If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: Hide behind proxies   (theweek.com) divider line 144
    More: Stupid, Copyright Alert System, Napster, illegal downloading, illegal downloads, Hayden Manders, RIAA  
•       •       •

8392 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Mar 2013 at 1:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 08:32:04 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Mind you that's not really exactly how it works, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can tell you the specifics and point out where I'm wrong, but that's the gist of it.

So if I'm following correctly, the information only goes to the proxy once it has left your house and gone through the ISP? Wouldn't that require Time Warner to be complicit in ...

There's nothing illegal about using a proxy though. And before you go to the next step I think you'd jump to, it's not likely that ISP's will get involved in limiting what sites and addresses you connect to, there'd be a pretty huge uproar.


Ok, I think I get it. So... is it easy for anyone to use one? Do you just go to www.proxy.com and then another website opens inside a frame within that site? They are probably maintained by people who want to make money off of them I imagine. Do you pay subscriptions? Or do you have to know how to run your own server?
 
2013-03-04 08:33:33 PM

you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.


That system would probably work, but only if people could get everyone to adopt it all at once, which is hard. It would never gain legs if a handful of helpful people started naming their files obtusely.
 
2013-03-04 08:35:18 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures

The companies that put out movies and music and other copyrighted material hire tech firms and other companies that specialize in finding people that have been torrenting their property. These folks spend all day searching torrent sites for their customer's material. From there they can start torrenting that file themselves and get a list of the peers sharing the file. They take that list of peers (IP addresses) and find out what ISP controls the various IP's and sends the ISP a notice saying X IP at Y date participated in torrenting z file. After that it depends on your ISP what happens. Some will outright give up your name and address and so forth, others will just give you a warning and not give up your info right off the bat.

As far as how they know what it is you're downloading they have various methods of sampling the file to check it's contents.


Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?
 
2013-03-04 08:37:47 PM

MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures


They go online with a bittorrent engine and download files which claim to be their movie.  Then they check it and see if it actually is their movie.  There is a unique (or as close to unique as you can get) checksum for that particular file and that is what the engine uses to seed and share it, not the file name.  So it doesn't matter what you call it on your personal computer.   All that matters is the checksum.
 
2013-03-04 08:37:54 PM

Tommy Moo: Dingleberry Dickwad: Mind you that's not really exactly how it works, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can tell you the specifics and point out where I'm wrong, but that's the gist of it.

So if I'm following correctly, the information only goes to the proxy once it has left your house and gone through the ISP? Wouldn't that require Time Warner to be complicit in ...

There's nothing illegal about using a proxy though. And before you go to the next step I think you'd jump to, it's not likely that ISP's will get involved in limiting what sites and addresses you connect to, there'd be a pretty huge uproar.

Ok, I think I get it. So... is it easy for anyone to use one? Do you just go to www.proxy.com and then another website opens inside a frame within that site? They are probably maintained by people who want to make money off of them I imagine. Do you pay subscriptions? Or do you have to know how to run your own server?


Most are subscription based. You pay your monthly fee to route your internet traffic through them. Most of them will give you settings to plug into your browser or torrent client that tell that software to route through the proxy or VPN. Once you have that set up you're good to go.
 
2013-03-04 08:41:44 PM

MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures


I'll pick torrenting since that's the most straight forward:  When you are downloading Assmasters VXXI:  The butterstick's revenge, you are doing so from a bunch of other people and others who join in later will in turn grab some pieces from you as well (this is a swarm, you all participate for the greater good, the greater good).  Now what the RIAA will do is join that swarm pretending to want to download the file as well but what they're really interested in is the addresses of all the others they can see in the swarm (everyone needs everyone else's address in order to talk, just the way its gotta work).  So now that they have this list of addresses they figure out the ones that the big America ISPs own and send them a message to the effect of "At 3am one of your perverted subscribers was downloading Assmasters VXXI:  The butterstick's revenge, please smite them for us, k thxbye".  The ISPs used to just send them back a message containing a seven legged spider but now they've all in the same bed (ewww) so instead they check their logs and see "Ahh yes, MBA Whore was using that address at that time, its gotta be him." and tick off a demerit point.
 
2013-03-04 08:46:58 PM

Tommy Moo: Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?


That's how torrenting works though, you don't download the actual file from the torrent site you just download a list of people's addresses who have it or want it but just have some of it, then your clients all negotiate a big ol digital orgy and share share share until you tell it to stop.  You need each other's addressed to talk, there's just really no way around that part without introducing some central hub like the old napsters and stuff, but that opened them up to way too much liability and that's how torrents were born.

