A curated list of warez and piracy links(github.com)
github.com
A curated list of warez and piracy links
https://github.com/Igglybuff/awesome-piracy
185 comments
Legal considerations aside, pirating can be a fun hobby. In the early days of computers, pirating was one of the best ways to meet other computer geeks!
Additionally, thanks to pirates and data hoarders (and the Internet Archive), we have a LOT of intellectual property preserved that would otherwise not exist due to fuzzy ownership and copyright complexities.
Additionally, thanks to pirates and data hoarders (and the Internet Archive), we have a LOT of intellectual property preserved that would otherwise not exist due to fuzzy ownership and copyright complexities.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Torrenting, sharing with friends and family is still completely legal in Switzerland.
This is incorrect in regards to torrenting. Torrenting by default distributes content to random strangers, which is crossing the line. Pure downloading from random sources and sharing with friends and family however is perfectly legal.
Also, IIRC this applies to movies and music, but not software.
This is incorrect in regards to torrenting. Torrenting by default distributes content to random strangers, which is crossing the line. Pure downloading from random sources and sharing with friends and family however is perfectly legal.
Also, IIRC this applies to movies and music, but not software.
> Torrenting by default distributes content to random strangers
Torrenting distributes to whoever has the torrent file, which you can share privately. The most common usage may be to share with strangers, but calling it the default makes it seem like it’s inherit to the protocol.
> Pure downloading from random sources (…) is perfectly legal.
Does that mean uploading to share with strangers is illegal, but downloading from a stranger isn’t?
Torrenting distributes to whoever has the torrent file, which you can share privately. The most common usage may be to share with strangers, but calling it the default makes it seem like it’s inherit to the protocol.
> Pure downloading from random sources (…) is perfectly legal.
Does that mean uploading to share with strangers is illegal, but downloading from a stranger isn’t?
Yes, it's only copyright infringement if you are redistributing the content.
That’s exactly how it works in Germany.. but you can just route your traffic through more favorable jurisdictions
I think streaming of illegal content became illegal in Germany in 2017. See here: https://www.simplegermany.com/streaming-in-germany/#Is_strea...
[deleted]
Just to clarify, because this has always been an issue with misunderstanding, but torrenting and BitTorrent isn't illegal or unlawful, much like how ships aren't. It's how you use it and what you transport over it. I could very easily use HN to send you (and other random strangers) something illegal. BitTorrent in and of itself is simply a protocol.
For video, you can use DaVinci Resolve instead of Adobe. The base version is free for non commercial use, and it's a very capable program. I think it makes sense, Adobe has benefited a lot by having their software pirated and becoming the de facto standard, but they like to pretend that they're against piracy of all kind.
DaVinci resolve is free for non-commercial *and commercial* use and I would personally choose it over Premiere Pro (I switched from Premiere Pro to Resolve and later upgraded to Resolve Studio). The Studio version mostly adds stuff like realtime noise reduction—which is amazing, but it extends well beyond the functionality I expect from a professional NLE. Some codecs are not included or don't work as well with the free version so YMMV depending on source formats, OS, and hardware, but that wasn't an issue for me when I was using it.
As an aside, BMD just released a bunch of new training material for free on their website (no registration required):
* A series of books available as PDF downloads or purchase if you want a hard copy
* Videos available for streaming or download
* Project files and source media for following along
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/tra...
As an aside, BMD just released a bunch of new training material for free on their website (no registration required):
* A series of books available as PDF downloads or purchase if you want a hard copy
* Videos available for streaming or download
* Project files and source media for following along
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/tra...
DaVinci Resolve doesn't support mp4 files which makes it a poor option from the get go.
IME it does accept MP4, just not every variation and profile.
It seems to only be a problem on Linux. The paid version supports MP4(H.264), but not AAC.
Well to be fair, Premiere Pro doesn't support MP4 on Linux either. :-)
I'm a very casual user, but I've only used it with mp4 files straight from my phone camera and Youtube downloads.
Doesn't accept my gopro videos for sure so it was useless to me when I tried it.
just use ffmpeg to remux the file?
every time you recompress a file you lose quality
Hence the use of the word "remux", it's lossless (no re-encoding).
It doesn't support H.264 or AAC. Just changing the container.
-vcodec copy -acodec copy
mp4 files usually contain H.264 encoded video which requires the paid version for audio it usually contains AAC encdoded audio which is not supported at all. You can't get away with just copying.
I'm very wary of any pirated software these days. A lot of crackers and keygens I obtained long ago turned out to contain viruses. I wouldn't say the majority of the demoscene is like that and maybe even the viruses came from people remaking torrents with modified files then seed-boosted them to the top of the search. A few bad apples spoil the bunch.
It is of course smart to use caution when downloading anything from an unauthenticated source, but this has become a pretty minimal problem the last few years. AV heuristics and OS security features today are miles better than 5-10 years ago, and services like VirusTotal significantly reduce the amount of time a novel repacking of an old exploit can fly under the radar. Also in the case of a pdf vulnerability, the attacker would have to guess the right version combination of OS and pdf reader (or browser), reducing the percentage of downloads that would result in successful exploitation. This combination of factors seems to have made this tactic increasingly ineffective, so people have largely stopped trying it.
If it's a keygen, just run it in a VM.
We had a saying called: "ungewöhnliche Laufzeitpacker!", 'often and originaly used to shorten the filesize' of an '.exe'-file. Hope this helps cos wayback with the iphones there was an 'official and major bug' i remember, Radio/Press/and Tv warnigs told the people: 'jailbreaked-phones users downloaded viruses on their computers'-media (-;
hint: 'shortend...'
hint: 'shortend...'
[deleted]
When I was young I pirated everything but now I have paid the few proprietary programs I use. I prefer to spend some hundred on licenses, maybe a thousand in total if I sum videogames and have some hygiene on the computers I use to access my bank, private information and social networks accounts.
I would like to share that far from sticking it to big companies, piracy hurt independent creators way more than big corporate interests.
Sure, software behemoths would be even happier to squeeze out more pennies from individual purchases, but they make their big bucks at governmental and institutional levels.
Meanwhile, _consumers_ compare free software to "free" cracked software.
If the equation was "does this software bring me 300 CURRENCY of value, or can I get this value out of a free alternative?", the results would be quite different.
Which means we would also deal with better financed alternatives...
Netflix etc are legal, but if you care about proper rewarding of creators and improving the situation, well.
Netflix etc are legal, but if you care about proper rewarding of creators and improving the situation, well.
> I would like to share that far from sticking it to big companies, piracy hurt independent creators way more than big corporate interests.
Does someone remember the Bill Gates line about Windows piracy in China from the 1990s? Someone said something like "There are 300 million pirated copies of Windows in China" and Bill Gates responded "I'd rather they pirate Windows than use something else."
Does someone remember the Bill Gates line about Windows piracy in China from the 1990s? Someone said something like "There are 300 million pirated copies of Windows in China" and Bill Gates responded "I'd rather they pirate Windows than use something else."
Really? It's legal? Would that mean someone running a torrent site should move their operation to switzerland to avoid getting prison time?
OP couldve been a bit more precise in their statement. Downloading is legal, uploading isnt.
Uploading isn't legal, but neither is collecting the IPs of people who upload from torrent swarms, so enforcing that is... Uh... Difficult.
Edit: Source (german) https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmittei...
Machine translation (deepl):
> According to today's ruling by the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne, IP addresses are clearly personal data, which means they fall under the Data Protection Act. Furthermore, in a majority decision, the highest court considers it inadmissible for private companies to secretly research IP addresses. According to today's Federal Court decision, there is no sufficient justification for this. With immediate effect, the company Logistep AG is no longer allowed to collect and pass on data, i.e. it must stop all data processing in the area of copyright.
Edit: Source (german) https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmittei...
Machine translation (deepl):
> According to today's ruling by the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne, IP addresses are clearly personal data, which means they fall under the Data Protection Act. Furthermore, in a majority decision, the highest court considers it inadmissible for private companies to secretly research IP addresses. According to today's Federal Court decision, there is no sufficient justification for this. With immediate effect, the company Logistep AG is no longer allowed to collect and pass on data, i.e. it must stop all data processing in the area of copyright.
Side note, but ips being pii is pretty tricky. Think about all the places an IP is logged in the clear.
I think they are probably on the right path here but I've never worked somewhere that wouldn't be breaking the rules here.
