I basically feel Netflix to be a rip off, and Prime's value proposition is faster deliveries, better discounts and a few free Kindle books.
And despite trying to use these services for a long time, I am still a fan and a proponent of torrents for such consumption as I get all the content, on time, on my terms and can consume it in a way I like.
Music, is sorted. TV and Movies isn't.
As a pretty large portion of the stuff seemed to not be available here this made it basically unusable.
- Even though the minimum wage here is half that of the UK, for some reason Netflix is more expensive, and has less selection.
- They have no content in the official language of the country, not even subtitles. When you go to the cinema, movies are dubbed or have subtitles.
- They push a lot of Russian language content, even though most people under 35 don't speak it, and it is not even a semi official language.
Amazon don't have operations here, you can sign up to Amazon Prime for video in another country, but it only shows their own content.
I found this out when I tried to show it to my daughters. Apparently the copyright agreements don't cover how to split the proceeds from streaming, so nobody can sell Amazon, Netflix, etc the right to stream it.
But it is on The Pirate Bay...
What a shame that the rights holders are so short sighted. The nostalgia those old tracks would create would surely sell more records. And it's not like anybody is going to be satisfied with replaying the video when they want the song, with the characters talking over the top of it.
It was not even available on dvd for a very long time. So much potential money lost.
It's weird; you can't watch it on demand, but you can virtually DVR it when it is "broadcast" at an arbitrary time.
As an American in Europe last month, I experienced:
Watching Showtime through Playstation Vue was impossible from European IP, and impossible through US VPN. So I torrented Billions instead of trying a redundant unportable Showtime through Amazon Video subscription, or instead of trying a redundant Showtime subscription through their native app assuming they have one.
Watching Game of Thrones through HBO Now also had the same issues. But downloading torrents over VPN worked really fast. I only used VPNs partially out of habit, and partially not to get my host (hotel/airbnb) in trouble.
Because VPNs were so readily detected and blocked, it reminded me to consider buying a dedicated IP address in a few different countries for VPN, instead of having IP addresses that all the VPN users use. I have not done this yet, as I also heard that another way to detect VPNs is by knowing if the IP block is associated with a data center. I wonder if this is really done by the services I use.
Final note is that I did notice that alot of the torrent providers are doing "webrips" now instead of ripping in the highest quality their TV provides applying compression. The webrips are noticeable worse as the streaming service already is using compression.
Kind of weird outcome currently.
I had zero problems torrenting it, and no no moral qualms about it; I'm pretty sure all the actors & crew are dead by now and not recieving any more royalties, plus I have it on DVD but I hadn't ripped it to my NAS & don't have anything that can play DVD's connected to the TV.
It supports the importing of subscriptions but doesn't seem to handle playlist import currently.
There are simpler ways :)
The system still sucks but effectively there is enough available to keep me going.
In the meantime if some media isn't convenient for me to consume, it is off my radar. I don't don't bother either way.
Now we seem to be entering a time where, as media mega-corps have appeared and won us back to paying for content and having content easily accessible, they're starting to think they can ramp up the prices and lock away "their" content in a silo with a hefty price-tag for entry.
It seems as if we're going to move back towards a much higher price for taking part in the culture that surrounds current media; and that in turn is going to lead to more copyright infringement. Only this time the media corps have got the internet sewn up pretty well
It would be ideal if the reaction were to rest control of culture from the hands of big business a little with some statutory reform. But that in turn rests on whether countries get democratic reform to proportionalise representation and enable the tackling of smaller issues like disenfranchisement from culture and locking away of works so they can't ever enter the public domain.
Examples: any music from “nightvale presents”, and “dark compass” podcasts. DC has an epic best of 2019 as the current episode.
I’ve had mixed luck finding works from those sources on the big streaming services, but I listen to them legally nevertheless.
For me we've reached a level I'm ok with, but it is very much based on usage.
We circled. Streaming services partially were about to solve the problem of not paying serious $$$ for a cable subscription (lots of programming that people don't care about/watch) by providing a cheap, affordable service with lost of content that is interesting and worth to watch. Today, streaming services are creating the very same problem they were trying to solve.
If you say you wouldn't I think you are lying, mostly to yourself.
So you don't think there is anyone who is accomplished enough at being an artist that they should be able to make it a profession?
I want to experience the best artists being able to spend the time doing the best work they can possibly do, not a generation of office workers who can only afford to produce mediocre art for a maximum of a couple of hours per day, like me. :(
I'll take the world where I can direct my funds to the projects I like, thanks. The price mechanism strictly dominates central planning in terms of welfare generation. This has been proven over and over again.
Sure. And the government decides how many funds you direct to them to prevent freeloading. Basically Flattr, but mandatory.
> The price mechanism strictly dominates central planning in terms of welfare generation. This has been proven over and over again.
Interesting. Can you direct me to that proof? I'd love to see the math. I do know that there is empirical evidence that a dictatorship making 4 year plans does not generate much welfare if it has, at best, 1980s computing power available that is not sufficient to finish even a simplified plan within 4 years.
So you really shouldn't put people in charge whose ideology revolves around creating a planned economy as opposed to something reasonable like freedom, solidarity and democracy (including public ownership of the means of production).
