Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Piracy Media Movies Open Source Software Television Entertainment

Torrents Time Lets Anyone Launch Their Own Web Version of Popcorn Time 144

An anonymous reader writes: Popcorn Time, an app for streaming video torrents, just got its own web version: Popcorn Time Online. Unlike other attempts to bring Popcorn Time into the browser, this one is powered by a tool called Torrents Time, which delivers the movies and TV shows via an embedded torrent client. Oh, and the developers have released the code so that anyone can create their own version. If Popcorn Time is Hollywood's worst nightmare, Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Torrents Time Lets Anyone Launch Their Own Web Version of Popcorn Time

Comments Filter:
  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:27PM (#51434383)

    Jail Time

  • No use fighting it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:33PM (#51434443)
    "You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere." They're never going to stop piracy. It's like trying to play whack-a-mole. Movie companies would do a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price. Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.
    • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      I agree that they will never end "piracy".

      However, I am not certain that they cannot end the easy participation of the average user in the process.

      There will always be a guy selling DVDs on the corner, frequently backed up by organized crime. I'm not so certain that people who are less committed to that lifestyle will be always there and impossible to stop. That ease of participation relies on freedoms are now taken for granted which I feel may well become very eroded in the future.

      • by Frobnicator ( 565869 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @07:01PM (#51435105) Journal

        Movie companies would do a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price.

        There will always be a guy selling DVDs on the corner, frequently backed up by organized crime. I'm not so certain that people who are less committed to that lifestyle will be always there and impossible to stop. That ease of participation relies on freedoms are now taken for granted which I feel may well become very eroded in the future.

        That misses the point.

        If the companies provided what the consumers wanted, in the form they wanted, at a convenient price, the guy on the corner has no customers and goes to a different process. The content creators get paid for the content, the customers can enjoy the content, and everyone is happy. (As typical, customers would always prefer to pay less, producers would like to be paid more, but ultimately a happy balance can be reached if they honestly tried.)

        Systems like netflix, hulu, dramafever, amazon video, they are getting closer to what the customers wants. In an even better world all those off-catalog shows, the crappy direct-to-DVD releases, these would also be available in the catalog rather than the constant Disney-esque vault where availability is intentionally reduced to get more coin.

        The fact that they are present at all on Torrent systems is enough to let the companies know to add it to the catalogs. If I knew I could watch {popular title} from Redbox for a buck per day, or from some paid service where there are no scratched discs, and watch it on a web player on whatever device I want for a time period, sign me up.

        Simply: If it is available in a torrent but not available in the authorized service, the authorized service is insufficient.

        The company needs to stop providing insufficient service. When one business gives insufficient service, and another source offers the service, it is clear what will happen to the business. Adapt or die. These companies don't even need to go through the process of digitizing the works; when they discover what is on torrents but not in their catalog, put the ripped torrent version among their authorized versions. What happens when Disney finds a rip from some old VHS they haven't migrated? Instead of trying to shut it down, Disney should find the best ripped copy and put that among their (fully paid and properly authorized) products.

        If everything were available through a proper, above board, fully legal paid service, and there was one place I could go to get yesterday's TV show, this week's big blockbuster release, reruns of my favorites from the last decade, reruns from the 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, and even all the old back catalog movies clear back to the 1920s when the Golden Age of Cinema started, then the guy at the corner selling bootleg copies would vanish. If the mere presence of a show on torrents was enough to get it added to the proper legal channels, then the need for them would precipitously drop.

        It would not vanish completely, there are some people who refuse to pay anything and also refuse to find any friends to share passwords and accounts. If the legal version is immediately available to paying customers, at a convenient price, on a convenient location, viewable on a convenient device, the unsatisfied needs that drive torrented movies would drop off the radar.

