PlayStation To Delete A Ton Of TV Shows Users Already Paid For::Sony says Mythbusters and more Discovery TV shows are going away whether you bought them or not
If you can’t own digital copies since they’re not property, then piracy isn’t theft.
Easy there on the sound logical arguments buddy, you’ll have the lawyers shitting their pants.
You will own nothing, we will bleed you dry, and you will love it.
You will love getting used to less
It’s not theft. It’s why they named it piracy instead of theft. Because it’s different.
It’s weird this needs to be repeated so often. Just goes to show how often media corpos repeated the lie that creating a copy of something and sharing it with someone else is the same thing as stealing physical property from someone.
The irony is that I feel like I own my pirated content more than any of the digital content I’ve actually purchased in the past.
Piracy gives you freedom, whereas paying for content just deprives you of your money
Feel? Without question you have ownership in a way legal distributors no longer allow for. Physical media aside of course, but even that has a hassle to it that pirated content circumvents.
There is simply no downside to having a collection of movies, tv shows and music on your HDD that no one can take away and plays in any modern operating system hassle free.
Buy Blu-ray’s then.
I’m occasionally buying used Blu-rays from eBay, ripping them using MakeMKV, putting the content on my Jellyfin server and sharing it with my friends and family over Tailscale. Works like a dream and no one can do anything about it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=RZ8ijmy3qPo
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=RZ8ijmy3qPo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Can you ELI5 why you need/use Tailscsle on your setup?
Because allowing access to your VPS/homelab without VPN is like having a one night stand without a condom. You might be ok one time but eventually your gonna wake up with a nasty virus
To make the server accessible via internet, it’s a VPN service.
You could do it without tailscale too, but using it makes things extremely easy.
How much are you paying for tailscale?
Nothing. It’s free for 3 users with a limit of 100 devices. The traffic isn’t relayed through Tailscale servers, instead, Tailscale just orchestrates the peer-to-peer connections.
That’s where all the good pirated content comes from
You’re missing the point.
No, you guys are missing the point. If you want to own something buy Blu-ray’s, piracy isn’t justifiable just because you don’t want to buy it.
You don’t have to justify piracy like you idiots always tries to do. Who cares?
Calling people idiots doesn’t make you right, and trying to make a different point doesn’t show that you understood the original point—quite the opposite.
The point is that if a company can choose not to honor its legal obligation to consumers who have purchased content from them, then there is no reason for consumers to honor their legal obligation to refrain from accessing the same content outside the system the company has provided—or in this case failed to provide.
Moreover, if the legal system of your country doesn’t require everyone to uphold their legal obligations, then why should we allow it to hold us to the obligations it has placed on us?
Now you’ll probably write a reply that reply that shows no understanding of the difference between ownership and licensing, or between theft and unauthorized access, but you can’t say I didn’t try.
The company did honor its legal obligations.
Whenever it’s morally right is a different discussion.
I don’t care about your point. I just think the constant attempts of justification are really annoying. Like it or not, I will continue to complain about that.
Cool, keep on bootlicking big companies that underpay their workers and overcharge their customers.
You guys are really cringe.
Why do you need to constantly justify piracy?
Just do it. I have hundreds of movies on my media server and dozens of series. Yet I don’t feel the need to complain and whine about something that doesn’t affect me.
Keep on crying.
But if buying isn’t owning then… why buy?
Because buying Blu-ray’s is owning?
Personally I just pirate everything on my Plex server but don’t pretend that this Sony news makes piracy justified.
They just want us to pirate everything right? Like, that is the only logical response to this.
The content you bought is available to be streamed on Discovery Plus, for a small subscription fee.
Just buy your content again, that’s fair right? You wouldn’t expect a perpetual license for the cash you parted with, that would be crazy!
It’s the perfect model. People only buy a DVD once, but this way you can keep them paying forever!
But iTs CoNvENiEnT
Or, you know, buy media you can store on your own devices.
