The only reason I don’t pirate music is because of discovery. I haven’t found a good way to find new music without using a streaming service. And then, I’m already using a streaming service, so why bother.
This. Back when I was a spring chicken I had nothing better to do with my time than download random songs and albums. Ain’t nobody got time for that now.
Streaming is fine to discover music, but you are not guaranteed that an album you like will be there for you the next time you want to listen to it. I do listen music in Spotify with a modded app, then I download the albums I liked. There are albums that I can’t listen to Spotify anymore, but I still have the audio files in my Subsonic server.
Sure, it’s easy to download one song. But I watch maybe two movies a month, yet I listen to thousands of songs in that time. Downloading songs individually doesn’t even come close to the convenience of streaming. Not to mention the lack of music discovery and social features.
There’s different ways to automate it. There was a thread a while back where someone outlined their system. He kept the free Spotify account and had a script that checked it every week for his new recommended playlists, then it would download it automatically. He used an other software to host the library.
This reads the same as “hi, my friend saw my {dating app} date’s photo up at the post office with the note that they were wanted for the murder of 16 different {my demographic}. Should I still go on a date with them to that remote cabin in the woods?”
Yeah. It’s a lot safer to go on a date with someone who was wanted for the murder of just 1 or 2 different persons to that remote cabin in the woods, isn’t it? :D
Nothing popped up when scanning it. Not even the crack being flagged as a crack.
Game runs like ass tho. Everything but my GPU meets recommended. I still have a 1660 Super. Get anywhere between 30 and 60 with low settings, depending on where I am and what’s going on. First game in a while to just cripple my shit. 😩
It’s weird how being in a small room gets me about 32 fps, but then going outside into a forest I get 60. Usually it’s the other way around, with interiors being the faster zone. 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve seen some others getting similar results on a 3080 with the same CPU (Rysen 5 3600X) I have though, so now I’m not even sure upgrading my hardware would make a difference and it’s probably just classic Bethesda optimizations.
Proton responded to the Tesonet thing when that was a big issue, can’t remember what was said but I was satisfied enough with their response to continue using them
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.
Once again for those who didn’t know or forgot: just like with every other industry making the same complaint, when they say that it “costs billions”, that’s true in the exact same way as losing a random lottery ticket would cost me millions: completely hypothetically.
In their calculations, every person who watches an illegal stream would, had the stream not been available, pay their ridiculously high prices to watch legally rather than not watch at all.
In reality, the opposite is many times more common and it’s frankly journalistic malpractice that mainstream media always just regurgitate that claim as if it was indisputably true.
Like with copaganda, they’re covering for predatory practices, in this case charging much more than your target customers can afford and then using draconian measures against those providing an alternative solution that wouldn’t have been necessary if the product had been reasonably priced.
I always call it Magic Math. There’s so much of it when you start learning about investing/trading. “Buying calls has infinite potential for gains. Selling calls has infinite potential for losses.” Like, yeah, that’s mathematically true. But at the end of the day it’s not practically true, you’re just putting a lot of weight on what you could be getting instead of what you are getting.
They claim that everyone would have otherwise paid for a subscription to watch it legaly. But that is simply not true.
When you could buy either variation of pasta in the store, where there is hundreds of boxes stapled, so price and availability are certain, you can speak of opportunity costs.
But here the elasticity is extreme. Many people will not buy this if it costs anything at all. Most probably would, if there is one service with reasonable prices where they can watch everyting. Some people are probably not able to watch a legal stream at all, because it isnt licenced to their country.
According to r/VPNTorrents, Proton and AirVPN are the only recommended VPNs since they are the only well-established privacy-respecting ones left. New ones are popping up with promise, like Azire, but time will tell. As for Proton, I decided against it because of limited port forwarding and lack of IPv6 compatibility and settled on AirVPN. Also, I personally try to avoid keeping all my eggs in a single corporation's basket, so I cannot advise buying into the full Proton suite if you're remotely tech savvy and/or privacy-concerned. But they are genuinely great products if you have no desire to do any tinkering or shopping around. I just can't see the appeal in my VPN activities being directly tied to my email. Oh and I almost forgot, I switched from PIA due to their lack of IPv6 support and acquistion by Kape, a known adware company.
PS: AirVPN, in my opinion, is the last great VPN. Open-source, run by activists, anonymous accounts, crypto purchasing, IPv6 compatibility, full port forwarding, great support, Tor integration, the list goes on.
Well, to put it one way, Mullvad is almost definitely the best VPN that doesn't offer port forwarding. Which, in reality, may only be absolutely crucial for torrenting.
indeed. I use both. I happen to have brave AND firefox on my laptop, as I’ve been making the transition to firefox the last few months. I’m entirely on firefox on my desktop, but I mainly use brave on my laptop. I used it to stream the aforementioned things on Saturday
It’s targeted at teenagers; you can bet that these little contrarian assholes will fire up a torrent client right after the first lesson. And what’s more, they’ll even educate them on malwares! Big win for piracy in Denmark 🤓
In the U.S. circa 2016, so many kids were just finding pirate streaming sites for movies and such during class on school computers. I imagine it’s similar elsewhere for students who’ve finished their work and are bored, but boy, now they have the knowledge of how to get countless other types of media for free.
Piracy is a service problem. The goal shouldn’t be to indoctrinate our youth to avoid it, it should be to stop releasing subpar, overpriced products.
I’m personally a big fan of OpenAudible. It’s not free, but it’s not crazy expensive and it does all the work for you. You sign into your Audible account in the app, it will pull your library, download each book, decrypt it, and convert it to the format of your choice (I usually do M4B). I’ve been using it for years and it makes downloading your Audible library in an ongoing basis a breeze.
The most hilarious thing about this is that, assuming crackers prevent Unity games from phoning home, the best way to support game developers would be to buy their game and then only play the cracked version, never installing the version you purchased.
piracy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.