Now there's one way to be slightly faster then the other guy trying to outrun the bear:  Use something like peerblock, its like a firewall against assholes, its a giant list of all addresses suspected of belonging to assholes and it will stop your computer from talking to them and vice versa.  Your address still shows up on the asshole's torrent client but they can't pull a chunk of file from you and thus its harder to prove that your address was actually sharing anything with anyone.  Of course that only works if you have every asshole's address, but its better then nothing.
 
2013-03-04 08:51:58 PM

BumpInTheNight: Tommy Moo: Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?

That's how torrenting works though, you don't download the actual file from the torrent site you just download a list of people's addresses who have it or want it but just have some of it, then your clients all negotiate a big ol digital orgy and share share share until you tell it to stop.  You need each other's addressed to talk, there's just really no way around that part without introducing some central hub like the old napsters and stuff, but that opened them up to way too much liability and that's how torrents were born.

Now there's one way to be slightly faster then the other guy trying to outrun the bear:  Use something like peerblock, its like a firewall against assholes, its a giant list of all addresses suspected of belonging to assholes and it will stop your computer from talking to them and vice versa.  Your address still shows up on the asshole's torrent client but they can't pull a chunk of file from you and thus its harder to prove that your address was actually sharing anything with anyone.  Of course that only works if you have every asshole's address, but its better then nothing.


Two ways. Peerblock and BTguard. Peerblock is free and simple to use, although you can't leave it on all the time as it will occasionally get in the way of Steam and other services you may run on your computer that require talking to a server somewhere. BTguard is a proxy and VPN service. You can choose just their torrent proxy service or their VPN service where you do all your browsing and torrenting through their equipment.
 
2013-03-04 08:53:39 PM

you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.


You are basically describing magnet URIs.  They allow you to search for the sha1sum of the file's contents.  I suppose you could do the same for only the filename and hope that you get a consistent naming system, but it probably won't protect you.  The reasons why are pretty difficult to describe in a short space (not to mention fairly boring), but I'd be happy to outline the process if you'd like.
 
2013-03-04 09:23:04 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: BumpInTheNight: Tommy Moo: Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?

That's how torrenting works though, you don't download the actual file from the torrent site you just download a list of people's addresses who have it or want it but just have some of it, then your clients all negotiate a big ol digital orgy and share share share until you tell it to stop.  You need each other's addressed to talk, there's just really no way around that part without introducing some central hub like the old napsters and stuff, but that opened them up to way too much liability and that's how torrents were born.

Now there's one way to be slightly faster then the other guy trying to outrun the bear:  Use something like peerblock, its like a firewall against assholes, its a giant list of all addresses suspected of belonging to assholes and it will stop your computer from talking to them and vice versa.  Your address still shows up on the asshole's torrent client but they can't pull a chunk of file from you and thus its harder to prove that your address was actually sharing anything with anyone.  Of course that only works if you have every asshole's address, but its better then nothing.

Two ways. Peerblock and BTguard. Peerblock is free and simple to use, although you can't leave it on all the time as it will occasionally get in the way of Steam and other services you may run on your computer that require talking to a server somewhere. BTguard is a proxy and VPN service. You can choose just their torrent proxy service or their VPN service where you do all your browsing and torrenting through their equipment.


Peerblock is a placebo.  Please put no faith in it.
 
2013-03-04 09:23:22 PM

I created this alt just for this thread: Downloading a piece of copyrighted material is not, in and of itself, illegal.  Some situations in which downloading a copyrighted work is not illegal:

If you already own the work, you can download a copy of that work without violating the law.
If you're making a parody of the work, you can download the work under the "fair use" doctrine.
If you have permission from the rights holder, you can download a copy of the work.

The difficulty that arises for most torrent users, however, is not that they downloaded the work, but because they have used bittorrent to get the file(s), they have also distributed the work, buy the very nature of how bittorrent works.


This is absolutely not true.  Parody and sampling can be protected under fair use, but you still have to acquire the original format legally.  You can't illegally download something and then say "it wasn't illegal because I'm going to parody it."
 
2013-03-04 10:06:34 PM

Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.


It can be done. Check to see if your cable has a content-on-demand feature. I myself started watching Dexter last season, and the on-demand feature had each episode of that season (but only that season) available the day after it first aired, along with a few bonus DVD-extra type things.

If you don't subscribe to the pay channel that offers the content, it will charge a rental fee and make the content available to you for something like 24 hours. If you do subscribe, the content for that channel is available free since you've presumably paid for them already.
 
2013-03-04 10:08:36 PM
*paid for it. So much for proofreading.
 
