Honestly pretty funny to call the site "Jetflix" and advertise it as nothing but aviation videos. Nobody would know what you're up to until they pay you.
How much you wanna bet a aerospace nut subscribed to this because they love Jets, and immediately reported this site to the authorities because he got the avengers movies rather than Airbus maintenance videos or something...
Pretty stupid though to run this site out of the USA. Terrible opsec. They really just seemed to trust that nobody who cares would ever figure out what they were doing. Plenty of similar sites out there that don't even need to hide what they are because they are well outside of American jurisdiction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The group used “sophisticated computer scripts” and software to scour piracy services (including the Pirate Bay and Torrentz) for illegal copies of TV episodes, which they then downloaded and hosted on Jetflicks’ servers, according to federal prosecutors.
They probably used Sonarr and Radarr and called it a day (or similar off-the-shelf tools available on GitHub). It's not very sophisticated at all. That combined with Jellyfin and a VPN (or Usenet or a country that doesn't care about piracy) and you have your own up and running. You could also just use free sites with an ad blocker instead of paying $10/mo like the service this article is about charged.
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
For the elderly folk who write and enforce the laws that caused this to come to pass, sufficiently advanced technology just means more complex than notepad
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.
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.
Check out Softwarr "for free" or Real Debrid and Stremio/Kodi if you wanna spend some well spend money, the latter guarantee more content than Netflix etc, the former everything that could ever exists on the internet.
My guess is because they did all the pirating for you so you didn't have to worry about dealing with the technical hurdles of doing so.
If a service like this came around that allowed me to pay with Monero and did not require any personally identifiable information, I would totally fucking use it.
My guess is It's probably cheaper and has much greater variety. You can watch anything from any streaming service through one single interface at the price of one service.
because IPTV is like $6 per month and has every single channel known to earth.... it's a tiny fraction compared to any cable especially if you watch sports (the only real reason to pay for cable anyway)
The entire system exists for the benefit of business, not customers.
Just look at what happens with accused theft in a store. You get accused of theft? Cops are there in no time, take you to the ground, throw you in the back of the cop car. only after they've gotten the humiliation and brutalization in might someone come and take your proof that you didnt steal anything.
You accuse the store of stealing from you? Due to not following their own policy on returns, or overcharging and an item and not fixing it Police won't even show. just tell you its a civil matter and to suck it up.
I dont subscribe to any streaming service (except the occasional free prime trial, to be full disclosure), not even the one in the news story... but I can still answer your question..
Because I want to pay a single service to watch everything. Like Netflix used to be. Watch everything I want, for one monthly price that was reasonable.
But its not like that anymore. Every company looked at how well Netflix used to do, went "Fuck them! I want all that money for my self!" and took their content off Netflix, and made their own streaming services.
Now if you want to consume any media, You have to subscribe to 50 different subscription services, for hundreds of dollars a month, Which is just Cable 2.0 but with worse service and options.
You pay like $5/Mo for the content of all streaming services and more instead of the $500/Mo it would cost to subscribe to each of them individually. Plus you're not taking any legal risk as a customer.
The pirates provide a better service with more content for cheaper than the legal options; and pirating yourself takes effort as well as cost (hardware, trackers, usenet, etc).
Some people are happy to just pay for decent service; others like to learn about the process, then setup and run their own servers.
