It felt like the Internet would solve all these problems, like you'd be able to experience culture from any part of the world however you liked and at the same time as the rest of the world. Sadly that never happened. It's much better now but it still feels like the media is crippled by old local distributor deals. The fact that e.g. Netflix offers different movies for every country is something that honestly does not make any sense yet everyone accepts it.
When I got my first Kindle 12 years ago my Amazon account was registered with my local European address so the books available in store were all complete trash romance pulp novels. Once I simply changed my home address to some random location in New York I suddenly had access to hundreds of thousands more titles. The Internet never delivered on its promise.
I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline.
When I got to Uni in Oct 2000, I could use BitchX/IRC on the lab irix machine to use a massive 10 MEGA bit connection to get voyager episodes. Compared with downloading on a 33.6kbit connection over a phone line that cost at least £2.40 (about $5-6 in today's money) that was an amazing experience.
Even recently they decided not to bother releasing Lower Decks internationally. Had to get a Bittorrent client to watch it. That's not the case with things like Discovery and Picard which were released pretty much simultaneously.
If a media company won't sell me what I want to watch, I'll go elsewhere. I paid $6 to my phone company to get a shocking quality copy of Voyager. For me, Piracy is not trying to avoid paying for it, it's about trying to get it.
They've mostly cottoned on to the fact it's a global market now at least.
Sad thing is it's not even always about location exclusive dealings, either. It wasn't terribly long ago that I was prevented from paying for access to content available on Amazon's streaming services because my "platform isn't supported".
(I use Linux, and whatever DRM they used at the time wasn't available on Linux, and before anyone tries to tell me "Just use Windows then", the answer is and always will be "NO!" Been there, done that, quit Windows for very valid reasons, ain't goin' back ever. Period, full stop, end of story.)
So, yeah… Their "anti-piracy measures" actually lost them a sale that would have likely turned into a repeat customer, and as a consequence, they're one of the streaming services I actively avoid even looking at.
Instead of focusing on punishing those who will never pay them, they should seriously think about not punishing those who would willingly pay (as DRM really only hurts the honest customer).
And you don’t even get to keep a copy.
Would you like to pay say 1 dollar per movie and watch significant amount of ads during it?
Netflix has a massive cigarette addiction.
The other two things I notice a lot are cars and phones / computers.
It has been projected that 11.44 billion U.S. dollars would be spent on product placement in the United States in 2019, up from 4.75 billion in 2012 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/261454/global-product-pl...
No I wouldn't.
Yeah, and in the same vein, I skip buying games which have certain DRM systems in place (like the nefarious Denuvo). Again it's a lost sale for them, since often it's the only thing preventing me from buying an otherwise good game.
A few months ago someone used one of those AI/ML based upscalers and now I have the torrents in 1080p resolution. Obviously it’s not magic but there is a very clear noticeable difference in quality and texture detail and of course the higher resolution compared to the older torrents and even Netflix.
They had SG-1 on Netflix?! It never was available on mine Netflix (which I keep subscribed to only because, and for as long as, they have the golden-era Star Trek series, i.e. TNG-ENT).
Exclusive regional distribution rights are legacy bullshit for digital content. And the sad thing is, people responsible for maintaining those are going to make things worse, because they now figured streaming is hot, and everyone is racing to create their own exclusive streaming platform.
I lost count how many times I've watched DS9 and VOY, too.
I would, too. Only this year I've completed another end-to-end rewatch of DS9, and continued with half of VOY (got interrupted by life) and then half of ENT. And I feel like the time to re-watch TNG is approaching again. Lord help me, if they had SG-1 on Netflix in Poland, I would have been watching it just as much.
Wow, what an entitled viewpoint. There was a very simple reason on why the episodes were removed: their license for those episodes expired. The content owner only allowed Netflix to display that content for a certain amount of time known as a licensing window. That window is now closed. Now that there are several other streaming vendors, the content owner of SG1 is more than likely to hoping to get more money from someone else.
So while you may be disappointed in you not getting what you want when you want it, you're ire is totally pointed at the wrong people. It is always the content owner, not the distributor. At least learn a little bit about what you are clearly passionate about.
Also, who is this post aimed at? Netflix isn't going to care if someone badmouths them on some random corner of the internet. And anyone who works there isn't going to give a shit just because someone on hacker news couldn't get SG-1 available internationally. I'm struggling to figure out why you felt that this post was at all necessary.
I think when competing firms form a 'union' like this it's called collusion.
the MPA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry, with the goals of promoting effective copyright protection, reducing piracy, and expanding market access. It has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing networks and by streaming from pirate sites.
It doesn't seem to fit the FTC's definition of that, either: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Not to mention, there is already precendence
Why would the content owners want to work with only one streaming platform? There'd be nobody to bid against each other.
I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.
Yes. Is this meant to be some kind of gotcha? This is absolutely what you should do. There's no downside for anyone involved.
> I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet?
Again, yes. If enough people complain the promoter will go "oh crap, we've got loads of fans over there, we're losing out on revenue by not including them on the tour".
> A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet?
Yep. Would you complain if you went to a cinema and were barred from entry because you looked like you were from the wrong side of the town? I sure as hell would, and geographic content restrictions online are exactly the same.
Yes, if content is not available to someone else, any they wouldn't be able to see it otherwise, then their is little harm in piracy.
And you, not them, seem to be to most mad about other people doing things that doesn't really cause any harm.
I am willing to pay to watch your movie/show/series, but if there is no way to do that then I will pirate the show.
Only reason I got a month of Netflix was Inside
Only reason I got a month of Disney+ was to check out Loki
Neither will be renewed.
I tried to search platform where I could watch the new Rick & Morty, but I wasn't able to find one in EU. I'm sure it exists, but if Google can't get me the answer within resonable time (like this time it failed to) I just downloaded the episodes (actually I was able to watch the S5E1 from AdultSwim's website) [BTW if someone knows EU streaming site where I can watch these as they get released I'd like to know so I can pay for couple months]
I don't think you understand. A 'union' is simply a group of companies aligning and talking about common interests, one of which is exactly what I said -- the ability to strongarm content owners into making content available internationally, so that their bottom line can be stronger.
It is not the same meaning as 'merger' -- you seem to have conflated the two? For the union I just proposed, there is historical precendece -- the International Intellectual Property Association and similar organizations put pressure on the US Government via lobbying to specifically 'protect' international copyright law (NB: I can't condone this organization, but it does exist). This is simply a different group of companies with different interests. It doesn't mean they stop competing with each other, it just means that they all agree to do one specific thing. In this case it might harm them all in the short term, but would be beneficial in the long term.
Without sales to Netflix and other content distributors the revenue of the content owners would dry up -- movie sales are dwindling due to increasing prices, DVD sales are drying up, therefore the content distributors hold the cards here which allows them to unilaterally negotiate better terms -- but that only works if they all do it at once. If one company decides to not participate, that leaves an opening for the content owners to go to them.
