11 ms·

I don’t live in US or five eyes so I pirate all the stuff basically Scot free. I understand that it’s not so easy for Americans whose internet activity is cons

by juleiie 7mo ago

I don’t live in US or five eyes so I pirate all the stuff basically Scot free. I understand that it’s not so easy for Americans whose internet activity is constantly scrutinized. I’ve had the privilege of choosing exactly who and what I pay. I usually don’t subscribe to any streaming service, but when I do choose to pay for something, my money goes to smaller entities that I don’t actively want to see fail. In my book, none of the Hollywood deserves a single cent. It’s an amazing feeling to be in the power to dictate this.

05 7mo ago
Surely even the poorest of Americans can pay a couple bux a month for a seedbox?
- juleiie 7mo ago
  This is a good question. If it is so cheap and easy then why not? I think it is a matter of american government and corporate terror tactic. They make these few rare cases when they catch somebody so loud and showy that the rest of the flock prefers to sign all the TOS and don’t have this additional worry. It is a success story of manipulative scare techniques that copyright corpos mastered. Most people prefer to be civilians than to be anti corporate combatants, even if it is perfectly safe in practice. This is normal.
- arvid-lind 7mo ago
  The way I see it, you can get a top tier VPN (mullvad) and a seedbox for the cost of one streaming service per month.
- dfedbeef 7mo ago
  Surely these tent dwellers have a few dollars a month for streaming content
dfc 7mo ago
If you think Hollywood content is worthless why bother pirating it at all? It seems like you would just not consume it.
- juleiie 7mo ago
  I don’t think it’s totally worthless. I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender. There is a difference. If you have any sort of conscience you simply don’t want to fund these people. Don’t enable them. Let it wither. Nothing of particular value will be lost.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender. This applies to everything that comes out of Hollywood?
    - juleiie 7mo ago
      This applies to every big corpo that exists and especially degenerate cesspit of Hollywood. Big corporation - just inhumane greed beyond mortal comprehension. Holywood - not only greed but also complete moral decay It would even apply twice if it could but you cannot really steal a movie twice. Unfortunately.
      - parineum 7mo ago
        These greedy, inhumane and morally decayed people produce content that you enjoy consuming after stealing. What does that say about you?
  - bombcar 7mo ago
    You let it wither by not consuming it at all; saying "At least I didn't pay for the corrupt sex-propaganda" isn't really an amazing high-ground.
    - juleiie 7mo ago
      I actively derive pleasure from stealing it and watching for completely free.
dpoloncsak 7mo ago
Any $10/mo VPN solves this, and probably advertises it as a selling point. Of course, then you're spending $10 to save $10.... I have the whole *arr stack setup with Plex running in the US just fine, but that's for sure not for everyone and was a few headaches to get up and running
- gruez 7mo ago
  >Of course, then you're spending $10 to save $10.... Most VPN subscriptions are around $5, whereas netflix with ads costs $8, and $18 without ads. Even at $18 though, it's still not 4K, whereas you can easily pirate 4K versions with your VPN subscription.
  - encom 7mo ago
    Netflix won't even sell me 4K content at any price, because don't use any of their approved spyware operating systems. But the Torrent Store will.
  - dpoloncsak 7mo ago
    Appreciate the reality check. Mullvad has been a bill I don't think about twice when it comes around, and I cancelled streaming services years ago. To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. I'm sure better hardware fixes this, but that's higher cost. YMMV based on what hardware you have on hand to repurpose
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. Unless you're doing reencodes processing power shouldn't matter. You can serve 4K video on a 2010s router if you wanted to. If you're doing reencodes, why bother? Download an encode that's appropriate for how you're watching it. 4K for the big screen and 1080p for mobile. Skip reencoding altogether.
      - 7mo ago
WarmWash 7mo ago
>In my book, none of the Hollywood deserves a single cent. It’s an amazing feeling to be in the power to dictate this. Then you don't consume it...you boycott it. Freeloading on honest consumers isn't some kind of moral high ground. If Hollywood is corrupt and full of shitheads, letting someone else pay for your ticket doesn't make you a morally pure viewer. It's fine if you just own that you don't want to pay for what you consume. But don't try and paint yourself like some kind of saint, lol
- 3form 7mo ago
  >But don't try and paint yourself like some kind of saint, lol They didn't do that. Listed considerations were purely practical.
- ndriscoll 7mo ago
  I don't consume it because it's crap, but IMO someone who doesn't give money to Disney (a company that pushes gambling on people and is a major reason our copyright laws are broken in the first place) is more moral than someone who does, and the downloading itself is amoral. So if you're going to watch it, might as well pirate.
- chrischen 7mo ago
  The whole concept of intellectual property rights is a social and legal construct designed to promote innovation in an economy. If you don't care about that, then there really isn't any moral or immoral aspect to it. The immorality of it and associating it with stealing was just MPAA propaganda to try to shame people into paying for stuff. If I found some DVD lying on the ground and watched it and I didn't pay for it, it's really up to me to decide if I want to pay the creator so they can continue to produce content. If I don't pay then obviously it doesn't help them produce more content... but the consumption of the content itself neither felt nor heard by the creators.
  - WarmWash 7mo ago
    The bedrock of the argument is that you give for what you take. This is very fundamental, not just some capitalist drivel. You'd be hard pressed to find a single level headed individual who could form a coherent argument against it (generally speaking, not just protracted edge cases). Even your most hippie communist commune requires giving in order to receive. People act (many even think) like this doesn't apply to digital goods, since copying has no material cost. But producing that digital good costs time and money (anyone on HN care to disagree?). So then you have to decide who are the ones who pay and who are the ones who get free copies. Conveniently, everyone who is getting a free copy thinks that they have a rightful stake to it for free. And because nothing is actually free (see the first line), the ones paying are the ones also covering the cost for those who get is free. I wouldn't expect teenagers to grasp this, after all we were the teenagers who devised this "piracy as a moral crusade" back in the 90's/00's (how convenient that a side effect of this moral crusade was all the free content your dead broke ass could imagine). But now, if you are in your 30's or older and still haven't logic'ed this out, it's time to catch up.
quickthrowman 7mo ago
Piracy is dead simple these days. Search for “[media name] free streaming” on Yandex and you get a high quality stream with subtitles and multiple audio choices. This works for most stuff, though not everything is available this way.

