Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: The "P" word

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Icon3 The "P" word

    The "P" word. Let's examine it. Fondle it. Rub it. Oops, sorry. I was thinking of another "p" word ... pornography. My bad.

    Piracy is the "p" word that interests me the most. Not that pornography and piracy don't often go hand in hand (minds out of the gutter), but what exactly is piracy? For all intents and purposes, I'm going to label it as theft. A negative label that most people seem to be comfortable with. If you try to portray it in a positive light, you will most likely be vilified. However, the more something is talked about, analyzed, shunned, scorned, or vilified, the more tempting it often becomes to take a closer look, perhaps simply to find out what all the fuss is about.

    Piracy is the "bad" boy. Don't let your daughter date him.

    If you cut the cord, you're not a pirate. But once you cut the cord, you might suddenly have more free time to do other things. If one of those things happens to involve the Internet, you might bump into a few pirates. So cool. A real pirate. Where's your eye-patch?

    Now what? I don't know? Hey, is that HBO you're streaming from your digital box?

    Yup, it is.

    Cool. Can I watch?

    Sure, no skin off my back.

    And that's all it takes to meet a real pirate. Friendly enough chap. I wonder how many more friendly pirates there are online? Too many to count, that's how many.

    Next chapter ... The sleeping pirate. Content is scattered all over the Internet superhighway like trucks parked on your street filled with free merchandise. Step right up and get your free content here. Free? Nothing is "truly" free? What's the catch? No catch, dude. If you have the right tools to avoid viruses, advertisements and other unwanted extras, you should be fine. Just look both ways before you cross the street, and you should be able to avoid getting run over, at least most of the time.

    Hmm. Seems too good to be true. I suppose at first. But then again, isn't that what cable and satellite TV first appeared to be, until you came across the many flaws that got you to cut the cord in the first place. People are used to flaws, and also at looking the other way. That's why we need laws (some silly, some not so much) to control the masses. Otherwise, piracy would go away; it wouldn't be called piracy anymore. It would just be a better version of IPTV (Internet Protocol Television). An Internet TV service. Who's gonna pay for this new system? Nobody; it's simply a recurring fantasy that I often have ... a warm sunny beach, naked supermodels prancing about ... Oops, sorry, I forget to close a tab. Where was I?

    Anyway, when you talk about cord cutting, it's often wise for the broadcasters to ignore the "p" word and instead focus on an alternative way to deliver a similar, but still inferior product, through the Internet (not that Internet streaming is flawless, but it too will improve). That's what we have now. Although you might not realize that, unless you already happened to have stumbled upon a few trucks parked on your street offering free samples. Piracy exposes the flaws of the authorized systems currently in place.

    Cord cutting, cord shaving, or cord pulling:

    When you have a problem with your cable box, they often tell you to pull the plug and then plug the cable box back in. Voila! Eureka! It works! Until it doesn't.

    This time, when you pull on the plug, don't pull it all the way out. Stop and think for a moment. How can I satisfy myself AND the cable company? Oh, I can simply pull on the cord gently, and then slide it back in (still thinking of the other "p" word, sorry), and switch to Internet-only service. That's still considered cutting the cord (dropping your traditional cable/satellite TV subscription), but you're still tied to one of the big companies providing Internet service (even if it's via a third-party ISP).
    [Pulling the cord -- the typical analysis we've heard before]
    [Pulling the cord - the "safer" approach -- not really about TV]

    Cord Pulling/Cutting

    Some practitioners advocate cutting or removing all cords. Some attachments simply should not be removed because they are as yet too deeply engaged with our energy systems. Additionally, cord cutting can result in shocking both your energy system and that of the person on the other end, creating a host of unwanted sensations, feelings, and emotions.

    Cord pulling, is safer, more effective, measurably gentler, and longer lasting. Cord pulling does not shock the system of either party, and allows the practitioner to more effectively heal and seal the connection points. Although similar to cord cutting, cord pulling requires coming from a very compassionate perspective from both practitioner and client. It requires practice, using tempered skill adequately, repeatedly and with continued success.

    In cord work, there is more than the practitioner and the client involved – there are others at the opposite end of each cord and they too must be taken cared for. Pulling cords doesn’t necessarily lead to break-ups or abandoned relationships, unless that is what you are seeking.

    Cord pulling will help you move forward with confidence and clarity since it releases the dysfunctional parts of your relationships. Fear is the opposite of love, and all attachments are created from fear. If there are negative energy cords attached. Ask how many, if the number is large, begin with the most prominent. Begin pulling the cords one at a time. Handle them lovingly and then connect them to the positive energy of crystalline Earth grid. Repeat the process and continue pulling cords one by one and connect them immediately to the positive energy of crystalline Earth grid or dispose of them by placing them into a violet flame. Next use high frequency spiritual light to heal the areas where the cords were attached and create a beautiful shield around each chakra to prevent further attachments.

    WTF? I'm simply trying to shed light on a topic that often hides in the dark. The Internet can successfully heal the separation anxiety that one might feel when the cable/satellite TV subscription is cut or even shaved (reducing your TV subscription package size).

    So, I like to think of cord cutters as those cutting both cable TV and the Internet, and cord pullers being the folks simply cutting cable/Satellite TV subscriptions, while replacing them with Internet subscriptions (not tied to any cable or satellite subscriptions).

    [Cord-cutting options... Piracy simply does not exist]

    My favourite comment from a pirate:

    a pirate's perspective.. I dont comment here often, and obviously, when I do its from Hong Kong, or China, or Belarus, Japan, Russia, Ukraine and a million other TOR exit nodes built into my VPN client. Even techdirt sometimes asks me for a captcha thinking I am not human, which is great. I feel that it is of nobody's business who/where/or what I am. Suffice it to say, I knew about the Snowden highlights long before they were public, and I like my privacy.


