Torrents Time Lets Anyone Launch Their Own Web Version of Popcorn Time

An anonymous reader writes: Popcorn Time, an app for streaming video torrents, just got its own web version: Popcorn Time Online. Unlike other attempts to bring Popcorn Time into the browser, this one is powered by a tool called Torrents Time, which delivers the movies and TV shows via an embedded torrent client. Oh, and the developers have released the code so that anyone can create their own version. If Popcorn Time is Hollywood's worst nightmare, Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.

Comments

Hollywood proposed alternative sign

[NotDrWho]

Jail Time

No use fighting it

[Fire_Wraith]

"You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere." They're never going to stop piracy. It's like trying to play whack-a-mole. Movie companies would do a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price. Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

Re:No use fighting it

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Movie companies would do (empahsis added) a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price

Really? For like $20 a month, you have ad-free Hulu and Netflix. That's like a huge portion of content right there. How much more do you need before you can call "won" on the "can stream whatever I want from home for cheap"

Re:No use fighting it

[Frobnicator]

Movie companies would do a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price.

There will always be a guy selling DVDs on the corner, frequently backed up by organized crime. I'm not so certain that people who are less committed to that lifestyle will be always there and impossible to stop. That ease of participation relies on freedoms are now taken for granted which I feel may well become very eroded in the future.

That misses the point.

If the companies provided what the consumers wanted, in the form they wanted, at a convenient price, the guy on the corner has no customers and goes to a different process. The content creators get paid for the content, the customers can enjoy the content, and everyone is happy. (As typical, customers would always prefer to pay less, producers would like to be paid more, but ultimately a happy balance can be reached if they honestly tried.)

Systems like netflix, hulu, dramafever, amazon video, they are getting closer to what the customers wants. In an even better world all those off-catalog shows, the crappy direct-to-DVD releases, these would also be available in the catalog rather than the constant Disney-esque vault where availability is intentionally reduced to get more coin.

The fact that they are present at all on Torrent systems is enough to let the companies know to add it to the catalogs. If I knew I could watch {popular title} from Redbox for a buck per day, or from some paid service where there are no scratched discs, and watch it on a web player on whatever device I want for a time period, sign me up.

Simply: If it is available in a torrent but not available in the authorized service, the authorized service is insufficient.

The company needs to stop providing insufficient service. When one business gives insufficient service, and another source offers the service, it is clear what will happen to the business. Adapt or die. These companies don't even need to go through the process of digitizing the works; when they discover what is on torrents but not in their catalog, put the ripped torrent version among their authorized versions. What happens when Disney finds a rip from some old VHS they haven't migrated? Instead of trying to shut it down, Disney should find the best ripped copy and put that among their (fully paid and properly authorized) products.

If everything were available through a proper, above board, fully legal paid service, and there was one place I could go to get yesterday's TV show, this week's big blockbuster release, reruns of my favorites from the last decade, reruns from the 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, and even all the old back catalog movies clear back to the 1920s when the Golden Age of Cinema started, then the guy at the corner selling bootleg copies would vanish. If the mere presence of a show on torrents was enough to get it added to the proper legal channels, then the need for them would precipitously drop.

It would not vanish completely, there are some people who refuse to pay anything and also refuse to find any friends to share passwords and accounts. If the legal version is immediately available to paying customers, at a convenient price, on a convenient location, viewable on a convenient device, the unsatisfied needs that drive torrented movies would drop off the radar.

Re:No use fighting it

[sims 2]

Now that netflix is killing the majority of movie piracy in the united states.
I've got a great idea let's genericize the meaning of piracy it's easy just replace I got it for free with "pirated"

Instead of saying I watched The Martian on amazon instant video for free using no rush shipping credits.

Say I watched The Mation on amazon instant video pirated using no rush shipping credits.

Or last week I pirated a drink with my big mac and fries.

Or I watched a movie on netflix uk in the us pirated with a VPN.

