Hacker News Reader

Comment by roboguy12 | Hacker News Reader

Last weekend my wife and I wanted to watch the movie Goat. It was pretty recently in theaters, so we didn't expect it to be on Netflix. We searched HBO Now, Hulu, Starz, and all of the other video streaming services that we have (and pay money for!). We found two options - rent it on Google Play Movies, or rent it through Amazon Prime. Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not allow you to do that, presumably because they want you to buy their Fire TV instead.

So, we spent the $6 to rent the movie on Google Play. About 10 minutes into the movie, the quality plummeted and playback stopped with an error code. We called customer support and they talked us through possible solutions for ~35 minutes before we gave up and asked for a refund. It wasn't a problem with our Wifi, since Netflix/Youtube and other services worked just fine, it was a problem with Google Play streaming to the Chromecast.

After searching and trying for over an hour to watch a movie legally using paid services, we went to putlocker, plugged an hdmi cable into my computer and streamed it just fine. We really, really tried to do it the legal way and pay money for the content we wanted to watch, but it was far too complicated to even find a place to watch it, let alone actually successfully watch it. I was reminded a lot of this comic http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones throughout the whole thing. All of this fragmentation is going to become a huge problem again, when piracy is just so easy and convenient.

View on HN

The only service I pay for is a VPN. It allows me to access any tv show or movie I could dream of without any problems ;).

No but seriously, it is sad that with my setup I can search something and stream it instantly, or have it download and automatically be renamed and organized ready to watch on Plex. TV shows can be grabbed automatically and alert me when they are ready. I can use Plex and stream them anywhere in the world right from my own server, and now they even have beta for streaming from amazon cloud so you don't even need your own server.

I hate that my most convenient option is the illegal one. I'd gladly pay. I have no problem paying the $10 a month for Spotify. I never illegally download music anymore because of it. I used to do so before, but now it is so easy and accessible with Spotify that I see no need to.

The Canadian version of a service like Netflix has even less content than the American versions. We barely would find anything we wanted on it, and ultimately got rid of it pretty fast. Just wasn't worth the cost. We had to resort to no longer searching for things we wanted as they rarely had them, and instead just viewing what they DID have.

Edit: I should also add that I am a student on a fairly tight budget, and despite this I am willing to pay for a service monthly to get access to these things. That is why I pay for Spotify. However, I am definitely not going to spend money at multiple video streaming services, and then have to go on some wild hunt to find the content I'm interested in.

> It wasn't a problem with our Wifi, since Netflix/Youtube and other services worked just fine, it was a problem with Google Play streaming to the Chromecast.

Movies you buy/rent in Google Play Movies are actually available in YouTube as well. There's a section in YouTube called "Purchases." I've used this to stream Google Play Movies purchases on my Fire TV. I would imagine the same would work for an Apple TV since it has the YouTube app.

I know it is a cumbersome workaround, and that a company as big as Google really should have a product that just works, but since you mentioned that YouTube works fine, it is a possible workaround that might save you 35 minutes next time.

That is the best and straightforward workaround. Thanks for letting us know that we can rent on Play and watch it on YouTube. I just didn't know that's possible.

If you want to rent the movie or show on Amazon Video but are avoiding using that option just because it doesn't work on chromecast then here is what you can do : 1. Install Amazon video app on phone. Here's link for Android : https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/splash/sd/t/appstore

2. Cast your Android screen (mirror) to chromecast via OS's cast option.

3. Go to Amazon Video app and play show. Do a full screen view.

Don't you have to leave your phone's screen on the entire time to use screen casting?

Yes. It's essentially mirroring the phone screen so you've got to focus on watching movie or a show and not worry about playing with the phone notifications. That's a trade-off.

My concerns were more along the lines of power drain.

In addition to this, most smart TVs ( I have an LG from 2013 ) have an Amazon app, so no need to screen cast. I use this to watch directly on TV content from Amazon. Never had any issue with playback, even on slower lines ( now I have fiber, is always HD ).

I have to admit, nice trick with Google Play and Youtube, will check too.

There are two issues here, the fragmentation of the services, and poorly implemented services.

I have really really tried to use Google Play for video because it seems to work on the broadest array of devices, but the service itself is a second rate experience. Too many clicks, laggy unresponsive UI, silly JS driven pages that require reloading in order to start working again...

I too really want to do things the way that supports content producers, but the middlemen are doing such a poor job that it's difficult to get my money to them.

I usually stream from the mobile App rather than the web page. I'm assuming you're wanting to watch in a desktop browser?

I have HBO Go now for a while next to my Netflix account (that I have longer). Man I hate that app.

I have bought a lot of content (yo gabba gabba!) from Google play.

I often watch it on YouTube under "purchases"

I don't know why Google doesn't make any effort to tell users this, but: you can access all of your Google Play video through YouTube. Just search YouTube for the thing you bought, and you should find the full-length legal video marked as "purchased" that you can watch with YouTube's interface, casting and all.

We rented a movie on Google Play and this was literally the only way we could watch it. It didn't even show up in our library on Google play. I have no idea but I was just lucky to have thought to check YouTube as well.

Another sub-aspect of the poor implementation is oppressive DRM and player restrictions.

Netflix and Prime are finally acceptable on Linux thanks to Pipelight but that solution's not for everyone.

If you want a single settop box, you might run PI with XBMC/Kodi but you can't get DRM'ed things on there. So you need a Roku or AppleTV for your DRM, a chromecast for things coming from a PC, and you still need a Kodi for your personal needs.

