The only moral problem I have in your anecdote is the lying about it. With every fibre of my being, I could not care less about torrenting game of thrones. I pretty much just torrent much of the content I could find on these services.
It's so much easier to just have it appear in the list instead of switching devices, sometimes remotes. Just so tired of boxes and remotes and accounts and having to "type" with a stupid remote control. Most of this could be solved if I could reliably queue something from my laptop to be played on my tv. Like how YouTube lets you queue videos. More importantly, if you downloaded some episodes, barring an act of god that destroys your house and the equipment within, you know you will get to enjoy those episodes at the time of your own choosing and with the best quality, no streaming issues or glitches.
With HBO, who knows? I still remember they were unable to cope with the load for some of Game of Thrones episodes. They make kinda do it pretty easy to stream the major services on TVs now. I can't imagine its easier to just torrent the files. I kinda don't care if people torrent, but they've made it easy enough I don't bother.
I don't tend to watch shows over and over so that helps. Although I agree typing with the onscreen keyboard and remote just sucks Of course I am old and remember the hassle of video rentals which involved physical media where what you wanted often wasn't available , so my threshold for retrieving content might be higher.
SkyBelow on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. At some point I find it hard to draw a distinction between a library and a torrent. Gotta to avoid legal trouble, but from a moral standpoint outlawing torrents is like outlawing the library.
Digital and physical copies of media content differ significantly in their transmissibility and copy-ability. For example, creating a digital copy of some content is typically so easy that creating an entirely new duplicate copy is actually how works are transfered.
Compared to physical media where creating a copy can be so difficult that copies are shared by physically moving individual copies rather than re-duplicating them. While many libraries do have significant and valuable collections of digital works, they also tend to have somewhat overrought or overly trusting systems for preventing illicit copying. So why use torrents instead of the library? You know full well the difference.
The library uses a shitty app and DRM. Nothing stopping you from recording your screen a la a s VCR. The Amazon app has been telling me recently that my connection to my TV doesn't have it, but it actually does.
Then I'll hit "play" again and it'll work. I think it was a bug in their app, because it stopped again. The "analog hole" is still there. Point a camera at your TV and record it that way. Yes, the quality may be bad But that is not the same as a s VCR, which is what the parent said. Yes, I understand. The parent is still correct. You can buy splitters that strip HDCP.
Or you could screen capture. SkyBelow on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. Some people use torrents, others use the library, and some use both. Are you asking why some prefer a library to a torrent? For them, likely ease of access and greater access to content.
Effectively torrents are an expansion of the library where sharing is easier than ever. Are you suggesting a library is only moral because of the difficulty in using it? If so, what if someone were to suggest that current libraries have become easy enough to use that they have already crossed that line?
And making a copy of something that hundreds to even thousands of people worked hundreds of thousands of hours on just because you can also has some negative morals do it.
I don't know what analogy to make since all the physical ones fail. Maybe it's like hiring someone for a service and not paying. You get a haircut and don't pay. You hire a lawyer and don't pay.
You have an accountant and don't pay. In all of those cases the only thing lost is the time the hair stylist, lawyer, accountant, movie maker spent. Yet we generally consider the first 3 morally wrong.
Why not the 4th. That you can copy without getting caught doesn't mean there are zero moral implications. SkyBelow on July 14, root parent next [—]. A library pays once and then allows an unlimited number of people to use an item.
A torrent uploader buys once and then allows an unlimited number of people to use an item. The only core distinction is the number that can access it at once.
I will grant this is something of a significant distinction, but only if we grant that a torrent technology that allows only one user of any given uploaded item at once is the same as a library, and thus has the same moral implications multiple uploads can allow for multiple users as long as they don't exceed the number of independent uploaders at any one time, much like a library can have more than one copy of a book as long as they buy more than one copy.
Can you explain why? I can understand why people want things for free, but thinking that you shouldn't contribute towards the production cost of the programme you enjoy seems strange to me. It feels so weird to grow up in an age of rampant, unabashed piracy, where literally everyone around you is burning CDs or cracking games or handing out copied mixtapes, and see questions like these.