Next week we can expand on used merchandise so instead of I bought a used dvd of Reefer Madness for $1
We can say I pirated a dvd of Reefer Madness for $1

In all seriousness there does seem to be a war going on with the used media market especially when it comes to digital copies.

Also a lot of movies aren't available to rent online eg: guardians of the galaxy I'd like to see it but not for $15 I'd be happy with a $5 SD 48hr rental tho.

Re:No use fighting it

[Fire_Wraith]

Contrast it with music. Is there really a problem with music piracy anymore? Not that I'm aware of at least. There's lots of options, between various digital stores (iTunes, Amazon) and various streaming services that cover a very wide catalog. About the only thing I can't get easily is something like foreign bands that are unknown in the USA, and even that's getting better. Maybe if I was looking for very specific live performances or something, I dunno - but certainly not something the average person is going to run into in a typical month or even year.

Contrast that to movies and TV shows, of which some are available, but it's still highly segregated, they regularly yank stuff out of the catalog to create artificial scarcity, etc. They still haven't gotten with the idea fully. It may be better than it was five years ago, but that's not saying much.

Re:No use fighting it

[timothy]

Amazon's catalog may be weak, but if you live in the U.S. and need (read "can rationalize") Amazon Prime, then a good chunk of the movies are yours for the watching anyhow.

Also: I think Amazon's biggest problem on this front, even considering just the free-with-Prime movies, isn't so much the depth of the catalog as the awful search. Netflix's search interface isn't all that hot either (idiosyncratic, strangely limited results, IMO), but compared to Amazon's it seems to be a model of clarity and accuracy. Which is funny, because Amazon's search powers more generally are amazing. ("Here's this thing you purchased 19 months ago! Here's the obscure product your puny search terms were somehow enough to trigger our hive mind into locating!") With movies, the searching is suddenly awkward and messy, with all kinds of checkboxes, confusing costs, etc. Not end-of-the-world bad, but annoying in that it could be a far more valuable perk. As is, I occasionally watch a movie through Amazon, and am impressed by their original TV shows, but if something's on Amazon and Netflix, I'm watching it on Netflix before I even bother to search for it on Amazon.

Re:No use fighting it

[squiggleslash]

I have Amazon Prime and we did some trials of Netflix and Hulu, and I can honestly say that it was disappointing finding nothing I was actively looking for on any of the systems. I remember spending an evening just going through a list of movies I've been wanting to watch for a while, being utterly astounded when none of them showed up on each list. Some movies were classics, some were cult movies, some were "just movies I saw in the 1980s that I'd like to watch again", some were blockbusters that hadn't been in the cinema for a couple of years. And... none were there.

Now, sure, I can find something to watch with all three, but in terms of the "I want to watch X, I haven't watched it in a while" itch, we're a long way away from having services (or even a combination thereof) that do that.

I'd be very surprised if Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime = 5% of mainstream movies made since 1976.

Re:No use fighting it

[Zontar The Mindless]

The only way anyone's ever going to match my Sun Ra collection is via torrent, as many of those albums are no longer in print, and haven't been in 20+ years.

Re:No use fighting it

[Bert64]

Maybe in the US, in some countries there are no such services at all or the services have much less content than the US versions (while also usually costing more).

Some places have slow/unreliable internet, metered internet, or internet which is slow/metered at peak times. Streaming doesn't work well in such areas as you generally want to watch at peak times.

Some people want to download content at home so they can watch it while they're away from home where they might not have reliable internet access.

Streaming services typically employ some kind of proprietary drm which limits what devices you can use for playback.

The streaming services just don't cut it, with torrents i can download content at night when the connection is fast and have them ready by morning for me to play on any device i want. I can watch them on my way to work on phone/tablet, watch at home on my laptop or tv, i can watch on my rooted android or my linux laptop. I can transcode the video to other formats if i need to.

