File sharing sites Openload and Streamango shut down by Anti-Piracy Alliance ACE

[Donut417]

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

lol it's NZ, big fat no. Many of them are the same channel delayed an hour, why??? No idea, recording TV has been a thing since the 90s.

 

If its any consollation, half the broadcast TV channels I get are religous. We dont get HGTV, which is a cable only channel. BUT we get a channel called Create which is like HGTV and the Food Network rolled in to one, but its one of those public service TV channel you know PBS. Though it does have some good shows. 

[justpoet]

Our OTA TV would have all the major networks…except mountains.  I keep contemplating something like a SiliconDust HD HomeRun and an encoder on a remote computer at a relative's place that isn't stuck in the mountains, so they really do get them all in full HD (over 150 OTA channels with the antenna on the roof).  They're less than 50 miles from me too.

[Thaldor]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

As I said, a lot of correlation and assumption but not a lot of evidence.   Piracy is just as prominent to day as it was at any point in the past, what has changed is the method nothing more.

Depends on who's reports and researches you trust. Like in this article there's already two different numbers on how early streaming services have affected piracy: 1) UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO - now UK-IPO) 2) ICM which I think is ICM Research (public opinion polling company). Do you trust government organization that is tax funded to pay for the research or do you trust in private funded poll? Personally I don't give any trust into researches, even less for polls, made by private sector with private money because there is so huge possibility for bias, especially when I can see the other report in full and the other is just "Our own tracking figures provided by ICM show that film and TV infringement levels remain static at 23% in terms of the proportion of people accessing film and TV content illegally, but that those people are infringing more by volume".

 

The most recent UK-IPO Online Copyright Infringement Tracker has quite interesting table:

 

 

Considering those numbers TV piracy is on the rise while others fluctuate or fall. In a month quite many sites have reported for piracy to be on the rise again and their sources are Sandvines 2018 report and Sandvines VP of global marketings preview both from last year, but the trend was that piracy has been rising again, at least in Europe. 2016-2017 weren't that special years in streaming services as companies, except Disney coming out and saying that they will pull their content from Netflix and launch Disney+ in the future at 2017, but those years in content were kind of interesting: before only Netflix had really exclusive content, but 2016 both Hulu and Amazon Prime started to offer their own exclusive content that weren't available anywhere else, not even in paid TV like their contents were earlier.

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Depends on who's reports and researches you trust. Like in this article there's already two different numbers on how early streaming services have affected piracy: 1) UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO - now UK-IPO) 2) ICM which I think is ICM Research (public opinion polling company). Do you trust government organization that is tax funded to pay for the research or do you trust in private funded poll? Personally I don't give any trust into researches, even less for polls, made by private sector with private money because there is so huge possibility for bias, especially when I can see the other report in full and the other is just "Our own tracking figures provided by ICM show that film and TV infringement levels remain static at 23% in terms of the proportion of people accessing film and TV content illegally, but that those people are infringing more by volume".

 

The most recent UK-IPO Online Copyright Infringement Tracker has quite interesting table:

 

 

Considering those numbers TV piracy is on the rise while others fluctuate or fall. In a month quite many sites have reported for piracy to be on the rise again and their sources are Sandvines 2018 report and Sandvines VP of global marketings preview both from last year, but the trend was that piracy has been rising again, at least in Europe. 2016-2017 weren't that special years in streaming services as companies, except Disney coming out and saying that they will pull their content from Netflix and launch Disney+ in the future at 2017, but those years in content were kind of interesting: before only Netflix had really exclusive content, but 2016 both Hulu and Amazon Prime started to offer their own exclusive content that weren't available anywhere else, not even in paid TV like their contents were earlier.

 

So by their measures music has sustained a significant and sustained  drop and the others are all bouncing within 2% over the 3 year period.  Not only that but from the same office the 2012 figures indicate that it was in the low 20's  (22-23%) for the same content type.

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/50486/intro.pdf

 

That to me indicates that even with the best they can observe/study  there is little change in piracy rates over the last decade. 

 

 

Funnily enough that research also say the chief reason people give for pirating is because its free.  Surprise surprise.

 

 

 

 

[Thaldor]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

So by their measures music has sustained a significant and sustained  drop and the others are all bouncing within 2% over the 3 year period.  Not only that but from the same office the 2012 figures indicate that it was in the low 20's  (22-23%) for the same content type.

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/50486/intro.pdf

 

That to me indicates that even with the best they can observe/study  there is little change in piracy rates over the last decade. 

