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

191–200 of 229 posts

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#191

Post by pachico »

bschne wrote: post #180
pachico wrote: post #44

I'm a huge fan of swing manouche (jazz style developed during the '40s). I can't find albums in legal sources that I can instead find in Nicotine++ (a Linux version of the old Soulseek). What should I do? Accept that I won't find it? I remember once writing to an Aussie record label asking for a copy of an old album of Brett Garsed. They told me I wouldn't find it here in Europe nor they had the means to send it to m…

OT, but as a fan of Django who doesn't know any other artists of the genre - do you have some recommendations? :D

Really?! Start by this, listen to this radio (there are many more) and once you like an artist, find him in Spotify and look for similar artists. http://www.jazzradio.fr/radio/webradio/10/jazz-manouche

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#192

Post by DennisP »

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…

The purpose of copyright, according to the Constitution which gives the government the right to grant it, is to promote the public domain. It's not doing that very effectively now that copyright remains in effect 70 years past the death of the artist.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#193

Post by mindslight »

olah_1 wrote: post #167
mindslight wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels good to give financial support to regressive companies trying to put the Internet back in the bottle, destroy net neutrality, push us into proprietary platforms, divide online communities based on geographic location, surveil our behavior, etc? You and I have much different takes on what feels good.

> You and I have much different takes on what feels good. I think virtue is good for us and thus "feels good", because that has been my experience. I think following laws that aren't inherently unjust is virtuous. The only question is if these laws are unjust or not. (In this case I guess we're just talking about the laws of paying for goods.) > regressive companies trying to put the Internet back in the bottle, dest…

We can agree to disagree about following unjust laws. But we are not talking about "the laws of paying for goods", rather the much newer and specific laws restricting the copying of information. These laws are hardly immutable - rather they're continually being changed to extend their length and reach!

My problem isn't based on the overall economic system itself (which has been roughly in place for thousands of years), but rather with the colonization and locking down of cyberspace by that economic system. Just a few decades ago, we had a blank slate wherein we could invent new structures and norms. Now business keeps hammering on cyberspace to make it conform to the shape of the world it already conquered. As someone who enjoyed the frontier, and dreamed of what could be built, I cannot accept that.

The "creators" that are being paid less are the large dinosaur businesses that insist on ironclad copyright and control - indies have been rolling with the punches and adapting. From what I've seen, the main trend decompensating actual creatives in the movie industry is offshoring. The laws have been bought such that businesses can directly screw over human beings without a qualm, but yet us humans are supposed to feel bad about reducing the businesses' income, in hope the businesses might harm the humans slightly less? I don't buy it.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#194

Post by pachico »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #177
pachico wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be quite sure about the type of person I am and defining me grey is quite insulting but that's beyond what is being discussed here. You seem to have missed what I wrote a out having accounts of Spotify and 3 video streaming services. I am also tempted to tell you that you might want to revise you usage of the words morally and ethically and that these are probably more profound than to be applied to a kid…

>I am also tempted to tell you that you might want to revise you usage of the words morally and ethically and that these are probably more profound than to be applied to a kid wanting to buy an album but failed to find it. Having said this, have a good day. Don't make it profound. Make it simple. The kid couldn't find the album so he DLed it illegally. The kid is aware of this illegality at some level. That awareness…

Here's where you are wrong, also: it wasn't illegal (at least at the time - now I don't know since I don't download stuff). So, being that the case, all your profound, simple, philosophical or vague attempts to find this illegal, and therefore wrong, are useless, I'm afraid. As pointed by someone also, you seem to argue that illegal follows wrong but that's not granted. Legality is an attempt to out in practice a certain amount of ideas about what right and wrong is by a certain society at a given time in history, that's all.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#195

