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

Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

bandaancha.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 482 posts

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#351

Post by duskwuff »

xienze wrote: post #231
lostlogin wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browse r/homelab and your view might change. Wondering which of the 8 providers has your show is lame.

> Wondering which of the 8 providers has your show is lame. Yep, but there is a solution. Buy physical media and rip it. You get basically the best quality available _and_ a backup at the same time. You don't have to resort to piracy to avoid streaming services.

Not all TV shows get a physical media release. Even when they do, it's not uncommon for them to be lower quality than the streaming release. (For example, the streaming release of The Expanse was 4k HDR, but the Blu-Ray release is 1080p SDR.)

I expect this will only get worse in the future - physical media is an increasingly niche product.

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#352

Post by iamzenitraM »

otterley wrote: post #202
calgoo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But cloudflare has no issue blocking the content if they receive a court order. The issue here is that La Liga wants to be able to get content blocked because they say so, and it has to be done right now. I also don't support these organizations that destroy the sports that people love, force you to subscribe to different services as each game and "liga" has made their own deals to make as much money as possible. Unt…

DMCA notices (and whatever the EU equivalents are) are designed to avoid the need for court orders. Every service provider that sends content is obligated by law to cease sending the content upon receipt of that notification. CF ignores them because they believe (mistakenly in my view) that the law doesn’t apply to them. And every time they are sued for facilitating piracy, instead of letting the case to proceed to t…

Cloudflare famously ignores DMCA themselves for content they don't host, with their point of view that since they're a proxy and not a host they are not forced to comply, only pass the DMCA claim to the upstream.

https://www.cloudflare.com/trust-hub/abuse-approach/

Other than that, the legal situation on Spain is pretty dire for LaLiga. The Supreme Court already ruled in Spain that, as per the current writing of the law, football transmissions are _not_ works subject to copyright as they're not works of "art, literature and science": https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/ca/Poder-Judicial/Tribunal...

So it's likely that, if LaLiga sued Cloudflare or they made them party on any actual litigation, Cloudflare would defend themselves and possibly win. Therefore... they just don't sue them, only sue ISPs that have an incentive to just comply to any LaLiga request (as.. legal compliance and collaboration is one of the requirements for being able to buy rights to LaLiga matches in Spain. Yeah, no kidding, you can look it up in their public documentation).

Well, I lie. In a legal twist, they ended up suing Cloudflare for "participation in criminal activities", but not through the same avenue they sued the ISPs on (penal vs commerce court), with some interesting twists as accusations of "facilitating services to avoid the execution of a court order" - which doesn't make a lot of sense, as they're not even direct parties to that court order and they were denied taking part on it. https://okdiario.com/economia/empresas/justicia-imputa-ceo-c...

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#353

Post by otterley »

necovek wrote: post #340
otterley wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these "valid arguments for piracy" you refer to? Content isn't food, shelter, or clothing. It's a "nice to have" in one's life. It's literally entertainment.

They wrote them out. And digital media is similarly fungible, and media companies owning copyright can produce a single copy at insignificant cost — and illegal copies are usually produced at no cost to them too. If you would rather not consume content than pay with time and money being asked of you, there is no real loss to anyone if you consume an illegal copy.

> They wrote them out.

Convenience is not a valid reason to violate others' rights.

> there is no real loss to anyone if you consume an illegal copy.

There is a real loss: The owner isn’t getting paid when people consume their product for free and without their permission.

The entire point of copyright is to protect the time investment of and opportunity cost borne by the author when marginal reproduction cost is zero, or close to zero. This is because we as a society value intellectual labor. We want people to invent things and produce entertainment, and we incentivize it via the profit motive.

You can’t write software for a living and not understand this. It’s what puts food on your own table. Don’t try to rationalize it.

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#354

Post by otterley »

iamzenitraM wrote: post #352
otterley wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMCA notices (and whatever the EU equivalents are) are designed to avoid the need for court orders. Every service provider that sends content is obligated by law to cease sending the content upon receipt of that notification. CF ignores them because they believe (mistakenly in my view) that the law doesn’t apply to them. And every time they are sued for facilitating piracy, instead of letting the case to proceed to t…

Cloudflare famously ignores DMCA themselves for content they don't host, with their point of view that since they're a proxy and not a host they are not forced to comply, only pass the DMCA claim to the upstream. https://www.cloudflare.com/trust-hub/abuse-approach/ Other than that, the legal situation on Spain is pretty dire for LaLiga. The Supreme Court already ruled in Spain that, as per the current writing of the…

I’m aware of how they rationalize it, and it’s bullshit. They compare themselves to a router that passes through packets unmolested. But that argument is trivially refuted by the fact that their IPs are what their customers' DNS queries resolve to, and the fact that without being explicitly configured to do so, their proxies will not serve content on behalf of an origin. L3 routers simply copy packets between interfaces. A CDN is significantly more complicated than that.