There's a lot of fragmentation, but things are getting better. You can do all that with a FireTV stick for $40. It runs DRM apps, has a Kodi fork MrMC in the store (or you can sideload Kodi), Miracast for general screen casting, apps for other casting protocols, a YouTube app for Google content.

Against Balkanization, Fan.TV and other guide apps combine all your streaming sources and antenna TV into one. And everything can be controlled from your phone.

There's still room for improvement, but we have it pretty good. The biggest problem is figuring out what hardware and software you need with all the options out there. We're just spoiled for choice.

This is what I use, and I love how responsive the Amazon FireTV remote is. I have the FireTV hidden behind my TV and the remote works from anywhere in the room regardless of if I'm pointing it at the device or not.

The age of IR remote is almost gone.

Now they use a accelerator/gyroscope and a dedicated RF channel to provide input. Plus that you can transmit also more data ( Wii remotes send the battery status too, for example ).

> Netflix and Prime are finally acceptable on Linux thanks to Pipelight but that solution's not for everyone.

What's weird is that Amazon Prime worked fine on Linux in 2010 without any trouble, and now it requires Pipelight.

And Hulu, too, used to work but no longer does.

Does make me wonder if that evil bastard genius Steve Jobs was still alive, if he would be able to fix this situation.

I actually think Apple is still doing OK on the technology front, and the Apple TV UI seems to have the right ideas.

But actually negotiating the content licenses is something calling for the full power of the Reality Distortion Field. Like how Jobs was able to convince the music industry to provide all their content because it would be available "just on Macs", or to get AT&T to give full control of the iPhone to Apple, in exchange for an exclusive over Verizon.

What would be the negotiating play to trick (I mean, convince its in their best interest) video content owners to make all their intellectual property available from a single excellent UI?

> We really, really tried to do it the legal way and pay money for the content we wanted to watch, but it was far too complicated to even find a place to watch it, let alone actually successfully watch it.

Why didn't you just stream Amazon or Play Movies from the computer since you plugged it in anyways? How was stealing it more convenient?

Because after having such a terrible experience they went with one that, should things go wrong, doesn't entail spending 35 minutes on the phone with support for them to get a refund?

He didn't spend 35 minutes getting a refund. He spent 35 minutes trying to resolve the problem.

...and it didn't work. I get frustrated after having to spend ten minutes talking to a customer rep. Half an hour of an evening wasted trying to resolve something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place would leave me seething and agitated.

Now, there are certainly some out there who would soldier on despite all these inconveniences and still go through the trouble of finding another legal avenue (OP did say he spent another hour searching for it), but if your business plan relies on people taking the legal route just because it's the "right" thing to do, experience be damned, well, you'll have piracy at levels that you do now.

Spent 35 minutes trying to find a resolution and didn't get one. So they should expect to pay money AND time to watch content legally?

It would be ideal if they wouldn't have to spend time, but just because things don't work it doesn't mean you're now entitled to take something you didn't pay for.

If the blender I bought doesn't work I should be able to take it back to store and get a refund. But just because I spent 30 minutes driving back to store, that doesn't mean I can just take another one from the shelves and walk out without paying.

But you are allowed to, because as long as you don't greatly abuse the privilege the law will not penalize you at all.

Do while the legal system does not say he has a legally enforceable claim to watch the movie, the same system will not punish him for doing so.

Now, if we are talking morally, I'm going to guess we have different moral systems and thus not reach the same conclusion.

P.S. for the blender example, it would be more as if his purchased blender didn't work so he used a working one to turn his blender into a working copy, while the second blender continues to sit on the shelf for someone else to buy.

Bits and atoms are not the same.

It's amazing that some still don't acknowledge this point. It's the difference between 99% (or higher) [1] profit margins and less than 10% profit margins, in the case of a kitchen blender.

Even more so, the 99% profit margin isn't the whole story, as torrents are arguably more efficient (by making use of spare bandwidth among the populace). The 1% marginal costs for legally downloaded media primarily exists only because of the company's need to tightly control distribution and charge for access. With torrents, this requirement disappears and the marginal costs drop even closer to zero.

[1] I'm only counting bandwith costs here, which seems to be at most $0.05 per GB. This is what Google charges for their CDN traffic, so their internal costs per GB must be lower: https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/cdn-interconnect#prici...

He already paid for it on Google Play, so then paying for it again on Amazon probably seemed like a slap in the face.

Then got a refund from google.

Is it stealing if he already paid for it, but didn't get it?

He refunded it.

Yes.

Right.

Being the 'chaotic good' person that I am, my family stopped trying to view entertainment content the normal legal way many years ago. I've been using a torrent friendly VPS in eastern Europe for quite a few years now to avoid any complications.

That, plus a little web service that presents youtube videos without commercials, gives us pretty reliable access to most anything we ever want to watch. The downside is that it's not setup to be 'live'. It can take a few hours to torrent it and then securely transfer home. But honestly that's kind of a feature.

To be clear, if there was an always works and reasonably priced way to legally view content, we would jump right on it.

But such a thing has yet to exist.

Lately youtube has been hitting me with multiple-minute-long prerolls to watch 30 second clips. What's the webservice? (Or is it a homegrown thing?)

Homegrown.

> plus a little web service that presents youtube videos without commercials

Why not just use an adblocker like uBlock Origin?

If you don't want to see ads, I assume you use an adblocker anyway, so you might as well use one that doesn't suck.

