Hacker News Reader

Comment by Benferhat | Hacker News Reader

Exclusive content: turning fans into pirates, one movie at a time.

At this rate, I see absolutely no reason to stop pirating. I started it because I was in high school, didn't have money, and didn't have my own TV, so I'd torrent shows and watch them on my desktop.

But now, even though I have a TV, I have no reason to get cable even though I can afford it. I don't watch any sports and I read my news online. I already know how to torrent, have private tracker accounts, and an HTPC to watch torrented shows on my TV. Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la carte, on-demand, ad-free model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to pirate.

I pay for cable but have not surfed even basic cable for years. I "pirate" these shows that I'm already paying for because my time is money and a) I am not willing to let the cable company dictate when I sit and watch each show at their whim and schedule, b) pirating is easier, more flexible, less stressful than DVR, and c) ads

You are right to put your usage of "pirate" in quotes because you are paying for the content. For someone not paying for the content, regardless of any justifications, it is still illegal.

It's still illegal even if you are paying for cable.

Can you cite a case that actually says that? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm not aware of any. And I would be interested to see how the courts handle the fair use argument in a case like that.

Hollywood is willing to split hairs about things like RS-DVRs vs DVRs, so they're probably willing to sue over downloading a (commercial-free, DRM-free version of a) show that you already paid (to watch at a certain time).

What does that have anything to do with whether it's illegal? They sued Sony for making the Betamax and lost. They used Cablevision for making the RS-DVR and lost. Contrary to popular belief, Hollywood doesn't actually decide what the law is. (They just bribe Congress when they can get away with it.)

"Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la carte, on-demand, ad-free model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to pirate."

Well aren't you just a god damned Saint? With an attitude like that I can't believe content holders aren't bending over backwards to make you happy!

"Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem" - Gabe Newell

I'm willing to pay, but the product I want is not available. I pay for my video games because Steam is such a great experience.

Bullshit. I can start streaming Avengers from iTunes in 1080p with 5.1 audio in under 30 seconds. It couldn't be any easier. With an AppleTV I can do that in my home theater. Amazon also has video on demand options. So does Xbox amongst many others.

If you want to be a selfish twat and not pay for any content then so be it. You'd hardly be alone. Just don't add lying to your list of sins.

Maybe you missed the part where Universal's content will not be available on iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Xbox, Playstation, etc. until after HBO is done with it.

It didn't say that because that's not how it works. This is an extension of an existing deal. Universal content is already available for rent/purchase on iTunes and that isn't changing. New releases will continue to be on iTunes ala carte. What you won't see is that content available as part of a non-HBO streaming subscription service.

I don't see all TV shows available for download/streaming when they air on TV. Don't try to equate iTunes to that experience.

And if you want to resort to ad hominem attacks, go find another website to troll. Hacker News isn't the place for that bilge.

That's exactly what it is. Even my technically uninitiated ex girlfriend is now just torrenting movies and shows because they're becoming to hard to get a hold of decent content to watch. I've been paying for a huge chunk of my content in the last few years, but just because of this story I'm probably going to pirate any Universal and Hbo content I'd like to consume...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com