Remix.run Logo
ryandrake 6 days ago

Piracy offers:

1. Unrestricted access to an absolutely huge library of movies, music and TV shows, nearly unlimited. Certainly not limited by opaque "licensing deals" between various companies.

2. Highest resolution/bitrate/quality that was available at the time of the work's original release.

3. No arbitrary device/OS limitations.

4. Can watch/listen/download from any location on earth with sufficient bandwidth.

I didn't even mention that it's free or that there are no ads, because that's pretty much the least important attribute to me. If any company came out with a service that offered those four points, I'd probably be willing to pay a lot for it. How much? Who knows, we don't know how much this is worth because nobody is even trying to offer it.

godelski 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Piracy also offers:

0. Ability to watch offline!

1. Ability to fix subtitle issues with minimal tweeks like change size or moving location.

1.2 Ability to get subtitles if they aren't offered (or offered in your language)

2. Ability to normalize audio.

3. Ability to buffer videos when on a poor connection.

4. Ability to create collections, organize, and track your movie as you wish

5. Arbitrary number of user accounts

6. Multicast streams to watch the same show across different devices regardless of if someone has an account or not (see JellyFin's SyncPlay)

7. No big organization tracking you and selling your data to the highest bidder

There's more, but honestly pirating is just a better experience. I can't tell you how many times Netflix has fucked up the subtitles so they are covering half my screen. There's tons of little issues like that that are just random and the only option is to just not watch Netflix (or pick your streaming service) that day.

Besides that, for the price of a yearly subscription you can build a NAS that can do all this for you and you get to keep the movies. Instead of having a monthly fee you can progressively add more drives and this can also be used for all your other things. Pictures, home videos, games (you can make a Steam cache), your local AI models, or whatever else you want. With $1k you can build a pretty good system, though that's 3 years of 4k Netflix, so not the cheap route in the short term.

AnthonyMouse 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is a case study in why competitive markets are important in general.

Copyright is a government-granted monopoly but the monopoly is hard to enforce. It works because most people actually want to support the creators, not because DRM is effective or anything like that.

So you have the uncommon situation in which a monopoly (the copyright holder) is operating in parallel to a competitive black market for content distribution (pirates). And then the competitive market -- even though it has to operate underground and makes hardly any profit -- provides the better experience.

Lesson for anyone who thinks market consolidation doesn't lead to consumer harm.

nephanth 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

On the subject of artificial monopoly, it's interesting to compare video streaming to music streaming.

Music streaming platforms (Spotify, deeper, apple music, tidal etc.) Generally work a lot better than movie/series streaming. It seems that competition between them works quite well, prices are reasonable, and more importantly, any subscription gives you access to pretty much all of mainstream music. There's hardly any content exclusive to one platform, so you can essentially get any of them and be done with it

Contrast that with video streaming, where content is pretty much exclusively tied to one platform. As a consequence, people routinely have several subscriptions instead of one, and platforms compete on library more than on price or quality of service. Overall experience is much worse

I wonder why this difference came to be, although these are very similar services (with basically the same copyright mechanism)

psadauskas 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I really want to support the creators! But by paying for movie tickets or streaming services, very little of the money I pay goes to the creators. It mostly goes to the executives and financiers, or the megastar actors that I don't really care about.

jimbokun 5 days ago | parent [-]

Piracy gives zero money to the creators.

appease7727 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It also gives zero money to scum-sucking studios and labels and worthless bureaucrats that only give the author a 2% cut.

varelse 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

kylebenzle 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

mensetmanusman 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not always, it has generated cult classics that have built a valuable fan base of support for many cases. Downstream it can increase in person popularity that wouldn’t otherwise exist.

Erwin 5 days ago | parent [-]

Ah, this is like the "trickle down" theory of piracy.

mensetmanusman 3 days ago | parent [-]

It was the explicit policy of Bill Gates and others in regards to Asia.

JambalayaJimbo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The black market is only more competitive because it doesn’t bear the costs of actually creating the content.

therealpygon 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

None of them are paying the cost to create the content for movies and TV, except for their own original shows. I also have no problem paying a company to watch their original content…that’s completely fair. I also have no problem paying toward the “cost of creating content” as you say.

I have a problem with how media is carved up to make sure you have to use multiple services and maximize profit. I have a problem with the ads they want to force me to watch…and charge me to watch them. I have a problem with their ever increasing prices for worse and worse catalogs. I have a problem with, despite paying for the right to watch it, they still decide how and when I can watch.

None of those things are the “cost” of creating content.

jimbokun 5 days ago | parent [-]

What do you do instead to make sure the creators are fairly compensated?

happymellon 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Go to shows and buy merch.

Ah wait, that's the other set of streaming services that also don't pass on the profits to creators...

The problem here is that distribution companies have always been a wedge between creators and customers. There have been attempts to provide better ways. I subscribed to eMusic until Sony came along, raised the rates and cut out the indie bands.

YouTube was great for independent creators until Google took it over and slowly squeezed the life out of it. Now it's a janky system that's milking creators as hard as possible.

Hopefully we will get a new system that will work for creators until they are crushed by the system.

therealpygon 5 days ago | parent [-]

Often this is the only way.

The predatory nature of the industry isn’t much different than current laws on the service industry wages and tipping. For anyone not a big name movie star paid millions for their appearance, they are getting (comparably) below-minimum wage pay and hoping for tips (royalties, if any). The industry puts a lot of the real risk on the lowest levels who have no decisions, but they take the highest reward while blaming those people for bad decisions. That doesn’t sound fair to me.

It’s also a lot like our grocery supply chain…layers upon layers, each trying to take their cut of revenue as it passes from distributor, to distributor, to distributor, to… most people have no idea how many different companies are taking a cut while the farmers are squeezed. Not much different for content creators.

The problem isn’t that goods and services are expensive, it’s all the companies adding little or no value, or underpaying creators, just to maximize their own profits from the creations. YouTube sells ads, demonetizes the creators, but still run ads and keep all the revenue. Spotify just decides not to pay creators who don’t make enough while they sell ads that run before and after their music.

People are happy to pay toward the creation of content, otherwise Patreon, Twitch (I know…as bad as YT but at least a decent amount goes to the creator), and other “direct” (relatively) to creator sites wouldn’t exist.

happymellon 5 days ago | parent [-]

> For anyone not a big name movie star paid millions for their appearance, they are getting (comparably) below-minimum wage pay and hoping for tips (royalties, if any).

This really gets to me, you hear about folks complaining about Spotify but they don't seem to get that before Spotify unless you were Guns and Roses, you did not get any royalties. 0.1c per song is actually better than people were getting via radio plays in the 80/90's. In fact back then you probably owed if they played your song.

appease7727 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apart from visiting the creator and physically handing them a wad of cash, you can't. There is no way at all for you as a consumer to ensure the creators are fairly paid. Simply put, the people you're paying for access to the content take most of the money and the creators get next to none.

Why do you think it's better for studios and labels to be allowed to extort artists this way?

The artist isn't getting fair pay in any situation, so why would you want to make things worse for everyone by continuing to encourage this rent-seeking behavior?

bambax 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I like to watch old movies and don't think dead creators need compensation. Their descendants are entitled (maybe!) to inherit their wealth, but not to earn an aeternal rent doing nothing.

remexre 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Alfred Hitchcock's movies aren't missing from Netflix because Netflix couldn't afford to pay for their production.

AnthonyMouse 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The black market is only more competitive because it doesn’t bear the costs of actually creating the content.

That only explains why the price is lower, not why the experience is better.

ok123456 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The non-black market produces an intentionally inferior product so they can maximize their rent-seeking behaviors.

Glyptodon 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Creating the content is a sunk cost.

That said, the evidence on content creation and financial incentive is quite blurry - there's some relationship but there are also lots of people who create lots of things without tremendous financial incentive. And the genesis of copyright wasn't to protect authors, but publishers who had significant costs for producing first editions compared to those who might just copy a first edition.

godelski 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Kinda? I'm not actually sure what profit is being made if I'm just downloading from qbitorrent and never visiting a site seeing ads.

But also, I still will buy movies and pay for streaming services and pirate the shows on them. Why? Because the pirating experience is just better. It is also just easier to download a torrent than it is to rip a blueray. I don't really feel bad about this because I'm paying for the content like anyone else, I'm just getting a better viewing experience. Maybe only thing being hurt is the watch metrics on the streaming platform. But if they aren't considering the metrics from piracy too then they're being idiotic.

Dylan16807 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Subtitles are often a very dumb failure point, especially when English subtitles aren't available in half the world for basically no reason.

cosmic_cheese 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Similarly annoying is when original language subtitles aren’t available in your region for some reason, even when the audio track of the same language is. Really puts a damper on using foreign media for immersive language learning purposes.

umanwizard 6 days ago | parent [-]

One of the streaming services (I forget if it was Netflix or Amazon) had the original German audio track for Deutschland 83, as well as German subtitles, but the German subtitles were machine-translated from the English subtitles. Maddening!

cgriswald 5 days ago | parent [-]

Max has an anime and we stopped watching because even though English subtitles and English dubbed audio was available the original Japanese audio was always strangely delayed by days or weeks and the only way to tell it had been added was to check manually.

zerocrates 5 days ago | parent [-]

Lazarus?

cgriswald 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yes. We figured it was a mistake and watched a single dubbed episode and it was terrible. IIRC when I googled it I found out it was an intentional decision and of course people were talking about just pirating the original.

Edit: It has been some months, but I also vaguely recall the episodes getting the Japanese audio out of order, which is why we thought it was just a mistake for that episode until we 'caught up' to the newest episodes.

presentation 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have another problem, which is that my wife is Japanese and I’m American, and if we watch a French movie then I want the English subs and she wants the Japanese subs. Making that work with streaming services is very painful.

PetitPrince 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Anecdotally, for a long time dual French and German subtitles was the standard in Swiss cinemas when movie was shown in original language. So your usecase is not that unusual !

hvb2 5 days ago | parent [-]

Same in Belgium, top line was Dutch, bottom line was French

wjholden 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had never thought of this before. What is the solution? Can any video software show two subtitles at once?

schiffern 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

VLC, mpv, and SMPlayer all support dual subtitles, with varying amounts of fiddling.

https://old.reddit.com/r/VLC/comments/hnle2o/dual_subtitles/

https://superuser.com/questions/1255487/how-to-get-vlc-to-di...

smacke 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I developed a tool (https://github.com/smacke/ffsubsync) which can sync subtitles against each other (or even against an audio track), and this can be used in conjunction with other tools such as https://pypi.org/project/srt/ to combine multiple subtitle streams into a single stream. I've used this strategy to good effect to get both English and Chinese subtitles up at once.

presentation 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For Netflix and YouTube I actually use a language learning chrome extension called Migaku, that has this feature - but if there don’t exist subs, can also sometimes pull it off with a chrome extension for dual subs - forget what it is called but I can download SRT files and load them up alongside a stream. Both are not reliable and require significant fiddling.

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
hibikir 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And don't miss the situations where the subtitles are baked into the stream: HBO Max is very fond of just not letting you remove subtitles at all for at least a few non-english series.

imoverclocked 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Until recently, 3. (poor connection) has been a huge issue for me and streaming services. When there is a download/watch later, I sigh with relief.

7. is only sort-of an issue, IMHO. Anything that is pirated is usually fairly benign content and I don't care if someone knows how many times I've watched Idiocracy. I just wish I could know how many times I've watched it too.

I would add: Piracy offers the ability to remember content that isn't popular enough to remain in streaming services. I just searched "Big Trouble in Little China" and Google Play wants me to pay $3.79 to rent it or the full original price to purchase it. Tell me, does the original cast get any of that or is it just adding pocket change to Google's coffers?

qrios 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I don't care if someone knows how many times I've watched Idiocracy.

I come from Germany, from East Germany. And some people there wanted to know if you had seen certain films and how often. And ‘Idiocracy’ would have been very high up on their list.

Not all films were banned right from the start (‘The Legend of Paul and Paula’ [1]), but right from the beginning the Stasi found it very interesting who had watched the film.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Paul_and_Paula

callc 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

This. Privacy does not matter until it does.

Thanks for your example, qrios

tclancy 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What if I have recently watched The Lives of Others?

(Which everyone in the US should.)

qrios 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

‘The Lives of Others’ is an outstanding film. However, it is a reappraisal of East German history and was made seven years after the collapse (the director grew up in West Germany and Western Europe).

US-America has looked at the subject of surveillance of its own population and its own (possible) collapse many times and often in a timely manner.

"The Conversation": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conversation

"Enemy of the State": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)

"The Siege": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege

"In the Heat of the Night": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_(film...

"Eagle Eye": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Eye

If you ask publicly, ‘What if I've seen XYZ?’ then it's actually already too late.

zerocrates 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The collapse being the collapse of the DDR? The Lives of Others must have been made way further beyond that than 7 years. Closer to 20, I'd figure.

arrowsmith 5 days ago | parent [-]

TLOO came out in 2006, 16 years after the DDR collapsed.

I wondered if GP was thinking of another movie so I asked ChatGPT, which told me: "The German film you’re thinking of is "Good Bye, Lenin!" — released in 2003, exactly seven years after the formal end of the DDR in 1990." (My emphasis.)

So much for GPT-5.

irthomasthomas 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's hilarious. Imagine going back two years and showing someone GPT-5? They might think the Pause AI movement had won. It makes you ponder an alternate timeline where the OpenAI brain trust wasn't dismantled

Which version did you use, though? GPT-5, GPT-5-Thinking, GPT-5 Pro, GPT-5-Mini, GPT-5 with Thinking (reasoning effort=high) or one of the other 18 options? Did you tell it to think harder? Maybe you are just holding it wrong?

bambax 5 days ago | parent [-]

Making what is essentially a router dispatching queries to the smallest engine susceptible to answer a question was maybe a good optimization from a techical and business pont of view.

But branding that router "GPT5" is a huge marketing mistake, because now, every time a smaller model says something stupid (as they often do), it seems that's the best OpenAI has to offer...

nkrisc 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A perfectly grammatical and plausible sentence. Those words all seem quite likely to occur in that sequence. Another LLM success.

boredhedgehog 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GPT-5 fell into a coma and missed a few critical years.

