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:
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
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.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| Git | Popular version control system, primarily for code |
| IP | Internet Protocol |
| NAS | Network-Attached Storage |
| NUC | Next Unit of Computing brand of Intel small computers |
| Plex | Brand of media server package |
| SSD | Solid State Drive mass storage |
| VPS | Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting) |
[Thread #746 for this sub, first seen 14th May 2024, 01:15] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
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.
Your first proposal still falls victim to the fact that screen recording exists.
I went the route of a physical collection, but man do they make it difficult unless you get a commercial player that is likely to have ads and doesn’t integrate well into a home theater setup.
I’ve taken to doing everything I can to play things through my computer, but they do everything in their power to make them unplayable. This includes things like adding hundreds of bogus playlists so you don’t know which one to play, adding extra layers of encryption that cause image corruption a few chapters into the movies, and more.
If they just allowed you to easily watch and rip the movies that I pay actual money for, I think a lot more people would be open to a physical collections of their favorites. As it stands, I can’t really recommend it.
My library almost got wiped out when my backup HDD started to fail. Managed to duplicate it onto a new SSD, now I'm fine.
Don't trust services, trust yourself.
Consumers are getting fucked. Media companies will continue to make it worse while trying to improve their bottom line. How long until it is all pay per view at sky high prices that only keep going up?
I try to own my media in physical form as much as possible. But I don't think it will be long until physical is not an available format. Or unaffordable, like vinyl is now.
We should have resisted and stopped the DMCA. We should stop all media being rental only. But we do not resist, we comply. We bend over and get fucked like the sheeple we are.
Until consumers take control of their government they will continue to take it up the ass from corporations. They count on you to comply.
You will own nothing and ~~like it~~ have no recourse.
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:
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).
I'm just confused about why people are so mad about it. In other cases where you rent space to put physical things you own so you can still access them later this happens too. Let's get into an example, and you guys tell me if I'm misunderstanding something:
If you have a car and have to change between summer and winter tires and you don't have space at home to store the winter tires during the summer, you can go to a tire-hotel and they will 1. Sell you new tires, 2. switch your tires - a service you pay for - and 3. store the tires for you until next winter - a service you pay for too. Once the company goes out of business (or they focus on a different business) they tell you to get your tires or they will be discarded if you don't. So you have to get them from them and you stop paying for the storage.
Isn't it the same with the movies you buy and store at a place where you then rent storage to keep them there? As long as they allow you to download your purchases I see no difference. You can't make someone else to keep working the same job until the heat death of the universe.
But in this case, as per op, you would never own the tires. Just rent them so then when the tire hotel closes you never can collect the tires that you thought you bought.
The streaming websites|apps don't allow you to download the purchased movies or shows so no files to keep.
I understand that things don't last forever. But and it sounds selfish to say and maybe people might agree, I'd like for these things to last as long as I'm alive to view them whenever I please.
Though I'm really sick of this god damn hot potato shit with the content that's spread across several streaming platforms. As well as unstable services. "Oh, we've shut this down, fuck your purchases" "Oh, we couldn't sustain this platform, go elsewhere".
It means a lot to the customer. Doesn't mean dick to these services.
Leopards ate my face.
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.
🏅
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?
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
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".
Yeah I don’t trust the good will of corporations, even the ones I personally like
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.
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.
Yeah GOG is a better ownership model. Steam is not ownership
@SorteKanin @thirdBreakfast I guess Amazon and iTunes would be the closest thing, but rights expire for TV shows and movies far more often than they do for games. It’s insane that there are shows from 10 years ago that aren’t legally accessible or are straight-up lost media because the rights expired.
rights expire for TV shows and movies far more often than they do for games
Any idea why there is this discrepancy between TV and games?
Other comments are wrong, its complicated residual structures on tv/movies.
Probably bandwidth. You download a game or five and then you're good for a few weeks, whereas if you are streaming media you could run through several gigabytes a day of data per customer in perpetuity.
Obviously, with streaming media there is a continuously refreshing pool of money to cover those costs as compared to games being a one-time purchase, but even with that it would still take quite a while to expend the entire revenue of the purchased game in download expenses and storage overhead.
Money. It's much better if you can sell the same thing over and over again.
But.. do you pay subscription for Steam that they can just jack up any time they want and there isn't anything you can do about it other than straight up quit and lose all your stuff?
No. That's why.
Steam really did try with the movies idea, it didn't last too long though. Licensing is a bitch to maintain.
Why is licensing so easy with games though? It really seems like there's this arbitrary difference in how the video games and streaming industries work.
I'm not who you asked, but my opinion is that it comes down to the types of people you're dealing with and age of the industries. The video game industry isn't that old, especially in its modern, mega blockbuster age. By its very nature, it's something that is on or near the leading edge of technology. This means the people involved are usually (though not always) forward thinking and live in the modern world.
By contrast, the motion picture industry is over a century old. It's deeply established in how it does business and you can see the effects of that entrenchment every time a new technology emerges that affects how people watch film and TV. They went to court to make VCRs illegal. DVDs were too high quality, so they made a self destructing kind of DVD (remember divx before it bizarrely became the name of a codec?). The industry went to war with itself more than once with format wars (VHS vs Beta, HD-DVD vs Blu-ray). This isn't an industry that handles change well, and they've always believed everyone is a lying thief.
All this to say, the video game industry is trying to make money in the modern world, while the TV/film industry is trying to cling to a business model one or two generations out of date because they fear change. There's no technical reason that a game or a movie couldn't be licensed for exactly the same amount of time. It's just how the people with power in both industries operate.
If the movie industry was smart, they'd have looked at what the music industry did and just copy/pasted that. The music industry has 2 kinds of stores, neither of which they involve themselves in running:
Compare that to the TV/film industry who looked at all that and decided to do the opposite. They run their own streaming only stores that are all bleeding money instead of fostering competition by encouraging more places like Netflix to start up. They don't, to the best of my knowledge, run any stores where you can download a DRM free video file after paying a reasonable price. This whole industry is fucked, but it's so massive it can absorb decades of bad decisions because there's enough good actual product that people will pay for. And that insulation from their shit decision making and their fear of change is why TV/film licenses are so much more restrictive than game licenses, at least IMO.
Convincing analysis. I guess the question is, if we assume this is the case, will the industry ever heal?
It's hard to say. Look how long it took for the music industry to stop suing their customers en masse and just adapt to a changing market. The film/TV industry hasn't even begun walking that path. It may never change, but if it does, I suspect it'll take a very long time.
I think it's like this: if your game is not on Steam, you won't sell many copies. Publishers fight to make sure the game is on Steam.
If your movie isn't on Steam, the company doesn't care. No one goes to Steam for movies. So Valve has to fight to get the rights to distribute (and compete with streaming services).
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.
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.
This is worse than a streaming service dropping a show. They are removing the ability to play digital files that people purchased.
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.
Probably has a future? It's already here.
"Has a future" in this context means "Streaming media without explicit ownership rights will continue to be here/relevant in to the future, unlike the idea of 'owning' digital media"
Piracy is only illegal because we made it so. We can change that.
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?)
How do you change that without completely stripping property rights away from artists though? Not just corporate IP, but all artists?
Piracy doesn't take money from artists, just ask Cory Doctorow, a person making their living as a writer while uploading the torrents of his novels himself.
Corporate consolidation is what kills the artists. The studios make less movies per year, so the a list actors go to television and take the roles Rob Morrow used to get.