> I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.
Well this is the most jumbled wall of text I've seen today. You seem to be saying that someone complaining on the internet is bad? You seem to also be trying to insult me? It's highly immature and petty, whatever it is.
The original point was that the ire was directed at the wrong group of people, and I pointed out that it's not like the company is going to care that one single person is venting about them on the internet.
I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
If you feel insulted, then that's something you've read into that isn't there. My whole jumbled wall of text (no worries, I'm not insulted) was to show how ridiculous the concept of "I can't stream a show that I feel like I deserve to watch so I'll do whatever I want to see it". There will always be people that justify whatever they want to do whatever they want, but the rest of us can just roll our eyes at it. You want to complain about something as petty as not seeing a TV show, then you can expect some people to tell you how that logic just makes no sense.
>I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
Because it's okay to blame someone that's not at fault while not blaming the person that is at fault? How does it even come close to being acceptable? Netflix did not make the rules. They need content on their platform, so they make deals with the content owners. It confounds me that you are confused by this.
And for what ? Pirating "culture" that is not available on Netflix ? Star Trek Voyager ? I am huge Trek fan but come on.
This is entertainment we are talking about.
> He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for.
It's like complaining a vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat.
Netflix has very few of the shows, movies and documentaries I can watch on ARTe. Do people complain that ARTe doesn't stream every Netflix shows and vice versa ?
There are a lot of comments on HN when this topic comes up that feel like people want their cake and eat it too "or else I'll just pirate, there's a gun to my head, they give me no choice".
No, it's like complaining that a chain of restaurant randomly takes dishes off the menu, and it's different in every country. Eventually you get fed up with unpredictable menu and stop going there.
Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.
All restaurants I know have dishes that are taken off (because if's off season, because a new chef, because they try something else, etc.).
Plus, the analogy is distorted, you can't complain about a different menu in another country, it's not like you can hop from countries to countries 20 times per evening to get your Mc Bulgogi Burger.
> Eventually you get fed up with unpredictable menu and stop going there.
Good, that's what competition is about between services.
With movies/shows the problem is that there is no alternative. If I want to watch Startrek I can't just put on the Simpsons as an alternative and if I've purchaced a streaming service explicitly because of Startrek then I'm going to feel like I was cheated.
You can argue until heat death of the universe whose fault it is, but in the mean time if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way. (and importing expensive DVDs in an erra where literally none of my devices have optical bays is not actual option)
You don't pull a tantrum on an Internet forum about how you are now forced to hire an anon crew to get into a McDonald's warehouse to get your Mac Something ? Indeed you just go to another service provider to see if they have the Mac Something or something else to satisfy your palates. (sorry I kept the food analogy going).
> and if I've purchaced a streaming service explicitly because of Startrek then I'm going to feel like I was cheated.
Read the lines on the contract. No one is cheated. Especially for the price you are paying by the way. Netflix is still a rental service. (fun fact: Netflix doesn't even have full international rights on its own productions, see: orange is the new black, arrested development).
> You can argue until heat death of the universe whose fault it is, but in the mean time if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way.
I will argue until heat death that SG1 content owners are not forcing people to pirate their content. It's just hard cold facts. You may not like it because you feel like you are entitled to it or that it doesn't matter much that no one gets hurt or it's stupid or whatever, that's not really the point. The point is that they are not forcing you. It's on you when you decide to go torrent hunting, launch a DCC+, get popcorn, whatever.
> if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way
Doesn't mean you are entitled to it or that you are forced to do it. No one is forcing you to pirate SG1 or Star Trek Voyager. It's entirely on you, own up your actions.
I am not saying you should or shouldn't, I am not questioning the morality of it. All I am saying is "nobody forced you".
> (and importing expensive DVDs in an erra where literally none of my devices have optical bays is not actual option)
Again, that's on you. Not content owner's fault that you don't have a DVD player.
Now let's take a step forward. Imagine you pirated off those SG1 episodes. But then you get a letter from copyright holders and a fine from whatever judicial instances in your country manages these kind of things.
You don't want to pay the fine, you go to courts.
Do you believe for an instant arguments like "I pirated those episodes because they were not available anymore on Netflix, they basically forced my hand ; promised, once they are back up I'll subscribe again to Netflix" will fly ?
Customer - Sir, there is cow shit in my burger instead of meat
Chef - you should be happy for the price!
Its their job to set the price, and they dont offer a premium subscribtion for $50 or whatever. I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.
"Read the lines on the contract. No one is cheated."
Thats a really bad argument, any lawyer can write a ccontract that will let you cheat or scam laymen. In UK we have been selling apartments with 'ground rent' fees that grow exponentially, pyramid schemes have contracts, people pressed into debt bondage have contracts.
> Customer - Sir, there is cow shit in my burger instead of meat
> Chef - you should be happy for the price!
> Its their job to set the price, and they dont offer a premium subscribtion for $50 or whatever. I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.
Did the chef force you to eat it ? No. The shit burger is on the menu and you decided to take one anyway. It's on you.
Are you complaining because there are shows you don't like on Netflix ? Aka the the shit in a burger ? What could you reasonably expect Netflix to do about that O_o ? Remove content you don't like ?
It's getting ridiculous but this takes the cake:
> I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.
You are literally whining about a metaphorical free burger that no one is forcing you to touch.
That's why analogies never work.
Here, it's simple:
- that person is already paying Netflix, legally
- SG1 was available on Netflix, so the money was going to whoever owns the right to SG1, too
- Then SG1 was not made available (for whichever reason, in 99% of the cases blame the rights owner, and you'll be right)
So now the rights owner earns exactly zero dollars for SG1 from people who are paying for Netflix.
If those people chose to pirate SG1, literally nothing in the equation will change: the owners will keep not getting the money.
And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
That's not how it works. Netflix pays the licensing fees to the content owners, and then hope to recover that money from subscribers. Maybe there's a clause that says they get extra money based on number of viewers, but very doubtful for some catalog title. The fees have to be paid upfront, and it's not a monthly pay as you go where if you miss a payment you get the license reposessed.
Wrong. The owners won't get money from people who pirated content once they make their content available again.
> And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
No. The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
1. Their own fault
2. It has been proven, time and again, that piracy goes down, significantly, once content is available.
So they will get their money even from people who pirated this content previously. Why? Because it's much easier to just pay Netflix and watch or re-watch.
> The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering. Except they did: they made their own content unavailable.
The person was willingly giving them money, legally. The owners made their content unavailable. Guess they didn't want money after all.
Edit. Oatmeal's evergreen take on this: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
> 1. Their own fault
Owners have made a bad commercial move but it doesn't force people to pirate their content. Nothing does. There are no pressure from SG1 owners to pirate their content, no incentives. On the contrary they will use digital rights laws to protect their assets. It's entirely their rights to do so and nothing in the commonwealth, US or European laws give the right to people to pirate SG1 content when it's not available on a streaming platform.
