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

501–510 of 546 posts

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

#501

Post by ansible »

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…

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.

I had a similar experience last year trying to watch "The Orville" using the Fox Now app. First they place restrictions so that you can only watch the 4 most recent episodes.

And then the Android app itself was horribly slow and crashy. The interactive ads were annoying, but I could have lived with it if everything else had worked smoothly.

I'm so lazy these days that if it isn't already available on Netflix, I won't bother watching it. There's enough stuff on there that I can just watch something else. I'm also cycling through some Stanford physics lectures by Leonard Susskind, which satisfies my desires for intellectual simulation right now.

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

#502

Post by PMan74 »

ryandrake wrote: post #397
dingo_bat wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quality. I don't care that your algorithm thinks my network is not fast enough for HD. Just let me tell it that it's wrong. Or I could torrent and download something in actual HD within just a few minutes. This is so true. I have a decently fast connection (75mbps) and Netflix's own speed test tells me the pipe really is that fat. YouTube can play 1080p60fps content without breaking a sweat. But Netflix is always b…

Maybe your ISP is specifically throttling Netflix, but not their speed test?

I'm pretty sure their speed test (fast.com) is designed to hit the Netflix content servers making it difficult (impossible?) to throttle either independently.

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

#504

Post by Tijdreiziger »

Momquist wrote: post #271
baddox wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I started pirating things regularly many years ago, I'll admit that some of it was just the fun of having such a huge library of content available for free, combined with my "f * the RIAA/MPAA" attitude. I mostly grew out of that phase, and began pirating things mostly to discover new obscure content. What.cd was amazing for music discovery, and I definitely went to a handful of concerts and bought a handful of…

> But, at least for me, the industry has done a decent job of competing with piracy on convenience. It has, but the fragmentation that you mentioned is starting to seriously erode this progress. If the situation worsens on this front, I can definitely see a resurgence of piracy, again because of convenience.

The convenience factor is already catered to by illegal streaming sites mentioned in the article.

Anecdotally, out of the people I know, only two still pirate, but a lot use illegal streaming sites.

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

#505

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tracker1 wrote: post #463
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s your proposed solution? Tell the studio they can only sign deals with global distributors? Tell them to accept less money? Stop signing exclusive deals with regional distributors. If you're going to put something on Netflix, put it on Netflix world-wide. That doesn't mean you can't also put it on a streaming service based in France that concentrates on French language movies -- do both. Let them each pay you…

Distribution rights for huge back catalogs were sold to third party local to a given country/region distributors long ago. There's a lot of entropy there, and each has exclusivity to control distribution for the given region. It's not that easy to work away from. Which is why Netflix has been paying more to create or co-create content (most Netflix content isn't world-wide exclusive it seems).

> Distribution rights for huge back catalogs were sold to third party local to a given country/region distributors long ago. There's a lot of entropy there, and each has exclusivity to control distribution for the given region.

Which is another reason not to use regional licensing going forward, and pass laws to disfavor it in general. It increases transaction costs -- then when Netflix or any of your hundred other buyers wants global rights to a particular film, they have to negotiate with a hundred regional distributors instead of just the original creator. The transaction costs go from "N" to "N times M" where N and M are both large. And transaction costs make otherwise profitable transactions either less profitable or not happen at all.

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

#506

Post by Tijdreiziger »

robotresearcher wrote: post #387
abruzzi wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> b) Languages. Another thing. I buy most movies I like on iTunes, but I have an issue with the films one of my favorite directors; Werner Herzog. The company that distributes his films on iTunes has decided to mostly make his films available with only a dubbed English soundtrack rather than the original German with subtitles. Even though I don't speak German, hearing the original actors voices gives me a better feel…

Maybe you can switch to the German store for German language movies. Does that work or do you need a German address?

Even if it was possible, you'd have to switch back and forth between stores and maintain 2 separate accounts. Piracy seems like the more convenient option here.

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

#507

Post by skocznymroczny »

brooot wrote: post #291
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…

This is how Steam basically single handily defeated video game pirating. Newell himself is on record saying that piracy is an issue of not making something accessible enough, and he was obviously right. People will pay for convenience. We are no longer in the age of, "I want to watch/listen/play something, lets drive to the store". If the platform they use sucks, it will have the same problem. Last pirating site I wa…

I don't use Steam, but I also haven't pirated a game in a very long time. I basically only play free to play games nowadays. You can install Starcraft 2, Heroes of the Storm, World of Tanks, Guild Wars 2, Paladins and few other games and play for months if not years without paying anything.

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

#508

Post by georgeecollins »

taneq wrote: post #392
brooot wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how Steam basically single handily defeated video game pirating. Newell himself is on record saying that piracy is an issue of not making something accessible enough, and he was obviously right. People will pay for convenience. We are no longer in the age of, "I want to watch/listen/play something, lets drive to the store". If the platform they use sucks, it will have the same problem. Last pirating site I wa…

Convenience, sure, but don't forget that games on Steam are often deeply discounted compared with off-the-shelf prices. PC games (at least in Australia) are often $60 - $90 on the shelves. Many of these games can be had on Steam for $20 or less, and sometimes for only a few dollars in a bundle or on sale.

It's more expensive to put a game on a retail shelf for many reasons, not just the retailers cut. Steam also takes a cut. For retail you have to manufacture, you have to distribute (world wide), you have to maintain an inventory, you have to get packaging ratings and comply with retail rules. It only makes sense to do for the titles you have the most confidence in. Which tends to be the premium ones.
Post reply on HN