Live data from Hacker News

Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

theguardian.com

841–850 of 960 posts

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#841
post #161

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…

Supply and demand might argue that if there was real demand for something like this that people were actually willing to pay a lot of money for, then the market would be all too happy to provide. I think the inconvenient truth here is that when anyone has got close to doing such a thing the price has been high enough that it turns out nobody actually turns up to pay for it, not at least outside a small niche.

Food for thought:

There are (possibly) two streams of demand:

1) How much customers are willing to pay.

2) How much pirates are willing to risk legal consequences.

Both represent sides of the implicit and intrinsic demand that drives acquisition.

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#842
About 7 years ago I was desperately trying to find a particular band's only two albums. I looked everywhere I could think of to legally buy these two albums. For the life of me, I couldn't find a place to do this. Eventually, my hat an eye-patch came out. It's almost like companies don't want the money.

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that's the best option, there's always AI upscaling and frame gen. These of course won't be as good as native resolution and can sometimes make more errors, but they can make a big difference on low resolutions when you got a big screen.

To be blunt, upscaling is pretty shit and doesn't belong in a discussion about quality. The quality-obsessed piracy world we're talking about here would shudder at the comparison.

I full agree. I'm not trying to compare high quality naive source to AI upscale. That is a ludicrous comparison. Native will always be better.

But truth of the matter is that many times you don't have access to a higher quality source. Sometimes you only have something that's been re-encoded over and over or something that has degraded through the passage of time. I would not suggest overwriting the source, but the truth is that many people will find this a better viewing experience. Truth is that many of those remasters will use similar technologies, though with much more thought and care than your one click and it's done act like it is magic programs. Truth is that people do enjoy it in videogames and existing streaming and movie systems. People do prefer better native high resolution, but when that is just unavailable, what are you left with? But the truth is that most people are happy with lossy encodings and lower bit color schemes (most people don't even have a 10 bit monitor and (real) HDR isn't prolific).

If it is a choice between shitty quality and AI upscale, I'll choose AI upscale more times than not (but not 100%). But instead, if it is a choice between shitty quality, AI upscale, and high quality native, I'm choosing high quality naive 100% of the time. It's not even a question! But the point is that there are choices and not all of them require deep knowledge. I'm not arguing replace native with upscale, that's idiotic. But for an at home player where more people are going to have to make choices about storage spaces and won't care if it is lossy, then the option exists.

We're also talking about streaming services. Streaming services force the AI upscaling on you. Hell, even in some TV's it is hard or impossible to turn off (mine turns itself back on!). Let's let people decide, because we know that the incentives are too strong on the streaming service for them to hand you raw.

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#844

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…

Piracy also offers: 0. Ability to watch offline! 1. Ability to fix subtitle issues with minimal tweeks like change size or moving location. 1.2 Ability to get subtitles if they aren't offered (or offered in your language) 2. Ability to normalize audio. 3. Ability to buffer videos when on a poor connection. 4. Ability to create collections, organize, and track your movie as you wish 5. Arbitrary number of user account…

Nice zero indexed array.

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a case study in why competitive markets are important in general. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly but the monopoly is hard to enforce. It works because most people actually want to support the creators, not because DRM is effective or anything like that. So you have the uncommon situation in which a monopoly (the copyright holder) is operating in parallel to a competitive black market for content d…

The black market is only more competitive because it doesn’t bear the costs of actually creating the content.

Kinda? I'm not actually sure what profit is being made if I'm just downloading from qbitorrent and never visiting a site seeing ads.

But also, I still will buy movies and pay for streaming services and pirate the shows on them. Why? Because the pirating experience is just better. It is also just easier to download a torrent than it is to rip a blueray. I don't really feel bad about this because I'm paying for the content like anyone else, I'm just getting a better viewing experience. Maybe only thing being hurt is the watch metrics on the streaming platform. But if they aren't considering the metrics from piracy too then they're being idiotic.

