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

The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

plagiarismtoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 546 posts

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#441

Post by jjeaff »

djsumdog wrote: post #188
jjeaff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But let's be honest, 99.99% of Kodi and Plex use is purely for pirated content. Otherwise, I'm not sure where everyone is getting all these non DRM digital downloads. And most aren't using special plugins with Kodi, they just use Kodi to play their content they get from torrents and Usenet.

They're just players though. Are you going to get onto VLC or mpv because they majority of their users play pirated mkv files?

They aren't just players. They are way more than that. They are specifically made to organize and display large collections of movies and TV shows. VLC or wmp doesn't have an integration with IMDb to download all the titles, descriptions and cover art for movies based on their Usenet/torrent standard naming conventions.

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of legal uses for Kodi and Plex, I'm just saying that people aren't paying for a Plex pass or spending countless hours on Kodi to catalog their personal home videos.

Neither program is even well suited to that. There isnt even an easy to use interface on either for including custom content.

But drop in a file names the.big.bang.theory.s05e11.720p.brrip.mkv and they both know exactly what to do.

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#442

Post by jjeaff »

mongol wrote: post #75
jjeaff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But let's be honest, 99.99% of Kodi and Plex use is purely for pirated content. Otherwise, I'm not sure where everyone is getting all these non DRM digital downloads. And most aren't using special plugins with Kodi, they just use Kodi to play their content they get from torrents and Usenet.

I don't think so. Would youtube account for less than 0.01 % av Kodi use?

Ya, probably so. YouTube is not even an officially supported service for Kodi. You have to install a 3rd party plugin.

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#443

Post by jjeaff »

Spivak wrote: post #42
ythn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But let's be honest, 99.99% of Kodi and Plex use is purely for pirated content. Otherwise, I'm not sure where everyone is getting all these non DRM digital downloads. Do you count digitizing my existing DVD collection with Handbrake "piracy"? I don't.

Nobody does (or should)-- it's not copyright infringement.

In the us it is illegal. Dmca violation since virtually all DVD and Blu-ray has DRM these days.

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#444

Post by sosborn »

imglorp wrote: post #220
phil248 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Torrenting for me has always been about convenience, not money. I recently wanted to watch a new show called A.P. Bio. It's free on NBC's website. But after struggling through one episode with lags and ads with no volume control, I gave up and just torrented the show. Until they master such exotic technologies as "streaming video" and "volume control" they're going to keep driving people to torrenting. Netflix figure…

I've been tagged for torrenting things which were broadcast over the air. The way I saw it, there was no way to get the show on my device and on my schedule, and the content provider was actually getting someone watching their program--with ads intact--for no additional effort or expense on their part. Financially, they won. They didn't see it that way :)

Financially they lost. They can’t sell advertising based on the number of people who pirate the show. Yeah, the advertisers made out (assuming you didn’t skip the ads) but the content producer did not.

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#445

Post by philliphaydon »

phil248 wrote: post #205
jimmies wrote: post #62

I can't read the article because the website is down. But I have something to say about torrenting movies. Late last year, my old parents who don't speak English came to visit me for a couple of months in the US. I'm just a graduate student with a limited budget, and my mom is car sick so we couldn't go out every night. I didn't want them to waste time on Facebook after dinner until we went to bed, so I had to think…

Torrenting for me has always been about convenience, not money. I recently wanted to watch a new show called A.P. Bio. It's free on NBC's website. But after struggling through one episode with lags and ads with no volume control, I gave up and just torrented the show. Until they master such exotic technologies as "streaming video" and "volume control" they're going to keep driving people to torrenting. Netflix figure…

Torrenting for me was because there was no other way. When I lived in Australia the internet was so bad and there was no access to Netflix, Hulu or anything. Once I moved to singapore I instantly went from adsl2+ giving me 1.8mbit to 1gbit giving me 800mbit average. And I could sign up for Netflix and Hulu.

The last time I used BitTorrent must be 6-7 years ago now.

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#446

Post by jjeaff »

sp332 wrote: post #21
rhino369 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea but who goes through the trouble of ripping blu-rays to put them on plex?

I do, because I only have to find the disk once to rip it. From then on I don't have to get off the couch!

Except that is a DMCA violation and just as illegal as downloading from a torrent site. Although, I would say, a morally superior option.

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#447

Post by sosborn »

jstarfish wrote: post #406
yellow_postit wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just don’t watch it. I don’t get why that’s so hard.

Nobody here got anywhere in life by making a habit of giving up at the first sign of resistance.

You know you are talking about tv shows and movies right?

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#448

Post by cerved »

eximius wrote: post #270
falcor84 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do note that hosting is actually only a very small percentage of where money goes. In 2017, Wikimedia received ~87M in donations while only ~2M were spent on hosting. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/da/Wikim...

What the hell? Why do they need my money if they have 50 Million dollars in cash or cash equivalents? Am I reading that right? And who the hell are their employees that are getting paid 33 million dollars a year? How many employees are there? EDIT: Reading a related comment's linked OP-ed, it appears that the Wikimedia Foundation spends a lot of money on non-wikipedia things. That is disturbing to me. I would like to…

Somone I went to college work works there

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#449

Post by cozzyd »

cocoggu wrote: post #401
icebraining wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what is the profit for movie companies in narrowing down their own market. The movie company sold the rights to show that movie in the UK to some other company instead of Netflix, probably for more money than Netflix offered them. Also, you're paying a fixed monthly fee, and unless you're part of the small minority that travels a lot, you're not likely to drop Netflix over not being able to watch c…

In my case, my life is spent between France and China where Netflix is inexistant. I won't cancel the subscription since my family in France is using it, but it would be almost pointless to keep paying only for myself. I don't understand this practice as well, when you are paying for a DVD or a VOD service which allow you to download the file, you can still watch it anywhere. Is it illegal to bring a DVD abroad? Why…

Well.. region codes (do those still exist?) certainly make (made?) it difficult to watch DVD's from abroad on many players.

Re: The Long, Slow Decline of BitTorrent (2017)

#450

Post by katastic »

eximius wrote: post #270
falcor84 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do note that hosting is actually only a very small percentage of where money goes. In 2017, Wikimedia received ~87M in donations while only ~2M were spent on hosting. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/da/Wikim...

What the hell? Why do they need my money if they have 50 Million dollars in cash or cash equivalents? Am I reading that right? And who the hell are their employees that are getting paid 33 million dollars a year? How many employees are there? EDIT: Reading a related comment's linked OP-ed, it appears that the Wikimedia Foundation spends a lot of money on non-wikipedia things. That is disturbing to me. I would like to…

If you look into it, Wikipedia actually looks very dangerously run.

They have consistently added more and more "community organizers" and other PR people, and actually ran on only TWO full-time software developers for years. It's no wonder the interface never gets any better. They spend a TINY fraction of their funds on actually delivering their only asset... content.

It only cost them 2 million of their 80 million budget to host Wikipedia for 2017. They spend the same amount... on travel.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/da/Wikim...

And there are "culture" employees making more than the tech:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...

Post reply on HN