201–210 of 229 posts
If it's not on Netflix or any streaming provider, I have no choice but to pirate it. Plain and simple. Most media content is still outside the main providers.
Pro-tip: You can now digitally rent basically every movie from Youtube or Amazon. Services like https://www.justwatch.com/ make it easy to not break the law. I used to use Popcorn time all the time, but honestly it kinda feels good to not steal /shrug
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh I don't think it's a conspiracy; I think it's just network congestion. Torrent traffic has been QoSed to hell for a long time (as it should be tbh), so when there's congestion it's the first thing to get dropped. FWIW I'm getting a lot of frameskips from my video chats, so I think it's legitimately congested.
> as it should be tbh Absolutely not. There are very legal reasons torrents are used (its great for releasing large datasets). Isps should treat all data the same.
It's more about latency sensitivity than anything; but with asymmetric connections (which many ISPs, particularly cable, are forced into for very good technical reasons) Torrents in particular can have a disproportionate impact on available upstream bandwidth. For that reason, most ISPs will crush Torrent downstream to limit upstream data rates (which they can't QoS as easily). I can't say it's the wrong call; and it has nothing to do with the legality of whatever people are downloading.
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…
> I live in Spain, country where I pay a compensation copyright tax for every ... I don't know specifically about Spain, but this 'copyright tax' [that was introduced in most, if not all European countries, probably a directive] was for you to legally be able to create copies on your devices of legally acquired contents. The interpretation you have been giving it, is mentally satisfying, but not legally tenable There…
But yeah "I took a backup but lost the original, good thing I took the backup!" ;).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 cer…
What's going on with your 'philosophy' now is a complicated attempt at justification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, if there's no alternative to supporting creators (directors, actors, camera ops, costuming, set dec, etc) then I'm going to keep supporting them the standard way today.
But following the existing law doesn't mean that I can't also explore, create, advocate for _new_ technology that makes cutting out the middle man more feasible. Or heck, supporting new legislation that makes things better too.
I just don't believe that this current system is fundamentally evil, but rather just "less than great". Therefore I can't justify breaking the law in this case.
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…
The legal system in your jurisdiction may disagree with you on that one.
> It's hard to justify why you think that creators have a right to the contents of your hard drive and wallet
I never tried to "justify" creators doing anything to your computer or anyone else's? Show me where I said that? That's a preexisting grindy-axe you brought along with you, friend..
I simply said that P2P file sharing denies content creators (big and small) control over the use of the works they own.
Which is strikingly similar to your position that other people shouldn't control your belongings, don't you think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is an absurd assertion. iTunes predates Kazaa by several months and iTunes never had any P2P capabilities.
It's not entirely absurd IMO, it could be that iTunes did so well because Kazaa, et al., had laid the groundwork for an expectation of "any tune, any time" and iTunes came closest to that?
What did they change?
They likely have a release notes...
https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-desktop/blob/v0....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I live in Spain, country where I pay a compensation copyright tax for every ... I don't know specifically about Spain, but this 'copyright tax' [that was introduced in most, if not all European countries, probably a directive] was for you to legally be able to create copies on your devices of legally acquired contents. The interpretation you have been giving it, is mentally satisfying, but not legally tenable There…
It still is a ripoff. Nobody says I'm going to use that storage to take copies. But yeah "I took a backup but lost the original, good thing I took the backup!" ;).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used some of that $10k per seat software (AutoCAD and Revit). While that is expensive, businesses pay it because 10k is the revenue from one project using it. A very small project at that. It is also much easier to track down and sue a business compared to someone watching a movie alone in their room. Companies that sell that software like Autodesk and Adobe also have the sense not to worry too much about indivi…
I’m not commenting on the efficacy of DRM. For movies and shows, to me it’s a speed bump to try and keep people who don’t really mean to steal, but would gladly copy the disk and give it to all their friends as a favor. Gaming and software is also pretty similar, it’s a speed bump. Maybe keep you from casually copying the software onto everyone’s machine. Denuvo showed the game industry DRM can buy you some freedom f…