    I am considered a pirate, fair enough. But to read article after article of the most inane, useless prattling of a dead industry, it's mind-boggling.

    Here's how a dedicated 'pirate' works. Well above 30+, double doctorate in Computer Science and Engineering, have written software for the better part of 2 decades for banking, finance, mortgage, human resources and health care. got a nice client list and resume, making big 6 zeros for the last 10 years.

    this is how we do it. Scene: person/group/software captures broadcast of x show in SD, HD720p and HD1080p formats. automation of timing markers by broadcast identify the commercial start/end and software simply removes them, remuxes to our format of choice, typically matroska. this is all automated.

    Distribution: x show, now encapsulated, sometimes including regional subs,etc. are now released to bittorrent, freenet, TOR, iirc and usenet. this is all automated.

    Indexing: many indexing sites are now private and are not scraped by google or other web bot, so infringing content is never identified. Many of these indexing tools have apis, which allow other software to interact on unknown, unwatched, secure ports. The api allows other software to scan the index for defined filters/shows/episodes/seasons, u name it. there is a HUGE world of software developed in the vacuum that eases the automation process immensely.

    apis: tools like sickbeard, couchpotato and sabnzbd+ make it easy to configure tv shows and movies to be automatically identified and downloaded using SSL or other heavily encrypted method. typically the 'base' download machine is already behind a many hop VPN or using a TOR exit node. this eliminates threats like deep packet inspection, view the garbage, feel free. this is also automated.

    archiving: the apis are so versatile they easily rename, archive and keep watch for new identified movies/tv shows, this too is all automated. the big cost is storage. 4tb of quality drive is around 300usd. so, after 10 years of this process, i've accumulated over 123 of the top 100 shows, ever, to include ireland, england, australia, new zealand and canada, to be able to watch, at my convenience. to compare to the price chart above, i'll outline my overhead to compare to what cable offers;

    TV shows currently 'watching':

    The Americans, Arrow, Bering Sea Gold, Better Call Saul, Black Sails, Bloodline, Falling Skies*, The Flash, Game of Thrones, Hannibal, Haven*, Justified, Marvel Agents of SHIELD, Ray Donovan, Scorpion, Vikings, The Walking Dead, Californication*, Heroes*, Star Trek TOS*

    (* no longer active, but that doesn't mean I cannot find them) every time a new 'episode' is available for watched, its automatically downloaded, washed, pressed and folded for viewing, this is all automated.

    Overhead: internet 100usd/mo; VPN 10usd/mo; private indexing access 6/mo; usenet access 40/mo; hardware 100/mo; so, my monthly out of pocket is 256 usd/mo that includes internet. but with that, i get the shows I want to watch, when I want to watch them, in the format I want to see, AND i have a copy to watch someday when i want in the future.

    Sure, not everyone has 40tb to mess with, but its been an accumulative game that while the mafiaa refuses to compromise, incredible tools have filled customer demand.

    cutting cords you say? i've not seen a broadcast commercial since the live broadcast of NFL SuperBowl, otherwise, its been close to 14 years. I don't do commercials, the network got paid by the advertiser, some of the shows I gather were already paid for, others like Game of Thrones made millions selling the broadcast rights, so everybody got paid, nobody lost money, and 'expected' income is bullshit, sure, i had an expected income of 1.2m last year, but i cant file that on my taxes, or sue the FCC because I cannot f*@k clients anymore. bottom line is, if they offered what I want, when I want, for the 256usd/mo, I would STILL not switch, let the f*@kers [censored by me] burn.

    Ah, okay, this guy seems angry, but at least you roughly see what one pirate does to sail the Internet seas.

    [cord-cutting denial]

    My favourite comment:

    If "free" TV is going the same direction as in Canada - even the main attractions, such as pro sports, are working their way onto extended channels which cost extra. Thus, the major appeal of local "broadcast" TV is disappearing. Series? Neflix (where you can binge watch). News? Internet. Commercials? Why???

    Take as an example - a year or so ago I got into watching Weeds. Obviously, not on regular TV any more. Watch on Netflix. Ran out of seasons. Get the next one on US Netflix with VPN. Don't have the last 2 seasons? Download. Same for homeland. Watch two seasons on Netflix. Switch to UK Netflix for season 3. Download the last season because nobody has it. See the pattern?

    The biggest advantage is being able to binge-watch. Sadly, some of the more amateurish series are painful to binge-watch. (24, which I never saw originally, are a bunch of bumbling boy scouts. The wildest fiction about it, you know it was set in the future because the president is black.)

    Cable TV is following newspapers into oblivion; desperately trying to suck more money from fewer people by any form of pay-walling things people can get elsewhere for free. They just have a lot further to fall than does the Podunk Times.

    This guy is doing what comes naturally to many (but not all) cord cutters, but that doesn't make it right ... or even wrong. We the people are simply trying to get the stuff we want from the trucks (perhaps "illegally" parked on our streets) with open doors, quite often distributing free products.

    [Ireland judge wants to kick accused-not-convicted file sharers off the Internet]

    This judge is enjoying his chance to help stamp out piracy and doesn't really care what anybody else thinks.

    I'm out of order? No, you're out of order!