It just goes to show how thoroughly streaming squashed piracy at least before everything fractured into the current landscape , and how short our collective memories are.
Data yearns to be free -- sharing it and copying it cost nothing. Shows are just video data. Forcing real-world, scarcity economics, in a realm where the only currency of the land is plentiful, seems strange to me. There are so many other ways to monetize media content, and yet we keep going back to DRM and publisher-controlled walled-gardens. It's a complete and total shame. The paper and plastic was never the valuable part. Maybe, but just about all the ones that I've seen boil down to one of three methods: - charge people directly for the content - give the content away for free and sell ads against the content - give the content away for free and make ancillary sales e.
Also, two other observations. First, while music publishers were always unduly whiny about the ability to record music at all, burning CDs and making mix tapes did cost money; it may have "felt" just like putting your entire music library up on Napster, but unless you had enough money to just hand out thousands of CDs of other people's music on street corners, it wasn't.
It's not really super surprising that digital music piracy made those music publishers a lot soggier and hard to light. Second, "data yearns to be free" sounds like a rephrasing of "information wants to be free," and I think it's worth remembering that the full quote from Stewart Brand went on to say "Information also wants to be expensive.
This tension will not go away. Information doesn't 'want' to be expensive. We, people, want it to be expensive. And I'm with the folks want it to be cheap. Both groups will do what they can within their power to achieve their goals.
II2II on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. Is it weird? We may have DRM and walled gardens, but media distribution is much more consumer friendly than it used to be. There are many services that offer streaming at a flat rate, where you can watch or listen what you please and when you please without being subjected to third-party advertising. You can also subscribe and unsubscribe with ease, without paying additional fees.
Contrast that to prior decades where none of that was true. There are other services that offer perpetual licenses I am hesitant to call them purchases of books, music, videos, and software. You can access that content across multiple devices. In some cases you can even legally acquire it without DRM.
Contrast that to early digital media. I remember floppy based software that would disable the installation media once it was installed to a hard drive. You could not re-download your music in the early days of iTunes, and they were considered consumer friendly. I doubt that many people actually expected information to be free. What they wanted was for information to be convenient and cheap. As for those who actually did want information to be free, there are options out there that respect the creator's wishes creative commons licensing, open source, etc.
Xortl on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. If someone puts great effort and cost into producing media, why would others be entitled to get the fruits of that labor for free? Game of Thrones is a luxury, not a necessity; people aren't entitled to it just because they want it and refuse to pay for it. I mind paying for the latest album then not being able to play it on my openhome DLNA devices. I mind not being able to play a random selection of more than or so songs from my library a big enough playlist to not hear the same song multiple times daily.
I mind not being able to crossfade my music, or use a media player that can adjust for the shitty speakers in my phone. I can finally share my video game library with my friend, but if I want to play even a free game while they use my library, that's not possible the only limitation here should be playing the same game. I mind paying for an ebook, then not being able to read it in purple 34pt copperplate against a green background with line breaks where they belong get thee hence PDF.
I mind not being able to search the contents of multiple ebooks I own for the name of a character because I forgot the book title or because it's a cameo in another series. I mind not being able to create a playlist of music that contains files from my Google play music library, my Dropbox folder, and my desktop. I mind that the e-book I downloaded through my library's OverDrive subscription cannot be read offline at all because it's not available as an epub or on Amazon, and thus it can't be downloaded to read offline, and for the same reason I also can't take notes or have multiple bookmarks.
I mind that I can't give away my purchased ebooks after I'm done with them. I mind the fact that to watch movies away from home, I need to get a more expensive tablet cellular version and pay monthly for an extra data line that likely limits me to only watching movies anyways. Free is nice, yes. But money isn't the only reason for piracy. Downloading is easier and frequently faster than ripping the DRM off myself. Streaming services are still less convenient, though they are moee accesible now, and it shows, piracy is less and less popular every year.
