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

Popcorn Time – Watch torrent movies instantly

getpopcornti.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–385 of 385 posts

Re: Popcorn Time – Watch torrent movies instantly

#381

Post by fenghorn »

alexose wrote: post #84

If you're interested in node, I highly recommend poking around the source files. Pretty amazing what's possible in a small amount of code. While the frontend is all Backbone, the real magic happens in its backend dependencies like peerflix ( https://github.com/mafintosh/peerflix ) and video.js ( https://github.com/videojs/video.js/ ). Edit: And, of course, the remarkable (undocumented?) API provided by subapi.com. Ch…

Popcorn Time 0.1.0 depends on subapi.com to continue functioning. Based on the source the API returns JSON file with the following structure: { movies: { [ torrents: [ {'quality': '1080p', url: 'http://url.torrent'}, {'quality': '720p', url: 'http://url.torrent'}, {'quality': 'undefined', url: 'http://url.torrent'} ], subtitles: [ {'language': 'en', url: 'http://url.srt'}, {'language': 'undefined', url: 'http://url.srt'} ], imdb_id:, title:, year:, runtime:, synopsis:, voteAverage:, poster:, backdrop:, seeders:, leechers: ] } }

Re: Popcorn Time – Watch torrent movies instantly

#383

Post by winningio »

gabriel34 wrote: post #368
chrismcb wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While B didn't agree to pay, B wanted to watch the works, (and C and D and and and) If B and C and D don't pay, then next time A won't make anything, and everyone loses.

Except A haven't stopped making things in spite of B's and C's and D's refusal to pay, because Z pays. Plus, from the get go, if there was a price tag attached to it, C and D wouldn't consume, only B and Z. So the loss is only of B's copy. C and D convinced X that A's product is good and X pays, offsetting B and more value is generated because more people watched the movie. I used to believe this was only theoretical…

You're just a common thief. Nothing more. Stop trying to justify you stealing from another person.

Re: Popcorn Time – Watch torrent movies instantly

#384

Post by gabriel34 »

winningio wrote: post #383
gabriel34 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except A haven't stopped making things in spite of B's and C's and D's refusal to pay, because Z pays. Plus, from the get go, if there was a price tag attached to it, C and D wouldn't consume, only B and Z. So the loss is only of B's copy. C and D convinced X that A's product is good and X pays, offsetting B and more value is generated because more people watched the movie. I used to believe this was only theoretical…

You're just a common thief. Nothing more. Stop trying to justify you stealing from another person.

I did not say nor did I imply at any moment that I pirate anything; not only pirates think about piracy. Comparing pirates to common thieves is a fallacy since it attributes the feelings we have toward common thieves to people who can't see the ones they might be hurting, and so can't empathize with them.

Someone who downloads a pirated copy of a work is not similar to someone who mugs someone or lifts a wallet on the street because it requires a lot more to visualize the one's from who you are stealing.

That being said I would like you to retract your statement about me, not because I'm not a pirate or a thief, but because you offended me.

P.S.: This is a place for the discussion of ideas, not for personal attacks. Come up with an argument and I'd be happy to debate the issue with you. Insult me and you will be breaking (again) the two first guidelines for comments on HN

Re: Popcorn Time – Watch torrent movies instantly

#385

Post by gabriel34 »

speakme wrote: post #374
gabriel34 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except A haven't stopped making things in spite of B's and C's and D's refusal to pay, because Z pays. Plus, from the get go, if there was a price tag attached to it, C and D wouldn't consume, only B and Z. So the loss is only of B's copy. C and D convinced X that A's product is good and X pays, offsetting B and more value is generated because more people watched the movie. I used to believe this was only theoretical…

By this rationale, if you had a way to sneak into concerts without buying a ticket, would you do so? If so, what percentage of the time? 100%? 50%? How would you decide?

It clearly depends on a lot of things.

Can I get into any show I want?

Is there social backlash?

Are there security concerns?

Is the experience the same whether I pay or not? How better or worse?

What's the price of the show, not in dollars, but in work I do for the rest of society?

Do the artists aggregate to my life?

How much does it cost them to be there performing?

If the wouldn't do it, would someone else?

Basically I think your example gets a bit overcomplicated because the current market is heavily distorted by giant recording companies. It is an area that is almost fringe economics because it involves feelings and quasi-irrational judgment of value. Should you ask me if I would steal a computer (not for necessity) or if I would sneak into the bus instead of walking I'd ask mostly the same questions, but the thinking process of the decision maker would be a lot more rational and, therefore, adherent to the models that shape our economy.

Post reply on HN