a single computer running vuze will use all the available upstream bandwidth leaving nothing behind for all else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2009 @ 6:53am
  
  Re:
  that is why you cap the upstream badwitdh at ~70% of what your limit is, even the designers of the protocol say to do that. The protocol is designed to be faster for everyone involved as you upload. Think about the requirements to distribute a large file to 100 people, how fast will those people get it? look at the steam servers this past weekend; there were hundreds, if not thousands of complaints because a single area was hit with a storm bringing down servers and the demand created by new releases could not be met. That would never happen with torrent, if you lose a single server no one really cares because there are so many of them
  
  maxing bandwidth (at least download) is pretty much a good thing, it means you are getting the files fast. With bit torrent you are more likely to max your download speed and download as fast as your connection allows than you are with the a single connection to some random server. yes it will piss off other computer users, but it isn't an efficiency problem, the torrent program is being incredibly efficient by downloading as fast as it possibly can, usually much faster than the single server the user would normally download from. Here is a link with more info on how to properly configure your torrent client: http://torrentfreak.com/optimize-your-bittorrent-download-speed/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]