8 ms·

Agreed. If you want to (physically) own a movie or TV show, use MakeMKV, or just torrent/IRC/usenet it. It really seems the rights owners want you to go that ro

Agreed. If you want to (physically) own a movie or TV show, use MakeMKV, or just torrent/IRC/usenet it. It really seems the rights owners want you to go that route. Otherwise if you just want to watch a movie and don't care that it might not be available at a later time, use a streaming service, it's by far the most convenient.

zerorally 5y ago
Ty
unethical_ban 5y ago
What drive is recommended? I have considered acquiring some UHD movies on physical media and would want to rip them for backup.
knaik94 5y ago
Torrenting a reencode seems reasonable but for some releases I liked buying the blu ray because my internet speed isn't great.
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  This is how I first ended up with an inexpensive disk shelf on 6.5Mbps ADSL. Similar constraints, different solutions.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  I use put.io. It's a web service which downloads, seeds and stores your torrents. It also converts, streams, finds subtitles for movies and similar stuff. Also allows for you to download the file if you want. Moreover, it can follow RSS feeds for automated downloads, and has plethora of other features. [0]: https://put.io https://put.io
  - creamytaco 5y ago
    Not very wise to export your (assumed) copyright-infringing activity over to a third party that has complete records of who you are. Folks have been sued for less.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      Except, realistically, nobody actually gets sued for torrenting.
      - Operyl 5y ago
        Only takes a few to make an example.
      - ghusbands 5y ago
        Plenty of individuals have had significant penalty for torrenting, including settlements [1] (search for singapore), and being blocked from accessing the internet [2]. The RIAA also sued a large number of individuals in the US [3]. And that's apart from the large number of companies that have been sued for supporting torrents. So, yes, people easily could be sued for torrenting and plenty of people have suffered significant penalty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_BitTorrent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_BitTorrent [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-39961502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-39961502 [3] https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later
        rosndo 5y ago
        Yeah, a decade+ ago back when MAFIAA was still experimenting with those tactics. FWIW almost all the people listed on your wiki page were tracker operators, but I am aware that there have been a few exceptions.
        iforgotpassword 5y ago
        No, there age big exceptions. In Germany there are law firms with hundreds of employees doing nothing else all day.
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > I liked buying the blu ray because my internet speed isn't great This is mostly an issue when streaming, which I prefer not to do for that reason. When I've had slow connections, torrenting a movie has generally been fine as I just let it run overnight.
jjgreen 5y ago
... or go to the cinema
- genghizkhan 5y ago
  To rewatch Lord of the Rings? I think not.
  - moffkalast 5y ago
    The age of cinema is over. The time of the torrents has come.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      Torrents have one crucial disadvantage: they require you to make the content publicly available in the process, which is illegal in many countries. It is much better to download it, which is not illegal in most jurisdictions, with one notable exception of proprietary software.
      - sodality2 5y ago
        The alternative is servers that get hammered during downloads, as opposed to swarms where the download health improves when more people use it.
        hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
        The current ecosystem dealt with the problem of hammering by using various filehosters and most of them are DMCA-compliant. But the window between the release and the file being DMCAed is large enough for this business to thrive. This whole system works by providing value to 3 key parties: * filehosters - they get money from subscribers (some offer a free crippled options just to frustrate users into buying the subscription) * uploaders - they got money from filehosters * downloaders - they got the content they need
      - throaway46546 5y ago
asiachick 5y ago
streaming services build a profile of me based on what I watch and share with with other companies. No thanks
- vanviegen 5y ago
  > and share with with other companies Is there any evidence to suggest that the likes of Netflix and Disney+ are doing this?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    I would check their privacy policies if this is allowed, regardless if it is happening. Of course, if the privacy policies do not include a data sharing provision, then evidence of the sharing would be interesting.
    - mysterydip 5y ago
      Even if they aren't doing it today, if the policy allows it you can guarantee they're at minimum collecting the data. Perhaps for "improved suggestions" now, but could just as easily be sold to a third party later should the financial incentives be high enough.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Honestly if it’s like the viewing data I saw when I worked in cable, your watching habits are not remotely unique and you can be more effectively targeted using the data pulled from a credit check. Viewing data is largely used in aggregate to make decisions about content. They’ll collect demographic data because it’s useful to know, but by and large it’s all used in aggregate or as cohorts because there really aren’t enough permutations. On a streaming service like Netflix or Disney there just isn’t enough content for people to look all that different at an individual level.
deelowe 5y ago
They don't want you to own anything. The industry has collectively decided we should move to an "AAS" model for everything and everyone is just playing the long game now. I hate it...
coryfklein 5y ago
> If you want to (physically) own a movie or TV show I find this phrasing quite fascinating. What does it even mean to "own" a movie? If you torrent or rip it, you now simply possess a copy and with the ability to watch it without any artificial restrictions, but I'd hardly say that you "own" it at that point. I find it so depressing that our legal system does not even have the concept of an individual having access to a movie such that they can play it for themselves conveniently without restrictions. Even when you physically own a DVD there is no "sanctioned" way to watch it without being forced to watch the commercials and legal disclaimers at the beginning. Which reminds me of the irony always repeated in these threads, that the folks who rip or torrent the film never see these legal disclaimers and only the folks who obey all the "rules" and don't need to see the disclaimer are constantly exposed to it. Why can't we have nice things? This world is so distopian.
- knaik94 5y ago
  Honestly, putting aside the philosophical debate, I own something I have access to without limitation and without the ability of a third party to take it away from me. I own a book I can read whenever, wherever and however I want. I don't own a book I have to give back to the library. I own blu rays I ripped in a similar way.
  - coryfklein 5y ago
    Yes you own the blu ray, but you don't actually own _the movie_. Despite owning the disc, your legal rights to how you can view the content on it are quite specific, and I believe that circumventing the DRM on it is illegal. So the fact that you have physical ownership of the disk is almost tangential to the discussion. And of course there's always the whole, "Well actually the government has the final say in everything so does it count that you 'own' something if the government can simply take it away from you." but that's a whole other can of worms!
    - knaik94 5y ago
      What more can I do if I own _the movie_ that I am not able to do after ripping the blu ray? DRM is as anti-consumer as Apple and Tesla's policy saying the owner of a product can't repair their own product. Having physical ownership and removing drm is the only meaningful way to take ownership of a movie that doesn't rely on the good grace of an outside party. The US has laws against unrightful search and seizure and due process. The government can't "simply" take things away from me, at least in the US. True digital ownership of media requires the ability to playback things without relying on a third party. That's only possible having a dedrmed rip/reencoded copy. In practical terms, my legal rights on how I can view content is tangential to owning media, what matters is my actual ability to view it.

