4 ms·

Doing something highly illegal and finding a "community" and sharing it with a "friend" would be a stupid move. Don't ever disclose your name if you do somethin

by mistyq 3y ago

Doing something highly illegal and finding a "community" and sharing it with a "friend" would be a stupid move. Don't ever disclose your name if you do something like this, unless you are in a safe country.

3abiton 3y ago
Define a safe country. I highly doubt there are any, after what happened to Aaron Swartz.
- sourcecodeplz 3y ago
  Asia, Middle East….
- alwayslikethis 3y ago
  Russia is currently the preeminent power that lies beyond the reach of US law while still having functional internet infrastructure. If you stay reasonably low-profile and stay out of the way of domestic interests, you should be safe.
austin-cheney 3y ago
I have my own written SOPs for how I make personal back ups of commercial media I own (purchased licensed instance because you never really own it even after paying for access). In this case I enjoy maintaining a media archive but my choice of words provides a fully legal context. What I find interesting is the wildly differing approach to piracy between the RIAA and the MPAA. The music industry’s current approach is to make their product as available everywhere as much as possible so that it requires far greater effort to pirate the media than to otherwise consume it. As a result piracy is rarer than it used to be and they are making more money than they used to. The movie industry still acts the way the music industry did in the 90s.
- madduci 3y ago
  > As a result piracy is rarer than it used to be and they are making more money than they used to. The movie industry still acts the way the music industry did in the 90s. Exactly this. And not only they do more money with digital content, see how concerts are always full and prices skyrocketed due to the demand! The movie industry has surely more costs that music one, _but_ they act like children who lost their toys. And the book industry isn't that far away too.. a lot of content is behind stupid DRMs and what happens if the license server disappears one day?
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    > what happens if the license server disappears one day Minor nitpick, "when" the license server disappears one day. They have no reason to do right by their customers when they go out of business, break old infrastructure that "only a small percentage of users were using", or just feel like they can get away with it and sell you the same product again on their new platform. It has happened before and it will happen again, modern video games are notorious for this, while you can still play multiplayer games from the early 00s. And let's not get started with content being outright ripped from our digital products, such as soundtracks being removed from video games after their opaque licensing deals expire, even though you supposedly "own" them in your digital library. Or old movies & TV episodes being removed because they're politically incorrect in the current age.
- CatchSwitch 3y ago
  Is this true? From what I've read musicians are hardly making anything off of streaming whereas they used to make much more prior to the popularization of Spotify. And AFAIK Spotify has never had a profitable quarter.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I assume "they" in the parent refers to the labels. Almost certainly one of the things that allows streaming to be priced in a range that's palatable for consumers is that most artists make less money than ever. At $50/month, it presumably wouldn't fly. As it is, it's probably priced in about the range that a lot of people spent on physical media in pre-Napster days. (And streaming seems not to be a money printing press for at least some of the streaming services either.) ADDED: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-format/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-... Paid streaming is somewhat lower than peak CD but about the same as peak vinyl (inflation adjusted). There are peaks and valleys but consumer music spend hasn't changed that much over time.
  - austin-cheney 3y ago
