14 ms·

As someone who grew up in the UK in the late 90s, with a taste for American media, especially scifi, and the Internet a widespread thing, it was infuriating wai

As someone who grew up in the UK in the late 90s, with a taste for American media, especially scifi, and the Internet a widespread thing, it was infuriating waiting for TV shows to come to the screen months or even years behind the rest of the world. I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline. When I got to Uni in Oct 2000, I could use BitchX/IRC on the lab irix machine to use a massive 10 MEGA bit connection to get voyager episodes. Compared with downloading on a 33.6kbit connection over a phone line that cost at least £2.40 (about $5-6 in today's money) that was an amazing experience. Even recently they decided not to bother releasing Lower Decks internationally. Had to get a Bittorrent client to watch it. That's not the case with things like Discovery and Picard which were released pretty much simultaneously. If a media company won't sell me what I want to watch, I'll go elsewhere. I paid $6 to my phone company to get a shocking quality copy of Voyager. For me, Piracy is not trying to avoid paying for it, it's about trying to get it. They've mostly cottoned on to the fact it's a global market now at least.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago
in india, piracy is not seen as bad unless its some bigshot movie star who calls it a "heinous crime" that a user enjoys their movies and they arent getting paid. anyways, i have never paid for a windows license. maybe back in 98 days but never after that. we use cracks and it used to be sold for a dollar or less. get an iso, copy iso, copy crack and thats it. people here have a problem accepting foss because they see windows as free so what benefit is switching to ubuntu? about media. until few years ago, you could only watch movies in theaters or on cable tv. shops would resell torrented movies for few cents a pop because that is at most what people were willing to pay. i am not going to buy an original DVD 6 months after launch for $ 30 if i get screener for $0.2 dollars next day of launch. its not about "robbing" the company, often purchasing parity means $10 is a days manual labour wages. paying $99 for a windows license used to make no sense when they already paid not more than $200-300 for an entire setup or a laptop.
- magicloop 5y ago
  In those days Microsoft had a "curious" business strategy. They wanted Windows to be the dominant standard whilst trying to avoid monopoly litigation. So they'd charge everyone a license fee knowing that standard businesses would pay up, and those that wouldn't or couldn't were allowed to crack the software and use it. That portion of the market, the "piracy" sector wasn't in their view part of their market share numbers (they would say they weren't a monopoly). But having this in place meant it was harder for competitors to sub-divide the market into other Operating Systems and Enterprise productivity software. So it would end up as either Open Source or Windows. This is why they didn't reduce their prices for purchasing power parity purposes (to make it equally affordable in each market). The rich countries could drive their profits, and everyone else had a "free" ride just to shut the door on a competitor. Of course, the history of Microsoft and Anti-trust litigation is well documented. Things didn't entirely work out for them.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    Every computer I bought had a windies license fee tacked on wether I used their operating system, or not. To this day, I try not to give Microsoft any money. I have never really cared for Gates, nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish.
    - realityking 5y ago
      > nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish. Do I understand you correctly, that your objection to the Gates foundation is, that they don‘t spend on projects in the US?
      - riversflow 5y ago
        Im gonna go out on a limb and say that, yes, that is their objection. Does that surprise you, or do you find it objectionable? Why? Im legitimately curious.
Qahlel 5y ago
>>> I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline. sg1archive.com
Zenst 5y ago
> When I got to Uni in Oct 2000, I could use BitchX/IRC on the lab irix machine to use a massive 10 MEGA bit connection to get voyager episodes. Compared with downloading on a 33.6kbit connection over a phone line that cost at least £2.40 (about $5-6 in today's money) that was an amazing experience. There was some way cheaper ISP offerings about in that time/era. Most ISP's used a local 0845 call charge number, so wasn't that bad, however there was also some 0800 ones. Was one that in the late 90's offered an 0800 to share holders and could get shares for sub £20 mark, unsure how they did it and indeed didn't last long, was also able to use two accounts to do a bonded line (ISDN). Only downside was it would drop the line every 2 hours, but with me OpenBSD firewall/gateway I setup, easy scripted around. That was my favourite of the dialup era as paid total of sub £40 for unlimited 128kbit internet and oh did I abuse that. Then in 2000 the cable companies arrived and the start of what I would call real internet, no dialup messing about or charges - if you was lucky to be in the catchment area that is and inside the M25 helped there, though even today there are parts of London inside the M25 that the cable companies don't cover (I know as I found such an address not in there coverage due to cost of laying a cable across the road). > I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline. I know exactly what you mean about TV shows back then and delays. For me southpark was the one that got that ball rolling, initially was realmedia encoded and ironically I watched every single episode almost religiously within an hour of it premiaring in America. Ironic as in 2003 I