The Pirate Bay is trialing high-quality video streaming(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
The Pirate Bay is trialing high-quality video streaming
https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-is-trialing-high-quality-video-streaming-links-191209/
166 comments
I think another big difference (apart from all those already stated) is that there was a realisation among musicians very early on (like mid 90s) that the internet was going to give them the ability to cut record labels out of the deal altogether and distribute directly to fans.
Most of what a label does/did for musicians is marketing and distribution of physical copies. Sometimes a label organises a producer/engineer, but often bands do this themselves, or bring one along. With physical copies dying and the ability to self-promote on the rise the labels were looking less and less relevant.
Movie studios on the other hand coordinate an insane amount of people (some credits sequences run for at least 5 minutes now) and legals, something that is out of the realms of possibility for indie film makers - if you want to make a "big" movie you pretty much need a studio, even to this day.
So my understanding is that the record labels saw the writing on the wall, tried to fight the tide with the whole napster thing and ended up accepting reality and looking around for another way to remain relevant, which ended up being negotiating deals with legal music streaming services. Movie studios never felt that pinch.
The other difference, at least for the artists, is that musicians don't make much money off recordings - many are happy to break even - where the real money is for them is in live performance and (in some markets) merch sales. The recordings almost act as ads for the "real" product. With movies, the movie is the product (although admittedly merch, theme park rides, etc can provide an even bigger revenue stream but those cases should be treated as outliers).
Most of what a label does/did for musicians is marketing and distribution of physical copies. Sometimes a label organises a producer/engineer, but often bands do this themselves, or bring one along. With physical copies dying and the ability to self-promote on the rise the labels were looking less and less relevant.
Movie studios on the other hand coordinate an insane amount of people (some credits sequences run for at least 5 minutes now) and legals, something that is out of the realms of possibility for indie film makers - if you want to make a "big" movie you pretty much need a studio, even to this day.
So my understanding is that the record labels saw the writing on the wall, tried to fight the tide with the whole napster thing and ended up accepting reality and looking around for another way to remain relevant, which ended up being negotiating deals with legal music streaming services. Movie studios never felt that pinch.
The other difference, at least for the artists, is that musicians don't make much money off recordings - many are happy to break even - where the real money is for them is in live performance and (in some markets) merch sales. The recordings almost act as ads for the "real" product. With movies, the movie is the product (although admittedly merch, theme park rides, etc can provide an even bigger revenue stream but those cases should be treated as outliers).
Great comment. One thing though is sometimes indie movies are made and then sold for release. Maybe they should be able to go direct?
They can absolutely go direct. I've watched numerous movies on filmmakers' websites or youtube that I assume never got a cinematic release.
I guess the difference is that the Hollywood studio model is still so entrenched with the massive PR/media industry built up around it and reliant on its survival that indie releases get drowned out in the noise.
Another thing to consider is that niche content is just that - if a filmmaker decides to distribute direct to fans (or along some other indie avenue) it's likely you'll never hear about it unless you are one of those fans and regardless of what your definition of "success" is.
I guess the difference is that the Hollywood studio model is still so entrenched with the massive PR/media industry built up around it and reliant on its survival that indie releases get drowned out in the noise.
Another thing to consider is that niche content is just that - if a filmmaker decides to distribute direct to fans (or along some other indie avenue) it's likely you'll never hear about it unless you are one of those fans and regardless of what your definition of "success" is.
Going direct with movies is harder (atm) than music.
The model for selling music is pretty solid, and there are services like Bandcamp that will do the hosting & Transaction processing for you at minimal overhead. Even platforms like Patreon will let you do this directly attaching the file to a post.
People have little issue getting the downloaded music onto whatever device they want to play it on.
Video is harder: filesize and codecs are one issue, convenient playback is another. You can't just use YouTube unless you want to give it away for free.
Vimeo is an option, but the overheads are higher and could easily eat any potential revenue. Playback is a problem - lower device support. It doesn't allow users to download and play offline either, and that would be harder for casual users.
The model for selling music is pretty solid, and there are services like Bandcamp that will do the hosting & Transaction processing for you at minimal overhead. Even platforms like Patreon will let you do this directly attaching the file to a post.
People have little issue getting the downloaded music onto whatever device they want to play it on.
Video is harder: filesize and codecs are one issue, convenient playback is another. You can't just use YouTube unless you want to give it away for free.
Vimeo is an option, but the overheads are higher and could easily eat any potential revenue. Playback is a problem - lower device support. It doesn't allow users to download and play offline either, and that would be harder for casual users.
>You can't just use YouTube unless you want to give it away for free.
I believe you can actually.
YouTube has a section where you can pay for movies here: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClgRkhTL3_hImCAmdLfDE4g
And here is a discussion on how indie filmmakers can get into it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/c01kyd/how_to_r...
There's definitely a higher barrier for movies, but it does seem possible.
I believe you can actually.
YouTube has a section where you can pay for movies here: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClgRkhTL3_hImCAmdLfDE4g
And here is a discussion on how indie filmmakers can get into it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/c01kyd/how_to_r...
There's definitely a higher barrier for movies, but it does seem possible.
I knew about their paid services, my point is that you can't just go to youtube.com, sign up and sell a movie.
The links you provide show that it's still a huge barrier. The requirements for getting onto youtube arn't something you can just do if you have a movie you want to sell.
Even with the unknown ($1500? according to that comment, but no links to back it up) payment to a distributor, there's still almost certainly more hurdles and time/etc.
Compare that to the experience with, say, Bandcamp - their [pricing is transparent and up-front](https://bandcamp.com/pricing), and you can go ahead and sign up with minimal fuss. From a customer perspective, it's equally as pain and hassle free.
The links you provide show that it's still a huge barrier. The requirements for getting onto youtube arn't something you can just do if you have a movie you want to sell.
Even with the unknown ($1500? according to that comment, but no links to back it up) payment to a distributor, there's still almost certainly more hurdles and time/etc.
Compare that to the experience with, say, Bandcamp - their [pricing is transparent and up-front](https://bandcamp.com/pricing), and you can go ahead and sign up with minimal fuss. From a customer perspective, it's equally as pain and hassle free.
I think that ultimately, the difference is probably radio.
