Yeah its almost like if we didn't keep extending copyright protections a bunch of stuff would be in the public domain and any streaming service could offer it without having to deal with licensing.
It's true that Hollywood is corrupt and csuite pay is absurd, but those deals are the only mechanism by which ANY money makes it to the writers, actors and staff who deserve it
It could be: New movie is released! Anyone who pays the price tag gets to stream it!
But no, we must bidding war gouge.
On top of that, X Y and Z services exist in America, but not in other countries, so in this other country, everything is on Netflix, while I had to jump between three different services at one point just to watch Stargate
Hey, you're just salty that you didn't get in on the ground floor when Stargate was being exclusively streamed in a dedicated Stargate streaming service
Technically YouTube exists because three horny nerds wanted a dating site with video integration. It only turned into a video sharing site when they realized they couldn't find the clip of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction and they decided they wanted to build that platform instead.
Not really. I can undersgand licensing but at this point it's become a distopian practice completely separated from the basic need to monetize the content an make a profit.
That's why those companies become such gargantuans monsters.
Nope. People will still make content. It'll be on far less of a budget, but that didn't stop the Film School generation of independent films in the 1970s (before which you had to sell your life and soul and beating heart to a studio). In between all the schlock were the occasional arty films we consider classics today.
And then there's government subsidization of art projects, as per the National Endowment of the Arts.
I think the MCU movies, the DC movies, the many studio iterations of Spiderman have shown us what capitalism eventually churns out. Sony actually chose this path content as product the same resort to formula that plagued the music industry in the 1980s (and drove the Hip Hop Independent movement of the next half-century).
We just need to empower artists. Make sure they don't have to moonlight as restaurant wait staff in order to eat and pay rent while they create, and make sure they have access to half-decent (not necessarily high end) hardware with which to do their thing. And yes, as Sturgeon observes, most of it will be schlock, but through sheer quantity of content we'll get more gems than Hollywood is putting out.
Not in the US or the EU. If you make music in the States, then RCA or Sony owns your content, not you, and when they decide they've paid you enough (which is much less than they're getting) then they still own your stuff. Also, if you make an amazing film or TV series ( examples: Inception, Firefly ) and the moguls don't like it, they'll make sure it tanks or at least doesn't get aftermarket support, which is why Inception doesn't have any video games tie-ins, despite being a perfect setting for video games.
Artists are empowered in their ability to produce art. If they have to worry about hunger and shelter, then they make less art, and art narrowly constrained to the whims of their masters. Artists are not empowered by the art they've already made, as that has to be sold to a patron or a marketing institution.
No, we'd get more and better art by feeding and housing everyone (so no one has to earn a living ) and then making all works public domain in the first place.
Intellectual property is a construct, and it's corruption even before it was embedded in the Constitution of the United States has only assured that old art does not get archived.
I think yes, an artist needs to eat, which is why most artists (by far) have to wait tables and drive taxicabs and during all that time on the clock, not make art. The artists not making art far outnumber the artists that get to make art. And a small, minority subset of those are the ones who profit from art or even make a living from their art, a circumstance that is perpetually precarious.
But I also think the public needs a body of culture, and as the Game of Thrones era showed us, culture and profit run at odds. The more expensive art is, the more it's confined to the wealthy, and the less it actually influences culture. Hence we should just feed, clothe and home artists along with everyone else, whether or not they produce good or bad art. And we'll get culture out of it.
You can argue that a world of guaranteed meals and homes is not the world we live in, but then I can argue that piracy (and other renegade action) absolutely is part of the world we live in and will continue to thrive so long as global IP racketeering continues. Thieves and beggars, never shall we die.
Sorry, I'm not going to read all that, but it seems like you're upset about the shitty deals made by record labels and other large corporations, not intellectual property rights.
The notion of the latter informs the former. The public domain is intellectual property rights of the people. Restricting the public domain takes that away.
So if an artist creates a piece of intellectual property, do you not think they should have control over how it's used? Including who can make profit off of it?
Infringement of IP is a crime according to specific states, but if you make art, and I replicate it, it doesn't affect you.
If you write a story and I read it without paying you, it doesn't affect you.
The only reason IP is a thing is because short-term monopolies on media (or inventions or methods) were enshrined by specific states as law, and then spread through trade agreements, and they were expanded on without concern for their original purpose or for the good of the public. In fact, we're seeing fair use rights fade since states aren't willing to enforce them, and platforms like YouTube over censor.
