• werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months 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
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months 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
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months 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
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months 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
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months 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

                • iopq@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Okay, now tell me how pirate sites contribute to creation of said content

    • anlumo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months 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
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months 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.

          • zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

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

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months 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
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months 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]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months 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
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months 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.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months 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
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months 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.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • geekworking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Nobody gives a shit, you’re not doing enough to punish trump for his obvious, literally filmed and recorded crimes.

    This is the equivalent of the cops celebrating after beating peaceful college protesters while pissing their pants and freezing while the uvalde kids were slaughtered and psychologically tortured.

    You’re focusing on the non victory and ignoring the failures. Cowards.

    • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re focusing on the non victory and ignoring the failures. Cowards.

      That’s not true, they successfully did their job of protecting capital and the owner class. Same reason they don’t go after Trump. He’s in the owner class, so their job is to serve and protect him.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      When cops only legal responsibility is to enforce the law, and the laws are written to protect corporate interests, of course they will stand outside the school and arrest protesters. SCOTUS has ruled that way so many times that “to serve and protect” is literally gaslighting.

      • AlbinoPython@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Nobody gives a shit, you’re not doing enough to punish trump for his obvious, literally filmed and recorded crimes.

        This is the equivalent of the cops celebrating after bearing peaceful college protesters while pissing their pants and freezing while the uvalde kids were slaughtered and psychologically tortured.

        You’re focusing on the non victory and ignoring the failures. Cowards.

          • Lad@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Tout le monde s’en fout, vous ne faites pas assez pour punir Trump pour ses crimes évidents, littéralement filmés et enregistrés.

            C’est l’équivalent des flics qui se réjouissent d’avoir abattu des manifestants pacifiques à l’université tout en se pissant dessus et en se gelant pendant que les enfants d’uvalde se faisaient massacrer et torturer psychologiquement.

            Vous vous concentrez sur la non-victoire et ignorez les échecs. Lâches.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

  • paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    Unrelated to all of this: https://rentry.co/megathread

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months 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!

  • Dorkyd68@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The only thing I’m pisseed about is the fact that I was unaware of its existence. Fuck the system

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You can always start creating your own personal media server, using apps such as Plex or Jellyfin, and qBittorrent, SABnzbd, etc.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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?

    • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Five men convicted by the court of the high seas for being absolute chads

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    They’re here doing everyone a service. Why are there resources to prosecute this but not like elon musk’s insider trading?

    • rmuk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      ITT: Have you heard the good news about our lord and saviour, Jellyfin?

      • MSids@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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

        • stellargmite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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?

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

  • kakes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months 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.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    “Sophisticated scripts to scour pirate sites”.

    I think we’ve just found a new tagline for radarr and sonarr.

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You gotta be stupid as shit to run something like this from the US and keep a financial tail of credit card payments to you.

    You also gotta be stupid as shit to actually pay 10 bux for this.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It ran functionally uncontested for ten years. And it would hardly have been the first underground streaming service to pivot legit and cash out.

      Napster was sold for $85M back in 2002. Justin.tv rebranded as Twitch in 2011. Hell, AWS has it’s share of pirate hosted files.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah but megaupload was legit but was still shutdown despite being massive