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy also offers: 0. Ability to watch offline! 1. Ability to fix subtitle issues with minimal tweeks like change size or moving location. 1.2 Ability to get subtitles if they aren't offered (or offered in your language) 2. Ability to normalize audio. 3. Ability to buffer videos when on a poor connection. 4. Ability to create collections, organize, and track your movie as you wish 5. Arbitrary number of user account…

> With $1k you can build a pretty good system 1. The hardware you buy for these activities, has still residual value after 1, 2, 3 year. Unlike the streaming service you pay for. 2. Its cheap to upgrade / expand over time (if its not a all in one solution) 3. It opens a door to not just store movies/music/images, but as emulator, streaming service, or game streaming to one or multiple. 4. The content will not arbitra…

I agree with everything here. But I want to do a little nitpicking here

  > 7. Saves you from needing "cloud" storage or other cloud services.
One thing that frustrates me about cloud services is that they want to be the only host of my data. I want a 321 system[0]. That means I want a copy and I want a copy somewhere else. But most of these storage systems don't make it easy to do API calls and just rsync everything[1]. Yeah, I know about rclone but Google photos isn't storing my photos in their original quality and I don't trust them to not change the data.

So it means really the only solution is just buying a storage box. You can treat it as safety so doesn't need much egress, just to sync. But you should have something off site and "cloud" makes that much easier. But also, depends on how important that is. I'm not doing that with "pirated" content but I am with my content.

[0] 3 copies, 2 locations, 1 off-site. (All these are "at least")

[1] How is it easier to write a small bash script through termux to rsync to my home and another location than it is to do this with professional tools? For the love of god, it is a fucking trivial script and I can make it do whatever I want, like only backup on WiFi, only through tailscale, or even a specific WiFi SSID. Hell, I can get it to issue a command to my home server to sync with the remote server checking to make sure things match. For what, not even 100 lines in bash? It's a joke

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#847
post #753

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…

> someone’s work

We don't recognize ownership of ideas as a legitimate concept.

Intellectual property is logically reducible to ownership of numbers. All information is a sequence of bits, and all sequences of bits are numbers. All numbers already exist. Humans performing intellectual work are merely discovering those numbers.

The entire set of laws supporting intellectual property boils down to making knowledge and transmission of certain numbers illegal.

It's illegal for me to write certain numbers on a piece of paper and give the paper to you.

That's just absurd and unacceptable.

> It is logistically impossible to support any industry with your logic here.

Not at all. Plenty of creators enjoy sizeable patreon followings. They get paid for their labor, not for the finished product.

Also, physical goods are naturally scarce. Therefore industries producing physical goods are easily supported. Your claim that "any" industry cannot be supported is trivially falsifiable if taken literally.

> On the other hand the owner of a certain IP can make his product as inaccessible as possible

Complete illusion. Only a single copy need ever be produced and sold. Once that copy is available, it can be trivially and infinitely duplicated.

If I have a file on my computer, say a book, duplicating it is as easy as holding down Ctrl-V. By doing that I can literally exhaust my computer's memory by filling it up with copies of the book.

There are no limits to copying other than the physical limits of the computers performing the copying.

Contrast that to the age of the printing presses. Sure, you could copy books by hand but that imposes hard limits to the scale of your operation. Printing presses gave you the power to infringe copyright at scale but you had to be a major industry player to even have one.

It is now the 21st century. Everyone on Earth has globally networked computers in their pockets. The costs of planetary scale copying and distribution of information are measured in cents. There's actually so much information being copied and distributed that determining what's true or false is actually becoming a problem unto itself.

Intellectual property is nothing but an unacceptable restraining bolt on our amazing computer systems, stopping them from realizing their full potential.

> Why the fuck are you so afraid of being accused of pirating?

No one's "afraid" of anything. We've simply taken it much further than you did.

You "pirate" because it's convenient.

We "pirate" because we believe computers are world changing technology that should not be limited in any way whatsoever just because of utter legacy nonsense such as copyright.

Computers are obscenely subversive. They democratized copying, thereby nearly wiping out entire sections of the economy off the face of this earth. They democratized encryption and privacy, thereby allowing normal people to defeat militaries, spies, governments, police, judges.