> 2. It has been proven, time and again, that piracy goes down, significantly, once content is available.
So ? It doesn't make piracy of SG1 content legal in any way.
> So they will get their money even from people who pirated this content previously. Why? Because it's much easier to just pay Netflix and watch or re-watch.
> > The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
> Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering. Except they did: they made their own content unavailable.
Which is their entire freaking right to do so. Just like maintainers of open source projects don't owe their users anything the SG1 content owners don't owe anything to Netflix users.
> The person was willingly giving them money, legally. The owners made their content unavailable. Guess they didn't want money after all.
No, the person was willingly giving money to a third-party, Netflix.
> Guess they didn't want money after all.
Or maybe Netflix got greedy or maybe the contract between them had limit in time and Netflix agreed to that time limit or maybe SG1 content owners have another contract with another platform and then the person is free to subscribe to it. Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.
Whatever it is, the sole responsibility in pirating SG1 content is on the pirates. There are no way around it, at no point were they forced to pirate it. They are free agents of this world, they decided to obtain something from someone and that someone clearly didn't want to sell it.
I am pirating a lot of stuff but I am not hiding behind entitled justifications which don't make sense.
I read it, I don't see new arguments in the comic ?
Literally no one said it wasn't their right to do so
> Which is their entire freaking right to do so. Just like maintainers of open source projects don't owe their users anything the SG1 content owners don't owe anything to Netflix users.
> Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.
Literally no one said it wasn't up to them
> It doesn't make piracy of SG1 content legal in any way.
Literally no one said that.
Now. When you're ready to argue with what I'm saying, I will gladly continue this discussion. However, so far you're debating some points literally no one said.
I am not saying people said that. All those sentences you dismiss are arguments I make to explain why the idea that content owners forced anybody to steal their content is wrong (and dishonest).
> Now. When you're ready to argue with what I'm saying, I will gladly continue this discussion. However, so far you're debating some points literally no one said.
On the contrary, I am debating a point you literally made.
Reminder, this is what you wrote and what I disagree with:
So it is my understanding you are the one not arguing with what I am saying.
With that being said:
You don't say much besides "I am entitled to pirate any content I want if it's not available legally, content owners are forcing me to do it and it's their fault". And that is simply not true, they are not forcing you to do anything.
edit: I'll play that card too:
> Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering.
Literaly no one said that.
> > Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.
> Literally no one said it wasn't up to them
Then stop fucking complaining about how they don't give you access to their content for god's sake.
I'm not saying "I'm entitled".
Once again, come back when you're ready to debate what I'm saying, not what you imagine I'm saying.
> Once again, come back when you're ready to debate what I'm saying, not what you imagine I'm saying.
You can keep on playing the "you are imagining what I am saying" the fact remains you also posted this:
> If those people chose to pirate SG1, literally nothing in the equation will change: the owners will keep not getting the money.
And I have yet to see any arguments from you against my statement that no content owners are forcing anybody to go on the hunt for pirated content. It's entirely in the pirate's camp that lies the decision to download pirated content.
I can understand that people used to pirating are in full dissonance cognitive mode regarding their justifications but it remains and will likely always remain that they are not forced to pirate content. It's simply not true.
Downloading pirated content might be the only option but no one is forced to.
> Once again, come back when you're ready to debate what I'm saying,
Frankly, the same to you too.
Reread the article we're commenting on.
The rest is literally moot.
> > 1. Their own fault
> Owners have made a bad commercial move but it doesn't force people to pirate their content. [..]
And this piece, as-is:
> > And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
> No. The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
And then to my original argument (summarized) (and please note it's not about whether piracy harms sales or not):
> Netflix is a rental platform. Like the old DVD and VHS rental shops. And regularly some content gets pull off the shelves because they don't have the licensing fees. It's a pretty well known fact some movies and TV shows come and go on Netflix.
> > He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for.
> It's like complaining a vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat.
> There are a lot of comments on HN when this topic comes up that feel like people want their cake and eat it too "or else I'll just pirate, there's a gun to my head, they give me no choice".
I am still waiting for a valid example from you that proves people are/were forced to pirate SG1 content when content owners pulls them off Netflix.
Can you actually give one or do you simply refuse to admit you were wrong about that specific point and this ping pong thread will never end ?
And it is perfectly okay to not spend money at that restaurant in the future when your favorite dish disappears.
Except that the analogy breaks down since it is a subscription model, where you are not really “constantly evaluate” whether this other month is worth it.
Doesn't mean you are entitled or forced by the content owners to pirate content that is not available on streaming platforms.
Netflix deals in TV shows and movies, not in access to drinking water.
Except the competition isn't between services but between streaming services and local TV channels. It's between artificially maintained "content regions" that have no basis in technological reality. The choice to host content isn't up to consumers. The period of availability is hardly ever displayed. There are platform and operating system constraints.
Finally, the pricing model doesn't allow you to say you want to watch one series and that's it, either - you'd have to sign up for a month of services, a cable package, etc. In fact, it can't reflect the price of individual content at all given that everything is a package.
You have the right to disagree, but calling a dissenting opinion ridiculous is uncalled for, given that there are actual service and distribution failings in the sector.
Except they mostly have. That's one of their huge selling points: wherever you go in the world, whatever weird cuisine they have going on there, if you can find a McDonald's, you can feel comfort in knowing you have a fallback - a place where you can find good food you already know.
> Except they mostly have.
Which means they don't
So my point still stands.
You know, the point.
The one I made to demonstrate that even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere. Despite one of their huge selling points: wherever you go in the world, whatever weird cuisine they have going on there, if you can find a McDonald's, you can feel comfort in knowing you have a fallback - a place where you can find good food you already know.
Those expectations are unrealistic, and quite frankly entitled. When did Netflix ever state that any content available now will be available for ever? It's the nature of the business that content is only made available for a set amount of time. What does complaining about it on the internet expect to do anyways?
He is the customer, Netflix is asking for his money
We're entitled to our entertainment. If we don't get it, we torrent it.
I suppose "entitled" isn't the correct word. Is there a word for "That's just the way it is"?
Basically, there exists a way to acquire entertainment. It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us at a reasonable market value. If the market value exceeds the threshold of reasonableness, then we downshift into torrenting the entertainment.
It's a business opportunity. The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.
How many sins of the past have used that as an excuse? It's just a very immature way of looking at life.
>It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us
And that doesn't sound entitled??? Wow. Not that we are lucky for someone providing us entertainment (within the confines of how they choose to share it)?
>The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.
Did they though? Really learned it? Seems like they got what the wanted where nobody actually owns anything and is only able to rent the content from them.
The central question here seems to be ethics. Is it moral to download entertainment when someone doesn’t want you to?
My view is, nobody is harmed. You could argue that there was financial harm to the original show — in this case, Stargate SG-1. But I would say they’ve failed to give us a way to reasonably enjoy the show, when the best alternative is to simply torrent it.