Before the internet, people consumed music without buying it all the time. People consumed movies first solely at theaters, then at home from VHS and DVD. Some movies came to TV occasionally, but it was never a guarantee for any given title.
So there was already a centralized way to pay record labels for music, and the basic idea of licensing it all to be played in a streaming format was well-established.
The movie industry, on the other hand, still wants to make you pay every time you watch, like back when it was still just theaters.
Before the internet, people consumed music without buying it all the time. People consumed movies first solely at theaters, then at home from VHS and DVD. Some movies came to TV occasionally, but it was never a guarantee for any given title.
So there was already a centralized way to pay record labels for music, and the basic idea of licensing it all to be played in a streaming format was well-established.
The movie industry, on the other hand, still wants to make you pay every time you watch, like back when it was still just theaters.
I tend to agree but it probably went even beyond radio. Playing music has long been omnipresent in all sorts of venues and, as a result, there was a clear need for simple, low friction, centralized licensing.
Pre-VHS, as you say, there just wasn't the same casual consumption of video content--and, even then, it was mostly private consumption for a long time.
You even see differences between music and live theatre licensing. Music has mandatory mechanical licenses for cover. Whereas, with live theatre, a playwrite/copyright owner can refuse to allow a performance based on their work.
Pre-VHS, as you say, there just wasn't the same casual consumption of video content--and, even then, it was mostly private consumption for a long time.
You even see differences between music and live theatre licensing. Music has mandatory mechanical licenses for cover. Whereas, with live theatre, a playwrite/copyright owner can refuse to allow a performance based on their work.
It is probably because movies are deposable. Good music you listen to your whole life a good movie you see once. A film can't go on tour.
The mixtape law might also be part of it, but are those mixtape websites legal?
I think it might be because of the ubiquity of music piracy during the 90's. In it's heyday, you could get anything off of Limewire, Kazaa, and of course Napster with extremely little effort.
By contrast, pirating video didn't come until later, when it was more technically feasible (downloading music over a modem already took forever, can you imagine downloading full length movies!?) and by that time, the likes of Spotify had already made legally consuming music so convenient as to make piracy obsolete.
Even now, the pirating of PC games is being made more common by the introduction of the Epic Store, which, regardless of your feelings on it, has added friction. Games promised to Steam users are being delayed or going full Epic exclusive and many users are saying "fuck that, we're not getting railroaded into using a launcher we didn't like" and turning to piracy instead.
The video landscape is even worse, where it used to be only a select few providers had their own bespoke services (like HBO) now every channel is looking to make their own damn subscription happen, which is adding tons of friction, causing the boom in piracy.
The music companies learned, and the video companies haven't, that the main way to counter piracy is to make the legal way to get something as easy as possible, so easy that customers don't mind parting with some cash. And streaming right now is anything but easy.
By contrast, pirating video didn't come until later, when it was more technically feasible (downloading music over a modem already took forever, can you imagine downloading full length movies!?) and by that time, the likes of Spotify had already made legally consuming music so convenient as to make piracy obsolete.
Even now, the pirating of PC games is being made more common by the introduction of the Epic Store, which, regardless of your feelings on it, has added friction. Games promised to Steam users are being delayed or going full Epic exclusive and many users are saying "fuck that, we're not getting railroaded into using a launcher we didn't like" and turning to piracy instead.
The video landscape is even worse, where it used to be only a select few providers had their own bespoke services (like HBO) now every channel is looking to make their own damn subscription happen, which is adding tons of friction, causing the boom in piracy.
The music companies learned, and the video companies haven't, that the main way to counter piracy is to make the legal way to get something as easy as possible, so easy that customers don't mind parting with some cash. And streaming right now is anything but easy.
Have to agree... I can only handle so many paper cuts from the subscription fees... I have Hulu (+Live + DVR), Amazon, Netflix and now Disney+, and even then pushing it. I'm at a point with the DVR crap on Hulu blocking commercial skips for most prime time shows that I've gone back down downloading half of them... I've also considered dropping Amazon. Netflix pisses me off and Disney+ so far only the Mandelorian makes it anything resembling worth it.
If it weren't for the Fiance / Kid factor, I'd have already gotten rid of them all... I don't like having to jump between all the apps/services to watch something... it was easier to once a day, hit the torrent site, download new episodes of whatever and start watching shows from the day before. Trying to remember what service has Show X, or whatever is a PITA.
Hulu's model is about as close as I've seen and Amazon has similar for more bundles. I'd much rather if I could just integrate Disney into the Hulu or Amazon Prime UI and search. Netflix will probably never allow such a thing.
If it weren't for the Fiance / Kid factor, I'd have already gotten rid of them all... I don't like having to jump between all the apps/services to watch something... it was easier to once a day, hit the torrent site, download new episodes of whatever and start watching shows from the day before. Trying to remember what service has Show X, or whatever is a PITA.
Hulu's model is about as close as I've seen and Amazon has similar for more bundles. I'd much rather if I could just integrate Disney into the Hulu or Amazon Prime UI and search. Netflix will probably never allow such a thing.
Then if one service had it all then people would be calling it a monopoly.
You mean like Barnes & Nobel is a monopoly for books?
> Even now, the pirating of PC games is being made more common by the introduction of the Epic Store, which, regardless of your feelings on it, has added friction. Games promised to Steam users are being delayed or going full Epic exclusive and many users are saying "fuck that, we're not getting railroaded into using a launcher we didn't like" and turning to piracy instead.
A lot of people said that about Steam and yet it became what it is today, with many titles that now require Steam (unless you pirate).
A lot of people said that about Steam and yet it became what it is today, with many titles that now require Steam (unless you pirate).
It's funny/sad - if you check the exes for a lot of Epic Store games, there's no DRM - better the DRM you know than the (no) DRM you don't?
Steam doesn't require use of its DRM either, and it's well-known that several titles don't have any: https://steam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games
Which was great, for the same reason Netflix was great - when they were first-mover and had everything.
Pirating movies was feasible years before Spotify.
>downloading full length movies!
You must be young. We did. Fully. With aMule/eMule. They took days, but we got them.
You must be young. We did. Fully. With aMule/eMule. They took days, but we got them.
