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

New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

dailydot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#161

Post by nwh »

bionsuba wrote: post #87
nwh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't torrent through the onion router.

Could you elaborate?

The Tor anonymity router is run by volunteers like myself. I donate several megabyte a second of my bandwidth to relay data for people avoiding censorship and protecting their anonymity. By torrenting through the onion router, you not only waste mine, but three other nodes bandwidth. It causes unnecessary load and attention to the last (exit) router.

For every megabyte transferred over the network, at least 6 is used (in and out) to ensure that the connection is completely anonymous. It's a waste of my money if its being burnt by asshole pirates.

If you want to know more about what the router is, there's lots of technical information on the projects website[1].

[1]: https://torproject.org/

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#162

Post by harshreality »

bionsuba wrote: post #87
nwh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't torrent through the onion router.

Could you elaborate?

The default number of tor hops in a tor circuit is 3. What would be 2GB (1GB + 1GB) of potentially metered/limited bandwidth for the sender(s) and receiver combined in a point to point connection, becomes 8GB of potentially metered/limited network utilization: 1GB for the downloader, 1GB for the uploader, and 1+1GB (down+up) each for the tor nodes in the circuit.

Given that tor node bandwidth is a precious commodity, it shouldn't be difficult to see how downloading large files through tor is a problem.

It's not just tor; downloading large files by any means through tor hurts the tor network. Tor happens to be by far the most popular means of redistribution of large files for which people would like to gain anonymity.

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#163

Post by rogerbinns »

twmb wrote: post #30
dangrossman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HBO knows it's 2013. It's built a Netflix competitor. They have the whole tech stack for subscription internet streaming running and proven. They're signing 10-year content deals with exclusivity agreements that simultaneously give them a future catalog to rival Netflix while locking Netflix out of acquiring the same top-quality content. HBO has all its ducks in a row, it's playing the long game. All they're waiting…

I'm wondering if partnering with Netflix and taking the potential flak from TV would be worth it. I don't see the reason for HBO to have HBO Go other than the tie in with TV companies. Would it be more profitable to pair up with Netflix or to sell their shows drm free easily online? I know I'd pay for that service in a heartbeat, and I wonder how many people who own cable (I don't) would switch to paying for the few…

Estimates are that Game of Thrones costs $6 million per episode http://www.contactmusic.com/news/game-of-thrones-costs-6-mil... and Netlix's House of Cards is around $4 million per episode. That puts things at the same order of magnitude. Here is a good article about the economics behind it for Netflix and HBO: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/economics-...

I'm hoping the idea of exclusives goes away - as long as the producer gets paid, who cares how the actual video was delivered (cable, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, DVD etc). Unfortunately in the battle for market share it is worth some of those video deliverers to pay more to lock out competitors, but it doesn't benefit the consumers.

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#164

Post by zacharycohn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #138
zacharycohn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated than sticking to outdated business practices. It's a classic innovator's dilemma. People pay to subscribe to HBO (tv). If people could get a lot of that content by subscribing online, for cheaper, then lots of people will switch over. Which means HBO disrupts it's own cashcow moneymaker with something that makes less money.

So who says it has to be "cheaper"? Charge the same amount for the streaming service as they get from the cable companies. The problem is not HBO, the problem is Comcast. If HBO offered all their premium content a la carte over the internet for competitive prices, HBO would be fine. They would make even more money than they do now -- except that the cable companies would collectively go berserk and retaliate, the fea…

Could HBO really justify charging 4x or 5x or 10x what Netflix charges with a fraction of the catalog?

No. People would ridicule them.

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#165

Post by beedogs »

GHFigs wrote: post #160
beedogs wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HBO Go requires a cable subscription. That immediately disqualifies it.

I don't understand. Netflix and Hulu are also subscription services. If it's about the price of a cable subscription, then brown9-2 was exactly right to begin with: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276396

No, it requires me to purchase a completely separate cable TV subscription.

I don't have, can't get, and don't want a US cable TV subscription. Even if I lived in the US, I wouldn't want to have to pay $100 a month for cable TV just for the privilege of paying an additional fee to stream HBO. (Feel free to now call me "selfish" or "entitled" or whatever the rest of the trolls in this thread have settled on to describe the actions of rational people.)