If a service was available which let me download drm free video files in a standard format i would pay for it, but the current crop of streaming services are unusable for me.

Re:No use fighting it

[AK Marc]

https://flixsearch.io/ Try your search on that. Best to have an international VPN service. You'll find that though the US has the largest catalog, you'll often find what you are looking for is available, but not in the US.

Re:No use fighting it

[vuffi_raa]

well I think you hit one thing on the head - when netflix was the only game in town it was awesome because you got access to so much more - but when content providers all started to try to get in on the act everything went all over the place - sometimes on one but not the others, sometimes on the provider's own site, sometimes only on cable - it is an extreme example of competition making a more expensive and worse product - all of which actually helps to fuel piracy rather than fight it. content providers really should all pool together and provide all of the services with content and let the services provide bonus features, like self produced programming, live programming, etc rather than catalog releases

Re:No use fighting it

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Old content has numerous rights issues from the way that residuals are paid in movies/TV (but not music). Therefore, it costs money to clear each old release for streaming. Therefore, some old content just isn't worth the effort.

New content, of course, has residual structures that take into account an "Internet" and "computers" and even "cellphones/tablets"

Re:No use fighting it

[timothy]

Definitely; I have Prime for the shipping, and the TV / movies are a nice bonus. I thought their Bosch series was excellent.

Re:No use fighting it

[Wycliffe]

Movie companies would do (empahsis added) a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price

Really? For like $20 a month, you have ad-free Hulu and Netflix. That's like a huge portion of content right there. How much more do you need before you can call "won" on the "can stream whatever I want from home for cheap"

I would gladly pay $20 a month to stream "whatever I want". I would even be ok with $20 per month plus ads. hulu + netflix + amazon prime is nowhere close to full coverage. For one, there is a lot of overlap and secondly, they just don't have that many desirable titles. Even adding redbox in for the new releases and you still have crappy coverage. Full amazon is a little better but many shows are $2 per 30 minute episode. $20 per month (or $1 per hour) would be the place where I would just pay it and forget it if I could get full coverage of all new releases and old releases. Until then, I'm going to continue to piece together redbox,amazon prime, the public library, used dvds and whatever else I can find to fit my budget.

Re:No use fighting it

[UnknownSoldier]

> Netflix's search interface isn't all that hot either (idiosyncratic, strangely limited results, IMO),

Yup, it's retarded. Supposedly the "justification" is that they don't want to show results for what they don't have the license too. On the PS3 they also don't list titles that are *only* available on DVD/BluRay -- in that case technically Netflix's has it, you just can't stream it, which is again dumb -- why can't they upsell the DVD/BluRay like they do on the Web Version ??

Gee, how about letting me tag "I want this" for a movie/video you currently don't have but I *do* want to watch instead of not listing it all?!?! That way you could get customer demand/feedback for what you don't have (yet). /sarcasm It's not like anyone wants to watch Big Bang Theory, Downton Abbey Friends, Seinfield, South Park, etc.

Complete UI fail when you put in Soldier Blue. It isn't rocket science. If it is listed on imdb, search should find it, period. Omitting results is a broken search.

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of greed forcing every online distributor to half-ass it. i.e. You can watch X on Amazon, Y on Netflix, and Z on Cable, with some overlap.

--
StackOverflow sucks ass: Hostile to fixing simple spelling mistakes such as 1 letter.

You sure they "released the code"?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

On the "Torrents Time" github location all I see is an "embed" project that's essentially a JS snippet.
https://github.com/torrentsTim...
https://github.com/torrentsTim...

Where's the source code for:
https://cdn.torrents-time.com/...
https://cdn.torrents-time.com/...
?

Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood

[raymorris]

> Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.

This is the attitude I don't understand.

If you don't like big-budget Hollywood movies and prefer independent films, that's cool. You can watch plenty of independent films online and offline. I take a similar tack with software - I don't care for how Microsoft treats their customers, so I don't use their software. I've been using open source for decades.

