BitTorrent + BitPass: Ethos & Practicalities

Technical Practicalities

Getting into the details of implementing a BitPass Gateway or a BitTorrent File Server is beyond the scope of this article, but the key concept to their integration is that both systems rely (at least primarily) on an http process at the webserver level. By putting both the torrent file and the BMO inside a directory that is BitPass gatewayed as a single content item, one could charge for access to the BMO -- but in a way that is admittedly porous, but at least more trackable than other P2P solutions.

For a user coming to the publisher's website, it would appear just like any other BitPass protected content -- after a micropayment verification, the webserver provides access to both the torrent and the BMO in that directory, and the user's BitTorrent software begins looking for peers to speed their download (downloading both from the BitPass protected copy and from other downloaded copies.)

Torrent files are quite small packets of meta-data: it would be trivial for a user to send a copy of the torrent file to someone via email, and opening that file locally would also initiate a download of the BMO. Because of BitPass, though, their client wouldn't gain access to the main BMO on the publisher's server, it would only be able to download from the peers -- which would likely be a painfully slow download until the tipping point of swarming efficiency is reached. So, like any Internet distribution system, it's not "pirate proof" but it is less pirate efficient than distributing the BMO itself.

That torrent file, though, also contains a pointer to a BitTorrent tracker -- a system that isn't about indexing content, but about coordinating the efforts of the multiple people who are downloading (or have downloaded) that single file. Because it is just as easy for a publisher to run their own tracker, this means you get a glimpse into the torrent exchanging going on (a far cry from the information you'd receive if people were P2Ping your file through KaZaa, for example.) So, short of someone else writing a new torrent and publishing it along with a copy of your BMO, the publisher could have a peek into what is happening.

The Potentials of The Model

Ultimately, the efficiency of swarming models is something that only really kicks in when a file is simultaneously popular and the audience is willing to share some of their system resources back to others interested in the same piece. From an independent media point of view, that's a great recipie for handling "unexpected success" (which reduces the amount of infrastructure you need for the primary home of the BMO to anticipate those peaks of demand.)

But the majority of independents during most of their online distribution aren't going to benefit from a large number of torrenting peers, and will still have to cope with most of the costs of delivering the content until they have their "15 minutes of fame." This drives them towards finding other ways to monatize the process, or give up on the idea of monatizing it at all.

The interesting potential of torrents, though, lies in its connection to http connections that open up a window of flexibility, one where a publisher might make some BMOs totally free (and even broadcatched) and others require a subscription of a microtransaction. Just like the Web, all of these models could exist simultaneously and in parallel as the finances of creation and delivery might require (so that content than is inexpensive to produce can operate under different delivery requirements from "premium content" that costs more to produce.)

But only if the ethos of BitTorrenting doesn't reject the idea of microtransactions or monatization of the space.

The Ethos of BitTorrent

Bram Cohen (the creator of BitTorrent) doesn't shy away from using the word "economics" when talking about his swarming process, although he's applying them in the computer science sense. In his paper "Incentives Build Robustness in BitTorrent", he writes:

This concept of sharing for mutual good creates a unique texture among the community of many BitTorrent users that is very different from other P2P services. Yes, there are corners of the Web dedicated to torrents of clearly illegal distribution, but there are just as many corners where community forms in a true spirit of sharing. Is this a recognition on some level that participating in a pareto efficiency optimization among their community? Very likely, at some level.

In the corners of the Web where BitPass is working well, you find that same ethos in play -- it's not the Warner Brothers rushing towards BitPass, it's independent musicians, online comic artists, individual writers, etc. Underpinning the relationship between BitPass spender and BitPass earner is an understanding that they are making each other "happier" in a pareto efficiency sense (where the "fans" of a creator support that creator far more directly and personally, and vice versa.)

In fact, I find it helpful to think about the efforts of many anti-RIAA and anti-MPAA activitists and movements as also being about pareto efficiency: many people now believe that traditional entertainment companies are not really interested in finding models where "no two counterparties can make an exchange and both be happier" (in fact, the more wide-held belief is that they are only interested in exchanges where they as a corporation couldn't be any happier.)

As an entrepenuerial independent, I'm also thinking about pareto efficiency -- I would certainly be happier selling "Nothing So Strange" downloads for less if we could still stand to make the less-than-a-dollar-net that we make off of each downloader. In fact, I'd be happy to pass that savings in delivery cost back on to the users as another incentive for them to coordinate with each other (imagine a $3 download or a $2.25 torrent option, for example.) If we had a body of fans who already used BitTorrent (who knows, maybe we do and I just don't know it yet) it would even encourage us to release more clips that we didn't charge for (since the barrier of bandwidth cost is the biggest limitation on how much extra stuff we release.)

Does this mean that there is a common ground between independents and the BitTorrent community that allows for the introduction of transactions into the equation? There very might well be, and there seems to be little technical barrier in experimenting and seeing firsthand. It might even be a common ground that traditional media companies and the artists they distribute don't/can't/won't share, making this an emerging system ripe for independent adoption over corporate adoption. There are also tantalizing questions I still have about how this microtransaction model could interact with the tracker also running on that webserver -- the potential to allow fans to favor those "in the club" versus "outside the club" at the peering level, which could reinforce the idea that the independent media creator and their Internet fans are all in this together.