    Disclaimer: Yet another overlong post about my favourite subject. Is piracy really theft? I don't know; my eye-patch is preventing me from seeing the entire picture. Shiver me timbers.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 05-20-2015 at 10:08 PM. Reason: typos
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  2. #2
    According to the CRTC, in 2017 the BDUs can rebroadcast the US feed of superbowl without "expressed written consent" from the NFL (who have sold the Canadian rights to CTV) that piracy?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonRedondo View Post
    According to the CRTC, in 2017 the BDUs can rebroadcast the US feed of superbowl without "expressed written consent" from the NFL (who have sold the Canadian rights to CTV) that piracy?
    Good point. What makes these piracy sites illegal is the fact that they are broadcasting content they haven't paid for. CTV owns the exclusive broadcast rights to The Super Bowl in Canada and the CRTC is allowing Canadians to view a program on a station that has not paid for the broadcast rights to The Super Bowl in Canada.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 05-20-2015 at 11:09 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    It's considered piracy because it's ruffling the feathers of the gatekeepers (an antiquated lot that needs to be punished from time to time), by trying to change the current system that's in place. It's basically what Aereo tried to do. The theory being that if some people can already watch OTA content for free, why can't you simply use technology to give the content to the masses? What's fine for some, should be "fine" for the rest of the TV-watching community.

    I suppose by using "Blais" logic, the CRTC is simply trying to level the "playing field" (not even a football field, but a "commercial" field), by giving more Canadians temporary access to the "pure" American channels carrying the Super Bowl, in order to watch the commercials on one channel, during one time period, without the need of the Internet. Sort of like a temporary Canadian version of Aereo, if you will (except Aereo used the Internet).

    However, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. When the laws are changed to combat piracy, previous legal things like making physical backups of content you already paid for, or downloading content from non P2P sources, suddenly become illegal. What? Huh? Oh, it's too popular to ignore stuff like that, and those pesky Americans are pressuring countries into going along with them, or else! Time to tighten the rules then. Peer pressure works to stop Peer-To-Peer file sharing.

    The CRTC is trying to relax some of the rules, almost overnight (relatively speaking) by using piracy. The current technology allows BDUs to avoid simsubs. So why wait for permission from the NFL? Especially when you don't expect to get permission. Just force the issue and you get what you want. That's what the pirates do. Why wait for complicated deals to be worked out between multiple groups or countries? How long do you expect us to wait?

    Some countries will charge a "Netflix" (OTT) tax, others will not. Some countries will block pirate websites, others will not.

    The NFL is guilty of trying to sell both Canadian and US broadcasting rights, rather than just a more complicated ratings-based North American rights package. I can't blame the NFL for trying to make more money by having separate rights deals for each country, but it's extremely silly to let the NFL get away with it.

    If Canada wants to use piracy to fight the rights issues or whatever else comes along, the NFL might decide to renegotiate its current contracts with channels that border Canadian cities. Hey, Buffalo, we're now going to be charging a higher North American rights fee to broadcast the Super Bowl, now that the CRTC wears an eye patch, and waves the piracy flag. Bell wants to renegotiate a lower fee for the Super Bowl (or it won't take the game), so you'll have to pay the difference. Whoa, take it easy, Buffalo. We'll wait a few years and then see what the ratings are before we decide upon a new fee, or perhaps we'll also block some Canadian BDUs from airing your signal there, during the Super Bowl.

    The CRTC has now devalued the Canadian rights to the Super Bowl, which is something that piracy often does to content. Except in this instance, the BDUs broadcasting the "pure" American Super Bowl signal will be guilty by association and can also be labeled as pirates.

    USTVNOW isn't a pirate site, but if Canadians use it to stream content, it basically becomes a pirate website, sort of like using Netflix USA (etc.), or perhaps even like watching American OTA channels (even with some targeted advertising). At least with this kind of piracy or legal competition (for OTA US-channel watching), Bell and the NFL were already aware of these options when agreeing to the Super Bowl contract.

    The CRTC has in effect changed the laws or rules to benefit the consumer (even though the consumer may end up paying more in the long run, for this breach of ethics). Once again, piracy has ruffled the feathers of the gatekeepers.

    Piracy is the mother of competition. If you're a pirate, you make up the rules as you go along. That's what the CRTC did.

    Content distributors and creators are familiar with piracy. They don't embrace it, but they never expect the rules to be changed to favour the pirates. This time they were. Suck on that one, gatekeepers.

    The next step is to change more rules/laws to favour piracy. Once broadcasting rights are broadened, in order to eliminate an antiquated and restrictive rights system, the new system can then become a compromise between the pirates and the gatekeepers of content. Put up the walls, the pirates will knock them down. It's just a whole lot easier to knock down the walls when individual governments or organizations (hello, CRTC) start wearing their own eye patches.

    How much longer until Bell or the NFL start waving Canadian flags featuring a skull and crossbones? Bring it on, bitches!
    Last edited by PokerFace; 05-21-2015 at 02:21 AM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    I had a dream a few days ago that the Canadian government had found a way to attach a device to my modem and computer (like an ankle monitor for those under house arrest) that would beep warnings, each time I tried to access content from an unofficial source, or even tried to use a VPN, etc., and then it also disconnected my Internet for a few hours as punishment. It was a very stressful dream. I really believed that the Internet had been destroyed, and that I was on the verge of cancelling my Internet service.

    I think my subconscious mind was trying to tell me that I was watching too much TV and should probably take a break. That's when I finally woke up, and slowly realized that it was all just a dream.

    I know that the cable/satellite companies would love to figure out a way to limit the power of our modems and computers, so that they would be nothing more than controllable set-top boxes, just as restrictive as the current batch that we have now. Some set-top boxes are better than others, but you still can't use them to do what you can do with a computer and modem.

    So, even though Bell and the gang get a cut of ALL the "pipe" action, the price I pay is still less than basic cable ... it's literally a "steal."

    A few days ago, it was too foggy to pick up any of the major American networks with my OTA antenna, so I just watched the channels live, online. My computer was acting as basic cable for me.

    The Internet. The Internet. The Internet.

    It's not flawless, but it is an absolutely amazing tool that can be manipulated to do so many different things.

    Once you have the Internet at your fingertips, you are godlike. When you ask for something, it's usually there. It's like black magic.