Philosophical line in the sand. Media companies have abused laws and rights that are supposed to encourage and enrich society not diminish and stifle it. They're beyond redemption at this point. The whole industry can burn at the stake for all I care. Netflix included. Why does it matter what country I live in again? Why do you remove access to certain shows st random? The only media I pay for willingly is books and that is purely because amazon did such a great job of rejecting the authors guild and creating an atleast seemingly competitive market.
If media companies want my money they need to stop suing their largest customers. They need to stop lobbying my government to enforce their governments rules. They need to respect fair use. They need to understand that it no longer costs anything to produce a copy and they are more than capable of finding a business model that works through the use of product placement.
Hell they could run ads on their self listed torrents and I wouldnt bother reripping or looking for one without the ads. Theyre way too focused on producing profits and protectionism than where they should be focused. Creating great entertainment and enriching society. There's lots on QVC that you can watch if you want to support that style of content. This just reads like a list of excuses.
I don't think it's a valid argument to brush raised issues aside as excuses. Media companies are aggressively litigious bullies and the way they conduct their business is at odds with the interests of the public at large. Not speaking for the others but I have no tears for cry for losses incurred by actors like that, especially not "losses" of digital media licensing opportunities. And it probably wouldnt be all that wrong. All that tells you is that the same problem exists in multiple industries and sections of society.
General patent law is another one. The real solution isnt ignoring copyright like i do. That is just all i have available. The real solution is to reign in the timeframes copyright and patent law lasts for. Have it only long enough to recoup costs of development and provide some level of capital for the next innovation.
Not an indefinite stranglehold on information for the benefit of only a few. The thing people seem to argue is that these businesses have a free right to profit off of society. They dont, society should demand something in return. You can think it's bad to pirate media and still be hard-pressed to care when someone does it.
I'm almost at odds with myself on this. I think it's probably somewhat unethical to pirate stuff, but it's much more unethical to aggressively punish people that do For the most part The effect is so intangible for the large media funded projects as well, pirating your local struggling musicians might be another story, but is that really much worse than the current streaming model what you get paid a few thousand dollars for millions on streams? I feel like that would be a rare soul these days.
People are so prone to screaming about every little "sin", even if it's really nothing. It's like they can't distinguish between things that are bad and things that are unconscionably bad, and scream at the same volume regardless.
Remember, there's a big selection bias on that impression. After all, the people who think it's none of their business if X at work is sleeping on the job don't post about it on social media. Aeolun on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. I used to be in the latter camp as a child - allowance paid for some stuff, but not a lot, now I'm in the former group and am happy to subsidize the enjoyment of those less privileged than me. Especially because some of those people are probably going to be inspired and create some great art I'll really enjoy.
GoT season 8 is something that happened to me, not something I enjoyed. Like a bully ruining your sand castle after a long day at the beach. How does that work? Do you watch programmes, then send off a cheque to HBO if it meets your standards?
CamperBob2 on July 14, root parent next [—]. It's probably fairly common among people who want to be able to access content freely while preserving an internal sense of ethical behavior. That's basically what I did with a certain popular TV series. I'd torrent the individual episodes, then buy the DVD box sets at the end of the season to pay for it. When it became clear that the writers didn't actually have any idea what they were doing which was a topic of no small debate at the time , I stopped buying the box sets.
Whether I stopped torrenting it is neither here nor there, but let's just say that the peer comment "The last season wasn't something I enjoyed, it was something that happened to me" really rung a bell with me.
Later, the same story repeated itself with another popular show on a different network, at which point I just disengaged with TV for good. AlexCoventry on July 14, root parent prev next [—].
I stopped when they resuscitated Jon Snow. That was blatant pandering, and it was clearly going to be downhill from there. I don't know if that was a joke, but Jon Snow is pretty clearly going to resuscitate in the books as well -- the exact way may not follow the TV show in detail, but it will in essence -- because he is important in GoT prophecy.
I don't see this as pandering, any more than Gandalf surviving Moria is. You could argue that season 8 was rushed, that some battles made no sense, that they botched the Night's King, or that Daenerys' character development was ruined by the abruptness -- though I think this too will play out similarly in the books -- but Jon Snow's resurrection was neither pandering nor the fault of HBO. I'll be honest, I want other people to contribute while I enjoy it for free.