Post by pachico »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #174
pachico wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My specific case was live albums of a band named Waso, which were never printed in CD. The only digital copies were fans that owned original vinil records from the '70s and digitalised them. What do you do in this case? I remember downloading a copy of them and not feeling any kind of remorse about it. Not sure it helps but I was myself a musician and my brother plays too as is his only source of income. I know a bit…

Well let's put it this way, does the artist as the the creator of said art permit you to do such a thing? If the artist is okay with it great! But if the artist is not okay with at all does he own the rights to the art he created? Does he have the right to permit you not to copy his things? That is the ethical question. Did you have the right to do it without asking the artist for permission? What if one day the arti…

This is not an ethical question, again, this is, at most, a legal question.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#196

Post by ObscureScience »

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…

Being entitled doesn't mean "I should have anything I want without giving something up". It means that I believe that I have "payed" for this in some way. You may be delusional for believing it, or overvaluating you "payment" though. I would add that self-entitlement would be a good term if you are the only one who determined the value of the object of want and the value of your sacrifice.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#197

Post by ezzzzz »

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…

Not trying to be snarky, just something worth considering... Owning physical media is not as popular as it once was due to the multitude of streaming options available. Subsequently, the cost of physical media has gone down due to the popularity of streaming. If you pick up some $5 blue-rays for older films here and there, or hit up a used place, $50/month can go pretty far. Best part, after a year or so, you would have amassed a pretty sizeable collection of media, that is yours to watch, forever (as long as you retain copy of the media). Can't really beat that. Archive it and stream it with Plex or Kodi (which I think is legal, as long as you own a physical copy). Other commenters have noted similar sentiments, but I feel like the subscription services are just the new cable. Until a better option exists, I find physical media to have the friendliest licensing for users.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#198

Post by dylan604 »

pachico wrote: post #148
dylan604 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I remember once writing to an Aussie record label asking for a copy of an old album of Brett Garsed I applaud the effort at legitimately trying to get a copy. However, sounds like an opportunity still might exist. Small record labels are always hard pressed for cash. Maybe there's a business deal to be made. I'm sure they would be open to licensing the music to you. You could then release the album yourself, or mayb…

This was 20 years ago, my friend. The world wasn't as connected as it is now. I actually struggled to find out the record label!

Sure, physical media for the average consumer is no longer a thing. We sold vinyl records, and that is still a desirable thing for the niche markets. So, maybe just think of it from a slightly different angle/perspective. Make it a collector's item. Collectors want physical product to own/possess/show off. There's still a market for physical forms of musical recordings. If this is really a niche product, then cater to the niche market. The niche market knows/accepts it is niche and there's a bit of a premium mark up that can be taken advantage of here. Surely, you're not the only person looking for this type of sound. Capitalize on that like we did. Do it as a side hustle. Reach out to labels that own the rights to the track you like. Put together a compilation. Produce the physical product. If you don't do it, who will? Granted, it's way more work than just pirating a copy from someone else.

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#199

Post by golergka »

msla wrote: post #178
golergka wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's two conversations mixed up in one: one about what is, as in, a prediction of what we can expect people to do, without any value judgements, and another about what ought to be, as in, what's our moral and ethical opinion of this behavior. And while the second one is a very tempting rabbit hole of flame wars, the first one is very clear cut: if you give people access to everything (or almost everything) for a re…

> That's two conversations mixed up in one: one about what is, as in, a prediction of what we can expect people to do, without any value judgements, and another about what ought to be, as in, what's our moral and ethical opinion of this behavior. Economists are careful to distinguish between 'positive' and 'normative' economics, where positive economics is what's observed to happen and normative economics is what som…

This problem is older than economics itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Re: Popcorn Time 4.0

#200

Post by zmaten »

Anyone actually tried this update?

1. It deletes your favorites folder

2. An obnoxious blinking icon in the main page and a label while the stream is being prepared is trying to nudge you into buying a VPN service

3. The option to load subtitles is botched

Here if you want the old(0.3.x) version: https://get.popcorntime.app/repo/build/

Post reply on HN