2013-03-04 10:28:50 PM
One problem.  My ISP offers me internet access.  They offer different price points for more or less bandwidth.  So, if people paying for the higher bandwidth get throttled, they're going to demand to be charge the lower price.  I just don't see any way ISP's are going to give up that kind of money.
 
2013-03-04 10:38:04 PM

andrewagill: you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.

You are basically describing magnet URIs.  They allow you to search for the sha1sum of the file's contents.  I suppose you could do the same for only the filename and hope that you get a consistent naming system, but it probably won't protect you.  The reasons why are pretty difficult to describe in a short space (not to mention fairly boring), but I'd be happy to outline the process if you'd like.


Yes, if you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would outline it. I've been thinking about this for a while. I always want to know more. This is all very interesting, not boring at all. But then again, I write php/sql/c# for a living, and thoroughly enjoy it, so what do I know about boring? I've read a little on magnet URIs but not enough to grok it.
 
2013-03-04 10:39:22 PM
I love how if they accuse you of doing something wrong you can appeal for it for 35 bucks.  So even if your innocent to begin with you have to pay 35 dollars to submit your appeal to the RIAA/MPAA who I'm sure will admit if they are wrong.  It's a huge scam.
 
2013-03-04 10:59:50 PM

ampoliros: It's been said before and it will be said again, piracy is a customer service problem. If you make things as easy for users as it is for pirates (relatively), then they'll choose the legal route. Here's a few ideas, build a service on this and it will thrive. I guarantee the money will come in so fast that you'll be burning it because you won't have room to store it.


I really don't see this as the case.  Music is dirt cheap and easily available through legal means and yet many people still pirate.  The fact is that, for some people, the price point for content is zero, and so long as it's freely accessible (even if illegally) that's how they'll get it.  They won't pay no matter what.

(1) Allow users to get everything (movies, tv, etc.) through a single service (Netflix, Hulu, or anyone else) and single household account. I have one electric company, not one for my computer and one for my fridge. If you want to split TV and movies that's about as far as I'll tolerate.

This has two issues.  First, there are the obvious monopoly concerns if there's only one provider of internet television services.  Second, you're dealing with dozens of different companies here, each with different sets of rights.  The networks have the first year (i.e. Hulu) rights while the production companies have the syndication (i.e. Netflix) rights.  And that doesn't even get into the fact that different networks have different ideas for monetization.  For example, Fox and ABC are currently in a tiff over Hulu, with one company wanting to pursue the free, advertising-supported model, while the other wants to pursue the subscription model.  Now throw a dozen more networks and two dozen production companies into the mix.  It's completely unworkable.

(1b) No more "exclusives" with one service or another and everything should be streamed (looking at you Netflix).

Exclusives are how companies differentiate themselves from each other.  That's like saying The Big Bang Theory shouldn't be exclusive to CBS and that NBC, ABC, and Fox should be able to air it too.

(2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).

Netflix currently spends about $5 per month per subscriber solely on its streaming acquisitions, which it sells for $8/month.  That's almost half of all their revenue.  The problem is that the most popular shows command a very high premium.  The Big Bang Theory got $2 million per episode in its syndication deal, and that's considering that much of that cost can be made up with advertising.  Without advertising, that show would cost of Netflix at least $.50-$1/month for each subscriber for just one show.  You just can't get "everything" for $30/month.

(3) It's OK to put streaming TV shows on delay like is done with movies, but for Farks sake, make it consistent. Whether it's 2 weeks, two months or a season after initial airing, I don't care, but I better be able to count on it.

This is, again, going to depend on who you get the content from.  The networks won't mind giving it to you a week or two after broadcast, but the production companies are going to want you to wait until the show is released on DVD first so as not to cut into those sales.
 
2013-03-04 11:12:22 PM

ampoliros: (2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).


If your primary concern is streaming selection, why are you bothering with Netflix? Buy or rent a-la-carte from iTunes and/or Amazon.
 
2013-03-04 11:27:36 PM
rugman11: <people will still pirate because a price of zero always wins>

Nothing costs zero; piracy has costs to the pirate. As an example, the biggest cost to a pirate is time. The media companies can give you something piracy can't and that's instant gratification. Want to watch 'Life of Brian'? On Netflix I can start in 20 seconds or less in HD. If i'm going to pirate it, it will be quite a bit more than that (unless I'm clairvoyant or phenomenally prolific) and there's no guarantee that I'm not going to end up with a crap version or even the right movie at all.

<monopoly>

Clearly, you misunderstood. I don't want everything from one provider, I want to be able to go to one provider to get everything. I would prefer if there were a dozen services out there but my point is that I should be able to pick any one of them and get all I need.