Suppose the show was made available for $2,000. Would you still argue that it’s wrong to torrent it?
If so, we’ll have to agree to disagree; my view is that if nobody is harmed, then it’s usually fine.
If not, then there exists a price threshold beyond which it would become unreasonable to expect someone to pay. The person you were replying to was saying that they felt the show crossed that threshold.
I still come back to the fact that there is no right/expectation of anyone to be able to view anything. The fact that something exists and someone says they should be able to watch it is the entitled bit in my opinion. There is no "god given right" to entertainment. There is no "pursuit of entertainment" set out in the US Constitution. If someone graciously allows you to watch/view their work, then that's great and we hope you were entertained. The expectation one should be able to watch/view anything at anytime is a bit petty. If someone asks to be paid to view that entertainment but in a very controlled/restricted manner (ex: buying a ticket to a limited capacity venu), this seems to be accepted. However, once it was allowed to be broadcast/streamed with certain restrictions (for a limited 3 month period), people feel like this is not acceptable.
At the end of the day, it is the content owner's discretion to allow/disallow as they see fit. People do not like calling it stealling because no physcial copy has been removed from the owner's possession, but the owner is still be wronged by not being allowed to control the thing they created. I do not know what to call that.
I am not trying to equivocally express that piracy is legal, or morally right, but to respond to "the fact that there is no right/expectation of anyone to be able to view anything" - to answer "Why" someone might do it.
While your sentence was meant in the more strict "human rights" sense I think people pirate because it comes down to "I want to be part of the social group" vs "barrier to experience".
As a society - IE larger overall social group - we have schools, museums, galleries and libraries for access to our culture. We WANT people to gain knowledge of our culture. It provides a social basis and cohesion.
Movie/TV shows clearly aren't fantastic high art but they still serve a social purpose. People make references - or memes - and connect with others over it. It is social lubrication largely associated with a time. For example, Game of Thrones was a social phenomenon but now it is passé.
To say that people can simply never watch any movies or TV shows ever - because there exists no "right/expectation" - is to deny a person being social on some level. You were not advocating this, but leave it up to the powerful vs the powerless and this is where things will tend to go for some of society.
Humans are social creatures.
You could raise your own children with zero experience of any movie or TV shows, and they won't drop dead. But you also know you are not doing them any favours regards socially "fitting in" - so it isn't most people's first choice.
So movies and TV shows are another social signal and people will go out of their way to be included - by simply paying. Or pirating, stealing Netflix DVDs from mailboxes or whatever else.
Fortunately, good libraries ease this social imbalance, but statistically you are always going to find people walking their own line for whatever reason.
But maybe like Jon Snow, I know nothing.
Edit: trying to be more concise. I fail.
BTW, I'm much more partial to Tyrion's "I drink, and I know things"
I grew up in a country town with 3 TV broadcast channels, that expanded to 5 by the time I left. No cinema. No cable. But two video rental shops at least. But because my social groups were all in the same boat, there was little in the way of being left out.
I recall going to two different friends houses to watch a video on two consecutive nights - Friday, Saturday. They both showed Groundhog Day... that morning clock radio still rings in my mind.
Usually, being part of a social group involves effort/cost expended. It has to cost you something or it doesn't demonstrate care for the social groups interests.
Most everyone agrees - even the pirates - that people who put effort into creation/distribution deserve reward. The problem is the details of who/how-much/how-long-for.
I like libraries. Not quite up to date and with the latest zeitgeist, but good enough for me.
But if you need the latest zeitgeist - for example, as marketing bombarded, self-image conscious teens trying to define their identities in society are wont to do - then as far as I can see Piracy is the easy "I disagree" button to the corporate answer. Unless you can hang at a friends place.
I don't like piracy. But I also don't want to see a war on piracy ruining the lives of those who are just trying to fit in. Not for extra $ in MPAA coffers.
I kind of wish there was a single low cost streaming site using bittorrent, that hosted everything. But while it may be good for consumers, it wouldn't be good for distribution corporations and content creators would lose regional pricing.
Aside: I loved Tyrion and Bronn together.
That would be, to me, entitled.
Stop being an idiot.
people here have a problem accepting foss because they see windows as free so what benefit is switching to ubuntu?
about media. until few years ago, you could only watch movies in theaters or on cable tv. shops would resell torrented movies for few cents a pop because that is at most what people were willing to pay. i am not going to buy an original DVD 6 months after launch for $ 30 if i get screener for $0.2 dollars next day of launch.
its not about "robbing" the company, often purchasing parity means $10 is a days manual labour wages. paying $99 for a windows license used to make no sense when they already paid not more than $200-300 for an entire setup or a laptop.
Of course, the history of Microsoft and Anti-trust litigation is well documented. Things didn't entirely work out for them.
To this day, I try not to give Microsoft any money.
I have never really cared for Gates, nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish.
Do I understand you correctly, that your objection to the Gates foundation is, that they don‘t spend on projects in the US?
Like persuading Oxford University to NOT give away the rights to its COVID-19 vaccine: https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine...
Does anyone know if he holds shares in vaccine producing companies?
What would the angle be here? Gates is in the process of trying to give away all least half of his money to charity. His net worth is ~125 billion, is making another billion or two really going to motivate him at this stage in his life?
On the other hand, I've heard that anyone with that much wealth is operating on a completely different mental model than the rest of us. I can only assume he has a very high-level overview of any global aspects that he is interested in and therefore has completely different goals. I suppose that I can't even begin to fathom his thought process and perhaps my confusion is completely unfounded, I just wish I knew the reasoning for his recent Covid-vaccine decisions, which seemingly are detrimental to all human beings on a global scale.
It's been a weird thing for people to turn on Gates and assume he has some diabolical angle. He was an absolute savage in business, and people rightfully feared/hated him when he was at the helm of Microsoft (I was in college during the MS antitrust trial, and a lot of the CS department was rooting for them to be taken down). What I think motivates him now is straightforward self-actualization, trying to undo some of the fairly justified animosity he earned in business for the sake of his legacy. All the money in the world can't buy you a legacy, only accomplishments can do that, and that's what I think he's chasing now.
Maybe because issues in poor nations are straightforward to solve: if you resolve the issue with clean water for a village, that improves lives of hundreds. Issues that plague 'The west' don't have a known solution.
Maybe because of most issues in poorest nations is lack of funs / tech, which he can provide, but cause of suffering in western world is usually political or mismanagement, which he cannot 'provide'
Maybe because for the same resources deployed the choice is between saving 100 kids from disease in Africa vs helping social mobility of 1 kids in US
Maybe you do not believe that from Alaska to Hawaii is 5,000 miles of "we", but 500 miles South from Texas it's "they". Nation-centric worldview is a relatively new idea that only existed for a couple hundred years, even today many people associate by faith, by town/province, by ethnicity or other things over nationality
Are you, say, a man? Then why would you give anything to a charity that helps women? (Or vice versa.) Or are you perhaps white? Then why would you give anything to a charity that helps people of colour? (Or vice versa.) Etc, etc... Get the point yet? If not, I'll spell it out for you: "Charity" that only benefits copies of yourself isn't really charity.