    Piracy in any form, often transforms the mundane into the fabulous. Instead of trying to stop it, piracy needs to be marketed in a different light. It is the light; and the rest is the darkness.

    To stop piracy, it can't be the brightest star in the galaxy. It can't be defeated when it's often the least restrictive option leading to a successful outcome.

    You can't really expect a typical set-top box to be as exciting as piracy.

    Limitation is defined as a "restrictive weakness" or a "handicap." Do you want a handicap? I know I don't. I've got enough problems to deal with already, without having to deal with yet another handicap like Cable TV.

    The fact that it's possible to get Unlimited Internet service from independent ISPs at a lower cost than what the big boys offer, still seems like a miracle to me. I suppose it's a good thing that faster speeds and quicker repair response time are still things that the big boys often do best (since they often control the pipes and intentionally treat the competition like garbage), so as to limit the growth of the independent ISPs (thus making them less of a threat), but I'm still amazed at what the slower speeds are still capable of (at least for now).

    Internet - Piracy = often worse than Cable TV (depending on what you desire, of course)

    Internet + Piracy = ∞ (To Infinity and Beyond)

    Internet + Netflix USA + Hulu + Amazon Prime + American websites for streaming content (no VPNs allowed at all, or it's piracy) + YouTube = Basic alternative to Cable TV ... so try reaching for the stars by mixing in some Piracy picks!

    Internet + Netflix Canada + shomi + Canadian websites for streaming content + YouTube = Suicide is painless
    [Going Streaming-Only May Not Eliminate the Pain of Cable]

    Why Streaming Won't Solve Anything:

    The current selection of streaming subscriptions is like an entree for consumers and content companies. It's showing that streaming is possible and popular, but it's just the beginning of what we'll see in the future. And that's when the model will change to something much closer to cable.

    The problem is that a relatively small number of content companies own a vast majority of what you see on cable -- and Hulu and Netflix, for that matter. Disney (DIS), Comcast's NBC Universal, Viacom (VIA), Time Warner (TWX) and CBS (CBS) are the dominant players in media today, owning some of the most attractive assets to cable, and eventually streaming companies.

    Be Careful What You Wish For:

    Cable may have its downsides, but streaming television may not be much better in the long run. A small number of companies own almost all of the content that's in demand from consumers and that puts them in charge of how much your streaming bill will be every month. Cable may be going away, but the reason we don't like cable companies probably won't.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 06-17-2015 at 02:14 AM. Reason: added: It can't be defeated when it's often the least restrictive option leading to a successful outcome.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Toronto area
    I doubt anyone believes they're not going to eventually change the system to find new ways to get more money out of people to more than make up for what they stop getting in other ways. But if the system becomes something like what cable became, where you are required to pay a large amount for everything even if you only want a very small part of it, then I assume more of us would choose to not pay.
    Luckily for me a lot of what I watch happens to not be part of that "almost all of the content that's in demand from consumers" that will be owned by that "small number of companies", and doesn't now require any piracy or paying, and likely won't any time soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    ...I think my subconscious mind was trying to tell me that I was watching too much TV and should probably take a break...
    Maybe for me it's also just a function of getting older and knowing what I like and don't like, but as the increasing quantity of everything available becomes more 'on-demand' than we could have imagined 20 or 30 years ago, I think most of us by default have become more selective. No one feels compelled to watch everything. We start by watching what we want to see most of all, and then the rest often gets ignored completely or maybe you watch a few minutes of something to confirm your expectations that it's not worth your time. Or if you miss some live sports event, there's no compulsion to watch the whole thing on a delayed basis because you can easily find condensed high-lights, and there's more games tomorrow. You'll maybe watch just the monolog or comedy bits of the one or two late night talk shows you like most, and then ignore all the interviews with the vacuous celebrities promoting their latest crappy project.
    I now cringe at the thought of all the mediocre broadcast network sitcoms I used to watch in the 1980s and 90s, just because they were on, or I had started watching them before they went severely downhill. At I least I never watched dramas.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 06-19-2015 at 09:31 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    As we all know,YouTube is filled with fresh content that shouldn't be there, and much of it is eventually removed by the YouTube bot destroyers. However, even though the uploaders often evade the bots by simply placing the content within a box (or other methods to keep the content not in full-screen mode), and sometimes reversing (mirror image) the video, I like stumbling across content that is full-screen and of good-enough quality to view without getting a headache.

    And when the YouTube uploader does a better job with the content than even the official pirates do, well, that catches my eye. I usually start watching just to see how complete it is. Does it even include the full credits? If so, bravo!

    For the Jan 2nd broadcast of Love in Paradise, yet another corny (but still somewhat appealing) Hallmark movie filmed entirely in Canada, loaded with Canadian actors, and most likely to premiere later on in Canada (on who knows what channel), a YouTube uploader has decided to slip it past the tube bots ... and so far, it has gone undetected.

    It's full-screen, has the full end credits (underneath the preview of another Hallmark movie) and is even available in 720p (though it's obviously not true 720p, it still looks good enough). The version on the pirate websites doesn't have the end credits, but since I watched the YouTube version (still working since Jan 3rd), I know it was filmed entirely in British Columbia (Note to self: Miss Colombia is not from British Columbia).

    Luke Perry and Vancouver B.C.-born Emmanuelle Vaugier star in this Hallmark presentation with enough maple-syrupy scenes to clog your arteries, well before the movie is half over ... but of course I still kept watching till the very end.