GoblinSlayer on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. Promoting and distributing game of thrones is a crime against art, beauty and taste. Pirating it only makes things worse as it exacerbates the network effect. Couldn't the intern have paid for his own bare bones VPS and done it from there? Seems like the cost of a VPN compared to the value of his internship wouldn't even compare.
All for some campus clout. TallGuyShort on July 13, root parent next [—]. It's potentially less anonymous to the people who might prosecute you. Probably didn't realize how anonymous it wasn't to the employer and didn't factor that cost in to the decision. The Foxtel monopoly has got to go, one way or another. They pay for the rights to all of the best shows, then charge huge sums for subscriptions.
I'd pay for Netflix, HBO online etc if only it were possible here for a reasonable, non inflated price without content restrictions.
I was recently surprised to discover that Foxtel still exists. Even living in Australia it had been years since I had heard or seen anything to do with the company. Personally, I dont feel like Foxtel is a problem so much as the business model of locking up a show within a paid streaming service. There are so many of them. If a show or movie isnt on the streaming services I already have access to I immediately just discard the idea of ever watching it.
Its unlikely to even be worth the bother to find a way to watch it. If you could even download it at any price. Worse, there was one season S2 or S3? The following season that option wasn't available due to Foxtel having a big sook, so I just stopped watching altogether. So waiting until later would not be an option for them. That works for most shows, but with Game of Thrones you'd get left out of the conversation that same week and risk seeing spoilers everywhere.
That guy pirated for the glory of being the first to share it with his peers. I wouldn't be surprised if he was willing to pay for that. NullPrefix on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. Depends, was it a paid internship? Even if it wasn't, I bet the experience of the internship would be worth more than the cost of a personal VPN.
Unless the internship didn't really provide much value. If you have no money, it doesn't matter what's the value of the internship. If the opportunity was good enough for you to take the internship, then they were good enough for you not to risk it by torrenting on their material. He likely got sacked mid summer. He now can't even have that internship on his resume. So much wasted time, so mindless. This was what a seedbox is.
Yeah, interns have so much money. DigitalOcean bills per hour. IIRC they have a minimum payment. I paid for a dedicated server with an unmetered mbit connection back in the day. More than a decade ago, now that I think about it I wasn't using it for much, so I decided to be a good citizen and run a Tor exit node on it. No filters, every port, why not?
What could go wrong? Well, it turns out you can run bittorrent over Tor. Got dozens of DMCA emails, host took the server down within 24 hours. Taught me a lesson on being nice.
Waterluvian on July 14, parent prev next [—]. I once pirated a Tv show and was accidentally on my work VPN for a portion of it. Had a moment of being a bit frozen and scared.
Decided to email the IT head and explain the situation. Not as big a deal as my head conjured up. I could have done the wrong thing though and made it a big deal. Waterluvian on July 14, root parent next [—]. So funny. But seriously, always be super nice to IT. Another interesting story as the site is just picking on IP, disregarding dynamic ips, vpns etc.
Kaze on July 13, root parent next [—]. That's exactly what the parent comment is suggesting. Piracy has always been rampant at companies, sure now days its too easy to track but in the beginning we only had good piracy bandwidth because so much of it was done on company dollars. With the good eyes of CEOs, sure it was cold hands when they got raided.
I'm not sure I think it should matter though Ex put. He may have already weighed his internship as less valuable than the cost of using such a service. I assume they're used for pirating content. They usally aren't in the US, and making an international issue out of them just provides free advertising and sympathy for similar services. Nextgrid on July 13, root parent prev next [—].
My understanding is that they bank on the fact that takedown operations are relatively slow and starting up from scratch is easy or even automated , so they fully expect it to get taken down and make as much money as possible in the meantime then rinse and repeat. The idea that it's just fine to pirate everything because you can or have the tech to do it is appalling to see in this community. From an speech to the British House of Commons on the dangers of increased copyright times: At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side.
Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains.
No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law.
Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot… Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop.
The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. NortySpock on July 13, root parent next [—]. Because I make my money selling my labor and IP to my company software engineer, it's in my contract.
If someone stole my IP from me or my company, it would be harder to pay the bills for either me, or my company. When I was younger, out of curiosity I've downloaded leaked source code of Windows or video games. Got an impression that code is not that useful to an outsider. It can help answering extremely specific questions how a particular small isolated function is implemented. Even ignoring legal issues, it won't significantly help building competing products, let alone building a successful business around such product.
When we hire people, they gain access to complete source code, documentation, continuous integration environment, bug tracker, and most importantly to the current developers. It usually takes them months to become productive. With just the source code, would probably take a year even for very smart person.
I think the irony is that someone on HN will jump on this thread saying copyright needs to be abolished, and you didn't lose anything as the user wouldn't have paid for it anyways, with the irony being that a large majority of HN either earns money via tracking ads which is far worse than any copyright , or works money by writing paid software. I think a lot of HN readers write software that is hosted somewhere, so the users never see the code.
Thus, copyright provides us no protection. I suppose the ex-employee could always take the code and start their own competing service, so copyright does have some value. Wouldn't it be ironic if your job arose in part due to demands placed on the internet infrastructure as a result of pirating activity?
Or due to pressure on content owners to lower the cost of streaming enough to make it become mainstream? It would be interesting to tally up all the investment into streaming platforms and the supporting software and servers.
Without BitTorrent I really wonder how much smaller that market would be. Or if we'd all still be waiting for our discs in the mail or trying to program our DVRs to record the right shows. Doesn't make copying someone else's work without payment right. Supermancho on July 13, root parent next [—]. I believe it is right in a moral sense. The illusion that any art is always to be treated as having a value commensurate with the effort involved or the transient demand , is a fantasy that has been commoditized.
Thats the current worldthink. Many of us create over years and see our programs go to waste without a second thought in the same way. It has been a brutal set of lessons over the years. Media creators are no different than me and both arts are better serving humanity in the digital age where the information can flow freely in society. Software licensing is bad and media copying is goid. I believe this now 20 years later , as I always have.
Does it help much that Android's source is available? The idea "exclusive monopolies" and transferable intellectual property rights for perpetuity is bullshit. The blunt fact of the matter is - A majority of the movies would gain more by giving it away to the public domain because most movies fail.
Radio did not kill Art. Internet is the new radio. The same is true even for software. It would not matter if they gave their code away. GPL based business have made billions, i'n not even talking about open source and have more users than some of the biggest "startups". IP allows big companies to bully creators, lie to consumers and bully independent companies that they perceive as threats.
In Music, Code, Science Movies and Games present an interesting case. They have plenty of upfront costs. Games have already embraced some notions of the freemium mode. It would be really interesting if million dollar movie is entirely funded by the people. There is nothing stopping that from happening. Copyright, Patents should last at-most 1 year.
Plenty of million dollar movies have been entirely funded by the people [0]. To your point, the vast majority of media and software is proprietary, though much of it is supporting in nature and not directly for sale. If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. Companies are motivated to maximise the revenue from making this stuff.
If they could make more money without copyright, they would have done this already. Of course. The problem is when they demand that goverments take away their ciziten's natural rights to copy and share information in order to support their chosen business model.
If publishers want society to make their business model possible by being given special "rights" and having public institudions enforce those "rights" then it is very much up to all of society to choose if that is acceptable.
Remember copyright is an entirely artificial construct meant to benefit society by encouraging creators to produce content. It is my and many others opinion that the current state of copyright is a very one sided affair that benefits mainly big corporations while having numerous negative effects on society.
There will always be a demand for entertainment and people interested in filling that demand will find a way to make it worthwile. But even if the entire entertainment industry would instantly disappear then that would still not be an argument to uphold unjust laws. Professions becoming obsolete with progress is entirely natural. People can adapt. While I agree in spirit with some of what you say, the law is as it is and producers invest in content with the expectation that those laws will be enforced.
