Terrarium TV (2 Viewers)

[cockroach]

robble robble robble robble robble

 

[tonydead]

Licensed.  Content companies, including publishers, have a deal where they buy a more expensive copy and every 20 people who borrow, they buy another.  It’s a sanctioned and important revenue stream.  So it’s not stealing.  

You still can't get past the difference between stealing and copyright infringement.  Once anything is digitised its a bunch of 1s and 0s and impossible to regulate whether I choose to put them in the exact order of your movie or not.  Every company has to adapt to a changing market or risk going broke. Trying to regulate digital content is paddling upstream, always has been always will. 

 

[tonydead]

Why do you think it gets shut down?

It's not shut down. 

If we are to take his word for it, it was the developers choice. Someone is sure to step in and take over development, or put out something new and better.  The app had advertising, that's how they make money.  That's how all tv used to be and that is where it will eventually return as soon as the people who took tv and monopolized it go broke. 

The app didn't host any content so he hasn't broken any laws.  The websites who host the content, and who are doing something illegal, are all over the planet, occasionally one or two of the hundreds of thousands do get shut down. But that's a lost fight. 

Watching a stream is not illegal under any law, case law and no one has ever attempted to try it. FACT, regardless of your personal moral view about it. 

 

[tonydead]

Imagine if you will a local store keeper.  He has an emergency.  For whatever reason it’s important to him that he not close and miss out on sales.

So he leaves a Folger’s can near the register and a sign asking for customers to pay the amount tagged on the items.  

Assuming they are alone and no one is watching...  There are different kinds of people.

I’m happy to be the kind who adds up and checks the total twice and leaves as much as my tab, plus tax, or more if I can’t make change.

Others may leave.  That’s acceptable.  

Some may rationalize that they’ve been wronged before somewhere along the way, by the store or the product manufacturers or life and they may pay a lesser amount they deem “fair.”

Others will choose not to pay at all.  

Some will look both ways before taking some money from the can.

Some will unabashedly steal as much as they can, plus whatever is in the can.

I argue there’s a narrow range of what’s actually right and you should do if you have any character.

I know many of you choose to steal content, whether you rationalize that it’s because you’ve been wronged, or others do it, or no one is looking, or there’s no actual law against streaming unlicensed content, or you’re just a thief.  That’s okay, it’s your choice. Just own that you’re in a category other than the person who can be trusted to pay what you owe. 

What you do when no one is looking says everything about who you are.  

Comparing people who watch streams to people who steal doesn't magically make watching a stream illegal. 

Comparing websites who host illegal streams to people who steal is correct only in the fact that you've finally found two people who are doing something illegal. Their crimes are still very much different. 

Someone reproducing an ebook (that is copyrighted) on their website without permission has committed copyright infringement. They haven't stolen anything.  Someone clicking on either website isn't guilty of anything. 

You can make a moral argument all you want, but, there is no question about its legality. 

 

[flapgreen]

I'll ride the this wave until it comes crashing down. 

 

[NotSmart]

You can make a moral argument all you want, but, there is no question about its legality. 

I think that's exactly the point.

Regardless of the legal side of things, I think one should at least be honest with themself and admit that they are enjoying the benefits of someone else's work without paying for it, and the other person wants them to pay for it.

 

[flapgreen]

I think that's exactly the point.

Regardless of the legal side of things, I think one should at least be honest with themself and admit that they are enjoying the benefits of someone else's work without paying for it, and the other person wants them to pay for it.

 

[flapgreen]

I’m in the media business, and for several years was a below the line worker in Hollywood.  When people avoid paying for content it does affect me.  

I am no fan of monopolies, either, and prefer that the market innovate faster to provide convenience, price and choice.  I recently cut to cord, but I also pay several subscriptions and pay for all I consume, whether directly or through advertising.

To do otherwise would be wrong.  

Don't care, crazy guy. Not what this thread is about.  You're wasting your time in here. Move along 

 

[[icon]]

Is this version ad free?

Yes

 

[strykerpks]

I don't want to get into the legality of it all, but if I pay for HBO GO, which only streams in 720p but I stream Game of Thrones through Terrarium (or some other app) that streams in 1080i or 4k is that ok? Serious question for Ham.