    Drinking game ... Each time you cringe at the sappiness of a scene, take a drink. You'll be drunk in no time at all.
    [Emmanuelle gets around]

    Attention YouTube Bot Destroyers (this video will self-destruct sooner, rather than later]:
    [I noticed today, April 3rd, that Hallmark had this taken down, so I removed the dead YouTube link]

    EDIT: I noticed today (Jan 23rd) that the previous video was deleted by YouTube (obviously long ago), but another one (this one only in 360p) that was put up 2 weeks ago, now has 61,363 views ... as compared to the deleted one that had about 450 views as of Jan 4th, then as of Jan 5th it had 1,433 YouTube views. Certainly not the high numbers that Katy Perry videos generate, but Luke the Duke Perry should at least be proud that his surname also belongs to the Queen of all Social Media ... Katy Perry (a.k.a.: Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson).

    Edit 2: As of Feb 5th, this video has 127,629 views, which is an increase of 66,266 views in about 13 days.

    Edit 3: As of Feb 9th or sooner, this video has been changed to Private ... Luke Perry world domination has been thwarted once again.

    Edit 4: Looks like I spoke too soon; the video is back up and now has 145,962 views (as of Feb 20 12:45am ET).

    Edit 5: 155,368 views as of Sat Feb 27 at 4:29am ET ... an increase of 9,406 views in 7 days.

    EDIT 6: 155,398 views as of Sat Feb 27 at 5:58am ET ... an increase of 30 views in less than 90 minutes.

    EDIT 7: 156,286 views as of Sun Feb 28 at 10am ET ... an increase of 888 views in a day.

    EDIT 8: 157,973 views as of Tues Mar 1 at 1:38pm ET ... an increase of 1,687 views in 2 days.

    EDIT 9: 160,064 views as of Thurs Mar 3 at 12:06pm ET ... an increase of 2,091 views in 2 days.

    EDIT 10: Now at 164,714 views as of Sun Mar 6 at 7:37pm ET ... an increase of 4,650 views in 3 days.

    EDIT 11: Now at 169,312 views as of Wed Mar 9 at 9:28pm ET ... an increase of 4,596 in 3 days.

    EDIT 12: Now at 177,183 views as of Mar 14 at 3:46pm ET ... an increase of 7,871 views in 5 days.

    EDIT 13: Now at 192,361 views as of Mar 22 at 9:52am ET ... an increase of 15,178 views in 8 days.

    EDIT 14: Now at 204,878 views as of Mar 29 at 7:12pm ET ... an increase of 12,517 views in 7 days.

    EDIT 15: It took awhile (as of at least today -- April 3rd), but Hallmark finally had this video taken down: "Hallmark Movie Love In Paradise" This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Entertainment One TV International.


    Nice try, Hallmark, but Love in Paradise is back up, although this time you can also choose from 3D or 2D (it starts off in 3D, so will need to click the settings wheel to change it to 2D and then 720p, or whatever resolution you want):

    Now at 55 views (in 18 days) as of March 16th till now --> April 3 at 5:07pm ET
    Now at 140 views as of Apr 10 as of 2:27 am ... an increase of 85 views in 7 days.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 04-10-2016 at 02:29 AM. Reason: updated view count of replacement video
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Although you certainly don't need to use The Pirate Bay or any P2P torrent sites to watch content for free, the YouTube video displayed below, certainly makes it look like the pirates are having a great time raping and pillaging the Internet ("copyright murder" as they call it). The video is quite clever and entertaining, but the guys in the video seem to be having too much fun (is it possible to have too much fun?) while carrying their pirate booty (hello, Kim Kardashian) around. "It's a little bit illegal, but that's okay." I suppose that's true, but now even I feel dirty after watching the video. Not what I'd call a feel-good video about piracy ... although I can't seem to stop watching it over and over again.

    EDIT: This video has 3,967,499 views as of Sun Feb 28 at 10:03am ET.

    EDIT 2: Now at 4,009,105 views as of Sun Mar 6 at 7:42pm ET ... an increase of 41,606 views in 1 week.

    The Pirate Bay song (warning: foul language):
    Last edited by PokerFace; 03-06-2016 at 07:42 PM. Reason: see edit 2
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Dater's Handbook (2016), yet another recent (Jan 30) Hallmark TV movie filmed in British Columbia, courtesy of YouTube, part of the piracy network of programming brought to you by Freeloaders INC., has been up for about 5 days and has only 1,921 views (now 2,125 in less than 20 minutes)(now at 2,710 as of 1:28pm ET Feb 5). Soon after I post these piracy vids, they get taken down, but then I find a backup version to replace them, and unless I bring attention to them, they stay up on YouTube. Which tells me that it might not be as necessary as it used to be for the uploaders to alter the videos, so that they avoid detection. If it often takes posting the videos in forums to get them noticed, things have certainly not improved much, when compared to 2012.

    I skip-jumped my way through this cheesy flick starring Meghan Markle, one of the chicks from Suits, but it's too dull and not my cup of tea. Certainly one of the weaker entries in the Hallmark collection (perhaps a grade of C-), but if it's on YouTube, it will be watched ... until it's deleted.

    Great job by the uploader to include the full end credits, something the professional pirates don't like to do.

    This is truly the golden age of piracy. Even the mighty Google is often late to the party.

    Note: This is a test of the Emergency Piracy Network ... Sharing is Caring ... until the sharing is noticed by the authorities and then the caring about profits eliminates the sharing ... at least temporarily. It's the circle of life.

    Edit 1: This video now has 17,150 views after 9 days (as of 2:07am ET Feb 9, 2016).

    Edit 2: This video now has 23,674 views after 9 days (as of 8:34pm ET Feb 9)

    Edit 3: Just noticed today (Feb 20) that the video is dead, so I deleted the YouTube link.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 02-20-2016 at 12:41 AM. Reason: added Edit 3
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    As "golden" as this time in history is for the piracy industry, the powers that be are working harder than ever to crush the pirates and transform the Internet into a walled garden. The recent shutdown of Slysoft (makers of AnyDVD) was a tremendous victory for the mighty US forces, even though physical discs (and thus the copying of them) are much less popular than they were back in the early 2000's when I went crazy for DVDs and eventually Blu-rays (though to a lesser extent).

