Proving Netflix could be replaced by five hard working people.
They didn’t need the army of lawyers to get license deals, so that’s not a fair comparison.
Their scale was also an insignificant fraction of what Netflix has, making the point even more irrelevant.
The best figure I could find on Jetflicks user count was 37k, where as Netflix has 269 million users.
Prices should go down with scale not up though.
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.
Its almost like its unecessary shit made up in order to keep profits away from working people artificially
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’s the exclusivity bullshit that gets me.
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
Stargate+ Maxx Ultraviolet
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.
I mean that’s all well and good, but then how would the very deserving shareholders get dividends?
Won’t somebody think of the shareholders!?
PLS KEP LNE GOE UUP
- Take over a failing company
- Hold a shareholder meeting
- Show the line going down
- Turn the chart upside down
- Become a hero to the shareholders
maybe if they actually invested some money somewhere they would make some money for once.
Or fund new content
If we get rid of the licensing we get rid of the lawyers.
If you get rid of licensing you get rid of the content
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.
If you save the cheerleader you save the world.
If you save the cheerleader then the creepy serial killer will join the team.
Certain types of content. But YouTube’s own existence started because people made content without licensing rights.
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.
I wonder what youribe would have been like if they didn’t sell to google
I don’t think YouTube really compares to Netflix
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.
If you take away the ability to own and control your intellectual property, then you won’t be empowered.
Licensing art allows creators to earn a living off of their hard work.
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.
Proving Netflix could be
replacedoutdone by five hard working people.Proving Netflix should
couldbereplacedoutdone by five hard working people.ProvingNetflixshouldcouldbereplacedoutdoneby five hard working people.
Things are easier if you can steal stuff. And operate on a small scale.
The only reason all companies prices go up these days is for CEO pay packages
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.
Regulate monopolies and eat the rich.
I think it’s more for major shareholders (which includes CEOs, of course)
Did they make the shows too?
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.
Did the pirate site pay anyone to make new shows?
They had to operate under the radar to avoid the law, so you know the answer to your question
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
Okay, now tell me how pirate sites contribute to creation of said content
Does Netflix? Or do they pay production companies for content?
They use the subscription money to pay production studios. What did the pirate site use the subscription money for?
Servers, electricity, bandwidth, blackjack and hookers.
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.
I think the shows have been better than the movies
Succession was really good, for example
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
Quite a lot happened in the Wire TBF (also I think it’s the strongest of the ones you’ve mentioned, largely for that reason…)
I guess… a lot of the time it was Landsman eating Arby’s at his desk
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
Even A24 has a track record of 1 in 10, getting worse.
Yes, making movies is not an easy feat. But there’s plenty of good stuff coming out. Don’t know what to tell you.
All my favorite movies this year have been on youtube.
Most of them by Joel Haver.
Sire!
Tony Ladruzo?
Huzzah!
You don’t sound elitist, just a little boring.
If five people can maintain a service bigger than all those combined, then the big streamers need to buck their fucking ideas up.
its amazing how good services can be if some just skip the corporation-obligatory adding of enshittification. i remember an article about a downloadable (but not very legal) DVD with an installer for a (worthless but very popular) OS that included heaps of expensive industry software and the installer was point-klick what you want and then all is done in background and fully usable once done. reading that article it seemed to be a better installer than ever produced by any company for any product.
however as that payed streaming service seemingly leaves huge amount of bank records and ran for such a long time, i guess it would have been easy to stop their customers from paying them. it rather might seem that the real intentions of content corporations might not truely be what they officially claim. maybe we learn in 25 years that the content corporations really were behind such services, maybe like “better get money from ALL markets!” or such.
If there is no need,such places would not exist
Why didn’t you nerds tell me about this, I’m over here hoofing it with this got damn 2tb ssd
22tb emby server. For my home videos and pictures.
Your mom is very proud or at least that’s what I think she said… either that or don’t be too loud 🤔
Always cool to meet someone good with a ouija board.
I summon her with hard dick and bubblegum
My condolences. She was a terrible bitch but if you’re into that sort of thing.
I’m a terrible motherfucker so we vibe no cap
only 2tb? that’s the size of my cache drives
Impressive, how many inches is your clit?