So at this point, in the US, the EU and the eastern market, no IP law would be better than what we have.
So no, you have not demonstrated any reason I should have respect for your IP.
However, if you're going to insist, and be an IP maximalist, there is one thing I can do for you /to you (or Sony, or Time Warner, or Disney) that is worse than pirating your product.
And that, of course, is not pirating your product.
You are thinking about IP with tunnel vision. You just want to gain entertainment for free. There's more than that to IP laws. How would you like it if you made art that was then used in a manner that you philosophically disagree with. For example, Meghan Trainor had a song that was used against her will in a political campaign against same sex marriage, she was able to cease and desist this use because of IP laws.
There's initial investment on the initial servers (and the software), and afterwards it should be a linear increase of server costs per user, with some bumps along the way to interconnect those servers.
The cost also scales per content. Because that means more caching servers per user and bigger databases, and licenses.
So this service has less users and more content, it should be way more expensive. The only reason they are cheaper is because they don't pay those licenses.
The cost of storage in this case is more or less irrelevant - traffic is what matters here. You're also not getting any mentionable bulk discount on the servers for that matter.
The key is that you can engineer things in completely different way when you have trivial amounts of traffic hitting your systems - you can do things that will not scale in any way, shape or form.
Like Boeing's CEO making 300 million.... imagine 300 people who worked their ass off could make million. Or 1500 hard workers could be making 200k. But nah, let's just drag these huge bags of money into this one asshole's account. Oh there were a couple of crashes right? 👍 Our thoughts and prayers 🙏. But not our money wagons.
Does Netflix make shows? Or does it slam its name onto filmmakers it pays to make content? If so, one of those things simply requires throwing cash at people, which I think is a skill that most people can learn.
So Netflix actually pays for shows to get made, so when everyone pays for Netflix, it lets everyone enjoy them. Pirate sites only extract value from the hard work of the producers, without paying them.
producers don't make the content, they speak to the right people in their exclusive circles to finance it, put their name on it, and then pay the directors and actors a tiny fraction of what it earned
They make the shows actually accessible so that they can reach the desired audience and generate a fanbase in the first place, which producers could then use to exploit for revenue.
If you covet a precious jewel behind closed doors, people will just walk on by without knowing its value
You might be overestimating how much content that was. Streaming services try to maintain an illusion of neverending content but last I saw except for prime, the amount of content they offer has been trending down.
Those numbers are fairly accessible for an average person with 3 or 4 large hard drives.
I’ve been trying to do just that and it’s slow going with qB, if one was looking to avoid dens of sins where you might find a usenet key, where should I stay away from?
They had a big library, but not the user base. They were definitely not maintaining anywhere near the infrastructure and bandwidth of major streaming platforms. Netflix claims 260 million users. It's not hard to get a giant catalog when you dont have to pay for it.
I run a massive streaming service too, which is also way bigger than all the streamers combined. It's just only distributed over my private home network. Jellyfin for the win!
For the first one at least you could solve it by running JF with a Chromecast or similar device.
Feels cleaner than a wireless mouse in the living room too, IMO
I find it convenient, but I've had pc's hooked to tv's since broadband became a thing. I can watch anything, download anything, play games, check banking, ect.
I have one of those Google streaming devices but I hate giving up my privacy. Also, I saw fast food ads on the device's home screen one day and I couldn't disable those. That was the last straw.
So now I use a raspberry pi 5 running arch with Firefox to stream everything to my TV. I even got a remote working with it that works fairly well, moves the mouse and everything. It was a lot of work but now I own my experience and don't have to give Google my data in that particular way anymore.
I have one of those as well for one desktop system. And I will stream to TVs as a second monitor from laptops sometimes. But I don't think that's the setup they have.
Which of course is a good setup if it works for them! Or for you :)
Already back in the 00s you could get a media player box, with a remote, that hooked to you TV and played video files from any share in your network or an HDD hooked up to it.
Nowadays you can get an Android TV media player box with Kodi on it (or you can install it), again with a remote and hooked to your TV to do the same as that 00s media player box but looks a lot more fancy.