<exclusives>

I'm not talking about first airings of shows here. What streaming service is Blockbuster for movies and syndication for TV. NBC gets their first run add revenue from TV and cable. Subsequent broadcasts don't get them nearly what they do for first runs. A better deal is to stream their subsequent runs. Ie, when it goes to streaming that becomes a syndication avenue. The streaming services will do what they do now and just have licences for all of NBCs content.

<price point><stream delay>

I'll group these because we can easily tie them together. You're talking about highly popular shows here. There are probably in the neighborhood of less than a dozen shows in a season that command that kind of money. Most of them release DVDs at the end of the season or the beginning of the next. It would be easy to also release that to streaming a the same time at a reasonable price point. As for DVD sales themselves, anyone can tell you that selling something multiple times for less beats selling it once any day.
 
2013-03-04 11:30:31 PM

you guys are sooo cool: andrewagill: you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.

You are basically describing magnet URIs.  They allow you to search for the sha1sum of the file's contents.  I suppose you could do the same for only the filename and hope that you get a consistent naming system, but it probably won't protect you.  The reasons why are pretty difficult to describe in a short space (not to mention fairly boring), but I'd be happy to outline the process if you'd like.

Yes, if you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would outline it. I've been thinking about this for a while. I always want to know more. This is all very interesting, not boring at all. But then again, I write php/sql/c# for a living, and thoroughly enjoy it, so what do I know about boring? I've read a little on magnet URIs but not enough to grok it.


I'm not sure how magnet URIs work in practice, but they're based on cryptographic hashes, which are pretty simple to understand.  A hash function takes the file contents, jumbles them up, and creates a much smaller number that's supposed to represent the whole thing.  Currently, these sums are usually 256- or 512-bit sums, which is usually good enough to uniquely identify what you are looking for.  Chances are, a system to conceal file names or contents would use a hash-based system rather than a random array, since you can automatically generate new entries.

But the attack has nothing to do with whether you use a system based on hashes or if you just use an array of random numbers.  The problem comes when you have some sort of master database of which obfuscated name corresponds to which real file.  This database needs to exist, and as soon as the ??AA is able to interface with this, they can find a sample file and download it.  Once they do that, they have several options at their disposal.

- They can safely say that that file is their intellectual property and sue anyone who has downloaded that file
- They can sue the people who own the server, find the full database of names and people who downloaded those files
- If they see that your computer downloaded that file, they can ask for a search warrant

There are ways around such a system, the most effective of which would be to use some sort of onion routing like Tor (though not using the standard client) or i2p, or to encrypt the information you are sending over that channel.  Even without that, you could alter the naming scheme to depend on something like time or IP address (or other uniquely identifying string in a darknet), which would make a simple log search more difficult, but at the same time, you're not going to be able to look at a centralized search engine to get your filename.
 
2013-03-04 11:36:56 PM

MrEricSir: ampoliros: (2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).

If your primary concern is streaming selection, why are you bothering with Netflix? Buy or rent a-la-carte from iTunes and/or Amazon.


It's just an example, I have other accounts that I use as I need. I can get a lot of stuff on Netflix that would cost me significantly more if ordered a-la-carte. I then have an Amazon account for the remainder. I don't care for the arrangement but it does currently cost less. Once the boy grows up a bit, the situation will probably change.
 
2013-03-05 03:49:32 AM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Most are subscription based. You pay your monthly fee to route your internet traffic through them.


Uh, what? How much are you really saving then?

Also, how do you know they're trustworthy? Aren't they overseas?
 
2013-03-05 04:38:35 AM

Teufelaffe: hamsack: TOR project
cman: Oh Tor users are gonna LOVE you if you download torrents via TOR
the801: it only took me 3 weeks to download that Justin Bieber album i've been wanting!
MrEricSir: If you bothered to Google it, you'd find this page.

Use TOR to find the torrents, then use OneSwarm for the actual torrenting.


Did anyone shiat on this suggestion yet? Looks like a good plan to me...
 
2013-03-05 04:56:16 AM
I use Peerblock so the RIAA can go suck my coQ.

Question: What if someone is on Disability and the RIAA sues them? Social Security/SSI is completely garnishment-proof. In fact, if the RIAA ever so much as asked the bank to look at the defendant's bank balance after being told he/she's sole income is Soc. Sec., they would be liable to have THEIR asses sued off.
 
2013-03-05 05:25:02 AM

Dingleberry Dickwad: MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures

The companies that put out movies and music and other copyrighted material hire tech firms and other companies that specialize in finding people that have been torrenting their property. These folks spend all day searching torrent sites for their customer's material. From there they can start torrenting that file themselves and get a list of the peers sharing the file. They take that list of peers (IP addresses) and find out what ISP controls the various IP's and sends the ISP a notice saying X IP at Y date participated in torrenting z file. After that it depends on your ISP what happens. Some will outright give up your name and address and so forth, others will just give you a warning and not give up your info right off the bat.