        • I agree. Steam, Origin, GOG, were what did more to stop piracy in PC videogames because they are convenient and have good prices.
          • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            More than just "good prices". If I buy a game on Steam, I own it for life (yes, it can be played offline if Steam dies a final death) and I can re-install it an unlimited number of times on 3 OSs, with full Linux support. I'm not locked in to a single OS or obtrusive DRM. Though some Steam games come with DRM, it's few and falling (As a percentage of catalog), and the DRM isn't on *everything*, added on top, preventing me from using the game.
            • Thats why I said convenient: a big catalog (no more searching torrents/emule/etc), good download speed (no problems with seeds/peers, dead torrents), no cracking exes, a comunity with forums, mods, etc. Thats the way: to offer a better product.
        • Well said. Many people fail to grasp a few things: MP3 were invented for piracy. Netflix, itunes, legal napster, any VoD service are here BECAUSE of piracy. The industry refuses to stay current and instead attempts to gain a stranglehold over the technology to ensure it stagnates. I for one remember owning a VCR with a nifty "don't record commercials" feature that used the signals broadcast to detect an incoming commercial and stopped recording until the commercial break was over. They made them illega
      • by sims 2 ( 994794 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @07:33PM (#51435323)

        Now that netflix is killing the majority of movie piracy in the united states.
        I've got a great idea let's genericize the meaning of piracy it's easy just replace I got it for free with "pirated"

        Instead of saying I watched The Martian on amazon instant video for free using no rush shipping credits.

        Say I watched The Mation on amazon instant video pirated using no rush shipping credits.

        Or last week I pirated a drink with my big mac and fries.

        Or I watched a movie on netflix uk in the us pirated with a VPN.

        Next week we can expand on used merchandise so instead of I bought a used dvd of Reefer Madness for $1
        We can say I pirated a dvd of Reefer Madness for $1

        In all seriousness there does seem to be a war going on with the used media market especially when it comes to digital copies.

        Also a lot of movies aren't available to rent online eg: guardians of the galaxy I'd like to see it but not for $15 I'd be happy with a $5 SD 48hr rental tho.

        • I'd be happy with a $5 SD 48hr rental tho.

          What the fuck is this, Holiday Video? Is it the 1990s again?

          • by sims 2 ( 994794 )

            No its "Amazon Instant Video" The Martian was $4.99 for SD 30 days to start but only 48 hours to finish imho a 2 1/2 hour movie should have at least a 72 hour window. I pirated the $4.99 with no rush shipping credits.

            Whats really stupid about this is that a lot of the time the dvd is cheaper than buying a digital copy even when the DVD includes a digital copy. Used dvds are in the $1 to $2 range where I live so even the digital rentals look rather high.

            • They know. ;-) You're paying for instant gratification.

              Some DVDs even come with the HD version as the "Digital Download", FWIW. It's a little crazy unless you realize that to a majority of people, the bought-online-for-immediate-viewing is the superior version. .

        • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
          I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was out on Netflix, turns out I forgot I had my vpn on Sweden...
          https://flixsearch.io/movie/guardians-of-the-galaxy-2014
    • Movie companies would do (empahsis added) a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price

      Really? For like $20 a month, you have ad-free Hulu and Netflix. That's like a huge portion of content right there. How much more do you need before you can call "won" on the "can stream whatever I want from home for cheap"

      • by cogeek ( 2425448 )
        True, but only some shows are available on Hulu, some on Netflix, some on Amazon Prime, some on HBO GO, by the time you pay across the board to be able to watch any content you want, you might as well be paying Comcast for full blown premium cable.
      • ill be honest i am finding it harder and harder to find the shows i want to watch on my roku with a number of channels between prime hulu and netflix, it seems everything i want is not avail at this time. look for pet sematary, not avail, an old usa show from the late 90s called pacific blue - no where to be found.
      • by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @07:51PM (#51435467)
        Contrast it with music. Is there really a problem with music piracy anymore? Not that I'm aware of at least. There's lots of options, between various digital stores (iTunes, Amazon) and various streaming services that cover a very wide catalog. About the only thing I can't get easily is something like foreign bands that are unknown in the USA, and even that's getting better. Maybe if I was looking for very specific live performances or something, I dunno - but certainly not something the average person is going to run into in a typical month or even year.