Or instead of an Android TV you can get a Mini PC or older laptop, ideally with Linux, with an HDMI output which you connect to your TV, install Kodi on it and get a wireless air-mouse remote (if you get one with normal remote buttons rather than the stupid "for Google" ones, the buttons seamlessly integrate with Kodi so you don't really have to use the air-mouse stuff).
Alternativelly if you want to avoid Android but don't want to spend 150 bucks on a mini PC, you can get one of those System On A Board devices like one of the Orange Pi ones, put LibreElec on it (small Linux distro built around Kodi) and do the wireless remote thing with it.
The back end of any of this is either files on a NAS, on a share on a PC, a harddisk connected directly to the device or even something like Jellyfin running somewhere else (which can be outside your home network) or even any of the many IPTV services out there.
It has never been this easy to put together a hardware and software solution, entirely under your control - read: just as easy to use for corporate streaming services as for "personal" media - to watch media in your living room with the same convenience as purpose built devices for that, and it has never been this convenient to use or looked this good.
I think it's just easier to use a cheap computer. You can use your vpn, adblockers, takes zero setup time to watch whatever you want to watch.
The 00's comment, I modded the original xbox to run xbox media center (XBMC) which turned into Kodi. My friends where blown away I could download movies and watch them on my tv.
Well, the easiest IMHO is the Android TV box (mainly because it comes with a remote) but I personally have a cheap Mini-PC because I used it to do a lot more than just being a media box and it still just sits in the living room in the TV stand.
Way back when I started (trying to have something in my living room, rather that absolute started which was way before that) all that I had was a cheap media box with an interface that was basically a file browser, accessing files over Samba.
Stuff is way fancier nowadays AND you can do it with much cheaper hardware if you want to.
it's not weird at all, for one, you get to use a keyboard, for second, you get to use actual real hardware that isn't spying on you and selling your data. You also get to use a real QWERTY based, or whatever other layout you want that isn't ABCDE what a fucking abomination that layout is.
plus you get a whole desktop OS if you please, or if not you can cold roll something specifically for a TV. You just have so many more options, than you do when using a smart tv or generic streaming box.
You might want to consider streaming it on your TV. Modern TVs should have a Plex app at the least. Or use a Chromecast or other setup. I watch on my couch with the TV remote. Its the same experience as watching Netflix.
Plex isn’t Jellyfin though. Lots of TV’s/TV OS’s have Jellyfin app but it’s pretty basic. I’d recommend an AppleTV with Infuse, it’s super built out with all sorts of great features. It’s a better app than all of the streaming services
Macbooks beat the shit out of any comparable windows laptop. And iPads beat the shit out of any android tablet. And AppleTV is the best TV OS by far. Life must be hard when you just hate things because its popular to hate them.
I guess what I meant was to run it on a TV-native platform that you control with your remote, instead of streaming your PC display to the TV and still using the mouse and keyboard. Xbox has a Jellyfin app for example. I use Plex and my TV has an app for it. Also I can use Chromecast and throw it up from my phone or PC and control that with the remote.
Can’t use the scroll wheel for volume. It’s a pain aiming for the volume from across the room on the couch.
apparently this is supposed to be coming in the 9.0 feature release. So soon™ I'd have to look to be sure, but apparently it's coming.
Volume is weird, i feel like i'd almost like either a "volume target" option, to match volume levels between content, or some sort of fixed audio boost level. Idk.
Volume is weird, i feel like i’d almost like either a “volume target” option, to match volume levels between content, or some sort of fixed audio boost level. Idk.
Adding replaygain tags to your content could help here, but it's a manual process, particularly since it's not normally included in released videos. And I'm not sure if jellyfin supports replaygain tags from video (presumably it does for audio only files).
mpv definitely does support it at least, with "--replaygain=track".
Of course, none of this helps with OPs situation, because enabling replaygain will actually lower the volume on most files, so it can account for high dynamic range content.
yeah considering i have literal terabytes of youtube content on my jellyfin, i think i'll probably abstain, unless i do some really dirty automation on it, in which case i might not, because that would be funny.
Uh it’s just me and whoever is on my local network. I don’t port anything or have any users outside my home. When I go on trips I just download movies and shows from my network to my devices
That's the thing about all the pirate apps (apps like Weyd, Syncler, the now-defunct TVZion, etc). They're made by people that actually care, not by companies that are only in it for the money. The user experience is usually a lot better. One of those apps plus a Real Debrid subscription and you're set.