 

[strykerpks]

See my last comment.  Now or in the future, HBO has the right to charge you for higher resolutions.  They have the right to police the distribution of their content, and you’re enabling a platform where others are stealing.  It actually doesn’t matter why...  if they haven’t licensed it expressly to that platform, it may not feel wrong, it may be fair in your mind, it’s not at all hard to rationalize, but it’s stealing.  

I was just asking, relax. I pay good money for the content I watch and I'd wager 99% legally. That includes YoutubeTV, Netflix, HBO, OTA, and other individual content via Google Play. But if the higher resolutions aren't even offered for a price then they can go #### themselves. It's still the same content. 

There are still those of us who want to and will pay for our content. But spare me the "oh now resolution matters too" argument. Certain resolutions are offered on the same price on one platform, yet not on another. That's stealing by the content providers (I'm using HBO in this instance). You're moving the goalposts. Either it's stealing/pirating or it's not. Or give me the option to pay for it.

 

[culdeus]

I work in the industry.  This is the deal the publishers have with libraries.  

There is no way this is right or else my local library is just ignoring it.  Had a total budget of 3.8M last year. At a rate of 20/DVD they could afford just 400 rentals a day and have maybe librarians paid like 25k a year.  

Gonna need to see a link. 

 

[Spin]

I never broke any laws. All I’m doing is watching the stream which is perfectly legal. I don’t download it

That's not true, you're just not downloading it permanently.

While streaming, the possibly illegal content is 100% (well, what you've downloaded so far) on your machine, typically in a temporary cache, but you're absolutely downloading it.

You're just choosing to then discard it when you're done. 

 

[Fat Nick]

Installed the patched Terrarium and TeaTV last night.  Patched Terrarium has WAY fewer sources for me (NOT using RealDebrid).  TeaTV, while not as nice and not as many HQ sources, actually worked better for the movie I wanted to watch last night, so I used it.  I'll continue to use both in parallel until a better option presents itself.

This whole thing has me re-visiting the idea of a home theater PC with a massive NAS where I just download and store the torrents and build my own library.  More control that way.

 

[flapgreen]

I’m very relaxed.  Just answered your question. You don’t seem to like hearing what you don’t want to hear.  By chance...  are you a Millennial?

FWIW I upgraded my TV to an OLED and Netflix asked if I want to pay $1.99 extra for ultra HD.  I clicked yes and AM PAYING for higher resolution.  So you are avoiding charges now at a market price.  You can keep rationalizing.  It’s  always going to be someone else’s fault for not giving you what’s you want at the price you choose, so not worth arguing, but you’re stealing.

Just as psychotic as ever. 

 

[Jules Winnfield]

That's not true, you're just not downloading it permanently.

While streaming, the possibly illegal content is 100% (well, what you've downloaded so far) on your machine, typically in a temporary cache, but you're absolutely downloading it.

You're just choosing to then discard it when you're done. 

“Copyright Office contends there is no violation when ‘a reproduction manifests itself so fleetingly that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated.’” 

 

[DocHolliday]

Installed the patched Terrarium and TeaTV last night.  Patched Terrarium has WAY fewer sources for me (NOT using RealDebrid).  TeaTV, while not as nice and not as many HQ sources, actually worked better for the movie I wanted to watch last night, so I used it.  I'll continue to use both in parallel until a better option presents itself.

This whole thing has me re-visiting the idea of a home theater PC with a massive NAS where I just download and store the torrents and build my own library.  More control that way.

Installed Terrarium last night but have not connected my RD account yet.  Only about 10 options for the movie chosen but it didn't buffer at all.  We are back. 

Will connect RD in the next few days and hope that we are in business for another 6 - 12 months. 

 

[ydoc]

forget the legal crap, i'm just trying to figure out how to get my tv working again....

 

[cockroach]

I think that's exactly the point.

Regardless of the legal side of things, I think one should at least be honest with themself and admit that they are enjoying the benefits of someone else's work without paying for it, and the other person wants them to pay for it.

I agree with this.  But when people call it stealing they look foolish.  It's as if I were trespassing on someone's land and they said I stole it. No, I may have used it, but it's still right there and it's still yours.  It under cuts any good point the person has to make. 

 

[DocHolliday]

You want to talk stealing.  Let's talk about the cable companies.  I cannot believe how much we pay for how little decent programming is available.  And, its not like I have a choice between cable companies.  I buy on demand movies way more than I want simply because there is so little on.    I don't feel bad at all watching a few movies/month on Terrarium.  F U cable companies. 