    Musicians are not the owners.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    I've heard this a thousand times, but it begs the question: Why do they then put their music on Spotify?
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Because streaming in pretty much the distribution channel today. Even if they sell a few CDs at live shows, increasingly younger people don't even have a CD player. And very few people buy MP3s.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        When the artists only get a couple hundred dollars per year from their streams, why even bother putting the music on Spotify? If your listeners don't want to buy your mp3s or CDs when that's the only option, then what's the point? Compare it to any other profession. Let's say a bricklayer decides to go work for a company. He works the entire year and builds houses for many people. Then he's paid a hundred dollars. He'd be an idiot to keep doing it. And he says that if he started his own brick laying business he wouldn't get even a single client. Okay, but why keep doing this?
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > The music industry’s current approach is to make their product as available everywhere as much as possible so that it requires far greater effort to pirate the media than to otherwise consume it. You consume it by going to youtube and playing the video. You "pirate" it by saving the youtube video. Passing the -x flag to youtube-dl will ignore the video and save just the audio. It's very little additional effort.
  - dpassens 3y ago
    Regarding youtube-dl specifically, it's only very little additional effort if you're already comfortable using a terminal.
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      yt-dlp now. youtube-dl is dead. :p
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        True, but its much more intuitive name lives on.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  The difference is that music labels and artists are making up the difference with other streams of revenue, like live show ticket sales, merch, and sync licensing, all of which have gone up as recorded music revenue has flatlined or gone down. Movies are not doing well with any alternate revenue streams yet. Ticket sales and merch are way down.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  Far from me to defend DRM (which ought to be illegal), but a major reason why it's more prevalent in movies and books compared to songs and video games is likely because for the first ones they are typically only enjoyed once.
janmarsal 3y ago
do not fear the autocrats
rmbyrro 3y ago
I understand the psychological need, but I agree this is going to bite them at some point. A "community" is the weakest link in their chain, it seems. Even if you get your OpSec 100% tight (very, very hard, if not impractical), the human factor is never securable.
qingcharles 3y ago
Having been in this space (torrenting TV shows), the problem was taking in the money to keep the lights on. I was lucky that PayPal were aware of the scale of our operation and kept their own set of logins, but were happy to look the other way as long as it was never vocalized in phone calls or emails. Once you have to switch to crypto for funding things get very hard as Average Joe doesn't know a damned thing about how to send you a chunk of Monero.
lukan 3y ago
Depends what you want in life. If you build the walls around you so high, that no one can pass, you might be secure, but also alone and imprisoned, if you build no door in, to let others come in. "That secrecy, however, comes with a psychological cost. Most people love being recognized for the work that they do, and yet you cannot take any credit for this in real life. Even simple things can be challenging, like friends asking you what you have been up to" So sure, it is more safe, to always keep it a secret. But it is more fun to do things together, we are social beings after all. But yes, if the "together" gets too big and the whole project more popularity, getting caught is only a question of time. The licence holding companies do work with (private) undercover investigators. At least for music and movies. Not sure if the book rights companies are playing in the same league.