I don’t have a house big enough to store a ton of DVDs, and the Playstation Digital Edition solidified that we don’t have to buy physical media anymore. So the only option is piracy.
There is this lovely invention called dvd binders, it let’s you keep a ton of them in a much smaller space
No, there are plenty of ways to buy digital only media, where you store it on your own drives.
I have a NAS full of media that I own that I bought. None of it physical.
What service do you use that lets you pay for and download the media files in that way?
The only one I know of is Bandcamp that lets you download the mp3s after you buy the album.
Amazon also lets you download music without DRM, and I know Apple did ten years ago before I dropped them. I don’t think there’s a single legal option for film, though. I think the person you’re replying to is full of shit.
Closest thing? Last time I used their stuff, Apple let you download video you buy. It has DRM, though, so if they lose the license to it, it’s pretty much moot anyway.
You can’t even buy MP3s anymore?? I haven’t paid for a digital download since before smart phones. I would be more concerned about downloading digital content from a website that charges for it rather than pirating tbh. Where did the seller get it from in the first place??
That’s not a bad black-market business model, actually…
Check out bandcamp, its the better way to support artists
Man, I love Bandcamp, but I hear they got bought by Epic Games which does not bode well…
Oh shit, I had forgotten about that.
What wonderful changes do you think they are going to make?
deleted by creator
Well whoever is taking them away should reimburse the clients if they were not made aware that they didn’t own the show but were just renting it.
These behaviors are dangerous and shouldn’t be legal. You press « buy », you own the product, not the right to watch it for a few years.
Slowly turning the whole world into pirates…
disingenuously points to the indecipherable ToS
and that’s why it should be illegal, the big “buy” button ahould have higher precedence over any “renting” claims in the ToS and any attempt of misrepresentation should be fined.
Thanks for pointing that out, it is Discovery’s decision. For their part though, Sony is still at fault as they didn’t demand perpetual use rights for content sold on their store, or at least a full refund for the customer.
This. Offer a refund. Discovery caused the problem, but Sony enabled it.
Sony isn’t in a position to demand refunds, though. Discovery pulling their content means there’s no negotiation happening.
As for demanding perpetual use rights, yes, that’d have been nice, but that wouldn’t have been granted and then that content wouldn’t have been in the store at all. No company will ever sign an agreement to license their content in perpetuity like that.
That’s the crux of the issue with digital content. When it was physical media, companies had no choice but to release their media with perpetual licenses because there was no means of revoking it later. They weren’t compelled into doing this, they had to because the only other option was not releasing that media at all. Digital content has removed this issue for them, and they have no reason to ever willingly go back to the old method of content distribution.
This is something that has needed regulation for a very long time. If there’s no incentives for companies to do something, it won’t happen, unless they’re forced to do it.
No company should ever buy the rights to something if they aren’t willing to provide a proper consistent experience to the user.
In the case of streaming services where you pay an ongoing subscription, specific content being removed is fine. In the case of a store where the user is presented with the idea that they are “buying” the content, being able to view that content in perpetuity should always be expected. Sony is to blame for not requiring this.
They don’t have to keep access to the content for new purchases forever. If Discovery wants to pull their content so anyone who hasn’t already paid for it can access it, fine. But if they’re able to say “you paid for this already, but too bad”, Sony and Discovery are both equally to blame and deserve the harshest criticism.
This is absolutely Sony’s fault. Sony owns the platform, Sony took the money, Sony signed the terms and agreements with Discovery that let them pull the content users paid for.
I blame Discovery too, but you’re right that Sony is to blame. They have an army of lawyers to go over the terms of the agreements. The buyers don’t. When I push the button that says buy, that should mean I own it. Not that I’m renting it for some unspecified period of time.
The absolute minimum they should be doing here is refunding everyone’s money in full.
