So....what exactly is Isohunt.to? Isohunt.com was shut down and the footer of Isohunt.to says they are not affiliated with Isohunt inc. So...wouldn't it be safe to assume that Isohunt.to is just an MPAA/RIAA honeypot that's designed to snap up users of the original Isohunt who just don't notice the difference? I'd stay 50,000 miles away from them and any of their "products."
Interesting! Did working for Isohunt help or hurt you in the post Isohunt job search? I would think that the technical skills learned from working at such a massively popular site would go a long way. But I wonder if employers would worry about affiliating themselves with an entity that's been deemed illegal. Thoughts?
It seems more or less like a popcorn time copy. It uses the node modules peerflix (https://github.com/mafintosh/peerflix), read-torrent (https://github.com/mafintosh/read-torrent) and socket-io (http://socket.io) for example. You can read the source code if you download the mac version and open Contents/Resources/app.nw inside the Isoplex package. But it is a good question why it is not on github.
I would be more suspicious if they didn't use socket.io, its incredibly common and useful. I'm happy to see competition here as this shows that the ideas behind Popcorn Time really stand a chance of growing and improving.
I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but maybe if you said something more like "its not just open source, but also free software" it would have come across as less hostile.
Not quite as easy, but kind of similar in function to what you are looking for is a program called headphones[0]. It is a usenet based auto-downloader akin to sickbeard[1] or couchpotato[2]. Point it at your collection and it will automatically search out new releases at timed intervals.
I buy music because I now have legal avenues to do so. It's much harder to get movies. I don't live in the USA or Europe and have sporadic bandwidth with frequent cuts. Streaming solutions are almost impossible. I want a service where I can buy a movie, download its file, and view it repeatedly, back it up, transfer it from my NAS to an external hard drive and ack again, etc. I don't know of any service that permits this. I don't share my files, don't intend to reshare my bought media, I just want a service where I can "own" the films I buy. No one provides this (except the Pirate Bay, etc.).
But I spent over three hours in the studio 20 years ago; all creativity will be sucked out of society if I'm not paid for that for the next 110 years. By "that", I mean the writing, not the performing. Performers who don't write can go to hell for all I care.
Too expensive. Try buying your way to a thousand song library that rotates about a quarter of the songs per year. When that becomes cheap enough for a minimum wager like me without having to weigh the tradeoffs against necessities, I'll be a buyer.
Is free Spotify with ads too expensive? (or even premium at $10 per month)
What's the price point you're looking for? "thousand song library that rotates about a quarter of the songs per year" means 1k at start, then 250 per year. Taking spotify as an example, that's $0.01 per song the first month, then $0.48 per new song at your rate of cycling through the library.
Total entertainment (not discretionary) spending should be 7% of total income after taxes. Depending on where you live, that makes about $1,100 available per year.
Renting (streaming or otherwise) video should be no more than ten percent (10%) of an hour of minimum wage with no commercials. So a typical movie would be about $1.10. A half hour sitcom with commercials stripped out about $0.25.
A rented song should be about one tenth of a percent (.1%) of an hour of minimum wage per listen. So about a penny per song. (What you said.) But a purchased song at a dollar is too much (a dime is about right).
Tying entertainment to minimum wage also has the neat benefit of having one sector of business fighting to raise minimum wage too.
Spotify and their ilk are fine, but last time I looked they didn't have much in the way of the music I liked. (I'll take another look at Spotify and see if the catalog has grown to encompass my tastes.)
That being said, how did you arrive at 7%, may I ask?
Also, by your numbers you say you play a typical song 10(=dime/(cent/song rental)) times? I suppose it's highly dependent on the person, but I personally would say ~25x. (Mean of the playback numbers of all songs I have that I have played at least once is ~21, and I occasionally play songs off of my mp3 player, etc, so it's really higher than that.)
Personally, I'd love a service that was both a micropayment enabler and music player - ~one cent per 5 minutes, period.