Computers are far too important to be allowed to be controlled, least of all for completely idiotic reasons such as preserving the failing business models of last century's entertainment industries. Let Hollywood and the games industry get fully wiped out if they can't adapt.

For the enforcement of copyright requires that they own your computer, and that is unacceptable tyranny which must be resisted at all costs.

> Why do you have to justify to yourself by buying games and then pirating occasionally?

No one "needs" to justify anything. Copyright infringement is natural. People do it without even realizing it. There is no need to justify natural processes.

We consciously choose to justify it, because we believe there are higher reasons for doing it.

> I pirate every fucking IP I own. I don’t give a shit.

Unlike you, we actually do give a shit. That's why we spend time thinking about it and debating the issue.

> People like You pay for all my games and movies. Thank you.

> If you feel piracy is moral then what I do is moral to you. Thanks for paying for my shit.

You're welcome.

Make no mistake, though. Our reasons for paying for games are probably not what you think. I usually don't pay for the games themselves. I pay for Steam's excellent service.

I guess I'm old enough to remember the time where people had to manually download and apply half a dozen incremental patches to their games in order to get the latest version and play online. Many times I licensed games I already had on Steam just to avoid that. Battlefield 2 is my goto example. I still have the boxes.

Steam was the first ever Windows package manager. Licensing games through it has always been worth it for that fact alone. Anything else just sucks. Gabe Newell is right: it's always been a service problem.

My Steam account contains many games which simply cannot be licensed anymore for any amount of money. Usually because other game companies are trying to push their shitty copies of Steam, just like Hollywood studios keep creating their own shitty streaming services.

There's nothing wrong with competition. The problem is they're competing for the wrong reasons. They don't actually want to create a superior Steam, they want to leverage their copyright monopolies in order to more efficiently rent seek. They create their own stores, then they pull their games from Steam and offer them exclusively on their shitty platforms that nobody actually wants to use. They force people to use their shitty services in order to get access to the games instead of just offering them on Steam.

Well if it's not on Steam, I won't pay even one cent for it. It's quite literally that simple.

> Does that make your blood boil? That geniuses like you pay for me to enjoy all my entertainment for free because it’s moral?

Not at all. Your enjoyment in no way deprives me of mine, nor does it offend me on any level whatsoever. Had you asked for it, I would have simply given you a copy myself.

> Then maybe pirates like me should be arrested.

Absolutely not. "Piracy" should not even exist as a crime. If it does, it should not cause anyone to be deprived of their freedom.

The truth is in the name chosen by the monopolists: "piracy". Copying is a crime so victimless, they have to compare it to high seas piracy in order to get people to give a shit. It's just asinine.

> Well it’s convenient for me to live a life where you pay for my shit.

Relax. Copying is literally victimless. There is no "your shit", it's all just files in a computer. The ownership notions of the physical world do not really exist in this realm. The scarcity is completely artificial. It's not real.

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming was cheaper than what existed before, and still is. Inflation-adjusted, movies and TV were insanely expensive back then, yet people willingly paid. And the movies were better. Who's greedy, companies wanting to offer nonessential entertainment for a price, or people who want it for free?

Nobody I ever talk to cancel Netflix because it’s too expensive. They cancel it because it runs out of content they care about. Including me. I’m not keeping a sub for that one week a year I find something I enjoy. It’s absolutely a service problem.

> Nobody I ever talk to cancel Netflix because it’s too expensive.

Frankly this says a lot about you and not much about everyone else

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#849

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

It depends. If you're fine browsing torrent sites, choosing a download, loading in into your client, waiting for it to download, then plugging your laptop into your TV. Sure it's free.

If you're out to recreate a better streaming experience then it's certainly not free. Software licenses, server hardware, electricity costs, Usenet access, etc. Not to mention the time/effort to getting everything running so smoothly to the point that it is effortless to request and then watch.

I mention this because for a certain crowd (myself and likely many people on HN) it's not about being free. It's about not having to fight crappy software. Or not paying for the privilege to have ads shoved down your throat and being tracked. Not needing to remember which app Mr. Robot is currently on or having it suddenly vanish due to some licensing expiration. The list goes on.