I think they are probably on the right path here but I've never worked somewhere that wouldn't be breaking the rules here.
and as a law student, it's stupid that torrent seeding is considered as releasing something to the internet. It is meant to be penal to be releaser or initial uploader - at least in polish(europe) criminal code, but non-technical judges just go with it, I hate it, but i'm not sure what polish equivalent of polish SCOTUS wrote about it to be honest
as always lobbing by big companys is designed to screw over teenagers and common folk for exaple, got(HBO) in freench amazon 50$ afterdiscount, in polish stores - 250$, how to not pirate when minimal earnings - 750$
as always lobbing by big companys is designed to screw over teenagers and common folk for exaple, got(HBO) in freench amazon 50$ afterdiscount, in polish stores - 250$, how to not pirate when minimal earnings - 750$
I bought my first pirated warez in Poland as a teen. I bought Atari ST games copied onto 3½-inch floppies at a shady market stall in Szczecin. Good times! (Not sure why the 3½-inch floppy disks are called floppy, because they ain't.) I mean, what was I supposed to do? They weren't available in my country!
Sharing culture was strong even without the internet back then. I still fondly remember when I got hold of what was probably the first audio cassette tape to go viral in Norway. It was of a really angry North Norwegian cursing and cursing and cursing because he couldn't fix his bloody washing machine. Very colourful!
Sharing culture was strong even without the internet back then. I still fondly remember when I got hold of what was probably the first audio cassette tape to go viral in Norway. It was of a really angry North Norwegian cursing and cursing and cursing because he couldn't fix his bloody washing machine. Very colourful!
They're called floppy because the disc inside is still floppy :) Only the plastic case is hard.
Same as Spain. So using Usenet is completely legal.
Leeching is. Seeding is not. Its also more of a legal grayzone rather than a blanket "this is allowed".
Only German lawyers are disgusting enough to go after seeders and downloaders who never intend to distribute "illegally" downloaded content. Sometimes they themselves seed torrents and monitor who else is seeding or leeching. If they happen to not use VPNs or proxy, and based in Germany, they get a legal notice from them.
Nobody ever went to jail doing this. Some paid hefty fines, though.
But a friend said that you can send them a counter notice where they have to prove that it was you at that time at that computer downloading or uploading. After doing this, someone he knows never heard back from these absolute parasites of the society.
(I am not a lawyer, and this should not be taken as legal advice.)
Nobody ever went to jail doing this. Some paid hefty fines, though.
But a friend said that you can send them a counter notice where they have to prove that it was you at that time at that computer downloading or uploading. After doing this, someone he knows never heard back from these absolute parasites of the society.
(I am not a lawyer, and this should not be taken as legal advice.)
Its a rite of passage in Germany to get a "Waldorf & Frommer" letter. I plastered mine on the wall and use it as target practice.
https://kanzlei-bennek.de/en/waldorf-frommer-warning/
Ignore these people and never reply.
https://kanzlei-bennek.de/en/waldorf-frommer-warning/
Ignore these people and never reply.
What I did was to ignore the initial letter, and nothing happened. Over the years I’ve found that not engaging is usually the best defense.
Downloading isn't really a gray zone, even though some of the content industry would like to paint it as such.
But uploading content is ? hm? even when hatespeech may be seen as an expression of speech, the: "'190 visitors'(-rule)", 'viewed the content' -so it became a threat or worth to be 'investigated' is still such a thing (painting it as such) ?!
> Torrenting, sharing with friends and family is still completely legal in Switzerland.
Downloading might be legal (not sure if there are some clauses, e.g. only for own/private consumption), uploading definitely is not.
Downloading might be legal (not sure if there are some clauses, e.g. only for own/private consumption), uploading definitely is not.
I subscribe to Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon (although that's just a byproduct of prime), and am happy to continue paying ~£30/month (which is roughly what a basic Cable package would cost me), and even pay the occasional £20 one off for a digital purchase of a "cinema" movie (see: Disney+'s recent releases, new bond movie etc).
However, when studios resort to pulling tricks like [0], artificially limiting content (john wick 2 is available on netflix, but to watch the first, you have to purchase it on another service), or just being fragmented (which of the 5 apps on my PC has the content I'm looking for?) I start to get super frustrated at the services, and if this continues will either likely just stop paying for the content, or look elsewhere. The content needs to be easily accessible in high quality or it's going to lose to piracy.
[0] https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a37170236/black-widow-scar...
However, when studios resort to pulling tricks like [0], artificially limiting content (john wick 2 is available on netflix, but to watch the first, you have to purchase it on another service), or just being fragmented (which of the 5 apps on my PC has the content I'm looking for?) I start to get super frustrated at the services, and if this continues will either likely just stop paying for the content, or look elsewhere. The content needs to be easily accessible in high quality or it's going to lose to piracy.
[0] https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a37170236/black-widow-scar...
I find it extremely annoying that I pay money each month to both Amazon and Apple for their video products, but if I actually want to watch most movies they still want £3.49 to "rent" (which I sometimes do if it is the beginning of the month) it and £8.99 to "buy" it. Some TV series that are over ten years old are still £50+ to buy a "box set" like we are some old morons.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Thankfully I have infuse on my ATV, so if the price is too high, I pirate.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Thankfully I have infuse on my ATV, so if the price is too high, I pirate.
If you do end up deciding to pull the plug on your streaming subscriptions (I did last year), an illegal but largely safe alternative is to pay for a Plex share. I pay about $3/mo for access to a fellow's server with another few dozen people and have access to hundreds of thousands of TV shows and movies. It's all a fairly manual process, and it takes some digging (I found mine on /r/plexshares), but when it works, it works great.
Yep, same. I'm in the same boat as others where my comfort with piracy is high enough that I continue to maintain my libraries that way despite paying for various streaming services.
Find a few friends who think the same and have spread out tastes, and you can setup a nice Plex server that hits all the big names so you're not out of the loop. Whenever one of us wants something more specific, we attempt to find it ourselves. If we can't I'll ping the group and usually one of the others can find it through other sites. It's fun and communal!
Find a few friends who think the same and have spread out tastes, and you can setup a nice Plex server that hits all the big names so you're not out of the loop. Whenever one of us wants something more specific, we attempt to find it ourselves. If we can't I'll ping the group and usually one of the others can find it through other sites. It's fun and communal!
Wow. I've given a few friends access to my 18 TB Plex library but never would consider selling access to it.
Not just tricks. I pay for Netflix and amazon but want to watch Mandalorian, Disney is not available in my country so my options is either try my luck with a vpn or pirate it. If Disney did their homework and launched world wide they'd have my money. Same applies to HBO Max.
Yep, I didn't even get into that. We were looking forward to watching the new season of star trek discovery in the UK, but paramount pulled it from Netflix globally for paramount plus which last I checked was still not available here.
Honestly between piracy and a vpn piracy is a better option. You're still breaking the licensing either way, and with a vpn you run the risk of being banned from the service. Not to mention most 'watch service X in the USA' vpn services are shady as hell and I trust random torrents on the pirate bay more than them.
Honestly between piracy and a vpn piracy is a better option. You're still breaking the licensing either way, and with a vpn you run the risk of being banned from the service. Not to mention most 'watch service X in the USA' vpn services are shady as hell and I trust random torrents on the pirate bay more than them.
I went the piracy-way as I used to do during pre-netflix times unfortunately. I understand that disney and hbo probably have various licensing issues in different countries because they already have agreements with local providers for some of their content but this is a problem they have to fix if they want people to pay instead of pirating.
That's a shame. I hope they release there soon!
We have Disney+ in Australia but I'm pretty sure we still don't have HBO Max.
Though every service in every country has wildly different content. John Wick 1 might be on Netflix in the US but it's on another service in AU.
We have Disney+ in Australia but I'm pretty sure we still don't have HBO Max.
Though every service in every country has wildly different content. John Wick 1 might be on Netflix in the US but it's on another service in AU.
My issue right now is that the Disney+ app on PS4 is trash (like, constantly freezing/buffering trash). Prime, Netflix, and Jellyfin-via-browser are all fine.
So although we subscribe to D+, anything we want to watch on the TV ends up pirated into Jellyfin. Eventually I'll pick up a fire stick or set up a media PC, but I feel zero guilt about this in the meantime.
So although we subscribe to D+, anything we want to watch on the TV ends up pirated into Jellyfin. Eventually I'll pick up a fire stick or set up a media PC, but I feel zero guilt about this in the meantime.
For me it was when my daughter wanted to watch Friends but Netflix lost their license to display it and there was a point in time where you literally couldn't watch it anywhere.
Yeah I don't have a right to watch Friends but that was some BS. Set up Plex, fired up my old IRC client and now new TV shows and movies from a half dozen streaming services automatically appear on my TV ready to watch whenever I want.
I still subscribe to Netflix (get it free from mobile provider), Amazon Prime (use prime for delivery) and Hulu (got it for 99 cents per month for a year) but I don't really actually use any of them anymore.
Yeah I don't have a right to watch Friends but that was some BS. Set up Plex, fired up my old IRC client and now new TV shows and movies from a half dozen streaming services automatically appear on my TV ready to watch whenever I want.