was in America when a new episode was out and fell asleep just before it came on and with that the first southpark episode I didn't watch within an hour or so of it airing was the only time I could of watched it live. These days, it's mostly dip into some streaming subscription for a month or two every now and then, flitting around the offerings, munching thru their offerings in that period and comming back to subbing them a year or so later once new things are there to make it worthwhile. But I'm not sure if it's age or my tastes, the enthusiasm and offerings just don't have me eagerly sitting in anticipation for the next episode or series these days as they did back then. Sure there are the odd gems that do that, but far less so than in the early days and a bit of choice/saturation overload perhaps, though mostly it's a case of many offerings just install a sense of ennui. With that, I would say the only TV show that has had me at the same enthusiasm level, would be the Mandalorian. beyond that, nothing jumps out at me really today and even South Park, I've become apathetic and not seen the last season (or maybe two). One change though, that I do approve of that many streaming serious releases do. Which is, they release the entire season at once, and that I love as you can keep your momentum going. Albeit you shift you wait from weekly episode releases towards yearly season releases, though that was always been the case.
lloydatkinson 5y ago
Funny, I’m torrenting SG1 literally right now because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason. A few months ago someone used one of those AI/ML based upscalers and now I have the torrents in 1080p resolution. Obviously it’s not magic but there is a very clear noticeable difference in quality and texture detail and of course the higher resolution compared to the older torrents and even Netflix. Highly recommend!
- dylan604 5y ago
  > because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason. Wow, what an entitled viewpoint. There was a very simple reason on why the episodes were removed: their license for those episodes expired. The content owner only allowed Netflix to display that content for a certain amount of time known as a licensing window. That window is now closed. Now that there are several other streaming vendors, the content owner of SG1 is more than likely to hoping to get more money from someone else. So while you may be disappointed in you not getting what you want when you want it, you're ire is totally pointed at the wrong people. It is always the content owner, not the distributor. At least learn a little bit about what you are clearly passionate about.
  - fao_ 5y ago
    Both are at fault. The content owner wants to make money through Netflix and other distributors, without it they are limited by DVD sales which are dwindling. It would be very, very easy for all of the content distributors to band together into some sort of... 'union', that would help them strong-arm the owners and push back the incoherent decisions made by them. Also, who is this post aimed at? Netflix isn't going to care if someone badmouths them on some random corner of the internet. And anyone who works there isn't going to give a shit just because someone on hacker news couldn't get SG-1 available internationally. I'm struggling to figure out why you felt that this post was at all necessary.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Why would any of the platforms join together? If all of the streamers had the same content, there'd be no point in having more than one streaming platform. Why would the content owners want to work with only one streaming platform? There'd be nobody to bid against each other. I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.
blooalien 5y ago
> "For me, Piracy is not trying to avoid paying for it, it's about trying to get it." Sad thing is it's not even always about location exclusive dealings, either. It wasn't terribly long ago that I was prevented from paying for access to content available on Amazon's streaming services because my "platform isn't supported". (I use Linux, and whatever DRM they used at the time wasn't available on Linux, and before anyone tries to tell me "Just use Windows then", the answer is and always will be "NO!" Been there, done that, quit Windows for very valid reasons, ain't goin' back ever. Period, full stop, end of story.) So, yeah… Their "anti-piracy measures" actually lost them a sale that would have likely turned into a repeat customer, and as a consequence, they're one of the streaming services I actively avoid even looking at. Instead of focusing on punishing those who will never pay them, they should seriously think about not punishing those who would willingly pay (as DRM really only hurts the honest customer).
- phreack 5y ago
  It's Gaben being proved right over and over and over again. Piracy is a service problem, not a pricing problem.
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    To be fair, I think it's both. They're over pricing pay per view content, which drives people to subscription services. The problem is that subscription services are filled with low quality content. They need to stop being tricky and just sell this stuff for what it's actually worth. Paying $4 to watch a single movie one time is absurd when you pay $10 to watch unlimited content in a month. Pricing is very out of proportion too.
    - saiya-jin 5y ago
      Well, you get the crappy channel subsidized with adverts, otherwise it would either be too pricey or server just utter cheap worthless unwatchable trash (mostly). Would you like to pay say 1 dollar per movie and watch significant amount of ads during it?
GekkePrutser 5y ago
Lower decks is on Amazon prime here in Spain. I have the service but I still download it because I hate all the restrictions. Also prime shows annoying trailers before every episode.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

