Disney + and 'The Mandalorian' Are Driving People Back To Torrenting 277
An anonymous reader shares a report: A simple glance at torrent websites shows that plenty of people are stealing from the brand new steaming services -- episodes of The Mandalorian and Dickinson all have hundreds or thousands of seeders and are among the most popular shows on torrent sites. I reached out specifically to Disney, Apple, and Netflix to ask what their policy was on going after pirated content, and haven't heard back, but it's obvious that these companies assume that at least some of their viewers aren't paying the full price for their services. Given that you can watch as many as six simultaneous streams with Apple TV+, and four with Disney+ and the top Netflix package, the more common form of piracy -- password sharing -- is built into the system. But for pirates who don't have any access to the legit services, what makes stealing content particularly appealing in this age is that there are few if any people who face consequences for the crime.
Since the discontinuation of the "six strikes" copyright policy in 2017, there's been lax enforcement of copyright laws. Rather than going after individuals for exorbitant fines for downloading a handful of songs like copyright holders did a decade ago, enforcement these days has focused on the providers of pirated content, with the much more efficient goal of taking down entire streaming sites rather than just a few of their visitors. Of course, as the continued resilience of The Pirate Bay shows, the current strategy isn't particularly effective at stopping piracy, either. But it does mean that those who only download already-stolen content are safer than they've ever been.
Since the discontinuation of the "six strikes" copyright policy in 2017, there's been lax enforcement of copyright laws. Rather than going after individuals for exorbitant fines for downloading a handful of songs like copyright holders did a decade ago, enforcement these days has focused on the providers of pirated content, with the much more efficient goal of taking down entire streaming sites rather than just a few of their visitors. Of course, as the continued resilience of The Pirate Bay shows, the current strategy isn't particularly effective at stopping piracy, either. But it does mean that those who only download already-stolen content are safer than they've ever been.
"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not judging people who torrent (let's be honest, all of us have at some point) but the idea that people have been "driven" to torrenting by somehting that costs seven bucks a month is just plain bullshit.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
How about people who live in a country where those services are not available?
Copyright infringement aside, if people are willing to pay but the companies are basically saying "your market is too small, you're not worth the trouble", is there really a loss of profits if the company doesn't want the money?
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. No offers here. Not even crappy, synchronized ones. Unless and until they offer everything globally at reasonable conditions, the issue will _not_ go away.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a comment on whether region-locking drives torrenting (it probably does), but based on episode one of "The Mandalorian", the quality of story-telling is nowhere near "Game of Thrones". It's not even close. The Mandalorian is severly lacking depth. It's all superficial like a movie would have to be due to the 2-hour time constraint. This show should have eight hours of time to tell a deep narrative, but my other complaint is they limited it to 40 minutes, which tells me they intend to put this (n
Re: (Score:3)
Wow this makes me miss the 1980s when a one hour show was 50-52 minutes of content and only 8-10 minutes of commercials.
I remember being sad when hour shows shrank to 45 minutes. They are really down now to only 40?
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Funny)
It's worst in Canada. There's so many commercials that news programs are down to 22 minutes [www.cbc.ca].
Re: (Score:3)
I was pumped about it, but when I finally watched it, I thought it was basically a well produced fan fiction. The special effects were great, but there was a total lack of plot, virtually no opportunity for dialog, much less good dialog, and it was really heavy on the 'member this' content. It was as if they had found a promising youtuber and given them an actual budget. I'm hoping that later episodes are better, but I didn't enjoy what I saw.
Re: (Score:3)
I love the SW universe, but thought this was pretty meh. Wanted "Rogue One", got "Phantom Menace". Okay, I retract, it was not that bad.
Rogue One is the only good Star Wars movie since Disney took over.
Lost my faith in humanity when I realized that this move scores lower than The Force Awakens:
84% vs 93% on Rotten Tomatoes.
7,8 vs 7,9 on IMDb
65% vs 81% on Metacritic.
93%!!! for The Force Awakens. That's that movie with the bigger, badder, even more destroyier Death Star that blows up 99 planets AT ONCE(!!!) which is redundant since it SUCKS UP THE SUN of the freaking solar system. LoL. OK, so the "Rebels" blow it up yet again (three time's th
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Informative)
Disney+ is only available in 5 countries in November 2019. If people really want to consume the media and it is not available in their countries then illegal means of acquisition are the only course.