 

[TakiToki]

I think that's exactly the point.

Regardless of the legal side of things, I think one should at least be honest with themself and admit that they are enjoying the benefits of someone else's work without paying for it, and the other person wants them to pay for it.

What you describe is no different from watching a street performer but not dropping any money in his hat.

 

[Spin]

What you describe is no different from watching a street performer but not dropping any money in his hat.

Not really, the street performer is fully aware of, and consenting to, how his act is being viewed. He's choosing the medium, and hoping to elicit tips. The street performer hopes you leave money, but understand you are under no obligation to. 

It's the equivalent of taping the performance, and then adding it to you're site, to generate views and ad revenue, without the performer consenting.

 

[Osaurus]

Installed the patched Terrarium and TeaTV last night.  Patched Terrarium has WAY fewer sources for me (NOT using RealDebrid).  TeaTV, while not as nice and not as many HQ sources, actually worked better for the movie I wanted to watch last night, so I used it.  I'll continue to use both in parallel until a better option presents itself.

This whole thing has me re-visiting the idea of a home theater PC with a massive NAS where I just download and store the torrents and build my own library.  More control that way.

This is what I’ve been doing.  I use a 4 TB hard drive hooked up to my router and use UPnP to access it from an NVidia Shield.  Works great.  

 

[jhib]

Imagine if you will a local store keeper.  He has an emergency.  For whatever reason it’s important to him that he not close and miss out on sales.

So he leaves a Folger’s can near the register and a sign asking for customers to pay the amount tagged on the items.  

Assuming they are alone and no one is watching...  There are different kinds of people.

I’m happy to be the kind who adds up and checks the total twice and leaves as much as my tab, plus tax, or more if I can’t make change.

Others may leave.  That’s acceptable.  

Some may rationalize that they’ve been wronged before somewhere along the way, by the store or the product manufacturers or life and they may pay a lesser amount they deem “fair.”

Others will choose not to pay at all.  

Some will look both ways before taking some money from the can.

Some will unabashedly steal as much as they can, plus whatever is in the can.

I argue there’s a narrow range of what’s actually right and you should do if you have any character.

I know many of you choose to steal content, whether you rationalize that it’s because you’ve been wronged, or others do it, or no one is looking, or there’s no actual law against streaming unlicensed content, or you’re just a thief.  That’s okay, it’s your choice. Just own that you’re in a category other than the person who can be trusted to pay what you owe. 

What you do when no one is looking says everything about who you are.  

A guy walks into that store to buy a pair of scissors because, well, he has some cutting to do. He finds the scissors, but after seeing the strange situation with the missing shopkeeper and the can, he decides to just use the scissors right there. He returns them to their spot on the shelf, good as new, and walks out.

Another guy walks in to buy some scissors (there were some great coupons in the paper that day, apparently) and picks up the same pair.  He finds the can, goes back to double check the price of the scissors, calculates the tax, rounds up to the dollar and doesn't bother fishing change out when he pays.  As he starts for the door, he sees a woman looking at the other scissors on the shelf, coupon circular under her arm.  He goes over and tells her, "Hey, I just bought these scissors. You can use them if you want rather than having to buy your own."  She thanks him, calls her friend over from the other side of the store, and the women cut their coupons before giving the scissors back to him and leaving.

Crooks, all of them?  Okay, maybe just morally bankrupt?

 

[TakiToki]

Not really, the street performer is fully aware of, and consenting to, how his act is being viewed. He's choosing the medium, and hoping to elicit tips. The street performer hopes you leave money, but understand you are under no obligation to. 

It's the equivalent of taping the performance, and then adding it to you're site, to generate views and ad revenue, without the performer consenting.

As the passive viewer of a stream it's not like that at all. I am neither a party to any contract nor am I violating any law.

I understand why some folks, especially those in the industry, have strong emotions on the matter, but calling it stealing just makes people like me tune out and disregard other points which may have salience.

 

[jhib]

Yeah, that’s it, man.  It’s all just a communal pair of scissors.  No investment, intellectual property rights, Capex and Opex costs of those producing and distributing.  I should just be able to borrow the scissors man. Whenever I damn well feel like it.  Because #### the man.  

I just hope you’re not one of the yahoos who rail against socialists.  