[deleted]
Limewire and kazaa came out in 2000 and 2001 respectively, by which point many people were on some kind of broadband. One of the main benefits of limewire was that it wasn't limited to music but had a wide variety of available video and software as well.
The rules around streaming are much tighter than the rules around purchases.
For purchasing films, stuff like iTunes & Google Movies are still pretty good bets, they do have quite a lot.
Streaming often falls under public performance and a few other more restrictive contracts, making it harder.
As to why a mass-streaming service like Netflix doesn't offer both, usually, then it's simple - you want people to continue paying. The business model depends on people not signing up, downloading, and then cancelling.
In my experience a surprising number of people are willing to do that. (Doesn't stop me offering it, however.)
---
As for DRM with videos... Hollywood truly, truly despises the idea of DRM-free. I've looked at few contracts for film collections recently, and every contract I saw _required_ the use of DRM. It wasn't a negotiable point.
Which is mostly theatre. Bypassing DRM does not take significant effort. It can never truly prevent theft (ignoring any definition of theft), and is massively anti-consumer in the way it breaks. It hurts real customers and doesn't hurt pirates.
All the same, it's a hard rule with most national film associations.
For purchasing films, stuff like iTunes & Google Movies are still pretty good bets, they do have quite a lot.
Streaming often falls under public performance and a few other more restrictive contracts, making it harder.
As to why a mass-streaming service like Netflix doesn't offer both, usually, then it's simple - you want people to continue paying. The business model depends on people not signing up, downloading, and then cancelling.
In my experience a surprising number of people are willing to do that. (Doesn't stop me offering it, however.)
---
As for DRM with videos... Hollywood truly, truly despises the idea of DRM-free. I've looked at few contracts for film collections recently, and every contract I saw _required_ the use of DRM. It wasn't a negotiable point.
Which is mostly theatre. Bypassing DRM does not take significant effort. It can never truly prevent theft (ignoring any definition of theft), and is massively anti-consumer in the way it breaks. It hurts real customers and doesn't hurt pirates.
All the same, it's a hard rule with most national film associations.
> It hurts real customers
Yes it does. We bought a lot of kids movies on iTunes, and then I couldn't play them back because a device was not authorized (I bought it on my iPhone, so it doesn't work on my girlfriends iPad), or because the internet didn't work, or because iTunes was broken after upgrading to a new OS, ... it's so frustrating when you have a collection of video files on a USB stick that you paid for and you can't watch them.
Yes it does. We bought a lot of kids movies on iTunes, and then I couldn't play them back because a device was not authorized (I bought it on my iPhone, so it doesn't work on my girlfriends iPad), or because the internet didn't work, or because iTunes was broken after upgrading to a new OS, ... it's so frustrating when you have a collection of video files on a USB stick that you paid for and you can't watch them.
You could re-download them DRM free from pirate bay, and because you already paid for them it wouldn't even be a immoral thing to do.
It would however be illegal, which is a concern to some.
Illegality depends on country, I think in Europe (or parts of it) you can download for your personal use, but you can't distribute (e.g. you can only leech, you can't seed).
Legal in Canada as well.
Only the downloading part, not the uploading part. And I think that’s music only too.
To clarify in Poland it is only for media, so movies, music - so it is like in the days when one had cassette and recorded the music that was on radio (or VHS and TV) - allowed private use.
Download of software without license/approval (so illegal download) is prohibited.
Download of software without license/approval (so illegal download) is prohibited.
Yeah, it's funny/interesting how far divided morality and legality are.
It is not illegal in Europe even if you did not pay. Seems immoral though.
Your immoral point made me think.
I think it seems immoral but the more I think about it, it's not.
A corporation (like a studio) and capitalist system (like hollywood movie making) doesn't operate with morality. It seeks to gain the largest profit without regard to morality.
If these movie companies reached a fair profit point and made the movie free afterwards you could make the point they acted with balance. If they shared profits with society morality could be an issue.
But they try to make as much profit as the market will allow. They act without morality. Therefore you cannot assigned a morality value to your interactions with such entities.
It is not immoral to pirate (even if it is illegal in some places).
I think it seems immoral but the more I think about it, it's not.
A corporation (like a studio) and capitalist system (like hollywood movie making) doesn't operate with morality. It seeks to gain the largest profit without regard to morality.
If these movie companies reached a fair profit point and made the movie free afterwards you could make the point they acted with balance. If they shared profits with society morality could be an issue.
But they try to make as much profit as the market will allow. They act without morality. Therefore you cannot assigned a morality value to your interactions with such entities.
It is not immoral to pirate (even if it is illegal in some places).
I agree that piracy isn't immoral in general but it isn't because capitalist corporations don't operate without morality. Isn't it immoral to harm a psychopath, who acts immorally because they are mentally ill?
> Isn't it immoral to harm a psychopath, who acts immorally because they are mentally ill?
It isn't definitive that piracy actually causes any significant or definitive harm to large organisations. It fact in many circumstances the effect can be reversed - those who pirate films are also more likely to watch them and to encourage others to watch them.
Without a definitive answer to the harm question, you can't definitively assess the morality side of the question.
It isn't definitive that piracy actually causes any significant or definitive harm to large organisations. It fact in many circumstances the effect can be reversed - those who pirate films are also more likely to watch them and to encourage others to watch them.
Without a definitive answer to the harm question, you can't definitively assess the morality side of the question.
IMO the immoral thing here is supporting DRM. Especially since it's completely unnecessary to do so if it doesn't even gain you anything.
This is a bummer. :-(.
I only had this happen a long time ago with a iTunes code-provided copy of Shrek. Every other movie I’ve purchased has worked across generations of devices and stuff since the first iPad. I’m curious if I’m just lucky?
I only had this happen a long time ago with a iTunes code-provided copy of Shrek. Every other movie I’ve purchased has worked across generations of devices and stuff since the first iPad. I’m curious if I’m just lucky?
Presumably you've logged on to all the devices with your iTunes account? OP said he couldn't get the movie on to his girlfriend's iPad. Can an iPad have multiple iTunes accounts associated with it? AFAIK no, and if he had tried to log her out to log himself in, it would have erased her downloaded content.
