Not recommending a VPN here. But there are many open-source anonymizing networks out there that need more attention. I know speed and avoiding blocks and captcha’s are important to you, so this answer is not geared toward your use case, but for those looking for a free alternatives to VPN’s and don’t care about the speed and want to help out the network, there are
lokinet: (github.com/oxen-io/lokinet) (Based on the LLARP, low-latency anonymizing protocol, basically tor 2.0).
(My personal favorite): i2p. A network within a network. Downsides are you can only download torrents within the network, but the upside is there is a solid community and there are more and more torrents that exist. Mental Outlaw has a great video about i2p
There are some VPN’s you can trust, but in the end of the day, I trust encryption and the decentralized network better than any centralized corp.
Sure thing matey! I am happy to chart a course as you sail through these waters.
In short, i2p is a network within a network. Think of it as being it’s own seedy town within the larger city of the internet. Any information that enters this town is end-to-end encrypted. Now, in this town, to preserve anonymity, people pass along information in paper notes. Each person accepts notes from different sources, encrypts a bundle of it, and passes it along in a chain. (hence the name “garlic routing”. When it hits your “inbound tunnel,” or a set of (usually 2-3) people that have been assigned to pass messages to you, they incrementally un-bundle that message until it hits you, and since you have the private key you can unencrypt the message.
Information that stays within this network are automatically anonymous. These people in your inbound tunnel do not know that the messages are being sent to you, nor do they know any information about the source. They only know that they’re passing these messages along.
One way companies figure out that you’ve been torrenting is that they would torrent a public pirated movie file. Then, they would target the ip addresses that would actually send them that information, because they know they are seeders. These companies cannot do that in i2p, because everybody in i2p is just passing along information!
There are different options for installing i2p:
For windows, there’s the i2p easy install bundle that bundles a firefox profile and automatically installs the i2p router. This uses the java implementation of i2p.
For linux, there’s a java (i2p) or c++ (i2pd) implementation of the i2p router. Basically the same program but in different languages, and i2p routers can still communicate with i2pd routers and vice versa. I recommend starting with java i2p, and after trying it for a while try i2pd. There’s more GUI in the java implementation, but the i2pd version is faster because cryptographic functions run faster in c++. Mental Outlaw has a good video on running i2pd on linux
Fair question, matey, although I am but a humble pirate meself and have not yet sailed those seas. Those waters still need to be charted by a swashbuckling pirate. Here’s a lead that I found: reddit.com/…/how_to_setup_radarr_and_sonarr_for_a…
Can uBlock also skip redirects? The whole time I’m using it, it doesn’t skip them at all. I use FastForward to skip redirects and it’s been working really well.
I didn’t know FastForward but it looks great, in fact Skip Redirect didn’t work on many sites. And I do not know, it is a comment that I have read a lot but I have never been able to confirm, I only know that at least in my case sometimes the counters of some pages go down to 0 suddenly but I do not know if it is because of uBlock.
I didn’t know FastForward but it looks great, in fact Skip Redirect didn’t work on many sites.
I’ve been using FastForward for months and every single time it successfully skips redirects. Though the addon is not on Firefox for now due to some miscommunications. You’d have to install it manually here. But if you’re using Chrome or Edge, you can install it directly from the store.
I have been using it since I read your comment and it is absolutely great, not only because of piracy, but also because of the links attached to some Youtube channels.
Yes, it started from this terminology change at Twitter in 2020. They’re the reason that version control systems call the primary branch ‘main’ instead of ‘master’ by default, because ‘master’ comes from the master/slave terminology that is used in electronics hardware design.
There’s a comment here saying that master/slave in hardware design is being replaced by primary/secondary because of the software trend, which I think is stupid. Master/slave works much better in that context because the master device controls the slave device. Primary/secondary implies that the slave device is a fallback of the master device.
People like to cheat on community servers so they can own those kids at bed wars or whatever. It’s not the same to mod your own server, because then you’re not exerting “power” over other people.
not necessarily. there are servers with no rules, like 2b2t where hacking is pretty much required because everyone else does so. interestingly, this means that the pvp actually loops back to being really deep and complex
getting ratted isn’t getting caught. a RAT is a remote access tool, which is commonly included as a trojan in order to give a hacker remote control of a victims pc
For me it’s quite strange. This first happened around 2 weeks ago, I was getting ads, however only the audio works as when the ad plays the screen is black.
I’m on Firefox with uBlock. Also I never got this popup, I just started getting ads with a black screen.
Empress is pretty much the only person who cracks Denuvo DRM - the only other person who publicly releases cracks only does it for Football Manager games. However, Empress is just a little unhinged, as this post demonstrates.