You want copyright to go away? Then get enough people to agree, and get the law changed. That may be true, but last I looked we live in a democracy, which means that we have a process for changing the law, which does not include doing whatever you want. The wholesale destruction of journalism, for example, has clearly damaged society. Part of the damage has been caused because Google and Facebook have subverted copyright to their own causes. It really is not black and white.
The law can change tomorrow with the stroke of a pen and society won't owe them anything for these past "investments" no matter what their expectations were. Which, of course, is why they invest so much in politics and astroturf campaigns to head off any attempt to actually change the law to something more in line with what most people actually think is right. If you applied the principle of estoppel and required anyone who had ever violated copyright law to suit words to actions and vote against it then you probably couldn't even get a quorum in favor, much less a majority.
Property rights arise naturally as a result of scarcity. Someone has to have the right to decide how the scarce resource will be used or it might as well not exist. Copyleft licenses were created as a reaction against copyright. Sometimes they overstep their bounds, true—especially the less permissive variants.
However, in general, if copyright and software patents did not exist then there would be no need for any of these licenses. Taking it at face value, this appears to be an argument against copyright? Not that I really agree that Google and Facebook are primarily to blame. The public simply prefers to be entertained and reaffirmed rather than informed. If anything, copyright reinforces this outcome since you can't copyright facts and rightly so ; as such, actual journalism, uncovering the facts of the situation, has become a cost center to be minimized, whereas the "expression" is heavily subsidized via copyright monopoly.
I assume that's not an outcome you actually advocate. The whole concept of rights is almost entirely artificial [0].
For most of history, property and other rights were determined by whoever had the biggest army. Jesus, many people still don't have the right to their own bodies in some places in the world. The idea that rights of any kind are somehow anything other than a set of cherished beliefs codified in law, is nonsense. I think the situation is much, much more complicated than that, but it is a side issue of this conversation at best. The public simply prefers to be entertained You surely can't blame people for wanting to be entertained?
Are you saying you never watch something fun? In any case, weak and misapplied copyright laws have enabled Google and Facebook, in particular, to concentrate the important elements of journalism and present it to their users in a way which reduces the diversity of all journalism.
They show just enough to get away with "fair use" while ensuring that the likelihood of people clicking outside the walled garden is minimised.
Imagine what these companies would do to us if basic copyright was even weaker. Do you think Facebook would link to an article it can just copy? That is not a future I want. I don't wish misfortune on anyone, and I expect there would be a transitional period in any real-world implementation, but just the same I cannot possibly justify continuing this parasitic situation any longer than absolutely necessary. If I were presented with a button that would eliminate copyright law instantly, globally, and permanently, I would press it without hesitation—and then get to work dealing with the inevitable fallout.
You are obviously referring to legal recognition of rights, not the rights themselves. The law is artificial, founded for the most part on non-defensive application of force to achieve a desired outcome, and doesn't correlate very well with the rights that people naturally possess. Some legal systems are better than other in this regard.
No law which comes from a government will ever fully recognize natural human rights because, quite simply, that would put them out of business. However, here in the U. There is a difference between what the law says you may do without penalty and what you may rightfully do , and when the two are in conflict it is the law which is wrong, no matter how popular the law might be or how much force can be brought to bear to back it up.
I'm not blaming them. I'm just saying that there isn't a strong market right now for actual journalism. It's thankless work, for the most part, with or without copyright. Are you trying to say that copyright should be expanded to cover facts and not just expression? That it should be illegal to quote or paraphrase a small portion of a copyrighted work? I believe the majority would side with me in vehemently disagreeing.
Keep in mind that in the U. Freedom of speech is far more important than this runaway social engineering experiment known as copyright. IMHO they gave in too easily. Copyright law violates the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech even with fair use. You clearly believe that there exist natural rights. I happen to believe that the right to control the things I create is natural. Despite what you think, its entirely possible and natural for me to suffer a loss if you copy something that I created, particularly if creating it was expensive for me, and your copying it prevents me from making good my loss.