Ah, isn't DRM beautiful. I'm reminded of a time when a man sitting next to me on a flight couldn't play any downloaded content on his tablet he was not in his home region. Gee, people fly to places outside their home, what a surprise!
Ah, isn't DRM beautiful. I'm reminded of a time when a man sitting next to me on a flight couldn't play any downloaded content on his tablet he was not in his home region. Gee, people fly to places outside their home, what a surprise!
I'm okay if they label only playable in the lower 48 states but the problem is the surprise.
>In my experience a surprising number of people are willing to do that.
Of course, a somewhat surprising to me number of people will also subscribe to a service, binge-watch a show, and then cancel.
Nothing wrong with doing that of course and I imagine for most people, subscriptions are pretty sticky. (That assumption is probably bolstered by the observation that Netflix and HBO don't offer annual subscriptions at a discount AFAIK.)
For purchasing films and TV series I just buy a DVD a lot of the time. With Blu-Ray, the quality is probably better and I can lend it, etc.
Of course, a somewhat surprising to me number of people will also subscribe to a service, binge-watch a show, and then cancel.
Nothing wrong with doing that of course and I imagine for most people, subscriptions are pretty sticky. (That assumption is probably bolstered by the observation that Netflix and HBO don't offer annual subscriptions at a discount AFAIK.)
For purchasing films and TV series I just buy a DVD a lot of the time. With Blu-Ray, the quality is probably better and I can lend it, etc.
That doesn't surprise me at all.
The download & cancel combo is more surprising, because it takes significantly more effort, and people prefer less friction.
Binge & cancel is the least friction for most people, so it makes the most sense for them. Especially when they don't want to track your subscription along with the rest of their bills.
The download & cancel combo is more surprising, because it takes significantly more effort, and people prefer less friction.
Binge & cancel is the least friction for most people, so it makes the most sense for them. Especially when they don't want to track your subscription along with the rest of their bills.
I don't think it's a matter of harder. I think the film and television industry properly freaked out when they saw what Apple has done to the music industry, and the subsequent uniformity in available services. They had more time to prepare and locked down the content before SV companies could negotiate them into a more consumer-friendly position.
I do note that the music industry has leveled out. You basically get the same deal from each streaming provider for the same price.
I do note that the music industry has leveled out. You basically get the same deal from each streaming provider for the same price.
I guess also that musicians stopped making money with their albums and only use streaming for it's reach, they found other ways to make money.
Musicians never really made money from albums. Occasionally a mega hit might bring in residuals, but musicians generally need to start their own label to get any real cut of album sales.
> I don't understand why video seems to be so much harder than music?
Maybe the movie industry saw the music industry as a cautionary tale and doubled down with DRM and exclusivity. The difference is bitrate and music sharing happened first, giving the film industry time to react.
Maybe the movie industry saw the music industry as a cautionary tale and doubled down with DRM and exclusivity. The difference is bitrate and music sharing happened first, giving the film industry time to react.
The movie industry has been strongly pushing exclusivity and DRM since the introduction of the VCR.
They doubled down with DRM and still, the only place you can reliably get just about anything you want is from pirate sites.
To be fair - the licensing catalog for each of the given music services varies pretty wildly, and you cannot expect to find almost any song on any provider. See: Spotify && [Jay-Z, Taylor Swift, Def Leppard, Tool, Beyonce, Garth Brooks], etc. Some of these artists have since released to Spotify but the concept is the same.
I agree, though. If PLEX or someone offered a subscription that gave me consistent interface to access all the streaming services, I'd probably pay a few hundred USD a year.
I agree, though. If PLEX or someone offered a subscription that gave me consistent interface to access all the streaming services, I'd probably pay a few hundred USD a year.
Aaaand back to cable it is :)
See also books and video games.
It's all down to convenience again I guess ?
One big difference is how you're going to replay music & video games multiple times, but are going to play/read movies/shows & books only once.
It's all down to convenience again I guess ?
One big difference is how you're going to replay music & video games multiple times, but are going to play/read movies/shows & books only once.
One big difference is how you're going to replay music & video games multiple times, but are going to play/read movies/shows & books only once.
This is a very good point. Just look around in a public space at everyone wearing headphones, and you can see that music is almost always not consumed in isolation but as a background. A movie or book requires more dedicated attention; I don't see people watching a movie or reading a book while doing something else.
This is a very good point. Just look around in a public space at everyone wearing headphones, and you can see that music is almost always not consumed in isolation but as a background. A movie or book requires more dedicated attention; I don't see people watching a movie or reading a book while doing something else.
Streaming music is a secondary revenue stream. The real money is in live concerts, merchandise, etc. Streaming and YouTube music videos are practically advertising.
For TV/movies the video content is the primary revenue stream. And for most content the only revenue stream. Only a few IPs sell action figures and lunch boxes.
For TV/movies the video content is the primary revenue stream. And for most content the only revenue stream. Only a few IPs sell action figures and lunch boxes.
I think this wasn’t always the case, at least for more popular musicians, but it is certainly the case now.
As someone who speaks three languages, it's just as hard to find music. Grooveshark used to have a much larger and well-rounded selection, though it had legality issues similar to Pirate Bay.
I'm mostly using the regular YouTube for music nowadays.
Guessing you don’t care for quality or that listening to an album is interrupted by unskippable ads that are usually far louder than the content?
It saddens me, as a musician and producer, how YouTube is the go-to for listening to music. We put a lot of effort into audio engineering, and the flow of an album, only to have a ton of that work degraded by YouTube’s shitty compression or ads that interrupt the intended experience.
It saddens me, as a musician and producer, how YouTube is the go-to for listening to music. We put a lot of effort into audio engineering, and the flow of an album, only to have a ton of that work degraded by YouTube’s shitty compression or ads that interrupt the intended experience.
Quality is good enough for laptop loudspeakers or noise canceling earphones and I pay for YouTube premium so no ads.
But to be honest, if I really want to listen to a whole album then I use YouTube Music, which is included in YouTube premium. What I like about it is that if the song isn't available then it offers the video instead so I can listen to it anyway.
But to be honest, if I really want to listen to a whole album then I use YouTube Music, which is included in YouTube premium. What I like about it is that if the song isn't available then it offers the video instead so I can listen to it anyway.