 

 

Funnily enough that research also say the chief reason people give for pirating is because its free.  Surprise surprise.

If 2%-units is that much in the amounts, why not to include that "convenience" is only 3%-units less answered after "because it's free"? Even in 2012 the difference between those answers is only 6%-units and in 2016 4%-units and some years even climbing over the "because it's free". I would cherry pick that through the ages it's 50/50 whether people pirate because it's free or because it's convenient, the difference is that marginal.

 

And what would you expect? That in those few years Netflix was the sole king of the hill and actually building it's library it would have eradicated piracy? Or managed to make huge cuts in 10s of percent units? And when it didn't do that huge difference we must throw all the statistics to toilet and call it insignificant because it wasn't the magic bullet and we only can approve the magic bullet which doesn't and will never exists.

 

Also as you pulled music into this: What is the difference between Spotify and Netflix and their competition? One huge difference is that in music artists and record labels are licensing their content to many platforms; Releasing album in Apple Music doesn't equal not releasing it in Spotify and Deezer, unlike with movies releasing series in Amazon Prime or Hulu usually means that the series won't be launched in Netflix or other platforms. The competition between music platforms is far more technical going from supported devices to the quality of sound and how much users pay and how much the artist gets, while in moving images the competition is almost purely content based in which users don't get to choose what service they use to watch their favorite series or movie, need to get one specific service to watch it. Pull what ever conclusions you want, but music piracy is falling while TV piracy is on the rise.

[Loote]

I don't think file hosting sites should be blamed for the content that's uploaded there, you can find pirated movies on GDrive and I doubt anyone would even consider deleting the site because of that. Did they not comply with DMCA removal queries?

 

I mean, I'm sure there is someone that used the site legitimately that is suffering from it.

[TechyBen]

On 11/2/2019 at 7:06 AM, mr moose said:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think they are entitled to content without paying for.  If the company is being bitch whore hoarding their wares and not allowing you to watch it in your country or for a reasonable price then don't watch it. you don't have the right to steal it (go on, I know someone wants to try and claim it isn't theft)

 

These sites make money out of pirating material they do not have the right to distribute.  Not liking how a company operates does not legitimize supporting (and benefiting from) criminal activity. 

You must be wearing a Chicken suit and pay $10 to read my content of this post. If you are not, the FBI are turning up.

 

Balance, balance is needed. PS, I revoke my permission, for you to read this post, even if wearing a Chicken suit, oh, and I get to keep the $10, and I'm lobbying for the consumer protection to be removed... because.

[TechyBen]

On 11/2/2019 at 9:44 PM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The use the correct definition of theft, both legally and conceptually.

Theft isn't a synonym of "breaking the law". Legally, copyright infringement isn't more "theft" than tax evasion, murder, or driving without a license...

Precisely because the law being broken is copyright law we know it's not theft, but copyright infringement.

 

Oh, no it doesn't, conceptually it is even more different than legally (in that sense that I can make anything legally "theft", as long as I pass a law defining it as such), but infringing a legal monopoly (CP), or applying someone else's idea to your own benefit (IP) is deeply and substantially different from theft. You really need to define "theft" as broad as "trespassing someone else's rights in any way" to make it fit, but at that point anything goes...

 

Really, there's no point dragging this further, as I said in my first post: there even isn't a debate to be had.

Side note, murder is theft... it's "taking" someones life. But that's past the legal definitions of "theft" (of physical things) and more about taking rights.

[NMS]

On 11/2/2019 at 9:06 AM, mr moose said:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think they are entitled to content without paying for.  If the company is being bitch whore hoarding their wares and not allowing you to watch it in your country or for a reasonable price then don't watch it. you don't have the right to steal it (go on, I know someone wants to try and claim it isn't theft)

 

These sites make money out of pirating material they do not have the right to distribute.  Not liking how a company operates does not legitimize supporting (and benefiting from) criminal activity. 

While those sites have no right to distribute the illegally obtained content I am within my moral rights to pirate it. IF (a huge IF) a website I signed up for and paid the subscription fee then denies me service because of my location. If that's the case why did they even chargee in the first place? This is how Crunchyroll operates.

 

After all, when I'm trying to give my money for something and then I'm being denied simply due to my location then don't even let me sign up.

 

In the end, I don't feel bad at all as I spend thousands a year on figures. And I doubt that half of what I would pay for Crunchyroll would go to the original studio.

