10 ms·

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 upsc

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.
    - fao_ 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. I don't think you understand. A 'union' is simply a group of companies aligning and talking about common interests, one of which is exactly what I said -- the ability to strongarm content owners into making content available internationally, so that their bottom line can be stronger. It is not the same meaning as 'merger' -- you seem to have conflated the two? For the union I just proposed, there is historical precendece -- the International Intellectual Property Association and similar organizations put pressure on the US Government via lobbying to specifically 'protect' international copyright law (NB: I can't condone this organization, but it does exist). This is simply a different group of companies with different interests. It doesn't mean they stop competing with each other, it just means that they all agree to do one specific thing. In this case it might harm them all in the short term, but would be beneficial in the long term. Without sales to Netflix and other content distributors the revenue of the content owners would dry up -- movie sales are dwindling due to increasing prices, DVD sales are drying up, therefore the content distributors hold the cards here which allows them to unilaterally negotiate better terms -- but that only works if they all do it at once. If one company decides to not participate, that leaves an opening for the content owners to go to them. > 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. Well this is the most jumbled wall of text I've seen today. You seem to be saying that someone complaining on the internet is bad? You seem to also be trying to insult me? It's highly immature and petty, whatever it is. The original point was that the ire was directed at the wrong group of people, and I pointed out that it's not like the company is going to care that one single person is venting about them on the internet. I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > 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. I think when competing firms form a 'union' like this it's called collusion.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
      One person’s collusion is another person’s Motion Picture Association. the MPA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry, with the goals of promoting effective copyright protection, reducing piracy, and expanding market access. It has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing networks and by streaming from pirate sites. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association
      - mullingitover 5y ago
        This is kind of apples and oranges though. The MPAA is more of a lobbying organization, it isn't an agreement between firms about how they will compete (or not compete) in the marketplace
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Isn't it pretty much an agreement that they'll compete" (i.e. not compete) by all implementing basically the same shitty DRM?
        mullingitover 5y ago
        A group of competitors agreeing on a standard isn't the same thing as collusion, though. There are all kinds of industry competitors that use common standards. Not defending the DRM, but that alone isn't collusion.
        5y ago
- kaba0 5y ago
  Why would it be an entitled viewpoint? He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for. It is entirely reasonable to expect said service to continue to serve previously available content - it was of course a legal way of operation that the owner didn’t extend their license and that Netflix removed episodes. But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    > But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations. Those expectations are unrealistic, and quite frankly entitled. When did Netflix ever state that any content available now will be available for ever? It's the nature of the business that content is only made available for a set amount of time. What does complaining about it on the internet expect to do anyways?
    - sillysaurusx 5y ago
      What's wrong with being entitled? We're entitled to our entertainment. If we don't get it, we torrent it.
      - abnry 5y ago
        You are not entitled to entertainment. If there is literally anything as petulant and first-world narcissistic it is the belief that one is entitled to entertainment.
        sillysaurusx 5y ago
        But... we are, because we can pirate it if it's not available to us. I suppose "entitled" isn't the correct word. Is there a word for "That's just the way it is"? Basically, there exists a way to acquire entertainment. It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us at a reasonable market value. If the market value exceeds the threshold of reasonableness, then we downshift into torrenting the entertainment. It's a business opportunity. The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  Put a sock in it and grow up
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> Funny, I’m torrenting SG1 literally right now because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason. They had SG-1 on Netflix?! It never was available on mine Netflix (which I keep subscribed to only because, and for as long as, they have the golden-era Star Trek series, i.e. TNG-ENT). Exclusive regional distribution rights are legacy bullshit for digital content. And the sad thing is, people responsible for maintaining those are going to make things worse, because they now figured streaming is hot, and everyone is racing to create their own exclusive streaming platform.
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  Yeah they did in the UK!
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  I have a sneaking suspicion Netflix dropped SG1 because people like me would watch it almost continuously and therefore it contributed disproportionately to their content delivery costs. I lost count how many times I've watched DS9 and VOY, too.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > because people like me would watch it almost continuously I would, too. Only this year I've completed another end-to-end rewatch of DS9, and continued with half of VOY (got interrupted by life) and then half of ENT. And I feel like the time to re-watch TNG is approaching again. Lord help me, if they had SG-1 on Netflix in Poland, I would have been watching it just as much.
lloydatkinson 5y ago
It's a shame that the typical HN "thing" happened where people focussed on small details and argued strawman arguments instead of focussing on the main fact that some AI/ML upscalers can make older shows look much better.