$4 in america will buy a latte.
But more narrowly: Gates Foundation focuses on straightforwardly preventable diseases. These are diseases of extreme poverty that are nearly or entirely absent in the US. The US's problems are of a different nature, largely stemming from inequality in access to healthcare which is a political problem.
It seems rather ghoulish to look at one of the most effective charities in the world, that has no doubt had an impact on millions of people, and say "I want those $$ to stay in the US instead" when we are the most wealthy and powerful nation in history. We need to fix our own political issues, not shame Gates for doing truly good things elsewhere. You want to help the US? Vote for people who want to help the most vulnerable among us vs the most powerful. Our government and society has the resources, they are simply being directed with deliberate inequities.
Another reason being that the US is one of the richest countries in the world -- and therefore, logically, among the least in need of charity. (BTW, this shows the objection is ridiculous even if his fortune came mainly from the USA: If he had made his money from selling some luxury article, say Rolls-Royce cars or something, and then decided to spend the money so earned on charity -- should he have been expected to spend it only on helping the kind of people who buy Rolls-Royces?)
Both screamingly obvious reasons IMO, so I find it somewhat surprising that anyone needed to be curious about this.
Right now it's even easier. You don't even have to crack it, just select "I'll do this later" when you have to fill in your license code.
The ruling was appeal and a 2016 ruling in a higher court just confirmed that you can in fact resell software licenses.
That said, sometimes the licenses can indeed get cancelled. I’ve seen a really sketchy looking photocopied label that a guy “got” that didn’t work. Depends on the channel perhaps.
Because even if they gave you Windows free of cost, Windows has never been free as in freedom, and probably never will be. That's the thing people seem unable to wrap their brains around about FOSS is that it's about freedom, not cost. The fact that it's also cost-free is just added bonus that nobody in their right mind should complain about.
Free as in freedom doesn't mean shit when codebases are so large as to be inscrutable and induplicable.
There was some way cheaper ISP offerings about in that time/era. Most ISP's used a local 0845 call charge number, so wasn't that bad, however there was also some 0800 ones.
Was one that in the late 90's offered an 0800 to share holders and could get shares for sub £20 mark, unsure how they did it and indeed didn't last long, was also able to use two accounts to do a bonded line (ISDN). Only downside was it would drop the line every 2 hours, but with me OpenBSD firewall/gateway I setup, easy scripted around. That was my favourite of the dialup era as paid total of sub £40 for unlimited 128kbit internet and oh did I abuse that.
Then in 2000 the cable companies arrived and the start of what I would call real internet, no dialup messing about or charges - if you was lucky to be in the catchment area that is and inside the M25 helped there, though even today there are parts of London inside the M25 that the cable companies don't cover (I know as I found such an address not in there coverage due to cost of laying a cable across the road).
> I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline.
I know exactly what you mean about TV shows back then and delays. For me southpark was the one that got that ball rolling, initially was realmedia encoded and ironically I watched every single episode almost religiously within an hour of it premiaring in America. Ironic as in 2003 I was in America when a new episode was out and fell asleep just before it came on and with that the first southpark episode I didn't watch within an hour or so of it airing was the only time I could of watched it live.
These days, it's mostly dip into some streaming subscription for a month or two every now and then, flitting around the offerings, munching thru their offerings in that period and comming back to subbing them a year or so later once new things are there to make it worthwhile.
But I'm not sure if it's age or my tastes, the enthusiasm and offerings just don't have me eagerly sitting in anticipation for the next episode or series these days as they did back then. Sure there are the odd gems that do that, but far less so than in the early days and a bit of choice/saturation overload perhaps, though mostly it's a case of many offerings just install a sense of ennui. With that, I would say the only TV show that has had me at the same enthusiasm level, would be the Mandalorian. beyond that, nothing jumps out at me really today and even South Park, I've become apathetic and not seen the last season (or maybe two).
One change though, that I do approve of that many streaming serious releases do. Which is, they release the entire season at once, and that I love as you can keep your momentum going. Albeit you shift you wait from weekly episode releases towards yearly season releases, though that was always been the case.
Soon learned some tricks and list of outdials (ICL had some nice ones as did IBM, if you had the number, that was all you needed). Though doubt anybody wardials thesedays.
The commercial internet never did. Don't forget about Torrents and lib gen rus. They're part of the internet too.
> The fact that e.g. Netflix offers different movies for every country is something that honestly does not make any sense yet everyone accepts it.
People "accept" it because it's convenient and they are not aware that there are other options. How would you suggest people reject it?
When you see the internet's "promise" as providing unlimited free content, it's a bit hard for the commercial internet to meet that expectation.
And all those news of people's "bought" content disappearing, or accounts getting banned without a way to appeal, aren't exactly doing any good to the "legal" entertainment services either.
The fact that it used to be easy to access all kinds of useful data, and now you can't isn't an accident, The Internet is still the same, the governance around it isn't.
People believe they have access to free thought, speech and completely objective information. Really though, your world view became limited, bias, censored, crafted and curated.
People who truly hold alternative views are often banned from the few places left Joe Sixpack would try find important, unbiased, real (sometimes controversial) information.
The Internet was real freedom for a brief while, and it was fucking great!
Objective information is still there (google scholar, etc.) but what the last two decades have shown is that people do not have the training or the time in the day to read it. So you get people reading websites like Natural News (which while it sources scientific material, the actual article about it does not represent anything that's stated in the paper, and often states the exact opposite of what the paper claims), and getting drawn into it. Next thing you know, they're anti-vaxxers who believe that Bill Gates himself is putting microchips in their body as some kind of obscure cartoon-villain hive-mind scheme (I have literally seen this happen to multiple people around me, and it is just utterly depressing).
> People who truly hold alternative views are often banned from the few places left Joe Sixpack would try find important, unbiased, real (sometimes controversial) information.
IDK man, Alex Jones is raking in millions and he's said some downright ludicrous bullshit. Naziism and racism as a whole seems to be 'in-vogue' (Look at Joe Cox's killer and the whole UKIP thing). Alternative views seem to suck-ass aside from some transhumanism ones -- but even they are all "Torturing a guy for 60 years is ok if it stops dust specks getting into an impossibly large number of human eyes".
Probably the best thing I ever did was find out I was trans -- since then I've met a lot of absolute geniuses. People like Micah Elizabeth Scott who have several contributions to "Proof of Concept or GTFO" that make people say "woah what the fuck!!!", one woman who made an antenna cane (A mobility aid that can also pick up WiFi from a distance), people taking photography and music to whole new places -- bona fide synthesizer witches and code sorcerers who perform stunning feats of artistry, and thousands of people biohacking their endocrine system based off the latest available scientific information, simply to get boobs and cure themselves of gender dysphoria.