For me it's only good enough until I've listened to a higher quality version...
Why would anyone listen to ads on youtube? Do they not know how to use software?
Regarding quality, most music is listened to in traffic, or on the bus, or while working, or as background in a store, or while exercising, or.... I think it should be pretty obvious that the majority of the time, quality is just not a factor.
Regarding quality, most music is listened to in traffic, or on the bus, or while working, or as background in a store, or while exercising, or.... I think it should be pretty obvious that the majority of the time, quality is just not a factor.
Youtube has a paid tier that negates the ads, no different than other music streaming services with free tiers. It's available in fewer countries, but it definitely exists.
I use YouTube as well, but before it... I used this service called "radio".
The compression was terrible. The ads were unstoppable. I love music, but for decades before we all fell in love with music despite the poor medium we listened it to. YouTube isn't any different.
The compression was terrible. The ads were unstoppable. I love music, but for decades before we all fell in love with music despite the poor medium we listened it to. YouTube isn't any different.
Question from my kids: what's an "album"?
The music equivalent of a ‘movie’ compared to a ‘series’.
My question was semi-flippant, but I don't think the movie/series analogy is very apt. The point is that my kids don't really care how you decided to package the product, song order, flow, etc. Quite often all they care about is one song (and sometimes they care about it 100+ times per day...)
I guess in the same way that we used to buy singles, although I never bought that many because you got more bang for buck buying the whole album.
Where I did draw the line was when I heard them start asking each other if they had seen the latest song from so-and-so.
At which point they both got an MP3 player and a bit of a lecture about how music is audio and everything else is marketing
I guess in the same way that we used to buy singles, although I never bought that many because you got more bang for buck buying the whole album.
Where I did draw the line was when I heard them start asking each other if they had seen the latest song from so-and-so.
At which point they both got an MP3 player and a bit of a lecture about how music is audio and everything else is marketing
What can't you find on the iTunes Store?
I use iTunes for most media, precisely because I see it as a way of cutting through all the BS—it has just about every movie and every show—including series from Hulu and HBO. (The sole thing I can't get are Netflix exclusive shows, which is annoying.)
(And then I run my purchases through TunesKit to losslessly strip the DRM)
I use iTunes for most media, precisely because I see it as a way of cutting through all the BS—it has just about every movie and every show—including series from Hulu and HBO. (The sole thing I can't get are Netflix exclusive shows, which is annoying.)
(And then I run my purchases through TunesKit to losslessly strip the DRM)
I'm in Austria, so iTunes doesn't have any TV shows at all, and for movies it's hit and miss. Two films I recently looked for and didn't find are "Tank Girl" and "Waking Life", not really any special. I just checked again and apparently Tank Girl is on Amazon Prime! So maybe I'll watch that tonight :)
It's also really bad with kids shows. Netflix and Amazon have a lot of them, but the selection keeps changing, and once something disappears from the streaming catalog it's often gone for good (ie. you can't get it for download anymore either). For one show (Lego Chima) I ended up buying used DVDs because I couldn't find it anywhere to download / stream in German. I have no idea how it makes any business sense to stop selling a TV show just because it's a couple of years old.
It's also really bad with kids shows. Netflix and Amazon have a lot of them, but the selection keeps changing, and once something disappears from the streaming catalog it's often gone for good (ie. you can't get it for download anymore either). For one show (Lego Chima) I ended up buying used DVDs because I couldn't find it anywhere to download / stream in German. I have no idea how it makes any business sense to stop selling a TV show just because it's a couple of years old.
As one recent example, a movie with Giovanni Ribisi that was made about ten years ago (forget the title, something about buying a dog). Known actor, not terribly old movie, not available anywhere but a used DVD from Amazon. I’m not a cinephile into obscurity, but at least once or twice a year I’ll be unable to find a movie with known actor (Ribisi, Robin Wright, as two that come to mid) that, when I finally find a DVD or torrent, wasn’t a bad movie that deserves to be buried in a stack of $4 used DVDs.
If one is a cinephile there are many interesting classics that are sadly not available on the iTunes Store. There are no films by Ingmar Bergman, for example.
For classics I often use archive.org where you can download everything legally without DRM.
https://archive.org/search.php?query=Bergman%2C%20Ingmar&and...
https://archive.org/search.php?query=Bergman%2C%20Ingmar&and...
Thanks! That looks really good! I will take a look... :)
Not an apple fan. Not a Google fan. All the movies I've bought have had various times to them. So I am that guy, who buys old DVD's and rip them to my local nas. I mostly buy local language kids movies as I especially don't want my children's viewing habits to be tracked and manipulated by Netflix.
I pretty often can't find specific music I want to listen to on Spotify.
Sometimes it's weird meme stuff like vaporwave.
Sometimes it's less weird modern "classical" music.
Sometimes popular stuff disapears.
Usually it's because the artist can't afford to upload it
Sometimes it's weird meme stuff like vaporwave.
Sometimes it's less weird modern "classical" music.
Sometimes popular stuff disapears.
Usually it's because the artist can't afford to upload it
I guess much of it is related to Disney pulling their stuff (and of all the brands they've acquired) off of the existing streaming services, to give Disney Plus a competitive advantage.
My guess is that it's a much smaller group of investors and executives that control the movie industry, with music creation ownership and distribution being much more distributed.
Possibly because movies take a lot more money to make than music.
Typically a song does not cost over $100 million to produce, while many movies do.
> I don't understand why video seems to be so much harder than music?
I have read places where if they can't secure the streaming rights to the music in the movie, they can't stream the movie. Also, if any other rights holders can't be found to secure streaming rights, they can't be streamed.
I have read places where if they can't secure the streaming rights to the music in the movie, they can't stream the movie. Also, if any other rights holders can't be found to secure streaming rights, they can't be streamed.
I know, it makes no sense. Just because it takes a few more people, a little more time and just a hair more money to make a movie or TV show compared to a song, doesn't mean there should be complicated distribution contracts that navigate multiple investor and labor interests, and channel through international markets and regulations. I swear, capitalism these days. People need to stop demanding money for making entertainment. Just because they spend time making something doesn't mean they're entitled to be "compensated" for it.