        Contrast that to movies and TV shows, of which some are available, but it's still highly segregated, they regularly yank stuff out of the catalog to create artificial scarcity, etc. They still haven't gotten with the idea fully. It may be better than it was five years ago, but that's not saying much.
        • Contrast it with music. Is there really a problem with music piracy anymore?

          RIAA would have you believe otherwise.

          There will always be "piracy" because that is the vehicle used to justify them deliberately inconveniencing the customer, (and offering to remove the inconvenience for even more money).

        • Contrast it with music. Is there really a problem with music piracy anymore?

          No, because nobody wants it. Old music is outselling new music now, because all the new music is shit. Or at best, it's something we've heard before.

          • The only way anyone's ever going to match my Sun Ra collection is via torrent, as many of those albums are no longer in print, and haven't been in 20+ years.

        • Call me old fashioned but I still pirate all my music.

      • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @10:25PM (#51436271) Homepage Journal

        I have Amazon Prime and we did some trials of Netflix and Hulu, and I can honestly say that it was disappointing finding nothing I was actively looking for on any of the systems. I remember spending an evening just going through a list of movies I've been wanting to watch for a while, being utterly astounded when none of them showed up on each list. Some movies were classics, some were cult movies, some were "just movies I saw in the 1980s that I'd like to watch again", some were blockbusters that hadn't been in the cinema for a couple of years. And... none were there.

        Now, sure, I can find something to watch with all three, but in terms of the "I want to watch X, I haven't watched it in a while" itch, we're a long way away from having services (or even a combination thereof) that do that.

        I'd be very surprised if Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime = 5% of mainstream movies made since 1976.

        • It's kinda harsh to go back to 1976. We're primarilly talking about things being made now. Because that's what most people pirate, and where most of the money we're talking about is. And stuff shows up on Netflix like a year after theaters. HBO Go first.

          I don't think anyone really cares about incentivizing studios to remaster the Breakfast Club for Bluray. I think people are talking about people pirating unreleased movies, etc.

          • I wasn't being harsh, I was being charitable. "New and recent releases" are the ones studios are most guarded about. Those are the movies they're expecting to still make quite a bit on DVD sales and TV payments. Commercially so-so movies from the 1980s (think "They Live" rather than "Blade Runner") are exactly the kind of thing you'd expect them to give away licenses at low cost.

            • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
              They Live is so old and unwanted that it's on YouTube (As are many others of the age and popularity) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

              I don't have any idea who owns the rights, but Netflix gets lots of content by buying bulk access to studio catalogues, so They Lives may be in Universal's classics catalog, or it could be one of the many that falls into a "too hard" bucket, if John Carpenter has a perpetual % of gross, how do you measure and pay for that? There are lots of "classics" that end up in the to
            • Old content has numerous rights issues from the way that residuals are paid in movies/TV (but not music). Therefore, it costs money to clear each old release for streaming. Therefore, some old content just isn't worth the effort.

              New content, of course, has residual structures that take into account an "Internet" and "computers" and even "cellphones/tablets"

        • I have Amazon Prime and we did some trials of Netflix and Hulu, and I can honestly say that it was disappointing finding nothing I was actively looking for on any of the systems. I remember spending an evening just going through a list of movies I've been wanting to watch for a while, being utterly astounded when none of them showed up on each list. Some movies were classics, some were cult movies, some were "just movies I saw in the 1980s that I'd like to watch again", some were blockbusters that hadn't been in the cinema for a couple of years. And... none were there.

          I am so glad to read this. I say this kind of thing all the time. I actually find Amazon Prime's streaming somewhat more useful that Netflix (I have both, but not Hulu). Yet all I hear from co-workers and people on the internet is how their subscription to Netflix only, and that only for streaming, has completely and totally satisfied all their watching needs. The only conclusion I can come up with is that they have very different interests than I do and it may well be that what I like to see is so diff

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          https://flixsearch.io/ [flixsearch.io] Try your search on that. Best to have an international VPN service. You'll find that though the US has the largest catalog, you'll often find what you are looking for is available, but not in the US.
        • well I think you hit one thing on the head - when netflix was the only game in town it was awesome because you got access to so much more - but when content providers all started to try to get in on the act everything went all over the place - sometimes on one but not the others, sometimes on the provider's own site, sometimes only on cable - it is an extreme example of competition making a more expensive and worse product - all of which actually helps to fuel piracy rather than fight it. content providers
      • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Maybe in the US, in some countries there are no such services at all or the services have much less content than the US versions (while also usually costing more).