"Disney+ Will Be Available In 5 Countries In November 2019"
https://screenrant.com/disney-... [screenrant.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:4, Interesting)
I lived in a Latin American country where the most popular satellite service's satellite carried all the Gringo content anyone could want - but they were not legally for sale for reasons nobody could understand. This led to hacks that opened absolutely all channels including private rented teleconferencing service. It also led to Sling Boxing from from rackmounted equipment in the US. Everybody except the satellite service profited.
Re: (Score:3)
The concept of “go without” seems to have died a death, and been replaced with “I am entitled” it would seem.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you steal the dynamite, you deprive the farm supply store of the opportunity to profit from its sale. The dynamite is no longer there to sell to anyone else. Further the store loses what they payed to stock the dynamite in the first place.
Unless the process of torrenting removed the copy of show x from Disney+ such that they could no longer provide it to their subscribers, there's no loss of revenue. They continue to make money in the places they provide the service in, and continue to not profit in places they don't.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Interesting)
"But ... but ... we have plans to roll out Disney+ (tm) in those other markets, your honor! When? Uh ... sometime in the next decade ... or two... There's no question that they are stealing from our future profits!"
The EU has an interesting take on patents, and, to a lesser extent, copyrights. If you are doing nothing with it, then it falls into the public domain. Quite the opposite of the US, where patent sitting has been refined to an art by corporate lawyers, and copyright has become *essentially* a never-ending right to print money, long after the original creator is dead.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:4, Insightful)
"That sure is a cool Boba Fett doll, too bad the store is closed"
{picks up a brick}
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
"That sure is a cool Boba Fett doll, too bad the store is closed" ...Sorry, I disagreed with your premise so hard that I felt compelled to steal your post, forever depriving you of it.
{picks up a brick}
Re: "Driven to piracy?" (Score:2)
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic, anybody that cares to should be able to download GPL software, modify it, then sell it for profit without releasing their source. After all the original creator hasn't 'lost' his code. He can continue to 'provide it.' So why should somebody that wants the benefit of his work be forced to comply with the conditions under which he's released his work?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is understated. It's precisely because it is fluff, that stealing it is wrong.
They've created fluff that people want to see...deliberately, to take advantage of copyright laws to get paid, based on desire to see it.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys can rationalize it any way you want, but you are stealing stuff of no intrinsic value
First, it is not stealing and even the law recognizes that. Second, while most people regard stealing as morally wrong and never consider doing it, copyright is an artificial legal construct that is designed to benefit society by encouraging content creation. So there is no moral imperative beyond the benefit to society and when people see large corporations exploiting copyright to impose restrictions on their typical use in the pursuit of excessive profit, often to the detriment of society, it pretty much kills any moral argument.
At that point, it becomes no more than a simple rule that some people can break without any feeling of guilt or remorse. Hence, following the rule becomes entirely reliant on effective law enforcement which, in the internet age, is almost impossible to achieve. Effectively the original social-contract of copyright has been rendered entirely obsolete by the advance of technology which companies have exploited to gain excessive profit and individuals have exploited to completely avoid paying anything. Both extremes are wrong but, until someone comes up with an effective compromise - Netflix was a very promising one for a while until corporate greed took over - we are probably stuck in this back-and-forth copyright battle.
Re: (Score:3)
Theft of service is a very longstanding concept.
But even that is different. "Theft of service" means that someone performed a service. But copying a copy, the original party is entirely uninvolved -- the service has to be used but not paid for in order for a "theft of service" to occur. Now if you're downloading from Disney+ while finding some way to not pay for it, that would be theft of service. But downloading from JoeBlow is not theft of service from Disney+ because you didn't use Disney+'s resources. Only their IP, which falls under copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
You guys can rationalize it any way you want, but you are stealing stuff of no intrinsic value (it's not food, shelter, water, so you don't really need it) because you just want it.
Intrinsic doesn't mean that kind of essential. It means the properties and value it has by its essence, like a gold bar is made of actual gold while a bank note is just a piece of paper with fancy scribbling on it. Any value you get from watching it is clearly intrinsic, but not essential - in a different meaning of essential.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Following your logic, we're stealing stuff back.
Every time copyright is extended, decades of content is taken at gunpoint from the public domain.
Re: (Score:3)
If copyright was going to expire in the year 2000 on Tugboat Terry, and in the year 1995 it's extended to 2020, you can reasonably say that Tugboat Terry was removed from public domain between 2000 and 2020, and the day it was taken away was 1995.