by juleiie 7mo ago

05 7mo ago

Surely even the poorest of Americans can pay a couple bux a month for a seedbox?

juleiie 7mo ago
This is a good question. If it is so cheap and easy then why not? I think it is a matter of american government and corporate terror tactic. They make these few rare cases when they catch somebody so loud and showy that the rest of the flock prefers to sign all the TOS and don’t have this additional worry. It is a success story of manipulative scare techniques that copyright corpos mastered. Most people prefer to be civilians than to be anti corporate combatants, even if it is perfectly safe in practice. This is normal.
arvid-lind 7mo ago
The way I see it, you can get a top tier VPN (mullvad) and a seedbox for the cost of one streaming service per month.
dfedbeef 7mo ago
Surely these tent dwellers have a few dollars a month for streaming content

dfc 7mo ago

If you think Hollywood content is worthless why bother pirating it at all? It seems like you would just not consume it.

juleiie 7mo ago
I don’t think it’s totally worthless. I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender. There is a difference. If you have any sort of conscience you simply don’t want to fund these people. Don’t enable them. Let it wither. Nothing of particular value will be lost.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender. This applies to everything that comes out of Hollywood?
  - juleiie 7mo ago
    This applies to every big corpo that exists and especially degenerate cesspit of Hollywood. Big corporation - just inhumane greed beyond mortal comprehension. Holywood - not only greed but also complete moral decay It would even apply twice if it could but you cannot really steal a movie twice. Unfortunately.
    - parineum 7mo ago
      These greedy, inhumane and morally decayed people produce content that you enjoy consuming after stealing. What does that say about you?
- bombcar 7mo ago
  You let it wither by not consuming it at all; saying "At least I didn't pay for the corrupt sex-propaganda" isn't really an amazing high-ground.
  - juleiie 7mo ago
    I actively derive pleasure from stealing it and watching for completely free.

