I don't know anything about Plex, but torrenting is pretty effortless compared to figuring out which streaming service what you want to watch is on, figuring out how to get that, evaluating other content it has trying to justify the price, figuring out how to get it to your tv, and figuring out how to use it. The only thing I've seen that confuses people about torrenting is having to open a port.

I think the thing that limits torrenting is the ISP emails, not any of this "nobody cares about your nerd stuff" know-nothing pseudo folk wisdom. People figure it out in five minutes, it looks too easy so it feels criminal, then they get an email from their ISP, so they retreat back to the difficult stuff out of paranoia because they vaguely remember stories about people getting in absurdly disproportionate trouble for it.

For your conspiracy to be valid, I'd have to see significant evidence that internet costs have gone up in the US. Mine have gone down. Evidence that it's cheaper in other parts of the world is utterly irrelevant.

Damn. You just nailed this. In fact, hearing it this way makes me confused as to why anyone would ever use a streaming service to start.

I live in Canada - which is just an awful country to be in for seeing the message 'this video is not available in your country'. For years, I exclaimed 'this is dumb and just makes me visit the Pirate Bay next, it won't be long before other people do, too'.

You know what I wish was still open? Blockbuster. I miss walking out to a store, picking out a movie, pretty much any movie I wanted (new releases might be picky/choosy) - and renting it for a couple days for $2-3. That...honestly seemed like the best all-around deal for movie producers and consumers.

Replace the "unskippable 'you criminal' you" DVD previews with the descriptions of determining where, what, when, etc.

https://boingboing.net/2010/02/18/infographic-buying-d.html

The 300 separate streaming services need to understand that they need a friction level very close to the "if you are a pirate" box at the top in order to prevent their customers from returning to the pirate route. And having 300 separate services, with disjoint content, is not at all near the friction level of the "if you are a pirate" box at the top of the infographic.

I don't think this is an option anymore. There was never a time when a Blockbuster store's collection could match Netflix/Hulu/Prime. In particular, there's so much more media being created now, that there's no way a physical shelf space could keep up. If you consider just TV, think about how many more channels there are compared to the heyday of Blockbuster. I just checked Fandango, there's over 20 movies opening this week alone. How could a Blockbuster keep up with that? I think the reason it felt that way might be related to the paradox of choice. There were fewer options, we got the "lottery win"/dopamine hit from finding that new movie when there was only one copy left to rent, etc. I think our brains artificially limited the set of things we "wanted" to watch to what was on the shelf, which was surely never that robust of a collection compared to what you get from something like Netflix today.

This is ridiculously often the usual experience outside the US, if the content is legally available at all... Or I can just torrent the same content with my desired subs/dubs or buy a game on steam an play it in my desired language...

You can do this now with Netflix - but they will ship you DVD's.

Try your local library

They often have a significant DVD section.

You can find the good ones, but if my parents were going to torrent stuff they'd either be scared away or end up with crap on their computer.

I go paid services first but many times it's so janky i say fuck it and launch the add-on and it works.

I bought an Xbox One instead of a PS4 even though I like the anime games on the PS4 because the Xbox One has a perfect Plex client and the PS4 client is known to be "janky"

I struggled with cheap Android TV devices and broke down and bought a NVIDIA Shield TV because it has a perfect Plex client too with adequate hardware.

Pending you don't want to watch something in Dolby Vision.

I can either have Dolby Atmos come from the shield and a HDR video, or Dolby Vision through the TV and compressed AC3 audio of some kind from the TV.

Asking for both is apparently too much...

Compare these experiences:

1. Search Netflix. Discover it's not there.

2. Search Amazon. Discover they have it, but it's not available for free as part of your subscription.

3. Search Hulu. Leave Hulu, because it's not there.

4. Finally go back to Amazon and rent the movie, not sure why you're paying for Prime if you still have to pay on top of that for half the stuff you watch.

5. Watch your content, with network interruptions if you're new popular releases (i.e. recent Game of Thrones).

6. Pay three monthly bills every month, a large percentage of which gets you overlapping content, but only pays to the content creators for the service you watch it on.

Versus:

1. Search a torrent site.

2. Select a save location in your torrent client.

3. Go make popcorn.

4. Watch your content uninterrupted by network issues or ads, for free, even if you're not connected to the internet.

Which is the janky experience?

And this is if you remove regions and internet connection reliability from the equation.

I'm not arguing you should torrent, incidentally. My preferred experience is to purchase content directly from the content creators when possible.

[1] https://help.hulu.com/s/article/how-much-does-hulu-cost?lang...

EDIT: Okay, sure, there are some use paths where streaming services are easier. But my point here isn't to say that streaming is worse, it's to say that torrenting is absolutely comparable and not some highly technical, difficult thing to do.

Otherwise if you're downloading stuff off the pirate bay it's either going to get you nailed pretty quickly for IP infringement, or you'll end up with fake files and a virus thats labeled as a codec you need to install.