I actually am not aware of uBlock Origin. I'll take a look at it, thanks!

Believe it or not, I don't use an ad. blocker, I never have.

I agree with your post. Had a bad experience with the chromecast recently, but I managed to figure out that it required an update (through the android cast app) even though it did not indicate it anywhere else. I guess they assumed that it would automatically update frequently enough that my problem would be a rare edge case, but I'd had it unplugged for about a year and wanted to use it for a new TV. Haven't had a TV for ages, I learned a few days later it had the cast protocol built into it out of the box...

Even with 1g internet I have had issues streaming from some sites which always astounds me. However what really is annoying is that it is so much cheaper and with better quality to just redbox a movie than stream it.

I cannot recall a recent movie I have streamed simply because most of the time it can be a third to more than half the price of buying a blu-ray.

That's funny as my wife and I have probably streamed hundreds of items with our Chromecast from various sources including the Play Store and have never had the slightest issue. We do have quality issues with Netflix sometimes, but its pretty rare and seems to be related to choppy wifi connections due to interference (since moving to 5ghz wifi we haven't had issues - which may be coincidental). Online services have issues sometimes. I think we need to accept life will have the occasional inconvenience. I bought a $35,000+ car that had engine trouble one year in and had to arrange with the warranty people at the dealer about replacing the engine. A $3 movie not playing isn't remotely comparable with that, but we accept that cars need work sometimes, so why the double-standard for IT systems? You just gotta accept that life is not perfect and not to over-react or toss out the baby with the bathwater.

I think you're playing up an edge case and frankly that seems disingenuous to me. It seems like every pro-pirate person has some shaggy dog story that "validates" their pirating. I also take issue with how 'easy' it is to pirate. Sure, if its for a current hot item and everyone is seeding it, but once the fanboys go away the seeders are mostly gone and now you're waiting hours (or even days!) to pirate something. Worse, you may expect a lawsuit from the copyright holders as torrents expose your real IP address unless you're using an offshore VPN or VPS which also adds a another layer of inconvenience and monthly billing.

Currently, we have two FireTV boxes and two Chromecasts for our two TV's and they're borderline magical. We have so much content on tap that "just works" that the argument of "its better to pirate" is pretty unconvincing to people without a political agenda. I also want to be part of a system that pays investors and producers of said content for moral and practical reasons. We don't need a Sega Dreamcast-like situation where the pirates kill platforms, hurt competition, and create disincentives to innovate, distribute, and create.

I agree, it's an anecdotal rationalization, as is yours. Yet, it's also true that creators actively frustrate efficient use of distribution platforms in support of their bad business models.

Listen mate. I am not playing up an edge case here and even if I were, you are very much doing the same thing.

When I pay for a service, travel frequently, and cannot use that service because of licensing restrictions due to ads, that is a problem. That tells me these streaming services put more stock into my viewing ads than accessing content I am already paying for. I am not pro-pirate. Nor is your car analogy relevant. You are comparing apples and oranges (the business models aren't remotely the same and the value propositions are completely different, to me, that is disingenuous.

Given how selective enforcement works, I would say you did it the legal way in as much as so.eone doing 70 on a 65 interstate while everyone else is doing about 70 is legally driving. As long as the infringement isn't massive it is largely tolerated and if the law as written was fully enforced, it would result in the law quickly being changed. Much like if they started handing out tickets to everyone who went even a 1 mph over the limit the law would change.

Now, I don't like selective enforcement and think it has many problems, but it does seem to be how our legal system functions these days.

Well, if you want to keep using a Google service, you could open Google.com and search for the mkv you want. Use intitle:index.of to get directory listings. Tons of stuff on Google.

I highly recommend using something like fan.tv (I don't know of any competitors, but I assume they exist) for finding where content is available. It looks like it doesn't include Google Play, but shows that Goat is available on Amazon and Vudu, and makes it easy to compare prices.

There're probably other services it doesn't support (which limits its usefulness), but I've been using it for years.

Yeah I'm not sympathetic. The alternative to finding (and failing to find) a service to watch the show could possibly be - not watching it? The conclusion 'naturally we then had to steal it' isn't entirely justified.

Shoplifting is easy and convenient too. Next time you forget your wallet at the corner store. Just sayin.

The analogy between shoplifting and copyright infrigement gets really, really old.

I know; I have to keep bringing it up because people keep pretending they're owed entertainment. This entitled generation is just disappointing.

You seem to be missing the point that you continually bringing it up does not make it accurate or even relevant. You wouldn't download a car! This is a dumb argument.

I know this: the subject is complex and many varied and valid arguments are made on all sides.

But amazingly, folks accept whatever argument gives them free entertainment. Objections are suddenly 'irrelevant' when watching their favorite TV show is at stake.

Folks who wouldn't go in the back window of a bar to avoid the cover charge, will gladly go in the back way online to hear their favorite band. And they rely on the (pretty indirect) argument about how the source is generated to rationalize it.

Pardon me for my cynicism.

Well if the front door was inconvenient and hard to find, and then I paid for it and the front door wouldn't work, then yeah maybe I would go in the back window. Your argument is so flawed, and it really seems like with your comment above that you just are looking for a reason to call the younger generation "entitled".

Stop using physical examples, they don't correlate to a digital good that can be duplicated digitally, with no physical presence.

They got a refund. Then pirated.

