$45 / month for power seems excessive. I have a home server where I selfhost a bunch of services and am using an 1080Ti GPU on it to mine Ethereum (65% or 125W) and it's costing me $18 / month in electricity to run 24/7 (the Ethereum I mine pays for all of it even now with the crashed crypto prices).
Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
331–340 of 415 posts
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes sense but on practical terms it's expensive and uncovenient to buy MP3s.
That is true. But if say Spotify costs $9.99 / month and you buy tracks for $0.99 or album $8.99 (average ~12 tracks, maybe $0.60). After three years you have a pretty big collection, like 600 songs. And it would just get bigger. I have sirius xm in my car, which is how I learn about new things. But you could hear new stuff via FM or YouTube. The truth is I don't spent $9.99 a month on average so maybe it is not that…
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#333Stop watching so much tv! Piracy is one thing, but wasting your life watching all of those “must have shows” makes it sound like your brain has been co-opted by the content producers. Maybe put down the remote and pick up a book?
>Maybe put down the remote and pick up a book?
Isn't that the same thing?
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? And how is that relevant to the core issue at hand... hoarding all of this data is your own personal decision and has nothing to do with piracy in itself. That's the issue. You are obviously free to do whatever you want, but hoarding data and then associating the cost of the hoarding with the source of the data is totally illogical. Trying to one-up me on some stupid explanatory comparison makes me wonder if yo…
I'm not complaining about the costs associated with this. I'm living well within my means. If I was concerned about the money I could probably spend more of my time to find the content on sketchy streaming sites like putlocker. I'm not sure why so many of the replies in this article are trying to interpret my post as some kind of call for help. My point was that piracy is a service problem.
Your personal expenses for hoarding data, or the practice of hoarding data, have nil correlation to piracy itself.
To add to this at this point,
> Streaming services still have significant service problems that need to be addressed.
This connection is irrational as well - the name "streaming services" already implies that content is being streamed for viewing and not downloaded for storage.
If you are under a different assumption, or concerning other issues with streaming services, yes, piracy might be a service problem, but on the other hand, there are options available to actually buy and download content that you can also store.
Really, these associations you are seeing are incredibly irrational and this might be a contributing factor to people assuming this would be a call for help. I do not assume it is, data hoarding is not necessarily a problem in itself, but that doesn't make your invalid associations any more valid.
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
Piracy and such hoarding are inextricably intertwined. If you want a particularly uncommon variant of some pirate content (like an obscure movie in any quality, or a somewhat popular movie in original BD format), you better grab it when it's available, as further down the line getting the exact same such content may be more and more difficult. Streaming services have a similar issue (re-encoding, bad rereleases due t…
That's the same for non-pirates in this rent economy where you don't own the things you buy anymore. And anyone I know who's seriously into movies, meaning they watch stuff far beyond the Follywood mainstream, is part of some online club/"pirate group" if you want to call them that, because there isn't another way to get a lot of the rare stuff. Even though someone may legally hold the rights, but they simply don't m…
This sounds pretty dreadful - "Follywood" is hardly clever I'm afraid to say. Especially when linking it to an elite snobbery of being "seriously into movies" .
But please hear me out - I don't mean to just rip on you for a turn of phrase. But there are a couple of things you are maybe overlooking that are sort of implied by tying these concepts together as you have.
Hollywood is a truly magnificent human achievement, but sometimes it's hard to see that when bobbing around in the waves of its deluge. Step back a bit and consider that in the past century it has produced a steady stream of narrative masterpieces that are shared by the whole world. That the stagecraft and special effects have given palpable form to impossible dreams, etc.
In less glowy-flowy terms, it is an overwhelming machine designed to produce and transmit pure culture. A major force in what they call "Cultural Imperialism". To a not insignificant degree it turned the tide in the Cold War, for example. You can see the struggle every time there is a news story about China demanding modification, or rejecting Hollywood output. Eventually Hollywood will win that struggle, even if it takes a few generations.
There are many countries with their own film industries, least of which is China, but including India, Japan, Korea, Italy France, and on and on. But none of them have had remotely the success, popularity or power of Hollywood. The place, the machine is an absolute Triumph.
But to get back to your unfortunate turn of phrase... imagining that you or they have some elite status due to watching films out of the mainstream - A major component of the Hollywood machine is using the mainstream films' revenue to subsidize genre films, student films and often picking up truly independent films. These are the elitist films you seem to be referring to, that or the film output of the other countries. This range of films have always been a part of the machine, since the early days a century ago. Much of it is mediocre or clumsy. Sometimes they are shocking or disruptive. Sometimes they are genuinely brilliant or visionary.