zerorally 5y ago

unethical_ban 5y ago

What drive is recommended? I have considered acquiring some UHD movies on physical media and would want to rip them for backup.

knaik94 5y ago

Torrenting a reencode seems reasonable but for some releases I liked buying the blu ray because my internet speed isn't great.

washadjeffmad 5y ago
This is how I first ended up with an inexpensive disk shelf on 6.5Mbps ADSL. Similar constraints, different solutions.
bayindirh 5y ago
I use put.io. It's a web service which downloads, seeds and stores your torrents. It also converts, streams, finds subtitles for movies and similar stuff. Also allows for you to download the file if you want. Moreover, it can follow RSS feeds for automated downloads, and has plethora of other features. [0]: https://put.io https://put.io
- creamytaco 5y ago
  Not very wise to export your (assumed) copyright-infringing activity over to a third party that has complete records of who you are. Folks have been sued for less.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    Except, realistically, nobody actually gets sued for torrenting.
    - Operyl 5y ago
      Only takes a few to make an example.
    - ghusbands 5y ago
      Plenty of individuals have had significant penalty for torrenting, including settlements [1] (search for singapore), and being blocked from accessing the internet [2]. The RIAA also sued a large number of individuals in the US [3]. And that's apart from the large number of companies that have been sued for supporting torrents. So, yes, people easily could be sued for torrenting and plenty of people have suffered significant penalty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_BitTorrent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_BitTorrent [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-39961502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-39961502 [3] https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later
      - rosndo 5y ago
        Yeah, a decade+ ago back when MAFIAA was still experimenting with those tactics. FWIW almost all the people listed on your wiki page were tracker operators, but I am aware that there have been a few exceptions.
        iforgotpassword 5y ago
        No, there age big exceptions. In Germany there are law firms with hundreds of employees doing nothing else all day.
cabalamat 5y ago
> I liked buying the blu ray because my internet speed isn't great This is mostly an issue when streaming, which I prefer not to do for that reason. When I've had slow connections, torrenting a movie has generally been fine as I just let it run overnight.