Running a VPN or seedbox or any of the other numerous things to get around this (usenet is my own weapon of choice) results in what may be for you and I an easy or even fun activity, but not for my sisters kid or whatever.

I don't know much about private trackers because I don't actually torrent illegally (I pretty much only use torrents to seed Linux distros). But I'm skeptical "getting nailed" is actually much of a concern. I had a roommate not long ago who torrented illegally quite frequently. The only reason we know it was happening is we'd receive love letters from the ISP every few weeks, and while I suspect I know who was doing it, I'm not 100% sure. As far as I know there were never any consequences beyond that.

> you'll end up with fake files and a virus thats labeled as a codec you need to install

I am pretty skeptical that this is as common as you think it is. Certainly the kind of naive person who is installing codecs that unexpectedly were packaged with their files is not going to have an easy time on any part of the internet. And if you're using a site like EZTV the chances of this approach negligible.

> Running a VPN or seedbox or any of the other numerous things to get around this (usenet is my own weapon of choice) results in what may be for you and I an easy or even fun activity, but not for my sisters kid or whatever.

I use NordVPN (again, not for illegally torrenting--I originally got it for testing internationalization, but nowadays mostly use it because it's a middle ground between the privacy of Tor and the speed of un-proxied internet). The toolbar icon makes it pretty easy. I suspect the main barrier here would be even knowing that VPNs exist and wanting to pay for it, not actually using a VPN service once you have it.

Peer blacklists aren't perfect, but they can cut your chances of getting busted by known IP cops quite a bit.

1. Search Google for movie you want to watch.

2. Google shows a handy "Available on" frame at the top of the page, with prices (if applicable) and services that it's on.

3. Click the link.

4. Watch.

And you can rest easy knowing that you're not breaking the law because you're cheap and for some reason feel entitled to getting things for free.

Does it, though? https://imgur.com/Yxac3mL

I turned off my ad blocker and all other Chrome extensions and tried again before taking this screenshot, and really have no idea what you're talking about.

Still, the fact that Google has a workaround for this issue shows that it is an issue.

I've seen plenty of sites that also combine all the streaming service lists and let you search for specific movies or just browse based on genre.

Could it maybe be easier? Sure. But I'd argue it's still a lot easier than pirating...

It is sad to me that this is how you consider your fellow human beings.

Putting aside how disrespectful this assumption is to your users, I don't think it's true for all your users. It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing, but I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch, that some significant number of them are going to go elsewhere. Some of those who leave will go pirate the content they want.

Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive, and harmful to users, so it shouldn't be surprising that some users are looking outside platforms for their content.

>It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing

It's really impossible to say since everyone's numbers are biased and no one shares them. But what I was getting at originally was that the use case highlighted by OP was not the common case. Users don't search various services looking for a specific piece of content, they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog, where the twisted incentives come into play is when a user finishes the content and the platform tries to keep them hooked.

>I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch

I mean that's fair, but also a bad characterization. There are certainly bad incentives at play when you want to do everything to keep content discovery in a feedback loop, but there's not exactly an alternative when the people you need to license content from are your streaming competitors.

>Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive

I get the arguments for that, and I agree with some of them. But right now services compete on the merits of content itself, and as a result we have more content being created that's more diverse and at lower prices. When HBO Max and Disney+ go up we'll see how massive back catalogs affect the space, but right now the prevailing wisdom is to throw money at content creators - and I appreciate that as a content consumer.

If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years.

This is a very black and white statement, and as such I can directly say it is wrong because I do this.

If you meant "most users", I'd like to see what the breakdown is. Even if "most" is true, if a significant portion don't, then a significant portion has an incentive to pirate because streaming services don't fit their use case.

> they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog,

Following what they were watching previously is looking for a specific piece of content...

It's a fairly simple case to solve, but it also breaks when the streaming service you're subscribed to no longer licenses the show you were watching--again, going back to the problem of needing multiple streaming services to gain access to all content.

> If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability

Huh? Yes they do. Maybe at one time people went to the movies and just saw whatever was playing, but now people look up what's showing online, and if there isn't anything they want to see, they don't go. It would be inconvenient not to, because you might show up at a time when no movies are starting and have to wait.

> - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years.

There are a lot of confounding factors here.

I have no idea how many people know someone who's dedicated enough to setup such as system, but there are many such systems, so I don't think it's moot. Nor is this a prediction of the future, this exists, with many users already.

Who's going to pay for it? Netflix. Despite not needing to pay them to watch their shows, Netflix still gets my money. Netflix pays producers for shows that are on Netflix, so those producers still get my money. It's going to be a hard sell to pay for additional services, as the post we're commenting point out.

The non-Netflix services that will survive, regardless, is anything that must be watched in real-time, aka sports. Those add up quick! NFL, NBA, MLB, and UFC all charge a pretty penny to watch their events live. There are pirate streams though, but for dedicated fans, on the real thing is good enough.

There is also no technical barrier to streaming torrented video on the web. Peertube etc demonstrate distributed video effectively.