        Some places have slow/unreliable internet, metered internet, or internet which is slow/metered at peak times. Streaming doesn't work well in such areas as you generally want to watch at peak times.

        Some people want to download content at home so they can watch it while they're away from home where they might not have reliable internet access.

        Stream

      • Movie companies would do (empahsis added) a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price

        Really? For like $20 a month, you have ad-free Hulu and Netflix. That's like a huge portion of content right there. How much more do you need before you can call "won" on the "can stream whatever I want from home for cheap"

        I would gladly pay $20 a month to stream "whatever I want". I would even be ok with $20 per month plus ads. hulu + netflix + amazon prime is nowhere close to full coverage. For one, there is a lot of overlap and secondly, they just don't have that many desirable titles. Even adding redbox in for the new releases and you still have crappy coverage. Full amazon is a little better but many shows are $2 per 30 minute episode. $20 per month (or $1 per hour) would be the place where I would just pay it a

    • Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

      True. They spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that piracy became the norm, it wasn't a matter of people being unwilling to pay but of studios not providing a channel. It was more convenient and ultimately you got a better product. Now we see streaming services that are even more convenient than piracy in most cases (yes there are people who dont have good enough internet connections or want to save for offline viewing, etc...) so studios should be embracing, rather than fighti

      • Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

        True. They spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that piracy became the norm, it wasn't a matter of people being unwilling to pay but of studios not providing a channel. It was more convenient and ultimately you got a better product. Now we see streaming services that are even more convenient than piracy in most cases (yes there are people who dont have good enough internet connections or want to save for offline viewing, etc...) so studios should be embracing, rather than fighting this sort of technology.

        It doesn't actually matter what the studios do. The biggest reason for selling fewer shows in the future is not going to be piracy, it's going to because they make crap shows. Same as with music - someone upthread pointed out that old music outsells new music. I dunno if it's true but it certainly sounds plausible - the new stuff is all crap.

        Hell, a friend dropped by with a terabyte drive filled with recent shows. I've seen perhaps the first two episodes of each show but the only one I was willing to sit th

        • It doesn't actually matter what the studios do. The biggest reason for selling fewer shows in the future is not going to be piracy, it's going to because they make crap shows.

          Well we're talking about piracy, you're hardly going to pirate shows you don't even want to watch. I'm not sure there has been any significant decrease in the watching of television shows recently due to a supposed quality decline.

    • by rsborg ( 111459 )

      "You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere."

      They're never going to stop piracy. It's like trying to play whack-a-mole. Movie companies would do a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price. Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

      I think you confuse what Hollywood wants. It's never going to become like Bollywood, where hits are fast and furious, and sell for rupees on the dollar.

      Hollywood maintains it's margins on control. Like Orwell said "All art is propaganda". Wagging the Dog.

      Unless there's a titanic shift in the market, Hollywood will continue to tell us what we want, rather than cater mainly to what is desired by moviegoers.

    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      They care more about control than they do about money.

    • If the free version is just as good and just as easily available, approximately nobody would pay for a similar sevice. Hulu and Netflix are great, sure. But if bittorrents (and the like) had never been prosecuted, and you could just get the popcorn time app for your ipad and watch whatever you want, what sort of idiot would pay?

      Even now, with threats of prosecution, and sketchy websites with advertisements for Russian brides, and a good chance of viruses, and the need for technical know-how, bittorrents a

      • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

        I do think many, if not most people are okay paying for movies, especially ones they know are good ones from friends, families, or trusted reviewers. That is, as long as the price is reasonable and it works as expected.