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.
  - fao_ 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. I don't think you understand. A 'union' is simply a group of companies aligning and talking about common interests, one of which is exactly what I said -- the ability to strongarm content owners into making content available internationally, so that their bottom line can be stronger. It is not the same meaning as 'merger' -- you seem to have conflated the two? For the union I just proposed, there is historical precendece -- the International Intellectual Property Association and similar organizations put pressure on the US Government via lobbying to specifically 'protect' international copyright law (NB: I can't condone this organization, but it does exist). This is simply a different group of companies with different interests. It doesn't mean they stop competing with each other, it just means that they all agree to do one specific thing. In this case it might harm them all in the short term, but would be beneficial in the long term. Without sales to Netflix and other content distributors the revenue of the content owners would dry up -- movie sales are dwindling due to increasing prices, DVD sales are drying up, therefore the content distributors hold the cards here which allows them to unilaterally negotiate better terms -- but that only works if they all do it at once. If one company decides to not participate, that leaves an opening for the content owners to go to them. > 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. Well this is the most jumbled wall of text I've seen today. You seem to be saying that someone complaining on the internet is bad? You seem to also be trying to insult me? It's highly immature and petty, whatever it is. The original point was that the ire was directed at the wrong group of people, and I pointed out that it's not like the company is going to care that one single person is venting about them on the internet. I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > 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. I think when competing firms form a 'union' like this it's called collusion.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    One person’s collusion is another person’s Motion Picture Association. the MPA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry, with the goals of promoting effective copyright protection, reducing piracy, and expanding market access. It has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing networks and by streaming from pirate sites. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      This is kind of apples and oranges though. The MPAA is more of a lobbying organization, it isn't an agreement between firms about how they will compete (or not compete) in the marketplace
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Isn't it pretty much an agreement that they'll compete" (i.e. not compete) by all implementing basically the same shitty DRM?
        mullingitover 5y ago
        A group of competitors agreeing on a standard isn't the same thing as collusion, though. There are all kinds of industry competitors that use common standards. Not defending the DRM, but that alone isn't collusion.
        5y ago
kaba0 5y ago
Why would it be an entitled viewpoint? He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for. It is entirely reasonable to expect said service to continue to serve previously available content - it was of course a legal way of operation that the owner didn’t extend their license and that Netflix removed episodes. But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations.
- dylan604 5y ago
  > But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations. Those expectations are unrealistic, and quite frankly entitled. When did Netflix ever state that any content available now will be available for ever? It's the nature of the business that content is only made available for a set amount of time. What does complaining about it on the internet expect to do anyways?
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    What's wrong with being entitled? We're entitled to our entertainment. If we don't get it, we torrent it.
    - abnry 5y ago
      You are not entitled to entertainment. If there is literally anything as petulant and first-world narcissistic it is the belief that one is entitled to entertainment.
      - sillysaurusx 5y ago
        But... we are, because we can pirate it if it's not available to us. I suppose "entitled" isn't the correct word. Is there a word for "That's just the way it is"? Basically, there exists a way to acquire entertainment. It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us at a reasonable market value. If the market value exceeds the threshold of reasonableness, then we downshift into torrenting the entertainment. It's a business opportunity. The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.
lloydatkinson 5y ago
Put a sock in it and grow up

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> Funny, I’m torrenting SG1 literally right now because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason. They had SG-1 on Netflix?! It never was available on mine Netflix (which I keep subscribed to only because, and for as long as, they have the golden-era Star Trek series, i.e. TNG-ENT). Exclusive regional distribution rights are legacy bullshit for digital content. And the sad thing is, people responsible for maintaining those are going to make things worse, because they now figured streaming is hot, and everyone is racing to create their own exclusive streaming platform.

lloydatkinson 5y ago
Yeah they did in the UK!
TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
I have a sneaking suspicion Netflix dropped SG1 because people like me would watch it almost continuously and therefore it contributed disproportionately to their content delivery costs. I lost count how many times I've watched DS9 and VOY, too.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > because people like me would watch it almost continuously I would, too. Only this year I've completed another end-to-end rewatch of DS9, and continued with half of VOY (got interrupted by life) and then half of ENT. And I feel like the time to re-watch TNG is approaching again. Lord help me, if they had SG-1 on Netflix in Poland, I would have been watching it just as much.

lloydatkinson 5y ago

It's a shame that the typical HN "thing" happened where people focussed on small details and argued strawman arguments instead of focussing on the main fact that some AI/ML upscalers can make older shows look much better.