301–310 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their product used to be a box that encoded video off cable and sent it to your devices over the network. But now they have their own streaming service that carries cable TV content.
Slingbox and Sling TV have no relation: http://support.slingbox.com/en-US/KB/KB-8024.aspx
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly my point. I don't get the whole "if the service isn't cheap or convenient enough, piracy is fair game" argument that gets thrown around on HN all the time.
What is so hard to get about it?
"Is it ok for a business to pirate another business's sports video to attract customers for game day profits?"
is a different moral question to:
"Is it ok for an individual to pirate a song because it's not available as FLACC/without using always online garbage electron app/ abusive DRM/unethical practices of rights holder?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is so hard to get about it?
I believe what's happening here is that 2 different conversations are being fuzzed together/equivocated here, when they are very materially different. "Is it ok for a business to pirate another business's sports video to attract customers for game day profits?" is a different moral question to: "Is it ok for an individual to pirate a song because it's not available as FLACC/without using always online garbage electro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not watching game of thrones, but I can't quite see the connection here. The argument doesn't really depend on people finding they have to view something. They want to view it, so they look at the offering, which is illegal with bad customer experience or legal with better customer experience. They weigh their options according to their preferences, illegal VS legal, ad riddled pages vs smooth experience, having…
I mean but say for example I want a promotion but my boss is deciding between two people. I could work harder and expect that he chooses me or I could go and murder the other person. I weight my options and turns out murdering him is the easy way out so I choose that. You can't say it's not a moral argument when one option is breaking the law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the overall legal experience good enough that most people wouldn't need to resort to illegality This fail when the content is the product. Sure you can improve the delivery method, but at the end of the day, you got to pay for both content and the delivery method, while the illegal market only has to pay for the delivery method. The VPN market is flourishing, many people pay to get into private torrent trackers and…
> The VPN market is flourishing, many people pay to get into private torrent trackers and rent seedbox to makes sure they can seed as much as they need to stay there. If there was a legal method which worked as well as the illegal one (including quantity and offline capabilities) and cost the same as the VPN / seedbox, I doubt most would stay with the illegal content. Many would never switch because they stick with t…
And I felt I repeated myself too much in my comment. The thing is the illegal market ONLY has to pay for the delivery methods, without any expectation of profit margin, or paying for bandwidth, but I'm okay ignoring that considering that the delivery methods is a tiny fraction in the cost of production.
> Netflix worked to reduce piracy because you felt they had everything.
At each price increase to keep being able to support such a big selection, there just so many people saying they would go back to illegal downloads...
Again, the argument is VALID the thing is, the cost is about DELIVERY methods, not about FULL PRODUCTION. Theses peoples don't care about that. They want the best deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The VPN market is flourishing, many people pay to get into private torrent trackers and rent seedbox to makes sure they can seed as much as they need to stay there. If there was a legal method which worked as well as the illegal one (including quantity and offline capabilities) and cost the same as the VPN / seedbox, I doubt most would stay with the illegal content. Many would never switch because they stick with t…
> If there was a legal method which worked as well as the illegal one (including quantity and offline capabilities) and cost the same as the VPN / seedbox, I doubt most would stay with the illegal content. And I felt I repeated myself too much in my comment. The thing is the illegal market ONLY has to pay for the delivery methods, without any expectation of profit margin, or paying for bandwidth, but I'm okay ignorin…
Which is an extension of your first paragraph, which is not what I was replying to, hence why it wasn’t the section I quoted.
Your argument further down was that you no longer believe (“I believed that argument for far too long”) that “illegal content would happen less if a good enough service would exist”. Well, a “good enough” service doesn’t exist. My suggestion was that for some of these pirates, a “good enough” legal service would need to allow them the same advantages they have with piracy, and cost the same as what they pay now for a VPN / seedbox.
I was not concerned with the feasibility of such a service. Rather, my argument was that for a legal service to displace piracy, it would need to be closer to its advantages. Right now, it’s getting farther away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sports in bars is a very different experience with sound on vs. off. Without sound, it's a background distraction that a few folks may be interested in. With sound on (even if the commentary is indecipherable), it's a collective experience that holds everyone's attention. Usually the bar will mute or put on music during commercial breaks. I do wonder if alternative commentary would ever catch on. Imagine if instead o…
Personally, I feel a slapstick comedy track would work best. /joke What could work really well is some live radio, podcast, twitch of commentary to supplement the detectable pirated audio. The biggest issue would be syncing the video and audio.
Charge bars a few dollars for the feed, and watch 'em rake it in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can use YouTube TV. It's $50 a month. https://tv.youtube.com
Fubo is $55 and Sling is $35-55. Disney+ will soon start charging... And it starts to add up and we're back to where we started. Also, I believe Disney+ will fail because there are not enough Disney diehards who want a subscription specifically for Disney shows. Disney shows get watched because "oh, cool, they have Disney." Ergo, they don't go looking for it.
Sky Sports use a far simpler solution that doesn't violate anyone's privacy. The satellite feed that's licensed for public venues has a small beer glass logo burned in to the image. The amount of beer in the glass changes every day on a pseudorandom basis. An inspector can check whether a pub has the right license simply by looking at the screen - if the glass is missing or contains the wrong amount of beer, it's an…
I've heard stories of pint glass stickers being stuck to the screen to get around this. Probably just an urban legend but amusing to think about nonetheless.