GoblinSlayer 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Linguistically it's an ok association. If you look at it unconsciously, you can find it plausible too, add 7 but in reverse.

qrios 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, I missed a whole decade. (For me 1989, the Mauerfall is the official end of GDR)

tclancy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m confused. It was a great movie and wildly applicable to what the right wants to do to the US now. What is too late?

I mean it may be too late to save us/US but it still bears saying.

pmarreck 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Trivia about that movie: The spying devices used were authentic and from the era depicted.

irthomasthomas 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Interesting. There isn't one sentence in that article (English) which describes the political controversy of that movie. A single sentence mentions the film almost being banned for its 'political overtones'.

StopDisinfo910 5 days ago | parent [-]

The English article is incomplete. The banner is there. I guess I could try to complete it but it’s highly my work would be struck out by an angry editor feeling territorial for a reason or another so maybe not.

The French article is a bit better - I don’t understand German sadly.

The controversy stems from the protagonists values. They put their love for each other and their search for fulfilment above other commitments which was seen as dangerously non communist. The film was cleared by the head of East Germany but the censors still imposed a tragic ending.

3036e4 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I just wish I could know how many times I've watched it too.

I exported all my private data from Netflix and it had very detailed information on exactly when I (or anyone else in the household) watched what.

Sadly it only went back a few years. Either they do not keep older data or they pretend not to. My Spotify data seemed to be complete for all years I have used it, listing the exact time and location, what device etc, I listened to any track there ever.

helsinkiandrew 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Tell me, does the original cast get any of that or is it just adding pocket change to Google's coffers?

Google will have negotiated with the “owner” (in this case I think Disney) for a wholesale price and then adds its retail markup (eg 20%). Disney pay the industry standard SAG/DGA union negotiated residual agreements to cast, writers and directors

imoverclocked 5 days ago | parent [-]

I find myself wishing for a lower-overhead approach to this. 20% already gets the price from $14.99 to $12.49. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the cast gets less than 50% and lawyers get more than 40% of that. If true, that's less than $6.25 to the folks that actually made the movie and $8.75 (or more) of pure, unadulterated overhead. Finally, clicking on "where to watch" shows prices within $0.20 of each other. It's not ... not price-fixing, but it kinda is.

Also, "wholesale" is such a strange way to look at this. There is no way the digital asset is sent to them more than once. It's some kind of strange fiction for me to imagine, "here are X downloads of movie Y at a discounted rate. If you want more, you need to come back and purchase another X downloads." It's as if a download itself is a consumable that Disney provides.

helsinkiandrew 4 days ago | parent [-]

The actor residuals are much less than 50%, but the remaining goes to the studio/funders who own the rights, not lawyers.

Wholesale/retail makes more sense if you think of google having to deal with consumers, providing a website/apps, advertising, collecting payments etc. whilst the movie company makes the content and negotiates deals with broadcasters and streaming companies around the world.

boppo1 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>isn't popular enough No that's because it's good enough to get rented regularly. Why sign a streaming deal if your IP prints money?

benjiro 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> With $1k you can build a pretty good system

1. The hardware you buy for these activities, has still residual value after 1, 2, 3 year. Unlike the streaming service you pay for.

2. Its cheap to upgrade / expand over time (if its not a all in one solution)

3. It opens a door to not just store movies/music/images, but as emulator, streaming service, or game streaming to one or multiple.

4. The content will not arbitrarily vanish.

5. Your bookmarks / last viewed / ... will not arbitrarily vanish. Do not get me started on this and how annoying it can be when a services removes content!

6. It serves not only as a device for "linux isos" or other gray zones but also as a legit backup of your own personal data.

7. Saves you from needing "cloud" storage or other cloud services.

8. Can be enhanced with programs that offer image conversion, pdf conversion etc, all private!

9. Run your own chat server for the family, no US/EU "we want to know what you are saying" issues.

10. Can act like your own VPN, to route data from your phone or other devices outside your home.

11. Provides service if you are in area's with horrible internet connection with its ability to "cache isos" at night slowly.

12. Your control over the media means you can stream 4k to your PC. Netflix kuch kuch ... No, its not 4k.

13. You can gain the FULL bitrate of the media. You do not get a washed down version of the supposed media based upon how busy a streaming service their servers are or other limitations.

14. It can be used for so many other activities like programming.

15. Did i mention home automatization?

And so much more ... People are probably doing things with NAS setups that i can not even think about.

Your not investing into a machine for "illegal" stuff, your investing into a machine that frees you as the end user from all those cloud, streaming, and other services their lackluster service. And then provides all the added benefits on top, that a 24/7 running PC can provide.

Lets also not forget the future where LLM's are a thing. Having your own open source LLM that runs at home, can be a major benefit.

But ... it does require more knowledge, especially as you step up beyond simple storage. So that is the real downside, not the money, the time and knowledge buildup.

sumtechguy 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The hardware you buy for these activities, has still residual value after 1, 2, 3 year. Unlike the streaming service you pay for.

With mine I am cracking on 14 years with some of it. It still 'just works'. I ripped all of my stuff so I can manage it as I have too much of it. The home streaming has been quite nice. I would upgrade just for '4k'. Not sure if I want it or not. One major roadblock has been finding a decent wake from power off not just s3 and works with an IR remote. 14 years ago media center was a thing so most manufactures put CIR into everything. Then suddenly they didnt. If I could get past that one roadblock I would update it all.

BrandoElFollito 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You completely forgot to mention home automation :) Home Assistant FTW

Making all this work is not difficult with docker once you get past the steep learning curve

godelski 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree with everything here. But I want to do a little nitpicking here

  > 7. Saves you from needing "cloud" storage or other cloud services.
One thing that frustrates me about cloud services is that they want to be the only host of my data. I want a 321 system[0]. That means I want a copy and I want a copy somewhere else. But most of these storage systems don't make it easy to do API calls and just rsync everything[1]. Yeah, I know about rclone but Google photos isn't storing my photos in their original quality and I don't trust them to not change the data.

So it means really the only solution is just buying a storage box. You can treat it as safety so doesn't need much egress, just to sync. But you should have something off site and "cloud" makes that much easier. But also, depends on how important that is. I'm not doing that with "pirated" content but I am with my content.

[0] 3 copies, 2 locations, 1 off-site. (All these are "at least")

[1] How is it easier to write a small bash script through termux to rsync to my home and another location than it is to do this with professional tools? For the love of god, it is a fucking trivial script and I can make it do whatever I want, like only backup on WiFi, only through tailscale, or even a specific WiFi SSID. Hell, I can get it to issue a command to my home server to sync with the remote server checking to make sure things match. For what, not even 100 lines in bash? It's a joke

3036e4 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GOG used to have a small selection of DRM-free movies that you could buy to download and that would then make all those things possible to do in a way that would be legal or at least able to do locally in a way that would have a zero risk of being discovered even if it violated some EULA. Announcement from 2014:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...

Sadly http://www.gog.com/movies now redirects to http://www.gog.com/games and the movies link that used to be on the front page is gone. Based on a comment in that announcement thread it looks like the movies were silently removed already back in 2023. I only noticed it now. They never seemed to really add any new movies and the existing ones were mostly game-related documentaries.

nostrademons 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also the trust that your favorite music will still be available to you if the streaming service goes bankrupt or cancels its content licensing deal or decides to jack up prices unaffordably or makes its player incompatible with your OS or introduces a service-ending software bug.

goosedragons 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think my favorite thing of not even piracy, just ripping my DVDs, is the ability to watch a random episode of a show. There's some shows like The Simpsons that I don't want to watch in production order any more, nor do I want to manually select. Now I just tap some buttons in Kodi and it randomly picks a recently unwatched episode.

account42 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or more generally: the ability to use a video player of your choice, which can have whatever features and interface that you want.

zzo38computer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In addition to these and what you replied to, there is also the ability to downgrade the video quality in case you do not need the highest quality (e.g. in case you want to reduce the disk space and bandwidth requirements), and you might have a better UI (and otherwise use your own implementation of various software).

About subtitles, something else I sometimes want to fix is adding an outline to the text and adding a translucent background (many use a opaque background (making it hard to see the picture) or a transparent background (making it hard to see the text)).

happymellon 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You shouldn't need to spend anything like $1k to get yourself going with a simple Jellyfin server running on a $50 TinyMiniMicro and a 4 tb external HDD. $150? 8 months to match Netflix. Substantially less to replace two services.

giancarlostoro 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Funnily enough, ability to watch offline is something the Netflix app for Windows (yes from their app store) lets you do. It is my favorite reason to install Windows apps instead of just using the browser, really handy for a trip when you have a real screen to watch movies from.

selcuka 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Offline watching is a thing with streaming services, too.

Also, there is no reason for a paid streaming service not to implement 1 (but not 1.2), 2, 3 and 4. It's not like these features will affect their bottom line. They just don't see value in implementing and supporting them.

godelski 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

  > these features will affect their bottom line. They just don't see value
That's the problem. These are useful features. Look around you, people are... using them. I got a ton of upvotes for my comment. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm saying that because it is evidence that these things are in demand.

The issue is that most of this "what has value" is just as made up as anything else. Most people don't even know what they want. They get features and then they know they want it, but often not before. So it is affecting their bottom line, but the problem is group think.

selcuka 5 days ago | parent [-]

Sorry, I meant that "implementing them wouldn't affect their bottom line in a negative way". I agree with you that they are useful features.

That's what separates these bullet points from the others: Others will never be implemented because they won't help them make more money.

godelski 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'm still not convinced it would affect their bottom line in a negative way.

There's a thing I hear a lot from other engineers. They always talk about value. Here's a dumb example. Why when migrating over to Apple do I have 3 copies of holidays in my calendar? I got one from Google, one from Microsoft, and one from Apple. You are telling me you can't regex that out and just display one of them for me? You don't need to remove the events, just don't show me multiple copies. Have the failure mode be showing dupes, that's fine. It's what, an afternoon's work for an intern? But pushback I get is "where's the value", by which it it is always clarified that they mean money and profits. I can't come up with that, any number would be made up, right? A poor estimate at best. Everyone recognizes this. But why is this not the same for a ton of other bullshit features? We got features on teams with budgets of millions of dollars that are clearly going to fail from the get go. They then fail but became too big to fail and so they keep sinking money into it because it turned into politics. FFS, it's engineering, sometimes ideas just fail, it's not a big deal! But you're telling me that we can sink tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into this bullshit but not an afternoon for something that clearly will make a better user experience? Before I got most of these dupes solved my calendar was just unreadable.

The same is with the rest of this. It's easy to sit high and mighty with your user data acting like people don't want these features. But the problem is you aren't even measuring that desire. If anything, you should be looking at what the most popular features are in platforms like Jellyfin and replicate them. That way you at least know there's existing demand! But the reality of it is that when you write programs you are writing an environment. There's on one-size-fits-all product you can make. You can give good sane defaults but the rest, it's just too noisy. Letting users have flexibility reveals a lot of things you'd never have been able to figure out on your own. It's very hard to know what users are frustrated with and honestly, most don't even know themselves. But open platforms allow for a small set of power users to fix those problems and make everything better for everyone else. That's the whole reason computers and smartphones have been so successful.

But the same is for any program you write. It's the same reason everyone uses ffmpeg. It's because ffmpeg didn't just build a product, they built an environment. It's the same for Jellyfin. 99% of Jellyfin users are just using the platform as is and don't touch code ever. A good portion of those will install plugins like intro skipper. But your powerusers are the real win with this system. In our out of touch business structures we look and see that powerusers are a small portion of the userbase and dismiss them and their wants because of this. But they miss that these people also drive a lot of innovation of their products. That it makes them a lot of money. But the problem is, it's hard to measure a counterfactual. You'll never have in the spreadsheets "we would have made x profit if a poweruser made y feature for us". I mean it took god damn years for the fucking flashlight app to become a native app for both Android and iPhones. Yet, it was an app available within months and is to this day something everyone uses and uses frequently. I don't think anyone could even tell you how many dollars that generated. But I also don't think anyone can really tell you how many dollars Siri generated. Or your newest reskin of iOS or Android. Or the value of fancy features like AI magic erasers and stuff.

So stop asking for value. The value numbers are just made up bullshit. It is politics. Just make good fucking products. Especially as an engineer. Your job is to make the product good, the business people's job is to make the company profitable and sustainable. Without each other, companies collapse. But when the business people take over they die much more slowly. It's not about value. It's not about better products. It's not even about the god damn profits. It's all politics. So just make the god damn product better.

/rant

whimsicalism 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

most streaming services i use do not allow offline watching on a computer, only mobile

foobarian 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1.3 Ability to make your own subtitles so your Klingon grandma can watch the movie

1.4 Ability to edit the video so your 10 year old can watch Top Secret! without gross anal sex jokes

efilife 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What do you mean by audio normalization? Aren't you talking about compression?

Dwedit 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's not the same thing. Normalization is scanning to see what the highest volume scale you can use without introducing clipping, then multiplying every sample by that scale.

Compression is very different. The volume scale isn't constant, and the original sound is distorted significantly. I often use a compressor to listen to video game streams because they tend to have the game audio be way too quiet. Having the compressor on causes the game audio to become louder with some minor distortion, but distorts the streamer's voice significantly.

efilife 5 days ago | parent [-]

I know about this. This is why I asked

komali2 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Some movies have portions that are really quiet and others that are quiet loud. Depending on your taste you may prefer to not have the experience of turning up the audio so you can hear a quiet conversation, then having your ears blown out by a loud explosion or whatever. Director's tastes be damned, I'm trying to relax over here!

jack1243star 5 days ago | parent [-]

In audio processing, the more precise term for it is compression (dynamically adjust gain). Normalization usually means that the gain is adjusted so that the highest volume meets a certain level. (Like what YouTube does)

lucideer 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Compression is an entirely different thing.

Compression isn't just gain adjustment - it's a specific type of audio processing that increases perceived "gain" (loudness) of the entire source audio by "compressing" the levels of loud frequencies & increasing the levels of quiet frequencies.