in india, piracy is not seen as bad unless its some bigshot movie star who calls it a "heinous crime" that a user enjoys their movies and they arent getting paid. anyways, i have never paid for a windows license. maybe back in 98 days but never after that. we use cracks and it used to be sold for a dollar or less. get an iso, copy iso, copy crack and thats it. people here have a problem accepting foss because they see windows as free so what benefit is switching to ubuntu? about media. until few years ago, you could only watch movies in theaters or on cable tv. shops would resell torrented movies for few cents a pop because that is at most what people were willing to pay. i am not going to buy an original DVD 6 months after launch for $ 30 if i get screener for $0.2 dollars next day of launch. its not about "robbing" the company, often purchasing parity means $10 is a days manual labour wages. paying $99 for a windows license used to make no sense when they already paid not more than $200-300 for an entire setup or a laptop.

magicloop 5y ago
In those days Microsoft had a "curious" business strategy. They wanted Windows to be the dominant standard whilst trying to avoid monopoly litigation. So they'd charge everyone a license fee knowing that standard businesses would pay up, and those that wouldn't or couldn't were allowed to crack the software and use it. That portion of the market, the "piracy" sector wasn't in their view part of their market share numbers (they would say they weren't a monopoly). But having this in place meant it was harder for competitors to sub-divide the market into other Operating Systems and Enterprise productivity software. So it would end up as either Open Source or Windows. This is why they didn't reduce their prices for purchasing power parity purposes (to make it equally affordable in each market). The rich countries could drive their profits, and everyone else had a "free" ride just to shut the door on a competitor. Of course, the history of Microsoft and Anti-trust litigation is well documented. Things didn't entirely work out for them.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Every computer I bought had a windies license fee tacked on wether I used their operating system, or not. To this day, I try not to give Microsoft any money. I have never really cared for Gates, nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish.
  - realityking 5y ago
    > nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish. Do I understand you correctly, that your objection to the Gates foundation is, that they don‘t spend on projects in the US?
    - riversflow 5y ago
      Im gonna go out on a limb and say that, yes, that is their objection. Does that surprise you, or do you find it objectionable? Why? Im legitimately curious.

Qahlel 5y ago

>>> I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline. sg1archive.com

Zenst 5y ago

> When I got to Uni in Oct 2000, I could use BitchX/IRC on the lab irix machine to use a massive 10 MEGA bit connection to get voyager episodes. Compared with downloading on a 33.6kbit connection over a phone line that cost at least £2.40 (about $5-6 in today's money) that was an amazing experience. There was some way cheaper ISP offerings about in that time/era. Most ISP's used a local 0845 call charge number, so wasn't that bad, however there was also some 0800 ones. Was one that in the late 90's offered an 0800 to share holders and could get shares for sub £20 mark, unsure how they did it and indeed didn't last long, was also able to use two accounts to do a bonded line (ISDN). Only downside was it would drop the line every 2 hours, but with me OpenBSD firewall/gateway I setup, easy scripted around. That was my favourite of the dialup era as paid total of sub £40 for unlimited 128kbit internet and oh did I abuse that. Then in 2000 the cable companies arrived and the start of what I would call real internet, no dialup messing about or charges - if you was lucky to be in the catchment area that is and inside the M25 helped there, though even today there are parts of London inside the M25 that the cable companies don't cover (I know as I found such an address not in there coverage due to cost of laying a cable across the road). > I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline. I know exactly what you mean about TV shows back then and delays. For me southpark was the one that got that ball rolling, initially was realmedia encoded and ironically I watched every single episode almost religiously within an hour of it premiaring in America. Ironic as in 2003 I was in America when a new episode was out and fell asleep just before it came on and with that the first southpark episode I didn't watch within an hour or so of it airing was the only time I could of watched it live. These days, it's mostly dip into some streaming subscription for a month or two every now and then, flitting around the offerings, munching thru their offerings in that period and comming back to subbing them a year or so later once new things are there to make it worthwhile. But I'm not sure if it's age or my tastes, the enthusiasm and offerings just don't have me eagerly sitting in anticipation for the next episode or series these days as they did back then. Sure there are the odd gems that do that, but far less so than in the early days and a bit of choice/saturation overload perhaps, though mostly it's a case of many offerings just install a sense of ennui. With that, I would say the only TV show that has had me at the same enthusiasm level, would be the Mandalorian. beyond that, nothing jumps out at me really today and even South Park, I've become apathetic and not seen the last season (or maybe two). One change though, that I do approve of that many streaming serious releases do. Which is, they release the entire season at once, and that I love as you can keep your momentum going. Albeit you shift you wait from weekly episode releases towards yearly season releases, though that was always been the case.