 

TL;DR Geo restrictions are complete and utter garbage and if I want to obtain something that is restricted, then don't advertise it to me or else it will get pirated.

[Princess Luna]

I am genuinely surprised some people still attempts to use a hosting website for pirated content. Like seriously Megaupload days are long over.

 

You'd think the piracy realm is entirely/exclusively peer2peer by nowadays.

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, justpoet said:

Our OTA TV would have all the major networks…except mountains.  I keep contemplating something like a SiliconDust HD HomeRun and an encoder on a remote computer at a relative's place that isn't stuck in the mountains, so they really do get them all in full HD (over 150 OTA channels with the antenna on the roof).  They're less than 50 miles from me too.

Out here. OTA doesn't exist. I'm told that there are at least three OTA channels (CBC, Global and CTV) but even when the Analog system was still up, I was only ever able to CBC to about 40% signal strength, not enough to get it past the snowy-ghosty effect.) Digital might be better, but it's basically pointless if it's the same channels. I also presently live on the top of the mountain, so it's likely zero signal here.

 

What would solve a lot of piracy-related issues would be for "exclusivity" to simply be forbidden. If you want to sell your content, YOU can choose where you want to sell it, but no contract shall forbid you from selling it on as many platforms as you can reach.

 

Like the entire reason why anime piracy and music piracy still thrives is because the companies that produce this content seem to be unwilling to put this content where the viewers/listeners are (eg Youtube, Netflix, Spotify) at all. They want people to buy-in on their own services that they get to keep all the money from.

 

And I'm sorry, but that has never, EVER, worked. Choosing a TV provider is not like choosing a brand of soda. If Coca-Cola Coke is $1 and Pepsi is 99 cents, I'm not going to choose Pepsi when what I really want is a Coke. Now if I can only buy Coke by having it shipped from Amazon to my front door, but I want a Coke right now, and I can still buy Pepsi at the 7-11, I'm going to give up and get the Pepsi from 7-11.

 

Which is how I view "choice" in the context of equal content. If something is only available from one store, and that store doesn't exist, but I really want that thing, then I might make the effort to get that thing once, and only once. 

 

Here's a real example. So one show I wanted to watch was on, I think a Hallmark-owned channel. Now I don't care at all for any of the content on this channel, but for some reason they produced one cartoon that I was interested in seeing. Instead of maybe putting it on their Cable channel, or Netflix, services I pay for already, they put it on their streaming service, that isn't available in my country, and I can't subscribe to. So forget it, surely someone who is a fan of this show has pirated it. Sure enough someone did, and to add insult, they only produced two episodes, so had you subscribed to it for more than two months with the expectation of more episodes, sorry, out of luck. 

 

This is why I'm pretty sure all these independent streaming services are all going to fail pretty quick and hard. Unless they put the entire show in a binge-watchable format without ads on the service, people are only going to subscribe to these services just long enough to binge-watch the show they want. Nobody is going to pay for these services just to watch "the back catalog" , Reality shows, or any other dated content that they already seen and have no nostalgia for. Disney is likely going to be the only winner here of going it alone, and that is because that have the leverage to do that. Yet I don't trust them to not pull the same "Disney Vault" nonsense. 

 

 

[Donut417]

39 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

peer2peer

Not when ISPs throttle those services. In the past Comcast was caught throttling Bot torrent traffic. Which is why hosting sites still are used. That’s why people use things like Kodi with the 3rd party addons. As those addons just connect to all the hosting sites, in the hopes you find a stream that works. 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Thaldor said:

If 2%-units is that much in the amounts, why not to include that "convenience" is only 3%-units less answered after "because it's free"? Even in 2012 the difference between those answers is only 6%-units and in 2016 4%-units and some years even climbing over the "because it's free". I would cherry pick that through the ages it's 50/50 whether people pirate because it's free or because it's convenient, the difference is that marginal.

 

And what would you expect? That in those few years Netflix was the sole king of the hill and actually building it's library it would have eradicated piracy? Or managed to make huge cuts in 10s of percent units? And when it didn't do that huge difference we must throw all the statistics to toilet and call it insignificant because it wasn't the magic bullet and we only can approve the magic bullet which doesn't and will never exists.