While there is much I find dismaying about copyright law , there is nothing unnatural about it. The number of CEOs who think printing money is a good idea might make you wonder if they even know anything about money.
Polluting air costs less money why not do it? Most big movies make their money by single day screenings and releasing movies at different dates in different regions with market buzz. Interestingly your argument fails for porn. How about publishers own the copyright and creators own the copyright instead of commoditising a copyright artefact?
I assure you musicians can survive and Depp can do some theatre. Most EDM is essentially copyright free, especially techno. Fuck NDAs. These days the cost of production has gone down so I think you will see more indie media taking advantage of that. The average budget for a reasonable movie is less than 5 million, heck even k dollars going by kickstarter funded movies. My raver days are sadly behind me, but sure, OK, like porn, EDM can be produced with little investment.
So what? No everything that is good is also cheap or easy to build. Few people are gonna spend that sort of money with no expectation of recouping it. I too can ignore every big budget predictable cliche and say so what. Lets ignore the successes of alternatives. Is Kanye West and Britney Spears the best you can do with millions of dollars? I'll stick to punk and EDM Absolutely not. Thats the argument I am making. There are a lot of undeserving idiots with money out there, no doubt.
And they have certainly taken advantage of copyright to get wealthy. The problem is that some productions are simply expensive. Think about sending an imax camera to the space station. There is literally no way to make that cheap. And why concentrate only on music and movies, what about games? What about journalism? There are a huge number of industries that depend on at least some form of copyright, even if not specifically the bastard form that exists at this moment.
I believe in reform. Also, I believe nobody should go to jail or be bankrupted for copying digital works. And what do you know? Two randos came to an amicable position on an Internet forum : next stop, world peace!! What exactly about being in the public domain would help a movie "gain more" if it hadn't had a successful box office run previously? How about scene by scene commentary for cats on a youtube video.
Sports have this and you can watch old sports matches on youtube. Right now youtube would block it and my use case extends the fair use by quite a mark. You have to understand that under DRM even seeing the movie with family and friends is illegal.
Game of Thrones was the most pirated TV show in history. I remember when the first 4 episodes of season 5 were leaked at once. Christmas came early! Because it was great and it wasn't available legally in so many countries, or it was with forced reader and no native-English language versions in TV or p streaming online. It's most pirated because it was great quality product with low quality service and delivery. There's was also providers in the UK who's bad video compression made the picture so dark it was unwatchable.
Are you sure you weren't just tuning in to season 8, episode 3. That's probably the episode they're talking about but it doesn't render their complaint less valid.
It just shows the limits of streaming technology in its current form. Also in some markets the official local release was a year behind. Given that it's not possible to get an HBO subscription outside of the US, for many people pirating was the only way to watch it.
Or in the Netherlands, where is was exclusive to 1 ISP. An ISP that provided cable internet exclusively; so if you had fibre at home it wouldn't even make sense to use them. But it was a devil's bargain: you would then have to wait multiple weeks for the 5th episode.
I have an HBO premium subscription along with access to HBO Go , but I have downloaded a few of the episodes over torrent to ensure I can watch it where there was no internet or where it was unstable. While I have technically participated in copyright infringement I haven't raided any ships, I promise, arrgh , I do not feel I have done anything morally wrong.
I'm not sure there's any caselaw on downloading content you've paid for? Possibly depends if you leeched or not. I don't think that this argument would hold up in court as you're not just downloading for yourself which you could argue you have a license to the content , but you're also providing at least parts of the content to others. I think this is where you'd definitely get into trouble. I once torrented an episode of the show The Americans, my last option as my usual sources were weirdly all offline and it was the middle of a season, the show wasn't even legally distributed in Germany at the time.
So yeah, fair use might apply. Dirlewanger on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. Entirely HBO's fault too. Missed out on so many sales. It was on HBO Now, which you could get with a paid subscription. It's how I watched it in Japan. My collage had similar restrictions for many website and torrents. I tried something similar by renting a server and then trying to download torrent in it but obviously got instantly blocked from Service provider.