lloydatkinson 5y ago

Funny, I’m torrenting SG1 literally right now because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason. A few months ago someone used one of those AI/ML based upscalers and now I have the torrents in 1080p resolution. Obviously it’s not magic but there is a very clear noticeable difference in quality and texture detail and of course the higher resolution compared to the older torrents and even Netflix. Highly recommend!

dylan604 5y ago
> because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason. Wow, what an entitled viewpoint. There was a very simple reason on why the episodes were removed: their license for those episodes expired. The content owner only allowed Netflix to display that content for a certain amount of time known as a licensing window. That window is now closed. Now that there are several other streaming vendors, the content owner of SG1 is more than likely to hoping to get more money from someone else. So while you may be disappointed in you not getting what you want when you want it, you're ire is totally pointed at the wrong people. It is always the content owner, not the distributor. At least learn a little bit about what you are clearly passionate about.
- fao_ 5y ago
  Both are at fault. The content owner wants to make money through Netflix and other distributors, without it they are limited by DVD sales which are dwindling. It would be very, very easy for all of the content distributors to band together into some sort of... 'union', that would help them strong-arm the owners and push back the incoherent decisions made by them. Also, who is this post aimed at? Netflix isn't going to care if someone badmouths them on some random corner of the internet. And anyone who works there isn't going to give a shit just because someone on hacker news couldn't get SG-1 available internationally. I'm struggling to figure out why you felt that this post was at all necessary.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Why would any of the platforms join together? If all of the streamers had the same content, there'd be no point in having more than one streaming platform. Why would the content owners want to work with only one streaming platform? There'd be nobody to bid against each other. I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.

blooalien 5y ago

> "For me, Piracy is not trying to avoid paying for it, it's about trying to get it." Sad thing is it's not even always about location exclusive dealings, either. It wasn't terribly long ago that I was prevented from paying for access to content available on Amazon's streaming services because my "platform isn't supported". (I use Linux, and whatever DRM they used at the time wasn't available on Linux, and before anyone tries to tell me "Just use Windows then", the answer is and always will be "NO!" Been there, done that, quit Windows for very valid reasons, ain't goin' back ever. Period, full stop, end of story.) So, yeah… Their "anti-piracy measures" actually lost them a sale that would have likely turned into a repeat customer, and as a consequence, they're one of the streaming services I actively avoid even looking at. Instead of focusing on punishing those who will never pay them, they should seriously think about not punishing those who would willingly pay (as DRM really only hurts the honest customer).

phreack 5y ago
It's Gaben being proved right over and over and over again. Piracy is a service problem, not a pricing problem.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  To be fair, I think it's both. They're over pricing pay per view content, which drives people to subscription services. The problem is that subscription services are filled with low quality content. They need to stop being tricky and just sell this stuff for what it's actually worth. Paying $4 to watch a single movie one time is absurd when you pay $10 to watch unlimited content in a month. Pricing is very out of proportion too.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Well, you get the crappy channel subsidized with adverts, otherwise it would either be too pricey or server just utter cheap worthless unwatchable trash (mostly). Would you like to pay say 1 dollar per movie and watch significant amount of ads during it?

GekkePrutser 5y ago

Lower decks is on Amazon prime here in Spain. I have the service but I still download it because I hate all the restrictions. Also prime shows annoying trailers before every episode.