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

Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#81

Post by sct202 »

paule89 wrote: post #5

Its like in the beginning of torrenting. Nobody willing to offer a service for everyone, for a fair price. Everybody gatekeeping selling only their stuff. And if you want everything pay this atrocious sum of money. I tell you this will happen more often and people are willing to pay. But not pay for everything. Good thing they had going. Well it was still illegal, but hey it will happen again i tell you.

When torrenting was more of a common thing, you literally couldn't legally pay to stream or download like anything. Heck, you could barely even find DVDs of a lot of content or they'd be available like a year after the shows aired or movies were released.

Now, it's way easier than ever to be able to do it all legally and quickly, and it's not even that expensive. If you want to watch old seasons of a show sure it's a hassle to sign up and then cancel a subscription to a specific network, but it's not that hard and it's like $6-$15/mo with no contracts. It used to be that a DVD box sets were like $30+ for one show.

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#82

Post by lghh »

Pigo wrote: post #56
haunter wrote: post #13

It's cable TV all over again. The current streaming scene is not any better at all.

My mind is blown that these sites were actually getting paid subscribers. I thought the beauty of piracy is the whole "not paying for it" thing. I refuse to pay for more than one subscription service, I'm not going to end up paying more than I did for cable tv. Hulu still wins for me because it has the live/local tv, and I'm not giving Disney anymore money.

Disney owns Hulu [1] :(.

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/media/disney-buys-comcast-hul...

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#83

Post by sct202 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #79
haunter wrote: post #13

It's cable TV all over again. The current streaming scene is not any better at all.

Except I can cancel anytime, pay for just a month, watch whenever I want, watch however I want.

I think people are getting spoiled by getting what they asked for. People have been asking for a-la-carte cable for years (instead of the massively expensive bundle deals where you only want N channels out of 2000), and that's basically what all these competing streaming networks have become.

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#84

Post by [deleted] »

kgwxd wrote: post #53
PeterStuer wrote: post #36

Services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video would be a lot more successful if only their catalogs in regions outside of the US would be comparable to their home turf. If US clients would have the tiny tiny catalogs they offer e.g. in most of Europe, you would also be scratching your head how this could ever justify the subscription cost.

Is the price cheaper in regions where the catalog is slim?

[deleted]

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#85

Post by umvi »

behringer wrote: post #77
jessaustin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but in that case most current films would never have been made... or at least I got that distinct impression from MPAA.

Which films exactly took 28 years to turn a profit?

That's not the point.

Valve turned a huge profit on Portal 2. Yet they refuse to make Portal 3. Why? Because compared to Steam, Portal 2 generates a tiny ROI by comparison.

Option A: invest $1 in Steam and get $10 back

Option B: invest $1 in Portal 3 and get $2 back

which do you do?

Same goes for movie industry. A movie promises returns for decades as it is milked and re-released in various formats. If the movie can only make money for 20-ish years, ROI goes down significantly. Read: "The Disney Vault" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#86

Post by icebraining »

kgwxd wrote: post #53
PeterStuer wrote: post #36

Services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video would be a lot more successful if only their catalogs in regions outside of the US would be comparable to their home turf. If US clients would have the tiny tiny catalogs they offer e.g. in most of Europe, you would also be scratching your head how this could ever justify the subscription cost.

Is the price cheaper in regions where the catalog is slim?

No, there's no direct relationship: https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/countries-netfl...

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#87

Post by authoritarian »

qwerty1234599 wrote: post #14
slykar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess Netflix needs their developers for all the random UI changes nobody is asking for and some "unrelated recommendations" engine.

Have you used any pirate streaming websites? They're pure garbage, bad UX, bad image quality, choppy video. The only reason anybody uses them is the price or lack of legal options

You must be using some awful services because my experience has been that piracy, and pirate streaming services, are better, easier, and more available than ever

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#88

Post by behringer »

umvi wrote: post #85
behringer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which films exactly took 28 years to turn a profit?

That's not the point. Valve turned a huge profit on Portal 2. Yet they refuse to make Portal 3. Why? Because compared to Steam, Portal 2 generates a tiny ROI by comparison. Option A: invest $1 in Steam and get $10 back Option B: invest $1 in Portal 3 and get $2 back which do you do? Same goes for movie industry. A movie promises returns for decades as it is milked and re-released in various formats. If the movie can…

May I offer an alternative reason why Valve did not make Portal 3? It's because when you rehash the same game, people get sick of it. Sometimes a product needs to stand on it's own. Why harm the Portal franchise by being to quick to release, release, release?

Seems like hollywood is already on board with this. What do they need Ghostbusters to have a 100 year copyright on when they could just release a new Ghostbusters every 30-40 years like they're pretty much already doing.

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#89

Post by w-j-w »

jessaustin wrote: post #73
mywittyname wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you imagine how great these services would be if copyrighted works fell into the public domain after 28 years instead of the nearly 100 years they are now?

Sure, but in that case most current films would never have been made... or at least I got that distinct impression from MPAA.

The MPAA is full of it on this one. Most investments happen with a payoff expected within a few years. In general,.investors don't care about what money they can make in 30 years.

Re: Two Las Vegas Men Plead Guilty in U.S. Criminal Streaming Piracy Case

#90

Post by criddell »

umvi wrote: post #85
behringer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which films exactly took 28 years to turn a profit?

That's not the point. Valve turned a huge profit on Portal 2. Yet they refuse to make Portal 3. Why? Because compared to Steam, Portal 2 generates a tiny ROI by comparison. Option A: invest $1 in Steam and get $10 back Option B: invest $1 in Portal 3 and get $2 back which do you do? Same goes for movie industry. A movie promises returns for decades as it is milked and re-released in various formats. If the movie can…

I always thought Portal 3 never came out because nobody at Valve wanted to work on it.
Post reply on HN