- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,150
- Likes
- 14,832
I'm sure you've watched European films, maybe just not ones suitable for Netflix. Or requiring dubbing.To be honest, I've never watched one so I can't comment.
I'm sure you've watched European films, maybe just not ones suitable for Netflix. Or requiring dubbing.To be honest, I've never watched one so I can't comment.
My type of film, got a list?4. Either too much action and special defects OR absolutely nothing happening for seemingly hours
Every netflop! (no I don't. For an example of the latter try the Enola Holmes one, the former try the Ryan Reynolds one)My type of film, got a list?
Genuine question btw.
it was meant to, you were demeaning the op's original thought, so i responded , deal with it.. and kodi isn't illegal to watch in the US.. so have any opinion of that you want , but congress has yet to pass a bill that declares it illegal.. but i'm sure you will have a cheeky response.. peace chief...
you are mistaken sir , kodi isn't illegal ..please do your homework, b4 you accuse people of wrongdoing .. all you need to do is google it .. it ain't rocket science ..to be completely transparent , broadcasting copyrighted material is illegal, since that has nothing to do with viewing there is no law broken by viewing , since torrants are re broadcasting , that would be illegal.. you're so positive of your stance ..ok.. post one instance of a person convicted of watching "illegally" via 3rd party add ons that don't include torrants(in the US, since that is where i reside)..your morals are most certainly not my priority to abide by nor am i compelled by law to adhere to your delicate sensibility.. so why don't you do a bit of research b4 you respond and we'll call it a day edit'... your views on this are understandable, i'm sure you haven't done much /any research or are going by people trying to scare people into buying vpn's (pretty useless in real world application in this instance).. and since the bulk of the argument is driven by a multi billion dollar industry that has , for years ,unsuccessfully lobbied congress to outlaw said viewing... however in the recent past (2016 maybe ?) congress refused to include viewing via internet as part of legislation against 3rd party broadcasting.. currently major legal actions are being attempted against locast for copyright infringement of a similar nature (broadcasting network tv on internet via open air reception)... odds are congress and the courts might be a bit busy the next few months to get to these issues...and better (much better) legal minds than i , tend to think locast will win in the lawsuit that is currently underway...You are out of order, dead wrong and have a lot of nerve. Kodi is illegal if you are using it to stream copyrighted material which you are stealing. I would have reported your first post, but since the site has lost Thomas Savage as a moderator, I don't want to bother our host. I can't believe $1 per month is worth worrying about.
Well...It is obvious, that their goal is to sell more subscriptions without investing in their servers streaming abilities. It would be fair, if they gave us the choice, so we can decide what bitrate and quality we get according to our connection abilities. The presentation looks like typical PR twist, they are basically reducing our promised quality, that we have already agreed on and paying for, to share it with other users, to get more money. It is a weird move in my book, and i don´t like it.
i think it's more the inherent thought that while they are degrading the signal they are jacking the rates.. all during an economic crisis that has other providers lowering profit margin to help the general welfare of public at large...this seems to be a "we do it b/c we can" move ... in the long run it's the non technical "dummies" like me that pay the freight .. i don't give 1/2 of two poops about bit rates and "viewable differences".. i see "more $ for lower quality picture".. and that's what 99% of the paying customers see...lucky for netflix that many of their customers are uninformed or too "stoopid" to know they are getting hosed $1-2 a month x however many times they've jacked us up in the last few years...There's nothing wrong with innovating compression algorithms and techniques for efficiency.
If there's an issue here that I see with Netflix, it's the larger issue of the combination of high-resolution with streaming compression to begin with (sort of reminds me of the audio obsession with high sample rates). Streaming has never really been reliably 4k or in some cases even HD, given the compression rates compared to, say, what you get watching the same movie/show in HD or 4k via a Blu-Ray disc.
Personally I don't care much - I'm not a videophile and am far more tolerant of small decreases in quality, and of lossy compression, with video than with audio. But once you start down the road of paying for a premium subscription tier for 4k that's not exactly truly 4k in the sense that it's advertised, how much does it matter if the streaming company cuts the data rate and perceptually you can't tell the difference?
Now, if Netflix is skating too close to the edge and they are trying to squeeze every last bit of data-rate savings by visibly degrading the image quality and claiming that most people can't tell, I do get the criticism there. But we won't know until that happens, yes?
In other words, if Netflix is going from the video equivalent of, say, 320kbps AAC audio to 256k, then I'd say who cares. But if they are going from the equivalent of 256k to 128k, then yes, that would be a raw deal indeed.
I don't want to express a legal opinion here as I am not a lawyer. That aside, what you state may not be correct. Record labels sued a number of individuals who were consuming copyrighted content that they deemed illegally distributed. Here is a quick reference: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electri...tents-fall-2005/projects/online_fileshrng.pdfyou are mistaken sir , kodi isn't illegal ..please do your homework, b4 you accuse people of wrongdoing .. all you need to do is google it .. it ain't rocket science ..to be completely transparent , broadcasting copyrighted material is illegal, since that has nothing to do with viewing there is no law broken by viewing ,
happily .. i found myself on the defensive and being chastised by the uninformed ...... the fact that congress *refused* to include viewing as a violation of law notwithstanding...btw .. those lawsuits you cite are more historical in value than evidentiary in nature, i understand your reluctance to worry about my thoughts rather than of those that pay you ... have a wonderful dayI don't want to express a legal opinion here as I am not a lawyer. That aside, what you state may not be correct. Record labels sued a number of individuals who were consuming copyrighted content that they deemed illegally distributed. Here is a quick reference: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electri...tents-fall-2005/projects/online_fileshrng.pdf
View attachment 90704
Whatever the law is, in this forum we need to stay way away from any encouragement, instruction or otherwise to consume content that may not be authorized. So please move on.
Say what? Should I get litigated for encouraging piracy on this forum (true or not), you would pay for my defense? I would think not.happily .. i found myself on the defensive and being chastised by the uninformed ...... the fact that congress *refused* to include viewing as a violation of law notwithstanding...btw .. those lawsuits you cite are more historical in value than evidentiary in nature, i understand your reluctance to worry about my thoughts rather than of those that pay you ... have a wonderful day
i've already moved on...per your request.. was there something else?Say what? Should I get litigated for encouraging piracy on this forum (true or not), you would pay for my defense? I would think not.
My responsibility and liability in this regard as a forum owner is huge compared to you posting anonymously. If you want to learn about the law, read about that. Your worst nightmare should be a bunch of corporate attorneys from Fortune 100 companies going after you. It doesn't matter if you are right. You can go bankrupt defending yourself. There is a reason I have this key statement in our Terms of Service:
View attachment 90721
In my last formal job, my job was to work with major content owners on distribution of their content, their piracy concerns, etcc. I spent a lifetime on these topics. So please don't start with thinking you know this topic. You don't.
So leave the insults at the door and follow the rules. They are there for a reason whether you understand them or not.
Going to consult with my wife and look carefully at how much Netflix we really consume.
Thanks, the process is a little different now but same result. I entered a request.Just go to your account: settings/profile and parental controls/viewing activity/view. Scroll down to the bottom and click 'download all'.
It will say "this will take a while", but it doesn't. Then you get a nice .csv file you can open in Excel and work out what you actually have watched since you started using the service.