You're just taking a viewpoint that public domain isn't "real" until the date happens. Philosophically self-consistent I think, but the other case is also consistent and is often used. If you stole bond from me that doesn't mature until 2025, most people would ag
Re: (Score:3)
Once it enters public domain, it has always stayed there (in US at least). The extension of copyright kept it from going into the public domain in the first place. No stealing back ever took place.
If there's anything like a social contract it's entered when the work is made. You agree to publish your work in return for an exclusivity for X years. If we an hour later say "just kidding it's now public domain" we broke it. If they say "just kidding it's now infinity minus a day" they broke it. Maybe they can get away with it legally, but morally the altered the deal with no compensation. It's literally Darth Vader saying I've altered the deal, pray that I don't alter it further.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad analogies (Score:5, Interesting)
They sell dynamite at the farm supply store in Kentucky. I live in California, so if I want some, I should be able to steal it?
You're trying to use an example with real-world physical objects to illustrate an online problem, so of course this bad analogy breaks up pretty quickly.
To make the analogy more a propos:
- So you take your car which (magically : with no gas cost and almost instantenously - hey, the magic of teh interwebz) drives you to Kentucky, and you intend to buy your much needed dynamite from the local store.
- You discover a suprise: whenever somebody else - any Kentucky citizen - tries to open the door of the shop, it opens. But whenever you grab the door handle, the door refuses to bulge and you get a message that as a Californian you're not allowed in the shop. (Which is more or less the experience you have with geofencing on the net).
- You try to borrow the ID pass of a Kentucky citizen trying to pass as one in front of the shop (which basically what happens when you 'borrow' an IP address through either a VPN or carefully selecting your Tor exit node - trying to fool the geofencing and pretend to be from that area). ... But the shop is actually performing thorough ID checks at the door and your attempt with a borrowed ID card is foiled (most of the services tend to block IPs coming from known VPN servers and known Tor exit nodes - you only moderate chance of success is using a new as of yet unknown VPN server, or using your own private solution, like a SSH proxy via your own private machine)
-
- At that point, the only way to obtain what you need is to either break into the shop's storehouse or try to get it from a shady unlicensed illegal shop in California. (Very often, there is no legal way left)
- Except that, the thing you actually need isn't the dynamite itself, but a photo of it. So you enter the storehouse illegally, snap a picture, leave the crates of dynamite untouched and head back home. (It's all digital media. If you 'steal' a non-physical "intellectual/imaginary property" you're not depriving the owner of a physical copy from their stock, though you're still violating the copyright law - Disney+ isn't left with one less box of physical Mandalorian VCR tape in their storehouse, though it's still copyright infrigement).
-----
I'm sure another /. can jump in and make a good car analogy.
Re: (Score:3)
- Except that, the thing you actually need isn't the dynamite itself, but a photo of it. So you enter the storehouse illegally, snap a picture, leave the crates of dynamite untouched and head back home. (It's all digital media. If you 'steal' a non-physical "intellectual/imaginary property" you're not depriving the owner of a physical copy from their stock, though you're still violating the copyright law - Disney+ isn't left with one less box of physical Mandalorian VCR tape in their storehouse, though it's still copyright infrigement).
-----
I'm sure another /. can jump in and make a good car analogy.
I love the analogy but you technically didn't even enter the storehouse illegally. It was more like you waited by the door and asked someone going in if they could take a picture of it for you. (like kids do some times to get booze)
It would be the equivalent of wanting to get a picture of mickey mouse at disney world. Technically, you need to pay for admission to do it but if all you want is a picture of mickey mouse, then you could have a friend snap of picture of mickey mouse while they are there for y
Re: (Score:2)
- Except that, the thing you actually need
You're conflating need with want.
A lot of people definitely want it, but nobody *needs* it.
Since it is just a want, not a need, a constitutionally guaranteed right, a requirement for the continuance of life or any other sort of actual necessity, it is hard to justify pirating it as anything other than a "But, but, I want it! Don't tell me no! Waaahhh" scenario. All the standard proposed explanations and justifications I've ever seen in discussions about this topic in general inevitably amount to some versi
Re: (Score:2)
OK how about this.
You want to see the circus show but there's admission price. You decide to wait for the show to start and then walk around the back of the big top, scramble under the tent and get in to see the show for nothing. The circus loses out on ticket sale, that's $5 less they have to feed the animals and pay the performers who've spent years learning to perform in their acts. However, what's their f**king problem right? You weren't going to pay anyway so they've lost nothing, they should be gratef
Re: (Score:2)
You can't buy a copy of the the thing in CA, so you make a perfect copy of it instead.