Normalization increases gain of all frequencies at any given point-in-time while reducing gain of all frequencies at other points in time. It doesn't reduce dynamic range.

danadam 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Normalization increases gain of all frequencies at any given point-in-time while reducing gain of all frequencies at other points in time.

When you do that then the difference between the loudest and the quietest part of the audio gets reduced. That's dynamic range reduction.

lucideer 5 days ago | parent [-]

True. But.

While normalization is usually one-way, if you're doing DSP normalization & have a record of the level offsets you've applied, it's reversible. This is never the case for compression - you can't increase dynamic range of a compressed file (short of AI-generating something that never was)

recursive 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you're describing a multi-band compressor. "Normal" compressors do indeed do gain adjustment. They usually do this without regard for the frequencies present. Only the amplitude matters for normal compressors.

lucideer 5 days ago | parent [-]

Not specifically talking about multiband.

Normal compressors do effectively do gain adjustment - it's not really the same as a typical amp since their core function only reduces gain, then makeup is applied to the entirety to compensate - but yes the result is effectively gain adjustment.

As for doing it "without regard for the frequencies present", if you compress a mix with a base guitar & high vocals, the impact of the compression on the base will be different than on the higher notes. This is aside from (/in addition to?) attack & release applied on a per-track basis & more just about the natural effect of dynamics within frequency ranges.

recursive 5 days ago | parent [-]

Are you referring to psychoacoustic effects? Something like perceived loudness is only determined by waveform amplitude, but also affected by frequencies present? Or maybe the vocal and bass parts have transients at different times causing the other to be attenuated when it was already relatively quiet?

Other than that I'm not sure what else you could mean. Maybe we've been using different compressors. I've used a small handful of hardware and software compressors and haven't found them to sensitive to spectral content when used "normally". Meaning no extra filters or side chain configuration.

throwaway290 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry but you really misunderstand what normalization and compression means. "quiet frequencies" :D

lucideer 5 days ago | parent [-]

I assure you I don't.

I'm not sure what the scare quotes are about but if you point out what I'm misrepresenting I can try to explain it a little better.

throwaway290 5 days ago | parent [-]

You don't need to explain, I know the subject.

Compression acts on the amplitude of the entire audio signal, not "quiet frequencies". You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression

Normalization as it normally is used is offline process where you up the gain of the whole audio so that the loudest noise is 0dB.

thayne 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But compression is ambiguous because that could also refer to compressing the video stream to reduce the size of the movie.

kbouck 5 days ago | parent [-]

> compression is ambiguous

I think the unambiguous term for this is "Dynamic Range Compression"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression

NoSalt 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nice zero indexed array.

kylebenzle 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

dencher 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

Galaxeblaffer 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

MobiusHorizons 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I stopped pirating in college when I got a job and was making enough money to pay for movies I wanted to watch. But I miss almost every single one of the points listed so much so that I have begun purchasing dvd or Blu-ray copies of movies and shows I would otherwise stream, and ripping the content for my own use. It is an absurd amount of work, but the end result is a better experience than streaming in almost every way.

If I could legally download movies and shows (paying full price for them) I absolutely would.

kryptn 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Mind elaborating?

throwaway290 5 days ago | parent [-]

"Look, doing something illegal offers a lot of benefits for me! I must be a genius"

BriggyDwiggs42 5 days ago | parent [-]

You’re not considering that many of these points are in no way illegal to provide as a streaming service.

throwaway290 5 days ago | parent [-]

I didn't say it. but the comment we are replying to says "piracy offers:", so direct your complaint to that guy.

I agree with you. How about launch a better service instead of pointing out how breaking the law is beneficial to the breaker. Duh it always is, I wonder why??

BriggyDwiggs42 5 days ago | parent [-]

Ah sorry i misread you.

chongli 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

2. Highest resolution/bitrate/quality that was available at the time of the work's original release.

Arguably higher. For example, fans of Star Wars have scanned the original 1977 theatrical release with very high quality film scanners and created a 4K release complete with film grain and the original scenes intact which is not available through approved channels.

cosmic_cheese 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

There’s also a number of movies where the best quality publicly available is a pirated rip of an HDTV broadcast from a Malaysian TV network or something similarly odd because the rights holders never released a BD and the official DVD release was a transfer from a crappy VHS or similar.

In cases of TV shows, fans have gone to the lengths of producing the best quality release possible by patching together video, audio, and subtitles from myriad sources, sometimes even splicing individual cuts when their quality varies between sources. It’s so much more effort than you’d see from any official restorations.

lyu07282 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The criterion collection being the one noteable exception, and they have their own standalone streaming service that is pretty good:

https://www.criterionchannel.com/browse

JeremyStinson 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ironically, signing-up to Criterion isn't available in Australia:

--------

Request Access

Sorry. This is currently unavailable in your region. Type in your email below and tell the producers you want it in your country!

lyu07282 5 days ago | parent [-]

Try a VPN, I think it was easily circumvented

biztos 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm a subscriber, but the Criterion apps do downloads right some of the time if you're lucky, the choice of subtitles is usually English or English, discovery is Netflix-level bad, they can't be bothered to create any interactive info, and most of the actual Collection is not available for streaming.

I still pay them every month because they have the goods but it's so frustrating that the people with the most film-buff oriented catalog and their hearts (presumably) in the right place have so little ability to deliver on UX.

(I used to subscribe to MUBI as well, which is stronger for new indie films, but didn't have time for both, and MUBI app was so bad it could have been a fork of the Criterion app.)

qingcharles 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, IIRC NHK broadcast some movies, like 2001, in 8K scans that are hard to find even on the high seas.

And there are one or two movies that have leaked in DCP 4K, which look absolutely stunning if you have the hardware to play them.

PetitPrince 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In cases of TV shows

Can you give me some examples of those guerilla remaster ? I know of the various Star Wars projects (Harmy and the likes) and the remaster from "La Classe Américaine", but I don't know any others.

A French movie that bungle together several excerpt from classic Warner movie to tell its own humorous story. A cult classic for French millennials. The director later on went on to make The Artist to universal acclaim.

SSLy 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Right now it's usually CINEPHiLES remuxes, that pick absolute best sources available, and sometimes splice the video to get each shot the best possible treatment from the available bitstreams

Cyph0n 5 days ago | parent [-]

Many other groups do this; look for the HYBRID tag.

542354234235 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A couple I can remember off the top of my head, since I can't check my server right now. Scrubs with original music, since they didn't have the license for the original songs for streaming (or the DVDs, I can't remember). Daria with the original music for the same reason. I can't think of any fan visual remasters of tv shows though.

account42 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's really infuriating how many TV series are only (legally) available as horribly over-compressed and interlaced DVDs outside of streaming platforms.

dddgghhbbfblk 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Star Wars project is a bit of an outlier in terms of the insane work and dedication that's gone into it.

However, in the quality-focused corners of online film piracy, it's still pretty routine for people to combine the best features of every retail release available to produce something that's better than what you can get even by just going out and buying a Blu Ray. For example, maybe the best picture quality available anywhere is from a Blu Ray that was released to the German market, but a US Blu Ray release has an extra commentary track, while the best audio track is actually from an old Laserdisc release (crazy but it's happened before).

In the live action world it's pretty rare for a video track or an audio track to be spliced together from multiple sources, though it does happen. But in the anime world it's pretty common and they'll do stuff to fix picture quality issues or localize Japanese text to English on signs or whatever (and they can do it slick enough that you wouldn't even notice).

The most bizarre part of all of this, though, is that people put in all this work only for the communities themselves to be small and fiercely private, meaning it could be hard for most people to actually access the end results (though the popular stuff tends to trickle out). The best place on the Internet to download movies bar none (better than all the major streaming platforms put together) is an invite only site with under 40k members that's extremely difficult to join these days.

Matticus_Rex 5 days ago | parent [-]

What's the name of the Star Wars project? You know, so I can avoid those darn pirates more effectively.

dddgghhbbfblk 5 days ago | parent [-]

The one they were talking about (based on scans of original film prints) is called 4K77/4K80/4K83 for the three films.

I believe the first project of this type for Star Wars was Harmy's Despecialized Edition but I think these days most people prefer the 4K77 versions, although it varies by film and by person.

Matticus_Rex 5 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks!

dawnerd 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People just don't realize just how garbage even 4k streams are from all the services. It's not in their interest to give you real bluray quality.

5 days ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
abbycurtis33 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes! Someone came after me on here because I said there really is no 4k streaming.

bombcar 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’m going to develop 8k streaming - it’s just the normal low bitrate shit, but if you pause it sends a full quality 8k frame.

Nobody will figure it out!

gmueckl 5 days ago | parent [-]

When your source material shows fast sweeping motions you'd certainly get away with that.

dawnerd 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The marketing of a resolution really won out. People will fight you if you suggest a high bitrate 1080p encode can look better than a low bitrate 4k.

ProfessorLayton 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Bitrate aside, the marketing stopped making sense long ago:

- 720p/1080p is counting vertical pixel resolution

- 4k/8k is counting horizontal pixel resolution

- "4k/8k" is not actually 4,000/8,000 horizontal pixels

- Suddenly the "p" becomes irrelevant (Not that most people even knew what it meant to begin with)

- 720/1080/4k/8k totally disregards aspect ratio

- Consumers already have a way to compare, and they're called "megapixels"

- 2.1MP (1080p) and 8.3MP (4k) etc. is a lot more consumer friendly since it's already used for cameras.

Marketing really won at making this a mess.

dawnerd 5 days ago | parent [-]

That's not even including HDR and the fake 4k upscales.

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
kcb 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know, 4k HEVC at 15,000mbps looks plenty good to me.

542354234235 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

And that is good for you, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you meant 15mbps, but I know I can personally tell the difference between 15mbps and 50mbps. Seeing more detailed film grain and seeing less artifacts in fast moving scenes are two of the most noticeable.

dawnerd 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Commercial 4k Blu-ray’s are twice that all the way up to 4x or sometimes more. And I’d say even on the best mastered disks there’s still obvious encoding artifacts.

buzer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

...what service offers 15Gbps stream?

oguz-ismail 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

None. No matter how much you pay, the best you'll ever get from streaming services is a bit-starved encode with fake film grain in a bullshit codec that'll look worse than 720p DVD rips you'd find on Zamunda yet still require more power to decode...

kcb 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry my unit was wrong 15Mbps is pretty common for the highest nitrate streams

lz400 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a bit of an edge case, powered by the absolute, lovely turbo-nerdery of a few dedicated souls. They are called 4K77 / 4K80 versions for people looking for them.

greazy 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow. I thought it was impossible to watch the original release of star wars. I need to hunt this down.

amgutier 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

"4k77" should get you to the right places

vizzier 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

4k80 was finally released last year as well. Some notes on why it took so long: https://www.thestarwarstrilogy.com/project-4k80/

jnaina 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yup. Team Negative One are doing some very important work in terms of film preservation/digital archeology.

greazy 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Legend thank you

nosioptar 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There's also a DVD release of the theatrical versions. Usually goes for $50-75 for OG trilogy.

LeifCarrotson 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

DVDs are 480i, the parent comment described far higher quality than DVD.

pezezin 6 days ago | parent [-]

DVDs support progressive scan and most movies were encoded in 480p; the player then just sent half the picture on one field and the other half on the other field.

Your point still stand though, these modern 4k editions are far higher quality.

scheeseman486 6 days ago | parent [-]

The DVD releases of the original theatrical versions of Star Wars were encoded in 480i non-anamorphic, drawn from analog video masters intended for Laserdisc, which employed an early version of DNR that created a bunch of ugly temporal ghosting artifacts. Blown up onto a modern display it looks really bad.

pezezin 6 days ago | parent [-]

I watched the PAL edition and I don't remember those artifacts, but it was a million years ago so my memory could be wrong xD

scheeseman486 5 days ago | parent [-]

The PAL release was an NTSC>PAL conversion, so throw upscaling artifacts onto the pile as well. e: Actually thinking back on it, it may not even have been PAL at all, but 480i/60hz Region 2/4.

There's a good chance you watched it on a CRT given that even on a flat panel LCD fom the late 2000s the low vertical resolution was quite noticeable (effectively ~272p, not counting deinterlacing artifacts from it being sourced from a video master). It looked somewhat acceptable in that context but aged very quickly once CRTs started becoming obsolete.

pezezin 4 days ago | parent [-]

I remembered that I borrowed the collection from my uncle and he still has it. I will ask him for pictures of the box, maybe it was the "updated" editions.

scheeseman486 4 days ago | parent [-]

The re-issues used the same masters.

Dwedit 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, there was the official DVD release that included the original versions as a bonus. But the quality can not compare to 4K77.

matheusmoreira 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They release better products than trillion dollar corporations.

There are piracy groups out there who are known to source frames from multiple different blu-rays in order to create the best version of a work.

Imagine caring so much about something you compare different releases frame by frame in order to select the best ones so that you can splice them all together to form the highest quality ultimate version of a work.

Meanwhile corporations are perfectly happy shitting out some butchered streaming slop with compression artifacts in 90% black frames.

fragmede 5 days ago | parent [-]

Eh Stremio's episode chooser leaves a bit to be desired, when jumping back into the middle of a show.

Affric 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s great but do you know of any others?

umbra07 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Harmy's Despecialized Edition(s).

jaimex2 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

all of Star Trek Voyager

account42 5 days ago | parent [-]

Care to expand? I assume the result is still 480p or have they actually done more than that?

NoGravitas 5 days ago | parent [-]

All of the 90s Star Trek series were filmed on 35mm, but all of the post-production work (editing, SFX, etc) were done on tape, at 480p. There's no 35mm copy of the final result to scan and color-grade for a "normal" HD remaster. For the TNG remaster, what they actually did was re-do all of the post-production from the original 35mm negatives. VFX were re-composed, some were re-done in CG. They finished the TNG remaster just as streaming services were ramping up and Blu-Ray disk sales declining, and sales were disappointing given the amount of work that had to go into them.

Paramount will never remaster DS9 or VOY because they don't expect to make the money back, because neither was as popular as TNG. And it's worse for DS9 and VOY because they extensively used CGI effects for things like ship battles, which were originally rendered at 480p. If the original assets could be found, they could be re-rendered, but in many cases, they would have to be fully re-created.

