Comment on Five Men Convicted of Operating Massive, Illegal Streaming Service That Allegedly Had More Content Than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and Prime Video Combined

Grippler@feddit.dk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• yukichigai@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

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

  source

  • Damage@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Maybe even Jellyseerr

    source
• sunzu@kbin.run ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

  source

  • Grippler@feddit.dk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source

    • sunzu@kbin.run ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

      source
    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

      source

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• cmbabul@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source