It's like the difference between stealing your neighbors car and making a copy of it - one is theft the other is something else.
Re: (Score:2)
False. Theft is *NOT* being committed in the eyes of the law. Show me a case or a law. Copyright infringement is being committed in the eyes of the law, which is also illegal but is not theft. Legally speaking.
Re: (Score:3)
Brett, are you the guy that wrote the "you wouldn't steal a car" FBI PSA on all my DVDs?
Love your work man, good stuff.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Proper Analogy: Kentucky farmers sells a number. Yes, a fucking number. When you pay for it you get a copy of it for a limited time.
"Pirating" the number, aka illegal copying (*) is NOT STEALING as it doesn't take the number away from the farmer -- instead it ADDS it to those who copied it and share it. If the Kentucky owner REFUSES to sell it to those outside the Country then those people sharing the number are NOT stealing from the farmer. He never had that income in the first place.
In this case Disney is selling a REALLY big number -- the bits that make up the video file but the length is irrelevant.
(*) The Law specifically calls it copyright infringement because it is DIFFERENT from stealing.
Preventing others from sharing a number is insane just because someone "owns" that particular sequence. This same bullshit of imaginary property shows up in music where you can't use a particular set of notes because someone else "magically" thinks they "own" it.
Copyright was invented by publishers to stop other publishers from profiting off the original's publisher works.
Greed is why we can't have nice (free) things.
On the other hand copyright infringement is disrespectful to the existing laws. Use your own moral judgement as to which is the lesser of the two evils you find morally repugnant:
1. Corporations holding culture "hostage" for profit, or
2. You disrespecting and breaking the Law.
A further complication: Are you morally obligated to follow a corrupt Law?
"Talk amongst yourselves."
Re: (Score:2)
We do not need analogies here. It's its own thing. It's been around long enough that everyone knows exactly what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright has a purpose. It provides a means for people who create those special numbers to earn money from their work.
The current implementation of copyright in the US is obviously broken, and no longer properly fulfills its purpose. The last decade of experience has shown that piracy is a good thing for copyright: it's a natural market force that balances the power of the large copyright holders. Make your content available at a fair price and most people will pay it, no problem. Play stupid games, and mo
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The purpose of copyright is to ensure the people are able to enjoy the creative and useful arts. The *implementation* we have put in place to make this happen is to provide a means for people who create to get paid.
It's always useful to remember what the real purpose is.
Citation: COTUS
Re: (Score:2)
close, but not enough
you steal the dynamite recipe and use it to get our own dynamite. It is still ilegal and can blow up in your hands, but you get what you want and not what they want you to buy
Re: (Score:2)
They sell dynamite at the farm supply store in Kentucky. I live in California, so if I want some, I should be able to steal it?
Once you figure out a way to copy a box of dynamite, you won't even have to resort to stealing it, I'll gladly let you copy mine.
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, I would torrent the Mandalorian regardless of the price as I certainty don't need yet another streaming service.
Re: (Score:3)
that shit adds up
If you don't need live sports or live political talk, you can subscribe to a different video on demand service each month.
Re: (Score:2)
or i can simply pirate those and have no stupid annoyances
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to subscribe to all the services at the same time. Just sign up when the last episode of show you want drops. Then drop the subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to subscribe to all the services at the same time. Just sign up when the last episode of show you want drops. Then drop the subscription.
Hulu intentionally rolled off the early shows in a season before the last episode showed up, expressly to prevent this pattern.
Yeah, piracy will definitely rise again.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like cable TV all over again!
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, maybe "Driven" is a bit too harsh of a word, but it is certainly true that the more fragmented the services get, the better something like "Sonar" starts to look - https://sonarr.tv/ [sonarr.tv] once you have jumped through the hoops of setting up the software to automatically download one series, the whole thing becomes easier than dealing with multiple services.
Maybe someday we can divorce production and distribution?
Maybe a lawsuit similar to the 1948 one that broke up the film distribution system at the time would be appropriate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc. [wikipedia.org]
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948),[1] (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Supreme Court affirmed (a District Court's ruling) in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's fine - ala-carte IS what people were asking for in the cable era, if you can remember back that long. Let it go and let the market do what it does. These guys will either succeed, in which case the price is not too high or fail, which will bring on new solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not $7/month, it's $7+12+9+.../month because you need to subscribe to multiple services to get access to the interesting shows. And that's not counting all the hassle that come with having to deal with yet another service.