I’ve heard that you can download stuff from filmfans.org and serienfans.org with jdownloader. Reportedly it’s then possible to host it locally on your own Synology NAS and use Infuse on your Apple TV for a magnificent user experience.
Rumor has it that apps that use Real Debrid are way easier to use since you can just go to a TV show and watch it. Even a non technical person can use apps like Weyd. Real Debrid supposedly caches torrents on their server so you can instantly stream them over an encrypted connection.
If they're servicing that many users their UX should be better, but it's not. Search should work better, but it doesn't. They should let me make playlists, but they don't.
Yes, scale is hard but it shouldn't be hard to put a clock in the pause screen showing me what time the show will be done. And that's just a tiny way Plex is better.
You can get 12tb renewed drives for $100. A lot will even have decent warranties. If you’re lying for like, 3 streaming services, and cancel all three in favor of saving your own media locally it pays for itself quickly. Especially if you download stuff from like HBO Max.
This is doubly true now that streaming services have started raising prices and pay walling content.
really large hdds are still really expensive, the prices have somewhat plateaued at this rate. Nobody really needs such massive drives, and their isn't exactly an incentive to produce larger drives, especially now that everyone seems to be moving to ssds.
that's also renewed storage, and i guess compared to the last decade it's pretty good.
But even then compared to the continual creep of file sizes, it's debatable. I mean 4k took off the last 5-10 years. I have yt videos ranging from 1-20 GB for 4k content now.
How did you convert to hvec? I'd love to do that on my entire library but don't know where to start. I'd also love to burn subtitles into some foreign films since Plex is generally terrible at doing subtitles...
Up until now, I've been using the convert tool in Emby server. You can select a whole library and convert it, or individual items/playlists/collections; with options to automatically convert new media as it's added.
Tbh, I've been having a bit of trouble with it re-converting media it's already done, so I was looking for another solution.
Someone in this thread mentioned tdarr, so I'm going to be looking into that this weekend. Seems like a much more manageable tool with more powerful options.
/edit; I should also mention, this is a long process. Using an rtx4080, it was almost 3 full months non-stop to convert my entire media library from mostly h264 -> h265.
I should also mention, this is a long process. Using an rtx4080, it was almost 3 full months non-stop to convert my entire media library from mostly h264 -> h265.
and if you're looking to do software conversion you're easily looking at years, but considering how long most media servers will be up for, it might actually be worthwhile to aggressively automate that so it just runs in the background while you aren't looking. Also eats up additional CPU time which might be a benefit for someone.
Not trying to sound elitist, but...all the content combined still isn't worth $10. Mind you the last TV show I liked was Better Call Saul, the last Hollywood movie I liked was...let me think...The Irishman, I guess?
Since 2000 the amount of TV shows I truly enjoyed watching and would watch again was maybe 8. The amount of movies maybe 20. So less than one per year.
And because I don't have to watch stuff when it comes out, but am totally fine with watching things years later, when it's cheap or free, I'd wager I spend less than $10 per year on TV and movie entertainment.
Yes, they have been. But Succession is an example of a show which I thought I would like, and did for one season, but never finished, because the writing was so lazy and repetitive, and what's worse constantly pretending huge things happened while nothing actually happened.
its a character study, not a bombastic thriller. Same as the shows most folks rave about: Sopranos, Mad Men, Six Feet Under, The Wire, Arrested Development.. its fine to not like anything but I'm not sure why you'd take time to write about how you don't like anything. Do you find posts about, say, an art heist and post about how you haven't liked any paintings in a couple centuries
Ouch, comparing Succession to an absolute masterwork like the Sopranos hurts...and shows that you probably don't actually watch those shows but have them on in the background. And if Succession is such a character study, why do the writers pretend it's something else? It was a really bad show, man.
what you dont know could fill a book
I wouldnt put succession on the same tier as sopranos (very little comes close), all I was saying is its not about crazy plot twists, and more about the way the emotionally crippled kids of logan roy cosplay as human beings. I enjoyed it- jeremy strong and brian cox did a great job imo
Hollywood has been sucking ass lately, but lots of small indie films have been kicking ass. Everything from A24 has been fantastic recently. Lots of good foreign films too
Love how they make this sound like some incredible feat. When you aren't bound to license agreements, turns out it's actually very easy to have a "massive" content library. Literally the only hurdle is storage space.