        What makes piracy still attractive is the ability to get movies without certain restrictions and earlier than you'd get it from whatever method they subscribe to.

        Price matters more to those who have little disposable income, but that is not as many people as you might think. Mostly it's youn

    • They're never going to stop piracy... Movie companies would do a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy

      How is your argument any different from the following?

      - Retailers are never going to stop shoplifting. The should stop trying.
      - The police are never going to stop murder. They should stop trying to enforce that law.
      - The SEC is never going to stop securities fraud. They should stop trying to enforce those laws.

      • by dave420 ( 699308 )

        Piracy doesn't harm anyone. Study after study has shown that piracy doesn't hurt movie profits. So that's why his argument is different - because it's entirely different.

      • by bug1 ( 96678 )

        The difference is most people dont go around shoplifting, murdering and defrauding. Pretty much everyone who uses the internet violates copyright every day.

        Google "http", 15.2 Billion hits;
        Google "all rights reserved", 4.8 Billion hits.

        So almost one third of web content is illegal to browse.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:33PM (#51434447)

    On the "Torrents Time" github location all I see is an "embed" project that's essentially a JS snippet.
    https://github.com/torrentsTim... [github.com]
    https://github.com/torrentsTim... [github.com]

    Where's the source code for:
    https://cdn.torrents-time.com/... [torrents-time.com]
    https://cdn.torrents-time.com/... [torrents-time.com]
    ?

    • I suspected this reading the title of the story. Maybe it's just a late push and an early PR release =]
  • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:45PM (#51434547) Journal

    > Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.

    This is the attitude I don't understand.

    If you don't like big-budget Hollywood movies and prefer independent films, that's cool. You can watch plenty of independent films online and offline. I take a similar tack with software - I don't care for how Microsoft treats their customers, so I don't use their software. I've been using open source for decades.

    What makes no sense is "I love $200 million cinema spectaculars so much, I'll steal them to make it more difficult to fund the next one."

    Yeah, studios who spend a billion dollars making sure three movies try pretty hard to recoup the cost, mostly from the one that turns out to be popular, and that includes all the typical "big business" stuff that goes on when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved. It seems to me that if you like Star Wars and you want to see the next sequel (and have the studio spend $x00 million to make it), the LAST thing you'd want to do is damage the studio that makes them. You'd BUY the DVD , or at least toss in $2 to stream it, if you wanted more movies like that, I'd think.

    Personally, I don't care for the big-budget films like Star Wars, so I don't stream, rent, or buy them (and I certainly don't steal them). I rent the low-budget comedies I like for $2 at Redbox, which encourages theatres to make another movie like it, which I'll also rent. I'm not trying to destroy the people who produce the stuff I like.

    • The word "theatres" in the post above should of course be "studios".

      Anyway, when I (and a bunch of other people) toss them $2 to rent or stream Mall Cop, they make money from it and they make Mall Cop 2, which I then enjoy. If I like the movies that a studio makes, wtf would I want to get rid of them?

    • I certainly agree with that, which is why I pay for content. What irks me is when content producers refuse to sell it to me because of things like region restrictions. I want the content and I'm happy to pay for it so I'll admit I do pirate some things but it's only stuff where they won't "shut up and take my money".
      I don't participate in online communities for tv shows like those that discuss and analyse them but I can see how it would be annoying to want to be a part of that but to have to isolate yourse
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      >What makes no sense is "I love $200 million cinema spectaculars so much, I'll steal them to make it more difficult to fund the next one."

      You're right. It makes no sense. I mean, as far as I know, no movie has ever been stolen, ever.

      Now, I'll assume you meant to say pirated, so we can move on from that mistake.

      >Yeah, studios who spend a billion dollars making sure three movies try pretty hard to recoup the cost, mostly from the one that turns out to be popular, and that includes all the typical "big

      • We'll go ahead and ignore the huge gaps in logic in the first part your post, because you're right we'll never come to understand one another on that. Instead, let's focus on the last bit.