And if you're implying that people are not forced to watch the shows not on their existing services, you're vastly underestimating the cost of peer pressure and human nature. Very few people wants to be this one-guy-who-didn't-see-that-show and be shut off from conversations with frie
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, what a pathetic society you live in if these are actual issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Very few people wants to be this one-guy-who-didn't-see-that-show and be shut off from conversations with friends and coworkers.
This is a strange world you live in.
Re:"Driven to piracy?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Very few people wants to be this one-guy-who-didn't-see-that-show and be shut off from conversations with friends and coworkers.
This is a strange world you live in.
It's not even slightly strange. Culture is built out of shared media. 200 years ago, people sang a lot more themselves. In the West, mostly hymns. Guess what? The Methodists knew hymns by heart that the Baptists didn't know and vice versa. When you could join in, you were a part of the group, the local culture, and when you couldn't, you were foreign, and viewed with suspicion. Us vs. Them has always been with us, and when there's not enough common ground, we go to war.
Shared media works in the express interests of modern civilization to produce as many of "Us" as possible. Rural America intentionally self-segregating their media into both kinds of music (Country and Western) is actively hurting the cultural cohesion of the US. Suburban and city America intentionally segregating their media to anything BUT Country and Western is more of the same.
The more media societies have in common, the better they understand each other. It's not just explicit cultural references, either. (Memes, as Richard Dawkins famously named them.) It's the vast swath of cultural assumptions humans everywhere always make, mostly unconsciously. And unless and until you are exposed to large swaths of "Their" media, your attempts to predict their behavior and reactions will always be wrong, subtly or grossly. No amount of study of academic dissections of "Their" society will give you the automatic, natural reactions a member of that society has.
Shared media, of any and every form, is absolutely essential to the building of social cohesion. You explicitly and specifically want as much of it as possible, in order to keep the peace. Allow it to fragment too far and you will have a mess on your hands.
Re: (Score:3)
Bump the whole thread.. had to dig through too much of the same BS above to get to the real meat!
Although I'm not going to conflate the matter to the "need" level there is definitely external pressure more than just "I want to see that show" but honestly didn't even come here to say that:
The OP:
It's not $7/month, it's $7+12+9+.../month
It's the cost explosion of cable all over again just split into multiple bills.
1) YouTube is "Basic Cable" and although they want to charge you most people don't choose to pay so lets call this the "Included Basic Se
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not judging people who torrent (let's be honest, all of us have at some point) but the idea that people have been "driven" to torrenting by somehting that costs seven bucks a month is just plain bullshit.
You are making the mistake of examining Disney+ in isolation from the rest of the streaming market. What drives people to torrenting is not the $6,99 you pay for Disney+. It is the average of 10 dollars per month per each of the fifteen streaming services the content (movies, tv, shows, audio books,YouTube, etc...) you want to consume has been fragmented over. Everybody is hovering over their own little content collection like some kind of Gollum going: "My prrrrecious" firmly convinced that customers will
Re: (Score:2)
Why not for one?? (Score:2)
I am not going to pay 7 a month just to watch a handful of shows.
I would pay almost that much PER SHOW to watch the Mandalorian...
But for $7, you get approximately 4 shows per month, so $1.75 per show. Come on ya cheap bastard, just the Mandalorian alone is worth it, not to mention they have a pretty good back catalog that almost certainly has some other stuff you'd enjoy watching.
I totally can understand those who simply cannot subscribe having cause to complain, but complaining about price? Nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
More a long the lines of "Used to all be on Netflix" , but with everyone pulling their content and starting their own streaming services, to get what Netflix used to offer, you need multiple services, and that adds up.
Between torrenters and "Service "binge-and-bail"ers", I think the streaming business is gonna take a big hit.
Re: (Score:2)
but none of the legal ones have all the content... so either go for several services, pay 7 for each and get annoyed by having to use different tools, requirements, even hardware... and this if you are luck to have those contents even available for your country!
The alternative is to go to a popcorntime like pirate app that have almost all content and in many cases, in a single app that works everywhere and it's even simpler than the legal ones
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No we haven't. Speak for yourself. I've never installed a torrent program because I don't trust them.
I use an open source torrent program. And yes I have read quite a bit of the code. It's an impressive technical achievement, what rtorrent can do.