Bruh, I might have to steal this
As long as you always respond to their answer with ‘OHHH SCISSOR ME TIMBERS’
… LARC cache? Ha! Get on my level, 1.2TiB RAM BB
# Set Max ARC size => 1.2TB == 1,293,222,768,640 Bytes options zfs zfs_arc_max=1293222768640 # Set Min ARC size => 180GB == 193,273,528,320 Bytes options zfs zfs_arc_min=193273528320
Depending on your TV, you can probably stream video directly to it from your computer.
Realdebrid + stremio just google those you’ll be happy friend
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!
You’re under arrest!
Throw this national menace into federal max security solitary confinement, next to Hannibal Lecter >:/
Not without paying licencing fees for Hannibal Lecter first!
What a terrible shame it would be to have a friend over to watch the telly without a loicense…🧠, wouldn’t you say?
You ever heard of a man Hannibal Lecter he was a “nice guy”.
- Donald J Trump
How many PBs you got and how many clients (humans)?
How much traffic across your network in terms of a daily average?
Do you have a local recommendation system running? For example I found a last.fm clone, self-hosted hut I haven’t found much for video
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
Love my Jellyfin server, but I have 2 gripes over just using VLC.
-
Can’t use the scroll wheel for volume. It’s a pain aiming for the volume from across the room on the couch.
-
JF won’t boost volume past 100% like VLC.
Know of any fixes?
It’s weird to me that anyone would use a PC hooked up to a TV from a couch in 2024, but I’m sure it (otherwise) works for you.
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.
Why is weird?
Instead of using a streaming or other settop device? That’d be far, far more normal for the use cade.
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.
Fair enough.
I’m using a wall-mounted TV as a 2nd monitor.
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.
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.
Are you playing directly on your server?
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, IMOYou can run your Jellyfin connection inside of Kodi which has a ton of configuration options like the volume control.
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.
I am streaming to my TV. 50" TV on my desktop for a daily driver, 55" (wired) on the wall for media.
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
Ew Apple
I know this might sound crazy, but I use both Apple devices AND non-Apple devices! Oh the horror!
Ew Apple
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 don’t watch on my computer, that’s just where it’s hosted. I watch mostly on my AppleTV using Infuse (also great for other Apple products as well)
Use kodi for last mile?
VLC is great as a file playing app, terrible as a home server…
JF won’t boost volume past 100% like VLC.
For when you need to take it to 11
Couldn’t you just make 10 louder?
What platform are you on that you need to use VLC?
Windows PC. I’m wired from my 50" TV monitor to a 55" on the wall.
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.
-
It harmed no one and nothing.
TV and Film are just angry that competition did it for a reasonable price and provided a superior service for it.
I have 0 sympathy for the studios/distributors but they also did not pay the licensing fees.
then i guess the studios should stop enshitifying streaming and make a service thats affordable and worth using, huh?
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 mean, distributing it isn’t a small feat. Plus you need to manage subscriptions, billings, CMS, a front end to navigate the content, etc.
That’s no small amount of work, even if they used out of the box solutions for many layers.
All of those things already exist. Typically it’s just a Plex server running on a cloud service.
Yeah like… Netflix has peering agreements and whatnot but… It’s not 2005.
5 people could do it though.
Depends how many users.
But yeah a lot.
Both Wikipedia and Stack Overflow just have a few dozen fast servers despite being some of the world’s highest trafficked websites
The entire content of the wikipedia fits in a pen drive.
Streaming video is a lot more expensive than text and images.
That is just the text content, Wikipedia has pictures and videos as well. Not to mention the other Wikimedia projects
I doubt Wikimedia streams even 0.1% of what netflix does.
Not only that, stackoverflow does it using windows! (or used to, at least)
Yeah it costs, depending on quality of course.
My 14 TB disks are filling up faster than I expected and I am not close to Netflix’s catalogue.Yeah, I got a 14tb drive back in February and it’s 90 percent full already. My media collection will always grow to fill the space available.
You guys wouldn’t happen to have any tips on DVD ripping would you? I’d like to go all digital but I just can’t make Handbrake work.