What makes no sense is "I love $200 million cinema spectaculars so much, I'll steal them to make it more difficult to fund the next one."

Yeah, studios who spend a billion dollars making sure three movies try pretty hard to recoup the cost, mostly from the one that turns out to be popular, and that includes all the typical "big business" stuff that goes on when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved. It seems to me that if you like Star Wars and you want to see the next sequel (and have the studio spend $x00 million to make it), the LAST thing you'd want to do is damage the studio that makes them. You'd BUY the DVD , or at least toss in $2 to stream it, if you wanted more movies like that, I'd think.

Personally, I don't care for the big-budget films like Star Wars, so I don't stream, rent, or buy them (and I certainly don't steal them). I rent the low-budget comedies I like for $2 at Redbox, which encourages theatres to make another movie like it, which I'll also rent. I'm not trying to destroy the people who produce the stuff I like.

Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

>What makes no sense is "I love $200 million cinema spectaculars so much, I'll steal them to make it more difficult to fund the next one."

You're right. It makes no sense. I mean, as far as I know, no movie has ever been stolen, ever.

Now, I'll assume you meant to say pirated, so we can move on from that mistake.

>Yeah, studios who spend a billion dollars making sure three movies try pretty hard to recoup the cost, mostly from the one that turns out to be popular, and that includes all the typical "big business" stuff that goes on when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved. It seems to me that if you like Star Wars and you want to see the next sequel (and have the studio spend $x00 million to make it), the LAST thing you'd want to do is damage the studio that makes them. You'd BUY the DVD , or at least toss in $2 to stream it, if you wanted more movies like that, I'd think.

So, step 1:

Piracy doesn't "damage" the studio. It doesn't physically damage it, and it doesn't monetarily damage it. I don't give a shit what the studio's opinions on that are, I would like to see how you can prove damage from piracy. Hint: You can't, except in the case of decent counterfeiting where the buyer really thought they were buying the real deal. All you can point to is supposed losses. This is like suggesting snowfall damages ice cream sales. The world thinks you're an idiot when you even suggest it, though a weak argument can be presented to say it could possibly lower it, though once again, no real hard evidence exists on the matter except (If they were as nasty as the MPAA!) from the ice cream companies.

Again, moving on from that mistake in your logic (Again... This is probably why you're having a hard time understanding. You have massive gaps in your logic that need filling in.)

Now we have that in mind, when I rent the movie from redbox, and 500 others rent the same movie, how much money does the studio make from the 501st rental? Answer: $0. In fact, they'll never see a dime after the purchase of the disc, which isn't even a viewing. So legally watching the film can easily result in a $0 profit for the studio. Which brings me to an important point: Piracy doesn't lower studio profits. A lack of income does. Piracy and a lack of income are separate issues, though at times they can become intertwined (For example, if the studio locked up the movie to the point that rentals were impossible, and charged $5,000,000 to watch it, piracy would be 100% and income would be $0. But this relationship between price and piracy becomes so much more miniscule at $1).

>You'd BUY the DVD , or at least toss in $2 to stream it, if you wanted more movies like that, I'd think.

I watch it in a movie theatre. Want to know why? Because DVD sales mean a lot of people other than the studio get a massive cut before they see a thin dime. Same with streaming. Guess how much take the studio has when you see it at the movie theatre? The average is 90% of your ticket price.

So, overall, piracy and sales are only slightly intertwined except in extreme cases (For example, I pirated a piece of software required to complete my studies at school. There was no educational version at the time. It cost $13,000 15 years ago. At that price, I would never have been able to afford to be at the school in the first place. Thus there was no sale and piracy increased, simply due to extortionate costs.)

