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

Rarbg Is No More

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–679 of 679 posts

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#671

Post by lottin »

latchkey wrote: post #670
lottin wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You started with more than $13,500. You started with $27,000. Then you used those $27,000 as collateral to borrow $13,500. Once you pay back the $13,500, you get your $27,000 back. So, you never have more than $27,000 at your disposal, which is what you started with.

No, I started with 1 BTC.

Are you sure? Did it fall from the sky? No, it didn't. You saved up $27,000 and then you bought the bitcoin. So first you had to have $27,000, otherwise none of the subsequent steps would have been possible.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#672

Post by gamblor956 »

scotty79 wrote: post #660
gamblor956 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If artists are struggling it's because they're not getting paid properly by the corporations they work for, like Disney, Netflix, and others. It's not because of individuals like you or me or the people that run piracy sites. This is false. Artists get paid residuals, meaning, per sale, so every non-sale due to piracy is literally coming out of artists' pockets.

Not once in the history of my consumption of digital content has me not pirating something turned into a sale. Sometimes I pirate it, sometimes I buy it. Sometimes I consume something free instead. Sometimes I pay for the stuff I don't consume at all. But the substitution is always in the direction of cheaper, more available solution. Never in the direction of buying something. There were cases however when me pirati…

And yet, demonstrably speaking, not pirating something leads to actual sales amongst normal people.

It's truly bizarre that so many techies complain about the "cost" of artistic works while they sip their $20 lattes and go to their six-figure jobs with ergonomic chairs and free snacks.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#673

Post by scotty79 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #672
scotty79 wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not once in the history of my consumption of digital content has me not pirating something turned into a sale. Sometimes I pirate it, sometimes I buy it. Sometimes I consume something free instead. Sometimes I pay for the stuff I don't consume at all. But the substitution is always in the direction of cheaper, more available solution. Never in the direction of buying something. There were cases however when me pirati…

And yet, demonstrably speaking, not pirating something leads to actual sales amongst normal people. It's truly bizarre that so many techies complain about the "cost" of artistic works while they sip their $20 lattes and go to their six-figure jobs with ergonomic chairs and free snacks.

And yet statistically speaking piracy doesn't lead to less sales. It leads to more.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/eu-study-finds-piracy...

What's bizzare is that some of those rich people you mention actually internalized corporate made morality toward "intelectual property" and proselytize it as if that was their full time job.

To them piracy is and always has been theft, the way that Santa is wearing and has always been wearing red.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#674

Post by latchkey »

lottin wrote: post #671
latchkey wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I started with 1 BTC.

Are you sure? Did it fall from the sky? No, it didn't. You saved up $27,000 and then you bought the bitcoin. So first you had to have $27,000, otherwise none of the subsequent steps would have been possible.

I think I spent $200 in 2013 on it. Now that pet rock is worth more and I'd like to capitalize on it, without spending it.

Just like people invest in a house and take equity out on it. Or they buy gold because they think it'll go up in value over time.

Regardless, you're being pedantic at this point. Back to the original discussion, there is utility to crypto now, and I've proven a way.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#675

Post by lottin »

latchkey wrote: post #674
lottin wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? Did it fall from the sky? No, it didn't. You saved up $27,000 and then you bought the bitcoin. So first you had to have $27,000, otherwise none of the subsequent steps would have been possible.

I think I spent $200 in 2013 on it. Now that pet rock is worth more and I'd like to capitalize on it, without spending it. Just like people invest in a house and take equity out on it. Or they buy gold because they think it'll go up in value over time. Regardless, you're being pedantic at this point. Back to the original discussion, there is utility to crypto now, and I've proven a way.

Yeah, I understand... these type of loans exist in finance, they serve a very specific purpose.

The point is that, unlike consumer loans, such loans require that the borrower has savings before they can take the loan. For example, most people who take a mortgage do so because they don't want to save money for 30 years before they can buy a house. They want to buy a house now, and save later. A mortgage loan allows them to do precisely that.

These other loans don't, and so they're less useful. They aren't completely useless. It's just that in most circumstances they aren't useful.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#677

Post by creativenolo »

defrost wrote: post #600
creativenolo wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t know this but would like to know more. Can you expand on how they try to circumvent linking and do they circumvent it? It is surprising to hear because as a user they _seem_ like a link. Copy the link into something and get the (illegal) files.

Magnet linking is rather like standing on a street corner and regularly yelling "have you got any cannabis"? Here's a random RARBG magnet link that may or may not work magnet:?xt=urn:btih:468043aa374080fed5ff65e4cd8d4fed002986b5&dn=Rizzoli.And.Isles.S05.1080p.WEBRip.x265-RARBG It doesn't link to a file or embed any tracker names but it does name a 1080p HEVC (x265) encoded season pack of season 5 of a US police proce…

Great description - thanks.

I wonder if they ‘stand up in court’ and/or have ever been tested too.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#678

Post by latchkey »

lottin wrote: post #675
latchkey wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I spent $200 in 2013 on it. Now that pet rock is worth more and I'd like to capitalize on it, without spending it. Just like people invest in a house and take equity out on it. Or they buy gold because they think it'll go up in value over time. Regardless, you're being pedantic at this point. Back to the original discussion, there is utility to crypto now, and I've proven a way.

Yeah, I understand... these type of loans exist in finance, they serve a very specific purpose. The point is that, unlike consumer loans, such loans require that the borrower has savings before they can take the loan. For example, most people who take a mortgage do so because they don't want to save money for 30 years before they can buy a house. They want to buy a house now, and save later. A mortgage loan allows th…

> The point is that, unlike consumer loans, such loans require that the borrower has savings before they can take the loan.

EXACTLY my point. If we actually turned lending and borrowing around so that you had to have collateral first (1), that could actually transform an entire economy, as well as people's minds away from spending what they don't have.

Credit card debt is at all time highs and they are raping people with high APY's on those funds.

(1) In SE Asia, they don't have the concept of credit reporting agencies and thus their 'credit cards' are all collateralized (what we refer to as debt cards). Living there is what turned me onto this concept and how it is a better way to do things. You can't spend more than what you've already deposited and you actually earn interest on it too!

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#679

Post by whstl »

chii wrote: post #609
whstl wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if the subpoena says "remove a link" you comply with that. But there's also another fundamental difference: even if there's the expectation of removing all copies of the same exact file, it is "trivial" for MegaUpload to know, by using hashes. They do have access to all files, as it is in their servers. For Google to delete all pirate links to movie X it would be much more complicated, and would put them on a…

> They do have access to all files, as it is in their servers. not if they have the encrypted content only, and the decode key is only in the hash portion of a url, which never goes to a server. But i guess crafting a technocal "solution" to a legal problem doesn't work, since the law works off intentions, and how much money you pay lawyers...

That's Mega, the one that still exists. MegaUpload the previous one didn't really have the same encryption.
Post reply on HN