I still subscribe to Netflix (get it free from mobile provider), Amazon Prime (use prime for delivery) and Hulu (got it for 99 cents per month for a year) but I don't really actually use any of them anymore.
Yeah, I usually pirate-stream movies using Seren, since even if they are exist in 4K HDR quality, they are just low quality SDR 1080p on the Netflix 4K plan.
Am I the only one who’s seeing this page as a net negative? It’s basically outing everyone and everything. There’s torrent tracker that is not known by western right holders which is _huge_ and so far we’ve enjoyed it and didn’t talk about this too much. Don’t talk about fight club may be?
For one this is an old list. Two, it's not like rights holders haven't done their own research and made their own lists.
Can't stop the signal!
This list has been all but abandoned, it'd seem. Pull requests and issues have gone unattended for over a year.
That's the beauty of hosting this on github. You can just look at the active forks and find a better list.
Though, it'd be nice if Github forks could all come together and vote on a new "primary" when the source repo gets abandoned.
Though, it'd be nice if Github forks could all come together and vote on a new "primary" when the source repo gets abandoned.
Plus one for this. Especially for older code libraries.
http://gitpop2.herokuapp.com/Igglybuff/awesome-piracy
sorting forks by stars would be a great feature to have built-in
sorting forks by stars would be a great feature to have built-in
I remember most if not all cracked games used to have virus on their executables. People always said that you shouldn’t care about what the antivirus said, but now I am wondering, why the antivirus alerted about viruses? Does anyone know? Were they really safe or not?
Cracking tools often compress their code for whatever reason. Some antivirus apps often report every compressed executable, such as anything using UPX, as being infected. That also happens with demoscene-style code, like MOD players that tend to be included in cracking tools.
The reason for that is that once upon a time some virus used UPX (or some demoscene tool), and the antivirus associated that with the virus. But some antiviruses also often detect cracked stuff and report it as being virus, purely because they're killjoys.
Commercial antiviruses are a plague as bad as virus themselves, unfortunately.
The reason for that is that once upon a time some virus used UPX (or some demoscene tool), and the antivirus associated that with the virus. But some antiviruses also often detect cracked stuff and report it as being virus, purely because they're killjoys.
Commercial antiviruses are a plague as bad as virus themselves, unfortunately.
They generally were false positives if you were getting the downloads from decent release channels. The reason the false positives show up is because of the packers used to make the executable files. Cracks in particular show as infected because they are both packed, but also attempt to access other files with executable code at specific byte locations and modify them.
As someone who works on mods for games with no mod api, so using dll injection, hooking, code editing, etc... (basically very similar to what cracks do),
it's very easy to get flagged for doing stuff like that.
But even doing simple stuff like compiling with winsock, or with the wrong(!?) compile flags will trigger most AV. We almost always have to just report the dlls as false positive and pray microsoft actually adds them to the whitelist, and I'm guessing that's not really an option for cracks.
But even doing simple stuff like compiling with winsock, or with the wrong(!?) compile flags will trigger most AV. We almost always have to just report the dlls as false positive and pray microsoft actually adds them to the whitelist, and I'm guessing that's not really an option for cracks.
How would you suggest someone get started modding games that don't have an api? What background knowledge should I develop?
It really depends on the game/platform, but getting used to using a reverse engineering tool and a debugger is a must.
If you can, use IDA, I'm stuck with Ghidra for now but most of the time I have to work against it to get stuff done.
Even with C output you'll still need to get used to working with assembly to hook stuff, and do other code modifications.
(You can use a library like detours, but when things start crashing it really helps to know exactly what every piece of your code is doing.)
Also imgui/nuklear really help with getting a nice GUI for your mods early on.
Though tbh the best thing you can do is just pick up a game you like and just have a go at reversing it, it'll be a bit slow but the more you reverse the easier it gets. After you reverse it it's just a matter of looking up each topic (ie dll injection, hooking, etc) as you need them. None of them are that hard, they just seem overwhelming if you try doing them all at once.
Though tbh the best thing you can do is just pick up a game you like and just have a go at reversing it, it'll be a bit slow but the more you reverse the easier it gets. After you reverse it it's just a matter of looking up each topic (ie dll injection, hooking, etc) as you need them. None of them are that hard, they just seem overwhelming if you try doing them all at once.
Word of warning - I noticed that frequently enough, antivirus alerts from pirated software were true positives. Repackaging warez with a malicious payload and then using a botnet to boost its seed count and place it at the top of listings was apparently lucrative, and I've had to deal with one instance of a user's account and website compromised due to what was most likely an infected keygen.
An antivirus telling that something is malware does not necessarily mean that it is malicious. For example, they will often report that a keygen - which I've checked that literally does nothing else than display the generated key - is malicious because it can be used for piracy.
I never ran into that. In fact, I never got a virus from any pirate website or pirated software. I know that you can get infected, but it always seemed obvious when you're offered an actual release or one that has been tampered with.
How often did you encounter "false positives" downloading normal shareware applications?
There's your answer.
There's your answer.
Often, the alert you get is about a "keygen" or "crack" tool, which is exactly what you wanted in the first place.
"Cracked" softwares/games for myself and can confirm that modifying .exe can lead to false positivity from antivirus.
The big issue of sports streaming still remains. Sites popup every once in a while that have apps, etc (HeHeStreams, BallStreams) but then get taken down. It's hard to find a good sports streaming site that does the following:
1. Has TV apps 2. No ads 3. Reliable
I've been doing the Kodi route, but it's such a PIA with streams not working consistently.
1. Has TV apps 2. No ads 3. Reliable
I've been doing the Kodi route, but it's such a PIA with streams not working consistently.
I also see live sports, or anything people gather to see debut as a frontier.
Time shifted content is under threat of leaks or hacks in the pipeline to release and gets duplicated once available.
Time shifted content is under threat of leaks or hacks in the pipeline to release and gets duplicated once available.
>I am aware that a number of websites featured in this list rely on operating under obscurity, and that this list could potentially contribute to their demise through excess exposure. I'm sorry about that - I just like making lists.
Well, at least the author is responsible and owns up to being one of the cheaf reasons sites like these die :)
Well, at least the author is responsible and owns up to being one of the cheaf reasons sites like these die :)
Nah, owning up means suffer the consequences of ones actions, in my opinion he owns up to nothing, he barely says he's sorry, but he doesn't care too much about the consequences, that's quite different if not opposite.
I agree, although he might have to 'own up' if someone found his employer and let them know he's working to enable piracy in his free time.
Can anyone on HN help me with this: I'm sure there was a chat widget called something like "arrr!" or maybe "yarrr!" designed to be embedded in a webpage.
Can't recall how many "r"'s but I think maybe the exclamation point was there as part of the name.
I think it was maybe associated with Mozilla somehow. Or maybe CCC. Or even the Pirate Party?
If anyone has any leads, I'd be happy to know.
Can't recall how many "r"'s but I think maybe the exclamation point was there as part of the name.
I think it was maybe associated with Mozilla somehow. Or maybe CCC. Or even the Pirate Party?
If anyone has any leads, I'd be happy to know.
tawk.to might resemble the pronunciation you are looking for and has a parrot as icon which I associate with pirates.
It wasn't a customer chat, so much as a chat room specific to a given web-page, so that people browsing there could talk about it; much like an interactive/real-time disqus widget.
DMCA in 3, 2, 1, ... ?
What on this list would be subject to a DMCA takedown? Most of it's not copyrighted material nor links directly to copyright material.
Not DMCA could end up going the way of https://github.com/unblocked-pw/unblocked-pw.github.io and "disabled by GitHub Staff due to a violation of GitHub's terms of service"
It's been there for some time, and there are various mirrors in certain places.
I thought it was a list of stuff with jokes on pirates and I was sooo ready to open a PR to add https://bookdown.org/ndphillips/YaRrr/
I can't decide between mullvad and private internet access. Any suggestions?
Private Internet Access (PIA) is involved in the whole Freenode fiasco, and has Mark Karpelès (of Mt Gox fame) as their CTO of the parent company. They also run ads all over the internet. Everything pointing towards just caring about the profits.
Mullvad is a low-profile company based in Sweden (strong guarantees for privacy) where you can even sign up by sending cash in an envelope. It doesn't get more anonymous than that.
On the technical side, I've been using Mullvad since probably 2012 or something like that, and lately just their Wireguard implementation. Always have had good performance and never received any complaints, even though I have used it for torrenting and bunch of grey-area stuff.
Edit: I see now the author has even highlighted PIA as their "top pick", which for me compromises the integrity of this list. PIA most likely paid the author to add that for them.
Mullvad is a low-profile company based in Sweden (strong guarantees for privacy) where you can even sign up by sending cash in an envelope. It doesn't get more anonymous than that.