jjgreen 5y ago

... or go to the cinema

genghizkhan 5y ago
To rewatch Lord of the Rings? I think not.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  The age of cinema is over. The time of the torrents has come.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    Torrents have one crucial disadvantage: they require you to make the content publicly available in the process, which is illegal in many countries. It is much better to download it, which is not illegal in most jurisdictions, with one notable exception of proprietary software.
    - sodality2 5y ago
      The alternative is servers that get hammered during downloads, as opposed to swarms where the download health improves when more people use it.
      - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
        The current ecosystem dealt with the problem of hammering by using various filehosters and most of them are DMCA-compliant. But the window between the release and the file being DMCAed is large enough for this business to thrive. This whole system works by providing value to 3 key parties: * filehosters - they get money from subscribers (some offer a free crippled options just to frustrate users into buying the subscription) * uploaders - they got money from filehosters * downloaders - they got the content they need
    - throaway46546 5y ago

asiachick 5y ago

streaming services build a profile of me based on what I watch and share with with other companies. No thanks

vanviegen 5y ago
> and share with with other companies Is there any evidence to suggest that the likes of Netflix and Disney+ are doing this?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dotancohen 5y ago
  I would check their privacy policies if this is allowed, regardless if it is happening. Of course, if the privacy policies do not include a data sharing provision, then evidence of the sharing would be interesting.
  - mysterydip 5y ago
    Even if they aren't doing it today, if the policy allows it you can guarantee they're at minimum collecting the data. Perhaps for "improved suggestions" now, but could just as easily be sold to a third party later should the financial incentives be high enough.
wayoutthere 5y ago
Honestly if it’s like the viewing data I saw when I worked in cable, your watching habits are not remotely unique and you can be more effectively targeted using the data pulled from a credit check. Viewing data is largely used in aggregate to make decisions about content. They’ll collect demographic data because it’s useful to know, but by and large it’s all used in aggregate or as cohorts because there really aren’t enough permutations. On a streaming service like Netflix or Disney there just isn’t enough content for people to look all that different at an individual level.

deelowe 5y ago

They don't want you to own anything. The industry has collectively decided we should move to an "AAS" model for everything and everyone is just playing the long game now. I hate it...

coryfklein 5y ago

> If you want to (physically) own a movie or TV show I find this phrasing quite fascinating. What does it even mean to "own" a movie? If you torrent or rip it, you now simply possess a copy and with the ability to watch it without any artificial restrictions, but I'd hardly say that you "own" it at that point. I find it so depressing that our legal system does not even have the concept of an individual having access to a movie such that they can play it for themselves conveniently without restrictions. Even when you physically own a DVD there is no "sanctioned" way to watch it without being forced to watch the commercials and legal disclaimers at the beginning. Which reminds me of the irony always repeated in these threads, that the folks who rip or torrent the film never see these legal disclaimers and only the folks who obey all the "rules" and don't need to see the disclaimer are constantly exposed to it. Why can't we have nice things? This world is so distopian.

knaik94 5y ago
Honestly, putting aside the philosophical debate, I own something I have access to without limitation and without the ability of a third party to take it away from me. I own a book I can read whenever, wherever and however I want. I don't own a book I have to give back to the library. I own blu rays I ripped in a similar way.
- coryfklein 5y ago
  Yes you own the blu ray, but you don't actually own _the movie_. Despite owning the disc, your legal rights to how you can view the content on it are quite specific, and I believe that circumventing the DRM on it is illegal. So the fact that you have physical ownership of the disk is almost tangential to the discussion. And of course there's always the whole, "Well actually the government has the final say in everything so does it count that you 'own' something if the government can simply take it away from you." but that's a whole other can of worms!
  - knaik94 5y ago
    What more can I do if I own _the movie_ that I am not able to do after ripping the blu ray? DRM is as anti-consumer as Apple and Tesla's policy saying the owner of a product can't repair their own product. Having physical ownership and removing drm is the only meaningful way to take ownership of a movie that doesn't rely on the good grace of an outside party. The US has laws against unrightful search and seizure and due process. The government can't "simply" take things away from me, at least in the US. True digital ownership of media requires the ability to playback things without relying on a third party. That's only possible having a dedrmed rip/reencoded copy. In practical terms, my legal rights on how I can view content is tangential to owning media, what matters is my actual ability to view it.