by mistyq 3y ago

3abiton 3y ago

Define a safe country. I highly doubt there are any, after what happened to Aaron Swartz.

sourcecodeplz 3y ago
Asia, Middle East….
alwayslikethis 3y ago
Russia is currently the preeminent power that lies beyond the reach of US law while still having functional internet infrastructure. If you stay reasonably low-profile and stay out of the way of domestic interests, you should be safe.

austin-cheney 3y ago

I have my own written SOPs for how I make personal back ups of commercial media I own (purchased licensed instance because you never really own it even after paying for access). In this case I enjoy maintaining a media archive but my choice of words provides a fully legal context. What I find interesting is the wildly differing approach to piracy between the RIAA and the MPAA. The music industry’s current approach is to make their product as available everywhere as much as possible so that it requires far greater effort to pirate the media than to otherwise consume it. As a result piracy is rarer than it used to be and they are making more money than they used to. The movie industry still acts the way the music industry did in the 90s.

madduci 3y ago
> As a result piracy is rarer than it used to be and they are making more money than they used to. The movie industry still acts the way the music industry did in the 90s. Exactly this. And not only they do more money with digital content, see how concerts are always full and prices skyrocketed due to the demand! The movie industry has surely more costs that music one, _but_ they act like children who lost their toys. And the book industry isn't that far away too.. a lot of content is behind stupid DRMs and what happens if the license server disappears one day?
- dns_snek 3y ago
  > what happens if the license server disappears one day Minor nitpick, "when" the license server disappears one day. They have no reason to do right by their customers when they go out of business, break old infrastructure that "only a small percentage of users were using", or just feel like they can get away with it and sell you the same product again on their new platform. It has happened before and it will happen again, modern video games are notorious for this, while you can still play multiplayer games from the early 00s. And let's not get started with content being outright ripped from our digital products, such as soundtracks being removed from video games after their opaque licensing deals expire, even though you supposedly "own" them in your digital library. Or old movies & TV episodes being removed because they're politically incorrect in the current age.
CatchSwitch 3y ago
Is this true? From what I've read musicians are hardly making anything off of streaming whereas they used to make much more prior to the popularization of Spotify. And AFAIK Spotify has never had a profitable quarter.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I assume "they" in the parent refers to the labels. Almost certainly one of the things that allows streaming to be priced in a range that's palatable for consumers is that most artists make less money than ever. At $50/month, it presumably wouldn't fly. As it is, it's probably priced in about the range that a lot of people spent on physical media in pre-Napster days. (And streaming seems not to be a money printing press for at least some of the streaming services either.) ADDED: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-format/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-... Paid streaming is somewhat lower than peak CD but about the same as peak vinyl (inflation adjusted). There are peaks and valleys but consumer music spend hasn't changed that much over time.
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  Musicians are not the owners.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I've heard this a thousand times, but it begs the question: Why do they then put their music on Spotify?
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Because streaming in pretty much the distribution channel today. Even if they sell a few CDs at live shows, increasingly younger people don't even have a CD player. And very few people buy MP3s.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      When the artists only get a couple hundred dollars per year from their streams, why even bother putting the music on Spotify? If your listeners don't want to buy your mp3s or CDs when that's the only option, then what's the point? Compare it to any other profession. Let's say a bricklayer decides to go work for a company. He works the entire year and builds houses for many people. Then he's paid a hundred dollars. He'd be an idiot to keep doing it. And he says that if he started his own brick laying business he wouldn't get even a single client. Okay, but why keep doing this?
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> The music industry’s current approach is to make their product as available everywhere as much as possible so that it requires far greater effort to pirate the media than to otherwise consume it. You consume it by going to youtube and playing the video. You "pirate" it by saving the youtube video. Passing the -x flag to youtube-dl will ignore the video and save just the audio. It's very little additional effort.
- dpassens 3y ago
  Regarding youtube-dl specifically, it's only very little additional effort if you're already comfortable using a terminal.
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    yt-dlp now. youtube-dl is dead. :p
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      True, but its much more intuitive name lives on.
snowwrestler 3y ago
The difference is that music labels and artists are making up the difference with other streams of revenue, like live show ticket sales, merch, and sync licensing, all of which have gone up as recorded music revenue has flatlined or gone down. Movies are not doing well with any alternate revenue streams yet. Ticket sales and merch are way down.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
Far from me to defend DRM (which ought to be illegal), but a major reason why it's more prevalent in movies and books compared to songs and video games is likely because for the first ones they are typically only enjoyed once.

janmarsal 3y ago

do not fear the autocrats

rmbyrro 3y ago

I understand the psychological need, but I agree this is going to bite them at some point. A "community" is the weakest link in their chain, it seems. Even if you get your OpSec 100% tight (very, very hard, if not impractical), the human factor is never securable.

qingcharles 3y ago

Having been in this space (torrenting TV shows), the problem was taking in the money to keep the lights on. I was lucky that PayPal were aware of the scale of our operation and kept their own set of logins, but were happy to look the other way as long as it was never vocalized in phone calls or emails. Once you have to switch to crypto for funding things get very hard as Average Joe doesn't know a damned thing about how to send you a chunk of Monero.

lukan 3y ago

Depends what you want in life. If you build the walls around you so high, that no one can pass, you might be secure, but also alone and imprisoned, if you build no door in, to let others come in. "That secrecy, however, comes with a psychological cost. Most people love being recognized for the work that they do, and yet you cannot take any credit for this in real life. Even simple things can be challenging, like friends asking you what you have been up to" So sure, it is more safe, to always keep it a secret. But it is more fun to do things together, we are social beings after all. But yes, if the "together" gets too big and the whole project more popularity, getting caught is only a question of time. The licence holding companies do work with (private) undercover investigators. At least for music and movies. Not sure if the book rights companies are playing in the same league.