Now that's a REAL alternative movement / counterculture.
We have the means to sidestep these physical impediments, yet we just recreate them digitally. And in the case above, the physical actually turned out to be the solution to the digital impediment. It's just too funny. The greatest barriers in this world aren't technological - they're social, economic, and political; always have been.
Just another reminder that we're living in clown world.
I've been studying Japanese for about 15 years. Japanese media almost never comes to the US, and if it does, it's usually dubbed. Anything that isn't dubbed is forced subtitled. The one exception is anime, but even that has no JP subs. The best you can do is JP audio and no subs.
But if I buy media from Japan (at a huge markup over their already-insane media prices) I can get JP audio and subs.
And this is pretty much true for all foreign video, except certain British shows like Doctor Who. Even a lot of Canada-specific shows don't make it here (Canada's Worst Driver), though there are a lot of shows/movies produced in Canada with the US in mind from the start.
It's ridiculous. Sell digital goods to anyone willing to buy them. Period.
No wonder people pirate.
Piracy and torrents were amazing though. We could find any movie no matter how obscure, as well as books, comics and all kinds of stuff (my uncle gifted me a kobo e-reader many years ago, it was amazing and I loved it).
I basically learned English that way, and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that that's the most important skill I have. So much access to information, travel, and relationships to other people just would not have been possible if I didn't speak English well.
In a way piracy has improved my life tremendously, while not really hurting anybody (as if a kid in Italy without any money would have been able to buy all those movies even at a 90% discount).
It's not the Internet, it's copyright that has failed us.
I have a 4k screen, but Netflix's DRM only allows 4K in Microsoft Edge, on Linux I'm stuck with 720p which looks awful on that screen. Amazon Prime Video has ads (for their other shows, but still) and an awful user interface, and so on.
I find it incomprehensible why Netflix still does that since clearly it does nothing to prevent piracy: Every new Netflix show is instantly available as 4K torrent.
I assume they are appeasing technically illiterate movie execs or something similar.
The internet is what brought you piracy.
Sometimes they sell it for MORE than the original, so why people buy the pirated one?
Because the pirated one is often:
easier to pay (just hand over the cash instead of international wire).
better support (often the piracy dealers double as tech support!)
better patches (often pirated content is patched with fan patches, DRM removal, and whatnot)
better translation (often pirated content include fan translation).
Piracy was brought by microsoft and MPAA. Microsoft had a lot to win and they used piracy to consolidate market share. They never went after people except in some rare cases for publicity.
MPAA made sure that you cannot buy movies. In eastern europe they did not even had distributors but they were screaming bloody murder.
Years later, with CD writers, there was a website called “Ed Sullivan and his Cambodian slaves” [sic] with a long list of movies and TV shows you could have delivered home in a couple of days. Or just stroll to the park in the center of town where several stalls offered copies of all types of computer software, MP3 collections, games, movies, etc.
… There were also guys on trains, carrying a portable CD player, speakers and a battery, who sold music and movies.
>The internet is what brought you piracy.
The BBS's I visited in 1986 might disagree with you.
For software my local BBSs, very very far from any rich country, somehow managed to get every major software release a few days before launch day. Yes, before. It was all one huge global network already, just a bit asynchronous.
Piracy was widespread over here before internet was a thing.
Copied audio tapes(prior to cassettes!), or movies etc.
Right now there doesn't seem to be such experience provided anywhere and my Netflix subscription is basically running without me using it, because I rarely find anything worth watching where I live.
So if I want to watch something I really want to watch I have no choice, but to select the piracy approach.
Someone would need to pull something similar with the movie industry.
The EU is requiring 30% of the content from streaming services to be from Europe. France requires 60%. They're discussing not counting UK films as part of this. It's certainly easier to geolock content than to produce extra content, but even if Netflix et al. produce more content, what happens if/when other countries follow suit? The Canadian senate may have killed Bill C-10 for now, but Trudeau still seems likely to win in the fall, so there's a good chance it still passes in the next couple of years. So France requires 60% in the EU, Canada requires 30% in Canada, and what happens if other countries get in the game? If those percentages add up to over 100%, there is no possible way to make all your content available in all countries, no matter how much content you produce in these countries. Geolocking is the only possibility.
Sometimes I’ll gift a kindle book to someone and then they’ll message me back saying that Amazon won’t let them claim the book, giving them an error message about it not being available in their country. They can’t redeem it for anything else, so then I have to go talk to support and ask for a refund of the gift.
You hate the market, not the internet.
Geolocking, lack of standardised translation service, very different pricing models per country. From all services I use or hear about, Steam is still the best value per money. Steam is 18 years old this year.
Do they accept it?
That allows Netflix India to sell netflix for a dollar and charge 15 for Americans.
>The US will pay billions more for the olympics than Malta but they both watch the same events.
I can't let this tangent go even if it's not either of our points... The Olympic coverage in the US is infamous worldwide for being absolutely terrible. And being a live event it's harder to pirate using magnet links.
My comment was in terms of rights holders. I could see why they would want that. Netflix is caught in the middle.
"Months"... Muahahaha! Sheesh, kids nowadays: Spoiled rotten, but don't even know it, so think they have something to whine about.
In my youth -- in a Western European country -- it was years.
Only if you look at the commercial offering.
It does make sense when you know distributors still have to strike deals with cable TV operators.
> When I got my first Kindle 12 years ago my Amazon account was registered with my local European address so the books available in store were all complete trash romance pulp novels. Once I simply changed my home address to some random location in New York I suddenly had access to hundreds of thousands more titles. The Internet never delivered on its promise.
At least it did since you have access to the books you want.
The reason I love computer science and tech and excel at some parts of it, is simply because I could access any book, pirated. I have a huge will to learn, and piracy was quite literally the only means to learn. Once I worked and got on my feet, I started buying a lot of the books that marked my learning (because nostalgia and also great resources), and if and when I can, I always buys the books.
Let's not talk about movies. My town STILL has no cinema. Nearest one is 100Km away, and costs about 15$ for a ticket. So if it wasn't for piracy, I would've probably never watched Iron Man, and never dreamed of having my own Jarvis, and hence never taking up speech recognition and deep learning. Again, now that I can, I had periods where I watched 3 to 5 movies a week in the cinema, because I have the means to.
I believe people are more likely to buy books/movies when they can. But for those who can't, I believe it's almost always a net positive to society to give them access to those resources.
This way the industry is still able to monetize and those without the resources can still get access with some effort.
I pirated like crazy growing up poor but internet savvy, but now that I’m a well paid professional it isn’t necessary and isn’t even worth the effort when I can just rent/buy.
«I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.» Robert A. Heinlein
My biggest problem nowadays is not that I can’t afford the things I love but that there is hardly anything I actually want. But when I do I often get multiple copies, whether it is on different platforms or to share the joy with friends.