        You're right that a preview / ad is basically part of the cost for a free or low cost stream. It's basically the same as charging another 50 cents or whatever. So we can consolidate the two options "cheap" and "even cheaper, with an ad". $1 with an ad and $2 without are basically the same thing.

        Basically, you're saying

      • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @09:20PM (#51435971) Journal

        Ps your studio propaganda about Redbox is WAY outdated, and it wasn't even true back in 2008-2009 when the studios were saying that.

        In fact, Redbox reports that 50% of their rental revenue goes to the studios. Most often through a revenue- sharing deal like the one they have with Warner Brothers:
        http://deadline.com/2015/03/wa... [deadline.com]

        Back in 2008, and today for Disney, Redbox stocks (buys) enough DVDs and Bluray discs to meet demand. If a lot of people rent Disney movies from Redbox, then Redbox buys a bunch of Disney disks to keep their machines stocked. If fewer people rent a particular movie, Redbox might put one copy in half of their machines. (Ever had to drive to a different Redbox location to find the movie you wanted? This is why. Only the most popular releases are in every machine.) If few people want to rent a movie, Redbox doesn't stock it at all, so they buy zero copies.

        In short, the more people want to rent a movie, the more copies Redbox needs, so they buy more - which means more money for the studios.

      • I'm one of those people that, for the most part, would just drop media if piracy became more difficult than it's worth. The problem is that I believe there is a large percentage of Gen Y/Millennials that could actually go without paid media. Hell, the argument in favor of cable cutting had appeal when it was just Youtube.
    • by UPZ ( 947916 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @08:58PM (#51435845)

      This is the attitude I don't understand.

      If you don't like big-budget Hollywood movies and prefer independent films, that's cool. You can watch plenty of independent films online and offline. I take a similar tack with software - I don't care for how Microsoft treats their customers, so I don't use their software. I've been using open source for decades.

      What makes no sense is "I love $200 million cinema spectaculars so much, I'll steal them to make it more difficult to fund the next one."

      Ah, isn't it the same hollywood who bribes legislators to extend copyright to 70+ years after death and penalty for copyright violation to worse than assault? Does that seem like good ethical behavior to you?

      I say fuck hollywood. They turn our government against us, so I do whatever I can to hurt them financially. It probably doesn't make any difference, but those crooks deserve no sympathy.

    • by J053 ( 673094 )

      I'd love to be able to stream any of the Star Wars movies for $2 - hell, I'd pay $8 or $9 - but none of them are available to stream - you have to buy them at $19.99 each - which I am no way going to do.

      • It's also incredibly hard to get the unfucked versions of the original trilogy without piracy. How much does a Laserdisc or VHS copy of A New Hope go for these days?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ace17 ( 3804065 )

      > Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.

      This is the attitude I don't understand.

      What about their impact on the law?

      Even if you're not into Disney movies, you're still impacted by the legislative bullshit we're currently diving in ("Mickey Mouse" copyright act, aka DMCA) indirectly caused by Disney copyright holders.
      It wouldn't bother me if this bullshit only applied to Disney movies, however, its scope is much broader.

      Experience has shown us that the content industry is continuously trying to make illegal anything they think reduces profit.
      More precisely, first they make it techn

      • On a tangent to your point, open-source players are now allowed under DMCA. In the US, you still need a patent license ($2.50).

        DMCA instructs the Library of Congress to make rules about the details of fair-use circumvention. Here's the latest set of rule changes :
        http://copyright.gov/fedreg/20... [copyright.gov]

        Under current rules, there are substantial uses allowed as fair use, mostly in an educational context. Because a DVD player/ripper is "capable of substantial non-infringing use", it's legal.

    • This is the attitude I don't understand.

      You do not understand people being cheap ? Because even if many great thinkers of slashdot will not recognize it and will try to rationalize piracy in a way or the other, this is still the main driving factor for most of the people using this kind of solutions.
      • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        A cracked copy is always going to more be useful. A player that does things it's not allowed to, is always going to be more useful than one that does not. The so-called copy-protection schemes don't do any thing of the sort and never did. All they do is reduce the usefulness of "legitimate paid for copies".

