Warning: I’m not sufficiently familiar with jdownloader to offer this explanation with any certainty, but…
If you’re using it to rip streamed content, is it possible that instead of ripping the stream directly it screen records and re-encodes it itself in order to bypass end-to-end security features?
I’m not saying that’s the case here, just that it’s a plausible explanation.
It plays again, but louder.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If buying isn’t owning, then pirating can’t be stealing.
Yeah, I’m just glad the popularity of streaming sites keeps eyes off the torrent scene.
You could do a semi-automated system where you have all your currently airing in RSS, but still need to manually start them. It’d at least save you from having to go searching every time.
For currently airing/weekly stuff, you can use RSS to get all the episodes as they come out. Just make sure your search is only getting the episodes you want before you add it to your client. That means asides from the show title, also add the sub group and bitrate if they release more than one.
It’s a tiny bit more work to set up, but once it’s done, episodes just show up as they come out. :)
However, I think he did take donations for early access to new titles,
When video game companies accept money for early access to their games, that’s a sale. You give them money, they give you access. I’m not sure why that wouldn’t also apply here.
From your description, unless you were allowed to donate $0 for access, that sounds a lot like a sale to me.
That’s wild. Did you need a special program to parse stuff out of the data stream? I guess it would mostly come in as http reaponses, so it wouldn’t be too hard, but still an interesting problem.
Haha, yeah, that’s why I said it’s my diplomatic answer, as it doesn’t utterly reject a capitalist framework.
Here’s my mildly diplomatic answer that’d probably get tossed:
Piracy has become a plague on our society, but there’s a more sinister cause to it. The average labourer can hardly afford to pay the same fee to access culture that the wealthy person can, and this has caused a significant and justified uptick in piracy.
This situation can be averted by increasing minimum wages and supporting universal basic income. If everyone knew they could at least make ends meet, they’d have some left over to pay for the culture that mattered to them.
What a strange mentality. When I pay for things I want, I’m generally happy to support the creator. If others can’t, why would I be upset if they get the product for free? It means more people can also enjoy the thing I like.
It’s such a crab bucket mentality, I couldn’t imagine living life being constantly bitter.
I don’t know the laws that well, but there is a distinction in Canadian law between uploading and downloading. I’m not entirely sure how applicable to torrenting that is, but I think there’s a reasonable argument that if you are the original uploader, you must have uploaded the content in it’s entirety, whereas that’s not necessarily true for anyone else downloading the torrent, and certainly not provably so.
I think that’s not necessarily true. There’s certainly some good reasons to have a distinction between the original uploader and all the rest of the additional seeders. It’s going to come down to local law.
An analogy is if you buy some illicit substance and split it up with a few friends who pay you their share. Whether or not your local authorities considers you an illegal drug dealer could be highly dependent on scale, profitability, frequency, clientele, etc. Those details could be the difference between a slap on the wrist and some hard time.
free [?] market leads to one big monopoly
Unregulated market ≠ free market. That’s what I just explained. If you’d like a better understanding I’d highly recommend auditing econ 101 online through MIT: https://youtu.be/_OkTw766oCs?si=twyynoEzf-bi5k3m
It’s not a tough course, and it’s probably one that everybody should take anyways, TBH.
That’s an unregulated market. It’s a bit counterintuitive, but an idealized free market would need to be free of price fixing and monopolization, and therefore requires regulation.
That’s what all these invisible hand folk always get wrong.
I wish 3rd parties were a viable federal election option. But they aren’t yet to a point where they can realistically win in the US.
Here’s the thing: as long as nobody votes 3rd party, that’s going to continue to be the case indefinitely. Wishing won’t change that.
Where I’m from we actually have a viable alternative to the centre / centre-right duopoly, and we still hear this sort of rhetoric, even when the outcome is nowhere near predetermined to be one of two options like it is for you guys.
The crux is, that voting for harm reduction cements you in a local maximum when there are better potential solutions out there.
Now I’m not saying that justifies voting 3rd party. There are a lot of unknowns. If more and more people started voting 3rd party, how long would it feasibly take to enact change? 2 election cycles? 4? 10? Does it ever even happen? And if so, is the harm caused in that period justified by the outcome? I’m dubious of that proposition.
Regardless, I think the rhetoric about this issue from both the pro and anti-3rd-partyists tends to be a overly reductive and/or myopic. I think both sides have valid concerns, and the answer isn’t as straightforward as it seems.
That said, pragmatically, it sucks, but I feel like I do have to discourage voting for a 3rd party.
Not always, though. Some apps save images to /Pictures, and in there, some of them make their own folder. It really is kinda half baked.
That’s… weirdly wholesome.
Is this real? Because holy shit, someone’s going to see that and go “Y’know what? Why not.”
If you’re releasing in a format that supports tagging, there’s usually either a comment field or custom field that you could put this into in as well.