I've never gotten Handbrake to do anything I wanted. DVD Shrink, on the other hand, is one of my top five most-used apps. It's quite old, but DVD encryption hasn't changed since its release.
Jetflicks, which charged $9.99 per month for the streaming service, generated millions of dollars in subscription revenue and caused “substantial harm to television program copyright owners,
The ownership class will tremble before a communist revolution!
Hence why copyright was originally in the 10-20 year range.
Movie star isn't supposed to be a dream job that makes you fabulously rich, but a decent living.
Interestingly, musical artists who work off the web will do exactly that: Tour and make hundreds of thousands instead of millions (in the aughts and 2010s, so pre-inflation), rather than rolling the dice with the record labels.
Capitalist ideologues, for one. I remember in Macroeconomics class that wealth desparity will destroy your economy and then your civilization if you let it get out of hand.
So when (for example) we have eight guys that own more than the poorer half of the world population, that's a bad sign for every economy on the planet, and is going to cause way more problems than merely discontent and social unrest.
That's rather dismissive. Also vague. Are you saying that the notion that wealth disparity is bad is just some guy's opinion, or that you're not supposed to be able to get rich being a movie star (or a private equity investor, or a hedge fund manager, or a California gold miner)?
Usually when people are vague and terse, I assume they're losing interest in the conversation. It's okay to walk away.
Are you saying that the notion that wealth disparity is bad is just some guy's opinion,
This is true yes, but back to the original topic
or that you're not supposed to be able to get rich being a movie star (or a private equity investor, or a hedge fund manager, or a California gold miner)?
This yes. I am saying nobody has any authority to assert what is or isn't supposed to be highly paid, but it is fair to believe nobody should be highly paid.
Usually when people are vague and terse, I assume they're losing interest in the conversation. It's okay to walk away.
I really do genuinely appreciate the consideration, I'm fine right now, but thank you regardless!
When it comes to capitalist macroeconomics, as I understand it, wealth disparity is one of the big decay factors the government is supposed to monitor and correct for. Mind you, I learned MacEc in the mid 1980s but even after theory shifted from national economies to globalist economics (the free(-er) trade movement of the 1990s) wealth distribution, and the bow of that graph was supposed to be kept shallow.
There are a lot of ways to restore some balance, such as taxing rich people and investing in welfare programs and social safety nets. In the case of freelance musicians (and freelance investments, which allowed people of lower income classes to invest sooner) these are just paradigm changes that allowed more people to participate, with the expectation that more people would be moderately successful rather than a few people being ostentatiously successful. Fewer Bruce Springsteens, more John Coultons. This wasn't contrived by government though, so it's more of a happy accident.
And yes, Marx in Das Kapital notes that the ownership class invariably captures government and regulation which ends efforts to keep wealth more evenly distributed so we have situations like now (or like the Great Depression, a century ago) where a few people own almost everything and aren't willing to let it go, even though the only thing they can do by hoarding their wealth is accumulate more wealth. And history has continued to bear this out, and to show that a well-regulated capitalist system is only temporary at best, which has driven me to believe we have to figure out something better.
Post-scarcity communism would be ideal, but we haven't yet worked out how to get there from here, and really I'd be happy for anything that doesn't turn into a one-party plutocrat-controlled autocracy held together by fascism and a nationalist war effort.
And sure, economics is a soft science so this is all just someone's opinion, though the someones in this case are multiple smart historical figures who actually thought about it a bit. I'm not an economist, so I rely on experts who are.
PS: This is my attempt to either find common ground, or to lay plain what my position is and where it comes from. I'm not invested in you adopting it, but if you want me to consider a different one, I'll need cause to do so.
The service they provide (from a perspective external to obligatory capitalism) is less about making them, but providing a framework by which people engaged in artistic expression and development get paid and permitted to survive.
As the COVID-19 Lockdown furloughs demonstrated to us, art manifests so long as people are fed and need something to do. Healthy humans can't couch-potato for two weeks without fidgeting and whittling wood into bears. And the great resignation that followed showed that enough people were able to make it lucrative (that is, work out marketing and fulfillment enough to make it profitable enough to quit their prior job) that it lowered worker supply that we were able to contest the shit treatment, low pay and toxic work environments that were normal before the epidemic.