Not disney, specifically (Score:5, Insightful)
....it's the fracturing of the market into their own little walled gardens.
When I can pay $15/mo to a streaming service and get 80%+ of the shows I want to watch? Sure, I'll pay it, it's easier than streaming. Convenience is worth something. We pay for Netflix, Hulu, and Prime and have for years. I don't have a problem paying for content.
But when the content is now spread across every (Amazon) fucking (Hulu) vendor (Netflix...now with less shows!) with (HBO) their (Disney) own (fubo) fucking (sling) paywalled (philo) garden (youtubetv), I'm frankly inclined to tell them to screw themselves and their walls, and go back to torrenting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not disney, specifically (Score:4, Interesting)
But when the content is now spread across every...
May I recommend something? And this is only suggestion, not saying that you ought to anything. Have you tried just getting only one service, use it for a month and watch all the shows that you want from them, then the next month switch to some other service, watch all the shows that you want from them, and so on? Amazon, I get through Prime. Netflix is my January, April, July, and October. Hulu is February, May, August, November. HBO is March, June, September, and December. I can easily slide Disney+ into that rotation. However, considering how new the service is, I'll probably only have it a single month per year. At this point I've got Selenium [wikipedia.org] macros that do all the required clicking for cancelling and signing up. Calendar appointments that remind me when each happens. The shows I want to watch I just get from scrapping their website for "what's hot" or whatever. Sometimes a friend will recommend a show, like I've got "Righteous Gemstones" on HBO for when December comes around, and the "His Dark Materials" will be wrapping up by December 22.
Again, just suggestion, not saying that would work for everyone.
Or a mix (Score:2)
I do what you are suggesting with HBO. I wait for a season to finish, subscribe, then watch what I want and cancel to move on.
Other services I use more frequently like Netflix, I just stay subscribed to - they had really good subscription discount to Disney+ before launch so now I have three years...
But basically as you say, I don't see any reason why people can't just subscribe to what they want for a short duration. If you use an AppleTV lots of subscriptions are very easy to manage for your approach,
The cost of content and distribution is the cost (Score:3)
I think what we're learning here is that the cost of content and distribution is the cost. The only thing cord cutting and piracy did
Re: (Score:2)
Distribution costs practically next to nothing, YouTube makes money streaming any junk even if it barely has viewers. Heck, if distribution was any substantial portion of the cost P2P wouldn't be a concern because it'd be cheaper in bulk just like printed books are still cheaper than your inkjet. The cost is content and obviously Games of Thrones doesn't get neither cheaper or more expensive to produce whether it's cinema, broadcast, streaming or discs in the mail.
The problem is they don't want channel swap
Re: (Score:2)
Distribution costs practically next to nothing, YouTube makes money streaming any junk even if it barely has viewers.
YouTube seems to not want those little channels anymore. They're demonetizing a ton of channels for almost any reason even if the reason is not real. YouTube wants to become Hulu, HBO, etc. They want "legit" channels that make money from ads. The most junk they can get rid of the better for them. Yeah, they started with "YOU" tube, but that was a loss leader, they need it to make money now.
The problem is they don't want channel swappers, least not between any content that's not their own. Netflix wants you to stay in the Netflix sphere, HBO in the HBO sphere, Disney in the Disney sphere and so on. One standard solution you plug content subscriptions into? No way. The problem is that it shouldn't become a monopolist, one gatekeeper between you and the content. That screams for an open standard, unfortunately open standards and DRM mix like oil and water.
Is this a new idea? Cable providers didn't like people hacking their receivers either (e.g. sat's "one for all" hack).
Re: (Score:2)
This is what we wanted.
We only have Amazon prime right now, just do not watch much on the tv. The nice thing about these different services? Most (if not all) you can pay month-to-month. Don't want 5 different streaming services? Rotate them every month or two. All the content is available all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
People cried bloody murder over cable bundling channels. Well you got what you asked for and yet all we hear are complaints.
Re:Not disney, specifically (Score:5, Interesting)
No it isn't. True a la carte would be me paying for just the shows I wanted from anyone. So I could pay CBS a buck a month for Star Trek, Netflix another dollar for Stranger Things, Amazon for the Grand Tour and not deal with all of the other shows I don't care about. But That's not what we have. What we have is a combination of the worst aspects of bundling and a la carte with non of the upsides. Almost all of these services have one or two good shows worth watching and the rest is garbage, just like bundled cable plans. But then I have to go to multiple places to get the shows I want.