I understand they were frustrated in their efforts to be entertained. Then took what they wanted. Which is pretty much the definition of 'entitled'

Everything is pretty much physical in the real world. Like the physical time and effort folks make to provide services and market them.

Why is the streaming services not the entitled ones in this scenario? According to you they should get payment when their sole contribution was wasting their want-to-be-customers' time.

"Then took what they wanted."

The word "took" when applied to physical objects implies that only one person (the one who took it) has that object, and the one it was taken from no longer has it.

In the digital world that can only happen if the original is deleted or destroyed, which does not happen in the case of a copy or a "pirating". The original is still in the possession of the "owner", but now also in the possession of the copier. The "owner" does not lose his own copy, so nothing is "taken" from him.

It's analogous, in the physical world, to making a photograph of a photograph. The original photograph still exists, and the "owner" of the original photograph does not have anything "taken" from them by the existence of a copy in the possession of someone else (except perhaps in the legal or potential sense -- depending on the laws, the jurisdiction, and the interpretation of those laws -- but certainly not in any kind of physical sense).

I like your photocopying example. I have personally used the library on my school campus to sign out some temporary textbooks they have on hold so that I can take a couple pictures of pages I need, and use those for my classes. Is the publisher losing anything? No, because I was never going to go pay $200 so I could read a couple pages from their textbook.

Yes, they got a refund because they wasted their time to get nothing. Absolutely nothing. They actually were at a loss because they wasted time and got nothing but frustration for it. So yeah, I don't see a reason why they are not entitled to it.

What does the time and effort required matter in anyway in this case? If something is copied, it is copied. They can't lose something they didn't have. If I could clone a car and then I took that cloned car is it still the same as stealing the original car? No, if a friend cloned me their car I don't see how you could even come close to saying it was the same as stealing the car.

Are they entitled to the entertainment? Sure, why not? If they tried to get it already why not. Not to mention in this day in age there is a lot more social pressure to be up to date with current hit tv shows and movies. And sure, you could be "that guy" who doesn't watch these things, but most don't want to be in that group.

So yes, if they tried to get it legally, and the legal system failed and wasted their time, I do see them entitled to try another avenue even if it may not be legal. I would not say the same about a physical item.

This is no different from the situation during the US Prohibition era. Pragmatically speaking, the threat of punishment did not cause sufficient change in social behavior or attitudes. The ideal model of using law to manipulate society failed.

The reason the comparison is objectionable is because 'theft' is not the same as 'failing to pay a fee'. Theft implies a non-duplicatable object has passed from the possession of one entity to the possession of another thus depriving the first entity of any use or advantage from it.

While we might disagree on the moral shading of copyright infringement can we agree that piracy and theft are different things?

...and there's the convenient, highly abstract argument. When wanting free stuff, no mental gymnastic is too hard.

I'm a pragmatist. I see folks wanting to avoid disappointment (can't see favorite show) suddenly becoming theoretical philosophers. Like a 12-year-old deciding their older brother's belongings really belong to everybody, because socialism or whatever.

But it's not interesting to you that the gross majority of people, even people who lean to your opinion, are constructing abstractions in order to reason about the problem?

If you consider yourself a pragmatist, you should also consider that you have under analyzed the issue at hand and that trying to generalize digital media with anecdotes of exchange for goods or services in meat space is inappropriate.

Your position sounds more rooted in laziness than pragmatism, at this rate.

"I'm a pragmatist. I see folks wanting to avoid disappointment (can't see favorite show) suddenly becoming theoretical philosophers."

I can understand (though not agree with) the point of view that people are selfish and just make up excuses to justify to themselves and others that they are in the right whenever they take some action that benefits themselves.

But I don't understand why you would attribute those selfish, self-justifying motives only to those that make copies of digital media but not to those who proclaim to "own" them or who decry copying as theft?

Wouldn't your view also have to apply to the whole concept of ownership, which you'd have to dismiss as a pretension to "theoretical philosophy"?

Here is simple no abstract argument:

Pirates don't deprive distributors or content producers of anything. No harm has been done.

JoeAltmaier didn't actually say, "piracy and shoplifting are both examples of theft". It was more like, "piracy and shoplifting are examples of taking something valuable to which you are not entitled simply because it's convenient".

This kind of piracy existed before. Remember sharing music CDs with friends? Remember libraries over buying books? Remember letting your friends borrow your comics or reading photocopies?

I 'member.

Well, our corporate overlords are trying really hard to make these things a criminal offense in the future. How DARE you share a piece of content you bought with another? The licensing terms forbid it!

Sharing a piece of original physical media is different than sharing a photocopy or burned copy. Sharing the physical media with the license attached to it is legal, making a copy is not as you can't create an additional license (unless allowed by the publisher) with the copied media.

It's just a bad analogy. It sounds silly if you replace movies with physical goods.

If you, unauthorized, print out a photo and hang it in your apartment to enjoy you've probably committed IP infringement of some kind.

Have you committed theft though? Is it the same severity as pickpocketing someone's wallet/purse?

It's important to distinguish because it informs how we should treat these things, legally.

I don't necessarily sense any sense of entitlement from it. It's just that the access mechanisms are Byzantine-complex and full of people charging rents.

Rents are completely inherent in entertainment product - it's just that we have a faux facade of competition between services for the charging of rents. This is confusing.

Is that the entitled corporate generation you're disappointed in ? You know, the kind of entitlement that thinks "the author's life plus 70 years" is a reasonable term for copyright length.