As far as how they know what it is you're downloading they have various methods of sampling the file to check it's contents.


A lot of the larger files my friend torrents end up being 50 or so little .rar files that have to be unzipped all at once.  How can a zipped file be sampled while downloading since the entire set of .rar files is needed to get at the actual file being torrented?
 
2013-03-05 06:25:05 AM
Who the hell bothers with torrents besides zit-faced teenagers?

Good thing it's totally legal to record CD-quality streaming audio while listening to song tracks, which I do basically every weekend.
 
2013-03-05 07:14:23 AM
6 months ago I would have said newsgroups are the solution, but it's FAR more difficult to find things on newsgroups now.  NZB aggregators are now offline (you can still search, but the sites that review the NZBs are gone).  Additionally, domestic news servers have now automated stripping any pirated content from their servers almost immediately after they are posted.

I've been told there are ways to find NZBs and non-domestic news servers that still provide pirated content...but it's only a rumor.
 
2013-03-05 10:49:24 AM
I've been using BTGuard since November or so and I'm pretty pleased with it.  Spending $7 a month for the proxy is not too too much - one less trip to Taco Bell per month is a sacrifice I can live with.

ampoliros

I'm with you - give me one service for everything and I'll gladly subscribe, however I want them to cut through all that exclusives bullcrap.  Like it or not, the entertainment providers have to get used to the fact that technology allows for any content to be distributed as soon as it is released, so if they want to profit from that, they have to be the ones doing it, rather than the pirates.  You're not going to make me wait to watch Game of Thrones - sorry, but instant gratification is the new standard. (I use this as an example - I get HBO, but I totally understand why GoT is the most pirated show.)
 
2013-03-05 11:52:28 AM

idesofmarch: I've been using BTGuard since November or so and I'm pretty pleased with it.  Spending $7 a month for the proxy is not too too much - one less trip to Taco Bell per month is a sacrifice I can live with.

ampoliros

I'm with you - give me one service for everything and I'll gladly subscribe, however I want them to cut through all that exclusives bullcrap.  Like it or not, the entertainment providers have to get used to the fact that technology allows for any content to be distributed as soon as it is released, so if they want to profit from that, they have to be the ones doing it, rather than the pirates.  You're not going to make me wait to watch Game of Thrones - sorry, but instant gratification is the new standard. (I use this as an example - I get HBO, but I totally understand why GoT is the most pirated show.)


The main reason to pirate movies is that they're NOT all available via streaming.  Netflix has far too many movies that are DVD-only.  I'd gladly pay $15-20 a month for everything they have on DVD if it was available via streaming.  I'd drop most of my movie channels.

That's the real rub...the cable companies are doing everything they can to prevent shifting the paradigm.  Since they're also ISPs for many people, they don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul.  I'm guessing that's part of the reason they're implementing download caps.
 
2013-03-05 12:48:26 PM

mediablitz: Teufelaffe: hamsack: TOR project
cman: Oh Tor users are gonna LOVE you if you download torrents via TOR
the801: it only took me 3 weeks to download that Justin Bieber album i've been wanting!
MrEricSir: If you bothered to Google it, you'd find this page.

Use TOR to find the torrents, then use OneSwarm for the actual torrenting.

Did anyone shiat on this suggestion yet? Looks like a good plan to me...


I tried, but could never find a list of communities to subscribe to but a french one, with very limited stuff shared among people in that list.
 
2013-03-05 01:59:16 PM
How am I supposed to get my bling if yous stealing my work?
i165.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-05 03:21:16 PM
tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-03-06 08:33:29 AM
Sticking with tvlinks until netflix release and flvtomp3 from youtube....
Haven't needed torrents in 3 years.  It is all out there.  If I really want something then I check it out from the library and let software handle the backup.  The thing is to be older and more patient.
 
2013-03-06 02:18:24 PM

kimmygibblershomework: The thing is to be older and more patient.


That's the problem, though: they can have our money or they can expect us to be patient. It's not going to be both, not anymore.

It is not difficult for HBO, for example, to adopt the iTunes model. But they won't. We, their potential customer base, don't care about existing contracts or their '80s-era business model or the schedule their CEO thinks is best for Blu-ray releasing (why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet, for example). Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. They're not a cable company, they're a content generator, and if they or anyone else wants our money they need to step up their delivery of said content.
 
2013-03-06 04:58:01 PM

Scrotastic Method: kimmygibblershomework: The thing is to be older and more patient.

