You still do (neither Windows, OS X, iOS, or Android come with one by default), but you don't need a dedicated torrent client anymore - there are programs that stream torrents as you download them...
You still do (neither Windows, OS X, iOS, or Android come with one by default), but you don't need a dedicated torrent client anymore - there are programs that stream torrents as you download them and provide a nice frontend, so you don't have to put much thought into the fact that you're pirating stuff (like Popcorn Time), and I believe I saw a Firefox extension at one point that downloaded torrents entirely within the browser.
Used to be that Opera had a Torrent client built into it back before it became another soulless Chrome clone. And an email client. And an IRC client. And a web server with fun and exciting...
Used to be that Opera had a Torrent client built into it back before it became another soulless Chrome clone. And an email client. And an IRC client. And a web server with fun and exciting built-in interactive web apps. And I can't even remember what else.
But the torrents, they just showed up in the Downloads list like any other download. Only difference was that it also had an Upload bar right next to the Download one. Couldn't have been easier to use.
The thing that drives me crazy about all this is that the movie industry had a perfect example in how to adapt their business model to the age of internet distribution, in the music industry:...
The thing that drives me crazy about all this is that the movie industry had a perfect example in how to adapt their business model to the age of internet distribution, in the music industry: build a common platform that's convenient and cheap enough to be a better value proposition than piracy. But instead, they've chosen to ignore all the solutions that worked, and instead repeat all the failures of incredibly recent history. Netflix could've been the spotify of movies and TV shows but instead it withers as content is locked behind a dozen different distributors.
honestly, i've always felt like the balkanization of streaming was an inevitability, given the plethora of vying rights-holders who all want to come out the other side better off and in a stronger...
honestly, i've always felt like the balkanization of streaming was an inevitability, given the plethora of vying rights-holders who all want to come out the other side better off and in a stronger market position than they were before. there seem to be just too many people–or, perhaps, company shareholders–who want their piece of the digital streaming pie and are now scrambling to capitalize before the consumer cash starts running dry and most people bitch about how streaming is literally the same as cable.
just in general, i greatly doubt we'll ever have a spotify for TV and movies outside of pirate websites (and cable, i suppose) short of one of the major media companies (presumably disney) finally breaking the oligopoly that exists now and gaining a monopoly through consolidation or something similar. i have literally no evidence for it and struggle to find the words for it, really, but i just feel like the music industry was in a unique place with why and how it had to innovate in the digital era that simply cannot and will not be paralleled by movies and TV shows.
There are two problems with your arguement. The first problem is that you have an idealized version of the music industry in your head. I assume you are talking about iTunes, which intentionally...
There are two problems with your arguement. The first problem is that you have an idealized version of the music industry in your head. I assume you are talking about iTunes, which intentionally prevents you from accessing any part of their services outside of 'supported platforms', which includes Windows, MacOS, and iOS, but very notably excludes Android and Linux. There is also a bunch of music you can't get on there.
The second problem with your argument is that people are simply not willing to pay for everything they consume. In music, people are no longer willing to pay for individual songs, which is why the industry has switched their focus to streaming services. People have been complaining about Netflix's selection of movies for years, but I never hear anyone talking about how all the movies they are interested in are available for purchase individually on services like Amazon, Vudu, and even YouTube.
The truth of the matter is that there will never be one storefront which will have 100% of the content. And that's a good thing, since we don't want to create a monopoly.
That's all true, which is why I'm not talking about iTunes, I'm talking about spotify and other streaming services. Those are what make watching (or listening to) content legally a better value...
There are two problems with your arguement. The first problem is that you have an idealized version of the music industry in your head. I assume you are talking about iTunes, which intentionally prevents you from accessing any part of their services outside of 'supported platforms', which includes Windows, MacOS, and iOS, but very notably excludes Android and Linux. There is also a bunch of music you can't get on there.
The second problem with your argument is that people are simply not willing to pay for everything they consume. In music, people are no longer willing to pay for individual songs, which is why the industry has switched their focus to streaming services. People have been complaining about Netflix's selection of movies for years, but I never hear anyone talking about how all the movies they are interested in are available for purchase individually on services like Amazon, Vudu, and even YouTube.
That's all true, which is why I'm not talking about iTunes, I'm talking about spotify and other streaming services. Those are what make watching (or listening to) content legally a better value proposition than piracy, because you have a flat cost of entry without incurring additional cost per movie or song. If you're buying movies a la carte, well that's when piracy becomes more compelling, because that gets really expensive really fast.
The truth of the matter is that there will never be one storefront which will have 100% of the content. And that's a good thing, since we don't want to create a monopoly.
I mean strictly speaking there's nothing stopping the same content from being licensed to multiple services simultaneously. That's how broadcast television worked in the US for years.
Spotify et al. are all even stronger examples of what I am talking about. Royalty fees on Spotify are a minuscule fragment of the money an artist would get from selling the song anywhere else....
Spotify et al. are all even stronger examples of what I am talking about. Royalty fees on Spotify are a minuscule fragment of the money an artist would get from selling the song anywhere else. They also have vastly smaller selection of music compared to iTunes.
Actually, the movie industry already built something like you this in the form of Ultraviolet. It's the "Digital copy" that you see on those Blu Ray releases. You get a code that you can redeem with a number of different services.
Compared to 10 years ago a service like Spotify has an immense catalogue that will satisfy 90% of their customers so that argument is kinda limited to audiophiles and listeners of very specific...
They also have vastly smaller selection of music compared to iTunes.