Streaming was at its best around 2012 when I could get 90% of the content with one service and pay what I thought was a reasonable price. This had effectively killed TV and movie pirating. It looked like the industry had wisend up to what the market was willing to pay. And then they went and ruined it all. I have no idea why the music industry didn't go the same route. Spotify has kept me a most people from pirating music for years. Somehow the labels got the message when the studios didn't.
And to the users who smugly say that piracy is still stealing, nobody cares. A product is worth what people are willing to pay for it, not what the owner is willing to sell it for. Markets are forces of nature and you can't control them through lawsuits or moral arguments. Its the same reason why people smoke pot in spite of it being a crime. People will do what they want and fuck anyone who tells them otherwise. The rate of content piracy is directly proportional to how unreasonable the content creators are. If you make it accessible and a price i think is fair then I will pay you for it. If you don't then the opportunity cost changes and the morals of piracy are outweighed by the savings and convenience.
Re: (Score:3)
This is literally what people have been demanding for decades, a la carte tv service.
But that was back when the internet wasn't what it is today. And also, we wanted to select the specific content too - by creating this much fragmentation, you're just creating the thing people objected to in the first place, ESPECIALLY with how many companies' content Disney owns for instance.
I can't be bothered to do either (Score:3)
It's not like I'm starved for entertainment. And if all else fails I wait for the show to end and binge it in a month.
Rage filled article (Score:3)
This slashdot article is a rant with little content and a link to a poor quality source. Of course people who watch movies without paying do not risk much. Like if you sneak in a movie theater without paying.
It isn't nice but nothing worth a death by a thousand cuts.
I can imagine a partial reason to pirate a video content that is cheap: To have it as a permanent file convenient to use. A mkv for example, readable on every device. Not that i claim it is the reason. But i do know people who rip their own blurays for the reason i mentioned.
Not worldwide release - Expect piracy! (Score:5, Informative)
In the case of The Mandalorian, it is legally available only in USA, Canada and Holland right now. So, for people living elsewhere, pirating it is the only way to see it at release date.
In the case of a popular franchise, people want to see it the same time as everyone else, so that they can be part of the hype and discussions online. This is not a new phenomenon, especially not for Star Wars. It happened with Episode 1 already that it was pirated like crazy, which actually led to the later movies being released at the same day in both US and Europe.
But now maybe Disney wants it to be pirated, with the intention to create attention to it? The Star Wars franchise desperately needs some excitement right now.
Re:Not worldwide release - Expect piracy! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to say it but piracy is the only check and balance we have on keeping these streaming services prices reasonable. With all these companies building their walled gardens it is not like I can subscribe to another company to watch the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
But now maybe Disney wants it to be pirated, with the intention to create attention to it? The Star Wars franchise desperately needs some excitement right now.
If they're as smart as they seem, then I believe the answer is yes. Piracy can be great publicity, and increase the base of potential paying customers.
Just ask Microsoft about pirating Windows. Bill Gates didn't care as long as it was running everywhere. That was the end goal.
Sharing passwords (Score:5, Insightful)
The writer calls out sharing passwords as a form of piracy, right before saying that these services allow multiple streams at once.
Too many people accept this as true. I agree that password sharing in general is bad since most people poorly manage their own passwords. But to say that it's piracy for sharing when the service explicitly supports it? Eat a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a time share, though. I agree it isn't "piracy," as there are no wooden ships, cutlasses, and cannon involved, but 2 friends who pay for one 2-screen Netflix account adds up. Those 2-for-1 losses are real (it's a 100% loss), demonstrable, and it's against the TOS, so that account is subject to termination.
I wish they would just call this stuff something akin to "potential revenue losses." That's what we're really talking about, and that's what any media company needs to demonstrate, with evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole password sharing thing mystifies me. If you want to sell me a service that only one person can use at a time, then do so. If I pay for a subscription that includes four simultaneous streams then don't be surprised if I use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you don't have a family. It's not that mystifying. It's extremely hard, without draconian measures that greatly impact usability to prevent family from sharing a shared services. Also, if netflix/disney/hulu/whatever were to expect every family member to pay for an account that would get out of hand fast - and that would absolutely encourage piracy. If they blocked you based on IP address or block - that would be more like the old school cable tv model, but that's the whole point of streaming is
Is this going to be worse for Disney (Score:3)
Perhaps it's a bit fantasy, but what if people are skipping yet another subscription because Disney is reprehensible and as consumers we've paid our dues to them. I'll keep seeing Star Wars and Marvel movies in the theater, but that's enough of my money to cover the other properties too.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Disney+ is a great deal at $6.99/month US right now. Crazy, right?