Fans have created AI upscales which are generally better than watching the horrible 480p releases that were on Netflix and are now on Paramount+. But they are also sometimes uncannily smooth and unpleasant.

account42 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ugh no thanks, AI upscales are exactly what I don't want and not something that should be mentioned in the context of fan projects like the 1977 star wars restoration which take great care to restore the original content instead of hallucinating higher resolutions.

My main problem is that the publicly available non-streaming releases are NOT 480p but 480i (actually even worse than that, partially interlaced and partially telecined) with horrible compression artifacts. With access to the production masters you could surely produce a better release than that.

Your "never" is also a needlessly strong word - people would also have said TOS and TNG remasters would "never" happen before they did. Also keep in mind that just because a company says something is not profitable it doesn't mean that they wouldn't make the money back - it could also mean that they just wouldn't make as much profit as they would doing something else. That means that even small changes to the equation or just someone pushing for it hard enough can sometimes tip the scales. Blu-ray sales declining are also not really an argument as streaming services didn't kill production of new series either. But we were also lucky that the trek remasters we got were faithful to the originals which is not guaranteed to be the case so maybe we are better off without more remasters in the current climate.

nerdjon 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Is there a name that these upscaled releases fall under to easily find them?

Star Trek in particular (I was watching voyager yesterday) the quality is always pretty depressing when shown on a larger TV. Been recently thinking about trying to find the best quality I can find but it is always a lot of trial and error. But if there is a common name and tag I could look for that would be great.

NoGravitas 5 days ago | parent [-]

Just "<series name>", "upscale", and "complete" or "S0<n>", will work, I believe.

6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
godelski 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

While that's the best option, there's always AI upscaling and frame gen. These of course won't be as good as native resolution and can sometimes make more errors, but they can make a big difference on low resolutions when you got a big screen.

dddgghhbbfblk 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

To be blunt, upscaling is pretty shit and doesn't belong in a discussion about quality. The quality-obsessed piracy world we're talking about here would shudder at the comparison.

godelski 5 days ago | parent [-]

I full agree. I'm not trying to compare high quality naive source to AI upscale. That is a ludicrous comparison. Native will always be better.

But truth of the matter is that many times you don't have access to a higher quality source. Sometimes you only have something that's been re-encoded over and over or something that has degraded through the passage of time. I would not suggest overwriting the source, but the truth is that many people will find this a better viewing experience. Truth is that many of those remasters will use similar technologies, though with much more thought and care than your one click and it's done act like it is magic programs. Truth is that people do enjoy it in videogames and existing streaming and movie systems. People do prefer better native high resolution, but when that is just unavailable, what are you left with? But the truth is that most people are happy with lossy encodings and lower bit color schemes (most people don't even have a 10 bit monitor and (real) HDR isn't prolific).

If it is a choice between shitty quality and AI upscale, I'll choose AI upscale more times than not (but not 100%). But instead, if it is a choice between shitty quality, AI upscale, and high quality native, I'm choosing high quality naive 100% of the time. It's not even a question! But the point is that there are choices and not all of them require deep knowledge. I'm not arguing replace native with upscale, that's idiotic. But for an at home player where more people are going to have to make choices about storage spaces and won't care if it is lossy, then the option exists.

We're also talking about streaming services. Streaming services force the AI upscaling on you. Hell, even in some TV's it is hard or impossible to turn off (mine turns itself back on!). Let's let people decide, because we know that the incentives are too strong on the streaming service for them to hand you raw.

wiseowise 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

While that’s the best option to eat chocolate, there’s always eating shit. If you put it in the right form it might even resemble chocolate.

hbn 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't forget censorship-free

I swore off streaming services when they started pulling episodes of comedy shows and editing out scenes because they were worried someone might be offended

maest 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The DnD episode from Community (S2E14) can't be seen on any streaming services because one Asian character wears black makeup while cosplaying as a drow.

BlobberSnobber 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The list of Sunny's removed episodes from Hulu is insane to me:

- Season 4 Episode 3: America's Next Top Paddy's Billboard Model Contest

- Season 6 Episode 9: Dee Reynolds: Shaping America's Youth

- Season 8 Episode 2: The Gang Recycles Their Trash

- Season 9 Episode 9: The Gang Makes Lethal Weapon 6

- Season 14 Episode 3: Dee Day

They're all in my home server, though :)

lotsoweiners 5 days ago | parent [-]

Disney+ doesn’t have The Simpsons S3E1 because of Michael Jackson’s UNCREDITED appearance.

thret 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

One of the best episodes in my opinion, and an excellent introduction to DnD for people who don't know what they are getting into.

nosioptar 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a problem that predates streaming.

There's at least one ALF ('86-90)episode that you can only get the uncensored version via piracy.

(Episode in question is Try to Remember. ALF originally got an electric shock. It quickly got censored in reruns to have ALF slip and hit his head because the network worried kids would get shocked emulating ALF.)

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That part really aggravated me. I already pay a hefty premium for Disney/Hulu so the fact that I do not get full experience, because someone thought an episode I pay for with subs is offensive really irks me. I am slowly getting to the point of pulling the plug and each time I see an ad for hulu on disney, I am getting a tiny little bit closer to pissing off wife and making kid cry in one go.

ethersteeds 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fair to be upset. Just noting that has been happening for about the whole history of televised comedy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smothers_Brothers_Comedy...

l72 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They also often time have versions of old movies and shows that have been modified due to silly things like license agreements on music expiring! I have felt gaslighted when I rewatch and old movie and some scene isn’t how I remember.

cosmic_cheese 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Or sometimes the licensor just doesn’t feel like paying for it. Netflix famously removed the iconic version of “Fly Me to the Moon” from the ending credits of their copy of Neon Genesis Evangelion and even more weirdly stripped the vocals from the similarly iconic ending credits theme of Naoki Urusawa’s Monster, both because they didn’t want to shell out the cash for the rights.

macNchz 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was so surprised and bummed when I discovered this was a thing. My wife and I started watching the original Beverly Hills 90210—a sort of ridiculous snapshot of American pop culture in the early 1990s—on some streaming service, and after a few episodes I noticed the music was just...super wrong.

Reading online, I learned that a lot of the original music had been licensed only for the original run of the show, so even when it went to DVD in the early 2000s they had to remove a whole bunch of the original music. It's terrible on two fronts: one, the show is an awesome snapshot of 90s music, with tons of great stuff featured both as background music and in extended live performances, but they cut whole scenes and entire episodes that had too much of it, and two, whoever managed the process of picking replacement music clearly did not care at all, and used awful generic music that sounds like it came from a file called "BeachRiff.aiff" on a $29.95 CD library of royalty-free 60 second stock music samples.

I admit to finding a source of video files patched together from various sources with the original soundtracks intact, and it's simply MUCH more enjoyable. It seems, though, that some episodes of live performances are lost to time—or at least lost to the corporate owners who'd rather sit on the tapes in a warehouse somewhere than make them available.

WalterBright 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

You can no longer get Rocky&Bullwinkle episodes with the original music. The replacement music is so awful it is unwatchable.

jasonfarnon 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

what's really pointless is how they released the beavis and butthead episodes without the music videos. even the replays on mtv or mtv2 back in the 2000s couldn't play the music videos.

5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
dylan604 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Back in the 90s, people just had no concept of today's media offerings. Content was edited specifically to work with the only home media they new of at the time, and that was interlaced TV at frame rates of 29.97 or 25. There was no concept for progressive displays. The only home video format that was in wide use was VHS, and TV shows just didn't find their way there. That was something for theatrical releases. TV shows were much more concerned about trying to make it to syndication. When it came time to licensing, that's all the producers had on their radar.

What's the point? This was much less a malicious thing than it is made out to be. Once the licensing ran out, that's it. They can't just YOLO their way through it, or they'd have been sued. It's possible they tried to negotiate new terms for the music, but terms couldn't be agreed. When it came time to release on DVD, the person involved for the music might not have been available or interested in doing it again. At that point, the music would never feel right when replaced. The last point being these producers would be doing this on the cheap, so your <$30 CD library wouldn't have been far off, except the music libraries would have been much more expensive than that. Decent royalty free music has only been a thing within the past 10-15 years.

Edit: one more thing about the music, it is a large expense for the production. the studios are usually willing to pay for it to air, because they know how much ad sales they have and build it into part of the per episode expense. negotiating for DVD release with no known amount of money to earn makes it difficult to negotiate a license for "real" music

pessimizer 5 days ago | parent [-]

Everybody knows all of this, and nobody thinks the companies doing it are doing it "maliciously." The point is that it is stupid, harmful and unnecessary, not a consumer complaint.

Of course these people did not want to sell a broken product; they sold a lot fewer copies because they were forced to by goofy laws and their financial circumstances.

exe34 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate that kind of destruction of what I think should ultimately be considered property of humanity. When you create something, you're free to destroy or ruin it. Once you share it with somebody else, you should need their consent to destroy it.

dotancohen 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The social responsibility for ensuring that things could be shared falls on libraries. You might check a few libraries for old copies of vintage media.

My sore spot is the original Rust In Peace album. It was rerecorded and the rerecording is horrible. Any copy of the original is treasure to me.

exe34 5 days ago | parent [-]

> The social responsibility for ensuring that things could be shared falls on libraries.

That's a fair point!

qingcharles 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's the thing: I don't feel like the studios really own something once it is released. It almost becomes the property of the viewers. Things like changing Star Wars is horrifying to most. It's almost as if the public should have to vote on any changes (e.g. I'd probably be willing to vote to remove some flubs, like a mic dangling in frame).

When the Bobs sold Back to the Future they put a clause in the contract that the movies could not be remade or altered in any way without their approval. They nixed the 3D versions that Universal was planned when 3D TVs were in vogue.

iamacyborg 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This feels like a terribly entitled way to view someone else’s work.

exe34 5 days ago | parent [-]

This feels like an entitlement to disappoint people. If you plan to ruin the experience, don't waste my time on it.

josh-at-banxa 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The TV series Scrubs was hit really hard by this — The soundtrack and sound-design in that show really drove home the emotion in the episodes, and when replaced, it really doesn't hit the same mark.

GuinansEyebrows 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the DVD/streaming releases of Daria suffer from this. i used to have old TV rips of the show with the original contemporary MTV soundtrack but i'm not sure what happened to them. the stock music just doesn't carry the weight of the times.

thedrexster 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I was literally complaining to my partner about this exact thing last night -- we ended up torrenting a collection of what look to be old VHS rips and really enjoyed them.

paradox460 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mission Hill as well. If you want the original one, with tracks by Moby, Looper, the Toasters, and more, the only option is a fan made restoration project

If you want 4k, that fan restoration project is also the only way to get it

dml2135 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

google “The Daria Restoration Project”

qingcharles 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ugh, the music licensing issue is horrible. I sold a movie to Netflix many years ago and they "couldn't afford" the awesome soundtrack so they switched it out with garbage which makes a so-so movie into a total turd.

johnvanommen 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> They also often time have versions of old movies and shows that have been modified due to silly things like license agreements on music expiring! I have felt gaslighted when I rewatch and old movie and some scene isn’t how I remember.

1990s Beavis and Butthead episodes seem completely bizarre/pointless without the music.

When Mike Judge started releasing new episodes back in 2012-ish, it's noticeable how he mostly avoided music clips and focused on satirizing reality shows that were on the same network (MTV.) I assume this was to avoid licensing nightmares.

JodieBenitez 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nature is healing ! https://nofilmschool.com/disney-butt-in-splash

jaimex2 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was what made me cancel Netflix 10 years ago.

They decided to remove stuff that cost them nothing to have in their library like Gone with the Wind. I'd never watch it but it was clear then they had decided they would be gatekeepers of what people can and cant watch.

542354234235 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

They are choosing not to host a movie on their service, which I think is a bit different than say, Disney not allowing anyone to access Song of the South.

fragmede 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> cost them nothing to have in their library

I cancelled Netflix too, but it's not true that it cost them nothing to have it in their library. Everyone in the movie still needs to get paid and simply having the show in the library costs them money.

oriel 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For me, it was when a movie wasn't the way I remembered it. Then I found a pirated copy.

Turned out the 'official' release was heavily edited, with tone, characters, and even some plot had been completely reshaped. I've found this to be increasingly prevalent, and not just in a "made for TV" or "adapted for Flying" type modifications.

whimsicalism 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

especially when Advanced DnD is like the best Community episode

wordofx 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If people stopped getting offended by literally anything. We wouldn’t have to deal with this bs.

mindslight 5 days ago | parent [-]

Centralized services are low-stakes levers of power that encourage people to form outrage movements to pull them.

socalgal2 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hate the censorship. But when some groups are willing to kill if you don’t censor then I can’t blame others for not wanting to be martyrs and put their lives on the line for it

jrflowers 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

What groups are you talking about

more_corn 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Publish a cartoon about the prophet Mohamed and some of the groups will make themselves known to you.

jrflowers 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

What does that very specific example have to do with broad censorship as a phenomenon in media? Like how often do you think TV networks and streaming services are removing depictions of Mohammed in the stuff they make or license?

red-iron-pine 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

removing "fly me to the moon" from the end of NGE has nothing to do with Islam.

the Islamic prohibition on the Prophet isn't new, is something they take seriously and always have, and is not happening at the whim of the studio execs.

6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
throwawaylaptop 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you really not know the answer or were you asking just to force the answer?

Dylan16807 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I can't think of any answer that makes sense in this context (widespread tv show editing).

dotancohen 5 days ago | parent [-]

Not TV show editing, rather a satire magazine, but a now-deleted reply mentioned that Charlie Hebdo was pressured to censor and would not. They had staff members murdered because they would not censor.

Dylan16807 5 days ago | parent [-]

That is a thing that happened.

But if it's what socalgal2 was talking about, then their comment was a non-sequitur. They saw the word censorship and rambled something almost entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.