How many more works does the author create in the +70 years after death ? If the answer (I suspect) is zero, what possible:

".. promotion of the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

can there be in that time ?

I've made that argument myself, but agree that the current video streaming situation is just dumb. Could you explain me why that analogy is wrong? I understand there is no damage done as in, they don't have less money than they had before, but they still have less money than they would have if i bought/rented the video.

That is why the analogy is wrong. If you're in a situation where you're definitely not going to buy it (because nobody will take your money and give you the product, for example) then there's no difference to them if you watch it or not.

Imagine I really want your car, so I take it. Or imagine I really want your car, so I use a magic wand to make an exact duplicate of it. Are those two scenarios at all comparable?

> (because nobody will take your money and give you the product, for example)

This argument fall apart in many of the examples cited in this thread because most of the time, those movies are available digitally for a price. The fact is that most people just don't want to pay that price so they use other means to watch the movie.

The argument works equally well if you simply wouldn't buy it.

The issue, of course, is whether or not you're correctly estimating whether you would end up buying it if you didn't pirate it. But if you take it as given that you wouldn't buy it, then there's no loss.

They dont have less money than before because its either you cant watch it in this case or you watch it illegally. Nobody loses money, its lost opportunity at best.

Because you go into a store and take something that store on longer has against its will. Copyright infringement is just someone else willingly duplicating data that you want, while the entity that holds a state granted monopoly to duplication (not necessarily creator) has not authorized the transfer.

One is robbery of scarce resources, one is a legal framework around imposing scarcity on something that is not naturally scarce.

You can steal a movie - in the traditional sense of the word - by breaking into MGM / Disney / Universal's internal network and copying the movie out from their own internal servers. This does happen, where scene releases of unreleased movies happen, often done by employees with access to get access to these films prematurely. That is the only situation remotely comparable to the shoplifting scenario, because in the normal piracy scenario nobody is not voluntarily participating (the original buyer of the movie who then shared it did a voluntary transaction, then violated the distribution terms given them when distributing it to others voluntarily).

Violating a contract and violence are on entirely different planes of ethics.

If transfer of ownership does not actually occur when a digital product is "purchased", then how can one argue that ownership is lost when a digital product is "stolen"? In both cases, what is happening involves licensed use, not ownership. What is lost when a digital product is pirated is not ownership, AKA property rights; what is lost is potential demand for licensing rights. What is lost when a physical item is stolen is actual possession, which would enable one to use or sell the actual item. Losing actual possession of the item will also cause loss of demand, though, since someone else having possession enables them to use or sell the actual item in competition with the legitimate owner, who is concerned with maintaining market demand for the physical items.

The thing taken in shoplifting is rival in the economics sense. It makes impossible a sale to someone else. With piracy, it's just another copy.

That's really not an accurate comparison:

1) they actually did pay to rent it.

2) the content owners don't lose more money weather it's "stollen" or just not watched at all. (In fact, it's better in some ways since these people will tell their friends about it now who may also watch it)

They then got a refund. Then pirated it.

This isn't forgetting a wallet when you get to the store. This is going to the store, buying the product, and then having the product just magically evaporate once you get half way home. Then you go back to the store, ask for help with your disappearing product, and be told they can't help you. Your analogy is terrible.

And then rather than deal with the store again, you go borrow the copy your friend has that never spontaneously evaporated.

FWIW, sometimes when I forget my wallet at the corner store, the clerk will just let me take the stick of gum because he knows I'm good for it later.

There's a lot of reasons that analogies between mom and pop face-to-face businesses and massively-middleman'd intermediary transactions break down; this is just one of them.

> the clerk will just let me take the stick of gum because he knows I'm good for it later.

So you're still going to pay for it. That's not the same as the story here, where they paid for it, got a refund, then got it for "free". They aren't intending to go to the content creators and hand them $5 for it later.

The $5 isn't going to the content creators.

A portion of it is. But regardless, via pirating nothing goes to the content creators. Not one penny. If you actually like content, at some point you need to pay for it or you won't get more of what you like.

The creator's are often paid and out of the equation. In the most common case the $5 literally does not go the creators.

You might argue that publishers and distributors will hold their portion of the $5 for the next piece of content.

Devils Advocate: The alternative of "not consuming" digital products is less valuable to creators than "consuming for free."

Allow me to reference a very famous Bill Gates quote on Chinese piracy of software:

"And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

There are more ways to monetize a media property than pay-per-view so to speak. Merchandising is a big one, not to mention word of mouth marketing.

I don't know. I think there is a difference between applications and platforms like Adobe Software and Windows which often get pirated but at times hugely cost prohibitive to new entrants (e.g. students, young people) vs pirating movies/shows. I'm persistently left unconvinced by moral arguments on show/movie piracy, especially in an age where there's no shortage of new content being created, be it on YouTube, your local bookstore, or your RSS feed. I still have a huge backlog of podcasts/books to catch up, let alone movies I still haven't seen.

Regardless of whether there's a moral argument or not at the individual level, at an aggregate there's plenty of evidence to suggest that piracy will be widespread so long as the legal channels to obtain the content are more cumbersome.

There's a clear correlation between ease of access and reduced piracy in music and games. TV and movies are in a funny place right now where in some ways the situation is arguably worse than it was 10 years ago - back then you could be reasonably assured that you could find whatever you wanted at Blockbuster and it would work in your DVD player. Nowadays finding which providers have the rights to the content you want to watch, and whether they can be watched on your proprietary devices can be a nightmare.