On the technical side, I've been using Mullvad since probably 2012 or something like that, and lately just their Wireguard implementation. Always have had good performance and never received any complaints, even though I have used it for torrenting and bunch of grey-area stuff.
Edit: I see now the author has even highlighted PIA as their "top pick", which for me compromises the integrity of this list. PIA most likely paid the author to add that for them.
> Mullvad is a low-profile company based in Sweden (strong guarantees for privacy)
What do you mean? Sweden is not at all a strong guarantee of privacy by EU standards.
Did you mean Switzerland perhaps?
What do you mean? Sweden is not at all a strong guarantee of privacy by EU standards.
Did you mean Switzerland perhaps?
The address at the bottom of their website[1] confirms it’s Sweden.
[1]: https://mullvad.net/
[1]: https://mullvad.net/
I use ProtonVPN myself and am quite happy with it. Lots of countries to choose from, in-built ad- and tracking-blocker and SecureCores which route you through multiple VPN nodes instead of one.
Disclaimer: I don't work at Proton and I have no idea if they actually do care about privacy, they at least say it.
Disclaimer: I don't work at Proton and I have no idea if they actually do care about privacy, they at least say it.
Can you stream US only like HBO and Hulu with Mulvad?
Unfortunately, often not. Unlike other VPNs which tries to blend into residential connections, Mullavad is simply for user privacy and oftentimes is known as AS39351 (which is 31173's AS - https://www.31173.se/). Note that this simply means that a particular user was using Mullavad, not that it identifies a specific user.
What are your priorities/requirements/motivations, or at least use-case?
One has stellar organic reputation and accepts anonymous registrations and payments (cryptocurrency or cash-in-letter). The other spends serious bank on SEO and paid endorsements from "reviewers" and has been acquired by one of the sketchiest owners in the industry. They have a strong track-record of paying to get on top of VPN lists.
If privacy is a concern, I wouldn't touch anything under Kape Technologies with a pole and after the acquisition last year, I don't see why anyone would become a customer of PIA.
Unless you're purely interested in tunneling your warez and nothing else, in which case I guess NordVPN is a decent choice (I hold them sus and would recommend against them for general use but they do provide great bandwidth-per-buck). You could always do split-tunneling and route your torrents through one place and HTTP(S) through another, for example.
One has stellar organic reputation and accepts anonymous registrations and payments (cryptocurrency or cash-in-letter). The other spends serious bank on SEO and paid endorsements from "reviewers" and has been acquired by one of the sketchiest owners in the industry. They have a strong track-record of paying to get on top of VPN lists.
If privacy is a concern, I wouldn't touch anything under Kape Technologies with a pole and after the acquisition last year, I don't see why anyone would become a customer of PIA.
Unless you're purely interested in tunneling your warez and nothing else, in which case I guess NordVPN is a decent choice (I hold them sus and would recommend against them for general use but they do provide great bandwidth-per-buck). You could always do split-tunneling and route your torrents through one place and HTTP(S) through another, for example.
Consumer Reports' Digital Lab rated Mullvad as the top VPN in a comparison of 16 VPNs, including Private Internet Access:
https://digital-lab-wp.consumerreports.org/wp-content/upload... (PDF)
> Although Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN—in that order—rose to the top, there are still improvements that can be made.
> Of the 16 VPNs we analyzed, Mullvad, PIA, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN (which runs on Mullvad’s servers)—in that order—were among the highest ranked in both privacy and security. However, PIA has never had a public third-party security audit. Additionally, in our opinion, only IVPN, Mozilla VPN, and Mullvad—along with one other VPN (TunnelBear)—accurately represent their services and technology without any broad, sweeping, or potentially misleading statements.
https://digital-lab-wp.consumerreports.org/wp-content/upload... (PDF)
> Although Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN—in that order—rose to the top, there are still improvements that can be made.
> Of the 16 VPNs we analyzed, Mullvad, PIA, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN (which runs on Mullvad’s servers)—in that order—were among the highest ranked in both privacy and security. However, PIA has never had a public third-party security audit. Additionally, in our opinion, only IVPN, Mozilla VPN, and Mullvad—along with one other VPN (TunnelBear)—accurately represent their services and technology without any broad, sweeping, or potentially misleading statements.
I can't recommend PIA anymore after the acquisition. It used to be my choice ever since using a VPN became a necessity, but these it's Mullvad for me. They're relatively transparent, allow me to pay anonymously in cash, and are based on a VPN protocol already included in my kernel.
PIA ownership has made many question them. I personally tried Mullvad for about a year but found the speeds on it were terrible. PIA gives me line speed (400/40) no problem. Personally I trust no VPN regardless what HN thinks, so I set my expectations and risk accordingly.
I know it's not on the list, but look into IVPN. I liked the multi tunnel option. For sensitive things, you might want to chain VPNs, or use Tor through a VPN.
Side note: All these ads for VPN services you see now really makes it seem like you should use a VPN. Do most people need a VPN? You trade off an ISP snooping to a VPN provider snooping. Here in the UK, ISPs can't sell my browsing data, and are more regulated than private companies, so maybe that influences my opinion here.
Side note: All these ads for VPN services you see now really makes it seem like you should use a VPN. Do most people need a VPN? You trade off an ISP snooping to a VPN provider snooping. Here in the UK, ISPs can't sell my browsing data, and are more regulated than private companies, so maybe that influences my opinion here.
> You trade off an ISP snooping to a VPN provider snooping.
Well, you trade off the possibility of a VPN provider snooping even though they claim not to for the 100% definite snooping that you know for a fact is happening with an ISP. And even if you get a VPN that snoops, wouldn't you rather have some random small company doing that snooping than, say, Comcast?
Well, you trade off the possibility of a VPN provider snooping even though they claim not to for the 100% definite snooping that you know for a fact is happening with an ISP. And even if you get a VPN that snoops, wouldn't you rather have some random small company doing that snooping than, say, Comcast?
Mullvad gets a lot of "grassroots" support in comments, I've noticed here.
I've had a subscription with them for a couple months, but I recently found out they intercept DNS requests[0] (supposedly to prevent against "DNS leaks"[1]).
For the "keeping me private while torrenting" use case, Mullvad is probably fine, but personally I'm planning to move back to a private VPS for tunneling out of my local ISP.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/mullvadvpn/comments/invjgp/how_and_...
[1] https://mullvad.net/en/help/dns-leaks/
I've had a subscription with them for a couple months, but I recently found out they intercept DNS requests[0] (supposedly to prevent against "DNS leaks"[1]).
For the "keeping me private while torrenting" use case, Mullvad is probably fine, but personally I'm planning to move back to a private VPS for tunneling out of my local ISP.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/mullvadvpn/comments/invjgp/how_and_...
[1] https://mullvad.net/en/help/dns-leaks/
Someone's recommended AzireVPN to me as a WireGuard-friendly VPN a few years ago and I've been using it without any issues since. I wouldn't use any of the big guys tbh, not going to contribute to the millions they spend on advertising. Here's a random review https://www.vpnmentor.com/reviews/azirevpn/
I use Mozilla's VPN which uses Mullvad.
Is there a search engine that focuses only on those awesome lists?
bit off topic, which torrent websites have a good collection of media (movies, shows,music, anime )? IME it takes a while to search up good torrent files in the usual contenders.
If you really want to find things, then https://btdig.com/
i'm getting 'we're having trouble finding this site' in my browser, not sure if this has been blocked in my jurisdiction
seems to be working where i am, so it could be your location
Beautiful compilation, took me back to the 90s!
Thanks!
How are films supposed to get funded if people get them for free?
The current status quo is that we have two methods of obtaining a film:
So for people who say "MAFIAA" etc. What is your model for how films should get funded?
[edit] It's interesting that this is getting so many downvotes, even though it's asking a question and the premises are currently true. As other commenters have pointed out, BitTorrent downloads a file in random order and not from beginning to end, and this is less convenient than streaming.
[edit] Even if you can configure your client to download a file in a non-random order, this will still have some trade-offs. I suppose though that this might be less of an issue than I thought. ;) I still think you're a bunch of entitled nobodies and freeloaders tho. (My sympathies to the people battling streaming service fragmentation and region locks).
The current status quo is that we have two methods of obtaining a film:
- Via file sharing. You have to wait for the whole film to finish downloading before you can watch it. This is inconvenient.
- Via streaming services. You can watch a film before it's finished downloading.
So for people who say "MAFIAA" etc. What is your model for how films should get funded?
[edit] It's interesting that this is getting so many downvotes, even though it's asking a question and the premises are currently true. As other commenters have pointed out, BitTorrent downloads a file in random order and not from beginning to end, and this is less convenient than streaming.