Whether it's worth $83.88 a year depends on whether or not they provide value beyond their already formidable library. But $6.99? To sample that catalog for a month? That's a pretty good deal if you like Disney stuff.
Nobody's paid "dues." I don't think that's how this works. We buy it because we like the content and the value is commensurate to the price, or we don't because it isn't. This is no different.
I find it funny when people a
Not quite true... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not quite true, whats driving people back to torrents is the greed of these companies all starting up their own damn streaming service. People are sick and tired of being nickeled and dimed to death....
Comment removed (Score:3)
Driven to piracy (Score:2)
It's not stealing (Score:5, Interesting)
It's amazing these people think they should be able to control what goes through my pupils, either by trying to force ads unto me, or stop me from watching copies that cost them nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you feel you are owed this content for free? Don't want to subscribe to Disney+, don't watch their original cont
Channel neutrality? (Score:4, Interesting)
Content Availability and Censorship (Score:5, Informative)
People often assume that Pirating is done to avoid paying. However you have to be aware that in Many countries like India, even if you have the Amazon Prime or whatever streaming service account, censorship is rampant.
Censorship is even ruining the theater experience
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/... [huffingtonpost.in]
So it is not surprising, that people would rather pirate than watch a stripped down version of the show.
There is no doubt that there is a percentage who pirate to avoid paying, however with more and people coming online in India and China, Pirating is the only option. The content in its entirety is not available to them.
Built in Piracy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That functionality is explicitly intended to cover multiple users in your family, and the T&C reflects that.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Everyone with my password is a member of my family. Parents. Siblings. Brothers from other mothers. Humankind.
It's not stealing! (Score:3)
Stealing is the inappropriate possession or transport of physical objects.
Downloading a TV show is copyright infringement at worst and legal media shifting at best.
"the more common form of piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
-- password sharing
Since when did using what you paid for become 'piracy' . I mean seriously is that even a reasonable expectation. Even if you only use one account on one device and 6 people sit and eat popcorn in the same room , they are 'sharing' the password. That is not piracy.
If you agree to have 5 streams that can run simultaneously and pay for them , there should be full expectations on all sides that 5 people are possibly watching at any given time. Me in the living room, little Usia joe in the basement and grandma upstairs. If grandma moves from upstairs to Arizona and keeps doing the same thing how is it anyone business and on what planet is it either wrong or immoral? ( aka pirating.)
The streaming service should stop this (Score:2)
The watermarks cannot be removed through transcoding software. If they are not already doing this it is simply because they are too cheap to prevent piracy.
Obligatory oatmeal (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory oatmeal https://theoatmeal.com/comics/... [theoatmeal.com]
This is the age of apps like Plex, too..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The content providers seem to think everyone has shifted from having any interest in owning and controlling their own copies of content to being content to pay subscriptions for permission to stream it.
I'd counter that's really only true for the consumer who doesn't care a whole lot about the music, video or movie content except that he/she wants to be entertained by "something good" on-demand. Granted? That makes up a LOT of people, and the industries like Disney are going to make a fortune from them.
But you've also got a lot of younger and/or less experienced subscribers, who haven't yet been burned multiple times by paying for services who arbitrarily took away a lot of their favorites that they just assumed would always be there as long as they kept paying the monthly or annual fee.
And the big fans of specific shows or bands are always going to want to ensure they have their content readily accessible.
Today, it's possible to "go digital" and phase out physical collections of CDs or DVDs (even Blu-Ray) by setting up a home media server of your own. Apps like Plex do a beautiful job of enabling this, and even allow streaming your collection to a designated group of personal friends or family members as well as to your own mobile devices for on-the-go watching or listening. But thanks to the industry's copy protection slapped on the physical media people purchase, and thanks to some content only being available via streaming subscription? People resort to torrents, Usenet groups, and other sources to "pirate" digital copies with the protection already removed for them. Then, it can be added to their media server for convenient use as desired, and no more risk of a provider pulling it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is tentacle porn out there that isn't from here.
Re: (Score:2)
The mere idea of copyright is absurd. [...] Nobody else gets to do one job and collect dividends for life.
Copyright originally only applied for a short time. What, 15 years? 25? That wasn't absurd, it was limited and reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Thanks for that AC.