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#166

Post by beedogs »

GHFigs wrote: post #157
beedogs wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Correction: there are people like you who feel ENTITLED to consume every piece of entertainment and will jump through whatever hoops necessary to do so. You're acting like typing " http://thepiratebay.se into a web browser is somehow a Herculean feat that people are challenged with. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's actually easier than pretty much any other method of media consumption, by a fucking lot . Al…

People use the word "entitlement" because when you say this... I download shit because...there's literally no other way to consume said content ...you're making the assumption that you are entitled to consume that content simply because it exists, and that not consuming the content isn't even an option.

I like the part where you quoted me out of context to make me seem unreasonable.

The content is right there, for the taking. So I take it. If it weren't there, I wouldn't take it. (Duh.) How's that "entitled" activity? Are you that obtuse, or are you just trolling?

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#167

Post by jjkmk »

GHFigs wrote: post #157
beedogs wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Correction: there are people like you who feel ENTITLED to consume every piece of entertainment and will jump through whatever hoops necessary to do so. You're acting like typing " http://thepiratebay.se into a web browser is somehow a Herculean feat that people are challenged with. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's actually easier than pretty much any other method of media consumption, by a fucking lot . Al…

People use the word "entitlement" because when you say this... I download shit because...there's literally no other way to consume said content ...you're making the assumption that you are entitled to consume that content simply because it exists, and that not consuming the content isn't even an option.

To me this sits on the edge of discrimination. Take the example of literature / books being banned from N. Korea, or the internet being filtered in Saudia Arabia; we criticizes these actions, how is this any different?

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#168

Post by beedogs »

teach wrote: post #159
beedogs wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's available and I want it. What more reason do you need?

This is the sort-of sentence that some would characterize with the adjective 'entitled'. And this post, at least, isn't 'astroturfing'.

Well, they'd be wrong.

M-W's third definition of entitlement, which is the only one that even remotely fits, goes something like this:

"3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges"

So, your contention is that people who torrent movies believe they deserve the privilege of watching them, rather than that they may be doing it for any of a number of other reasons, such as the ones I and others have mentioned all throughout this thread.

It's a real stretch to say that, because the content I want to watch is unavailable to me in any other format at any price, that I must be some sort of spoiled prima-donna for typing something into a search engine and downloading something with a BitTorrent client. Pretty laughable line of argument.

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#169

Post by jjkmk »

GHFigs wrote: post #156
beedogs wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your relationships with your friends and family can't transcend such a trivial incompatibility as having not watched the same television show at exactly the same moment, maybe you should try watching it with them. Great idea; let's all fly cross-country once a week to watch a TV show. (You really haven't considered the feasibility of your 'solution' very much, have you?)

I contend that I have thought about this a lot more than you have, and that your incredulity stems directly from choosing not to think about it. But to respond, anyway: If your relationships with distant friends and family depend on you watching television shows at the same time, and you're unwilling to pay the asked price for those television shows, then yeah, maybe you should fly cross-country to see them. Because…

This logic might work in a utopian world, but think about it practically; were talking about business. If you have a product that is in demand, and people willing to pay for it. Find a way to connect your product with the intended buyer.

A practical solution is not to geographically exclude areas and markets and then argue that they should be flying to said countries to watch these shows.

This is the equivalent Republican style argument that the answer to poverty in the inner city is for students to obtain a MBA's.

Re: New Anti-Piracy System to Hit U.S. Internet Users on Monday

#170

Post by jjkmk »

corresation wrote: post #147
rohern wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am going to assume that you are an older person who has no real experience with "piracy" because the tone of your comment suggests a misconception about how it works. "Pirates" absolutely will pay. They pay to get the content as soon as it comes out and in high-definition. There are large and influential companies that have come to recognize the piracy is the result of failures of distribution, not pricing. The pri…

The fact that you decided to make this into some sort of young versus old thing is rather hilarious. Piracy is older than the internet. Some of us don't have the moral flexibility -- or quite honestly the time or the inconvenience -- to pirate. If you do, good for you, but the notion that it's new is utter hubris.

> time or the inconvenience

It took me less than two minutes to get the latest episode of the walking dead from a torrent site in 1080p quality about 20 minutes after it aired on cable tv tonight (commercial free).

I think your argument really highlights your advanced age and disconnect with modern technology.

Post reply on HN