[edit] Even if you can configure your client to download a file in a non-random order, this will still have some trade-offs. I suppose though that this might be less of an issue than I thought. ;) I still think you're a bunch of entitled nobodies and freeloaders tho. (My sympathies to the people battling streaming service fragmentation and region locks).
I can't speak for others but I generally turn to piracy when legal options are unavailable or unviable.
For example it's basically impossible to legally watch anime with English subtitles in my region, so I have no alternative to piracy.
It's the same story for more mainstream content. There was no legal way to stream Game of Thrones in English when it was being aired. There's no way legal way to stream Star Trek Discovery as it's being aired. Were I in the US, the only legal options, as far as I know, are to pay ~$10/month each for streaming subscriptions that would only be used for these shows.
EU-commissioned studies like [0] show that I'm not unique.
So the solution here, in my opinion, isn't to try to outlaw piracy (it's actually legal in my country) but to make the legal options more reasonable. Eliminate regional restrictions entirely. Eliminate content silos (require studios to license on the same terms to all streaming platforms).
Plus, at least one study has shown that piracy doesn't actually hurt sales [1], save for movies still in cinemas.
[0]: https://torrentfreak.com/eu-study-more-people-consume-legall...
[1]: https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-pira...
For example it's basically impossible to legally watch anime with English subtitles in my region, so I have no alternative to piracy.
It's the same story for more mainstream content. There was no legal way to stream Game of Thrones in English when it was being aired. There's no way legal way to stream Star Trek Discovery as it's being aired. Were I in the US, the only legal options, as far as I know, are to pay ~$10/month each for streaming subscriptions that would only be used for these shows.
EU-commissioned studies like [0] show that I'm not unique.
So the solution here, in my opinion, isn't to try to outlaw piracy (it's actually legal in my country) but to make the legal options more reasonable. Eliminate regional restrictions entirely. Eliminate content silos (require studios to license on the same terms to all streaming platforms).
Plus, at least one study has shown that piracy doesn't actually hurt sales [1], save for movies still in cinemas.
[0]: https://torrentfreak.com/eu-study-more-people-consume-legall...
[1]: https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-pira...
> I can't speak for others but I generally turn to piracy when legal options are unavailable or unviable.
I do this too.
But I asked whether copyright enforcement was necessary for films to get adequately funded. I'm assuming that the problems you've described with region locking aren't there. I resort to piracy when I have no other options.
I do this too.
But I asked whether copyright enforcement was necessary for films to get adequately funded. I'm assuming that the problems you've described with region locking aren't there. I resort to piracy when I have no other options.
> But I asked whether copyright enforcement was necessary for films to get adequately funded.
I addressed that by referencing a study that concludes piracy has no measurable impact on revenue.
I addressed that by referencing a study that concludes piracy has no measurable impact on revenue.
[deleted]
>> But I asked whether copyright enforcement was necessary for films to get adequately funded.
> I addressed that by referencing a study that concludes piracy has no measurable impact on revenue.
I'm weary of studies in general because they're capable of justifying absolute bullshit. Anyway, your study was conducted in a regime where getting films for free is illegal and therefore somewhat less convenient than it could be if it were legal. We don't have access to a world in which that isn't the case, so your study is kind of... not able to answer my question?
People who appeal to studies should look up "how to prove a counterfactual".
> I addressed that by referencing a study that concludes piracy has no measurable impact on revenue.
I'm weary of studies in general because they're capable of justifying absolute bullshit. Anyway, your study was conducted in a regime where getting films for free is illegal and therefore somewhat less convenient than it could be if it were legal. We don't have access to a world in which that isn't the case, so your study is kind of... not able to answer my question?
People who appeal to studies should look up "how to prove a counterfactual".
> I'm weary of studies in general because they're capable of justifying absolute bullshit.
Do you have a proposal for an alternative process?
> Anyway, your study was conducted in a regime where getting films for free is illegal and therefore somewhat less convenient than it could be if it were legal.
In Switzerland, the country I live in, piracy is legal. You might be interested in researching the consequences.
Do you have a proposal for an alternative process?
> Anyway, your study was conducted in a regime where getting films for free is illegal and therefore somewhat less convenient than it could be if it were legal.
In Switzerland, the country I live in, piracy is legal. You might be interested in researching the consequences.
>We don't have access to a world in which that isn't the case, so your study is kind of... not able to answer my question?
Then your question is moot, as no one can answer it. Perhaps it is you who should actually look up unfalsifiable statements.
Then your question is moot, as no one can answer it. Perhaps it is you who should actually look up unfalsifiable statements.
You're saying that for a statement to be falsifiable, a logically invalid falsification needs to be accepted. How can you argue that a counterfactual can be proven without actually setting up the counterfactual scenario? Or doing something else that makes logical sense?
[edit]
Also, to be clear, I think that if a study is being used to justify a counterfactual, a long-form argument needs to be made about why it does that. You can't just give the study results (which don't actually test the counterfactual scenario). The relevant counterfactual here is "If copyright law were to be abolished then it would not hurt producers of media like film".
This whole discussion reminds me of the 2000-2010 internet. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-o...
Finally, I've edited out some insults and comments which didn't make sense.
[edit]
Also, to be clear, I think that if a study is being used to justify a counterfactual, a long-form argument needs to be made about why it does that. You can't just give the study results (which don't actually test the counterfactual scenario). The relevant counterfactual here is "If copyright law were to be abolished then it would not hurt producers of media like film".
This whole discussion reminds me of the 2000-2010 internet. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-o...
Finally, I've edited out some insults and comments which didn't make sense.
I don't know what to tell you, you said yourself that your question cannot be answered, so why even ask it?
There is no need for artificial scarcity, the arts could be funded like Patreon stuff, with instead the government giving the money to individuals to spend on creators they like: https://www.cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-int...
The problem is that the definition of 'unavailable' or 'unviable' can quickly expand to include more or less anything. Have to wait a week for the film to be available in your area? It's not available on your chosen streaming service? The file costs a dollar more than you want to pay or doesn't come with the full set of download rights you want? People use all of these and more as excuses for pirating. If a programme owner wants to charge $10 a month to view their one show that's their right, and audiences have a wide range of free or cheaper alternatives to choose from if they don't want to pay it.
Unsurprisingly, HN being full of people who've got rich off Web 2.0 tech that profits from the spread of piracy and its resulting products (ultra cheap streaming at the expense of artists and creators), plus enjoyed tons of cheap/free digital goods and entertainment over the years, has a hive mind that considers all this perfectly ok
Unsurprisingly, HN being full of people who've got rich off Web 2.0 tech that profits from the spread of piracy and its resulting products (ultra cheap streaming at the expense of artists and creators), plus enjoyed tons of cheap/free digital goods and entertainment over the years, has a hive mind that considers all this perfectly ok
A film is just a bag of bytes. Consider we live in an age where:
- 20+MBit connections are the norm in the Western world
- there are no border checks or national firewalls to impede the flow of information worldwide (barring tyrannical regimes)
- the cost of making a copy and sending it out to anywhere around the world approximately = free
- we've had 20+ years to work on the service problem of piracy, to reach an acceptable equilibrium
It seems outrageous that we have fractured streaming services, no true digital ownership (even to match what we had for decades with VHS and optical discs), that restricting download rights is even a thing (I got my bag of bytes and paid for it, what is it to you what program or hardware I use to play it?), or that we have to wait at all for a film to be released in all geographies (I don't care that I'm in the Philippines - I already speak English and can't be bothered to wait for the official dubbing) if the bytes can come streaming down the pipe in less than a second.
I'm not entitled. I do have high expectations because we live in the goddamn future and copyright cartels are LARPing a world of digital cavemen. Like hell I'm gonna be content with that.
- 20+MBit connections are the norm in the Western world
- there are no border checks or national firewalls to impede the flow of information worldwide (barring tyrannical regimes)
- the cost of making a copy and sending it out to anywhere around the world approximately = free
- we've had 20+ years to work on the service problem of piracy, to reach an acceptable equilibrium
It seems outrageous that we have fractured streaming services, no true digital ownership (even to match what we had for decades with VHS and optical discs), that restricting download rights is even a thing (I got my bag of bytes and paid for it, what is it to you what program or hardware I use to play it?), or that we have to wait at all for a film to be released in all geographies (I don't care that I'm in the Philippines - I already speak English and can't be bothered to wait for the official dubbing) if the bytes can come streaming down the pipe in less than a second.
I'm not entitled. I do have high expectations because we live in the goddamn future and copyright cartels are LARPing a world of digital cavemen. Like hell I'm gonna be content with that.
Call me um nitpicking, but files under CC (creative commons) is: 'no true digital ownership' ? No! [smashes-forehead] ^^
hint: i thought there was a finer drawn li...
> REM://youtube.com/watch?v=WpU7Hxf8iBw
hint: i thought there was a finer drawn li...