It gets worse in other industries like big pharma in which the state provides vast grants for R&D of drugs and treatments, but the company keeps all the proceeds. Contrast the space program, which is why memory foam (the material) is in the public domain, as is a fuckton of electronics and computer technologies.
The service they provide (from a perspective external to obligatory capitalism) is less about making them, but providing a framework by which people engaged in artistic expression and development get paid and permitted to survive.
If it is art that other people value then that framework already existed(and there are many others who created similar tools for it) so I don't see it as particularly valuable.
Contrast the space program, which is why memory foam (the material) is in the public domain, as is a fuckton of electronics and computer technologies.
There is a compelling argument that tens of billions of dollars being used productively to research anything would have at least some useful results. Memory foam, cordless drills, etc could have been developed much more cheaply than the Apollo program, GPS is extremely valuable, but Apollo wasn't a necessary precursor to geostationary orbit.
If it is art that other people value then that framework already existed
From Wikipedia on Vincent Van Gogh:Van Gogh's work began to attract critical artistic attention in the last year of his life. After his death, Van Gogh's art and life story captured public imagination as an emblem of misunderstood genius
The art we get from pre-made frameworks emerged because people figured out they like art, and then someone capitalized on that. Or in cases of monarchs and governments, they created a fund to allow artists to do their thing instead of waiting tables.
There is a compelling argument that tens of billions of dollars being used productively to research anything would have at least some useful results.
For every $1 spent on the moonshots, we got $14. Feel free to look for other investments, but big science really has proven itself.
From Wikipedia on Vincent Van Gogh: Van Gogh’s work began to attract critical artistic attention in the last year of his life. After his death, Van Gogh’s art and life story captured public imagination as an emblem of misunderstood genius
I don't really understand how this follows from what I said.
For every $1 spent on the moonshots, we got $14. Feel free to look for other investments, but big science really has proven itself.
Do you have a source for that? (And what that claim actually means), afterall, plenty of "essential" inventions in the modern day(including the base of modern rocketry) came from weapons development- does that make war a good investment? (Of course its not 1-to-1 because war is destructive, but my point is putting a lot of effort and smart people into almost anything will lead to a lot of innovation)
I don’t really understand how [The bit on Van Gogh -- that he was only posthumously appreciated in the art sector] follows from what I said.
My following paragraph is about that. Art often happens before the framework made to create it. In fact, when we have set up studio, they're already doing knock-offs, trying to repeat prior successes.
For every $1 spent on the moonshots, we got $14
Do you have a source for that?
This came up during a TED talk on the benefits of investing in big science. On an unrelated research effort, I found the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 which Eisenhower signed during his freak out over Sputnik, and the big grant to Fairchild Superconductor which kicked off the electronics boom in Silicon Valley (~San Jose, California), so the $14 value is certainly plausible.
As per Das Kapital our industrialists always move to capture regulation and seek to eliminate competition, which are the two aspects that can make capitalism work for the public. Then you have what we have today, late stage capitalism which is about tiers of rent, so everything is both shoddy and expensive.
That's how Disney and Warner Brothers (Warner Sister too!) end up owning all the franchises. It's how Sony owns all the music and sues to take down dancing baby videos.
The EU and California have both made in-roads to slowing down the steady takeover of regulatory bodies and the mulching and mass merging of megacorps into monolithic monopolies, but they can't stop it, and both are seeing the bend into precarity that is symptomatic of late stage capitalism.
That said, true post scarcity communism is realistically a pipe dream well beyond a few great filters we've yet to navigate, but we will see small victories, of which piracy -- what is essentially crime against ill-gotten gains -- offers more than a few.
caused “substantial harm to television program copyright owners,_
Maybe? People willing to copy and distribute this content will always be around and you will never catch them all. People willing to pay a discount or seek not and find said content will always be around. And there will be those who will watch a show or a movie because it is freely available, who would never pay a dime for it.
They will never end piracy and I'd argue it might actually be bad for business if they did.
We already have the private copying levy in Germany and some other countries, where you have to pay a fee for several products (printers, scanners, storage media like HDDs, SSDs, SD cards and thumb drives...) due to the potential that you could do (legal!) private copies of copyrighted media on them.
The copyright collectives can set the amount of the fees freely (and it's ridiculously high).