That's the problem, though: they can have our money or they can expect us to be patient. It's not going to be both, not anymore.

It is not difficult for HBO, for example, to adopt the iTunes model. But they won't. We, their potential customer base, don't care about existing contracts or their '80s-era business model or the schedule their CEO thinks is best for Blu-ray releasing (why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet, for example). Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. They're not a cable company, they're a content generator, and if they or anyone else wants our money they need to step up their delivery of said content.


I hear ya, man.  I kept waiting for ala carte for two decades.  In the meantime they decided to raise my bill while chopping off channels left and right.  When they took TruTV (yeah stop laughing) I got ticked and hosed cable. Came back later but hopefully this can float you thru until they get their crap together ;)
http://www.tvpc.com/ChannelList.php
There are several links and you'll definitely want adblock plus to avoid some headaches.  Decent trade off though and a good jumping off site for similar ones.  I definitely recommend the MST3K channel that just streams those 24/7.  Oh and the chat window on the right makes fark politics tab look intelligent lol.  YMMV but we enjoy it and it simply rocks for any kind of work environment in which you are stuck lol.  Hats off :)
 
2013-03-07 01:41:21 AM

Scrotastic Method: kimmygibblershomework: The thing is to be older and more patient.

That's the problem, though: they can have our money or they can expect us to be patient. It's not going to be both, not anymore.

It is not difficult for HBO, for example, to adopt the iTunes model. But they won't. We, their potential customer base, don't care about existing contracts or their '80s-era business model or the schedule their CEO thinks is best for Blu-ray releasing (why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet, for example). Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. They're not a cable company, they're a content generator, and if they or anyone else wants our money they need to step up their delivery of said content.


It is. I saw it on shelves at Target a week or two ago for $30.

/behind zero proxies, got a letter from Comcast maybe about a year ago
//for downloading a GoT episode
///while I WASN'T running peerblock
////IDGAF, gonna remember to ALWAYS use peerblock
//until it doesn't work anymore
//jollyroger.jpg
/slashie
 
2013-03-07 04:16:23 PM

Luminiferous Aether: Scrotastic Method: why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet

It is. I saw it on shelves at Target a week or two ago for $30.


Looked it up. 2/19. Cool. I don't actually want to buy it, I just saw nerds freaking and thought that was a good example, especially since that famous cartoon is about how hard it is to legally watch that show. Still, it took them like 10 months to get it out, while actively preventing people from streaming or buying digital copies...very backwards.
 
2013-03-07 04:54:00 PM

Scrotastic Method: Luminiferous Aether: Scrotastic Method: why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet

It is. I saw it on shelves at Target a week or two ago for $30.

Looked it up. 2/19. Cool. I don't actually want to buy it, I just saw nerds freaking and thought that was a good example, especially since that famous cartoon is about how hard it is to legally watch that show. Still, it took them like 10 months to get it out, while actively preventing people from streaming or buying digital copies...very backwards.


It's not really backwards.  You have to remember that HBO isn't in the business of selling shows, it's in the business of selling subscriptions.  85% of HBO's revenue comes from monthly subscriptions.  For HBO (as with most networks and production companies), they see DVD sets as an advertising tool as much as anything else.  HBO hopes that you'll buy the Game of Thrones DVD in February and then go sign up for a subscription to watch the new season in March.  Plus they get to double down on the advertising by running ads that market the DVDs and the new season at the same time.  If they made their shows available a month or two after the season ended (or worse made them available next day through a standalone HBO Go subscription), there would be less incentive for people to keep their monthly subscriptions, which would undoubtedly result in lower revenues.
 
2013-03-07 06:21:47 PM

rugman11: It's not really backwards.


But like I explained a few posts above, it is absolutely backwards. THEIR business model does not dictate the wants of their potential consumers. I don't care how they WANT things to work, because it's the opposite what the people with the money want. "If we try and block all efforts at online and digital access maybe people will buy cable" is completely opposed to "hey HBO, you have this content, we want digital access right now."

So, it's backwards.
 
2013-03-07 06:52:00 PM

Scrotastic Method: rugman11: It's not really backwards.

But like I explained a few posts above, it is absolutely backwards. THEIR business model does not dictate the wants of their potential consumers. I don't care how they WANT things to work, because it's the opposite what the people with the money want. "If we try and block all efforts at online and digital access maybe people will buy cable" is completely opposed to "hey HBO, you have this content, we want digital access right now."

So, it's backwards.


Except that it's not your stuff to take, it's theirs to sell.  If you don't want to buy it, fine, but don't then get all high and mighty and think that piracy is somehow justified because they won't package it in the exact way you want it.  I don't see people complaining that film companies should offer digital downloads the day a movie is released in the theatre because they "want digital access right now."  How is downloading a television show that's completely available to you (just not at a price you want to pay) different from downloading a movie that you can go see in the theatre?
 