 

Also as you pulled music into this: What is the difference between Spotify and Netflix and their competition? One huge difference is that in music artists and record labels are licensing their content to many platforms; Releasing album in Apple Music doesn't equal not releasing it in Spotify and Deezer, unlike with movies releasing series in Amazon Prime or Hulu usually means that the series won't be launched in Netflix or other platforms. The competition between music platforms is far more technical going from supported devices to the quality of sound and how much users pay and how much the artist gets, while in moving images the competition is almost purely content based in which users don't get to choose what service they use to watch their favorite series or movie, need to get one specific service to watch it. Pull what ever conclusions you want, but music piracy is falling while TV piracy is on the rise.

So you say the statistics are meaningful enough to claim changes in piracy, but now you are saying I have cherry picked because the figures are all to close (within 2-6%)to make an argument.   I guess when I said there is no evidence to make hard claims about the causation of piracy I was right. 

 

The bit about music still stands,  there is sufficient evidence from several sources pointing to it causing major revenue loss in the industry.  Also music is a far cry different in its consumption to movies and games.

 

 

9 hours ago, TechyBen said:

You must be wearing a Chicken suit and pay $10 to read my content of this post. If you are not, the FBI are turning up.

 

Balance, balance is needed. PS, I revoke my permission, for you to read this post, even if wearing a Chicken suit, oh, and I get to keep the $10, and I'm lobbying for the consumer protection to be removed... because.

Huh?  I think i know what you are trying to say but it does not make much sense.

9 hours ago, NMS said:

While those sites have no right to distribute the illegally obtained content I am within my moral rights to pirate it. IF (a huge IF) a website I signed up for and paid the subscription fee then denies me service because of my location. If that's the case why did they even chargee in the first place? This is how Crunchyroll operates.

 

After all, when I'm trying to give my money for something and then I'm being denied simply due to my location then don't even let me sign up.

 

In the end, I don't feel bad at all as I spend thousands a year on figures. And I doubt that half of what I would pay for Crunchyroll would go to the original studio.

 

TL;DR Geo restrictions are complete and utter garbage and if I want to obtain something that is restricted, then don't advertise it to me or else it will get pirated.

You don't understand the reason geo restrictions exist.  I don't care if you feel bad or not,  no one does, circumventing distribution rights is illegal and strictly from the view of "my product my rules", you taking it when I don't want you to is immoral.

 

You are presenting the exact entitlement argument I was illustrating, demanding you have access to a product you don't need simply because the company who made it has a different arrangement in place to your personal desires.

 

 

[Thaldor]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you say the statistics are meaningful enough to claim changes in piracy, but now you are saying I have cherry picked because the figures are all to close (within 2-6%)to make an argument.   I guess when I said there is no evidence to make hard claims about the causation of piracy I was right.

No, I was pointing out that for you 2-3%-unit changes are irrelevant, but when it comes to clauses suddenly that 2-6%-unit change is that relevant you can dismiss the "convenience" reason and claim that most of the people pirate because "it's free".

For me that 2%-unit change in any-category is already quite remarkable considering that the premises for piracy have improved a lot (faster internet connections, VPN services have become cheaper and faster, seedboxes becoming cheaper, the whole streaming piracy side with the sites on the topic) and even if there has been raids and shutdowns for big sites and trackers, they have been quite ineffective because sites working more like hydras and even closed ones resurrecting. I would have thought that the reduction rate in piracy was more like <0.5%-unit class, or even lower and said that at least all the hard work seems to bring some results.

[The Torrent]

looooooooool this is funny. Openload agreed to shut down??? Since when? Theres about 50 openload websites and the one i may or may not use is still up and im pretty sure i cant give examples on here., even if it was taken down change it from a .co to .net or something and theres another.

Let them keep trying - they need to pay their salaries somehow.

 

But on terms of shutting down piracy websites when theres 1000000 for each 1, especially such as openload never being shut down they are never going lol.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

No, I was pointing out that for you 2-3%-unit changes are irrelevant, but when it comes to clauses suddenly that 2-6%-unit change is that relevant you can dismiss the "convenience" reason and claim that most of the people pirate because "it's free".

For me that 2%-unit change in any-category is already quite remarkable considering that the premises for piracy have improved a lot (faster internet connections, VPN services have become cheaper and faster, seedboxes becoming cheaper, the whole streaming piracy side with the sites on the topic) and even if there has been raids and shutdowns for big sites and trackers, they have been quite ineffective because sites working more like hydras and even closed ones resurrecting. I would have thought that the reduction rate in piracy was more like <0.5%-unit class, or even lower and said that at least all the hard work seems to bring some results.

So you either have to accept that the 6% difference of those citing it being free compared to convenient is a mammoth difference or the 2% uptick in piracy over 7 years is not that major.