        Even if you actually did pay for it, it's still more useful to strip the DRM yourself or have someone else do it for you.

        That's even assuming that the work in question is being made available.

    • I'm sure if they are struggling to make a profit from a film because of a few illegitimate copies they could recoup the costs by paying actors a normal wage, getting rid of all the IP lawyers who only serve to line their own pockets, and generally cut some of the incredible cruft that is associated with Hollywood.

      • Those are some interesting thoughts. I have some specific knowledge about one thing you mentioned, and some thoughts on the others.

        > they could recoup the costs by paying actors a normal wage

        There are many, many films with actors paid "a normal wage" (thousands of dollars). They are called "independent films". How many have you watched? How many have you bought? Yeah, me neither. Once in a while, those make tens of thousands in revenue, because approximately nobody buys them. On average, they lose m

        • There are many, many films with actors paid "a normal wage" (thousands of dollars). They are called "independent films". How many have you watched? How many have you bought? Yeah, me neither. Once in a while, those make tens of thousands in revenue, because approximately nobody buys them. On average, they lose money. On the other hand, people bought $787 million in tickets for Star Wars IV.

          I watch plenty, and that's where my interesting through comes from: Most of these people are every bit the actors as the big budget blockbusters, heck in many cases they are far better. For some reason a bit of marketing results in a few people being put on pedestals and get suddenly made filthy rich.

          It's not "a few copies", it's millions of people skipping out on paying the $2 to stream it.

          Yep so a few million people skip on $2 all Keanu Reeves needed to do was take a 1% pay cut for the Matrix and that cost would be recouped.

          Obviously they've messed some things up with how they try to handle piracy and all.

          Actually with the lawyer comment I wasn't even talking about piracy, I w

          • > few million people skip on $2 all Keanu Reeves needed to do was take a 1% pay cut for the Matrix and that cost would be recouped.

            Your math is off by a few orders of magnitude. Not to worry, that's normal with big numbers. Psychologically, "million", "billion", and "trillion" are all just big numbers, we KNOW the difference, but it's completely unintuitive to think about big large numbers.

            "A few million people" at $2 each is $60 MILLION.
            1% of Reeves salary for The Matrix is $100 THOUSAND.
            In fact, $6

      • I'm sure the majority of actors would love what you're saying. Most actors don't get anything close to a living wage.

        Now, sure, a few lead actors do, but then they're worth it. They pull people in to watch the movie so that it's capable of making its money back and paying something slightly less shitty to the other actors.

        The other problem with the "We don't want actors earning outrageous salaries like $250,000 per movie!" (seriously, that's actually not unusual for a headliner) argument is it ignores

    • Yeah, studios who spend a billion dollars making sure three movies try pretty hard to recoup the cost, mostly from the one that turns out to be popular, and that includes all the typical "big business" stuff that goes on when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.

      Keeping in mind that Hollywood has elevated illegal accounting to the highest form of Art and Science. There have been name-brand, legit blockbuster movies that the studios claim they barely broke-even on.

      I'm not advocating pirating movie

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:51PM (#51434591)

    "...If Popcorn Time is Hollywood's worst nightmare, Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up."

    Alright, enough of this bullshit. Everyone listen up. There are more than enough consumers on this planet to accommodate the greedy executives who run the capitalist corporations, as well as accommodating those who don't feel like paying them a damn dime.

    Let's put it this way. How many sales records did the latest Star Wars movie crush in a matter of weeks? I rest my case. Now kindly STFU already about capitalism being killed by piracy. It's not happening nor is it ever going to, and the last fucking thing the lawyers need are the geeks themselves confirming this lie in order to justify more Orwellian anti-piracy laws.

    • Strawman much? I've never heard anyone claim that Hollywood will be killed by piracy, just as I've never heard anyone claim that Macy's will be killed by shoplifting.

      It won't kill Macy's, but shoplifting has killed lesser retailers who almost attained profitability, and it is a crime.

