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

Popcorn Time 4.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#181

Post by crimsonalucard »

psychlops wrote: post #169
crimsonalucard wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to be honest with all of you. You all are doing something that is ethically and morally wrong and statements like this are only way too human attempts to justify the actions of things you know are clearly wrong. You can't find legal sources of swing manouche just like you can't find legal sources of the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da vinci. What are you going to do? make a counterfeit copy of the Mona Lisa then b…

Without disagreeing with what you wrote, you are conflating ethical and moral with legal and criminal. They are not the same and it makes it difficult to understand the foundation upon which you rest.

You're right, I didn't want to get into a philosophical argument on technicalities.

That wasn't the point. The point is that a lot of these technicalities are self constructed justifications. Illusions and lies we tell ourselves to cope with our imperfection. I conflate because I don't care about the technicalities, I'm talking about something primal and simple.

In its most simplistic form, this is what I mean:

If I create a work of art to make money or even for just limited showings and you copy it and distribute it without my permission, than you are doing something wrong and you know it.

That's all. My argument is saying that anything on top of that is an attempt to justify your actions.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#182

Post by Fnoord »

dylan604 wrote: post #138
1_player wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it being entitled wanting to be entertained by a piece of art or media? That is its very purpose.

Having wants is not being entitled. Thinking that one deserves and should have everything one wants is being entitled. The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be. If they are an artist creating solely for the purpose of making art for be people to enjoy, then your premise is acceptable. If the artist is trying to earn money for their work, then that is their choice. If the artist wants to rele…

We're talking about music from the 40s. The various copyright extensions are part of the problem.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#183

Post by 1_player »

dfxm12 wrote: post #129
1_player wrote: post #7

Say what you will about stealing, illegality, unsavouriness. If the film industry would collectively take their head out of their arses and provide such a simple interface and wide catalogue to the masses, they would make hundreds of billions. I would literally pay $50 a month for an official and legal version of this. The end users don't really care that it is not possible because "legal reasons". This app proves ot…

This doesn't really explain your position on why you don't just buy/rent $50 worth of movies per month. edit: I don't have Spotify or Apple Music. Can you expand on this without putting it in terms of those services?

Flat fee. All you can eat.

I don't want to do the cost-benefit analysis of "do I want to spend $X for this movie?". I can afford it, I'm not counting pennies, but when I see a price figure I spend a few seconds deciding whether it's worth it or not, and sometimes the answer is NO.

On subscription services you just click and enjoy. I'm already paying for it, the answer is always YES.

But there's a limit. I will not pay for 10 different services at $9.99/mo to have access to 70% of the movie repertoire. No way in hell.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#184

Post by time0ut »

1_player wrote: post #7

Say what you will about stealing, illegality, unsavouriness. If the film industry would collectively take their head out of their arses and provide such a simple interface and wide catalogue to the masses, they would make hundreds of billions. I would literally pay $50 a month for an official and legal version of this. The end users don't really care that it is not possible because "legal reasons". This app proves ot…

I absolutely agree on the rental risk factor. It discourages discovery of new things. In addition to that, the rental terms on these services suck.

Here's an example: A month ago, my wife and I rented Casino from Amazon Prime for like $3 or whatever. It is a long movie, so we paused half way through with a plan to finish it the next day. The next evening rolls around and we discover we only had 24 hours to finish it once we had started it. We just paid again cause its only $3, but also resolved to never rent from Amazon Prime again.

These systems are a worse experience than pirating. It doesn't have to be that way.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#185

Post by clarry »

sksksk wrote: post #30
awicz wrote: post #4

Serious question about torrents: How is this not stealing? I'm not trying to be judgemental. I certainly don't have any room to do so as I used Napster and the likes back in the day. Now with the advent of Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, etc, I'm genuinely curious to know the moral argument for using services and platforms that utilize torrents to distribute media other creators are actually trying to sell? Edit: Appare…

To me, stealing implies depriving someone of something. If I take your car, you don't have a car anymore. If I make a copy of your movie, you still have that movie. Arguably, you're being deprived of the money from the sale of the movie, but there are already other terms that can be used (piracy, copyright infringement).