 

Either the change is big as you claim and the reason people pirate is cost or those percentages merely indicate a minor change in everything,  either way it does not prove a causality.

 

[spartaman64]

10 hours ago, NMS said:

While those sites have no right to distribute the illegally obtained content I am within my moral rights to pirate it. IF (a huge IF) a website I signed up for and paid the subscription fee then denies me service because of my location. If that's the case why did they even chargee in the first place? This is how Crunchyroll operates.

 

After all, when I'm trying to give my money for something and then I'm being denied simply due to my location then don't even let me sign up.

 

In the end, I don't feel bad at all as I spend thousands a year on figures. And I doubt that half of what I would pay for Crunchyroll would go to the original studio.

 

TL;DR Geo restrictions are complete and utter garbage and if I want to obtain something that is restricted, then don't advertise it to me or else it will get pirated.

crunchyroll would love nothing more than to offer all content to everyone as that would bring them more subscribers but if the company that licenses the content to them doesnt want it to be shown to a location then theres nothing crunchyroll can do. and i doubt crunchyroll offers no content in your region so you are paying for that content and if you think that it isnt worth then dont buy the subscription and instead buy the shows you want on dvd it still doesnt give you a moral right to pirate

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

crunchyroll would love nothing more than to offer all content to everyone as that would bring them more subscribers but if the company that licenses the content to them doesnt want it to be shown to a location then theres nothing crunchyroll can do. and i doubt crunchyroll offers no content in your region so you are paying for that content and if you think that it isnt worth then dont buy the subscription and instead buy the shows you want on dvd it still doesnt give you a moral right to pirate

And further to that, shows that aren't on crunchyroll may not be there due to existing license agreements with other distributors.  So it may not even be a lack of wanting the product in that area, but a condition of which is the most profitable way to distribute in that area.  

[NMS]

9 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

crunchyroll would love nothing more than to offer all content to everyone as that would bring them more subscribers but if the company that licenses the content to them doesnt want it to be shown to a location then theres nothing crunchyroll can do. and i doubt crunchyroll offers no content in your region so you are paying for that content and if you think that it isnt worth then dont buy the subscription and instead buy the shows you want on dvd it still doesnt give you a moral right to pirate

A DVD is not an option for everyone. And while I do have a TV all it does is sit in the living room gathering dust. But to give you an example, out of about 27 (give or take a few) shows that I wanted to see at that time, none were available in my region. Perhaps it offers some mainstream content but I'm not interested in that. 

Quote

then dont buy the subscription

Then tell me beforehand that the content will not be available in my region.

 

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

You don't understand the reason geo restrictions exist.  I don't care if you feel bad or not,  no one does, circumventing distribution rights is illegal and strictly from the view of "my product my rules", you taking it when I don't want you to is immoral.

 

You are presenting the exact entitlement argument I was illustrating, demanding you have access to a product you don't need simply because the company who made it has a different arrangement in place to your personal desires.

 

I don't believe in geo restricting content in the first place. Be it my personal opinion but I highly dislike the fact that as of late internet has been cracked down upon using multiple methods including the above mentioned restrictions.

 

But you still don't see my point. I have an issue with the product being advertised in MY region but then being denied access to it after paying for it. Do you not see how that is problematic? If I can't access it later, don't advertise it to me. Don't bring VPN into this.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, NMS said:

A DVD is not an option for everyone. And while I do have a TV all it does is sit in the living room gathering dust. But to give you an example, out of about 27 (give or take a few) shows that I wanted to see at that time, none were available in my region. Perhaps it offers some mainstream content but I'm not interested in that. 

Then tell me beforehand that the content will not be available in my region.

 

I don't believe in geo restricting content in the first place. Be it my personal opinion but I highly dislike the fact that as of late internet has been cracked down upon using multiple methods including the above mentioned restrictions.

 

But you still don't see my point. I have an issue with the product being advertised in MY region but then being denied access to it after paying for it. Do you not see how that is problematic? If I can't access it later, don't advertise it to me. Don't bring VPN into this.

 

1. Geo restricting happens for many reasons.  Rarely are they because the original content creator wants you to go without or thinks you should pay more than some other country.   sometimes it's distribution logistics, sometimes it's local taxes and content restrictions, sometimes its local laws on distribution rights. And sometimes it's just because they sold the rights to a local distributor long before they had the means to setup their own streaming service.  Unless you know what the current situation is you can't just use it as an excuse to take content without paying for it.