dpoloncsak 7mo ago

Any $10/mo VPN solves this, and probably advertises it as a selling point. Of course, then you're spending $10 to save $10.... I have the whole *arr stack setup with Plex running in the US just fine, but that's for sure not for everyone and was a few headaches to get up and running

gruez 7mo ago
>Of course, then you're spending $10 to save $10.... Most VPN subscriptions are around $5, whereas netflix with ads costs $8, and $18 without ads. Even at $18 though, it's still not 4K, whereas you can easily pirate 4K versions with your VPN subscription.
- encom 7mo ago
  Netflix won't even sell me 4K content at any price, because don't use any of their approved spyware operating systems. But the Torrent Store will.
- dpoloncsak 7mo ago
  Appreciate the reality check. Mullvad has been a bill I don't think about twice when it comes around, and I cancelled streaming services years ago. To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. I'm sure better hardware fixes this, but that's higher cost. YMMV based on what hardware you have on hand to repurpose
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. Unless you're doing reencodes processing power shouldn't matter. You can serve 4K video on a 2010s router if you wanted to. If you're doing reencodes, why bother? Download an encode that's appropriate for how you're watching it. 4K for the big screen and 1080p for mobile. Skip reencoding altogether.
    - 7mo ago

WarmWash 7mo ago

>In my book, none of the Hollywood deserves a single cent. It’s an amazing feeling to be in the power to dictate this. Then you don't consume it...you boycott it. Freeloading on honest consumers isn't some kind of moral high ground. If Hollywood is corrupt and full of shitheads, letting someone else pay for your ticket doesn't make you a morally pure viewer. It's fine if you just own that you don't want to pay for what you consume. But don't try and paint yourself like some kind of saint, lol

3form 7mo ago
>But don't try and paint yourself like some kind of saint, lol They didn't do that. Listed considerations were purely practical.
ndriscoll 7mo ago
I don't consume it because it's crap, but IMO someone who doesn't give money to Disney (a company that pushes gambling on people and is a major reason our copyright laws are broken in the first place) is more moral than someone who does, and the downloading itself is amoral. So if you're going to watch it, might as well pirate.
chrischen 7mo ago
The whole concept of intellectual property rights is a social and legal construct designed to promote innovation in an economy. If you don't care about that, then there really isn't any moral or immoral aspect to it. The immorality of it and associating it with stealing was just MPAA propaganda to try to shame people into paying for stuff. If I found some DVD lying on the ground and watched it and I didn't pay for it, it's really up to me to decide if I want to pay the creator so they can continue to produce content. If I don't pay then obviously it doesn't help them produce more content... but the consumption of the content itself neither felt nor heard by the creators.
- WarmWash 7mo ago
  The bedrock of the argument is that you give for what you take. This is very fundamental, not just some capitalist drivel. You'd be hard pressed to find a single level headed individual who could form a coherent argument against it (generally speaking, not just protracted edge cases). Even your most hippie communist commune requires giving in order to receive. People act (many even think) like this doesn't apply to digital goods, since copying has no material cost. But producing that digital good costs time and money (anyone on HN care to disagree?). So then you have to decide who are the ones who pay and who are the ones who get free copies. Conveniently, everyone who is getting a free copy thinks that they have a rightful stake to it for free. And because nothing is actually free (see the first line), the ones paying are the ones also covering the cost for those who get is free. I wouldn't expect teenagers to grasp this, after all we were the teenagers who devised this "piracy as a moral crusade" back in the 90's/00's (how convenient that a side effect of this moral crusade was all the free content your dead broke ass could imagine). But now, if you are in your 30's or older and still haven't logic'ed this out, it's time to catch up.

quickthrowman 7mo ago

Piracy is dead simple these days. Search for “[media name] free streaming” on Yandex and you get a high quality stream with subtitles and multiple audio choices. This works for most stuff, though not everything is available this way.