"I can legally stream almost any song I can think of"
Maybe your taste in music is more mainstream
Maybe your taste in music is more mainstream
https://github.com/arvidn/libtorrent/pull/4123 <- Once this PR is ready and merged we'll probably see a boatload of streaming websites streaming (web)torrents. This might just be the next era of pirate streaming coming up, considering the ease of distribution when you don't have to do it yourself. For those unaware, libtorrent powers a lot of torrent clients.
If everyone switches to using webtorrent to stream things from their browser, there will be less 24/7 bittorrent clients seeding content.
And the public bittorrent ecosystem won't work without seeders.
As the saying goes: "sharing is caring"
And the public bittorrent ecosystem won't work without seeders.
As the saying goes: "sharing is caring"
There will be those who will continue seeding as before, and there will be those who merely leech and stop sharing after they're done, as before. Their number will only grow (which interestingly will actually make the torrent more lively) but I don't see why the first group would diminish in numbers
Someone that was "altruistic" enough to seed something 24/7, probably will continue to do anyway... I guess.
Thats kind of cool. I had wondered if regular Torrent clients would ever support WebTorrents. Thats the only way web torrenting will work nicely.
Wow I cant imagine the massive boost for sites like PeerTube. Having mirrors to videos you like streamed from people who saved them to their favorite torrent client so they can keep them.
Wow I cant imagine the massive boost for sites like PeerTube. Having mirrors to videos you like streamed from people who saved them to their favorite torrent client so they can keep them.
So a website can run a torrent without my knowledge, potentially getting me in legal trouble? I kinda like to decide when and how to violate the law myself.
This has been possible for quite awhile already, if you don't want your browser to make p2p connections, disable webrtc among things.
Bit off-topic but what are your thoughts on using libtorrent for content distribution such as podcasts?
Are you asking specifically about libtorrent, or about BitTorrent in general?
I think BitTorrent is really good for content distribution, as it's spreads the burden of traffic across many peers. In a typical server-client situation, the greater the number of clients, the bigger the burden on the server. But with BitTorrent, the load is spread between all clients, reducing the load for any one "server".
I think BitTorrent is really good for content distribution, as it's spreads the burden of traffic across many peers. In a typical server-client situation, the greater the number of clients, the bigger the burden on the server. But with BitTorrent, the load is spread between all clients, reducing the load for any one "server".
BitTorrent was much more commonly used for podcast distribution in the first half of the 2000s, so there is some precident.
Popcorn Time already kinda does this and works pretty much flawlessly. You need to download their Electron app though.
The problem with this though is that Popcorn Time isn't really the application you keep running in the background, whereas my torrent client is on pretty much 24/7 pushing data.
With the mentioned fix you wont need it. The problem with Popcorn Time became that which Popcorn Time? The original kinda disappeared and sletchy forks popped up.
There's one main legit fork, don't remember which one though
I believe its popcorntime.sh. That's the one listed on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time
While streaming is certainly more convenient, I frequently wish streaming providers would also allow me to download movies in advance on more platforms. Especially for 4k content the bitrate on streaming can be quite limiting. I'd love to be able to download really high quality video in advance. Currently buying a 4k disc or piratebay seem to be the only option.
Even worse, the previous summer I was all hyped for UHD-1/HDR, decided to go buy a compatible Xbox... (since it was the most recommended player) only to find out that the (big!) store didn't even have Planet Earth 2 to go with all the "4k" hardware they sell !
Guess what I did ?
[deleted]
Blogspam of this: https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-is-trialing-high-qua...
Yes. We changed the URL to that from https://thenextweb.com/apps/2019/12/10/pirate-bay-streaming-....
I dream of a product where I can watch anything. Any tv station, from any country, in real time and HD. Any movie or film that has been digitized. Searchable in a well indexed fashion. Any user generated content as well. No switching between YouTube or reddit or Vimeo. Just one search bar and all of the things.
And then I wake up. It was just a dream. The rights and licensing would never let this happen.
And then I wake up. It was just a dream. The rights and licensing would never let this happen.
Is Popcorntime still around?
When I had Time Warner cable, I would use PopcornTime all the time without any VPN. After it was acquired by Comcast and rebranded to Spectrum Internet, I immediately received a notification that I was using an illegal service. I then subscribed to an IP blocker service hoping I could use PopcornTime without being detected and sure enough Charter blocked my internet. I had to acknowledge that I was aware of the illegal activity in order to get my internet back.
I wonder if BayStream will have the same issues.
I wonder if BayStream will have the same issues.
[deleted]
Yes
If not for my friend who sails a lot, i would have needed to turn to the Pirate Bay to get a copy of the film The Fall with Lee Pace in it. One of the most beautiful films ever made and it’s not available to stream anywhere. Or purchase in hard copy unless I go for an $80 used copy on eBay or amazon. It’s out of print and no studio seems to be interested in putting it out there. Went through something similar for the film Hero with Jet Li, but eventually found a new old stock copy for a reasonable price. Sometimes things just aren’t legitimately available anywhere, streaming or not.
Netflix has the DVDs of both of those movies.
I can't own those, unless I refuse to return them to Netflix. I could "lose" them but it's still ridiculous in order to acquire those films.
It depends on what country you are based
Wow, is hero out of stock? I remember that as being a quite popular and talked about movie, not at all some niche cinema thing
For hard copies, yes. You can still get it on iTunes.
Speaking of new streaming services, I was trying to watch The Expanse Season 4. Amazon famously made this happen, so thanks to Bezos there. But even though I have their Prime service there seemed to be a monthly service called Prime Video required. Amazon seems to be doing the Microsoft thing where everything is Prime something and it’s confusing and annoying.
Amazon Prime Video is confusing.
When I had an Amazon Prime Video subscription, almost everything I wanted to watch had to be paid for separately, yet had Prime Video labels all over the place.
It took me months before I realised that Prime Video wasn't actually getting me anything I wanted. I needed to pay outright for each season of what I wanted, and Prime Video didn't change anything about that, such as prices or what was available.
When I figured that out, I dropped the subscription. I still watch things on Amazon Prime Video, without the subscription to Amazon Prime Video. Yes, confusing.
When I had an Amazon Prime Video subscription, almost everything I wanted to watch had to be paid for separately, yet had Prime Video labels all over the place.