Compared to 10 years ago a service like Spotify has an immense catalogue that will satisfy 90% of their customers so that argument is kinda limited to audiophiles and listeners of very specific genres. And honestly I think a large portion of subscribers don't give a fuck about royalties being small. I think they are tired of listening to musicians and labels whine about money while at the same time restricting access to their music. People feel entitled to it and that's why they turn to torrents and I'm actually kind of glad we as a consumer still have that leverage though I completely understand it from the musicians point of view.
Aren't there several different platforms? I've used Disney's movies anywhere (which is better than UV IMO because the website is better and they have more integrations, most notably Google Play),...
Actually, the movie industry already built something like you this in the form of Ultraviolet. It's the "Digital copy" that you see on those Blu Ray releases
Aren't there several different platforms? I've used Disney's movies anywhere (which is better than UV IMO because the website is better and they have more integrations, most notably Google Play), and I think I saw a code in a BluRay once for Fandango (maybe I'm mixing it up with something else, but in any case, it wasn't UV or DMA, and it was streaming only, which defeats the purpose if you ask me).
Pirates hav long caught up with streaming you definitely don’t need a torrent client anymore.
You still do (neither Windows, OS X, iOS, or Android come with one by default), but you don't need a dedicated torrent client anymore - there are programs that stream torrents as you download them and provide a nice frontend, so you don't have to put much thought into the fact that you're pirating stuff (like Popcorn Time), and I believe I saw a Firefox extension at one point that downloaded torrents entirely within the browser.
I think they may have meant that you don't even need to download anything. You can just stream it from one of the many streaming sites.
You can definitely watch HD streams of popular shows/movies online, for free. No torrenting involved.
You can pseudo-stream from ordinary torrent clients too.
Used to be that Opera had a Torrent client built into it back before it became another soulless Chrome clone. And an email client. And an IRC client. And a web server with fun and exciting built-in interactive web apps. And I can't even remember what else.
But the torrents, they just showed up in the Downloads list like any other download. Only difference was that it also had an Upload bar right next to the Download one. Couldn't have been easier to use.
The thing that drives me crazy about all this is that the movie industry had a perfect example in how to adapt their business model to the age of internet distribution, in the music industry: build a common platform that's convenient and cheap enough to be a better value proposition than piracy. But instead, they've chosen to ignore all the solutions that worked, and instead repeat all the failures of incredibly recent history. Netflix could've been the spotify of movies and TV shows but instead it withers as content is locked behind a dozen different distributors.
honestly, i've always felt like the balkanization of streaming was an inevitability, given the plethora of vying rights-holders who all want to come out the other side better off and in a stronger market position than they were before. there seem to be just too many people–or, perhaps, company shareholders–who want their piece of the digital streaming pie and are now scrambling to capitalize before the consumer cash starts running dry and most people bitch about how streaming is literally the same as cable.
just in general, i greatly doubt we'll ever have a spotify for TV and movies outside of pirate websites (and cable, i suppose) short of one of the major media companies (presumably disney) finally breaking the oligopoly that exists now and gaining a monopoly through consolidation or something similar. i have literally no evidence for it and struggle to find the words for it, really, but i just feel like the music industry was in a unique place with why and how it had to innovate in the digital era that simply cannot and will not be paralleled by movies and TV shows.
There are two problems with your arguement. The first problem is that you have an idealized version of the music industry in your head. I assume you are talking about iTunes, which intentionally prevents you from accessing any part of their services outside of 'supported platforms', which includes Windows, MacOS, and iOS, but very notably excludes Android and Linux. There is also a bunch of music you can't get on there.
The second problem with your argument is that people are simply not willing to pay for everything they consume. In music, people are no longer willing to pay for individual songs, which is why the industry has switched their focus to streaming services. People have been complaining about Netflix's selection of movies for years, but I never hear anyone talking about how all the movies they are interested in are available for purchase individually on services like Amazon, Vudu, and even YouTube.
The truth of the matter is that there will never be one storefront which will have 100% of the content. And that's a good thing, since we don't want to create a monopoly.
That's all true, which is why I'm not talking about iTunes, I'm talking about spotify and other streaming services. Those are what make watching (or listening to) content legally a better value proposition than piracy, because you have a flat cost of entry without incurring additional cost per movie or song. If you're buying movies a la carte, well that's when piracy becomes more compelling, because that gets really expensive really fast.
I mean strictly speaking there's nothing stopping the same content from being licensed to multiple services simultaneously. That's how broadcast television worked in the US for years.
Spotify et al. are all even stronger examples of what I am talking about. Royalty fees on Spotify are a minuscule fragment of the money an artist would get from selling the song anywhere else. They also have vastly smaller selection of music compared to iTunes.
Actually, the movie industry already built something like you this in the form of Ultraviolet. It's the "Digital copy" that you see on those Blu Ray releases. You get a code that you can redeem with a number of different services.
Compared to 10 years ago a service like Spotify has an immense catalogue that will satisfy 90% of their customers so that argument is kinda limited to audiophiles and listeners of very specific genres. And honestly I think a large portion of subscribers don't give a fuck about royalties being small. I think they are tired of listening to musicians and labels whine about money while at the same time restricting access to their music. People feel entitled to it and that's why they turn to torrents and I'm actually kind of glad we as a consumer still have that leverage though I completely understand it from the musicians point of view.
Aren't there several different platforms? I've used Disney's movies anywhere (which is better than UV IMO because the website is better and they have more integrations, most notably Google Play), and I think I saw a code in a BluRay once for Fandango (maybe I'm mixing it up with something else, but in any case, it wasn't UV or DMA, and it was streaming only, which defeats the purpose if you ask me).