Meanwhile, the piracy route for the most part works completely seamlessly. Using Popcorn Time for me is a better experience than the legal route - that's indicative of major problems.

I'm not trying to make a moral argument one way or the other.

My point is strictly relating to the business end result of the following three alternatives:

1) DO pay for and DO consume digital product.

2) NOT pay for but DO consume digital product.

3) NOT pay for and NOT consume digital product.

Only alternatives #1 and #2 provides a way to monetize the consumer, either via direct monetization of the product (ie pay-per-view) or indirect monetization (ie merchandizing, willingness to pay for new versions of the product in the future, etc), or by leveraging that consumer as a marketing agent to bring in additional consumers (ie that consumer's best friend ended up being monetizable when previously they would have never heard of your media property).

Because there is no expense to the business when a digital product is pirated, then intelligent business management would always prefer option 2 to option 3. That said, business management cannot publicly endorse this preference without the threat of converting #1 consumers into #2 consumers (which are still more valuable than #3 but arguably less than #1).

The other aspect is which of alternatives #2 and #3 point out through tracked metrics that a business decision may not be working as intended? itunes, Netflix and others have reduced piracy, if this kind of balkanisation of content shows a large uptick in piracy, are they likely to back off of it more so than just reduced viewership?

Piracy and larceny are entirely different crimes. Nobody "stole" anything, in this particular situation. In order for something to be "stolen", the victim must lose something that they already had. You might try to argue that streaming services lost a sale, but they never had the sale and they make the process so arduous that they would never get the sale.

To be clear, I am not promoting piracy, it does pose ethical problems. The metaphor to stealing simply fails to illuminate any of them.

The 'book value' of items in the corner market is negligible. The real value is in having that soda available, cold and ready for you. And in marketing that fact.

So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

Except in this analogy you have to spend time to find which corner store claims to have the soda you want and then pay 6 bucks just to enter the corner store. Once inside you have to spend more of your time trying to fix their fridge so your soda is cold. After you can't fix the fridge they give you your six bucks back on the way out. But your time costs are never compensated.

The problem faced by the original poster is that the corner store didn't have the soda available, cold and ready, but the spiv outside did.

The corner store lost nothing.

> So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

But again, stealing a soda voids the ability for someone else to obtain the good. "Stealing" a movie via piracy doesn't neglect someone else from obtain the good. This is the GP's point - stealing implies there is something of loss.

...only if they run out. Read my comment again.

I can't believe people are still equating copyright infringement with physical theft. Didn't that tired old argument die a long time ago ? If not, why not ?

One more time, boys and girls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

> The metaphor to stealing simply fails to illuminate any of them.

I think it illuminates that you got to have/experience something without paying for it, despite the fact that the distributor wanted you to.

Why pay for something which requires no resources to acquire?

If I hire a programmer I get software from the programmer's time. The programmer's time is an expended resource.

If I buy a Coke I get a bottle full of liquid. There was a loss of resources to get it me.

Once that programmer has already written the software there is no cost to duplicate it infinitely. Same with movies.

Since it requires no resources why is there a distributor? A middleman has to work hard to provide his value. Netflix does with impeccable service and high reliability. In this case Google failed. Torrents use otherwise unused bandwidth (ie no resource) and are the baseline for value that these middlemen must compete with.

> they make the process so arduous that they would never get the sale

It's all too easy to make such a claim - particularly if you are the one benefiting from piracy.

If the couple chose not to watch the movie, they aren't going to sit and stare at a blank wall for two hours. Maybe they would have watched a movie on regular TV with ads - thereby benefiting the businesses who placed the ads. Maybe they would have watched a movie on Netflix who therefore gave a small percentage of the Netflix subscription fee to the movie studio. And maybe a month later Google fix the technical problems and the couple decide to pay to watch the original movie.

The point is that if the couple hadn't downloaded the movie illegally, somebody somewhere would probably have been financially better off.

Actually, I'm ok with "pirating" it if they tried to legally get it first. Also, I personally probably wouldn't ask for a refund if I was going to watch it anyway- figuring that what I was doing was morally right I was just hacking the implementation- and the content creators would get their fair share.

I, like you, am disturbed by the "if it's easy to steal then it's ok to steal" argument. It really hurts people who make a living as creatives.

My only problem with that is that you have not only paid for the content, but you've paid for the service as well. If you have to provide the service (in the form of finding a equivalent quality of work, receivable in a not inconvenient amount of time, and take the risk of potentially being flagged as a pirate on your ISP or sued by a rights holder), then it gets more complicated. The content creator certainly isn't getting 100% of the fee you've paid - so ultimately you are rewarding both the content creator and the shitty-service provider.

You may be OK losing the provider's portion to assure the creator is paid.

The problem is that it is easier to pirate than it is to do anything else because of the stranglehold that distributors are trying to place on the goods that the creatives are making. The distributors add a negative value to the product that becomes extra cost for the consumer to get his payment to the creator.

It's not really equivalent. He paid for the product, but then the store wouldn't let him take it home with him. His end solution probably wasn't legal, but to me it feels morally just.

Except for the part where (s)he got a refund first. Then pirated it.

Your reference to shoplifting is so knee jerk and tired it fails to even apply to this instance

If you read it again you'll see the person paid for the product and then the product they paid for was kept from them

Same thing happened to me, I tried to rent a film on touyube but the stream consistently erred after 2s of low quality viewing.. what really bugged me was I could watch any trending video on the free service without issue on any quality setting but the movie I paid for lacked the same supply attention and was buggy for the entire rental window

Who's going to go after googs for the 6$ I spent trying to watch a movie but an error on touyube stopped me from having the access I paid for?