Detecting that the game runs on an emulator should be rather trivial I imagine.
In theory, it’s also rather trivial to remove these checks from the game binaries (if you have the knowledge, but enough people have).
What Denuvo does is it not only implements these checks very effectively, but it also modifies/obfuscates/encrypts the game binary/code in a lot of ways. I honestly don’t know a lot about how it works, but this deep integration makes it very hard to remove.
There are two ways you’d circumvent Denuvo DRM. Either by emulating all checks and whatever Denuvo wants in order to verify the game copy is “legit”, or to completely remove Denuvo from the game binary. Both have proven to be very hard and a lot of work. There are likely only very few people out there with the expertise to do it, and of these people, most of them probably work for Denuvo (most people understandably prefer getting money for what they are doing as opposed to street cred), and most others don’t bother.
There’s one known cracker who calls herself “EMPRESS”, but even she doesn’t crack nowhere near all Denuvo games, as it’s simply too time consuming.
Some people assume that the Switch version of Denuvo will be less powerful, but I honestly doubt it’s that much less effective. I don’t think Denuvo would announce Switch availability if they’d think it wouldn’t be effective, they have a lot of high-paying customers to lose (or not to gain).
It’s always a battle between DRM companies and the cracking scene, but with Denuvo it has been a steep uphill battle so far.
Not necessarily - depends on the way of obtaining the file. Downloading a copyrighted video is not illegal (it’s fair use), sharing it with others is illegal. If they downloaded it directly without sharing, that’s perfectly legal.
google has “fuck you” amounts of money, the minority of users using firefox mean nothing to them.
If google was having problems funding youtube, believe me, they’d stop paying creators before that would happen, and then the creators would tell us about it.
Do you really think they would stop paying creators before stopping people from bypassing the way both them and creators make money? It doesn’t take a business major to see that running a free service without ads is only going to cost them money.
I think (unsure) you misunderstand. Google, and any other company’s, main goal is to make money. To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.
If google can’t adequately monetize their services (by losing the ad-blocking war), they can’t monetize the creators. Google is evil, but so is the economic system that causes inconvenience to be the most effective way to monetize content.
This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.
To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.
The creators are their product, the adblock users cost everyone money and provide no benefit, why would they punish their product over the users costing them money? The adblock users aren’t the bottom line, they are no benefit, and cost both YouTube and the creators in lost revenue.
This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.
That’s great and all, but YouTube still has bills to pay, they can’t just let you use the service free without ads, let you just give money to creators through those other services, and expect to even break even.
“…why would they punish their product over the users costing them money?”
That’s if Google loses the ad-blocking war, hence the second paragraph, unless they manage to stuff web environment integrity/similar into their website, or if front ends like Invidious become more popular.
“…YouTube still has bills to pay…”
That’s true, but I think Google makes enough money from other things (tracking, other website’s ads) that it wouldn’t hurt them too bad. I think the recent crackdown on ad blocking is less from a large profit drop and rather to send a message to avoid the former from happening. Again though, I could be wrong about that one.
In the end though, I just want to watch and directly support my creators without being forced to waste 15 seconds of my life that I will never get back on a product I never have and never will use.
By making Youtube Premium worth it, both for users and creators. Make it transparent what % of the YP fee is actually going to creators, make that % actually fair, give extra features to YP users, incentivize creators to ask their viewers to collaborate with it if they actually can afford to. Youtube has reached a point where it has become a public utility, to the point that tens of millions of people use it to supplement their education or stay updated on the news. A website increasingly necessary shouldn’t force someone without a penny to choose between paying what they can’t afford or have their head fried up by ads.
Of course, this idea rooted in civil values is incompatible with an economic actor that sees both creators and consumers as cattle that must be milked as efficiently as possible.
A website increasingly necessary shouldn’t force someone without a penny to choose between paying what they can’t afford or have their head fried up by ads.
If not ads then what is the free option supposed to look like. I hate ads also, but it’s not like it’s sustainable to run free without ads.
Wikipedia has no ads yet it has a pretty large amount of spare money, and there are plenty of other free to use platforms and projects. Youtube is not Wikipedia, sure, but Wikipedia has no reason to offer Youtube Premium.
Are creators making enough money to get by on PeerTube? The idea is interesting, but I don’t see people making enough to do it full time, and I don’t see how the streaming quality can be anything as good or reliable compared to something like YouTube by relying on P2P.
Also, hasn’t youtube been wildly profitable for years? Profit, by definition is excess. It’s what’s left over after all business expense have been paid.