 

So should I just guess that you appove of all of them? Perfectly okay or just not that bad?

Just trying to figure out what constitutes stealing here.

 

[Moe.]

As the passive viewer of a stream it's not like that at all. I am neither a party to any contract nor am I violating any law.

I understand why some folks, especially those in the industry, have strong emotions on the matter, but calling it stealing just makes people like me tune out and disregard other points which may have salience.

Copyright infringement isn't against the law, or you just aren't committing it when you watch a stream? 

What does passive viewer mean in this context? Just that you aren't physically downloading the file?

 

[Hastur]

R.I.P. Terrarium TV.  It was great while it lasted.

 

[TakiToki]

Copyright infringement isn't against the law, or you just aren't committing it when you watch a stream? 

What does passive viewer mean in this context? Just that you aren't physically downloading the file?

As I understand it (and there are other posts ITT and others that go into greater detail), the streaming process doesn't fulfill the necessary requirements of copyright infringement (possibly this is an incorrect assessment, as I admittedly haven't researched the issue in any depth). And I do just mean not downloading the file.

That said, I actually don't take part in it. I rarely watch anything but sports and pay my DirecTV bill solely for the purpose of putting a half-dozen NFL, NCAA or NBA games up on my wall. I just get irritated at what I consider to be over-the-top condemnation of the process.

 

[dickey moe]

Yeah, that’s it, man.  It’s all just a communal pair of scissors.  No investment, intellectual property rights, Capex and Opex costs of those producing and distributing.  I should just be able to borrow the scissors man. Whenever I damn well feel like it.  Because #### the man.  

I just hope you’re not one of the yahoos who rail against socialists.  

Railing against socialists is time well spent. Perhaps you'd be more effective there.

 

[Moe.]

As I understand it (and there are other posts ITT and others that go into greater detail), the streaming process doesn't fulfill the necessary requirements of copyright infringement (possibly this is an incorrect assessment, as I admittedly haven't researched the issue in any depth). And I do just mean not downloading the file.

That said, I actually don't take part in it. I rarely watch anything but sports and pay my DirecTV bill solely for the purpose of putting a half-dozen NFL, NCAA or NBA games up on my wall. I just get irritated at what I consider to be over-the-top condemnation of the process.

Right on. I'm certainly not morally outraged or anything like that, I just find a lot of the arguments from the pro-pirating crowd disingenuous. Obviously nobody thinks every single TV show and movie ever created should be available online for free, so there has to be a line somewhere. It's an interesting debate. 

 

[TakiToki]

Right on. I'm certainly not morally outraged or anything like that, I just find a lot of the arguments from the pro-pirating crowd disingenuous. Obviously nobody thinks every single TV show and movie ever created should be available online for free, so there has to be a line somewhere. It's an interesting debate. 

Agreed, it is quite interesting. To quote Joe Bryant's emails (maybe he got it from somewhere), life moves pretty fast. Applying principles developed under different conditions can be very challenging.

Even taking the next step to pirating, copyright infringement for personal use just doesn't resonate with me as a big bad. And to your converse, I find some arguments from the anti-pirating crowd to be disingenuous.

 

[Spin]

As the passive viewer of a stream it's not like that at all. I am neither a party to any contract nor am I violating any law.

I understand why some folks, especially those in the industry, have strong emotions on the matter, but calling it stealing just makes people like me tune out and disregard other points which may have salience.

Are you a passive viewer if you seek it out?  The street performer is doing it, 100% knowing his intended audience, and the manner in which they will be consuming it.  I just don't think these examples are related at all.

To be fair, I have not seen a good analogy in either direction, I don't think the coffee jar in the shop is the same thing at all, either.

I don't think that those who are viewing are breaking the law, as it is written.  I do think that those viewing illegal streaming are creating the demand for the illegal streaming.  If no one created the apps, or clicked on these links, then obviously the illegal streams would die out.  So, because there's a demand for it, it perpetuates the illegal streaming.

Let's say someone stole a car from a dealer, and then video taped himself doing it, and then crashed it at high speed into a wall.  Then this video goes viral, and so he steals another car, and crashes that one too.  This video, of course, also goes viral.  So he continues to do it, and people continue to watch his videos.  If no one watched his videos, he'd stop. But because people want to watch him, knowing full well that he is stealing these cars, he continues to do it. 