That being said the effects of piracy are both severe and negligible due to the quality. While it probably doesn’t affect big corporations at all, the small indie people sometimes suffer catastrophically from it.
Can we please throw all copyright lawyers into an active volcano and try to set up a system that doesn't make it intentionally impossible to legally watch the English language version of a video hosted by Amazon while in a non English speaking country? Also throw the Amazon execs who signed those licensing agreements after them.
My friend had never seen Something About Mary so we decided to pay 3.99€ to watch it. It ended up being 480p and dubbed horribly in German.
If I remember correctly, in some EU countries GoT was available only with reader - no native English and subtitles, all episodes destroyed by a reader. In another country GoT was available in max resolution 480p, in another... you had to be subscribed to one particular ISP AND have HBO subscription. GoT was the most pirated content on torrents for quite some time.
Growing up with more money to spend, I bought legit copies of those games (and more) from GOG just feeling nostalgic. Heck I don't even play them.
Now I don't play pirated games, simply because the potential problems (virus etc) outweighs the cost (I usually wait for Steam/GOG/Epic sale anyway).
Same thing for software.
For books.. during uni time I usually borrow books from uni library, and make a copy for personal use (so I can highlight the pages). I guess that's piracy.
Is there a way I can give away my novels as "pirated ebooks" to a German audience without having to seed a torrent and without making this easily traceable back to me as the author?
It would probably even boost sales and also help people with less money, I just don't know how to do it. :(
The big torrent alternative in the German warez scene are direct downloads from filehosters. Which means there is no real "central place" where you can just put it for widespread exposure because it's a whole bunch of different portals/forums with individual uploads.
There's a couple of well known bigger forums, like Gulli, Boerse or Bloodsuckerz, and countless "blog style" ones often specialized on certain media, those can be found on the Raidrush Toplist.
So in practice you would need to sign up to a whole lot of places and post the links to your filehosted books there.
A few well regarded authors (Charlie Stross, Cory Doctrow and Peter Watts spring to mind, I'm sure there are others) have been commercially successful despite (or because of) releasing some of their work for free download. Might be worth looking into how they approached it?
You could upload it to the Internet Archive. Maybe ping Jason Scott @textfiles on Twitter and he'll make sure it gets sorted into the right categories so people can find it.
She tried to fire him before the investigation was even done, investigations based on two complaints, one of which was already rejected at that point.
As much as I like hear work, I really do not understand what happened there and why she would do what she did there, like she did it.
Her expertise and what the PP stands for are as relevant as ever, and its getting more relevant each day. Why would she just throw all that away for herself, but alongside that try to sabotage a whole political movement?
> a place where the <<nothing>> is corrupt.
Almost every single person I knew back in the day who installed Limewire/Kazaa/Bearshare, bought an R4 cartridge or modded their Wii went from buying at least a couple of pieces of genuine media each year to never buying one again.
That being said, perhaps a more useful metric for calculating lost sales would be how many people acquired the technology used for piracy, rather than how many times they used it.
The biggest issue is and always will be accessibility and ease of access and these two are hindered by outdated global licensing agreements.
If you sell be a DVD with DRM that takes longer to start playing than a copy I downloaded. I will download it. If you force me to watch unskipable 10 year old ads before I can play my purchased DVD I will pirate that movie.
I can't think of any that stopped honestly or even owned an Apple product. Apple products are expensive.
If you wanted just that one song then iTunes was very much the most affordable, and accessible, way to legally buy digital music back then because it only charged you $1 for a song.
The only other alternatives where, often legally rather obscure, flatrate subscription models or buying the physical full album, which would usually have cost you at least $20+
Valve did something very similar with Steam: Very easy to use and it actually passed on the savings from digital distribution to the consumers by heavily discounting the prices of games.
I wish buying movies was this easy.
I wasn't aware that iTunes offered downloads via a website back then, because iTunes certainly does not run on the OS which the people that I'm thinking of used at the time (and still doesn't).
Nowadays it's impossible to find mp3. I have a Spotify premium account, so I can download music, but not in a format that lets me burn it on a CD. So basically I pay 10 euro a month and I don't even have the freedom to listen to the music on whatever device I prefer.
I miss the old days where you could find everything to pirate. These days thanks god there is Telegram that lets me download some mp3 in decent quality, otherwise I have to download YouTube videos and the audio quality is awful (but probably most people will not notice since they have crappy stereos in the first place).
It's weird how at the same time the lack of option to legally download and burn CD and the lack of optical players "if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way. (and importing expensive DVDs in an erra where literally none of my devices have optical bays is not actual option)" lead to the same conclusion: pirating.
> I miss the old days where you could find everything to pirate. These days thanks god there is Telegram that lets me download some mp3 in decent quality, otherwise I have to download YouTube videos and the audio quality is awful (but probably most people will not notice since they have crappy stereos in the first place).
Amen to that. Just yesterday I bought two tracks from https://christophertin.com/projects/civilizationvi.html (it's not the link I used, that one led to gumstore something which allows me to download FLAC tracks) and today I can't even find the store link.
I tried to buy in the same way the whole album but there are no "download" options.
Every albums/EPs has different streaming options but there are no download options for everything.
I ended up using youtube-dl on the music.youtube.com and I can clearly hear the differences. I suspect these tracks are amputated from some instruments or settings.
Seems like there's a lot of countries where Apple doesn't even operate the iTunes Music Store too which is surprising to me. Like Albania and Iceland.
Apple does not allow you to "buy" music, only to rent it.
> (xii) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such Products, and Usage Rules (iii) – (vi) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.
I have met precisely one person in real life who does this, and he was far enough on the Autism spectrum to receive a government-funded integration aide for the first 6 years of school.
Every other person I know pirates because it's easier than acquiring the real product, they can get a pirated version before the official version is released, or they just simply want to save money.
I personally pirate because I can't be bothered looking through 6 different streaming apps to see which one has Terminator 2 on it. Apparently I'm not alone in this regard; piracy has started to rise again since everybody pulled their content from Netflix.
Yes, it's just anecdata, but I would be shocked if more than 5% of pirates intended to purchase genuine copies of the media they actually liked.
I agree, but I think this actually depends on the media. I do buy my technical books ($50-$150/a piece), but I want to take a look at them first before purchasing.
I personally prefer paying because I can decide what to watch on a whim, on 4k, without keeping a stash with several TB of movies I might never end up watching (like I did before Netflix) which I then have to copy or stream from another computer to my Apple TV to watch. Not even talking about the PITA of having to keep up with working tracker sites, mirrors, etc.
I understand pirating because of the price, or availability, but in terms of comfort streaming has won me over some years ago.