This comes shockingly close to the concept already.
I'm not sure about other countries, but here in Czech we actually have a mandatory subscription, that's absolutely bullshit.
So far, the law is that if you own any TV or radio, you have to pay monthly fee for public service broadcasters (national Czech TV). It's bullshit, the channels are full of ads anyway, and the shows they run and create is insultingly bad. Sure, it is important to have public service broadcasters that are not dependent on the state (because state-owned TV is reeaallly bad idea), but FFS can they just reduce costs and stick to news, instead of doing another stupid series, and stop forcing us to pay for something I don't care about or use?
You could just not pay the fee, if you state you don't have a TV capable of receiving it (which I don't). But now, they are changing the law that everyone who has any kind of internet-capable device has to pay the monthly fee, while also rising prices to something like 6 EUR per month. Fuck that and fuck them.
You know, I've heard this gospel before, I might still have the pamphlet...
Honestly, I haven't really looked into jellyfin yet. I hear it's superior in some way... But I already have Plex all set up and I have 4 friends with servers and we all share content. So it would take a lot for me to switch.
It really isn’t superior. It’s just the hivemind that gets annoyed with Plex being stagnant, not open source etc. that claims it is. At best it has feature parity for some use-cases. Don’t get me wrong, it’s neat, but it’s not as polished as Plex.
really? I never had an issue with just sticking it behind a reverse proxy, doing some port forwarding, and setting an apex domain record, that was it. curious what wasn't working for you?
Plex operates a service on their end that mostly covers you if you fuck up the network routing. It's probably the least user friendly part of the setup, so kind of a big deal.
I'm trying to switch to Jellyfin I really am. With Plex I could just throw a file bot at my files normalize the names and it was fine. I can't mark things watched or unwatched from the Roku client. I've now tried three separate times to get the Doctor who specials to show up with names. Plex is by no means perfect but it's so much easier to keep Plex goomed
I was fretting over Doctor Specials, season numbers, eras and naming a few weeks back. In fairness it has been running since black and white times so not too bad considering. Whats a filebot by the way and whats a good one?
Filebot a piece of software, it looks up your files on TMDB and themoviedb and renamese your files based on those lookups. Plex takes that naming very very well. We really need jellyfin to work with it too.
I always wonder why some people are so dedicated to Jellyfin. Even if JF had full feature and experience parity, it would still not have secure remote access the way Plex does. There is no need to port forward or NAT Plex for external access if you use app.plex.tv to access. With the threat landscape the way it is today, that is worth a lot.
Plex can "hide" (not really) your own server because you can direct your users on Plex.tv (they can login there, etc. without ever typing your IP address).
But Plex can also use an internal reverse proxy that lets you see your content from outside even without port forwarding. However, quality and speed will be decreased.
I think Jellyfin should work to ease the process of setting up your server as much as they can, but unless they start managing a SaaS like Plex does, they'll never be able to offer the same simplicity for the end user.
personally, I wouldn't want my files going through plexs servers, especially with how shit I've heard they are with their privacy policy. that's a really interesting concept tho, and makes a lot of sense. I doubt jellyfin will ever do that simply because they don't have the resources to host that as you said.
thanks for the explanation tho! greatly appreciated
Plex, as a company, definitely is aware of what items are in your library but streams don't go through the Plex servers unless you use the Plex proxy service which is enabled by default but only used when the client connection speed is too slow to use the desired streaming setting.
Everyone who accesses their Plex externally should use app.plex.tv rather than NAT/port forwarding unless you're also doing IP whitelisting on the NAT (not feasible for most remote access scenarios, as IPs are dynamic in most cases). Jellyfin should never be exposed externally.
I work in a highly regulated sector of IT and have learned that even the most robust software will have serious exploits at some point.
Last time I looked at Jellyfin server setup was fine. It's getting non-techies to a place where they can access it that was rough. They're getting better with 3rd party app support but Plex has a huge head start.
Both the client and server connect to plex.tv which then brokers the connection between them. They essentially work as a very limited vpn between your clients and server.
This also gives them unrestricted access to the entirety of data passed between devices; and the ability to request any and all info from your server to be handed to whoever they chose.
This is also how they allow you to 'share' content/libraries with each others servers; through their public infrastructure that's collecting your information. Information they then sell to third parties to support their development and broker content agreements.