 

 

2. I don't believe any company told you you could have access then took your money and didn't give it to you.    Unless you are talking about a VPN service who sold you their service promising access to someone else's services.  In which case that is on you for trying to circumvent local distribution rights.  E.G US netflix policy is quite clear on where you can sign up from and failing to get around that with a VPN is the end users fault.

[NMS]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

1. Geo restricting happens for many reasons.  Rarely are they because the original content creator wants you to go without or thinks you should pay more than some other country.   sometimes it's distribution logistics, sometimes it's local taxes and content restrictions, sometimes its local laws on distribution rights. And sometimes it's just because they sold the rights to a local distributor long before they had the means to setup their own streaming service.  Unless you know what the current situation is you can't just use it as an excuse to take content without paying for it.

 

 

2. I don't believe any company told you you could have access then took your money and didn't give it to you.    Unless you are talking about a VPN service who sold you their service promising access to someone else's services.  In which case that is on you for trying to circumvent local distribution rights.  E.G US netflix policy is quite clear on where you can sign up from and failing to get around that with a VPN is the end users fault.

1. I don't have a problem with paying more. I'm well aware of that fact that is very much a possibility. The reality of it is if I'm offering "you" the money but because of certain let's say logistical issues you are unable to deliver me the product/service then don't charge me in the first place. This is the issue that I have. So perhaps you see how I am now inclined to obtain what I need through other means.

 

2. And that is how in this instance Crunchyroll operates. They do not tell you beforehand with certainty whether the content will be available in certain region or not. The only way to know is to sign up. It's cheap anyway so I never demanded money back.

 

And considering that they know my location before the registration they can easily let me know if that particular product will be available to me. But that of course means less customers to them.

 

Bottom line is: Crunchyroll is garbage. There's almost no other way for me to get what I want. Seriously just take my damn money... So pirating it is.

 

It amazes me that to this day everyone is trying to tax and regulate the "internet" yet fails so hard provide proper distribution of information.

[Norwegiantweaker]

On 11/2/2019 at 12:21 AM, Donut417 said:

if I can find one working. Mostly just Attack on Titan. But this is the life of a pirate. You just have to jump ship when the hammer comes down. 

ur making it out to be this super sketch hard thing to do.. you just put yts or yifi behind whatever movie name you pllop down or use rarbg for any series related show  the only "hard" thing to keep up with is free streaming sites. but popcorntime kinda took care of that whole mess aswell. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, NMS said:

Then tell me beforehand that the content will not be available in my region.

Logout, go to the show, look over to the right, read the message saying not available in your region. Is it better to show you not at all? Maybe. Can you know before purchase? Yes. Knowing a show exists and what it is about can be useful. Can you find that other places? Sure. Is it more convenient on the site you are already on? Probably.

 

Comparing to the Netflix experience where you don't get to see unavailable content I don't very much like either. It also doesn't help that when you Google search it'll return results and links to shows not in your region and just takes you to the Netflix home menu when you click on it. I'd like to know something is on Netflix at all even if I can't watch it because it lets me know what Netflix is willing to purchase and put on the platform and it also informs me that at some later date I'll likely have access to it.

 

Showing and not showing have down sides. Convincing the entire industry that exclusive contracts are bad for everyone, yea importantly for themselves so highlight that strongly, is the only solution.

[spartaman64]

4 hours ago, NMS said:

A DVD is not an option for everyone. And while I do have a TV all it does is sit in the living room gathering dust. But to give you an example, out of about 27 (give or take a few) shows that I wanted to see at that time, none were available in my region. Perhaps it offers some mainstream content but I'm not interested in that. 

Then tell me beforehand that the content will not be available in my region.

 

I don't believe in geo restricting content in the first place. Be it my personal opinion but I highly dislike the fact that as of late internet has been cracked down upon using multiple methods including the above mentioned restrictions.

 

But you still don't see my point. I have an issue with the product being advertised in MY region but then being denied access to it after paying for it. Do you not see how that is problematic? If I can't access it later, don't advertise it to me. Don't bring VPN into this.

Crunchyroll has a month free trial and they offer most of their content for free if you watch ads. And you can get a USB DVD player and watch it on your computer.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, Norwegiantweaker said:

super sketch

Some of those sites are super sketch to use. Ive gotten Virus warnings on several, even thru Kodi. Its not really the act of piracy thats the problem, its the fact you find most of this shit on Virus ridden sites. Not to mention illegal is illegal. None of the reasons for piracy will make it in any court. The Law is the Law.