It took me months before I realised that Prime Video wasn't actually getting me anything I wanted. I needed to pay outright for each season of what I wanted, and Prime Video didn't change anything about that, such as prices or what was available.
When I figured that out, I dropped the subscription. I still watch things on Amazon Prime Video, without the subscription to Amazon Prime Video. Yes, confusing.
It is not that confusing. Amazon sells and rents digital videos. Anyone can pay for those and watch them.
They also have prime video, which is a subscription service that is included with an Amazon Prime subscription (although you can also pay for it separately if you don’t want the other prime benefits)
With prime video, you can watch all of the Amazon originals (like the expanse season 4), and a subset of their entire collection that they license from other publishers.
You can filter to just display shows and movies that are included in the prime subscription, so you don’t keep picking a movie or show and find out that it is not a part of prime.
They also have prime video, which is a subscription service that is included with an Amazon Prime subscription (although you can also pay for it separately if you don’t want the other prime benefits)
With prime video, you can watch all of the Amazon originals (like the expanse season 4), and a subset of their entire collection that they license from other publishers.
You can filter to just display shows and movies that are included in the prime subscription, so you don’t keep picking a movie or show and find out that it is not a part of prime.
Something must be confusing we else jklokier wouldn't have been confused.
Not sure what you are experiencing, but, anything with the prime label is indeed included with your Prime subscription, no extra fee.
i don't have a Prime subscription, as I found it wasn't useful to me. But for a while I did.
What I found is that on "Amazon Prime Video", almost everything I wanted to watch needed to be paid for because it wasn't part of "Amazon Prime (Video)".
It took me a long time to realise that "what you can get on Amazon Prime (Video)" and "what you can get on Amazon Prime Video" were completely unrelated things, and that I could access exactly the same things that I wanted, at the same prices, from "Amazon Prime Video" while stopping my subscription to "Amazon Prime (Video)".
Amazon's documentation and labelling from the set-top-box app did not make this especially clear.
The Expanse last seasons were a notable exception. I'd already seen the earlier seasons on Netflix a long time before, and it was very annoying to be unable to watch the second half of the story So I was delighted when I looked on Amazon, and watched them just before cancelling my Amazon Prime (Video) subscription. Now I just watch Amazon Prime Video.
It is quite possible I've got the names of these things completely wrong. I don't really pay attention, because I very rarely use Amazon's consumer services, except via set top box. (I use AWS but that's completely different.)
What I found is that on "Amazon Prime Video", almost everything I wanted to watch needed to be paid for because it wasn't part of "Amazon Prime (Video)".
It took me a long time to realise that "what you can get on Amazon Prime (Video)" and "what you can get on Amazon Prime Video" were completely unrelated things, and that I could access exactly the same things that I wanted, at the same prices, from "Amazon Prime Video" while stopping my subscription to "Amazon Prime (Video)".
Amazon's documentation and labelling from the set-top-box app did not make this especially clear.
The Expanse last seasons were a notable exception. I'd already seen the earlier seasons on Netflix a long time before, and it was very annoying to be unable to watch the second half of the story So I was delighted when I looked on Amazon, and watched them just before cancelling my Amazon Prime (Video) subscription. Now I just watch Amazon Prime Video.
It is quite possible I've got the names of these things completely wrong. I don't really pay attention, because I very rarely use Amazon's consumer services, except via set top box. (I use AWS but that's completely different.)
So what is Prime Video for then, could you explain it for us that still don't get it?
Amazon Prime Video is the streaming component of Amazon Prime. Amazon Prime Video is thus somewhat comparable to Netflix--but with a poorer selection of movies and series. Amazon Prime has a number of other things, primarily free shipping. So if you have no interest in free shipping or the other things in Amazon Prime you can save a few dollars a year (but only a few dollars) by just getting Amazon Prime Video.
It's like the Amazon's Apple TV+. You get the shows that Amazon owns/licenses.
Amazon still lets you stream content it doesn't own (like how iTunes Video lets you stream TV seasons), you just have to pay for them.
Amazon still lets you stream content it doesn't own (like how iTunes Video lets you stream TV seasons), you just have to pay for them.
Some videos are free, but others you still have to pay for. (I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the "have to pay for" ones are just the ones where the studios charged dumb licensing fees and Amazon's trying to recoup costs.)
> But even though I have their Prime service there seemed to be a monthly service called Prime Video required.
If you have Amazon Prime (and are the primary owner, which I'm guessing you aren't since you can't access it), then you get Prime video.
So I, too, have Prime since my brother added me under his account but he only has access to it since he's the owner.
If you have Amazon Prime (and are the primary owner, which I'm guessing you aren't since you can't access it), then you get Prime video.
So I, too, have Prime since my brother added me under his account but he only has access to it since he's the owner.
This is the part people are missing; if you're mooching off of someone else's Prime, you miss out on a number of features like Prime Video.
What? I just have normal Amazon Prime, and have been watching the new season of The Expanse just fine. I am unsure what your issue is.
Paying per episode or not? I've got Amazon Prime (aka free shipping) with amazon.co.uk, but I still need to pay for individual episodes of the expanse from Amazon's video site
Everything I have seen shows that UK viewers should be able to watch The Expanse if they have amazon prime (it was listed on a lot of 'best shows to watch on amazon prime uk' lists)
I would echo what the other commenter said... are the the primary account holder or added to another account?
I would echo what the other commenter said... are the the primary account holder or added to another account?
Are you the owner of the Amazon prime or are you "under" someone else's Prime account? If the latter, then you don't get Prime video.
But it might be different with the Expanse in the UK.
But it might be different with the Expanse in the UK.
I am the primary account holder; though I'm living in Ireland if that makes any difference due to regional restrictions...?
Prime Video is just the crossed l video part of your prime subscription. I'm not even sure you can get a PV subscription separately.
Or the Netflix thing with Qwikster ? :p
I hate ad supported video with the power of 1000 suns, and it's not because of the ads themselves. It's because the ads stutter and skip and take twice as long to play as the content of the ad itself.
How can they fuck it up so bad? The ads are how you get paid, how is it that you don't prioritize playing the ad correctly? If I were a sponsor, I would be furious!