How is it high ground to withhold sympathy when it is a mega corps stealing from a user?

Then they got a refund. Then they pirated. If I read it right?

Right, but is that how you define shoplifting?

Shoplifting is when someone buys something, then has it withheld from them, then get a refund, then access that product from someone else offering to share it with them?

I guess I was trying to move the conversation away from what I see as a flawed analogy to what I think is technically interesting, and that I have first hand experience with, in that the companies offering paid services fail to support them to the same standard as their free services

For the record the phone time seeking the refund, for me, lacked an appropriate roi so i am out the money and was stunted from exposing myself to the media.. media which the creator and distributor trusted goog with making available to me

There are so many interesting subtleties it's frustrating to bury the conversation in a flawed analogy

No, that's the definition of 'entitled'. When just because its hard to get something, that taking it becomes justified.

Again, just a distraction

To be an issue of entitlement the person would have to say something that sets them apart, akin to: it's ok for me to pirate but for everyone else its bad;

Whereas the gp was just describing their process without applying any opinion on the ethics of others doing the same

an excuse is just an excuse, the special treatment is what makes it entitled

Have you ever pirated anything? If you have then your position would make you the entitled one because you are claiming it is wrong for this person to pirate though you have done so yourself

Why offer your opinion with lazy pithy statements and attempts to compartmentalise complex ideas into a single word?

It reads so demonstrative and finite as if these issues lack any capacity for dialogue

I think your perspective is important to this conversation but I'm unable to access it due to how you are presenting it

Nah. Entitlement is the belief that one is due something unconditionally. Its ego at heart; an entitled person probably has no opinion on what is due others.

Then the confusion arises from you applying your own unique definition stead the one agreed upon by the publically accessible literature chronicling the definitions of words

It really seems to me that the knee-jerk reaction here is the one against the shoplifting analogy. All analogies are approximations; you're meant to focus on the similarities instead of the differences. If you're choosing to focus on the differences, than you're choosing to misunderstand. Why would you do that?

p.s. If you read it again, you'll see that the person asked for a refund. It's somewhat unclear at this point whether that refund was granted, but my interpretation is that they did.

Why can't you rent it on Amazon Prime and cast[1] the tab in Chrome?

[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-cast/boadge...

Hey @Google, @Amazon, @etc., you have UX designers (tons of them). If this problem isn't fixed soon, more will do the same.

Robotguy12 did not describe a UI problem. First there was a licensing problem, then there was a technical playback problem. The movie was nominally legally available, but it might as well not have been, for how hard it was to find and then playback.

The technical problem is relatively easily fixed and probably just an isolated local issue. The licensing problem is a bigger one. For rentals, you have the problem of having to create accounts for all the places it may be, assuming you've even got the searching chops to do it (presumably one gets tired of just trying all of them by hand), and for subscription services you have the even larger problem of accumulating a $10/month service here, $10/month service there until you're talking about real money.

That reminds me, I need to turn off my Hulu service. (Seriously, not just for rhetorical point. Literally gonna go do that next thing. Edit: Yup, just did it.) We're not using it in the current season.

(Edit: Incidentally, Hulu really cut itself off here. Because so many of the shows, even with the paid subscription, only have the last 5 episodes of the most recent season, and then aggressively disappear once the season is over, I have no reason to stick around if I'm not watching anything that's on right now. There's actually two shows that I did not watch as they came out, but might have left on my subscription for if they were still available, but now they're gone from the service like they never existed, so.... cancelled. See ya next season, maybe.)

Parent said "UX" not "UI" problem. UX broadly encompasses all aspects of the experience, not just the UI. Sucky licensing hiccups, buffering, etc. all lead to poor UX.

Fair enough.

Yeah but you really don't need "UX designers" to tell you any of that, nor can UX designers fix it.

> Really don't need "UX designers" to tell you any of that

1.) Really? Would love for you to elaborate more. If you don't have a team trying to improve the user experience (i.e. user experience designers) then who will? Will you just wait for you users to tell you there is a problem? If so, then you aren't actively meeting the needs of your users insofar as you are not meeting their goals.

2.) If you are going to downvote me based on an opinion that you have about UX that defeats the primary purpose of downvoting. What I say is true, I work in HCI and UX. You very much need a team who is meeting / understanding the needs of the user. If not, the result is a disconnect between what the user actually needs and what you provide (you being Netflix).

3.) > nor can UX designers fix it. This is just not true. It is the job of UX designers to work closely with the engineering team to meet the needs of the users. I am not sure what experience you have with UX designers, but they should and often do work actively with engineers to "fix it."

So my question for you is: If you don't need UX designers (forgot about the term UX designers as it seems you clearly have a problem with how we are defining a group of people who are actively attempting to design experiences around meeting the needs of the user), then who will you rely on to ensure that the user's needs are being met? The engineers?

Ok, apparently I touched on quite a nerve here.

1.) I never said you don't need UX designers, I said you don't need UX designers to tell you that your video shouldn't stutter in the middle of playback.

2.) I didn't downvote you, nor did I respond to you.

3.) Yes, exactly. They can tell you there's a problem and monitor whether it's being solved but it's up to the engineers to fix it. Furthermore, I reject your implication that engineers nor anyone who isn't a UX designer (e.g. a PM) is sticking up for the customer. I wasn't belittling UX designers, but you're sure as hell belittling others.

