801–810 of 960 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People just don't realize just how garbage even 4k streams are from all the services. It's not in their interest to give you real bluray quality.
I don't know, 4k HEVC at 15,000mbps looks plenty good to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Call it what you want. If it’s not theft then it’s not theft. But the gravity of the moral infraction is equivalent to theft so I don’t see the point of the word play here. No. As I said, we had this debate decades ago and your side lost. This is settled ground; you can shout into the void but you already lost . You might pirate because you're a "cheap ass" (your words, not mine), but many others don't. They've exp…
If you pirate you used someone’s work without their permission and you caused them to foot the bill for the creation of your product. That is fundamentally immoral. It is logistically impossible to support any industry with your logic here. That is why axiomatically your justifications are wrong. It’s just not sustainable. On the other hand the owner of a certain IP can make his product as inaccessible as possible an…
Did you bother reading what I wrote? I'm not afraid of anything. I'm explaining why I think you're wrong even though I think people are justified in pirating because available platforms mostly suck and are anticonsumer.
I will summarize it for you again, then proceed to ignore you:
A- You lost this debate decades ago. We already had it, your side lost. Piracy is NOT the same as theft, either morally or legally.
B- You are the pirate here, not me (well, I do occasionally pirate as I argued elsewhere). Look at yourself in the mirror and answer your own questions about why you do it. Don't assume the rest are the same as you, or that they are cheap ass thieves like you (your own words).
C- It's a quality of service thing for most people.
> Does that make your blood boil? That geniuses like you pay for me to enjoy all my entertainment for free because it’s moral?
No, it doesn't upset me at all. Any other things you want to argue?
> So why arrest me?
I don't think you should be arrested. I suggest you take a deep breath and think who you're arguing with and what the actual arguments are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People just don't realize just how garbage even 4k streams are from all the services. It's not in their interest to give you real bluray quality.
Yes! Someone came after me on here because I said there really is no 4k streaming.
Piracy offers: 1. Unrestricted access to an absolutely huge library of movies, music and TV shows, nearly unlimited. Certainly not limited by opaque "licensing deals" between various companies. 2. Highest resolution/bitrate/quality that was available at the time of the work's original release. 3. No arbitrary device/OS limitations. 4. Can watch/listen/download from any location on earth with sufficient bandwidth. I d…
>I didn't even mention that it's free or that there are no ads It's free in the same way shoplifting is free, until you get caught. You are very much in violation of copyright laws if you pirate.
Piracy offers: 1. Unrestricted access to an absolutely huge library of movies, music and TV shows, nearly unlimited. Certainly not limited by opaque "licensing deals" between various companies. 2. Highest resolution/bitrate/quality that was available at the time of the work's original release. 3. No arbitrary device/OS limitations. 4. Can watch/listen/download from any location on earth with sufficient bandwidth. I d…
No one is offering that service because it would be completely illegal. You can't just offer all the content ever created without the rights holders to that content agreeing. (I expect many will say those rights holders deserve zero compensation because they are large greedy corporations. Conveniently ignoring that piracy also means the creators of the content also get zero compensation for their work.)
It would be technically possible to decentralize distribution while still paying rights holders for each download. Laws could be rewritten to accommodate, encourage or even require this.
My biggest gripe with streaming services is that you literally can't legally own the content you paid for. You can only "license" it. Amazon, Google, Apple, whoever can revoke your access at any time and there's nothing you can do about it. There are plenty of examples of this already happening. The rights holders are protected, but the consumer is fucked. It's untenable, in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of them are paying the cost to create the content for movies and TV, except for their own original shows. I also have no problem paying a company to watch their original content…that’s completely fair. I also have no problem paying toward the “cost of creating content” as you say. I have a problem with how media is carved up to make sure you have to use multiple services and maximize profit. I have a problem wit…
What do you do instead to make sure the creators are fairly compensated?
What baffles me in this market is that there is all this unmonetized content that remains exclusively locked up in archives that is still very watchable earning almost next to nothing. The notion of cross licensing content between these networks seems controversial.
Take Game of Thrones for example. Exclusive to HBO. Some people in Germany may or may not have pirated that back in the day. Because HBO was not available in that market and there was no way to watch that legally even though world+dog was talking about that. Now it's old news of course. But Germany is probably full of people that might have payed for watching that when it wasn't old news yet. There are decades worth of high value series that you can buy (in some cases) but not stream. And I bet sales aren't all that great. Judging from the lack of marketing.
In the same way the BBC is sitting on decades of quality content. Same for most public broadcasters. Very hard to get your hands on any of it. Why are there no multi billion deals with Amazon, Netflix, Apple TV, etc. being closed about that content. Netflix is back filling their catalog with cheap Korean action movies and other filler crap instead. And they are cutting the budgets of the exclusive content that made them big.
Another example is that movie studios have been publishing 3D blockbuster movies for about 15 years now. These are almost all very expensive movies that only ran for a short time in cinemas. 3D only kicked off with the first Avatar movie. None of the big streamers offer any 3D content whatsoever. What's wrong with content publishers that they are allowing a good investment to go to waste like that? It's not a technical problem. TV makers have been trying to flog 3D tvs for ages. But without any content (not counting obsolete things like blue ray) there never was a reason to buy those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People just don't realize just how garbage even 4k streams are from all the services. It's not in their interest to give you real bluray quality.
I don't know, 4k HEVC at 15,000mbps looks plenty good to me.
The last 6 months I’ve been building what I believe is one of the best high-quality streaming platforms out there.
My inspiration was exactly the reasons listed here in the comments.
I’d love to get your honest feedback on the design, features, and overall user experience.
Thanks! GIzmo