That's why it's worth asking what they're talking about.

sensanaty 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

There was also South Park's episodes 200 and 201 where they got a slew of death threats for depicting Mohammad. Funnily enough, Mohammad's depiction was the least offensive of all the other religious figures they showed in that episode, which was basically the point of the episodes more or less.

The funniest part of it all is that the network decided to not only remove the episode after the initial airing, it even censored Kyle's speech at the end of 201[1] about fighting back against intimidation. The censorship was done in such a way that it looked like South Park was satirizing the censorship itself too [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TMHIYDHMSE [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imj_pHXzJbc

dotancohen 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They were responding to a comment about piracy not self-centering extant works. I could see where the comment does sequitur, just barely. Perhaps he is pushing an agenda, perhaps he was making conversation. I can see far further OT comments all up and down this post.

Dylan16807 5 days ago | parent [-]

My issue is less with taking a tangent but the way the comment is framed as if it's a justification for what services are doing. Maybe one south park episode can be half-justified that way, and basically nothing else.

dotancohen 5 days ago | parent [-]

I see what you're saying now. I'm not familiar with the South Park episode but I think I understand you.

jrflowers 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I genuinely don’t know what socalgal2 is referring to. If everybody instantly understood cryptic posts we wouldn’t call them cryptic

JodieBenitez 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not directly related to streaming services, but this happened: https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2025/08/13/noisy-le-s...

I can definitely see how streaming services would adapt to bigots.

kenjackson 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That seems like a bad reason to swear off streaming services. Do you not shop at stores because they don’t carry offensive clothing?

Sabinus 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If a tshirt rental store was renting me my favourite tshirt (not available to buy) for two decades then decided it wasn't available any more because other people don't like the shirt design, I would be pissed and not want to support the tshirt rental industry any more.

DowsingSpoon 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s a bad analogy. It works against your point. It seems entirely, entirely reasonable to avoid a clothing store that refuses to stock hip styles simply because they’re “offensive”. For an example using the cliche, many people find a naked ankle to be completely acceptable.

kenjackson 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yours is wrong. Yours would work if you liked all the clothes there but then one day they stopped selling Kanye West’s Nazi shirt that you liked because people found it offensive. And then you stopped shopping there because of that.

The analogy requires you giving up what you want because they stopped carrying something others find offensive. Not that they don’t sell what you like all up. In which case it makes perfect sense not to shop there.

weberer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a really awkward analogy. A better one would be: Would you buy an album with all the curse words bleeped out? A lot of people would, but others would prefer the uncensored version.

kenjackson 5 days ago | parent [-]

That’s a worse analogy. The other guy doesn’t want to use a service because they don’t offer content he wants because people are offended by it. There’s a bunch of clothes not sold at most retailers because it is offensive but you can buy them online directly from the manufacturer.

The analogy you gave would be better if they edited the content to be semantically equivalent but they aren’t. The content just isn’t available.

Now maybe the argument is that you’re paying for the service. In which case it would be like Costco where you have a membership and they definitely don’t carry offensive material.

lotsoweiners 5 days ago | parent [-]

The biggest problem IMO is that they are picking and choosing what is offensive. I can watch over 100 episodes of very offensive (to someone) episodes of Always Sunny episodes on Hulu. However, they decided 1 concept from 1 scene of a handful of episodes is more offensive than everything else and removed those. I think an analogy could be Home Depot sells a dimming light with 10 settings. Some group of people can’t deal with 2 of those settings so the manufacturer removed 2 of the settings and now everyone gets a lower quality product because of this decision.

kenjackson 4 days ago | parent [-]

Is there anything offensive that Home Depot shouldn’t carry? Or should they carry everything?

john01dav 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This can happen with piracy too. For example, I'm aware of at least one case where the highest quality option for a specific show edited out the gay scenes.

viraptor 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, someone can upload a new edited version. But the unedited one doesn't get removed. That's not really censorship.

john01dav 5 days ago | parent [-]

If you don't notice the removal and therefore don't have a reason to look elsewhere, it has the same effect

viraptor 5 days ago | parent [-]

But that's unrelated to why tech. People advertising one version instead of another does not have a technical solution. The only thing tech can provide is the ability to keep copying the old version, regardless of what the original creator/distributor thinks.

john01dav 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Tech can provide a signature of the original to verify that it hasn't been tampered with

pessimizer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't understand, it's terrible to censor movies but absolutely vital to make sure people can't make movies I disagree with.

edit: It's funny, I wouldn't be happy about a version of the old HBO series Rome reedited with anything gay taken out, but I'd be absolutely excited to watch a version of Queer As Folk with all the gay stuff edited out.

john01dav 5 days ago | parent [-]

Calling removing scenes that you're bigoted against (and that's what it looks like in this case) "making a movie" is a large stretch. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it 1) was actually interesting in some way; 2) didn't pretend to be the original (i.e., different name in title). It's a problem if someone thinks that they're getting the original show and then gets something else, especially if it isn't obvious that it's something else.

efilife 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What was that specific show?

pluc 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What gets to me is exclusivity deals. Wanna watch this? Subscribe to that. Wanna watch that? Well itnisnt available on this so you'd have to subscibe to that. New streaming service launches with promotional exclusivity of something you like? Gotta get on that too. And don't get me started on sports!

Streaming was OK when it was fighting cable, because it was cheaper and on-demand. With the constant greed, we're back to paying more than we used to pay for cable, it doesn't make sense anymore.

bradbeattie 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's a shame https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P.... was never applied to streaming services.

5 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
john01dav 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In addition to inconvenience and cost, this is a problem because the technical implementation of most services is poor. For example, Comcast's streaming service as of a few years ago went VERY out of its way to block Linux.

zaptheimpaler 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 2. Highest resolution/bitrate/quality that was available at the time of the work's original release.

I paid for Disney+ to watch Andor at 4K, only to find out that you can't - Disney+ prohibits anything over 1K on computers whether you use the app or a browser. Went back to piracy very quickly after that. More fragmented experience is annoying, not even being able to get the highest quality as a paying customer is insane.

anonymars 6 days ago | parent [-]

I went down a similar rabbit hole when I bought my OLED monitor, finding that you can neither stream UHD nor play UHD Blu-Ray (it was possible on a few generations of Intel chips before SGX was deprecated because it was not in fact secure; 10th-gen was the latest)

Well, okay then -- chump don't want the money, chump don't get the money

bombcar 5 days ago | parent [-]

Amusingly if your have MakeMKV and patched firmware, you can rip them without even blinking.

MindSpunk 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The firmware flashing story for the drives is even funnier because some of the really common LG bluray drives that get used for ripping UHD blurays doesn't support reading UHD discs "on the box", but if you flash the firmware from a different drive it reads them without skipping a beat.

The 4K standard didn't bring any new disc formats to my knowledge. It just started using the higher layer count formats that were already available but the firmware on the cheaper drives wont read them.

anonymars 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep. As is often the case the DRM screws over the paying customers. At that point I certainly wasn't going to give them money for a disc they didn't want me to let me play

DHRicoF 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Netflix and to some level spotify drowned piracy for a time. But then a lot of companies tried to rap the same "winings" splitting the ecosystem and trashing the user experience.

- ¿could we watch x movie? - let me see. no, it in this other service beside the 3 we are paying.

at-fates-hands 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

In the beginning, Netflix was great. Then they became a media company and suddenly EVERYTHING they push on you is THEIR stuff. Gone are the days where you could remember a cool movie and pull it up on Netflix like Fandango or Corvette Summer. I remember going back and watching several seasons of the original Miami Vice back when nobody knew who Michael Mann was.

Not its exactly as you say, you want to watch something but its not on any of the streaming services you're already paying for. I've started to just think of a movie I want to watch, go out to Pirate Bay, download it and then stream it. When I'm done? Delete it.

Its good to know I'm not the only one who has gone back to downloading movies.

ysavir 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

My understanding is that this isn't Netflix's fault. They were king when they were the first major streaming service, and studios and networks were happy to get extra income from hosting their content on Netflix. But Netflix knew that any success it has would be mimicked by those same studios and networks, and that they would pull their own content to their own services as soon as they have them up and running, and so Netflix started making its own content in preparation for that day. And that bet paid off.

cptnntsoobv 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

As the saying at Netflix used to go back in the day: we need to become HBO before HBO becomes Netflix

janalsncm 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the production quality of Netflix was close to HBO it would be nice. HBO has some absolute classics: The Wire, The Sopranos, GoT, White Lotus, The Last of Us, Alaskan Killer Bigfoot. Almost all bangers.

aceazzameen 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'd argue Netflix productions started out almost as great as HBO, but quickly took a dive when they started pushing quantity over quality. Now finding a quality Netflix production is about once a year. Maybe that's the same rate as it use to be?

ysavir 5 days ago | parent [-]

I agree that the quality went down, but I think it might be part of their strategy.

I think when they first started, they tried the HBO strategy of putting big money into big shows that try to win over broad audiences. But over time shifted to focusing on low budget shows that appeal to specific, smaller audiences. Which makes sense, if your goal isn't to have 70% of the total market as paying users but rather 90% of the market as paying users.

fragmede 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem is the bean counters running Netflix didn't want to pay the cast and crew their due, so their shows ended before the cast and crew could unionize, specifically so they couldn't unionize, leaving Netflix with no HBO-grade shows. Pennywise, pound foolish.

dylan604 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the way. As the studios decided they could make more money by becoming a streamer than they'd ever make with licensing deals with Netflix, they quit making those deals. As the deals would expire, Netflix would start removing them.

I always thought Netflix probably could have made licensing deals on their CDN. Lots of early streamers had issues (still have) with their CDN. Then again, the studios would probably want a clean break because they are so good about every thing they do (yes, that's sarcasm).

6 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
phkahler 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At some point I'm willing to just pay a few dollars for a movie. But even then you cant get them all in one place! And they like to charge a premium for some. Im not paying a premium for anything I've already seen a while back.

cmiles74 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The particular service that has the movie may not last or they may lose access to the movie. With a streaming service you aren't "buying" much.

dylan604 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Im not paying a premium for anything I've already seen a while back.

devil's advocate. what's the point of a producer expending money to have a premium version made? it takes money to go back and rescan film to higher resolution, and the rest of the work flow involved to create that new final version.

sure, it's easy to not have sympathy for hollywood producer types, but to meet modern standards for legacy content takes time/effort/money. of course they are going to want to get a bit of that back.

marcus_holmes 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

But this is the insane bit - there is clearly a market for this. People do want to watch old stuff in new formats, and they're prepared to pay a reasonable amount for it. There is a perfectly reasonable business model in here.

dylan604 6 days ago | parent [-]

How sure of that perfectly reasonable model are you? Are you willing to find a movie that you think this would be a solid bet, contact the content owner with the money to finance the necessary steps to get the content streaming platform ready? Would you put your money where your mouth is on this?

Edit to add more food for thought. Let's take a non-premium feature film as an example. Let's assume that the title you've chosen has a decent copy of the 35mm film available. To have it scanned at 4K is going to be the first expense. You then have to decide if you're going to clean any of it up with and post production. Color correction will be necessary as well. Something else to consider is do you have any the clips with text on them have and are textless clips available. How much will it cost to get a textless version. You will need to see what audio is available. Hoepfully something other than mag. Do you have just the final mix? Is it stereo/mono? Does it need to be remastered to deal with expired music rights? Do you have elements to do a new mix? Do you have any subtitles available for it? Captioning? Those cost to have made too. Do you have rights for the international versions, and is that content available? Does your streaming platform really want the dubbed audio available? Subtitles for that too please.

marcus_holmes 5 days ago | parent [-]

Well this is how the "unofficial" streaming services make money, basically.

They don't have the production costs, obviously, so there are some numbers to crunch there. And I don't have answers to any of your questions, because I am not in the industry. I suspect these are a whole bunch of trade-offs, as in most technical questions, and there is a version of these trade-offs that are economically viable.

But people are willing to pay to view stuff, and willing to take risks to view stuff. There is a market there, there's money there. We know this because there are people making money on this.

dylan604 5 days ago | parent [-]

I am in the industry, and I'm giving you a simplified formula which answers why more titles are not available. You just don't want to accept the reality of it from the content owner's perspective and only see if from the "I deserve to see anything I want anytime I want" perspective.

marcus_holmes 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, fair point.

I counter that I can go and see anything I want, if I'm prepared to accept a bit of risk and some morally dubious justifications.

The reality that the content owners face is that there are people making money off their work because they're not giving the paying customer what they want, and those other people are. That's a viable business that they're not profiting from. That's the reality. I'm not sure why it's not visible from the content owner's perspective.

phkahler 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't care about that. By premium I just mean a popular movie. Sometimes all the Clint Eastwood films are free for example, but one or two big titles are $9.

Give me $2 or $3 movies with a huge catalog and I'll watch several.

dylan604 6 days ago | parent [-]

> I don't care about that.

That's precisely my point.

Even for these $2-$3 dollar non-premium movies to be digitized and made available for streaming costs money. Let's just say at a minimum $50k (which is on the low end), 50,000/3 = 16,667 people willing to rent/buy that movie for that $3. Is that a guarantee? No, especially when it is not "premium". Out of curiosity, how many movies do you rent/buy through Apple/Amazon type rentals? There are many times where the math of renting from a platform is much cheaper than going to the movie to see it. It is still hard for me to do it since I'm already paying Apple/Amazon a monthly fee. That's for the "premium" content, so it would be hard to convince me that 16k people would be willing to spend for non-premium at all.

freddie_mercury 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I lived in a country where Netflix never bothered to open up (until very recently) so piracy never went away for the 100 million people living there.

birn559 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Netflix also often only buys the first seasons of an existing show. And of course they love to cancel shows they produce themselves which for me has significantly lowered my loyalty over the years.

kmeisthax 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

prepend 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don’t forget that piracy allows for front ends that actually want to make the user happy and have good UX.

I use Plex and it shows what I’m currently watching first. So continuing to a new episode is easy. If I sub to 50 episodes they just show up on my first line. Hulu makes me scroll down a few rows to continue watching.

It also shows cast and crew and other movies with the same.