Uhhh got it, so the government decides how much of my money I need to direct to arts/digital goods? I have no choice in that? You want to replace a world where I can freely allocate my capital to goods that are artificially scarce (presumably you are morally opposed to this enforcement) with one where I'm forced to allocate my capital goods to $0 marginal cost goods (you aren't opposed to this enforcement, though?). I'll take the one where I have fuller choice if in either circumstance I lose some freedom. This also doesn't address issues that would certainly arise from the cost of enforcement, the likelihood of fraud, etc. and the relative cost between that and what we have today.
You should take a basic economics class if you want to fully understand how markets succeed vs centrally planned mechanisms.
However, the basics would be the following:
1) Every individual is unique and has unique preferences.
2) These preferences are private and non-discoverable by external parties but are well-known, to a point, to the individual. (Proof: see the INCREDIBLY NARROW worlds of recommendation systems where even though Netflix or Amazon or Google have massive amounts of information about your historical preferences in VERY NARROW circumstances, they still fail to provide truly great recommendations)
3) Since a central planning entity cannot know every individual's preferences but every individual can (think of market economies as distributed systems), overall welfare is maximized by individuals autonomously and freely allocating their personal capital to the goods/services/etc. that they see fit.
4) As more and more individuals bid with their capital, up to the point of negative returns for them, for goods/services/etc., producers react to produce more of these, and ideally at lower costs and higher quantities to maximize their gains and demand, in order to capture more capital for them to purchase their preferences with. This is the price mechanism and it CANNOT be replicated centrally given the unknowability of a central entity to understand preferences. NO AMOUNT of today's computing power could possibly come close. Think about how much compute goes into the shitty recommendations you get from Google/NFLX/et al. and for how narrow that realm is. You want production to be based on something like that?
Now, there are failures of market mechanisms. What happens when there are external social costs (ie C02 production from fossil fuels), or the tragedies of the commons, etc. that require central intervention to the best of its ability. Hence IP/Copyright where in a world where without it, creators have no reasonable means of capturing returns on their efforts, we must implement property rights. There is of course a great argument for much better refinement of IP laws, but they are not arguments against them.
I think this also leaves the system somewhat unstable; all it needs is a rogue government in some place like Iceland and the likes of sci—hub and pirate bay will have a safe haven. If one country gets away with it, others would probably jump on the bandwagon, because they have little to gain by sending money to rich countries for information they could download for free.
Yes. It's not too different from taxes, but you have more choice. We could also include other projects like research, public parks, etc. The point is not to centralize control but to avoid artificial and unnecessary scarcity.
> You want to replace a world where I can freely allocate my capital to goods that are artificially scarce [...] with one where I'm forced to allocate my capital goods to $0 marginal cost goods (you aren't opposed to this enforcement, though?).
Yes, I want to replace a world where things are artificially scarce with one where they are not.
> presumably you are morally opposed to this enforcement
It's a question of efficiency. Limiting access to goods with zero marginal cost is just a waste.
But yes, I'm morally opposed to reducing the general welfare.
> I'll take the one where I have fuller choice if in either circumstance I lose some freedom.
Then you should be in favor of removing artificial scarcity. It removes people's freedom to use media for no good reason. Of course, if you're wealthy enough that this does not restrict you, you may benefit. But don't forget that in that case, you defend your privileges at the expense of others' freedom.
> This also doesn't address issues that would certainly arise from the cost of enforcement, the likelihood of fraud, etc.
Sorry for not writing a fully fleshed out bill ready to be passed into law.
> You should take a basic economics class if you want to fully understand how markets succeed vs centrally planned mechanisms.
No thanks, I already know the crude model of the economy a basic economics class teaches.
> 1) Every individual is unique and has unique preferences.
> 2) These preferences are private and non-discoverable by external parties but are well-known, to a point, to the individual.
The need of companies for input products, however, is discoverable.
> Proof
No, evidence. This isn't math.
> 3) Since a central planning entity cannot know every individual's preferences
Correct.
> but every individual can
I don't think a psychologist would agree with that statement. But there are good reasons to pretend it's true anyway.
> (think of market economies as distributed systems), overall welfare is maximized by individuals autonomously and freely allocating their personal capital to the goods/services/etc. that they see fit.
Only assuming everyone has the same income or at least the same earning power (working less in exchange for earning less is a valid choice). Otherwise, some peoples' welfare is weighted higher than others'.
> 4) As more and more individuals bid with their capital, up to the point of negative returns for them, for goods/services/etc., producers react to produce more of these,
Of course. If people buy more or less of something than was predicted, you have to change the plan. Central planning can reduce this issue compared to a pile of uncoordinated competing capitalists, but it cannot eliminate it.
That's a problem if calculating a plan takes years. With today's technology, it isn't.
> Think about how much compute goes into the shitty recommendations you get from Google/NFLX/et al. and for how narrow that realm is.
Incompetence isn't the only reason why those recommendations are so shitty. Netflix, at least, tries to push their "originals" and other films and series that are cheap for them. They also try to hide how limited their catalog is, due to intellectual property. They use DRM because their aim is not to provide a good service, but to make a profit. By using DRM they force you to use their client. Capitalism is actually reducing choice and competition here.
This video describes the problem really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDF-S68kx5o
I was trying to show a tv show to my girlfriend last week, it was from 2007, not crazy long time ago, it's just 12 years ago and there was no way to find it legally.
Teh only place where I found it was Amazon prime video, as a per episode paid download, not in streaming, but it wasn't available in my country, even though I'm a primenow subscriber.
I ended up torrenting it (and the only torrent site where I found it was thepiratebay, nobody else had it)