> Arguably, you're being deprived of the money from the sale of the movie

And that's only wishy washy wish-I-had-money, nothing real. (And even that isn't really the case since sale and piracy are not mutually exclusive)

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#186

Post by scarejunba »

michaelmrose wrote: post #131
sbarre wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, one of the answers to your question is in fact: "accept that you do not get to consume that media". I'm not advocating for or against what you are choosing to do, but the position of "it's my only choice" is not really accurate. You have no inherent right to that media. Popcorn Time and other P2P file sharing tools are convenient, but let's not be hypocrites about it, they enable illegal behaviour and allow y…

You in fact have no inherent right to control other people's computers. It's hard to justify why you think that creators have a right to the contents of your hard drive and wallet. I don't remember being party to the social or legal contract that created such rights nor realistically do I have a voice in changing it. If society says that as a poor person in addition to having less of everything else I ought to enjoy…

Without judgment I find it amusing that these arguments rapidly converge to ones used by the participants on subreddits for shoplifting and stealing.

I'm not saying the acts are equivalent, just that the positions are.

It also feels like statistically I should have read at least one comment where someone is convinced by argument that their copyright infringement is wrong but over twenty years on the Internet, I actually haven't. Very interesting.

It's also pretty easy for me to not judge since I've done things of dubious ethicality myself: I've never paid for a full copy of a textbook. Either I've bought the Asian copy or I've been part of a pool-and-photocopy group. Even now I use scihub preferentially.

Interestingly, the scihub usage is more acceptable online than the pool-and-photocopy but in real life no one has given me any grief for either.

To be honest, I don't feel very guilty either. And I'd do it again. If I attempt to see it as something shameful, convincing arguments defending myself pop out. I suspect it's something in the shape of the elephant and the mahout - the justification comes because I've already decided what I'll do. What I'll do is not rationally justified - that's coming after.

I'd speculate (idly) that this is the same mechanism in other pirates.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#187

Post by 1_player »

antirapepolice wrote: post #87
1_player wrote: post #7

Say what you will about stealing, illegality, unsavouriness. If the film industry would collectively take their head out of their arses and provide such a simple interface and wide catalogue to the masses, they would make hundreds of billions. I would literally pay $50 a month for an official and legal version of this. The end users don't really care that it is not possible because "legal reasons". This app proves ot…

> If the film industry would collectively take their head out of their arses and provide such a simple interface and wide catalogue to the masses, they would make hundreds of billions. They are already making hundred of billions And will make more now thanks to house confinement Why should they change model just now? > I would literally pay $50 a month for an official and legal version of this. But I'm paying zero ri…

> They are already making hundred of billions

My point is they would make hundred of billions MORE. Some will still illegally download, but most would flock to such a service.

We're not all criminals because it's fun. We just hate the inconvenience of trying to watch a movie legally in 2020, especially if you're outside of US, or worse yet, outside of the Western world.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#188

Post by [deleted] »

beatgammit wrote: post #99
awicz wrote: post #4

Serious question about torrents: How is this not stealing? I'm not trying to be judgemental. I certainly don't have any room to do so as I used Napster and the likes back in the day. Now with the advent of Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, etc, I'm genuinely curious to know the moral argument for using services and platforms that utilize torrents to distribute media other creators are actually trying to sell? Edit: Appare…

Legally, it is stealing. However, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. However, you could also think of it like the digital equivalent of sharing. If someone purchases a movie or TV series on physical disks, they could loan it to you without breaking the law. In fact, they could even make a copy of the disk and not break the law. The only way to break the law this way is by having multiple copies…

[deleted]

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#189

Post by icarito »

I downloaded the 64bit Linux build and it has a strange executable called "payload". I moved it out of precautio and still launched the app, and it seems to work fine without this executable. What is this "payload"? Anyone know? A quick search didn't find anything relevant.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#190

Post by pb060 »

1_player wrote: post #7

Say what you will about stealing, illegality, unsavouriness. If the film industry would collectively take their head out of their arses and provide such a simple interface and wide catalogue to the masses, they would make hundreds of billions. I would literally pay $50 a month for an official and legal version of this. The end users don't really care that it is not possible because "legal reasons". This app proves ot…

I'd be happy to keep paying for a legal service if I could watch movies in original language (movies are dubbed here in Italy) with English subtitles. Doesn't seem to be technically impossible so is it due to legal issues? If so, isn't that insane?
Post reply on HN