If they let people do what they have been doing since before napster, but since its networked, monetize it, …(SOMEHOW)like the youtube content id situation, of rev share, however that occurs, then yes, torrent sites will be turned into promotion tools, and the onus will be on large content companies to turn this all this confirmable activity into a point of purchase repackaging deal, ala that 300 buck nine inch nails album that sold out in a day. however, it will be like family guy syndrome for repacking, in other words, if there is a trend in a some bizarre piece of content gettting alot of attention, it will be bought up or if its already owned, repackaged and promoted, like 4g fast.

if this actually happens, copyright as the oil of the 21 will become well, not that, it will be in content owners best interest to simply let the content form what it will form and resell it as quick as possible by taking out the middle man and offer one click downloading in the format of choice at the fastest speed wherever, and while we are on the topic, wtf is tv everywhere trying to be? Wireless IP video devices? ok, it will be devices for the dumb and rich, basically the IE 6 users of today will save us all from litigious choking through copyright.

whatever half of this is so convuluted i should stop

Traditional licensing, to oversimplify it a little, works like this: First you hammer out a deal, then you distribute a catalog of works covered by the deal.

YouTube monetiztion on the other hand, again admittedly oversimplified, works like this: A user uploads a clip that makes use of a work, and then the rights holder decides if he wants to make a deal (rev share) or take down the content (DMCA + content ID based filtering).

It’s after the fact licensing, and in fact in can be case by case licensing, and the mere fact that so many rights holders are okay with this new modus operandi is profound, because it means that we’re that much closer to the admittedly somewhat magic formula of turning torrent sites into licensed, profitable businesses.

however, it will take a while for large content companies to allow the equiv of content id on youtube to exist as a full scale torrent site from yester millenium. let people show you what they want, then give it right back to them specificaly based on what they are showing you, only faster and at a higher res for a few bucks and try and turn it into a habit, under (the current infringey net/or advert RandD) and the overnet (commercial dynamic IP enabled devices that communicate with the undernet.

We’ll be living this whether you understand me or not within the next five years.

We have had years to come up with proven business models or data to support reporting on this issue, but the best Janko can do is “Content + Bittorrent + ?? = profit!”

I just don’t understand the point of this calorie-free post. YouTube’s deals with content owners are rev-shares or straight licensing deals – not dissimilar with deals these content companies have struck with on- and off-line companies all over the world. The post says nothing data-driven about why those deals might or might not be workable for torrent sites, or why the author has drawn a strange connection between the two.

If NTV has any data or insight about these issues, please share it. So far, all I’ve learned today is that Janko misses Mininova. At some point, those who think of themselves as thought leaders need to move to something more sophisticated than, “the solution is obvious – the Internet is win.”