But all of this obscure stuff that movie buffs are glorying in, ultimately this is just the output of the training ground for the Hollywood Mainstream. Consider Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson's filmography to see what I mean. Both started out making quirky indy horror films and once graduated began putting out $Billion dollar joints.
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not complaining about the costs associated with this. I'm living well within my means. If I was concerned about the money I could probably spend more of my time to find the content on sketchy streaming sites like putlocker. I'm not sure why so many of the replies in this article are trying to interpret my post as some kind of call for help. My point was that piracy is a service problem.
Again.. You are obviously free to do whatever you want, but hoarding data and then associating the source of the data with the cost of your data hoarding is totally illogical. Your personal expenses for hoarding data, or the practice of hoarding data, have nil correlation to piracy itself. To add to this at this point, > Streaming services still have significant service problems that need to be addressed. This connec…
Yes, that's true. My point was that I'm already spending a lot of money to pirate, and that I would be spending that money to support the creators if something like steam existed. Not once did I say or even imply I was unhappy with that situation, not once did I imply that you needed to spend that kind of money in order to pirate.
I simply said that I spend a lot of money on piracy, and that there's a significant service problem with streaming services. The implication one could draw from that is that if the service problems were improved I'd be giving the money to the creators, instead of spending it on hard drives.
Instead some people seem to think this is some kind of an attack on piracy as being too expensive. Which is a reasonable mistake to make under the circumstances, if I could edit the post to clarify I would. I'd just appreciate it if you weren't so... aggressively misunderstanding. The reality is that I do a lot of other data-archival stuff on that server as well, and have made no claims about piracy being expensive.
> This connection is irrational as well - the name "streaming services" already implies that content is being streamed for viewing and not downloaded for storage.
Since you seem to care about rationality, try giving this a read: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/A_Human%27s_Guide_to_Words
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#337> and it's probably costing me around $45 per month in power where do you live that I don't move there ? I rarely ever paid more than 20-25€ / month for electricity for my whole appartment, with multiple computers running 24/7 lol
Anecdotally: In Germany I pay about 100€/month for an apartment (with normal homeoffice PC usage). 3500-4000 kWh/year.
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Piracy and such hoarding are inextricably intertwined. If you want a particularly uncommon variant of some pirate content (like an obscure movie in any quality, or a somewhat popular movie in original BD format), you better grab it when it's available, as further down the line getting the exact same such content may be more and more difficult. Streaming services have a similar issue (re-encoding, bad rereleases due t…
> If you want a particularly uncommon variant of some pirate content (like an obscure movie in any quality, or a somewhat popular movie in original BD format), you better grab it when it's available, as further down the line getting the exact same such content may be more and more difficult. The constant availability of the pirated content is a big driver of the cost here. For some of the obscure stuff, this could be…
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#339I've quit pirating content a decade ago - combination of time, safety, priorities, and availability of legit content. I've considered getting back into it occasionally. Why: Convenience and access. From having everything on Netflix a decade ago, to now having almost as many subscriptions as I used to have cable channels, it's a pain (let alone a cost) to install dozen apps on my phone tablet TV roku etc. Their qualit…
Safety is easy. I download remotely, then have local snag from remote. Local is a custom server, on Pi, on an isolated network (with its own cable modem). Once the Pi receives a file, it transmits it over a modified optical link, where I cut the receive line on the sending nic board. Checksums are simple, and sent via email back to the remote server, checked, and I am alerted of wrong. My media PC is all that is conn…
Re: Tell HN: I probably spend more on piracy than if I just paid for content
#340Why not just pay $5/mo for a Plex share with tens of thousands of the most popular movies and TV shows? I haven't torrented or paid for content in years. If I want to watch something and it's not on the server, I message the admin in Bangalore and he adds it. Sure I don't "have" the content in the sense it's not sitting on spinning disks, but I don't care. Life is too short to try to collect widely available digital…
How long do you think that's going to last?
What these Plex share owners do is advertise first . Reach the number of users they need then go private and it becomes invite only . This what happened to the one I joined and it's perfect for 2 years now .
What I find odd about these Plex shares is the insane catalog they have which includes Vhs rips of obscure 1980s slasher films