In full? So the period where the content was accessible is valueless? Pulling the licenses is bullshit, but a full refund is equally asinine.
deleted by creator
The retractors reneged on a contract that they had already performed from. When you pay for a product and then the salesman takes it back from you months later that’s called theft. They just legalized piracy.
Yes, in full. Even Google did that when they shut Stadia. If you’re a big company this is the cost of business. Even if it’s just in store credit or whatever, wouldn’t even cost them much.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. This is true. People like to complain, but I’m sure somewhere in the TOS this was stated that you don’t own it… Still a bad move to pull the content but I agree should not be full refund.
I get that people don’t like paying for things. I don’t mind paying, but I make myself aware of what I’m paying for. CONVENIENCE… Don’t spend your money on bad platform’s and services people. If you don’t like how the business model of that company is, don’t give them your money. Vote with your wallet.
It’s not realistic to expect the average user to read and/or understand the TOS when making a purchase like this. The button that you click says buy, not rent until we decide your rental period is over. Shouldn’t matter if it’s stated in the TOS somewhere.
As far as not spending money on bad platforms, thats what this community is about. All the platforms are proving that they are bad.
My issue is the first line of your comment, that it’s not realistic for the average user to read and or understand the TOS. You should not use the product if you have not done this. Period. And if you choose to not read and understand, then there is no more discussion to be had… Makes sense?
This is the Playstation TOS.
This is the definition of buy.
Expecting a normal person to read this entire document and realize that they changed the definition of buy about 3/4s of the way down from the dictionary definition is completely unreasonable. Read the entire TOS and list all the gotchas, without knowing which ones they are going to pull, then tell me what makes sense.
But you’re proving my point, it’s in the TOS… As I’ve mentioned in other relies, yes the wording should be changed, but it is there… Reasonable or not it’s s in the fine print.
If you do not agree to those fine prints, do not agree to the TOS. You clicked or accepted somewhere at some point, so you do/did agree to this. If you do/did not, why did you accept the TOS in the first place?
I’m trying to drill home that just because you think it’s shady, I do too, does not mean you did not agree to it in the first place.
Do not click accept if you do not accept a TOS.
The problem as I see it is a violation of expectations. If I “buy” something, there is no expectation that I will be deprived of that thing in the future unless, (A) it’s a consumable and I e used it up, (B) it’s capable of wearing out and I’ve done that myself, © it’s a subscription service where you pay for the time You’ve used it.
In the case of digital assets that I’ve been sold, it can’t be used up and it can’t wear out. I did not subscribe to the digital asset, I bought it.
Violating the expectation of a purchase and then not fully making the buyer whole is trying to change the transaction type to a subscription after the fact.
If the digital content providers want to pull these kinds of tricks, then they can’t tell us we are buying the content. They must be up front and tell us it’s a rental whose length is undetermined. The rental may be for our whole lives, or not.
Anything else is a bait and switch and makes people angry.
I fully agree the wording should be ‘rent’. I know when I use a digital service, I do not own these things, but have access to them via the TOS I agreed to. It’s definitely shady to word it as ‘buy’ though, but that’s what physical media if for… Again going back to the convince argument, if you want to own something tangible, buy physical.
Yep. These arguments get at a problem I have with a lot of the piracy community. Which is not paying for the movie, but still watching it just shows the rights holders that there is a demand for the product.
If people want the DRM BS to end it would be far more effective to not pay for it AND not watch it. Companies would do a rethink surprisingly fast if money and engagement with their products fell off a cliff.
But that requires sacrifice and inconvenience to the consumer, and consumers have a pathetic amount of resolve when it comes to doing something uncomfortable now for a better outcome later.
Sacrifice! Perfect way to put it. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Who cares if a show is good if the production/distribution company is evil, don’t contribute to the stats. Ignore it and move on.
I don’t care who’s at fault for this massive scam
At best you could say Sony didn’t know you thought you now own the car they were actually lending you. They probably spelt it out this could happen in their legal codex but that doesn’t negate the fact they took your money or they made a system wherein they can deny you from using what you paid for. Sony takes part in this degeneration of ownerships.
If it’s not something that lets you straight download and keep a native, non-drm video file, then you never owned it.
Just Max, not HBO Max. They changed the name because they literally planned on making it worse and didn’t want it reflecting badly on the HBO brand.
No, it’s also Sony’s fault for not making a contract that says “bought means bought forever”. Sony isn’t making contracts like that where they can get screwed over later. Just making them that way when it affects you.
This is what I wrote on the other thread about the same article. The question is, on what possible grounds are they allowed to revoke licenses for completed sales?
Someone in legal on Sony’s side fucked up.
They should issue refunds. Whether they will or not though…
They will ALMOST CERTAINLY. But my point is this doesn’t really help… Let’s say a game I really like, I dunno Wreckfest (substitute you own idc) gets yanked from Steam. Here is my 24.99 EUR back. Okay fine, fair enough (it isn’t but whatever), where can I buy the game again? Well REALLY you can’t, you can either buy gamepass forever (Until it gets yanked from there again), or you can go and hunt down a rare an expensive Xbox physical release.
So have I been reimbursed for my loss? No, because the 24.99 is no substitute for the game I had and wanted.
In the case of Steam, something I bought was pulled from the store, but it’s still in my library, and I can still redownload it. Even though it can’t be found by people who didn’t buy it anymore. This seems to be the general Steam strategy.
The only way to play Chronicles of Riddick (a really great game btw) is illegally by downloading it. I would happily pay money for the privilege, but there is no option for that.
Well yeah but that is hosted on various abandonware sites. If they defacto disown the rights of it, that is fair enough…
This seems illegal unless Sony reimburses everyone for the removed content.
It should be. But I would be extremely surprised if everything in the terms of service isn’t worded something like “you’re buying a license to view this content that can be revoked whenever”.
It is, and IIRC you don’t even “own” a movie even if you physically have it. You own the physical disc, not the content on it. Granted, it’s a lot harder for Sony or Discovery to come kick down your door and take your copy of Ice Road Truckers so you have to rebuy it…
That’s not really a big deal with regards to physical items. If you buy a book you don’t own the rights to the text either.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the TOS says “We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time in any way without notice and you agree to be bound by all future versions of this agreement”
There’s a line in the EULA when you purchase digital media that says they can revoke your access to it at any time that they see fit. Look it up for yourself.
If you don’t own it when paying for it then you aren’t stealing it when pirating it.
Woah.
this is an ad for piracy, right?
Aye matey. Yarr! 🦜🏴☠️
Ahoy!
Your UN… Gave me a flashback .
I stopped piraring when I graduated college and streaming started to be wonderful. It is now a bleak hellscape that is more expensive than ever. Time to buy 20tb of hard drives and install Jellyfin I guess :(
Welcome back to the high seas.
Some of us never left …
On the bright side, 20TB of hard drives is relatively cheap these days if you buy used. They’ll pay for themselves in a year if you kill the streaming services.
Happy sailing
A new 12tb costs about as much 1 year of netflix premium.
Might as well just rent a server at that point, more memory and performance for basically the same price.
You’re not getting a rented VPS for the cost of a 12tb hdd. You’re not getting any space with a server for that cost.
12tb is literally $100 right now new. also my fellow hoarders, save a bookmark to that site it’s great.
If you want to hit eBay and buy used disks, you can probably build something with redundancy and 20tb+ for around $300. If you’ve got a machine laying around and don’t plan on downloading everything on every service, you can grab 16tb used for $100, use one drive for parity, and the spend $50 when you run out of space for another 8tb.
I run drivebender and a whole JBOD setup with random storage in it for this purpose. It works great and has been through 3 different homes and over 8 years now. Drives become cold storage when I upgrade a new one.
Yeah, I went a little more overkill. I got a rack for free, and I have a Dell CS24 (that’s probably due to upgrade just for power savings at this point) that connects to a Rackable 3016. This runs unRAID, so I end up with the same thing roughly you have - JBOD with parity that I can bring any disk to, and 16 bays to fill before I have to start cycling drives out. So I check disk prices, when something tickles my fancy, I buy a new disk and shove it in there and it just keeps growing. If I had to do it today, I’d probably do it a bit differently just because the drive density, but it’s been going strong for 7-8 years now.
Heh, I’m about at capacity with my 20 tb of storage. I think I’m getting myself a Synology NAS for Christmas. I’ll probably spend a couple grand on the device and the drives, but it’s totally worth it to own everything. No regrets.
Amazon gifted me one a loooong time ago. Useful for storage but apps aren’t supported on older models really.
That makes sense. Currently I have my raid split, so 10tb are primary media storage and 10tb are backup. My plan is to set my internal raid to be entirely media storage and use the Synology as just a simple network backup system. This will at least double my storage, good enough for now.
Amazon does the same thing. You don’t own digital content you pay for, you’re renting it.
You’re paying to use their license, piracy or buying the media physically is the only way to own it.
If the button says"buy", ownership is inferred. That’s a lie, of course.
You own it as long as they have a license to host and stream it.
They should be offering refunds for this at least, but you literally cannot own something that permanently lives on someone else’s device.
If you want to truly on something, you need to control physical access to it. If there is an option to download the media when you buy it, and you can store it on your own device, then you own it. If not, then you only have access as long as you’re paying someone else for access to their storage.
Which is almost impossible now. You can’t even play offline games without internet access because companies force you to use their app to launch it.
I thought I would be able to get around that system with EA by purchasing a hard copy of the game circa 2016, but nope, I just bought a plastic case to throw away. I miss the old days of owning things.
The problem is that what you’re buying is a license. Of course it has to be a license, because unlike a physical good, anything delivered digitally could be replicated infinitely, and of course you wouldn’t be allowed to do something like open your own storefront to resell copies of it. Nor would you legally be allowed to play it on the radio, as background music in a store, etc.
“Buy” isn’t really that different here than if you bought a ticket to a concert; of course you wouldn’t be able to attend next year with the same ticket, but you still bought something. The problem is that with digital licenses, they can be INCREDIBLY varied, and sellers don’t make even a small attempt to clarify what the terms are.
You use the word ownership, but at least from a legal standpoint, that doesn’t really mean anything intuitive, unless it means you hold all rights to the IP (which, again, you don’t). It would be nice if there was some widespread legal definition and norms about “ownership of a digital copy”, but no such concept exists, and frankly the rights holders are not incentivized to try to create something like this.
“Not incentivized”!
They like using the current word “buy” because people think it means they “own” a digital copy. Since that’s not true what we’re really saying here is that they like lying because that makes them more money.
I think the more honest term is “rent”. A normal rental agreement online is for like 48hrs. This is a rental agreement for a much longer, but unspecified, time period.
You’d think a court case would clear this up. But probably not.
Part of the problem is that court cases don’t materialize from nothing. A judge can only rule on a case before them. So you would need someone to bring out a specific complaint against a specific party. So there needs to be a lot of money on the line for someone who actually feels they can win. A class action against all online media storefronts just isn’t that.
Also, it’s a difficult case because the terms of the legal license that each customer are being asked to read and agree to ARE being upheld properly – so you either have to make the case that asking a customer to agree to terms digitally that they’ve pretty please read isn’t binding (which kills all digital commerce, because it all becomes a liability nightmare!), or, that the website etc is materially misleading / misrepresenting the agreements; we’ve talked about consumers maybe being prone to misunderstanding “buy” here, but I really don’t believe it’s a legal slam dunk.
If anything, the faster path to improve this the way you’re looking for would be legislation.
“Buying” media with drm is a mistake.
I buy books from audible sometimes, but I immediately rip the drm out. Use Plex to store your movies and TV shows, it does music ok too now.
Give Jellyfin a try too. I switched to that from Plex after I realised they were trying to charge me money to use hardware transcoding on my own hardware.
Give Jellyfin a try too.
Unless your main TV client is a Playstation. Client support is Jellyfin’s biggest weakness, and why plex is more popular.
What about DLNA? It works on my 7 years old LG TV.
JF works fine on tons of devices, the ps5 just kind of sucks as a media player.
deleted by creator
Im finding a way around this now. Surely there is a way to cast to the PlayStation
Using the web browser, but it’s clunky.
Yeah, I’ve heard of jellyfin, but don’t really know anything about it… How is it different?
I’m likely to stay with Plex though, because I have 3 friends with Plex servers and we’re all sharing content. It’s pretty fantastic, when I don’t have something, usually one of my friends does have it. If jellyfin doesn’t support content sharing, it’s a huge no-go, but just convincing my friends to switch over would be pretty challenging.
Can you please link a good guide on ripping the drm out?
deleted by creator
+1 for Libation. Very easy to use.
People this doesn’t affect are pirates. People who get to enjoy their media without worry are pirates. When pirates are getting the better experience and it’s customers who are getting affected what incentive is there to not pirate other than personal morals. Because it sure isn’t for a better product.
It bears repeating. Piracy is a service issue first. I’ve paid for several streaming services for music and video, but they just cannot compete with the convenience and features of self-hosted options. It’s not at all unusual for people to pirate stuff they have legitimately paid for just because of the convenience More than once I have bought a an album on the very same day I downloaded a pirate copy, just because it was slightly easier to get it on all my devices that way.
While Gabe’s famous line still holds true, I find that repeating it without qualification is increasingly glib, because vendors are making the matter a technology issue instead, thanks to years of investment in DRM techniques. In the long term, either side’s ability to enforce its will on the other will come down to availability/control of compute resources, and unit economics.
Keeping corporate at bay is going to require a combination of maintaining the commons, seeing genuine competition in cultural production, improving consumer legal frameworks, and becoming politically conscious of our entitlement to digital rights.
A lot of people are getting back into pirating because of this. If a show isn’t on a streaming service you use, you either pay $2/episode and hope that Amazon doesn’t drop it, or you pirate it. I went almost a decade without pirating, and now I just bought a 5tb SSD for my Plex server. I’m tempted to fully convert now that I’ve already set everything up, too.
I am coming back after I get a server set up.
It’s seems everything I ever want to watch is either not available or spread across numerous services.
Just last week I was recommended to watch Knives Out. I find the second one on Netflix which I use a family account and then the first one wasn’t available and I would need Amazon for that. Why would I keep jumping through these hoops when I can just download what I want when I want and watch it whenever I want.
Aye!
Louis agrees with you
This is why I buy the physical copies of shows/movies I like and just pirate the rest
Dont trust these guys to not screw you over
Yeah personally I only ever use points or rewards to buy digital media. Rarely do I ever pay actual money.
NOT OK
deleted by creator
CYBERPANTS
I’m hearing those are delayed and will be 30% more expensive while only going to your knees. If you want ankle length pants that costs more.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s an abusive relationship - “look what you made me do”
I’ve pretty much switched to streaming and paying for content. This makes me question that decision. This just makes the pirates look right.
Piracy has always been the better choice
Obviously
It’s always been a balance between getting the stuff instantly and for a charge or waiting a few minutes and having to look for the item and maybe not being able to find it.
If you’re paying for it and you’re still not able to find it then there is no benefit to streaming. All they had to do was make streaming just a little bit better and experience than piracy. It’s actually a pretty low bar because they’ve got all the access and the infrastructure to be able to do this but lacking that, well, like my computer science teacher always used to say " information wants to be free "
I went back to mp3s and flacs for my music a few years ago. And quickly followed that up with my own Plex server. Two of the best decisions I’ve ever made. If you’re remotely tech savvy it takes no time at all and having every tv show, film, music, video that has ever released on all of my devices at any time within seconds is pretty sweet, for near-free
I’m leaving Plex for Jellyfin. It’s free, and Plex has been pushing bloat for so long, I can’t be bothered with it. It used to be great, just open Plex and there’s your media. But now it’s full of random streaming channels and shit. It takes multiple non-intuitive clicks to get to what I want. I tried Jellyfin and it’s perfect, just like Plex used to be.
Meh, it’s no extra clicks to get what you want on Plex once you actually configure your home to show what you want. I just pushed all those options down to the bottom of my home list, but you can just as easily remove them entirely. IDGAF about bloat. Those are just features I’m not using. I’m sure I use features somebody else doesn’t care for. Besides, the “bloat” you’re referring to is mostly just free streaming content from various channels collected in one searchable app I already have. I’d never stream any of that shit if it wasn’t on Plex already. Reminding me that a show I pirated is available on a streaming service I actually pay for is actually kinda neat. It means I can go watch it there to support it, while making sure I’ve got it in the format I want and where I want.
I’m all for diversity in our self-host streaming software and fully support Jellyfish, but let’s not pretend that the latest halfbaked option is superior because it has fewer features and is less polished. Plex used to kinda suck, lots of features have gotten better. Saying Jellyfin is just like what Plex used to be is not a compliment.
If you want to complain about Plex at least point to something truly awful, like needing Internet access to access local media because of the way Plex account authentication works or the botched and ill conceived rollout of social media features.
Yes I personally use Emby now, but I would recommend Jellyfin these days instead of Plex.
The question I have, because I’m considering self-hosting something like that, is will my non-text have a family be able to understand how to use it? If not then it’s not really going to be worth it right?
Ideally I want something that would seamlessly replace Spotify and all video streaming services as well and, if my dreams can come true, also work with Google Assistant.
I have my music on my server and can stream it like Spotify. The frontend user experience of Plex, Jellyfin and Emby is literally just like Netflix, the untrained eye wouldn’t tell the difference.
I haven’t tried audio streaming but the video in Jellyfin works just like netflix or any other video site.
If they can’t figure it out then it’s a them problem right?
Not really when you are going to be texted about it. I spent 3 hours trying to get jellyfin to work on my phone. Staying with Plex as they have better apps.
What was the issue? My experience was the opposite… I installed the app (android) and went to my IP, it works. I was surprised how simple and easy it was. Or were you trying to use it outside of your home LAN?
On my lan, get black screen on movies.
You sound like someone that has never supported a production server.
The main reason I pay for content is that I don’t have the time to provide reasonable customer service to my family. If they can’t use it, it is without use; useless.
Also, I do plenty enough care and feeding of complex systems at work. When I get home, it’s nice to stop working.
If you’re using an Android TV device like the nVidia Shield Pro, I recommend also installing Kodi for playback. It has much better codec support meaning less transcoding (and further quality loss), and there’s a few oddities in the Jellyfin Client subtitle support.
Took me about a day of Googling and faffing about to get everything working and it pumping out all the full quality audio formats to my AVR. Seems that by default it likes putting everything in stereo.
I’ve switched to streaming and don’t “buy” anything. If content isn’t available on those few streaming sites I’ll try a different provider but I will not “buy” (eg rent for more money).
It’s all a word game though. I think I actually do have one movie on Amazon. Enough people were over and wanted to watch it that we felt the larger rental fee (“buy” option) was worth it.
ComiXology is an interesting example of this. They have a shitty UI and an odd attempt to emulate the “collector” experience (obviously I think it’s horrible). It’s like a bad drug trip of skeuomorphism. I quickly decided we’d never “buy” anything there either.