> REM://youtube.com/watch?v=WpU7Hxf8iBw
> How are films supposed to get funded if people get them for free?
Let me pay money and download a DRM-free mp4 that I can keep forever and watch anywhere. I'd do it and so would a sizable percentage of existing pirates.
> The latter costs money, but is more convenient.
Not really. If my internet connection is fast, I can download a movie in a few minutes and watch it in VLC, which is more user-friendly than any web player. If my internet connection is slow, streaming won't work anyway. Maybe there's a medium-speed sweet spot in between for which streaming is more convenient, but I suspect only a minority of users occupy that sweet spot.
> Illegal streaming services are not viable because they're centralised and easy to crack down on
No, illegal streaming services are not viable because torrents exist and people prefer downloading movies to streaming them. People who prefer legal streaming services over illegal downloads do so because of the legal vs illegal bit, not because of the streaming vs downloads bit.
Let me pay money and download a DRM-free mp4 that I can keep forever and watch anywhere. I'd do it and so would a sizable percentage of existing pirates.
> The latter costs money, but is more convenient.
Not really. If my internet connection is fast, I can download a movie in a few minutes and watch it in VLC, which is more user-friendly than any web player. If my internet connection is slow, streaming won't work anyway. Maybe there's a medium-speed sweet spot in between for which streaming is more convenient, but I suspect only a minority of users occupy that sweet spot.
> Illegal streaming services are not viable because they're centralised and easy to crack down on
No, illegal streaming services are not viable because torrents exist and people prefer downloading movies to streaming them. People who prefer legal streaming services over illegal downloads do so because of the legal vs illegal bit, not because of the streaming vs downloads bit.
Remember Gabe Newell: "Piracy is almost always a service problem, not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."
Show me the online service that lets me purchase any TV show or movie ever produced, in the highest resolution the media was mastered in, and allow me to play it on whatever device I choose--and I will be a paying customer for life. The service simply doesn't exist outside of piracy.
Show me the online service that lets me purchase any TV show or movie ever produced, in the highest resolution the media was mastered in, and allow me to play it on whatever device I choose--and I will be a paying customer for life. The service simply doesn't exist outside of piracy.
> Let me pay money and download a DRM-free mp4 that I can keep forever and watch anywhere. I'd do it and so would a sizable percentage of existing pirates.
This. DRM is a major incentive for piracy. I regret every single DRMed music and video purchase I've ever made.
This. DRM is a major incentive for piracy. I regret every single DRMed music and video purchase I've ever made.
I don't think the answer is very complicated: It doesn't have to be free. Stop being actively hostile to people who want to pay for your content. Make it available in as many places and formats as possible. Piracy is a service problem.
- If I pay for Netflix, I can't watch in full quality because I'm on Linux.
- If I pay for an online rental, I can't watch in full quality because I'm on Linux.
- DVDs and especially Blu-rays come with DRM that breaks in weird ways for many people.
- DVDs and Blu-rays come with unskippable warnings (often about piracy) before getting to the content.
- More and more content is becoming exclusive to specific streaming services, dramatically increasing the complexity and price for everyone.
All of these problems only apply to people who pay for the content. Everything is available for free from pirates without any of these issues (but with plenty of other issues, which are accepted because it's free). Legal, permanent digital copies of movies and TV shows don't seem to exist at all.
I have on several occasions downloaded pirated copies of movies or TV shows that I already had legal access to, just to watch them the way I want. The fact that that's even something to consider is ridiculous.
For music this is partially solved. I can pay for streaming access to anything in the Spotify library, or the Apple Music library, or one of several others. They all contain the vast majority of music most people want to listen to, and compete on other features. This is the direction Netflix and competitors should have moved in, but instead they went for exclusivity.
If I would rather maintain my own library (which I do), I can buy songs and albums on services like Bandcamp, and get high-quality, DRM free files. There is no equivalent for movies and TV shows.
I still semi-regularly run into artists who only offer their music on streaming services, in which case I will listen to their song on YouTube and then forget about them. The alternative would again be piracy, so these artists are missing out on revenue.
They are selling files. It's not that hard.
- If I pay for Netflix, I can't watch in full quality because I'm on Linux.
- If I pay for an online rental, I can't watch in full quality because I'm on Linux.
- DVDs and especially Blu-rays come with DRM that breaks in weird ways for many people.
- DVDs and Blu-rays come with unskippable warnings (often about piracy) before getting to the content.
- More and more content is becoming exclusive to specific streaming services, dramatically increasing the complexity and price for everyone.
All of these problems only apply to people who pay for the content. Everything is available for free from pirates without any of these issues (but with plenty of other issues, which are accepted because it's free). Legal, permanent digital copies of movies and TV shows don't seem to exist at all.
I have on several occasions downloaded pirated copies of movies or TV shows that I already had legal access to, just to watch them the way I want. The fact that that's even something to consider is ridiculous.
For music this is partially solved. I can pay for streaming access to anything in the Spotify library, or the Apple Music library, or one of several others. They all contain the vast majority of music most people want to listen to, and compete on other features. This is the direction Netflix and competitors should have moved in, but instead they went for exclusivity.
If I would rather maintain my own library (which I do), I can buy songs and albums on services like Bandcamp, and get high-quality, DRM free files. There is no equivalent for movies and TV shows.
I still semi-regularly run into artists who only offer their music on streaming services, in which case I will listen to their song on YouTube and then forget about them. The alternative would again be piracy, so these artists are missing out on revenue.
They are selling files. It's not that hard.
I'm more than happy to pay for movies or shows and currently subscribe to 5 streaming services but often find I need to resort to pirated content for a few reasons:
1. Frequently movies I want to watch are simply unavailable to stream or purchase in my country (Australia). Often they are available on the streaming services I subscribe to but only for users in other countries.
2. Being hearing impaired, I need subtitles but these are often unavailable on the streaming services. I can almost always get them for pirated content. So often I will pirate a movie that I could watch through a streaming service just so I can get the subtitles.
1. Frequently movies I want to watch are simply unavailable to stream or purchase in my country (Australia). Often they are available on the streaming services I subscribe to but only for users in other countries.
2. Being hearing impaired, I need subtitles but these are often unavailable on the streaming services. I can almost always get them for pirated content. So often I will pirate a movie that I could watch through a streaming service just so I can get the subtitles.
My experience with Netflix: it told me to switch browsers, disable my VPN, and install spyware on my computer, so that I could have the privilege of viewing video in 720p while I had an Internet connection.
I just laughed, closed the browser, opened up tpb. In 5 minutes I was watching what I wanted in 4K. I don't need to jump through hoops, install spyware, surrender my privacy, and I have a .mkv I can play on whatever device I want. I'd gladly pay good money for this.
Not to mention: I have access to older/niche content, not just endlessly formulaic "Netflix original series", I can lend it to someone else (remember dvds?), I can archive a copy and not be dependent on the whims of my provider.
I just laughed, closed the browser, opened up tpb. In 5 minutes I was watching what I wanted in 4K. I don't need to jump through hoops, install spyware, surrender my privacy, and I have a .mkv I can play on whatever device I want. I'd gladly pay good money for this.
Not to mention: I have access to older/niche content, not just endlessly formulaic "Netflix original series", I can lend it to someone else (remember dvds?), I can archive a copy and not be dependent on the whims of my provider.
> How are films supposed to get funded if people get them for free?
> What is your model for how films should get funded?
The same way free-to-air TV pays for itself - adverts. Either a couple of ad breaks in the film, or rotating watermarks on screen throughout the film. And make getting it easier than me finding the equivalent torrent. Release schedule - cinema, streaming, 'free'.
When films aren't available on any of the streaming services I subscribe to, what do you expect me to do? Pay another £60 per annum to watch one film on a streaming service I'll never use again? I read somewhere there are 1000 streaming services in the UK, and over 2000 in the US.
I've said before on here, it's a shame we didn't have today's bandwidth back in the mp3 days, because that forced the hand of the music industry to back iTunes, or Spotify, and only now they're beginning to fragment a little. If the video industry was under pressure from widescale cheap piracy, we'd have an industry wide streaming site. Instead we have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney+, HBO, and so on.
One day before launch Paramount pulled Star Trek Discovery off Netflix to their own streaming service. Can you guess what the most pirated TV show was over the following weeks?
To be clear, I don't agree with piracy, but I have zero sympathy for movie studios and their shitty walled gardens.
> What is your model for how films should get funded?
The same way free-to-air TV pays for itself - adverts. Either a couple of ad breaks in the film, or rotating watermarks on screen throughout the film. And make getting it easier than me finding the equivalent torrent. Release schedule - cinema, streaming, 'free'.