I tried to watch some movies on IMDBtv for instance, and I got through one and gave up a quarter through the second one.
How can they fuck it up so bad? The ads are how you get paid, how is it that you don't prioritize playing the ad correctly? If I were a sponsor, I would be furious!
I tried to watch some movies on IMDBtv for instance, and I got through one and gave up a quarter through the second one.
The big question is how this streaming operates and the legal consequences.
There was a previous version of torrent streaming called Popcorn Time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time Basically users suffer the same legal consequences as for torrenting: they are not just downloading, but also uploading--that is how the software works. This is quite different from a streaming site like Fmovies--where the user is downloading only--and not uploading.
There was a previous version of torrent streaming called Popcorn Time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time Basically users suffer the same legal consequences as for torrenting: they are not just downloading, but also uploading--that is how the software works. This is quite different from a streaming site like Fmovies--where the user is downloading only--and not uploading.
Popcorn Time is up and, from what I hear, running just fine.
"was" ?
(And most of the content is obviously going to be illegal...)
(And most of the content is obviously going to be illegal...)
> Basically users suffer the same legal consequences as for torrenting
namely, none, baring exceptional cases
namely, none, baring exceptional cases
Downloading is a civil violation. Uploading is a crime, since it's "commercial-scale" even if no money actually changes hands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Crimina... While it's true that most pirates won't be prosecuted, there are a lot fewer people willing to risk five years in jail compared to the civil penalties for just downloading.
Maybe in Somalia...
Or Eastern Europe. Everyone torrents films here, and until recently, ISPs often even facilitated filesharing. Cases where anyone has received criminal sanctions are vanishingly small, even in the EU or West Balkan states, let alone Russia where reportedly most copyright infringement cases are dismissed out of hand.
Personally, I use the following two combinations:
- For things I will watch/listen to a lot, I purchase and rip to my server running Plex. Then I control my own streaming server and don't have to worry about where to find it. If you have a local secondhand store, its not hard to find what you are looking for.
- For one offs, I can actually very reliably find it either on Redbox or my local library. The local Library had DVDs and Blu-Rays there. I watch and return.
- For things I will watch/listen to a lot, I purchase and rip to my server running Plex. Then I control my own streaming server and don't have to worry about where to find it. If you have a local secondhand store, its not hard to find what you are looking for.
- For one offs, I can actually very reliably find it either on Redbox or my local library. The local Library had DVDs and Blu-Rays there. I watch and return.
PopcornTime.sh also works really well for streaming, you can even cast to your TV. Its convenience is seriously on-par with Netflix.
I use Popcorntime a lot. It’s the only “service” in the world that just allows me to see what I want regardless of whether it’s on Netflix, HBO, Hulu, Amazon or just cinema.
I would pay for a service like this in a heartbeat.
I would pay for a service like this in a heartbeat.
It doesn't work that great for anything that isn't "top 100 popular".
Change the file from "Popularity" to "Recently added" will probably do the trick.
Not everything like a torrent indexing service, but also theres a lot of stuff, not only the popular titles.
Not everything like a torrent indexing service, but also theres a lot of stuff, not only the popular titles.
Kodi + Seren is another great option for streaming.
https://github.com/hauxir/rapidbay is another option
This is been around in various forms for quite a few years. But it's never really caught on because the basic fact is it turns everyone into leeches. Also doesn't really make any sense because when you stream something you're downloading and anyways so you might as well be a good citizen download it, and then seed it, and keep the community decentralized and healthy.
Why do you say that? It’s perfectly possible to download a file sequentially while uploading parts of it. Although I guess the ending would be harder to find than the beginning... but if all they do is make the first half part more widely available, I don’t see the issue.
I think the issue is that it stops uploading when you're done watching the movie and close the tab. It would be less of an issue if it somehow continued seeding for a while afterward.
> The addition of BayStream links to The Pirate Bay isn’t the first time that the world’s most famous torrent site has dipped its toes into streaming waters. In 2016, the site experimented with ‘Stream It!” links next to all video torrents, playable via a browser plug-in called Torrents-Time.
I thought this seemed familiar! I'm curious if anyone knows the history of their last attempt.
I thought this seemed familiar! I'm curious if anyone knows the history of their last attempt.
There are so many streaming providers right now, no wonder people are turning to torrents. It's almost easier UX-wise to set up Transmission and Plex once, than manage 5 sets of subscription, apps on all your devices and credentials to log into each one.
They will have to consolidate eventually, to keep the customers, or lose to piracy yet again.
They will have to consolidate eventually, to keep the customers, or lose to piracy yet again.
Streaming videos via The Pirate, is probably legal in many countries. Copyright means you are not allowed to make a copy. Streaming is not the same as making a copy. At least in norway.
Most copyright law also includes distribution and public performance rights.
Who told you that?
A streamed copy of is still a copy for purposes of copyright laws.
A streamed copy of is still a copy for purposes of copyright laws.
You are nor creating a copy when watching a stream.
Yes you are, because that is exactly how you are able to watch the movie in the first place.
Copyright law focuses on the content that is copied, not the specific mechanics of the copying, because it is technology agnostic.
Copyright law focuses on the content that is copied, not the specific mechanics of the copying, because it is technology agnostic.
Some courts have considered the copy in RAM legally a copy. Even when streaming, you create a partial one.
Maybe Norwegian law makes more sense.
Maybe Norwegian law makes more sense.
[deleted]
How do streamers affect the seeders? I'm guessing that they don't keep the entire video file in the browser and contribute 'their share' back to the torrent, do they?
Honestly, I'm not seeing any signs of webtorrent usage at all. It appears to be a normal stream from a normal server. Even if they don't store all the video, and just proxy the torrent sessions, I'm not sure how they could afford that.
The video loaded very fast for me. It's quite impressive.
The video loaded very fast for me. It's quite impressive.
Actual cost of bandwidth is approaching zero, fwiw.
So do you upload when you're using this?
But if I want to watch something specific, 50% of the time I still can't get it on any of the stores.
I don't understand why video seems to be so much harder than music? I can legally stream almost any song I can think of from any streaming provider, or I can buy DRM free albums! But for video, the pirate bay is often the only place you can get something.