5 ms·

It will never not annoy and amuse me that illegal options (presumably run by randoms in their spare time) are so much better than the offerings of big companie

by nomilk 2y ago

It will never not annoy and amuse me that illegal options (presumably run by randoms in their spare time) are so much better than the offerings of big companies and their tech ‘talent’.

Bilal_io 2y ago
I have Netflix purchased legally with hard earned money. But because I had issues I looked for illegal streams, and they were bad, crashes, buffering.. you name it. So I went back to Netflix and watched it at 140p quality.
- samschooler 2y ago
  This twitter stream was the most reliable for me. Completely took Netflix out of the equation; just some dude at the event with his phone: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1mrxmMRmXpQxy https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1mrxmMRmXpQxy
  - koolba 2y ago
    > just some dude at the event with his phone Antonio Brown is not “just some dude”. He’s a national treasure.
    - bayarearefugee 2y ago
      Its a good thing he's rich and famous otherwise there might actually be consequences for him illegally broadcasting this.
      - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
        If he's rich then he's financially worth employing an IP lawyer to pursue for copyright infringement, if it was infringement. Maybe he was licensed?
rk06 2y ago
Illegal options would have lot less active users. So it is not a fair comparison
- hughesjj 2y ago
  Yup. Also a bit more latency since it's effectively restreaming unless it's someone at the actual event.
- boramalper 2y ago
  Illegal options also have lot less resources (revenue, service providers who are willing host/facilitate illegal activities, and so on) so it’s a fair comparison in my opinion.
  - 0x0000000 2y ago
    > service providers who are willing host/facilitate illegal activities At least for NFL pirate streams, it seems they tend to use "burner" tenants from Azure and AWS. Of course they get shut down, but how hard is it to spin up another one?
    - boramalper 2y ago
      They still have to put it behind a privacy-friendly proxy to hide their IP address from litigators right?

by nomilk 2y ago

It will never not annoy and amuse me that illegal options (presumably run by randoms in their spare time) are so much better than the offerings of big companies and their tech ‘talent’.

Bilal_io 2y ago

I have Netflix purchased legally with hard earned money. But because I had issues I looked for illegal streams, and they were bad, crashes, buffering.. you name it. So I went back to Netflix and watched it at 140p quality.

samschooler 2y ago
This twitter stream was the most reliable for me. Completely took Netflix out of the equation; just some dude at the event with his phone: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1mrxmMRmXpQxy https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1mrxmMRmXpQxy
- koolba 2y ago
  > just some dude at the event with his phone Antonio Brown is not “just some dude”. He’s a national treasure.
  - bayarearefugee 2y ago
    Its a good thing he's rich and famous otherwise there might actually be consequences for him illegally broadcasting this.
    - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      If he's rich then he's financially worth employing an IP lawyer to pursue for copyright infringement, if it was infringement. Maybe he was licensed?

rk06 2y ago

Illegal options would have lot less active users. So it is not a fair comparison

hughesjj 2y ago
Yup. Also a bit more latency since it's effectively restreaming unless it's someone at the actual event.
boramalper 2y ago
Illegal options also have lot less resources (revenue, service providers who are willing host/facilitate illegal activities, and so on) so it’s a fair comparison in my opinion.
- 0x0000000 2y ago
  > service providers who are willing host/facilitate illegal activities At least for NFL pirate streams, it seems they tend to use "burner" tenants from Azure and AWS. Of course they get shut down, but how hard is it to spin up another one?
  - boramalper 2y ago
    They still have to put it behind a privacy-friendly proxy to hide their IP address from litigators right?