So how culpable are the people, who continue to tune in, and thus encouraging the person to keep stealing? 

I get the people watching him are not actually stealing it themselves, but they've created the demand for it, and thus, the thefts continue to exist.

 

[Spin]

“Copyright Office contends there is no violation when ‘a reproduction manifests itself so fleetingly that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated.’” 

I agree that the "streamer" does not appear to be breaking the copyright infringement laws as is. I was merely pointing out that you are, actually downloading it, when streaming. 

 

[TakiToki]

Are you a passive viewer if you seek it out?  The street performer is doing it, 100% knowing his intended audience, and the manner in which they will be consuming it.  I just don't think these examples are related at all.

To be fair, I have not seen a good analogy in either direction, I don't think the coffee jar in the shop is the same thing at all, either.

I don't think that those who are viewing are breaking the law, as it is written.  I do think that those viewing illegal streaming are creating the demand for the illegal streaming.  If no one created the apps, or clicked on these links, then obviously the illegal streams would die out.  So, because there's a demand for it, it perpetuates the illegal streaming.

Let's say someone stole a car from a dealer, and then video taped himself doing it, and then crashed it at high speed into a wall.  Then this video goes viral, and so he steals another car, and crashes that one too.  This video, of course, also goes viral.  So he continues to do it, and people continue to watch his videos.  If no one watched his videos, he'd stop. But because people want to watch him, knowing full well that he is stealing these cars, he continues to do it. 

So how culpable are the people, who continue to tune in, and thus encouraging the person to keep stealing? 

I get the people watching him are not actually stealing it themselves, but they've created the demand for it, and thus, the thefts continue to exist.

I don't consider street performing to be directly analogous in totality; only to the conditions set forth in post to which I was initially responding.

I agree with you that it creates demand for further copyright infringement. I just simply don't find that a sufficient condition for criminal punishment.

I do subscribe to the notion of supporting creative artists. I donate on Patreon even though the artist's music is easily available for free. I just think actual statutory regulations in this realm should be very narrowly targeted, and individual not-for-profit consumers don't reach such a level.

I do appreciate your thoughts on this, and it is very possible my opinions will shift as time moves along.

 

[tonydead]

You’re over-complicating it.  If the rights holder hasn’t expressly licensed the content to the source where you watch it, and you choose to watch it, you are stealing.  Stop blaming others, and stop doing it.

No. I don't have the moral hang up with it like you do.  Where do you get off forcing your morals on someone else?

Moral issues aside there are zero repercussions because it isn't illegal. Not theft, not even copyright infringement. FACT. 

 

[Spin]

I don't consider street performing to be directly analogous in totality; only to the conditions set forth in post to which I was initially responding.

I agree with you that it creates demand for further copyright infringement. I just simply don't find that a sufficient condition for criminal punishment.

I do subscribe to the notion of supporting creative artists. I donate on Patreon even though the artist's music is easily available for free. I just think actual statutory regulations in this realm should be very narrowly targeted, and individual not-for-profit consumers don't reach such a level.

I do appreciate your thoughts on this, and it is very possible my opinions will shift as time moves along.

I agree.  I don't think what the individual is doing is illegal, the question becomes, are you ok with supporting illegal activities, even if the means in which you support them are not illegal? (and of course, not YOU specifically, just a general question).

It seems like a lot of people are hanging onto the argument of "What I'm not doing is illegal, those other guys, who are hosting it are illegal! Go after them!" And they're not wrong, as long as they can admit, and be ok with, supporting activities that they absolutely know are illegal.

 

[Spin]

No. I don't have the moral hang up with it like you do.  Where do you get off forcing your morals on someone else?

Moral issues aside there are zero repercussions because it isn't illegal. Not theft, not even copyright infringement. FACT. 

Mr Ham has been pretty open about the fact that he works in the industry, so it obviously touches home for him, directly. 

 

[flapgreen]

Don't care if it's "legal" or not.  Not sure why anyone else does either. Use it or don't. 

 

[NotSmart]

It shukes me that some people won't be honest with themselves.

Whatever you do for a living, you get paid for it.  You take care of your family with that money and save it for retirement.

WIth piracy, you are using something that someone else created, owns, and sells for a living - and you want it but don't want to pay for it.

 

[tonydead]

It shukes me that some people won't be honest with themselves.