At the more likely pricing of $1, we have to consider what causes the piracy if you'd like to stop it. First answer is at that price a large number of pirates are doing it because that's the only way they consume media. You will need to completely ignore those people. They are not customers and never will be. They'll be happy munching on re-runs of I Love Lucy for the rest of their lives if somehow their piracy actually led to the demise of all new media production. Let's focus on the remaining consumers, who are likely composed of those who pirate due to opportunit

Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood

[phantomfive]

Your comment adds nothing to the conversation.
Instead of accusing him of a "false dichotomy," explain the third option, and all of us will be enlightened. You're currently low on the pyramid.

Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood

[Ace17]

> Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.

This is the attitude I don't understand.

What about their impact on the law?

Even if you're not into Disney movies, you're still impacted by the legislative bullshit we're currently diving in ("Mickey Mouse" copyright act, aka DMCA) indirectly caused by Disney copyright holders.
It wouldn't bother me if this bullshit only applied to Disney movies, however, its scope is much broader.

Experience has shown us that the content industry is continuously trying to make illegal anything they think reduces profit.
More precisely, first they make it technically challenging (DRM), then, they make illegal to win the challenge (DMCA).

For example, it's currently illegal, de facto, to implement a DVD player as free software (because it implies disclosing the DVD decryption key).
How is it not going to affect you, even if you don't "consume" content provided by those who pushed these laws?

Another example: it's illegal to implement a hardware DVD player who allows skipping the 'anti-piracy' announcements ... and the commercials.
How is it not affecting me when I want to watch *any* movie?

s/theatres/studios/

[raymorris]

The word "theatres" in the post above should of course be "studios".

Anyway, when I (and a bunch of other people) toss them $2 to rent or stream Mall Cop, they make money from it and they make Mall Cop 2, which I then enjoy. If I like the movies that a studio makes, wtf would I want to get rid of them?

The bullshit Capitalist "threat".

[geekmux]

"...If Popcorn Time is Hollywood's worst nightmare, Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up."

Alright, enough of this bullshit. Everyone listen up. There are more than enough consumers on this planet to accommodate the greedy executives who run the capitalist corporations, as well as accommodating those who don't feel like paying them a damn dime.

Let's put it this way. How many sales records did the latest Star Wars movie crush in a matter of weeks? I rest my case. Now kindly STFU already about capitalism being killed by piracy. It's not happening nor is it ever going to, and the last fucking thing the lawyers need are the geeks themselves confirming this lie in order to justify more Orwellian anti-piracy laws.

Re:The bullshit Capitalist "threat".

[geekmux]

"...If Popcorn Time is Hollywood's worst nightmare, Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up."

Alright, enough of this bullshit. Everyone listen up. There are more than enough consumers on this planet to accommodate the greedy executives who run the capitalist corporations, as well as accommodating those who don't feel like paying them a damn dime.

Let's put it this way. How many sales records did the latest Star Wars movie crush in a matter of weeks? I rest my case. Now kindly STFU already about capitalism being killed by piracy. It's not happening nor is it ever going to, and the last fucking thing the lawyers need are the geeks themselves confirming this lie in order to justify more Orwellian anti-piracy laws.

So you have no problem stealing things so long as there are enough other people subsidizing it that the creators don't actively lose money? Congratulations, you're a mooch and a jackass.

It's really simple. If someone makes something and gives it away, fine, don't pay. If someone makes something and gives it away but asks for donations if you liked it, fine, don't pay if you don't want to. But if someone makes something that you want to see/use/whatever, and decides to charge money for it, then that's the fee to see/use/whatever. Oh, the price is more than you want to pay? Too bad, go without (note that we're talking about entertainment products and software, not stuff like food and shelter) or find an alternative. Why are you so special that everyone else has to pay, but not you? Oh, you're sticking it to the man by being a freeloader? Please. Get back with me once you've grown up a little bit.

Or, if you legitimately are too poor to spend a few bucks on a movie now and again, you probably have much bigger problems, and I wonder how you afford Internet access and a computer/smartphone to post on Slashdot.