    10 years from now, I imagine the uploaders will have to be extra careful when uploading content, and those running pirate websites filled with links to copyrighted material will be hunted down one by one. You can't get them all, but you can force them deeper underground. From the sea to the tunnels, the pirates will scurry, crying aloud, "Sharing is Caring" and "Knock down the walled garden." Prison has walls, but those walls will be harder to knock down, or even climb over.

    2017 might signal the end of the "free" ride as I know it. Laws will indeed change over time, enforcement and pursuit much more dogged than ever before, the various VPN or DNS loopholes (often required to view foreign content) will be smaller and perhaps more expensive to take advantage of, as well as even the simple act of streaming content from an unofficial website (that may or may not be infringing on somebody somewhere) leading to more shutdowns of prominent pirate websites as a way to drive the demand towards the official websites that are region or credential-protected from most freeloaders.

    As great as 2016 was for piracy, 2017 should be a better year for the authorities and those making a nice living from copyright protection practices. Abandon ship! The cannonballs are a comin'. Fire in the hole!

    Anything For Love
    (starring Erika Christensen of Parenthood and the recently cancelled Wicked City): I'm currently watching this brand new, Hallmark TV movie made in British Columbia, that was uploaded to YouTube on Feb 15, 2016 (it first aired on the Hallmark Channel on Feb 12).

    The weird thing is that before I could finish the movie, it was deleted by YouTube (I know this because I was about to post the link here, with the number of current views, and so when I opened it up in a new tab to see the up-to-date views number, it shows it was deleted), although since I still have the stream in pause mode (near the beginning), I can still finish watching it. It's a nice fullscreen 720p version (although it looks the same as the pirate website 404p version in this case, so not all 720p streams are as good as they should be) with the full end credits during the Hallmark mini-interview (something that the pirate site versions don't have), however, the first 1 minute and 36 seconds of it had no sound; that's because it contains the song When Will I Be Loved, sung by Linda Ronstadt (an even bigger hit in 1975 for her than for the Everly Brothers ... her version was a #1 hit single in Canada and it reached #2 in the USA and #1 on the Country and Western chart in both countries, while it was only a #8 hit on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 in 1960 for the Everly Brothers - the song's writer was Phil Everly -- thanks to wiki for those tidbits). I assume the uploader muted the song on his own, to avoid having it taken down by the YouTube autobots even sooner.

    Before the movie link was deleted (perhaps around 5:50am ET), it had amassed 39,937 views. It was apparently uploaded on Feb 15th, so that's good for a 12-day run of piracy.

    The removal message displayed for the deleted version of the movie is as follows: This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on spam, deceptive practices, and scams.

    No mention of piracy or copyright infringement, but this is somehow considered by YouTube to be a "deceptive practice, scam, or perhaps even spam." The whole thing's a sham ... wham, bam, thank you Uncle Sam.


    Somebody else put up the EXACT same version, except as a lame, boxed version, which will most likely be left alone by the YouTube autobots (that's why they are boxed or altered from the original). And since it's too small to be pleasing to watch, most people will watch it on the pirate sites. Even so, 3,893 views have already been accomplished since its upload date of Feb 18th until today - Feb 27 (that's 9 days of viewership).

    EDIT 1: Now at 3,982 views as of 7:59am ET on Feb 27 (perhaps an hour after I last checked ... so there are now 89 more views of this boxed version).

    EDIT 2: Now at 6,171 views as of 9:58am ET today - Feb 28 (so that's 2,189 more views in a day)

    EDIT 3: Now at 12,607 views as of 1:31pm ET on Tues Mar 1 (so that's an increase of 6,436 views in 2 days)

    EDIT 4: 25,611 views as of 12:13pm ET on Thurs Mar 3 ... an increase of 13,004 views in just 2 days.

    EDIT 5: Just noticed that the video was removed by the user when I checked on Mar 6th at 7:30pm ET. Will it return?

    Anything For Love - 2016 - Boxed version (notice it's still missing the audio for the first 1:36, since it's the EXACT same version as the superior-looking version that was recently deleted and that I'm watching now with my in-progress stream): removed link, since guy's account was terminated (noticed on Mar 29)


    But I just noticed that somebody else uploaded the same version, now in fullscreen mode (and again no sound until 1:36).

    So far, 238 views as of Mar 6 at 8:14pm ET ... it was uploaded a week ago on Feb 28.

    Now at 981 views as of Mar 9 at 9:41pm ... an increase of 743 views in 3 days.

    EDIT Mar 14: Just noticed today (Mar 14) that the video was removed by the user and then re-uploaded again, but only in 480p (looks like 400p)...

    Anything For Love (480p, but looks like 400p or so -- sound appears at 1:25):

    Currently 1,284 views as of 3:24pm Mar 14 ... not really sure when it was uploaded -- the March 1rst YouTube listed date is probably not correct.

    Currently 10,844 views as of 9:59am Mar 22 ... an increase of 9560 views in 8 days.

    I noticed today (Mar 29) that the YouTube video was terminated, so I removed the link.


    Note: There's also a boxed version, but this version has the full opening audio, which includes the opening song, etc.

    Currently has 155 views as of March 14th 3:27pm ET -- was uploaded yesterday:

    EDIT: I noticed on Mar 22nd, that the full-sound video was deleted by the user and now it says it's no longer available ... so I deleted the link on Apr 10.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 04-10-2016 at 02:26 AM. Reason: added to the last EDIT in the post that I removed link for the terminated video on Apr 10
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Back with another new TV movie (this one aired on the ION tv channel on Feb 12, 2016) made in British Columbia and uploaded to YouTube on Feb 14th, in fullscreen with the credits (at 720p, but it's really only about 400p or so).