1980phipsi 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Plex’s recent changes have been garbage and it’s still better than the experience on a lot of streaming sites.

birn559 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Prime Video keeps starting the wrong episode when I click on "Continue Watching". That's infuriating in particular because that often makes me watch advertising 2-3 times: When starting, when clicking into the middle of the episode to confirm I indeed have watched it already and then again when switching to the correct episode.

GlitchRider47 5 days ago | parent [-]

It blows my mind what slow momentum Amazon has for a company with such vast resources. Kindle, for example, lacks so many features to enhance the reading experience. Jailbreaking my kindle and installing KOReader was a game changer.

birn559 4 days ago | parent [-]

They just don't care enough. User experience only needs to be "good enough", mostly determined by the question of users will tend to terminate the subscription without the feature or with the bug.

LMYahooTFY 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's not forget:

No advertising.

I think, particularly now after having the luxury of ad blockers for so long, that many of us are extremely triggered by advertisements and see them more nakedly as the awful propaganda they are.

Disrupting a cinematic experience with garbage propaganda ruins it. It's an insult to the creators, and none of us should tolerate it.

I'm glad streaming services adopted a better model, but then they reverted back as they increased prices because the money is too good and people put up with it.

thaumasiotes 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Who knows, we don't know how much this is worth because nobody is even trying to offer it.

Note that this was the original concept of Netflix's streaming service. The service got steadily dismantled as copyright holders demanded higher fees.

Which means that we do have a good idea how much it's worth; it should lie between the range of what Netflix was able to sell successfully and what they weren't.

swat535 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You also get many other features:

1. Automatically downloads subtitles, can pick between multiple available voice versions

2. Calendar with notifications when new series are available

3. Integration with various services like Trakt.tv, Letterboxd, etc

4. Automatic collection and organization of content

5. Metada, IMBD ratings and other movie details

6. Foreign content, Anime series (oh and of course let's not forget 4k porn...)

benjiro 5 days ago | parent [-]

Point 6 grow a lot, with the recent UK chances requiring people to hand over their Identity to see xxx rated content. Privacy was a issue before but its getting worse and worse.

Point 7 ... see the recent EU law about chat services needing to provide access to users chats. Also links to UK recent laws etc ...

The more the governments and companies go crazy for your data / privacy, the more a personalized solution becomes a need. All the other benefits that such a platform offers, become icing on the cake.

marak830 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Subtitles is a big one for me. I can stream something in Japan, that I have seen other places has english subs, but due to licensing I cannot see them.

I know I could vpn around this, but why should I pay even more just for subtitles?

In the end I'm paying for Netflix, Disney and Amazon. My son uses those as he is bilingual, I just pirate what I want to watch personally.

unsignedint 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

It’s frustrating when languages are locked behind regional restrictions or selective availability, and it borders on being an accessibility issue. That said, things have improved compared to the past, at least when it comes to consuming foreign media from outside its home country. In my case, that means accessing Japanese content while outside Japan.

In most cases, I suspect the limitation isn’t the fault of the streaming services but rather the content owners. On Netflix, for example, expecting English subtitles for anime in Japan is about as hopeless as expecting Japanese subtitles for U.S.-made films while in the United States.

To Netflix’s credit, their original shows are often subtitled and dubbed in a wide range of languages, which has significantly increased the availability of non-English content worldwide.

The same trend can be seen with music, at least for Japanese music. Until around ten years ago, almost nothing was available abroad. While some regional restrictions remain on certain tracks, the vast majority are now accessible outside Japan.

marak830 5 days ago | parent [-]

You're correct (in the things I have checked) when viewing Japanese content outside Japan. But inside? No, it's never licenced (or available, I'm not sure).

I live in Japan, so we'll fuck me otherwise, right? xD

unsignedint 5 days ago | parent [-]

Well, my point is that what you’re experiencing with anime and other content from Japan when accessed within Japan is actually quite normal. It’s the same reason I can hardly ever find content here in the U.S., especially from major movie studios, that includes Japanese subtitles or dubs.

I’m sorry you have to deal with that limitation. I can relate, since I also want to enjoy media in Japanese. Fortunately, having lived here long enough, I can at least comprehend it without subtitles.

Am I happy about it? No, but unfortunately, that’s the reality for now.

djtango 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This one is particularly janky!!!!!

Watch anime on Netflix at home with English subs. Fly to japan. Open Netflix, now you cannot watch with English subs.

The workaround is to pre emptively download the show, then put your device on airplane mode so Netflix cannot phone home, then watch the show with the English subs as snapshotted at home.

extraduder_ire 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

From a cursory search, there are browser extensions to display your own subtitles on sites like netflix. At least for firefox.

jfghi 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also doesn’t track user and send a bunch of telemetry

vgb2k18 6 days ago | parent [-]

Except for our ip address, timestamp and torrent metadata

https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com

wiredpancake 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

All of which could be solved via a VPN of Seedbox.

The point being, my movements around the homepage aren't tracked and used for pushing more ads. My microphone isn't being recorded for AI training or recommendations algorithms. The intricate ways I use the platform isn't being sold to some third party data company. I just open the film, and it works..

Your IP address being logged in a bittorrent swarm is far less concerning to me than the 100 page privacy policy which explains how they will take rectal scans and sell them to cancer research agencies or something.

vgb2k18 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Fair point about it being less invasive than adtech sites, but my comment was just addressing the claim that piracy doesn't “track users and send a bunch of telemetry”. Torrent-trackers broadcast ip-addresses, timestamps, and torrent metadata; even if you consider it minor or mitigated by VPNs/seedboxes.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I was going to say.. does not seem to show much. That said, fun idea and very privacy inspiring.

ncr100 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Privacy is undervalued.

Your characteristics are you. Businesses already having that data allows them, specifically, to market their junk in a way they have an advantage over other businesses.

It's imbalanced: it screws the economy, and can be used to influence you -- to show you information which encourages conformance/lowers diversity. Freedom of choice is diluted by unknown leaking of your personal characteristics.

fluoridation 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That has like a 50% precision rate for me. Around half of the reported torrents is stuff I've never seen.

FireBeyond 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, according to my router, my IP address hasn't changed in 8 months. But this site has me torrenting a bunch of anime, porn and Russian audiobooks ... while I was sitting on a beach last week in Hawaii.

(And I know I'm not being used as an unwitting seeder).

What's actually happening, it looks like, is it's finding any hits on the same Class C subnet as mine.

This ends up more looking like a precursor for some "I know what you're downloading" bitcoin extortion.

PenguinCoder 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So don't use torrents. Usenet is still alive for this stuff. Though you need a indexer and Usenet subscription so it's a wash for privacy.

caconym_ 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm sure somebody else has mentioned this, but if you're willing to buy physical media, it's not difficult to rip even 4K HDR blu-rays yourself and stream from a self hosted platform like Jellyfin.

I'm able to find most of what I want to watch on physical media in either HD or 4K, with the exception of more obscure anime. Some TV shows can be expensive to pick up and more laborious to rip, though.

account42 5 days ago | parent [-]

Older TV shows are often also only available on DVD which is much lower quality than what streaming services (and thus pirates) have for them.

tombert 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It really bothers me that they don't really (reliably) release new Blu-rays anymore.

NOT THAT I WOULD EVER ENDORSE BREAKING DRM BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CRIME, but if I had a Blu-ray I could fairly easily break the DRM of the movie with MakeMKV or something and watch it anywhere I want without pirating it.

It's too bad it's illegal to do that, it sure would be nice to be able to have all these features without piracy.

tambourine_man 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And a player that doesn’t suck. How many times have I hit rewind only to go back 30 min instead of 10 sec because the service lost track of where I was.

Pressing rewind is akin to Russian roulette, to the point where I’ve mostly given up, lest I risk ruining the mood while trying to scrub back to where I was.

Amazing how what was table stakes in the 90s seems like unattainable tech these days.

izacus 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also the content doesn't disappear on vacation, it has subtitles for all languages and audio track is actually high quality.

notatoad 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i pirate stuff even after i've paid for the streaming service that offers it. i just want to watch things on plex - it's already installed wherever i want to watch, and it stores and syncs my watch history. unlike if i watch a show on amazon, and then it leaves amazon for netflix, and nextflix starts telling me it's "unwatched".

galleywest200 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Physical media offers the first three, but not option four.

I, too, would pay per show/movie to download and save DRM-free videos to my own drives.

crote 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

So how come you can't (legally) watch Blue-Rays using a Linux computer, or when viewing it on an ancient CRT using an HDMI-to-analog converter?

A lot of effort has gone into making physical media work only with pre-approved devices.

jonvk 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

And driving the price up for the consumer for the anti-consumer tech licencing fees.

account42 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A lot of effort has been wasted, thanks to MakeMKV+libredrive making ripping easy.

noselasd 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It fails on all of them if it's not available to purchase, and none of them are of relevance if I want it right now vs having to wait 1-7 days to get hold of that physical copy and there's an easier alternative where I can have it right now.

MrGilbert 6 days ago | parent [-]

The elder might remember a time where you could drive to a place and rent physical copies of a movie.

But of course, these places dried out a long time ago.

wingworks 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

In NZ we have aliceinvideoland.co.nz which overnights you x DVDs. They have a pretty extensive library and a lot of lesser known and local content.

I used them for a few years, they are great and I'm happy to see they're still around.

bombcar 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They still exist and now are free.

They’re called “public libraries”.

yunwal 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Physical media has arbitrary device limitations.

black_puppydog 6 days ago | parent [-]

and arent' there retro-active device blocklists on bluray? I seem to recall sth of the sort. Sure, they can be circumvented, but then why bother buying in the first place if you're gonna be the bad guy anyhow?

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 6 days ago | parent [-]

Yes and yes. I got mildly upset when I learned this, because it is oddly surprising amount of work to get it to work ( and some models do better than others, apparently ).

On the other hand, dvd is dirt cheap now and you get a very respectable collection that is not reliant on the internet.

McAlpine5892 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I didn't even mention that it's free

It depends. If you're fine browsing torrent sites, choosing a download, loading in into your client, waiting for it to download, then plugging your laptop into your TV. Sure it's free.

If you're out to recreate a better streaming experience then it's certainly not free. Software licenses, server hardware, electricity costs, Usenet access, etc. Not to mention the time/effort to getting everything running so smoothly to the point that it is effortless to request and then watch.

I mention this because for a certain crowd (myself and likely many people on HN) it's not about being free. It's about not having to fight crappy software. Or not paying for the privilege to have ads shoved down your throat and being tracked. Not needing to remember which app Mr. Robot is currently on or having it suddenly vanish due to some licensing expiration. The list goes on.

Do I still pay for content instead of the tools to circumvent it? Sure! My city has a huge video rental store. It's super fun to go browse, find weird stuff, and help out a local business. The owner(s) are clearly huge movie nerds and seem to have spent a good amount of their earnings on some very cool movie props they put in the store. I love it.

hereme888 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It also offers:

- Watch movie before deciding if it's worth paying, or if it was propaganda for a particular ideology.

- Watch original movie. Companies like Disney often change content to match a trending ideology.

- Avoid subscription services.

a4isms 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I didn't even mention that it's free or that there are no ads, because that's pretty much the least important attribute to me.

In 2001, Joel Spolsky wrote:

Your typical architecture astronaut will take a fact like “Napster is a peer-to-peer service for downloading music” and ignore everything but the architecture, thinking it’s interesting because it’s peer to peer, completely missing the point that it’s interesting because you can type the name of a song and listen to it right away.

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architect...

And in 2003, Apple started "selling" songs for 99 cents. They were incredibly successful, demonstrating that people weren't "pirating" songs to save a buck, but pirating songs to escape the deeply enshittified DRM shenanigans the industry employed, like installing rooting your PC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

There is a very large market of people who want no fuss, no muss access to movies, shows, and music. I personally think that many people who "pirate" shows do not want adware of any type, especially if it surveils them, and also do not want to stream certain shows and deal with issues like region locking, the shows vanishing when the streaming service retires them, and so forth. But that is a small quibble.

History agrees with you that "piracy" is not about the price, it's actually about the shitty experience that the music, TV, and film industries impose.

alkonaut 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the key thing it misses though (usually) is that you usually have to go grab things. I'm not willing to go download something in order to view it. Not even spending a few minutes time grabbing a whole season of a series and then storing it somewhere, even if viewing it takes many hours.

Spotify's convenience killed the mp3, and Netflix is hyper convenient compared to most piracy. No one (to a rounding error, but let's say no one) is _really_ interested in file organizing, bitrates, buffering, whether a show disappears in 5 years etc. Everyone (again, to a rounding error) just wants to watch that latest season of that latest show and then forget it.

What's now making old-school piracy return is that while Netflix is convenient, having 7 streaming services is really _inconvenient_. Not to mention expensive. But the inconvenience is horrible.

I wish just 1-3 of the large streaming services would cooperate on some standard which lets me see and manage all my content in one place. Then devices could natively support browsing that "rss for streaming" instead of having N different services. Once a few do, the pressure on others to join the standard would increase.

sensanaty 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's been super easy to stream pirated content for more than a decade (Popcorn Time) at this point, especially of late with the billions of pirate streaming sites that all pull from 20 different sources.

It's funny in a sad way how much better the UX of a lot of the piracy sites are, too.

alkonaut 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's still hit & miss. You still get shit content interspersed with the good there. There isn't perfect curation so you can have a missing episode, a version that doesn't allow removing the spanish audio track, a duplicate of a movie or whatever. I'm not sure if that's solved yet (i.e. that you can somehow subscribe to pirated and well curated content) but at least last time I checked it sucked.

defrost 5 days ago | parent [-]

Curation tends to be better with private sites and their trackers than with public trackers.

It's a point of member pride to assemble complete seasons with consistent quality, sizing, subtitles, and audio, etc.

alkonaut 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yes but pirate site 1 does that for shows A, B, and C while pirate site 2 does it for show B, C, and D now you have rivaling versions of B and C etc, and worst case one of them did a poor job. If you just choose one source you have decent curation but not all the content. If you choose both you get duplication. I don't get how it solves the fundamental problem of getting everything curated with good content and no duplication? Perhaps this is a solved problem - but I just haven't tried recently.

defrost 5 days ago | parent [-]

I guess the best answer to that is it requires a touch of "smart customer" insight, they kind that people develop food shopping, buying hardware, etc.