Do I still pay for content instead of the tools to circumvent it? Sure! My city has a huge video rental store. It's super fun to go browse, find weird stuff, and help out a local business. The owner(s) are clearly huge movie nerds and seem to have spent a good amount of their earnings on some very cool movie props they put in the store. I love it.

Re: Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy

#850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these features will affect their bottom line. They just don't see value That's the problem. These are useful features. Look around you, people are... using them. I got a ton of upvotes for my comment. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm saying that because it is evidence that these things are in demand. The issue is that most of this "what has value" is just as made up as anything else. Most people don't even know wha…

Sorry, I meant that "implementing them wouldn't affect their bottom line in a negative way". I agree with you that they are useful features. That's what separates these bullet points from the others: Others will never be implemented because they won't help them make more money.

I'm still not convinced it would affect their bottom line in a negative way.

There's a thing I hear a lot from other engineers. They always talk about value. Here's a dumb example. Why when migrating over to Apple do I have 3 copies of holidays in my calendar? I got one from Google, one from Microsoft, and one from Apple. You are telling me you can't regex that out and just display one of them for me? You don't need to remove the events, just don't show me multiple copies. Have the failure mode be showing dupes, that's fine. It's what, an afternoon's work for an intern? But pushback I get is "where's the value", by which it it is always clarified that they mean money and profits. I can't come up with that, any number would be made up, right? A poor estimate at best. Everyone recognizes this. But why is this not the same for a ton of other bullshit features? We got features on teams with budgets of millions of dollars that are clearly going to fail from the get go. They then fail but became too big to fail and so they keep sinking money into it because it turned into politics. FFS, it's engineering, sometimes ideas just fail, it's not a big deal! But you're telling me that we can sink tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into this bullshit but not an afternoon for something that clearly will make a better user experience? Before I got most of these dupes solved my calendar was just unreadable.

The same is with the rest of this. It's easy to sit high and mighty with your user data acting like people don't want these features. But the problem is you aren't even measuring that desire. If anything, you should be looking at what the most popular features are in platforms like Jellyfin and replicate them. That way you at least know there's existing demand! But the reality of it is that when you write programs you are writing an environment. There's on one-size-fits-all product you can make. You can give good sane defaults but the rest, it's just too noisy. Letting users have flexibility reveals a lot of things you'd never have been able to figure out on your own. It's very hard to know what users are frustrated with and honestly, most don't even know themselves. But open platforms allow for a small set of power users to fix those problems and make everything better for everyone else. That's the whole reason computers and smartphones have been so successful.

But the same is for any program you write. It's the same reason everyone uses ffmpeg. It's because ffmpeg didn't just build a product, they built an environment. It's the same for Jellyfin. 99% of Jellyfin users are just using the platform as is and don't touch code ever. A good portion of those will install plugins like intro skipper. But your powerusers are the real win with this system. In our out of touch business structures we look and see that powerusers are a small portion of the userbase and dismiss them and their wants because of this. But they miss that these people also drive a lot of innovation of their products. That it makes them a lot of money. But the problem is, it's hard to measure a counterfactual. You'll never have in the spreadsheets "we would have made x profit if a poweruser made y feature for us". I mean it took god damn years for the fucking flashlight app to become a native app for both Android and iPhones. Yet, it was an app available within months and is to this day something everyone uses and uses frequently. I don't think anyone could even tell you how many dollars that generated. But I also don't think anyone can really tell you how many dollars Siri generated. Or your newest reskin of iOS or Android. Or the value of fancy features like AI magic erasers and stuff.

So stop asking for value. The value numbers are just made up bullshit. It is politics. Just make good fucking products. Especially as an engineer. Your job is to make the product good, the business people's job is to make the company profitable and sustainable. Without each other, companies collapse. But when the business people take over they die much more slowly. It's not about value. It's not about better products. It's not even about the god damn profits. It's all politics. So just make the god damn product better.

/rant

Post reply on HN