• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

    • thirteene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I have 0 sympathy for the studios/distributors but they also did not pay the licensing fees.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        then i guess the studios should stop enshitifying streaming and make a service thats affordable and worth using, huh?

  • fartington@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    I don’t understand why you would pay for an illegal service when the other options are to pay legally or pirate.

    • exanime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Pirating implies some knowledge and effort some people may not have or want to get into

      Paid Legal services are so enshitified some people may think they are getting ripped up

      Paid illegal services are often HUGE bang for buck value (no enshitification, no limits, no nonsense and often better customer service)

    • polonius-rex@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      because piracy is a service problem

      if a pirate service legitimately offers a better service than netflix, hulu, vudu and prime video combined, why would you pay for any of those four?

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      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.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      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.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      piracy is a service issue.

      also, fuck IP owners, pigs got too fat while cutting on service.

    • slurpinderpin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      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)

    • kakes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Because all the legal services are incredibly anti-consumer and are offering less services, with (more) ads, for more money every year.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        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.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

    • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Because the legal options are garbage.

      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.

      To each their own.

    • sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      In addition to other things people responded with, piracy services tend to not collect users data or prevent us from watching with a VPN enabled.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        or prevent us from watching with a VPN enabled.

        Man this one chaff’s me the most. I way a paying Netflix customer like 8 years ago. I had IPv6 setup as a 6rd tunnel through HE (Hurricane Electric) because my ISP didn’t offer IPv6. Netflix treated that as a VPN and blocked me as a paying customer… Even though I lived/payed from the same fucking locale. It’s not like I was using a VPN to bypass a Geoblock. I was just making IPv6 available to myself. I cancelled because of that. You do not get to tell me how I access the internet at large, especially when I’m not even being shady about it.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      The majority of piracy is not free.

      I’ve paid for usenet, seed boxes, private servers, and more recently torrent cache services.

      You pay because it’s much cheaper than commercial services and a better experience with more content.

  • uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days 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!

    • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days 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.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

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

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days 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
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 days 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
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 days 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
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days 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
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

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

            • uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 days 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
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 days 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 days 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.

  • paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days 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

  • Nobilmantis@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Teoretically speaking, asking for a friend who’s doing research, how would you access such a service? :)

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      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.

        • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          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.

  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I think the shows have been better than the movies

      Succession was really good, for example

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        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.

        • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          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

          • silasmariner@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            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…)

          • suction@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            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.

            • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 days ago

              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

    • TheFonz@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      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

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yes, making movies is not an easy feat. But there’s plenty of good stuff coming out. Don’t know what to tell you.

  • Grippler@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days 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@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

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

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

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Yes. Charging money for sharing content like that makes them little better than grifters

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days 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
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days 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@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days 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
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days 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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days 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
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 days 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.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Farewell heroes. I may not have heard of you before, but I shall mourn your departure nevertheless.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

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