If youtube is profitable, why do they need more profit? Oh yeah, they don’t.
Why do you think you can’t upload more than a few megabytes of content to Lemmy? Serving video is expensive as hell, especially if you’re transcoding it into other resolutions.
As far as I know YouTube is not that profitable, but it’s hard to tell as they don’t release all the numbers.
Do you make any excess money? Do you have any money left over after rent, food, etc? If you do, do you need that money? If you don’t would you like to make more? Nobody wants to live with no excess money, so why should a business?
Woah dude, you’re getting right into my point of projection.
Just because you want to use your excess to get even more excess, you’re assuming that everyone else will. Why eschew luxurious so those who have less can have more? You’d never project that lol, cause that’s not how you feel.
Have a good day, man. Hope I enlightened you a bit.
Gonna block you now cause I feel you have nothing to offer me. See ya.
So you want to live just making ends meet? Don’t care about having a savings account? You would be happy with just enough to get by without any excess? I don’t know anybody who would be happy with that.
If you want to run away from the conversation then go ahead. If you do happen to have some money you don’t want though, since who needs to make more than what they need just to break even even, right? I’ll happily take it off your hands.
Thing is, even with all their efforts they still can’t make it profitable. Not sure if they release the data (doubt). But, YouTube has always been barely profitable or operating on loss. Google bought yt over 15 years ago and haven’t figured out how to make money off it and arguably made it worse with their policies and algos.
Part of the problem might be all those people blocking the ads, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a pretty big chunk of their viewers. No ads means no ad revenue, which means losing money.
As if video streaming will die with one site. One for-profit site, that’s not remotely turning a profit. A vestigial organ of an advertising giant, burning money to build dependency and exploit it for control.
BitTorrent used to share more video than Netflix - despite a lack of money, despite a lack of ads, and despite being illegal. Content creators will be fine without this corporate facade.
I don’t know what YouTube’s market share is, but for videos that are not short TikTok style it’s probably like 95%? And they are also in the TikTok short and twitch streaming areas now, so I think it would be a massive blow to video streaming if they went away.
BitTorrent just moves all the costs to the users, and users are typically not wanting to run their own video servers. They might work for tech people who don’t mind running servers or already have a server they are running, but you have to think about the regular user that is probably 80% or more of the market. You can’t expect to get big off relying on users to be the servers.
BitTorrent may have been big as in number of files, but as far as users and having content on demand it never got there. I remember waiting for days to get a single movie, not because my Internet was slow, but because the peers were slow.
When it comes to a YouTube replacement I don’t think you are going to get big relying on users to be the servers. Nevermind the fact that the nature of how BitTorrent works means no company will allow their content on it legally.
And nothing’s changed in all those years. Yeah? P2P technology couldn’t get any better than 2004. The fact it was slow sometimes means we’re boned forever.
Corporations already have streaming. I don’t care if they come along. Their content might be there whether they like it or not.
Consider where we’re having this conversation: is big even desirable? Has the dominance of one video platform been good for the internet? I’d say plainly fucking not, if killing ad blockers is even a feasible outcome. When YouTube was its own company there were a dozen competitors of similar size and quality. Google pouring money into one, so it could swallow everything and censor everyone and shove people toward right-wing propaganda, is not exactly ideal.
Has P2P changed much? I don’t think it has really. I use private sites for that stuff now and it’s great there, but the public stuff still seems pretty bad IMO.
Well if they don’t want their content there, then you have the whole problem if it being illegal. Now you have to convince people to break the law, and go as far as to install a VPN or whatever so your ISP doesn’t send you warnings. This isn’t a great start for something to replace YouTube.
I think Big is required for a P2P YouTube style thing to work. You need lots of peers to stream content in decent quality. You need people to knowingly break laws and use VPNs. You need people to run their own media servers, you are asking a lot from people, all YouTube is asking you to do is watch some ads or buy premium.
Oh no! Is the company that makes 70b per quarter and is buying back 70b of shares to keep making more in trouble of only making 80b per quarter next year and not 100b? Poor babies.
Maybe instead of looking at revenue you should look at profit. Revenue means nothing if your running costs eat it all up.
Also, maybe try to look at YouTube Numbers instead of the whole parent company? The patient company being profitable isn’t an excuse for the child company to lose money.
I don’t pirate games but after reading this, I DEFINITELY will not pirate games. If these clowns are the ones cracking/repacking the games then I do NOT trust the games to not contain malware/bullshit/whatever. Maybe I’m being paranoid but I wouldn’t go anywhere near software put out by these people. They sound like the types to include malware just to frame the other group or whatever. Idk. These people are morons.
piracy
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.