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#355

Post by Manuel_D »

fluoridation wrote: post #349
Manuel_D wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the contrary, there is evidence that DRM increased sales. Researchers analyzed data on sales before and after cracks for video games shows up to 20% lost sales of a game is cracked quickly: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/10/the-true-cost-of-game...

What "to the contrary"? The statements "some people will not pay no matter what" and "DRM increases sales" are mutually compatible.

> There's a percentage of people who will never pay, it's true - and by never pay, it means never pay. You can't get them to pay by blocking or adding DRM or whatever.

The point is DRM can get people to pay who would have otherwise not paid.

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#356

Post by fluoridation »

otterley wrote: post #294
squigz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, people's reasons for piracy are a pretty even mix of all these issues (service problems, principles, and cost) I'd certainly pirate less if I could afford it, but even if I could, I'd still pirate a lot of stuff because I don't want to worry about what streaming service it's on this week, or because I don't want to contribute to monopolization of some industry. And sure, I'd still pirate some things…

What are these "valid arguments for piracy" you refer to? Content isn't food, shelter, or clothing. It's a "nice to have" in one's life. It's literally entertainment.

(removed)

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#357

Post by fluoridation »

Manuel_D wrote: post #355
fluoridation wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "to the contrary"? The statements "some people will not pay no matter what" and "DRM increases sales" are mutually compatible.

> There's a percentage of people who will never pay, it's true - and by never pay, it means never pay. You can't get them to pay by blocking or adding DRM or whatever. The point is DRM can get people to pay who would have otherwise not paid.

Yes, and those people are not part of the group who will not pay no matter what.

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#358

Post by croemer »

amarant wrote: post #344
tialaramex wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct Democracy is bad because even if people were capable of doing the hard work to actually decide on coherent trade-offs, for which there is precious little evidence, they do not have time which means we should hire a few people to do that hard work, and that's what an Indirect Democracy is.

I've always wondered if a hybrid system could work. You'd need a lot of voting infrastructure, and you need online voting, which means you need a reliable and quick method of online identification. Scandinavian countries fill those prerequisites, perhaps other places do too. The idea is basically that you give a politician a mandate to use your vote. Whatever your chosen politician votes for will count as their and y…

That's pretty much Switzerland. Indirect democracy for most things, but if enough people disagree with what the government does or they feel strongly about something the government isn't doing they can call a referendum.

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#359

Post by xenocratus »

stdbrouw wrote: post #215
Aurornis wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every new service is a colossal headache to set up payment, remember to cancel payment if you only wanted to see the single event and have no need for the service the rest of the year, find what's playing on what when I just don't find these arguments convincing after watching my friend spend cumulative hours upon hours jumping between pirate streaming services trying to find a stable feed for every game. This feel…

Before Netflix was a thing, I sometimes tried to have conversations with people about "gee, it's a bit annoying that my only options to watch a movie is to buy an expensive dvd that I will watch once, or to pirate it" and the most common response was complete befuddlement, they simply could not comprehend that someone might not want to pirate things if they could, they could not comprehend that besides being illegal…

> Now that you can just pay 10-20 euro for a streaming service

Now that you can just pay 10-20 euros for each of 124293507239841524352 services, one of which _might_ show what you want...

Fixed it for you.

Re: Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times

#360

Post by xenocratus »

Aurornis wrote: post #175
quacked wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a service problem. Every new service is a colossal headache to set up payment, remember to cancel payment if you only wanted to see the single event and have no need for the service the rest of the year, find what's playing on what when, deal with their bullshit when they add ads onto an ad-free plan that you bought only because it was ad-free, yadda yadda yadda. The suits could have had 10x as much money out of…

> Every new service is a colossal headache to set up payment, remember to cancel payment if you only wanted to see the single event and have no need for the service the rest of the year, find what's playing on what when I just don't find these arguments convincing after watching my friend spend cumulative hours upon hours jumping between pirate streaming services trying to find a stable feed for every game. This feel…

> I just don't find these arguments convincing after watching my friend spend cumulative hours upon hours jumping between pirate streaming services trying to find a stable feed for every game.

Then you haven't been through enough cycles of subscribing to a service, using it for a while, then wanting to cancel and realising that the only way to do so is through some baroque direct interaction with someone whose job it is to stop you from doing so, instead of it just being a single "cancel" button. I still pay for things, but I 100% understand why some are unwilling to have to both pay, and then put in the same amount of effort they'd put otherwise, just to stop paying.

Not to mention the bundling. For example, if I only want to watch climbing competitions in the UK, the only legal way is through a £34 per month subscription to a service that offers every sport under the sun. Even though climbing-wise you might have 4 events that month (sometimes fewer). So yeah, f whoever devised the model :)

Post reply on HN