• @Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    I wonder how that compares to my own collection…

    I haven’t found a source for the size of Netflix/Amazon/Hulus libraries; but I haven’t looked all that hard either.

        • @MrJukes@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          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…

          • @Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

            • KillingTimeItself
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              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.

              • @MrJukes@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                Cool, I’ll check out tdarr. My server is sitting idle most of the time so I’m fine with it taking it’s time doing it in the background.

            • @TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              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.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            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.

            • @TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              They aren’t though, price per GB on renewed storage with warranty is less than 10 cents a GB. That’s insanely low compared to just five years ago.

  • @digger@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    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.

    So they used some variant of Sick Beard?

    • @aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      nah probably the arr stack

      Sonarr: (Automatic TV series downloads)

      Radarr: (Automatic movie downloads)

      Tdarr: (Automatic transcoding of media, can help save you a lot of disk space)

      Bazarr: (Companion app to Radarr and Sonarr, manages subtitles)

      Prowlarr: (A replacement for Jackett from the Arr team)

      Lidarr: Music

      Readarr: Books

      Mylar3: Comic books

      Plex-Meta-Manager: (Automatic collections and metadata)

      Overseerr: Request tracking and website front-end

      Ombi: Let users request both movies/tv shows from a simple web interface.

      Dopplarr: Discord bot to make movie/tv/anime requests

      Pulsarr: Browser extension for adding movies to Radarr or Series’ to Sonarr while browsing IMDB or TVDB.

      • @Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        Tdarr: (Automatic transcoding of media, can help save you a lot of disk space)

        That’s a new one to me, I’ll have to check that out. Thanks!

        Been doing conversions via Emby, but it’s not a very powerful tool for that.

    • @bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      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.

  • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    If five people can maintain a service bigger than all those combined, then the big streamers need to buck their fucking ideas up.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    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!

      • @aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          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.

          • @aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            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.

            • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              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.

              • @aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                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)

        • @Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          To be fairer nobody asked them to produce content. They decided to create it because it’s cheaper that licensing the actual good stuff.

          • @aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            eh some of it is good, I personally wouldn’t want to just watched licensed shows from 50 years ago

            • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 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.

              • @aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                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?

                • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  02 years ago

                  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.

      • @aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more

    • @GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      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.

  • Sidyctism II.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    Not all heroes wear capes, but some have a sidegig as firefighters

  • warm
    link
    fedilink
    02 years ago

    Just slap them on the wrist and send them on their way.

    • themadcodger
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      No, slaps on the wrist are only for rich people. If you inconvenience rich people, that’s unforgivable.

  • @shortwavesurfer@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    It’s sad that these people got taken down. Maybe the next people to do it will do it from a country that does not have extradition with the United States, so they would be safe.

  • @Grippler@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    “The group used “sophisticated computer scripts” and software to scour piracy services”

    They used the basic tools that most(?) pirates use today like sonarr and radar??

    I don’t mind people pirating…i do mind people pirating and profiting from redistribution.

    • Y|yukichigai
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      Guessing they used Sonarr, Radarr, qBittorrent, maybe an NZB client…

      Would you look at that, I’m sophisticated now.

    • sunzu
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      redistribution = service?

      Why would they work for free?

      Not gonna pretend like this aint illegal but i don’t cry over some IP owners losing money… EVER, fuck 'em

      • @Grippler@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        Oh I don’t care that the IP owner don’t get money.

        IDK, I just don’t like the ethics of pirating media for profit, the entire idea is that it should be accessible to everyone, not just those with money. Cover your operational cost? Sure…Making millions in subscriptions? That is an asshole move IMO. If you’re paying, you might as well pay the people who are making the media in the first place instead of some rando that had nothing to do with it.

        • sunzu
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          All fair points.

          I think the issue is that IP owners are mega corps, ie people who made the content don’t own it and can’t provide it anyway.

        • @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet. It’s not like they’re making DVDs of pirated movies and selling them on the street corner; they were basically just aggregating content and the service they were providing was making it easily searchable and accessible, not doing the actual pirating, from the sound of it, unless I’m misunderstanding the situation.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet.

            i would think it would be a little different from usenet, considering that usenet would be a service that you pay for, and people who use that service would host content on it, so that other users can download that content. Which effectively removes the immediate liability that you would have in this case, where you are explicitly hosting a pirated streaming service, and then charging for it, for the explicit purpose of streaming said pirated content.

            • @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.

      • @werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        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.

      • @tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        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.

          • @tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            They had to operate under the radar to avoid the law, so you know the answer to your question

            • @iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              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.

              • @tetris11@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                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

    • @anlumo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      They didn’t need the army of lawyers to get license deals, so that’s not a fair comparison.

          • @Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            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.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            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.

            • @Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              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.

              • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                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.

                • @Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  02 years ago

                  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.

          • @zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            Certain types of content. But YouTube’s own existence started because people made content without licensing rights.

            • @evidences@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              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.

              • @x4740N@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                I wonder what youribe would have been like if they didn’t sell to google

      • @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        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.

        • @calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          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.

          • @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            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.

      • @FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        Its almost like its unecessary shit made up in order to keep profits away from working people artificially

        • @WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          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.

        • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          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

          • @BossDj@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            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

  • @kakes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    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.