    It's called Heart Felt (AKA: Love in the Vinyard - now airing on TMN - as of at least April) and stars Emmanuelle Vaugier (she's a Canadian, born in BC, and pops up everywhere).

    It currently has 49,028 views as of Sun Feb 28 at 10:17am, not bad for 14 days and no real title in the description:

    Edit 1: It now has 71,703 views as of 1:19pm ET on Tuesday Mar 1, which is an increase of 22,675 views in 2 days.

    Edit 2: It now has 72,048 views as of 1:50pm ET on Tues Mar 1 ... an increase of 345 views in just 31 minutes.

    Edit 3: Now at 174,191 views as of 12:17pm on Thurs Mar 3 ... an increase of 102,143 views in just 2 days. That's a big jump!

    Edit 4: Now at 413,075 views as of 7:33pm on Sun Mar 6 ... an increase of 238,884 views in just 3 days. That's an even bigger jump!

    Edit 5: Now at 453,772 views as of 12:44pm on Mon Mar 7 ... an increase of 40,697 views in only 17 hours.

    Edit 6: Now at 566,659 views as of 9:38pm ET on Wed Mar 9 ... an increase of 112,887 views in 2 days.

    Edit 7: Now at 620,632 views as of 1:40am ET Fri Mar 11 ... an increase of 53,973 views in less than two full days.

    Edit 8: Now at 797,430 views as of 3:33pm ET on Mar 14 ... an increase of 176,798 views in 3 days.

    Edit 9: Now at 1,077,825 views as of Mar 22 at 10:06am ET ... an increase of 280,395 in 8 days.

    Edit 10: Now at 1,395,123 views as of Mar 29 at 7:07pm ET ... an increase of 317,298 in 7 days.

    Edit 11: Now at 1,545,479 views as of April 3 at 4:43pm ET ... an increase of 150,356 in 5 days.

    EDIT 12: Just noticed today (Apr 10) that Reel One made a copyright claim and had the video removed. Took them long enough (not sure exactly when it was removed).

    Note: There's a backup of this that was uploaded on Mar 1, but it only has 143 views (480p looks 360p or bit better) as of 7:59pm ET on March 6, and the last word is slightly cut off:

    [Now at 182 views as of Mar 7 at 12:46pm ET]
    Now at 326 views as of Mar 9 at 9:38pm ET ... a very slow growth.

    Edit for Mar 14: Now at 781 views as of 3:36pm ET on Mar 14.

    Edit For Mar 22: Now at 1,466 views as of Mar 22 at 10:06am ET.

    Edit for Mar 29: YouTube link was terminated (guy's account was terminated), so I removed it.


    There are only a few fullscreen versions of Heart Felt left, but you'll need to watch a lower quality one for the beginning and ending, but at least the other version is of good-enough quality (even though it's missing the beginning and end):

    Heart Felt 2016 (missing beginning and ending, so will need to use other full movie, lower-quality link, listed below):

    Currently has 270 views as of April 10 at 2:13am (uploaded on Feb 21, 2016)

    Heart Felt YouTube Link 2 (Full movie, lower quality ... needed for beginning and ending in lower quality):
    [Link 2 currently 11 views as of Apr 10 at 2:13am - listed as uploaded on March 26]
    Last edited by PokerFace; 04-10-2016 at 06:05 PM. Reason: aka: Love in the Vinyard
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Greater Toronto Area
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Back with another new TV movie (this one aired on the ION tv channel on Feb 12, 2016) made in British Columbia and uploaded to YouTube on Feb 14th, in fullscreen with the credits (at 720p, but it's really only about 400p or so).
    Did you record the movie, or did someone else?
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Somebody else recorded the movie, but I talk like it's mine because I see all uploads as part of a shared community ... of piracy.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    A lot has changed in the last month. Piracy has finally been kicked in the family jewels, and I finally got a chance to watch the system fail repeatedly.

    Now that The Pirate Bay is the king of the piracy castle once again (the original, currently dead, kat torrent site WAS the Walmart of the Internet), there are now more gaps in the piracy programming world, especially content solely delivered to the non-torrent world. And because streaming content is the #1 way we consume pirated content (as based on 2015 data, see links below), the battle against piracy is now beginning to take its toll on the pirate booty that was more easily attainable as recently as just a few months ago.

    Streaming from official sources is becoming more important than ever before, and as more and more of these official sources are requiring cable subscriptions to achieve full access, piracy is becoming an often weaker alternative than it once was.

    You can't kill the pirates, but you can get them to retire early, or go into hiding until things calm down.

    The TV industry is rebranding channels and moving content around all the time, but when the pirate world tries to do the same thing, it takes much longer to regain what was lost, and it's entirely possible that they will never recover from the latest attacks.

    If you don't notice a difference between the old and the new pirate world, perhaps you were never aware of what was there to begin with. It might look like a subtle change, but the gap between the experienced and inexperienced Internet users is growing. And that's the key to fighting piracy. You just have to keep it away from the masses, and then you've won the war.

    For years now, the pirates were winning almost all of the battles, but now things have changed. There are more casualties and changes to the previous system of distributing content to the masses that will need to be addressed if the pirates are going to regain their former glory.

    The war is far from over, but the pirate ship is sinking. It was fun while it lasted, but the golden age of piracy is now mostly underwater.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Today's youtube freebie is the dull and typical Hallmark movie: A Royal Winter (Jan. 14 2017 720p)(only 192 views as of 12:56am Jan 16 -- put up Jan 15th)(now has 6,946 views as of Jan. 17, 2:10 am ET):

    Last edited by PokerFace; 01-17-2017 at 02:10 AM.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    I don't have a smartphone, any streaming box, nor have I ever used kodi or plex. But I have used pirate sites that are apparently also accessible through kodi add-ons.