It never occurred to you that you simply cannot afford such a lifestyle? It seems you guys delude yourself into thinking it would be reasonable to fight their business practices with piracy while you are actually providing them with a target by breaking the law.
F-That! Of course it's occurred to me I can't afford "such a lifestyle." That's why I steal the content!
Just because I was born into poverty, barely made it out of high school, and lack the genetics, wherewithal and mental acumen to move myself into a better life doesn't mean I'm going to deny myself life's pleasures.
Screw you rich people who _can_ afford the lifestyle. If you want me to play by the rules you've made up for your society then I get what you get. Otherwise, I guess it's civil war across class lines. Then we'll make the rules!
Edit: And don't downvote me if you're going to reply to my comment. Your witty riposte will just get buried too.
No, my position is, "I should not be denied base level entertainment pleasures just because I'm poor." Same goes for base level health care, food, shelter, etc.
Take out the middle man and let the market decide what the price should be. I suspect it will be much less that what's being charged now and, without the middle men, the content creators and performers themselves will make significantly more.
And no I would not go to jail for stealing music, movies, etc. What kind of a society would jail someone for such a minor offense. Oh wait, a corporate oligarchy like most of the first world has become!
IMHO the best way to bypass the middlemen is to directly put cash into the tip jars of unsigned
artists performing live at locations not affiliated with BMI or ASCAP.
I think it might be closed source. The site looks identical to Popcorn Time, but it's not clear if this is a fork of the original application or a new one based on it.
The node packages It uses the node module peerflix (https://github.com/mafintosh/peerflix) is the same that popcorn-time makes use of. In this case they are identical. But subtitles and tracker health are missing. It seems that is is not a copy but flavoured by popcorn time.
That is unfortunate that this technology needs to overcome that stigmatism. There is no reason this shouldn't be used for legitimate purposes. This would be incredible for educational purposes.
They provide access / listings of copyright protected movies. What is NOT illegal here? Come on! We have a lot of disciplinary warning letters here in Germany because of popcorn-time an a lot of people have to pay a LOT of money because they used it. Be honest to the people, torrent networks are dangerous (in some countries). I am not here for a discussions about the border between legal, illegal and to split hairs about that topic.
Not sure why this is downvoted, because it has a valid point.
Downloading illegally-distributed files is illegal in some jurisdictions (but not too many, mostly only uploading - i.e. distribution - is illegal). That's true. So, use of Popcorn Time (or clones) for illegal things could be, indeed, illegal.
Also, in some jurisdictions linking to illegally-distributed content is illegal. Now, that's exactly what Popcorn Time does. So the point is valid - the very software (and its distribution) could be ruled to be illegal as well. Just as, say, Napster. It's just that Napster could be shut down for good and Popcorn Time couldn't - due to decentralized nature - but that's not a legality issue anymore.
However, what's very likely to be not illegal here is a development of the said software. There's very unlikely to be such a meta-law that forbids the very development of software that may result in linking to illegally-distributed materials. Sometimes there are attempts to apply a anti-malware laws, but that's quite a big stretch that works only in corrupt and/or ignorant courts (like some in Russia).
In Germany, even uploading copyrighted works is punishable by law. Downloading is, too, if the source is clearly illegal.
Most content owners do not file criminal charges any more these days, since extorting people for cash is far more profitable (and less likely to generate bad PR) than filing criminal charges.
Also, the German system works in the way that e.g. in a bar brawl first you file criminal charges (here: assault), then the aggressor gets sentenced to jail or fine (to be paid to the state), and then with the verdict you go to a civil court and sue the aggressor for damages.
If I understand US courts correct, they summarize both into one court.
I think my point is, which in regards to Pirate Bay I have made earlier on HN as well, is that whatever nerds think of these technologies is usually quite different what the courts rule.
A lot of cinemas / cinema chains are called -plex too. I don't disagree that it's a bit uncreative to pick a name like that but it's not uncommon in that area to have a -plex name.