When films aren't available on any of the streaming services I subscribe to, what do you expect me to do? Pay another £60 per annum to watch one film on a streaming service I'll never use again? I read somewhere there are 1000 streaming services in the UK, and over 2000 in the US.
I've said before on here, it's a shame we didn't have today's bandwidth back in the mp3 days, because that forced the hand of the music industry to back iTunes, or Spotify, and only now they're beginning to fragment a little. If the video industry was under pressure from widescale cheap piracy, we'd have an industry wide streaming site. Instead we have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney+, HBO, and so on.
One day before launch Paramount pulled Star Trek Discovery off Netflix to their own streaming service. Can you guess what the most pirated TV show was over the following weeks?
To be clear, I don't agree with piracy, but I have zero sympathy for movie studios and their shitty walled gardens.
> The same way free-to-air TV pays for itself - adverts. Either a couple of ad breaks in the film, or rotating watermarks on screen throughout the film.
Please no. Watching La vita è Bella[1] or a Clockwork Orange[2] and being interrupted by an ad for toothpaste or a theme park would muddy the experience. That model would make most good films unpalatable. Were that the only legal way to consume movies, piracy would continue to exist for cuts without ads.
Do note that the US model of having ad breaks during an episode of a TV show isn’t in use all over the world. In Portugal, breaks happens between episodes but are longer.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Beautiful
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
Please no. Watching La vita è Bella[1] or a Clockwork Orange[2] and being interrupted by an ad for toothpaste or a theme park would muddy the experience. That model would make most good films unpalatable. Were that the only legal way to consume movies, piracy would continue to exist for cuts without ads.
Do note that the US model of having ad breaks during an episode of a TV show isn’t in use all over the world. In Portugal, breaks happens between episodes but are longer.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Beautiful
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
> When films aren't available on any of the streaming services I subscribe to, what do you expect me to do? Pay another £60 per annum to watch one film on a streaming service I'll never use again? I read somewhere there are 1000 streaming services in the UK, and over 2000 in the US.
Yes? Especially when you actually normally are able to use a thirty day trial, or pay £5 for a single month without a rolling contract, or just don't watch the title, or go and purchase/rent it from iTunes et al?
All of those are perfectly legitimate options.
Yes? Especially when you actually normally are able to use a thirty day trial, or pay £5 for a single month without a rolling contract, or just don't watch the title, or go and purchase/rent it from iTunes et al?
All of those are perfectly legitimate options.
On the front page right now:
The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29835933
I say, if piracy destroys Hollywood- let it.
'Be a favour to everyone and above of all, cinema.
The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29835933
I say, if piracy destroys Hollywood- let it.
'Be a favour to everyone and above of all, cinema.
Fix the service problem of actually being able to find films.
Back in the day, Netflix's DVD library was close enough to complete that there was little need to look elsewhere, and their streaming selection was not terrible when it launched. Now that the whole system is fractured, the simple act of finding out who streams your movie is a chore, and in many cases getting it in the original language with proper subtitles is non-trivial.
Create a single point of entry to a high-quality library with minimal friction, and you eliminate the desire to pirate in many people.
Back in the day, Netflix's DVD library was close enough to complete that there was little need to look elsewhere, and their streaming selection was not terrible when it launched. Now that the whole system is fractured, the simple act of finding out who streams your movie is a chore, and in many cases getting it in the original language with proper subtitles is non-trivial.
Create a single point of entry to a high-quality library with minimal friction, and you eliminate the desire to pirate in many people.
> The conclusion is that obtaining films legally via streaming services remains the most convenient option
Try living outside the US :).
> What is your model for how films should get funded?
I don't see the movie industry suffering all that much. So maybe ... they can figure it out themselves since it's obviously working well enough, and it's not a life&death situation, but one of optimization. https://www.statista.com/statistics/260198/filmed-entertainm...
Try living outside the US :).
> What is your model for how films should get funded?
I don't see the movie industry suffering all that much. So maybe ... they can figure it out themselves since it's obviously working well enough, and it's not a life&death situation, but one of optimization. https://www.statista.com/statistics/260198/filmed-entertainm...
> Try living outside the US
I’m not finding it now, but I remember a joke attributed to Tim Berners-Lee (unconfirmed). Paraphrased:
> In the past, if you wanted to see new episodes of a TV show as they came out you’d have to fly to the US every week. Today, thanks to the internet, you can find much cheaper flights.
I’m not finding it now, but I remember a joke attributed to Tim Berners-Lee (unconfirmed). Paraphrased:
> In the past, if you wanted to see new episodes of a TV show as they came out you’d have to fly to the US every week. Today, thanks to the internet, you can find much cheaper flights.
> How are films supposed to get funded if people get them for free?
Film "success" is still measured primarily in box office revenues, indicating - to me at least - that a successful theatrical release is where the money's at. There are certainly some people out there who would rather watch some shaky camcorder recording of a theater screen for free than actually go to a movie theater, but it doesn't seem like that's had much of an impact on the box office bottom line - even with COVID affecting theater attendance - probably because of the theater experience itself still ostensibly having some dollar value.
Film "success" is still measured primarily in box office revenues, indicating - to me at least - that a successful theatrical release is where the money's at. There are certainly some people out there who would rather watch some shaky camcorder recording of a theater screen for free than actually go to a movie theater, but it doesn't seem like that's had much of an impact on the box office bottom line - even with COVID affecting theater attendance - probably because of the theater experience itself still ostensibly having some dollar value.
> some shaky camcorder recording of a theater screen
Haha. I remember this from... 15 years ago? The pirating industry has moved on substantially since then
Haha. I remember this from... 15 years ago? The pirating industry has moved on substantially since then
That still happens, especially with tentpole movies. Sometimes it takes a few weeks after release for a non-shaky pirate recording to be widespread.
And sometimes the movie gets leaked from the studio months before it hits the cinemas
https://thecinemaholic.com/movies-that-leaked-before-they-we...
https://thecinemaholic.com/movies-that-leaked-before-they-we...
You have to wait for the whole film to finish downloading before you can watch it. This is inconvenient.
I've heard from a friend of mine that torrent clients have streaming mode as well. I.e. packets arrive not randomly, but in order, and as long as your DL speed exceeds 1 second per second, you are fine.
I've heard from a friend of mine that torrent clients have streaming mode as well. I.e. packets arrive not randomly, but in order, and as long as your DL speed exceeds 1 second per second, you are fine.
Also downloading a popular 1080p movie takes minutes. I think for my workflow pirating is actually easier than dealing with a decentralised streaming ecosystem without cross app searches.
I've also heard from a friend that qbitorrent supports this (sequential download).
> [edit] It's interesting that this is getting so many downvotes, even though it's asking a question and the premises are currently true. As other commenters have pointed out, BitTorrent downloads a file in random order and not from beginning to end, and this is less convenient than streaming.
Don't bother, the narrative here is that Netflix, Disney+, IP owners and distributors are literally forcing people to pirate content not available to them through their subscriptions.
Don't bother, the narrative here is that Netflix, Disney+, IP owners and distributors are literally forcing people to pirate content not available to them through their subscriptions.
file sharing: Your premise is incorrect, you can stream them as well.
streaming service: If you figure out which service to use. If the service that has them is available in your region. And has that movie with your preferred language. And with your preferred subtitle language.
Only if all points are checked do streaming services become more convenient… mostly. There are then also companies like Netflix or Amazon who like making it as hard as possible to watch something compared to pirating it (hyperbole, yes. But also with quite some truth to it, at least for TV shows, I don’t watch movies)
streaming service: If you figure out which service to use. If the service that has them is available in your region. And has that movie with your preferred language. And with your preferred subtitle language.
Only if all points are checked do streaming services become more convenient… mostly. There are then also companies like Netflix or Amazon who like making it as hard as possible to watch something compared to pirating it (hyperbole, yes. But also with quite some truth to it, at least for TV shows, I don’t watch movies)
> file sharing: Your premise is incorrect, you can stream them as well.
Of sorts, when there's enough excess bandwidth available that fairness doesn't really matter. By design bittorrent randomizes download order to improve the ability of peers to be of mutual interest to enable tit-for-tat.
Of sorts, when there's enough excess bandwidth available that fairness doesn't really matter. By design bittorrent randomizes download order to improve the ability of peers to be of mutual interest to enable tit-for-tat.
That is possible, I have never used this feature. Though I’d guess that something new or old enough for it to matter, can’t download fast enough to keep up with a stream anyway.
If enough pirates cared about streaming, there would be better p2p streaming. But bandwidth is cheap and movies take minutes.
> file sharing: Your premise is incorrect, you can stream them as well.
Doesn't BitTorrent download the file in random order, instead of from beginning to end? I thought there was a good reason why it had to do that. I thought the only alternative was centralisation.