      How well would the following argument hold up? "There are more than enough shoppers on this planet to accommodate the greedy stockholders who own Macy's, as well as accommodating those who don't feel like paying them a damn d

      • ...I suspect you're not as cavalier about theft when it's your property -- intellectual or otherwise -- that's stolen.

        When my car is stolen, I'm not going to stand in front of Congress petitioning for every new car to be outfitted with Federally-mandated GPS trackers and demand 15-year minimum mandatory sentencing for all car thieves.

        I suspect you missed that main point and key difference here. Yes, theft is a crime. Yes, it should be punished. No way in hell do the punishments fit the crime in most cases. To revert to the car analogy again, if the MPAA/RIAA were in charge of traffic violations, a speeding ticket would

  • Why? (Score:4, Informative)

    by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M ( 4212163 ) on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @06:25PM (#51434819)

    I stopped bothering with torrents years ago. Even the Canadian version of Netflix has more than enough titles to fill my TV-watching time. Sure it's not blockbusters all the time, and we get new titles months if not years after the DVD releases, but it's also really not expensive and I feel like I'm getting excellent value for the low monthly fee.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Why?

      Well, let me answer th-

      it's not blockbusters

      months if not years after the DVD releases

      Nevermind.

      • Oh, ok. You feel entitled to watch everything for free, right fucking now. My mistake.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Dunno about the previous poster, but for me it's not about being entitled. It's the fact that when it comes to movies/TV shows, the paid is almost always worse than what you can get off of torrents. I can get a DRM-free 1080p MKV file with integrated subtitles and commentary track for various movies that I can move around to whatever devices I own, without relying on a fast Internet connection to be able to watch them. No-one sells movies in the form that I want. Once you've had years of such a standard of

          • I buy movies and shows, but I rip them, each and every one. Why? The advertising on media you've purchased is not disgraceful, its disgusting.

            Let me be clear: I *enjoy* watching trailers for movies that I might remotely have an interest in. What I don't want is to have to sit through fifteen minutes of them before I can watch the movie that I wanted to watch. I tolerate it in the theater, but when I sit down to enjoy Iron Monkey I want to watch it -- not wait for anti-piracy blurbs and trailers I've already

    • Netflix helps when you just want to flop down and watch something random, but when you want to watch episode X of series Y (not carried by Netflix) NOW, that's where I use torrents, etc.

    • by Tukz ( 664339 )

      In my country, we have roughly 35% of the content the US have on Netflix.

      Oh, that's just based on titles, I'm not including TV Show seasons.
      We're, on average, 2 years behind on almost all TV Shows.

      But we still pay full price.

      That's why.

    • My use case is usually I forgot to set the DVR. Or ITV (UK) has already run all the episodes.
  • With all this torrent/download legal crap going on a business model that punishes consumers for wanting to see the latest re-hash of worn out actors and storylines, I'm surprised people even both with movies? The "Movie industry" versus "consumers" is like 2 seagulls fighting over a mouldy chip. Forget the entire industry, get out and learn an instrument, phone a friend, hug your partner, etc.
  • Who torrents movies anymore? Or music for that matter. Netflix, Spotify and other streaming services have pretty much solved that one. I suspect that most of the people torrenting movies are either young kids that do it for the lulz, or people who can't afford $20/month to rent DVDs from Netflix, in which case they wouldn't be a customer anyway. If the studios were smart, they'd launch a PR campaign saying how they're not going to prosecute anyone anymore for sharing, generating goodwill and (re)capture

    • by J053 ( 673094 )

      If the studios were smart, they would offer worldwide streaming or timed rental of their entire catalogue at a reasonable price - and cut out all the middlemen like Netflix, Hulu, etc.

    • by Tukz ( 664339 )

      Same reply I made here: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

      Summery: We get 35% of the content the US does on Netflix, and TV Shows are, on average, 2 years behind.

      "Region Locks" are the reason.

  • Doctor Who leaving both Netflix and Hulu (Plus) this week has my family discussing piracy. I'd rather not, and we're going to wait a few moths to see what's what with the possible BBC streaming channel since the new season of Dr. Who doesn't start until 2017 so we have time.

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.

Working...