I have been burned too many times by games that simply do not run on my hardware despite meeting the minimum specs for the game. Modern platforms like Steam may allow for refunds, but this is a relatively new thing. Shareware and demos are a fantastic thing for someone like me, but these mostly seem to have gone away in favor of Let's Play and other videos of gameplay, which does nothing to help me determine if I can actually play the game.
justwatch.com will solve that for you, and covers quite a few countries. Between Netflix, Hulu, and "Rent for $4 on Amazon" I can almost always find an option unless it's a Disney+ / Showtime / whatever exclusive.
$25-40/mo (depending on how often I have to invoke the "rent" option) seems pretty reasonable compared to cable.
And yet, a significant proportion of shows isn’t available for me on either of these, and requires maxdome, sky, whatever other bullshit which I’ll never subscribe to. I’m spending enough money each month on streaming that, if something isn’t on there, I’ll just pirate it.
At one point i dumped Amazon Fire because all the services didnt support it and only seemed to support Google. Now its switched, I'm not buying all new hardware again.
Damn. Let me know if you ever host movie nights, I'll come over :3
But often enough, I still need to rip blu rays to get proper, high quality versions of movies that otherwise aren't available at all, so movie night can end up with glitches from my custom setup
Its like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sert_-_3_smile.svg
If anything, that picture seems to be a desperate attempt at retrofitting something, no matter what exactly, onto the smiley -- just look at the name: "3smile".
(So I think I'll stick to "ballsack with eyes".)
EDIT - Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27849412
I had forgotten what a pain in the ass it is to transfer a DVD to something usable in modern times like Plex or Emby, it is something like a 8 dvd box set I think I have gotten like 2 of the DVD ripped at this point
Maybe because Greece is broke? :P
But seriously, I wasn't trying to imply that everybody who uses piracy to demo things need help - it's just extremely uncommon/unusual to buy a piece of genuine media when you already having a working pirate copy.
I cannot help but laugh at this original and non-facile joke I have definitely not heard a million times before.
> it's just extremely uncommon/unusual to buy a piece of genuine media when you already having a working pirate copy.
Probably, but in my case I don't play games often, so if I buy something I'll end up ignoring it after a few minutes 99% of the time. Pirating and buying after I finish is a good way to tell for sure if I'll like it before I buy.
Well, shit. There's another comment to recall at random intervals for the next 10 years and blush with embarrassment even though nobody else is around.
I would never have made many of my purchases without that option.
It’s really a convenience and accessibility issue.
I've given up on music in general. I'll listen to the radio in the car, but that's it. If I really want to here a song, its on Youtube somewhere.
For example, having to go through every streaming app to work out which one has the show you want, or buying a piece of hardware sold by an American that hasn't even thought about logistics to any country that isn't the USA.
Piracy for convenience happens again.
As a student, I didn't really buy the "piracy increases sales" studies, since I went from buying one thing a year to zero. Clearly, sales were lost.
As an adult, I can casually swipe my credit card and buy similar things on a whim. How much less I bought as a student is a rounding error.
Most people or organizations are either rich enough to not bother with piracy, or poor enough not to buy especially much in the first place.
I'll mention this is doubly true with industrial software. Ain't no way an individual will drop $5k on a CAD program. On the other hand, ain't no way a serious business will pirate a $5k CAD program. Having people know how to use your tools, though, drives sales.
Partially disagree. For things like music and tv series, there's more hassle when acquiring the product via "official" channels. For example, when I want to download a music video, I can just go on youtube and I can download the video with one click (using "unofficial" software). If I wanted to use "official" channels to purchase a copy of the music video, I would have to spend a lot of time just finding out which service sells it, then figure out if they actually sell this piece of music or merely rent it out, then figure out a method to register and pay, etc. In the end I have no idea if I will even acquire a mp4 file or some kind of DRM time bomb.
I can't fathom why anybody would feel like buying music is less of a hassle than downloading music without buying it.
> For things like music and tv series, there's more hassle when acquiring the product via "official" channels.
> I can't fathom why anybody would feel like buying music is less of a hassle than downloading music without buying it.
True. Note that the text you quoted referred to "acquiring the product". Streaming audio from Spotify temporarily is different from "acquiring" the audio file. Do you think acquiring audio files via official channels is somehow less of a hassle than acquiring them via unofficial channels, like youtube-dl?
I tried following my linear algebra course using freely available materials and/or 2nd hand text books, but constant "new" editions and access to online study portals made 2nd hand books impractical.
How old were the people back in the day? In high school I pirated a lot more because I literally had no money.
This was even laid out explicitly in a recent leak from a former Spotify boss: https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-doesnt-need-str...
> The problem was this: piracy and music distribution. The problem was to get artists' music out there. The problem was not to pay people money.
What's often far more noticeable is all the ways that the music is altered during production. How it's recorded, mixed and mastered. You'd be surprised what kinds of sources still get used as part of the mix today. Someone using an unshielded quarter inch cable to record a guitar amp is far more likely to contribute noise than Opus. Or a producer using Abbey Road Vinyl or iZotope. Or whoever uses some "free sample pack" that originated from an MP3 re-encoding
of a poor rip of Best Service Gigapack. It's all out there.
Interesting, “work” is kind of ambiguous in that sentence. Either it means the labor or it means the artistic creation.
Anyways I want to think that there are a multitude of ways to allow global unfettered reach of the latter while ensuring the former has adequate funding.
I mean everyone is free to buy practically any pizza, in practically any form, from practically anyone, and still people get paid to come up with novel recipes.
For digital media I think YouTube and GitHub are the type of space to focus on. Compared to Spotify they are almost the kind of free services one could imagine a copyright free Netflix and Spotify could look like.
You don’t find many multi million dollar productions on the ad-financed YouTube. (You do on the completely free GitHub though). It would be interesting to find out if there are other models for YouTube-like media to get access to that kind of funds, pretty sure ads aren’t it, and copyright seems to lead to the Netflix problem.
Patreon and selling merch does it share to finance the channels I watch. But also seems limited in what can be expected.
LWN has this interesting freemium model of keeping the latest edition for subscribers only (unless they share a link), it’s kind of what Kickstarter things do too no? Some extra perks for those is provide t he funding.
Personally I would be happy to pay for “premium” YouTube subscriptions for channels doing a LWN like thing. Would probably prefer to do that through a meta-subscription service (like patreon?) built into the consumption experience to lower the barrier.
For music I see no reason these models shouldn’t be adequate. Film could be a bit mor problematic, seems like those are being replaced with series anyways though, so perhaps a good pilot is enough to secure funding for subsequent episodes.
It is both. Just recording music involves lots of non-creative setup and editing work, and filming typically involves a lot of logistics, set building and other non-creative labor. Equipment isn't free either even if it's not as exclusive as it used to be.
Soundcloud and Bandcamp kind of work for music, but somehow it seems that most of the artists who can get a traditional recording or distribution deal prefer going that way. I've understood that before copyright a rich patron was common way of funding art. I'm just not sure if I'd enjoy watching tech billionaires' pet projects.
Yeah, streaming Netflix doesn't look as good as a Bluray but it looks better than a DVD or cable TV which most people are still happy with.