OK, to reduce your propensity to ASS-U-ME here, I pay for my media, and can easily afford a movie every now and then. Hell, I still buy CDs and prefer physical media due to all the damn tracking and monitoring that goes with every online service. And yes, this means I can easily afford a computer and internet access, in case you were somehow worried I was broadcasting homeless under a bridge down by the river.

The issue I have here is the punishment not fitting the crime, which is the case most of the time. It's akin to putting the recording industry in charge of traffic violations and charging $20,000 for a speeding ticket. Only the criminals in charge would think that's a "fair" punishment.

Why?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I stopped bothering with torrents years ago. Even the Canadian version of Netflix has more than enough titles to fill my TV-watching time. Sure it's not blockbusters all the time, and we get new titles months if not years after the DVD releases, but it's also really not expensive and I feel like I'm getting excellent value for the low monthly fee.

Re:Why?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Netflix helps when you just want to flop down and watch something random, but when you want to watch episode X of series Y (not carried by Netflix) NOW, that's where I use torrents, etc.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about the previous poster, but for me it's not about being entitled. It's the fact that when it comes to movies/TV shows, the paid is almost always worse than what you can get off of torrents. I can get a DRM-free 1080p MKV file with integrated subtitles and commentary track for various movies that I can move around to whatever devices I own, without relying on a fast Internet connection to be able to watch them. No-one sells movies in the form that I want. Once you've had years of such a standard of movie files, it's very hard to downgrade yourself to streaming of a lower quality just because it's legal. If I'm gonna spend money, it better be on par to what the Internet community provides for free otherwise I feel like a chump.

Honestly, that's the situation. You can't beat piracy when you provide a lower quality option. Now, I don't feel like I'm entitled to the content just because it's not being sold in the way I'd prefer it. But I don't want to miss out and there are no realistic penalties that I'm ever likely to face. It's socially accepted to pirate, so I just don't care, and since the world isn't moving in the direction necessary to change this, why change myself?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ps: 2008 is over. 50% of Redbox sales go to studio

[raymorris]

Ps your studio propaganda about Redbox is WAY outdated, and it wasn't even true back in 2008-2009 when the studios were saying that.

In fact, Redbox reports that 50% of their rental revenue goes to the studios. Most often through a revenue- sharing deal like the one they have with Warner Brothers:
http://deadline.com/2015/03/wa...

Back in 2008, and today for Disney, Redbox stocks (buys) enough DVDs and Bluray discs to meet demand. If a lot of people rent Disney movies from Redbox, then Redbox buys a bunch of Disney disks to keep their machines stocked. If fewer people rent a particular movie, Redbox might put one copy in half of their machines. (Ever had to drive to a different Redbox location to find the movie you wanted? This is why. Only the most popular releases are in every machine.) If few people want to rent a movie, Redbox doesn't stock it at all, so they buy zero copies.

In short, the more people want to rent a movie, the more copies Redbox needs, so they buy more - which means more money for the studios.

Cavalier attitudes about theft

[GPS Pilot]

Strawman much? I've never heard anyone claim that Hollywood will be killed by piracy, just as I've never heard anyone claim that Macy's will be killed by shoplifting.

It won't kill Macy's, but shoplifting has killed lesser retailers who almost attained profitability, and it is a crime.

How well would the following argument hold up? "There are more than enough shoppers on this planet to accommodate the greedy stockholders who own Macy's, as well as accommodating those who don't feel like paying them a damn dime for the merchandise on the shelves."

(Nevermind that in many cases, those "greedy stockholders" are senior citizens on fixed incomes, whose pension fund owns shares of Macy's, or Viacom, or Disney.)

I suspect you're not as cavalier about theft when it's your property -- intellectual or otherwise -- that's stolen.

Re:No, they shouldn't thow in the towel

[dave420]

Piracy doesn't harm anyone. Study after study has shown that piracy doesn't hurt movie profits. So that's why his argument is different - because it's entirely different.