2013-03-07 07:15:13 PM

rugman11: Except that it's not your stuff to take, it's theirs to sell.  If you don't want to buy it, fine, but don't then get all high and mighty and think that piracy is somehow justified because they won't package it in the exact way you want it.


I didn't say piracy was justified. I was saying that if HBO doesn't adjust to the massive shift in content delivery that's occurred, then their customers are going to find other ways to get content. I use GoT as an example because of that cartoon that's always posted: unless you're an HBO subscriber you cannot legally view that show until it's on disc, about a year after air date. They should understand that in the modern world of iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc., that kind of wait is no longer acceptable to the consumer base.

 I don't see people complaining that film companies should offer digital downloads the day a movie is released in the theatre because they "want digital access right now."

And that's another thing I didn't say. And my example was a TV show -- of which a huge population can be watched day-and-date across any number of online/digital channels. And for a show like GoT, one of the most popular shows on Earth, it's glaring that they're an exception.

How is downloading a television show that's completely available to you (just not at a price you want to pay) different from downloading a movie that you can go see in the theatre?

Before GoT Season 2 -- my example -- came out on BluRay 2/19, it wasn't "completely available" to anyone. Your best bet was you happened to catch a repeat on HBO, possibly, but I doubt you could have sat down and watched the season in order at regular hours like when it first aired. "Been on vacation? Busy? Sick? Too bad, wait a year for the show to come out on disc." And THAT is my point: digital/online isn't hard. It's common. And HBO owns their shows. They need to start giving their customers what the customers are used to, what is now a standard practice for content delivery, otherwise the customers are going to find other solutions to the problem. Yes, it's a problem that HBO doesn't meet the needs of their consumers, and it's HBO's problem. Like I said, I don't care that they consider themselves a cable channel, I don't care that they want to make money on "subscriptions" and physical media sales: they're wrong because that's not how things work anymore. You are what your customers perceive you to be, and HBO is just another content generator. If they continue to stand between their audience and their content, the audience is going to go around them. Game of Thrones is the single most pirated show on TV. If HBO let you buy even a DRM-filled 720p file from iTunes that number would drop significantly. So, why don't they.
 
2013-03-07 08:15:47 PM

Scrotastic Method: I didn't say piracy was justified. I was saying that if HBO doesn't adjust to the massive shift in content delivery that's occurred, then their customers are going to find other ways to get content. I use GoT as an example because of that cartoon that's always posted: unless you're an HBO subscriber you cannot legally view that show until it's on disc, about a year after air date. They should understand that in the modern world of iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc., that kind of wait is no longer acceptable to the consumer base.


I would strenuously disagree with you that there's been a "massive shift in content delivery" in television.  It's easy to think that, but the average person watches less than an hour per week of television online as opposed to almost 30 hours per week on television.  Even among adults 25-34, the average person watches barely an hour per week online.  The "modern world" may have iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix, but it still watches the vast majority of its television on television sets.

That said, HBO does deliver its content online, using HBO Go.  People ask why they don't offer it as a standalone service and they've said repeatedly that only 3% of their target demo are potential "cord-cutters," or people with broadband internet but no cable service.

Scrotastic Method: Before GoT Season 2 -- my example -- came out on BluRay 2/19, it wasn't "completely available" to anyone. Your best bet was you happened to catch a repeat on HBO, possibly, but I doubt you could have sat down and watched the season in order at regular hours like when it first aired. "Been on vacation? Busy? Sick? Too bad, wait a year for the show to come out on disc." And THAT is my point: digital/online isn't hard. It's common. And HBO owns their shows. They need to start giving their customers what the customers are used to, what is now a standard practice for content delivery, otherwise the customers are going to find other solutions to the problem. Yes, it's a problem that HBO doesn't meet the needs of their consumers, and it's HBO's problem. Like I said, I don't care that they consider themselves a cable channel, I don't care that they want to make money on "subscriptions" and physical media sales: they're wrong because that's not how things work anymore. You are what your customers perceive you to be, and HBO is just another content generator. If they continue to stand between their audience and their content, the audience is going to go around them. Game of Thrones is the single most pirated show on TV. If HBO let you buy even a DRM-filled 720p file from iTunes that number would drop significantly. So, why don't they.