    I've also recently paid for cable and bought thousands of things from the entertainment industry during my existence. So am I a law-abiding citizen, or simply a pirate? I assume that once you stream or download anything you are not supposed to, you are labelled a crook. Now go find me somebody who isn't a crook. They do exist, but are they better people, or just different than the average Joe or Jane? I don't think it matters what we label them. Everybody is flawed in some way. If my biggest flaw is that I'm a pirate, I can live with that.

    If it suddenly becomes illegal to chew gum from 11pm-11.59pm and I chew gum at 11:10pm in front of a police officer, I might get arrested. If I loved to chew gum and was in the mood to do so at 11:10pm, I'd be an idiot to do so in front of a police officer.

    If you pirate and know you run the risk of getting arrested, you are an idiot. What many of us are doing won't get us arrested, nor would it shock or anger the average Joe or Jane. So, in other words, just keep doing what you're doing. If we somehow are able to get the BDUs to raise Internet prices to make up for real or imaged losses, so be it.

    At that point, we'll just have to decide whether or not to pay for the Internet, or just figure out a way to get it for free, or for a lot less than the regular price.

    Piracy isn't a problem for me. Whatever increased costs occur because of its existence, I still come out ahead. So go ahead and wipe out the entire entertainment industry simply because the powers-that-be can't control every dollar that is generated. We will still find other things to entertain us and we will find other jobs in other industries. We can't save all the jobs that piracy destroys, but we can celebrate all the innovation that piracy eventually brings about.

    You can't convince me that the people running and are dumber than the ones running the website, and yet if you want to get past the regional blocks that those sites put up, only the site might give you some trouble with various extensions. If the doors can be easily opened, you know that the pirates will walk right in without losing any sleep over it.

    How dumb do you have to be, to actually believe that pirates will knock on a closed door and then go away if nobody opens it for them? Piracy is such a big business that even many of the pirate sites charge for exclusive or early links.

    The Internet is a wild animal that refuses to be tamed, but that won't stop the powers-that-be from trying to tame it, or at least trying to reduce the severity of its bite.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 04-14-2017 at 02:45 AM. Reason: If the doors can be easily OPENED (not picked)
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Biting the hand that feeds us content

    It's taken me a long time to get to where I am right now. I've paid close attention to a system that is constantly failing at preventing the devaluing of its product. But the good news is that because there are so many products involved, there are going to be some winners in this game of presenting content to the world.

    I now look at a website as an over-the-air (OTA) broadcaster. Whether the site is a pirate site, or an official one like ABC, or even our CBC. I look at what the site has available for free, what they have available behind some kind of paywall, and how user-friendly or tech-savvy the site is.

    I realize that both OTA broadcasters and websites that contain content or links to content, will often try to get me to either look at ads, watch commercials, or at least try to restrict how I watch/stream or download/record that content.

    My job as a viewer is to figure out a way that I can consume the content available to me in an enjoyable way without being annoyed by the restrictions. However, once I'm done with the content that I can watch/download for free, I move on to what isn't free and then quickly check to see if somebody else is offering that same content for a lower price, or perhaps even for free. I often find that the stuff I can't get for free, is often only available behind a paywall that either requires me to get a Cable/Satellite subscription, or requires me to be from another country.

    So now it's time to bring up the "P" word again. The funny thing is that when most people think of piracy, they assume that it's too difficult to do on their own, so they often just demonize the entire process.

    Pay for the content that you can't get for free ... there's usually more than enough to go around ... assuming that they'll even take your money without having to jump through hoops trying to trick them into thinking that you are entitled to access that content you want. In the end, regardless of the frustration, you'll probably save a lot of money because you'll be blocked by a system that claims to want sales, when in fact it just wants to sell to specific people within a specific time frame, and then tries its best to manipulate the market to suit its immediate needs, while often ignoring potential customers eager to pay for the content. And then when they ask us to wait for the "right" to purchase that same content, days, weeks, months, or years later, they wonder why we no longer are as interested.

    This is an industry that believes we'll buy whatever they are selling, even if they make us wait for an unspecified amount of time, often without any idea of where, when, or if that content will even be made available to us. And then they want us to pay the same price, even though the middlemen might have gotten it at a discount (since it's no longer first-run content).

    Piracy is just a global shunning of a flawed delivery system that often treats us like garbage, and then expects us to become law-abiding sheep. So those given the glorious privilege to purchase said content, simply then decide to share it with the world. Some do it for the mere joy of spreading their favourite content, others try to make some profit from the process. Regardless of the motivation for the theft/sharing ... this counter-intuitive system of illegal content distribution is designed to correct an imbalance that will eventually correct itself. It will correct itself because at some point, even those trying to lead the sheep to the slaughterhouse, will notice that most of those sheep have now turned into wolves with a very painful bite ... a bite that reduces profit margins and demands respect.

    The current online model for delivering content often requires the user to use a VPN or some kind of DNS trickery, followed perhaps by an ad-skipping technique (if applicable), and possibly even a download method to view the content at a later date when it is more convenient for the user. If there is no download option made available, one will be appointed for you, simply by using more basic trickery to get around the blockades designed to reduce the fun and convenience factor of watching content when, where and how you want to watch it.

    Piracy is simply the ultimate way content should be consumed, whether we pay for it and alter the delivery system to suit OUR needs, or simply trick the system into thinking that we are entitled to consume that content we want, as soon as we become interested in it. Better to get our money now when we REALLY want to give it to you, rather than trying to get our money much later for stale content that no longer interests us, often because there's something new on the market that we now want to see even more.

    Once the content cartel comes to their senses, or has no choice but to go along with what the wolves desire, that's when we become more important than the content we desire.

    Piracy and power go hand in hand. Now let's shake on it and stop pretending that piracy is bad, and that content is King.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 08-12-2017 at 11:44 AM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts