this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
565 points (98.6% liked)

Selfhosted

40329 readers
418 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

*What rights do you have to the digital movies, TV shows and music you buy online? That question was on the minds of Telstra TV Box Office customers this month after the company announced it would shut down the service in June. Customers were told that unless they moved over to another service, Fetch, they would no longer be able to access the films and TV shows they had bought. *

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 165 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Piracy is only illegal because we made it so. We can change that.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 70 points 6 months ago (8 children)

I think what we should do is to have better non-piracy ways of owning things instead of "making piracy legal" (what does that even mean?)

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 49 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think the more nuanced take is that we should be making "piracy" legal by expanding and protecting fair use and rights to make personal copies. There are lots of things that are called piracy now that really shouldn't be. Making "piracy" legal still leaves plenty of room for artists to get paid.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 129 points 6 months ago (4 children)

If buying isnt owning then piracy isnt stealing

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 79 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Piracy has never been theft, it has always been and still remain copyright infringement. That being said go ahead and pirate, I'm not your dad.

[–] Lexam@lemmy.ca 36 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You, you could be... If you wanted to.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 25 points 6 months ago

You just gotta show up.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

When record companies make a fuss about the danger of “piracy”, they’re not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term “piracy” is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)

And piracy isn't stealing anyway!

But I still enjoy that phrase.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 110 points 6 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 101 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Pretty straightforward. You need to host your stuff on your own hardware, ideally. You need good backups. You obviously can pay someone to do it for you but it does add complexity. In any case, streaming services are dead men walking by this point I think.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 66 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is worse than a streaming service dropping a show. They are removing the ability to play digital files that people purchased.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Subscription streaming where you don’t “own” anything probably has a future, but I think you’re right that the writing is on the wall for digital media purchases.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What’s funny is that’s how it started. Apple sold movies as early as 2007 before Netflix or Amazon video or whatever and expected you to host the files locally either on your computer or your AppleTV (which had a hard disk drive at the time) and stream it locally over iTunes. If you lost the file, that was supposed to be it.

Of course, you still had to authenticate your files with the DRM service, and eventually they moved libraries online and gave you streaming access to any files you had purchased.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 76 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

She later said Telstra had contacted her and offered a free Fetch box, which she acknowledged was a “reasonable resolution”.

And we have learned exactly nothing here. See you in 2 years when Fetch closes down and you are not getting anything back because you actually did not "buy" those movies on Fetch but on the previous platform.

[–] CaptKoala@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yep, assuming this new service lasts that long. Could be a year or less.

[–] kureta@lemmy.ml 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Stop trying to make fetch happen!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Shadowq8@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago (3 children)

You will own nothing and be happy.

This is why sites like lemmy are important.

We need to put an end to corporate tyranny.

Humans in power are too egocentric to not be kept in check.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Corporations had already proven they cannot be trusted with any long-term leasing or subscription long before they started passing that phrase around.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 46 points 6 months ago (4 children)

More and more it is becoming a good idea to store things on your own private equipment. If we don't demand ownership of our own possessions we will soon own nothing

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago (4 children)

i tried to get into streaming but i grew increasingly uncomfortable with paying forever as titles appear and disappear at the whim of suits. how could that possibly be a pleasant UX for customers?

i'd take the hassle of having discs or managing a server any day of the week over paying these goons for access to their files which they happily negotiate away for financial reasons. it's just a disgusting paradigm. when netflix was starting streaming, i thought (i was like 15) we were emerging into a great new age, where every show you could ever want was on one beautiful service.

now they won't even let you share accounts or screenshot the fucking show (a pig-headed anti-piracy measure which is mind-blowingly stupid given every single show on there is available for free if you know where to look ANYWAY. what are they DOING.)

fuck streaming, fuck netflix, fuck spotify. crash and burn. topple like the house of cards you are.

[–] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

increasingly uncomfortable with paying forever

And paying more and more as time goes on. The thing that shits me the most is the increased prices but decreased range/quality of content. That's clearly not a business model aimed at customer satisfaction.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I download or capture everything I pay for. I paid for it, it's mine.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 19 points 6 months ago

I need to look into capturing. Feels like a nice middle ground.

[–] experbia@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

same. I buy a lot of software/games and media/music/movies, and before I buy I always make sure I can pirate it down the road if I need to. if I can't, I reconsider how much I need it. I'll switch to my pirated copy at the drop of a hat without a drop of guilt. if it has annoying or unperformant drm? it makes me sign up for an account to use my paid software on my own computer? its servers go down and it won't boot? switched.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 38 points 6 months ago (10 children)

What would it take to get a "Steam but TV/movies instead of games"? I feel like if I could see reviews of movies and I could buy them and download them and have them forever and buy them on sale and all that good stuff, it wouldn't be so bad.

How come none of the streaming services have gone for this model? Steam is swimming in money, surely this method could work?

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 57 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I mean I hate to say it but if steam closed up shop tomorrow your games are gone too. You buy a license, not a copy, from steam

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 36 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yes that is true - although many games on Steam can play offline so because I download the game, I own it in that fashion. They can't take that away.

But compare with GOG then. They sell games, you download them with no DRM so you own the download essentially.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 31 points 6 months ago

Yeah GOG is a better ownership model. Steam is not ownership

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

But compare with GOG then. They sell games, you download them with no DRM so you own the download essentially.

This is the model digital media should take, frankly. Anything less may as well be misleading marketing, as far as I'm concerned.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They've said they have a contingency plan in case that happens. They haven't said what it is, but my guess is some kind of "you have 60 days to download your games without steamworks DRM".

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 24 points 6 months ago

Yeah I don’t trust the good will of corporations, even the ones I personally like

[–] snownyte@kbin.social 19 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Steam really did try with the movies idea, it didn't last too long though. Licensing is a bitch to maintain.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 6 months ago

"piracy"

... Wait, no. Piracy is the answer!

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 6 months ago

it feels good to host a media server.

It's also a fucking nightmare when shit explodes, but damn do i feel good in every other instance.

[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The idea that you could trust a corporation, any corporation, at its word is laughable on its face, and yet the courts have been relying on them to "follow the rules" unsupervised for years. Now capitalism doesn't make anything that isn't designed as a piece of shit that falls apart, and everything is a lie that they're also making money from, from plastics recycling (not real and they make money on the chemicals they sell to the recycling industry) to the content you make that they get paid for and you don't.

The whole thing needs to go, all of it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

If purchasing isn't ownership, piracy isn't stealing.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago (3 children)

There are obvious responses here along the lines of embracing piracy and (re-)embracing hard copy ownership.

All that aside though, this feels like a fairly obvious point for legal intervention. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already existing grounds for legal action, it's just that the stakes are likely small enough and costs of legal action high enough to be prohibitive. Which is where the government should come in on the advice of a consumer body.

Some reasonable things that could be done:

  • Money back requirements
  • Clear warnings to consumers about "ownership" being temporary
  • Requiring tracking statistics of how long "ownership" tends to be and that such is presented to consumers before they purchase
  • If there are structural issues that increase the chances of "withdrawn" ownership (such as complex distribution deals etc), a requirement to notify the consumer of this prior to purchase.

These are basic things based on transparency that tend to already exist in consumer regulation (depending on your jurisdiction of course). Streaming companies will likely whinge (and probably have already to prevent any regulation around this), but that's the point ... to force them to clean up their act.

As far as the relations between streaming services and the studios (or whoever owns the distribution rights), it makes perfect sense for all contracts to have embedded in them that any digital purchase must be respected for the life of the purchaser even if the item cannot be purchased any more. It's not hard, it's just the price of doing business.

All of this is likely the result of the studios being the dicks they truly are and still being used to pushing everyone around (and of course the tech world being narcissistic liars).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

You don't own anything that is not on your own system and/or without any DRM.

[–] Meuzzin@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (6 children)

*Arr Suite, QBT, and a Jellyfin Server. Done and done. There are scripts to set it all up in less than 30 seconds...

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Don't use scripts unless you know how it works otherwise you will have trouble troubleshooting when something doesn't work. But by the time you read and understand how the script works, you already learn how to deploy it manually.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] solrize@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I never DREAMED Amazon would take away my content I bought! Just because they erased the novel 1984 off of everyone’s Kindles a few years back doesn’t mean leopards would eat MY face.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] designatedhacker@lemm.ee 14 points 6 months ago (10 children)

They could offer a way to download a copy and steganographically tag it to hell with your id so that they know if you distribute it. You can "loan it out" by letting friends stream off your Plex or whatever. If you start selling that streaming service or it shows up in torrents, it has your ID on it.

Boom, you own it forever and you're incentivized not to over share.

Or you know sell DRM free versions and let people do whatever, but that probably has a snowballs chance in hell.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›