Actually, anybody with HBO service can watch Game of Thrones online at any time.  If you wanted to watch GoT before the blu-ray was released, all it took was about $70 (the approximate cost of one month of basic cable with HBO).  That would have provided access to HBO Go and any episode of GoT.  HBO is absolutely delivering its content to its customers online.  The question is, "Who is an HBO customer."  HBO caters to its subscribers.  Sure, you might be able to get some of the 1/2 million or so Americans who pirate GoT to pay for it through iTunes.  But how many of the 10 million HBO subscribers who watch GoT would cancel their subscriptions and do the same thing?
 
2013-03-08 11:37:19 AM

rugman11: That said, HBO does deliver its content online, using HBO Go. People ask why they don't offer it as a standalone service and they've said repeatedly that only 3% of their target demo are potential "cord-cutters," or people with broadband internet but no cable service.

I'd like to see their market research. If they believe that only 3% of their potential total audience are people that aren't paying for HBO, they are, and this is a technical term, batshiat insane.

rugman11: HBO caters to its subscribers.  Sure, you might be able to get some of the 1/2 million or so Americans who pirate GoT to pay for it through iTunes.  But how many of the 10 million HBO subscribers who watch GoT would cancel their subscriptions and do the same thing?


That's the point. Subscription is dead. Too many people have no interest, not enough money, etc. How many Farkers still have basic cable, let alone the extra for HBO? And I'd bet that Farkers tend to have a little more money than your average group of Americans.

But it's not just HBO. It's the NFL and a bunch of other groups, and you can extrapolate my argument out to the RIAA and MPAA as well. Too many companies believe that their way of doing things is right and correct, but the world has changed around them and they refuse to adapt. Cable TV? Physical media? Not allowing basic/affordable access to your product to all your fans (the NFL)? None of that works anymore. It's far too easy to give your customers what they want -- and they know that, so they expect it, so when you try and prevent their access, they turn on you. Access is too easy for the customer for the company to proceed according to their ideas. They are not a cable company/sports league/record label to the consumer, they are a thing that makes a thing -- a content creator -- and they should be able to view when/how they want it. Making the thing is as important as providing the thing now. That's the new reality for media companies.

None of that means piracy is RIGHT. But it makes piracy an obvious outcome.
 
2013-03-08 12:21:12 PM

Scrotastic Method: I'd like to see their market research. If they believe that only 3% of their potential total audience are people that aren't paying for HBO, they are, and this is a technical term, batshiat insane.


No, 3% is the percentage of their market who currently cannot get HBO (because they don't have cable) but could get HBO Go (because they have broadband service).  Less than 5% of the American population has broadband internet but no cable connection, so the market for online disribution is very small, relative to the market for cable distribution.

Scrotastic Method: That's the point. Subscription is dead. Too many people have no interest, not enough money, etc. How many Farkers still have basic cable, let alone the extra for HBO? And I'd bet that Farkers tend to have a little more money than your average group of Americans.

But it's not just HBO. It's the NFL and a bunch of other groups, and you can extrapolate my argument out to the RIAA and MPAA as well. Too many companies believe that their way of doing things is right and correct, but the world has changed around them and they refuse to adapt. Cable TV? Physical media? Not allowing basic/affordable access to your product to all your fans (the NFL)? None of that works anymore. It's far too easy to give your customers what they want -- and they know that, so they expect it, so when you try and prevent their access, they turn on you. Access is too easy for the customer for the company to proceed according to their ideas. They are not a cable company/sports league/record label to the consumer, they are a thing that makes a thing -- a content creator -- and they should be able to view when/how they want it. Making the thing is as important as providing the thing now. That's the new reality for media companies.

None of that means piracy is RIGHT. But it makes piracy an obvious outcome.


You're extrapolating your experiences and thinking that they apply to everybody.  According to the latest Nielsen report, almost 90 percent of television households have either cable or satellite.  That's over 100 million households.  87% of broadcast television is watched live.  While online viewership is increasing, it still hasn't reached more than 2 hours per week in any demographic.

The problem that you seem to be ignoring is that it's impossible to change the model for one person (or one group of people).  This is what the RIAA found out ten years ago.  They caved in to the cries of "if you just gave us a way to pay for songs on the internet we'd stop downloading them illegally."  What happened?  They got screwed not by the pirates, but by the new model that was supposed to provide legal access to pirates and instead ended up unbundling their product for everybody.  That's bascially what you're suggesting HBO do: unbundle its product to appease the pirates.  Sure, they might end up making a couple million dollars on the 200,000 or so Americans who currently download their shows but would purchase online if the could, but how many subscribers would leave and do the same thing?  Right now, HBO has 28 million American subscribers and maybe a million people downloading their shows.  It would be insane to risk losing those paying customers on the off chance that they can stop pirates from being pirates.  After all, as the music industry has showed, you can't ever stop piracy.
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report