Somehow months later I got a request from my college's computer center to make some changes in the college intranet landing page. Then I became good friends with them. I was a good time ; Hmm but doing that in a 7 person startup, and then repeating the offense, and then failing to come clean!! One needs to remember to cover their tracks : When I was young and stupid at least more than now I did some pranks using dormitory server, and knew that I should clean bash history actually using a single space before command did that.
But what I didn't know was that vim also has a history of commands : server admin wasn't happy. You never know what type of logging is set up though. You can log others users commands too, making use histories irrelevant.
To even think about using company infrastructure for this seems really very uneducated. Ok, that wouldn't also have been stupid, but at least you wouldn't put your company at risk. You'd think they would just pay for their own droplet in that scenario. Digital Ocean runs promo's all the time with free credits too. None of the large cloud providers will let you do this. A friend told me that OVH, the largest European cloud provider, doesn't seem to mind on its cheap Kimsufi servers.
I thought DO blocked torrenting, or perhaps officially disallows it? ComodoHacker on July 13, parent prev next [—]. Somehow I can only see one this comment of in this thread. I had the same issue, emailed the moderators using the "Contact" link in the footer, and got a response quickly. ThePowerOfFuet on July 13, parent prev next [—]. So did you sack him? Yep, since he didn't seem to care if our Digital Ocean account would get suspended.
The problem here is not recognizing that the piracy was actually the problem. In what way was it forgivable? Because everybody does it, that makes it okie dokie?
Because you don't have a Netflix account? If everyone treated piracy as theft it is then no one would have to waste their time investigating it because the collective will would exist to prevent it.
You can repeat this as much as you like, but it is simply false. Legally speaking: copyright infringement is an offense distinct from theft. Speaking from reality: copyright infringement does not deprive the holder of the right of their property. Speaking ethically: Copyright infringement is a violation of a particular commercial mode of exchange.
In some cases, like GoT, the likelihood of profitability is very high. The distance between your position and mine is, I think, one of scale. Individual infringement of a property with millions of views is a tiny fraction of the cost of creating that property. But as the number of infringers increases relative to the audience, it really does deprive people of property.
We are reader supported and may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site. Learn more. There are various ways to hide torrenting activity from your ISP. Read on to find out the best methods available. Your ISP keeps logs of all of your online activity, so theoretically, they could inspect the packets of data identified as torrents, but they often leave that to the copyright owner. In reality, ISPs are only one piece of the puzzle.
Image source: ispreview. How to Set up uTorrent Encryption? Setting up Torrent Encryption is simple. Check out the steps below to enable this in uTorrent. Image credit: utorrent. Rank Provider Zero-Logs? Pricing 1. Surfshark Yes Check latest price 3. IPVanish Yes Check latest price 5. Private Internet Access Yes Check latest price. Generally, a zero-logs policy is best as this means the provider does not log any of your activity.
ExpressVPN operates a log-free policy and is located in the Virgin Channel Islands, for example, meaning they are outside of the British government jurisdiction and are not obliged to hand over logs even if they did keep them. Switch to a Proxy Server. A proxy is another excellent way to hide your torrenting activities from ISPs. Consider a Seedbox. A Seedbox is another excellent solution to downloading torrents anonymously.
The best Seedbox providers right now:. Details Seedbox. Try the Anomos Application. Use Tor the Onion Router. The Bottom Line.
Disclaimer: We do not condone downloading illegal or copyrighted material of any means. The files you download should be at your own discretion, and you should understand the risks before attempting any of the methods mentioned above. Table of Contents. More Resources. September 21, A Complete Guide. September 10, Share This Article. Share on facebook Share.
Share on twitter Share. I'm Bram Jansen, a leading expert in the realm of cyberspace, ever since I was little, books like Neuromancer and The Foundation always fascinated me, this fiction of a world that isn't simply based within the real world.
As I started growing up, I started gaining interest in how I could manipulate this cyberspace that's available in the real world, so I picked a career that I knew was right for me. Share on facebook Facebook. Share on twitter Twitter.
0コメント