Doesn't BitTorrent download the file in random order, instead of from beginning to end? I thought there was a good reason why it had to do that. I thought the only alternative was centralisation.
It's usually not a (fully) random order, but rather the least-available (from other peers) parts get prioritised, to ensure maximum overall throughput. e.g. if 10 clients have the first part, but only 2 have the second part, it will prefer to download the second part first if possible.
But as the other replies say, your client can request any part it wishes. A few clients doing this won't have a significant effect on the overall throughput. Even if most clients were doing this, it would mostly only result in slightly lower download speeds overall.
The exception is for torrents with very few seeders, where this can have a much worse effect, but you are unlikely to be able to stream those sequentially at a reasonable speed anyway.
But as the other replies say, your client can request any part it wishes. A few clients doing this won't have a significant effect on the overall throughput. Even if most clients were doing this, it would mostly only result in slightly lower download speeds overall.
The exception is for torrents with very few seeders, where this can have a much worse effect, but you are unlikely to be able to stream those sequentially at a reasonable speed anyway.
It downloads them in the order you tell your client to do.
That’s something clients can control.
>How are films supposed to get funded if people get them for free?
You can fund them before the fact with patronage. That is, recoup the cost beforehand, and the work is free for everyone to enjoy after it is made.
You can fund them before the fact with patronage. That is, recoup the cost beforehand, and the work is free for everyone to enjoy after it is made.
Angel Studios has had great success with this, with The Chosen.
3 seasons fully funded and a 4th one half way [0].
[0]: https://watch.angelstudios.com/thechosen/pif
I thought about this. Can you get sufficient funding via this method? Some films are really expensive.
There have been pretty large scale crowdfunding/patreon type projects. Who's to say that a MCU type film can't be next ?
So films need to be expensive? I believe the dark night was in the 300m+ range. What would a 50m budget get?
May be start with how did copyright term get to such insane length and why isn't it being rolled back?
I agree with you, but you aren't answering my question about funding. The question is an existential one about whether copyright should exist at all, and be enforced too.
Point is, piracy is only a natural counter balance to those who pushed copyright term to the current insanity and want to keep the status quo. So far they don't seem to have a problem with making new films despite constant cries that skies are falling becasue of piracy.
>How are films supposed to get funded if people get them for free?
I don't care is an acceptable answer here
Live off the fat of the land. Judging from how profitable movies are, there is plenty of fat
I don't care is an acceptable answer here
Live off the fat of the land. Judging from how profitable movies are, there is plenty of fat
The same way as always, by people paying for them. Just because people pirate, doesn't mean they don't pay.
The fact is, piracy is widespread and profits are growing. There doesn't seem to be a big effect of piracy on the market as a whole. People do understand the concept of paying for what they use. The right way to battle piracy is to make payment super easy for the kind of use people expect.
As a more practical matter, I see the fight against piracy resulting in the creation of totalitarian systems of control on the internet, along with systems to block people from having control over their devices and data, which I do not agree with.
I agree that people should be paid something for their work. I also postulate that letting people with lower income pirate the majority of their entertainment results in a better market in the long run, when they (hopefully) get the means to contribute back. I see the current Draconian measures as not helping anyone, except the people implementing them and the less savoury branches of government.
The fact is, piracy is widespread and profits are growing. There doesn't seem to be a big effect of piracy on the market as a whole. People do understand the concept of paying for what they use. The right way to battle piracy is to make payment super easy for the kind of use people expect.
As a more practical matter, I see the fight against piracy resulting in the creation of totalitarian systems of control on the internet, along with systems to block people from having control over their devices and data, which I do not agree with.
I agree that people should be paid something for their work. I also postulate that letting people with lower income pirate the majority of their entertainment results in a better market in the long run, when they (hopefully) get the means to contribute back. I see the current Draconian measures as not helping anyone, except the people implementing them and the less savoury branches of government.
I subscribe to three different streaming services, and if I really like something that isn't on them I'll buy a Blu Ray or DVD. I also rent stuff on YouTube.
But I have no qualms about pirating things that simply aren't purchasable without jumping through hoops (or at all as is the case for most older TV shows that are even a little bit obscure).
But I have no qualms about pirating things that simply aren't purchasable without jumping through hoops (or at all as is the case for most older TV shows that are even a little bit obscure).
Unfortunately you don't really own an individual license to the content if you get a BluRay - your content is still tied to the media. Some of my BluRays are unplayable due to scratches, which means that my license is gone. Ok, these are the terms, but with terms like that piracy wins.
I'd like a full quality, DRM-free file with my BluRay purchases. And then I'd just skip the BluRay and buy the file itself...
They don't sell the DRM-free file because of piracy... But in fact, there is more piracy because they don't sell the file!
I'd like a full quality, DRM-free file with my BluRay purchases. And then I'd just skip the BluRay and buy the file itself...
They don't sell the DRM-free file because of piracy... But in fact, there is more piracy because they don't sell the file!
"Free/pirated" services should just be tracked and the artist should be compensated from an organization (a'la rcaa/mpaa/etc). The "organization" could be government, but I'm sure that would not be welcomed in the U.S.
There's lots of of places around the world where paying for some streaming is not viable (even less so for multiple services). Same goes for stuff like video games.
I myself grew up in the post-soviet baltics and around the time when when I got more into gaming - my monthly income was around 400 and new games were around 60. When Steam (and it's sales), Humble Bundle, GOG became more of a thing and my income increased - I just sort of stopped pirating games. It was definitely more convenient to get something on e.g. Steam than pirate it and jump through hoops to get the cracks working.
When Netflix first became available - I started using that. It seemed worth paying even for limited library. But there were lots of things that was impossible to get any other way than pirating. As I stopped watching movies/tv shows - I stopped paying for Netflix. I don't thing I'd be willing to pay for multiple streaming services.
My current (largely overpriced) media of choice is audiobooks.
I myself grew up in the post-soviet baltics and around the time when when I got more into gaming - my monthly income was around 400 and new games were around 60. When Steam (and it's sales), Humble Bundle, GOG became more of a thing and my income increased - I just sort of stopped pirating games. It was definitely more convenient to get something on e.g. Steam than pirate it and jump through hoops to get the cracks working.
When Netflix first became available - I started using that. It seemed worth paying even for limited library. But there were lots of things that was impossible to get any other way than pirating. As I stopped watching movies/tv shows - I stopped paying for Netflix. I don't thing I'd be willing to pay for multiple streaming services.
My current (largely overpriced) media of choice is audiobooks.
>You have to wait for the whole film to finish downloading
It depends on the video file format. If the file format supports opening partial files you can just open them when downloading.
>The latter costs money
There are plenty of free movie streaming sites.
It depends on the video file format. If the file format supports opening partial files you can just open them when downloading.
>The latter costs money
There are plenty of free movie streaming sites.
> It depends on the video file format. If the file format supports opening partial files you can just open them when downloading.
It's a bit more complicated than that as you have to ensure that your torrent client downloads data in order, from start to finish. Usually it's more or less random.
There are torrent clients that support this though, for sure.
It's a bit more complicated than that as you have to ensure that your torrent client downloads data in order, from start to finish. Usually it's more or less random.
There are torrent clients that support this though, for sure.
>>You have to wait for the whole film to finish downloading
>It depends on the video file format. If the file format supports opening partial files you can just open them when downloading.
I based my assumption on the fact that BitTorrent doesn't download the file from beginning to end in order. It downloads the file in a random order.
>It depends on the video file format. If the file format supports opening partial files you can just open them when downloading.
I based my assumption on the fact that BitTorrent doesn't download the file from beginning to end in order. It downloads the file in a random order.
If it was not possible to download in order, things like popcorn wouldn't be there for years. It streams torrent movies via this method.
No, it can download files in order. Almost all clients have that option.
Isn't the random order option better in some way? Is there a way of using probability to quantify this in some way? I'm thinking that there's a higher probability that a random "chunk" of a file will be available if the chunks are downloaded randomly. But I haven't looked into this enough to know.
I'd assume you are correct (intuitively, if you don't constrain order at all, you'll have more opportunities for matching required parts than if you do constrain order) However I've found that it's very much possible to stream 1080p torrents without any problems, even when skipping back and forth or jumping to other parts of the movie without anymore noticeable delay than I'd expect from e.g. netflix.
Torrenting, sharing with friends and family is still completely legal in Switzerland.
Only after pay services like spotify became a thing and were more convenient than managing and tagging my multi TB sized aac/mp3 library, I switched.
Same for Netflix. But since fragmentation of streaming services started to happen, I'm going back to things like stremio/torrents/DDL sites.
For software, as a hobbyist videographer I wouldn't purchase the Adobe suite and all the expensive VFX tools I use for my family videos. But whatever software I use professionally (at work and at my employer), I'm of course getting proper licenses.