Scene files are named to rules that name the content, the source, the video and audio encoding, and the release group.

  SeriesName S03E12 EpisodeName 1080p AMZN WEB-DL DDP5 1 H264-NTb
  SeriesName S03E12 EpisodeName 1080p HEVC x265-MeGusta
The first is by a group -NTB that are known for 'direct copies' (by various indicated methods) of streaming sources; here it's episode 12, season 3 of SeriesName as a WEB-DL copy and sourced from AMZN, video encoded with H264 and DDP5.1 audio.

That'll be a larger file and an "as viewed" copy.

The second is probably derived from the first, re-encoded using HEVC H265 to create a smaller file. The audio stream may also be transformed to be smaller in size, perhaps fewer channels. The compression may have introduced jagged chunky artifacts in fast moving scenes, or moire patterns in panning shots across chain link mesh basketball court fences.

So, it's a "solved problem" in the sense of it's not hard to learn to read the labels and understand different brand strategies.

Again, good private trackers that have been about for a good while now typically have complete seasons in a fully consistent form as a single multi episode torrent- all the same source (eg: BluRay release, or DVD, or from digital channel, or upscaled reconstruct, etc) all by the same release group.

Good private trackers also tend to have request forums, anything sought and not held can be requested and admins or users with multiple accounts tend to fill requests and often like the challenge of a hard to source rarity.

From the end user PoV they can also join multiple private trackers and use tools (-arr suite, etc) that can search across multiple trackers and present sorted and grouped results with easy selection of some or many for download.

My personal solution is I've pretty much always "curated as I go", making notes or filing stuff as I consume it - books, film, TV, papers, things built or designed.. anything I circle back on may or may not be worth chasing up a better version, I'd have to have liked it and want to share it or experience it again in better form- I'm happy buying digital media that I can own if it's available for things I enjoy, for things not available over the counter I can search for the best version available ATM by polling trackers .. failing that by joining forums and asking about.

GoblinSlayer 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

RSS doesn't support such aggregation?

alkonaut 5 days ago | parent [-]

You just fetch all your rss'es from N sources and the client can show a merged one.

bambax 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This whole thread shows many people don't mind spending time building their own content library and making their own little Netflix on their NAS. I think this is just the beginning.

I have been a happy user of JellyFin for a couple of years. Then when Spotify raised its prices again I realized I mostly listen to the same songs, most if not all I still own the CDs.

So with Navidrome and a couple of Python scripts to transform playlists, I made my own little home Spotify as well (Homify? Hopify?)

Works perfectly. No fees. No ads. No stupid email at the end of the year bragging about all the data Spotify collects and stores about me. Perfect.

devinprater 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Piracy also offers audio description, allowing blind people to enjoy described media, for shows movies that don't have them on streaming services, like Doctor Who. An audio description site offers audio description for the original and revival series. Streaming offers none of that. They also do third-party audio description cause studios can't be bothered.

It also offers video games that can be emulated, and with OCR nd AI image descriptions, can be played by blind people. It also offers EBooks in many different formats which can b loaded onto accessible apps or Braille displays and read, without needing apps which may or may not be accessible, but which will always need connection to a phone or computer. And you can read all this offline.

So when I find companies, like Big Finish and Graphic Audio, which offer their stuff in downloadable, DRM-free formats, I pay them good for their stuff, because they respect me.

1212312523 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I found that people around me pick movies a lot less of what they want to watch and more of just what is available right now on Netflix. Maybe having an unlimited library also means you have to be lot more picky of what you watch and developing your taste a lot more.

bambax 5 days ago | parent [-]

Well that's also the point of building your own library. You get to choose to store only the things you like, and not store/delete things you don't like. Nothing gets pushed to you, you are in charge.

Mabusto 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have a Plex/Radarr/Sonarr setup on my home server. I've made a landing page so it's extra easy for my parents and friends to add media.

It's been really wonderful, everyone knows everyone by one degree of separation (me) and are adding to the library like a sort of group project. You can just hop on and see a somewhat currated library in the sense that someone you'll probably run into IRL thought this was worth watching.

So just to add to your point, you can't get this with a streaming service.

paradox460 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

With regards to point 2, in some cases piracy offers better versions than have ever been commercially released. Look at the mission hill restoration project, the Ed Edd and Eddy restoration project, or the various "despecialized" Star wars cuts

wombat-man 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For flights, I don't even try to "download" videos on the apps I do pay for anymore. I've been burned too many times by blurry downloads or videos refusing to play. I just find a copy elsewhere and use VLC.

ncr100 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nn. Also you can code up your Own Video Player interface, if you like to.

Ever get frustrated because you can't determine if you're selecting a button or if the button is always outlined/large ish, fix it yourself!

PKop 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

- Not having to watch ads after you've already paid for a subscription

jimbokun 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No one is offering that service because it would be completely illegal.

You can't just offer all the content ever created without the rights holders to that content agreeing.

(I expect many will say those rights holders deserve zero compensation because they are large greedy corporations. Conveniently ignoring that piracy also means the creators of the content also get zero compensation for their work.)

pickleglitch 5 days ago | parent [-]

> No one is offering that service because it would be completely illegal.

It would be technically possible to decentralize distribution while still paying rights holders for each download. Laws could be rewritten to accommodate, encourage or even require this.

My biggest gripe with streaming services is that you literally can't legally own the content you paid for. You can only "license" it. Amazon, Google, Apple, whoever can revoke your access at any time and there's nothing you can do about it. There are plenty of examples of this already happening. The rights holders are protected, but the consumer is fucked. It's untenable, in my opinion.

MattDaEskimo 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For me it's being able to fully browse movies and tv shows, along with their universal rating and not some vague "You'll like it" nonsense.

wingworks 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is kinda what netflix was for many peak for a brief moment in time. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty great, it had most of what you wanted to see. Then EVERY studio wanted their own meh streaming system, and fragmented the system again.

Melatonic 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think thats the issue most people missed with Piracy the first time around - it wasnt even the cost (free) - its that the experience itself was just so much easier.

I have several streaming services and its always a struggle to find out which one the show I want is on. And then maybe I don't subscribe because its something random.

Streaming took off originally because the experience was just smoother and easier than torrenting

getcrunk 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This might fall under 3/4 but to me the biggest issue is being able to watch without having to turn my vpn off! I had already accepted the rest

dylan604 6 days ago | parent [-]

Why would you need a connection at all to play local content that would need a VPN? Are you using one of those players that "streams" the torrent? That always seemed like a novel idea once bandwidth was available for that, and I guess plenty of seeders. It could also be the stereotype I've built in my head that the people that torrent lean towards hoarders adding to their local inventory.

sowbug 6 days ago | parent [-]

I think the point was that streaming services freak out if you connect from a disapproved IP address.

matheusmoreira 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Piracy also offers the ability to use the software of your choice.

You get to use mpv instead of the streaming company's obnoxiously shitty video player.

You get to use Linux without some asshat in a suit taking issue with the fact he doesn't fully own your computer and deciding he'll only stream you 720p video as punishment.

DrNosferatu 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And your personal data won’t be sold off!

A Netflix presentation to invite advertisers actually boasted how well they could target you for adds.

molszanski 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also in any language. I am so tired of reading a list of audio/subtitles languages available, only to find out that they don’t work after purchase. Am all platforms. Good lord. Just tired of that bs

eecc 5 days ago | parent [-]

Apple is the most egregious of them all. The times I wanted to watch a foreign language film only to discover the subtitles are not available in English!

molszanski 5 days ago | parent [-]

Same. I am just tired of buying a movie and then torrenting it 5 min later. Once even bought twice on two different platforms. Still broken languages. It is not that hard. WTF.

al_borland 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I recently bought music from the iTunes Store, because it was easy and DRM free. I can do what I want with the music after I buy it, and don’t have to worry about what happens if Apple shuts down the store. I’m not aware of a single video platform that can say the same thing. This is the core of the issue for me. In 25 years, I want to know that I can still watch my favorite movies and TV shows. Outside of buying DVDs and ripping them, there is no way to do that without venturing into piracy. I actually bought an external DVD drive recently (while I still can) so I can still rip music and DVDs when discs are the best/easiest way to get some content.

While piracy has a huge library, when it comes to stuff that’s not popular for the long-term with the mainstream, if a person doesn’t grab it while they can, it can be very difficult to get. Of course, these same things aren’t available at all on streaming services, so…

If I could buy DRM free movies and TV shows, from a single source, with a quality library of every show and movie, I’d be down. That doesn’t exist.

matwood 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

#4 is huge. I happily paid for all the streaming services, then I moved out of the US, and most stopped working even on VPN. Most things I’ve just stopped watching, but it’s annoying where I’m trying to pay and still can’t access.

Cost was/is a non-factor.

cadamsdotcom 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And don't forget, not "remastered" with content changed and/or removed.

daseiner1 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Plex is phenomenal software

trenchpilgrim 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Jellyfin is shockingly good now also

bombcar 5 days ago | parent [-]

Jellyfin + Infuse is so easy a baby can use it

chasing0entropy 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Plex is garbage spyware. You cannot use the client/server offline, go ahead and reatrict your Plex server to lan only and try to log in from a client.

Jellyfin is an excellent solution right now. I'd say the desktop and mobile app is early Netflix quality now. Completely open source, and has click to run binaries for almost any OS.

JustExAWS 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had a Plex server for years. It just got to the point where it wasn’t worth the time or effort to find a high quality rip. If I can’t find what I want on streaming service I just buy it or rent it on iTunes.

For movies, if you buy it from one of the major movies studios that participate in Movies Anywhere, it is automatically added to your library in Amazon Prime, whatever Google is using these days, Vudu etc.

But to your other points.

2. If you can find a high quality rip

3. All the streaming services work on iOS, Android, Roku, AppleTV, Windows and Macs and whatever Google device that Google decide not to abandon this week

4. I had a Plex server and 1000Mbps u/d and it still wasn’t as reliable when I was on a plane, outside the country etc

al_borland 5 days ago | parent [-]

4. Plex lets you cache stuff locally for a plane or when you’re traveling. That’s usually what I do when I’m going somewhere. I did try streaming from my house to a hotel in India a decade ago… it technically worked, but I had to set the resolution so low that it wasn’t fun to watch. I assume that’s better now, but I just cache stuff before I leave now.

timsh 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

hey, maybe you’d never heard of https://ororo[.]tv this is exactly what you describe, at lease for movies + shows…

just in case - not an ad, not affiliated with them anyhow, just use it for years with all my friends and family.

there are subtitles is 20+ languages, direct download links, no ads, and new episodes come out pretty fast (usually <24 hours from official release).

eleveriven 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The saddest part is that there's clearly demand for a service that just works across devices, countries, and catalogs

joules77 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Use the right browser (not built/funded by ad tech companies) and all Ads can be blocked in 2025.

oguz-ismail 5 days ago | parent [-]

Those companies own half the internet and they make sure the right browser is always slower and shittier than theirs

CrouchEndTiger 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’d add an additional point to this list: Piracy offers control over the particular edit of the film you’re after.

I find it so infuriating when streaming services only offer the extended edit of the Lord of the Rings films - these scenes were edited out for a reason! I pretty much only want to watch the the cinematic edits.

Same for Bladerunner. There’s so many different edits and the streaming services rarely declare which edit they offer, let alone offering options to choose your preferred edit.

mathieuh 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I pay £22 per month to rent a seedbox and I would happily pay more.

SilverElfin 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Where does one safely pirate these days to avoid authorities

cess11 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not going to name any names but depending on your budget and jurisdiction you can probably figure out a setup where you either torrent, possibly through a reputable VPN, from an invite based tracker, or you pay to play with one or two Usenet accounts.

If you are willing to spend a bit of money you can get what's called a seedbox in a suitable jurisdiction and do rather innocous seeming tunneling between your home network and there.

Torrenting is a bit messy, usually it's not 'one tracker fits all', instead you'd likely want one for movies and one for music or something like that. Perhaps Limewire is a good fit for your needs, or perhaps you're more of a power user willing to endure weeks or months of research and interviews with tracker admins.

Usenet is a bit more involved, and you pay for access and bandwidth. The network traffic doesn't look as suspicious as torrenting, however, and if something turns up in a search it's yours, you don't have to beg for people to seed and so on.

With a bit of effort and technical savvy you can automate a lot of piracy these days, with tools like Sonarr and Radarr tracking releases and automatically pushing them into your self-hosted streaming service.

jasonfarnon 5 days ago | parent [-]

Usenet? Is the alt.binaries hierarchy really still around? how active is it?

cess11 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you pick decent indexers and buy enough traffic it's absurdly good. Especially if you're into less than mainstream material or tend to try many things out before you settle on a binge, because if it's in the search result it's almost sure to be on your disk within minutes and you don't need to keep a cache for days or weeks because of hit'n'run rules.

Politically I prefer torrenting, due to the social character and openness and so on, but Usenet has none of the fuss beyond a bit of setup and configuration.

SSLy 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

if you have good indexer you have access to almost anything.

sensanaty 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe I'm just lucky with where I've lived, but I've literally never had problems pirating without obfuscating my traffic in any way whatsoever. I've been torrenting since I was a kid, too, and I torrent literally everything you can possibly torrent from software to music.

Do people really get hounded for piracy in other countries?

But you can check out fmhy.net, it's a great resource (unaffiliated, it's just a genuinely great resource for piracy :p)

immibis 3 days ago | parent [-]

Apparently this depends on where you live. It's pretty well known that in Germany, if you're found torrenting, you will at first receive an angry email from your ISP demanding you pay them €100-€1000. If you ignore this email, they will take you to court, and the judge will order you to pay the same fine plus their legal fees and the court fees. If you don't go to court, this will be directly debited from your bank account. If you don't have the money in your bank account, it will be garnished from your wages. This will happen, 100% of the time. Not even "someone hacked my wifi" is an excuse (even when true), because even if that was true, you would still be liable because it's your fault for not securing your wifi better.