Sorry you have had such a bad experience that you need to attack a strawman to stick up for UX designers. I know the value of UX designers. I stand by my opinion that they don't need to have ANYTHING to do with fixing a video buffering problem, or recognizing that it is a problem.

Is that Hulu making the decision, or the content owners? I'm guessing they're going to keep making the wrong decisions, while the various services throw up their hands trying to deal with the insanity.

Hulu at least makes the decision to agree to those types of restrictions.

As a customer, I don't care. Tone note: I don't mean that snarkily, sarcastically, or dismissively, I simply mean that, I don't care. Or if you prefer, I can't care; there's nothing I can do to fix it short of what I just did.

It really is bizarre to me how protective the entertainment industry can get of its content, in a context that I am paying for it (in fact I buy the Hulu non-commercial plan, upon which they make much more than they ever could dream of with commercials, especially given I tend to watch at most two shows per season on them, so I'm really paying for it). I assume Hulu has some sort of arrangement where payment is based on viewership. Why would a TV show not want all of its episodes from at least the last season up on Hulu, prior to its distribution in some other format?

I'll be specific. I enjoy Penn and Teller's Fool Us; not necessarily my favorite show ever (and yes, I'm aware of the at-least modest amounts of kayfabe going on) but a fine late-night relax-before-bed show. A quick search suggests that it is not currently legally available in any format, though I welcome corrections. What's the motivation for taking it off Hulu? Now they certainly aren't making any money from it.

I mean, I understand greed in the general sense. I understand the principles of differential pricing for different markets and the way the entertainment complex uses time to do that with movies and such. (i.e., it's why movies come out in theatres, then on expensive pay-per-view, then DVDs, then streaming services) What I don't understand is the motivation for taking down content that is not legally available anywhere and making it impossible to make money off of, especially in light of content not likely to be available in any other way in the future (there does not even seem to be DVD sets or anything, there does not seem to be a "downstream" for this to go in the differential pricing). A similar trajectory has been followed with Good Eats, which is only very spottily available legally. (A quick search to make sure I'm not shooting my mouth off shows that seasons 1 and 2 were available but are now $100+ to buy used, because they're out of print.)

Oh, and while this may be perhaps neither here nor there, huge, huge chunks of the show are readily available on Youtube. (Not the paid part, just normal free Youtube.)

The problem is, the whole way licensing is conceived in this industry is not for any individual property to individually generate an income. That's not good enough for studios or networks. They perceive some tremendous added value in the portfolio of shows or movie properties they have to offer. Consumers, of course, don't give a shit about this, as evidenced by their willingness to jump out of cable-land for anything that offers a modicum of greater purchasing power.

Hulu or the network are likely not making any more money off of you watching Penn & Teller's show. Penn & Teller's show is probably less-profitable per-viewer to the network, because Penn & Teller are stars with great agency who can demand a large cut of the pie. Hulu's and the network's incentives are largely to get away with offering you the properties from their portfolio with the lowest market value, without you deciding to cancel entirely. While you and many other readers here are willing to re-evaluate and cancel your streaming subscriptions on a regular basis, I suspect their average consumer does not behave that way.

But that hurts their brand, long term, as people get the sense that Hulu never has the things they want to watch.

> The technical problem is relatively easily fixed

except it's not. When content has to flow through umpteen layers of draconian DRM software and hardware, the chances of things going badly are very high. Will the DRM layer in your 2010 tv work with 2020 DRM "standards"? Will some 2016 proprietary DRM solution work on your 2014 OSX that you can't upgrade on your 2009 MacBook Pro?

> The licensing problem is a bigger one.

The licensing problem is the original one from where all the madness flows, but it's actually the simplest one to fix from a technical standpoint: Hollywood just has to write simpler contracts and poof, everything else fixes itself.

There is no way Google has UX designers. I simply do not believe it.

(Probably not Amazon, either.)

> Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not allow you to do that, presumably because they want you to buy their Fire TV instead.

It works on a phone or tablet if you cast the whole screen. Might work on a laptop the same way.

Does it play OK like that? I vaguely remember it dropped frames or the sync was out or something that made me go 'ugh'.

It "works", but it can be really flaky. I've used it to watch at least 2 movies, but at that point it feels really shitty to be jumping through so many hoops, most likely breaking some law somewhere in the process anyway, just to give someone money for something all the while they actively fight me.

Mine sucks bad enough that since I've transferred all my TVs from HTPCs to chromecasts, I'm google play all the way for on-demand movies. I refuse to have both a chromecast and a firestick on a TV, when the firestick would only be used for amazon. The kids are ok using ipads for amazon content for now, and I still left one HTPC connected.

Also, fuck amazon for changing from digital credit to pantry credit for selecting slow shipping instead of 2-day. Google rewards money makes up for it.

In my experience, Google Play has just been awful for video. Their App offerings on platforms other than their own are also quite horrid, trying to use Play or Youtube on a Roku is just a nightmare. If their goal is to get you to switch to Android TV, for a better experience, they need to rethink their strategy because it's really just driving me away from their services.

The whole no Amazon Services on Google Hardware and no Google Services on Amazon Hardware does neither of them any benefit and only solidifies Roku's position as the dominant platform because it's the only one that's open.

With the chromecast extension on chrome, you can cast amazon prime just fine from your computer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com