141–150 of 509 posts
Truly. I purchased Murfie, and am attempting to re-build their business. It's a streaming service that leverages media people own to give them access to that content.
This feels like a targeted attack on my business plan by Disney. I can't see another reason it would be so targeted.
BUT... I believe the service I'm providing is legal and I'll fight this battle to the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read on a post somewhere that if you replace "the economy" with "rich people yatch money" a lot of headlines make more sense. "Last year, one study reported that digital video piracy costs the U.S. rich people yatch money $29.2 billion a year."
Yacht?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those people are not making less if I don't pay for a movie. The marginal revenue is all yacht money profits.
No, but the second-order effects of you not paying may very well affect them in the future. If the studios get less revenue and have to pay more for enforcing IP law, they have less money for new productions and therefore less jobs and salary for the people producing the content. And I don't see why you should have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor without paying.
I find it humorous to recall an early days of the Internet story in California. A certain large, loud, famous guy on the Internet had made money in the 1990s business environment of California. He bought an expensive house in the hills in the San Francisco Bay Area. He used his home address and local Internet connection to stream digital content immediately, and was quite vocal about that in groups, including in fron…
how so?
Since most if not all of these platforms are based in countries more friendly towards infringement it’s really not going to do much of anything other than be another law that gets selectively applied and abused.
The question of "did they profit" is a pretty low bar to clear. And in an era where people mindlessly exchange money via Venmo and similar platforms, it's probably not going to be difficult to find a union of the set "was granted access to plex account" and "has exchanged money in the past." I've seen prosecutors try to sell some rather asinine arguments, so there might not even be a requirement for money to change hands to be considered selling "for-profit," maybe bringing over some pizzas once or something is enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a common misconception that piracy is a loss of business. It's nothing more than an overestimation in profits. How can companies say they lose profit when the only realistic way I see for that is someone getting a refund and spending it on a competitor?
It may not be everyone, but there are a number of pirates who would buy a subscription to a legal streaming service if illegal streaming was not as easily available.
But of course that would send even more to piracy....
It makes you wonder if Steve Jobs was correct that people that pirate (songs, Napster back in the day) would be willing to pay for music if it was easy (iTunes) and cheap ($0.99).
I'm not sure if I agree but it is an interesting foil.
I'm disgusted by the comments on HN every time media theft is mentioned. It costs money to make movies, TV shows, and music. There are millions of people whose careers depend on it. Most of the people involved make less than your average HN media pirate. Yes, like everything else, the people at the top make more. Yes, there are shitty UIs, DRM, and absurd rules preventing fair and convenient use of media even if you…
No, other people are unilaterally making up rules and applying them to me. I would happily live in a society without IP, but am not permitted to do so. Those who support IP demand it globally, at the barrel of a gun.
It costs you nothing to not infringe.
Do you also want to live in a society without personal property? Can I come to your home to borrow anything you aren't using at the moment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correction: They shipped the feature at launch but it had a bug where some copyrighted material was missed.
If you "ship" a feature that only works if it always works and it doesn't always work, does that really count?
This title is misleading: > The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act would apply only to commercial, for-profit streaming piracy services. The law will not sweep in normal practices by online service providers, good faith business disputes, noncommercial activities, or in any way impact individuals who access pirated streams or unwittingly stream unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Individuals who might use pirate s…
If the United States’ populace elects its officials, why do the representatives act against the populace’s wishes? Is this typical of all governments with elected representation? Are they solving different organizational problems that most people are not aware of? I am curious how such a system arises, maintains itself, and is resilient to change.