Plex is a privacy nightmare that's slowly trying to faze out you having a server all together in favor of feeding you commercialized content from other providers; and many people find Jellyfin is far too unpolished/disorganized for a lot of debatable reasons I won't go into.
I've been quite happy with the middle ground: Emby. It's not FOSS, but is well polished with consistent development, great feature parity across platforms, excellent clients for pretty much every device I'd want to use, and a helpful community ready to assist with any problems you come across. They also have a heavy focus on privacy; with no third party partners collecting your info like Plex, and no telemetry sent from servers/clients.
The lifetime premier license I bought 7 years ago was well worth it.
Yes. Emby was originally open source, but people would regularly fork it to remove the licensing. When they chose to go closed source; jellyfin forked that final release and has built from there.
Emby has a premier licencing system to support their development, instead of selling user data and making deals with content providers like Plex, or depending on OSS development/contributions like Jellyfin.
As far as I understand almost 80% of jellyfins current code is the original Emby code (called 'media browser' or 'MB' at the time), though to be fair, I haven't verified that claim.
If there was no DEMAND it wouldn't exist. It exists illegally specifically because it can't be done legally at the price point. That doesn't mean anyone needs it, all the content is presumably available elsewhere. It just costs money and people don't want to pay money.
I don't want to pay money either, I'm just not high minded about it.
Want is not the issue. You can want anything and everything but unless you are able to pay, the need arises for access to the material for a price you can pay that the "legal" owners either dont comprehend or refuse to in the name of greed.
That doesn't track at all. I can't afford a Lamborghini so the need arises for access to stolen Lamborghinis for cheap? It's absolutely not a need, you can just go without or only access the free media that is available to you. In the car example, I can just buy an old Civic.
If it's stealing bread to feed your family that is one thing, because it's an actual need. If it's getting stuff because you want the more expensive version instead of the version you can afford, there's no need there.
The ethical argument is that there's no one harmed because you can't afford it anyway. It's not that you need it like a starving man's bread.
Just one specific point of contention. A physical object is very different from an object that can infinitely and effortlessly be copied with 0 degradation of that thing.
I think you are making a good argument and but maybe not the best example.
I think there is significance in the difference that needs to be accounted for in any discussion of piracy as theft.
It is currently, and has been for a long time, legal to copy music from the radio or movies and tv shows from a broadcast(but not pay per view, or copys for distrubution) or go to a library and borrow whatever interesting (to you) media they have.
If you're saying "you should not restrict ALL culture to rich people" then, we're not. There is plenty of culture available for free on YouTube, or on broadcast TV channels, or FreeVee. And paying for one paid subscription doesn't make you rich, $10/mo or whatever is an accessible price for a subset of digital media to a non-rich person. And those libraries are sufficiently large that you would not run out of material to watch even if you only had one service.
If you're saying "everyone should be provided literally all digital content for free at all times" that is a pretty extreme position which does sort of break the economics of any content being produced. Digital content would have to be plastered in way more ads or be government subsidized or something to have the money to make more of it. That's not a political position I'd be on board with.
If you just want the current system but with you being allowed to download the stuff you want to see on services you don't pay for...again, there's an argument for that, but let's not pretend it's some high minded one. It's selfish. You probably have the money to pay for HBO Max for one month to watch the new Game of Thrones and the Barbie movie but you don't want to pay money and it's really easy not to.
Yea, I understand the problems you describe and I am not a genius who knows how to solve that problem. I want to point out that I consider ads and tracking as privacy invasive.
In my opinion the solution should be a way where we can ensure loss of media at all cost where the whole humanity has access to all human culture and knowledge in a reasonable timeframe (not the livelong time the copyrights hold today)
And competition on the market should be about the best way to deliver content, not about on delivering which content.
The group used "sophisticated computer scripts" and software to scour piracy services... for illegal copies of TV episodes, which they then downloaded and hosted on Jetflicks’ servers.
If you're using sickbeard, switch to medusa. The originally developer of sickbeard is a nut case. He took the project back from the team that was doing development so they forked it and renamed Medusa.
There are resellers in the US who will set you up with the infrastructure to do it yourself. You don't need much and it's less expensive than you'd think, almost turnkey.
Demand is more than high enough in poor areas too, they probably made a really good return before it shut down.