Whatever you do for a living, you get paid for it.  You take care of your family with that money and save it for retirement.

WIth piracy, you are using something that someone else created, owns, and sells for a living - and you want it but don't want to pay for it.

You're NotSmart. 

 

[tonydead]

A guy walks into that store to buy a pair of scissors because, well, he has some cutting to do. He finds the scissors, but after seeing the strange situation with the missing shopkeeper and the can, he decides to just use the scissors right there. He returns them to their spot on the shelf, good as new, and walks out.

Another guy walks in to buy some scissors (there were some great coupons in the paper that day, apparently) and picks up the same pair.  He finds the can, goes back to double check the price of the scissors, calculates the tax, rounds up to the dollar and doesn't bother fishing change out when he pays.  As he starts for the door, he sees a woman looking at the other scissors on the shelf, coupon circular under her arm.  He goes over and tells her, "Hey, I just bought these scissors. You can use them if you want rather than having to buy your own."  She thanks him, calls her friend over from the other side of the store, and the women cut their coupons before giving the scissors back to him and leaving.

Crooks, all of them?  Okay, maybe just morally bankrupt?

Yeah, that’s it, man.  It’s all just a communal pair of scissors.  No investment, intellectual property rights, Capex and Opex costs of those producing and distributing.  I should just be able to borrow the scissors man. Whenever I damn well feel like it.  Because #### the man.  

I just hope you’re not one of the yahoos who rail against socialists.  

 You guys crack me up. We didn't borrow a pair of scissors. We watched someone borrow a pair of scissors from across the street. Somehow we're culpable.  

 

[tonydead]

Back on topic, ignore the trolls. 

Terrarium and Morpheus running strong for me.   @ the shutdowns. Terrarium has multiple google links for the popular shows. Weird someone would abandoned the project by updating and reinforcing the scrapes. Wink. That's what we call throwing off the scent. 

 

[tonydead]

Mr Ham has been pretty open about the fact that he works in the industry, so it obviously touches home for him, directly. 

Dude, it's painfully obvious he's a shill. 

 

[Fat Nick]

Does anyone have a service that, like Terrarium, can deliver pretty much every movie ever made to my house via the internet that I can pay for?  Serious question (sort of).

 

[[icon]]

Does anyone have a service that, like Terrarium, can deliver pretty much every movie ever made to my house via the internet that I can pay for?  Serious question (sort of).

That would require the movie industry to quit being #####es, stop the slapfight, and address the real reason for the existence of TTV. 

But they won’t, and they’ll continue to point fingers. People are tired of the bull####. 

Reminds me of cabbies mad at Uber for giving people what they want for less than they were paying. Business 101: if you don’t give your customers what they want, someone else will. 

Sure some folks will stick with free options, but I think the success of Spotify and Apple Music make it pretty clear people WILL Pay for an “all access” media streaming service if a good option is presented. 

 

[mquinnjr]

That would require the movie industry to quit being #####es, stop the slapfight, and address the real reason for the existence of TTV. 

But they won’t, and they’ll continue to point fingers. 

Reminds me of cabbies mad at Uber for giving people what they want for less than they were paying. Business 101: if you don’t give your customers what they want, someone else will. 

Sure some folks will stick with free options, but I think the success of Spotify and Apple Music make it pretty clear people WILL Pay for an “all access” media streaming service if a good option is presented. 

Should be pinned, TBH.

 

[[icon]]

Should be pinned, TBH.

I notice Ham isn’t responding 

 

[culdeus]

I notice Ham isn’t responding 

He hasn't provided a single bit of proof that libraries pay per 20 transactions either. A lot of what he has said isn't really backed up with anything. 

Media consumers 20 years ago paid for contents with commercial viewing. Media content creators haven't replaced that revenue stream with current delivery methods.  Sorry.  That doesn't make everyone a thief automatically.

 

[Scoresman]

The technology exists to make all of this content available to people but because of licensing and other crap, it just hasn’t happened.

I use Terrarium TV but also have Netflix and Hulu subscriptions that I use. It’s all about ease of access for me. If a movie is on Netflix or Hulu that’s ideal since it’s so easy to get up and running. But not everything is available on Netflix or Hulu or even Amazon even though the technology would allow for greater libraries of titles. Maybe they should work on making more stuff available on the subscription services and less people would turn to things like Terrarium.