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.
This is my fork of an existing solution
https://github.com/JustAnotherIdea/MakeMKV-Auto-Rip-Concurrent-Ripping-and-Blu-Ray-Fix
5 times the content. Where do I sign up?
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.
It’s called notjetflix.org.gov
If they had more content on offer than the big legal streaming services combined, should that not tell us something about the quality of legal offers?
What’s there to learn that isn’t already widely known? Existing (copyright) laws are asinine and all corporations eventually become consumed by greed. That’s America in a nutshell.
Capitalism wherever it is found. Not just the USA.
It’s not even copyright laws, it’s everyone insisting on exclusive contracts. There’s no reason a piece of content couldn’t be on Netflix and Disney+ at the same time. It would be a lot better for consumers if streamers could compete on price and service instead of which content they managed to create/licence.
Music streaming has proven this for years now, all the major brands have massive collections that make its super easy to pay and listen to just about anything.
Early Netflix proved this when everything was readily available for an affordable pricre.
Me in the 90s and 00s: yarrrr!
Me in the 10s: it feels good to be legit
Me in the 20s: YARRRRRRRRR!
Yep, you choose between Spotify, Tidal, etc based on price and how well the app works, not because one service has the band you like while the other one doesn’t (not that music streaming isn’t its own shitshow for other reasons, of course).
The situation is a lot better with music, but it’s not perfect. There’s still issues with region locking content, and content only existing on one service and not another.
There are also issues paying creators instead of rights holders
Exactly. I like Netflix’s service, but Disney’s content. Why can’t I just pay for a Disney bundle on Netflix? Likewise with Max, Peacock, etc.
Lawyers are why we can’t have nice things.
The poor copyright holders. Won’t someone think of the corporations for once?
Yeah, I’ve got one of those too. Plex is great.
ITT: Have you heard the good news about our lord and saviour, Jellyfin?
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.
Wasn’t Jellyfin developed using the Emby source code as a starting point?
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.
Couldn’t get on with Jellyfin…emby however has been fantastic!
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.
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.
Tbh, I just like that mobile app watching is free instead of paywalled
Jellyfin is a bitch to get working outside my network. I don’t get how Plex made it so easy
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?
The number of people I’ve come across that are absolutely baffled by the concept of port forwarding…
Then you add CGNAT ontop and things can get really complicated for someone unfamiliar.
…do what now?
Lol
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. With the threat landscape the way it is today, that is worth a lot.
I haven’t used Plex in a while, but I’m confused how Plex handles WAN connections without using any port forwarding? how is that possible?
I think there’s a misconception.
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.
I have not looked into it for a while but I believe their servers broker a direct connection between the client and server.
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.
Lasted a week and went back to Plex.
Teoretically speaking, asking for a friend who’s doing research, how would you access such a service? :)
There’s plenty of services like this that people use a firestick to connect too.
My friend uses one but I forget the name of it. You can find them online but people usually buy a package of say 20 connections and then sell them to friends and family. I’ll try and remember what to search for and come back.
Edit: IPTV is a good search term.
Legend
IPTV is the name of the pirated cable TV streams. Personally, I consider commercialized piracy to be a bit distasteful compared to the free and open source route, and I have the know how to self host my own streaming service.
Although it’s not piracy, another free option to consider for live TV, if you’re within range of TV broadcasters, is a digital TV antenna. I’m looking into that since not only is it free and legal, it’s also the best picture quality, not compressed like IPTV (legit or pirated) or even cable.
I’m in the UK, so loads of live TV over the air.
Nah just a regular dude trying to help others when I can.
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!
cringe
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.
Yeah that competition really did demonstrate what an awful service all those media monopolies provided.
To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more
To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more
To be fairer nobody asked them to produce content. They decided to create it because it’s cheaper that licensing the actual good stuff.
eh some of it is good, I personally wouldn’t want to just watched licensed shows from 50 years ago
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.
Movie star isn’t supposed to be a dream job that makes you fabulously rich, but a decent living.
I mean, supposed to according to who?
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.
Netflix service started as hosting only.
correction… Netflix started by mailing DVDs, even before Redbox was a thing
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)
