Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 321 posts

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#311

Post by dorian-graph »

gnomewascool wrote: post #258
dorian-graph wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you provide people with easy, convenient, legal methods to consume the content in a way that works for them, for a price they find reasonable, then they overwhelmingly won't resort to illegal means. I've never liked this sort of argument because it makes it sound like people simply have to view this content, by whatever means necessary, like their life depends on (excuse my slight exaggeration). You don't have t…

You obviously won't die from not watching Game of Thrones. However, depending on your circle of friends and acquaintances, you might be excluded from social interactions. This can range from not getting occasional references, to not being able to participate in many conversations (during "peak" Game of Thrones a couple of years ago, they were a major and frequent topic in many circles) and hence being side-lined, to…

I assume the number of people who would be extremely affected in this way is quite small.

I've never watched GoT and I've being there when people were having those conversations, or when people were having watching parties, etc.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#312

Post by dorian-graph »

carlmr wrote: post #260
dorian-graph wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you provide people with easy, convenient, legal methods to consume the content in a way that works for them, for a price they find reasonable, then they overwhelmingly won't resort to illegal means. I've never liked this sort of argument because it makes it sound like people simply have to view this content, by whatever means necessary, like their life depends on (excuse my slight exaggeration). You don't have t…

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…

If it's either illegal or a poor experience. Either choose the poor exprience or nothing.

It is very much a moral argument as well as economics.

I wonder if it's attitudes similar to this that have landed us in some of these ultra-capitalist situations around the world.

"It's not about saving the planet, that's just a moral thing, it's just basic economics"

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#313

Post by Phillipharryt »

lostmymind66 wrote: post #296
Phillipharryt wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realise you're arguing against fundamental economics right? The convenience of paid services is a product, literally all products have a value so if you price it right then people will pay for it. If you somehow were able to price discriminate perfectly then you could completely remove piracy.

"literally all products have a value so if you price it right then people will pay for it" All products do have a value. However, you need to compete against easy and free with piracy...which is virtually impossible to win and unfair..especially if you aren't the person that created the product in the first place.

I'm arguing that the convenience is a product that can be sold. Piracy doesn't have that convenience so if you sold it at the right price you could beat piracy. It has evidently worked or media wouldn't have any sales.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#314

Post by giobox »

thatoneuser wrote: post #184
giobox wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full description sounds like a normal digital camera to be honest, almost as if someone has gone to great verbal lengths to disguise the fact it is simply a camera: "The optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light signals into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed." For many year…

TV licensing authority? That sounds unnecessarily dystopian.

Really? bizzare. Even the UK TV Licensing authority in the UK calls itself the the "Licensing authority"! Given it has legal enforcement powers and a team to enforce them the term "Authority" is absolutely appropriate.

"Since 1991, the BBC, in its role as the relevant licensing authority, has been responsible for collecting and enforcing the TV Licence fee."

> https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#315

Post by ElFitz »

Konnstann wrote: post #285
FollowSteph3 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone would be willing to buy a Laptop for $5 but pricing one at $500 doesn’t mean demand isn’t matched or the business model is flawed. It costs more than $5 to make a laptop. This is an extreme case but often I see the argument that it’s ok to pirate because it’s too expensive is a flawed argument. Lots of people want things that are cheaper but it isn’t always possible. That being said some companies abuse this…

The piracy argument is different to stealing because of the simple fact that there is an infinite supply of digital goods. If I steal a laptop, there is a real cost to the supplier, because they have 1 less laptop to sell. If I pirate a piece of software, they only lose out if I would have bought the software had piracy not been an option. "lost sales" are hard to quantify. Disclaimer: I don't pirate, and I sure as h…

There is a virtually (that bandwidth and storage aren't infinite) infinite supply of any digital good.

If nobody pays but everything else keeps costing money, there won't be any new digital goods. So you can't say there's an infinite supply of digital goods.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#316

Post by pbalau »

parthdesai wrote: post #193
shusson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> La Liga is struggling with piracy of games for long. They have been trying to make money of their product but struggle due to their whacky ideas and no care about fans. What are you talking about, La Liga is making billions of dollars [1][2] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2019/03/07/report-... [2] https://www.laliga.es/en/news/laliga-grows-20-6-and-posts-re...

Compared to PL, it absolutely is. Specially when you factor in the fact that Ronaldo and Messi both played in the league till last season.

Compared to PL everyone strugles. But you can't possibly suggest LaLiga are strugling...

PL is also a far superior product, the a/v is better, there is considerably more drama and the lower league, The Championship is almost on par. Football wise, there is a big debate. Entertainment wise, the PL is far better.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#317

Post by ElFitz »

lostmymind66 wrote: post #296
Phillipharryt wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realise you're arguing against fundamental economics right? The convenience of paid services is a product, literally all products have a value so if you price it right then people will pay for it. If you somehow were able to price discriminate perfectly then you could completely remove piracy.

"literally all products have a value so if you price it right then people will pay for it" All products do have a value. However, you need to compete against easy and free with piracy...which is virtually impossible to win and unfair..especially if you aren't the person that created the product in the first place.

I wouldn't really consider piracy easy, compared to Spotify, YouTube or (formerly) Netflix.

It is getting harder and harder to find what I want on Netflix though. And I am not going to pay 4 or 5 such subscriptions.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#318

Post by anoncake »

Phillipharryt wrote: post #235
lostmymind66 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you provide people with easy, convenient, legal methods to consume the content in a way that works for them, for a price they find reasonable, then they overwhelmingly won't resort to illegal means." I disagree. Music is cheaper and easier to buy than ever with things like iTunes and the various streaming services and music piracy is still rampant. Bars have very slim margins and owners will most likely never pay…

You realise you're arguing against fundamental economics right? The convenience of paid services is a product, literally all products have a value so if you price it right then people will pay for it. If you somehow were able to price discriminate perfectly then you could completely remove piracy.

> If you somehow were able to price discriminate perfectly then you could completely remove piracy.

And almost remove the consumer surplus.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#319

Post by hammock »

borumpilot wrote: post #286
hammock wrote: post #45

Tangentially related: there is a cool app called Tunity that "shazams" a muted TV, e.g. at a bar, finds the game and lets you play the audio from your phone - syncing it perfectly to the video picture that you shazamed. So you can sit at a bar or waiting room or somewhere with muted TVs, and listen to the audio of the game.

...when the venue has a hearTV device installed and you are connected to their network... But cool nevertheless.

I don't know what heartv is. I used it at a random bar and it just synced to the audio fingerprint.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#320

Post by dwild »

latexr wrote: post #306
dwild wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The thing is the illegal market ONLY has to pay for the delivery methods 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’…

How can you both say...

> Rather, my argument was that for a legal service to displace piracy, it would need to be closer to its advantages.

and

> I was not concerned with the feasibility of such a service.

in the same paragraph?

I'm arguing that it's not feasible. I'm arguing that you can't compete, thus "if a good enough service would exist" return "false" all the time. That's it.

> Right now, it’s getting farther away.

It's not getting farther, it's at the same place, you are just paying the true cost of the service.

Post reply on HN