Meanwhile in some other countries - even EU ones - nobody gives a shit and people can receive 10 copyright infringement notices a day and throw them all in the metaphorical trash.

v5v3 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/wiki/megathread/movies_and_t...

hereme888 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

pay for a vpn, get an open-source client like qbittorrent, and go to sites like yts.mx and 1337x.to.

Mashimo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I use torrent with private trackers for over 20 years now, no VPN. Never had an issue.

Der_Einzige 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

wrasee 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Supply and demand might argue that if there was real demand for something like this that people were actually willing to pay a lot of money for, then the market would be all too happy to provide.

I think the inconvenient truth here is that when anyone has got close to doing such a thing the price has been high enough that it turns out nobody actually turns up to pay for it, not at least outside a small niche.

l72 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

You have to have real options or people can’t make informed decisions.

I have a background in city planning, and in the US, you’ll constantly hear about how trying to make cities more friendly to pedestrians, bicycles, or public transit is a waste because no one uses it. But the truth is, most people will end up using the system you design. If you build a system just for cars, people will use cars. If you build a city around public transportation, people will happily use it. If you build a walkable city, people will walk.

brailsafe 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Great analogy. I'm visiting a particularly car-centric city atm, and from the car driver's perspective, "nobody uses the bike lanes, I never see them, so why build them, it constrains traffic". Well ya, there's so much car traffic because it's car-first, and nobody wants to be around tons of cars, not even people in cars. It's like arguing that you never see cyclists on the freeway, therefore nobody likes biking and we should discourage it.

cyberax 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you build a walkable city, people will walk.

No, they won't. If you build a walkable city and then make it impossible to do anything else, then people will walk.

It's a subtle difference, but it's there.

II2II 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I live in a "walkable city". By walkable, I mean the old parts of the city that predated the automobile (and weren't destroyed in the name of modernization) are walkable. New parts of the city are completely unwalkable. If you came here, you would notice that massive numbers of people walk in the old parts of the city. Even the people who drive into the old parts of the city tend to walk once they are there. In the new parts of the city, virtually all of the pedestrians you see are on their way to or from a bus stop.

That said, there is more to a walkable city than a bunch of sidewalks. It also has to offer what people want and what they want must be easy to access. Something similar can be said about piracy. It wasn't streaming services that stymied piracy, it was cheap and easy access to legal sources of music and video. Even then, cheap was likely a secondary factor (as long as the price was reasonable).

cyberax 5 days ago | parent [-]

> By walkable, I mean the old parts of the city that predated the automobile (and weren't destroyed in the name of modernization) are walkable.

OK. Here's my question: is it possible and feasible to NOT walk?

Because when the answer is "yes", people tend to not walk.

II2II 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It is both possible and feasible to drive in the old parts of the city. It is a North American city, so old is not that old. It just predates the automobile. Yet virtually all of the roads are plenty wide for two lane traffic, on street parking and sidewalks. What differs most significantly is land use patterns. More stuff (homes, businesses, schools, parks, etc.) are within walking distance. One could argue that parking is problematic, but that is true of the core of every city I've been in. Even the modern car-centric ones. It should also be noted that plenty of people drive in the old parts of the city, it's just that people have an opportunity not to and plenty of people choose not to.

allarm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In many places where I’ve lived people walk just for fun, because it’s enjoyable activity.

djtango 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I knew plenty of people in London who chose to walk 30+ mins. This is over other available options like ebike, bus, underground and taxi - simply because it is pleasant.

GuinansEyebrows 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it's a welcome change from "if you build a driveable city and then make it impossible to do anything else, then people will drive".

marcus_holmes 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Absolutely not true. If anything, the opposite is true - people will walk unless/until you make the city unwalkable.

toomuchtodo 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Still good!

hxtk 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Streaming services were great back when they were separate from content producers and IP holders.

Once every media company became a streaming company and started using anticompetitive licensing practices in an attempt to drive viewership to their own platforms, the market fractured too much for it to be profitable.

Something smells “prisoner’s dilemma” about it: the best move for any individual streaming service is to have exclusive content (and the best-positioned players to do that are the studios), but when everyone does that, it decreases the overall profit available in the market more than it increases their slice of the pie.

jacobgkau 6 days ago | parent [-]

> more than it increases their slice of the pie.

That's the part that might not be true, unfortunately. If each individual content producer sees more return on their own streaming service than they did sharing revenue from one of the independent services, then that's better for them, even if the total pie got smaller. If that wasn't the case, you'd think we'd see some of them shut their services down and go back to independent services once their income drops.

Sacrificing a wide audience to extract more from the most dedicated portion of the fanbase isn't an entirely new concept, and it financially makes sense short-term (until you start losing some of those dedicated fans over time and don't have the mindshare outside your bubble to attract new ones).

baby_souffle 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think we will see this eventually.

Once Netflix isn't the only one that doesn't share their monthly subscriber numbers anymore, we'll know that they're beginning to at least question why they own everything instead of license their content out

withinboredom 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They just have to out-survive the competition, selling theme park tickets and merch. Oh, and putting hit movies in theaters.

The streaming service itself doesn’t need to be profitable.

izacus 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Copyright is inherently monopolistic and violates basic rules of free market like supply and demand.

You can't talk about those rules when a single publisher corporation commands exclusivity deals and dictates pricing essentially forever.

sneak 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nah; copyright is a monopoly on specific media/titles. It breaks all of the “market willing to provide” mechanics because there is no free market for Star Wars, it’s Disney or FOAD.

Pray they do not alter it further.

CivBase 6 days ago | parent [-]

Bingo. When distributors get exclusive rights to media, there is no competition anymore. You either do whatever the publisher wants, pirate, or go without.

area51org 6 days ago | parent [-]

The aggravating part about this: that was not the intention of the copyright clause. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Authors and inventors. Authors and inventors.

Not companies. Not entities, or even individuals, who purchased the "rights" and now "own" works. That has nothing to do with the intent here, which was to encourage actual authors and inventors to make more stuff. Walt Disney has been gone for more than half a century; he's not going to be able to come up with another Mickey Mouse.

"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron. Pray, tell me, which part of my brain does Disney own? Do they own the part that knows what Mickey Mouse looks like?

crote 6 days ago | parent [-]

And it has only gotten worse since then. A copyright for a decade or two is completely reasonable, but "life of author, plus 70 years" benefits only large companies. Someone is violating your rights? Good luck suing them if you are an indie creator! Want to create a parody, which is totally legal? Sorry, you can't upload it anywhere - all the hosting companies decided to apply Copyright 2.0 instead!

Levitz 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Supply and demand rules go out the window when the product is infinitely replicable.

gmueckl 5 days ago | parent [-]

Digital video is a big enough amount of data that replication at scale takes up a significant amount of netural resources and energy. That is true both for storage and transmission/streaming.

TheOtherHobbes 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Supply and demand means that corporations attempt to maximise their revenue. If the cost of providing a good service eats into their profits, they will provide a bad service.

This idea that "markets will provide" is eccentric, and obviously empirically wrong.

Markets are there to extract value and reinforce power imbalances. Consumer happiness is reliably at cross purposes with that.

franciscop 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IMHO not really, supply here is the limiting factor since the constrain is in licensing the work. The goal of the right holders is not to maximize access to the work or those stated by OP, but to maximize profit for the company, which when at odds with those other goals still prevails.

e.g. someone calculated/believes that having a big catalog from Disney at X/month is more worth more for Disney than sublicensing to Netflix at Y/month.

l72 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I really wish we had laws that producers of content cannot also be distributors. That just creates perverse incentives to use content to lock people into their distribution platform.

If they had to be separate, that gives content producers the ability to cross license and those licenses to be better deals. We’d actually have competition in distribution companies as distribution providers would then be competing on price, quality, convenience, and other things that matter, not locking content away.

thaumasiotes 6 days ago | parent [-]

> I really wish we had laws that producers of content cannot also be distributors.

We have laws like that for beer and cars, and they're disasters in both cases.

Why would we want to implement an incredibly stupid idea a third time?

anonymars 6 days ago | parent [-]

I think you're going to have to back that up with a bit more than "it's stupid"

Here's a much more relevant precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

wrasee 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes I considered the same but decided to keep the point simple.

And I still can’t help but think that if there really was a large market of people willing to pay a premium for a more permissive access model then we might already see trends in this direction. My hunch is the most folk don’t really care and price remains the dominant factor.

The essential point of the article was that it’s higher prices that’s pushing people towards piracy (either through price rises or fragmented subscriptions). It wasn’t that it is the restrictive streaming model that is pushing people towards piracy.

I’m fact it was precisely this restrictive streaming model that was the one to finally beat piracy. At low prices, that’s already been proven and it’s higher prices that is brining piracy back.

wrasee 6 days ago | parent [-]

Unpopular opinion here but I wonder how much of the justification for piracy in this thread, broadly around what is perceived to be unfair business practices (“if only the terms were fairer and I would pay”), would actually stand up if the terms were actually fairer but the prices higher.

Or how much is really just the simple rational economic idea that piracy is better value for money.

cyberax 6 days ago | parent [-]

I personally buy physical media (BluRays and/or DVDs). But I often feel too lazy to deal with the content ripping, so I just download it.

I like Youtube Premium and I'm gladly paying for it, although I'm considering switching to an alternative YouTube client because the official YT App is crap. But then the creators will lose income from my subscription.

Sigh. I wish content providers just gave us API to get the content in exchange for payment.

phkahler 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>> having a big catalog from Disney at X/month is more worth more for Disney than sublicensing to Netflix at Y/month.

But sometimes that leads to really stupid things. At one time all Star Trek TV shows were on Paramount while all the movies were only on Max. I believe they're all owned by Paramount, but apparently the shoes are the big draw (the new series "Picard" was exclusively on Paramount) and they could get more profit by putting the movies elsewhere and collecting a bit more than if it were all on their service. GAK!

underlipton 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Food for thought:

There are (possibly) two streams of demand:

1) How much customers are willing to pay.

2) How much pirates are willing to risk legal consequences.

Both represent sides of the implicit and intrinsic demand that drives acquisition.

prepend 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, because the owners of content libraries make more money with silos.

They won’t license content to third parties. So market forces can’t work.

8fingerlouie 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>I didn't even mention that it's free or that there are no ads

It's free in the same way shoplifting is free, until you get caught. You are very much in violation of copyright laws if you pirate.

hbn 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

If buying things at the store was as painful as watching stuff on streaming services, and shoplifting was as low risk as torrenting, and my stealing an item didn't make that item disappear from the store, I'd probably do it there too.

Levitz 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can name at least one country in the European Union in which torrenting copyright content for personal use is legal, people still do very much use spotify and netflix.

Gabe Newell got it right from the very start, piracy is a service problem.

kaliqt 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Only consequences, physically speaking the two are not the same at all.

Copying of anything digital is not actual theft, nor will it ever be.

ryandrake 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

"You wouldn't download a car!"

Wait, I absolutely would download a car if I could... or food... or clothing... I'd download the shit out of physical goods if the technology existed. Who wouldn't? You could solve scarcity. If we had Star Trek Replicators, we'd be living in a literal utopia.

jiggawatts 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks to 3D printing this is starting to become reality and not just science fiction.

cammikebrown 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The “download” catchphrase is a joke, it was originally “You wouldn’t steal a car”, which I’d argue is true for most people.

PenguinCoder 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Stealing a car deprives the owner of their product. Privacy does not. They still have access and ownership of it. But now, you do too.

theshackleford 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> it was originally “You wouldn’t steal a car”, which I’d argue is true for most people.

Sure, but it's only true if you stretch the definition of what's occuring. If we stretched it in the other way, in that "stealing" a car in fact left the perfectly fine original right where you found it, the vast majority wouldnt think twice.

withinboredom 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So long as you’ve paid for it before… maybe not. In many jurisdictions you are entitled to a backup. The fact that you have to pirate it… might be a gray area.

nh23423fefe 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

no true scotsman

wordsmithing on theft is the only defense thieves have

gooosle 5 days ago | parent [-]

How dare you steal these hn comments by copying them over to your PC using your browser? Thief!

robertoandred 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you sneak into concerts or hop turnstiles too?

viraptor 5 days ago | parent [-]

Those actually take the resources away (space at the venue for example). In piracy that's not the case.

probotect0r 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course it's theft. The owner of that content didn't intend to give it to you for free, they expected to get paid for their work.

const_cast 6 days ago | parent [-]

I could copy A New Hope once for every atom in the universe, and no money is lost and the original continues to exist.

Theft is moving stuff. You can't move software or digital assets, you can only copy them.

If I committed a burglary and instead of taking your TV I go to Walmart and buy a copy, then that's not burglary. You certainly wouldn't report me to the police.

tzs 5 days ago | parent [-]

Then how come a month ago you were talking about preventing zero-days from stealing files: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44578850 ?

const_cast 5 days ago | parent [-]

This is the worst no you I've ever seen.

I'm not concerned about my files being leaked because that's stealing. I'm concerned because they hold sensitive information that can be used for actual stealing, like for example with money.

Malware isn't bad because it's stealing. That's stupid. I know you know it's stupid, so I don't know why you said it.

tzs 4 days ago | parent [-]

The point is that earlier you described a zero-day copying files as stealing the files, but now you say that copying data cannot be theft.

4 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
xyproto 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not comparable, because copying a bread with a bread copying machine should be completely fine.

probotect0r 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think analogy is comparable either though. With a bread copying machine, the baker of the original piece is not involved in creating the new piece of bread (other than the recipe), so it is more acceptable (though maybe not completely, if you consider that the recipe is also being copied) that the baker is not compensated for the new piece of bread produced by the copying machine.

With digital media, the creator is expecting people to pay to view the content. By making a copy and viewing it for free, imo, you are stealing the content.

ted_bunny 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Thank god they overturned Butter Krust v. Jesus Christ!

GoblinSlayer 5 days ago | parent [-]

And I thought religion of pirates is pastafarianism.

firecall 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends on where you live.

Copyright infringement is generally a civil offence in Australia.

Whereas theft of physical goods is generally not.

Penalties for copyright infringement differ between countries as well.

GoblinSlayer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Shops aren't there yet, but ISPs are. Where can I pirate the internets?