Nobody gives a shit, you’re not doing enough to punish trump for his obvious, literally filmed and recorded crimes.
This is the equivalent of the cops celebrating after bearing peaceful college protesters while pissing their pants and freezing while the uvalde kids were slaughtered and psychologically tortured.
You’re focusing on the non victory and ignoring the failures. Cowards.
Say it again, friend.
Nobody gives a shit, you’re not doing enough to punish trump for his obvious, literally filmed and recorded crimes.
This is the equivalent of the cops celebrating after bearing peaceful college protesters while pissing their pants and freezing while the uvalde kids were slaughtered and psychologically tortured.
You’re focusing on the non victory and ignoring the failures. Cowards.
This guy GETS it.
say it again, friend, but in french
Non
well alright, but I’m going to have to report this
Tout le monde s’en fout, vous ne faites pas assez pour punir Trump pour ses crimes évidents, littéralement filmés et enregistrés.
C’est l’équivalent des flics qui se réjouissent d’avoir abattu des manifestants pacifiques à l’université tout en se pissant dessus et en se gelant pendant que les enfants d’uvalde se faisaient massacrer et torturer psychologiquement.
Vous vous concentrez sur la non-victoire et ignorez les échecs. Lâches.
say it again, friend, but in dutch
When cops only legal responsibility is to enforce the law, and the laws are written to protect corporate interests, of course they will stand outside the school and arrest protesters. SCOTUS has ruled that way so many times that “to serve and protect” is literally gaslighting.
Police don’t even really have a duty to enforce the law, at least not in the USA:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
They don’t even have a duty to know what the law is.
You’re focusing on the non victory and ignoring the failures. Cowards.
That’s not true, they successfully did their job of protecting capital and the owner class. Same reason they don’t go after Trump. He’s in the owner class, so their job is to serve and protect him.
Not all heroes wear capes, but some have a sidegig as firefighters
And wear a sexy mustache?
I mean probably?
Farewell heroes. I may not have heard of you before, but I shall mourn your departure nevertheless.
Proving Netflix could be replaced by five hard working people.
The only reason all companies prices go up these days is for CEO pay packages
Like Boeing’s CEO making 300 million… imagine 300 people who worked their ass off could make million. Or 1500 hard workers could be making 200k. But nah, let’s just drag these huge bags of money into this one asshole’s account. Oh there were a couple of crashes right? 👍 Our thoughts and prayers 🙏. But not our money wagons.
Regulate monopolies and eat the rich.
I think it’s more for major shareholders (which includes CEOs, of course)
Did they make the shows too?
Does Netflix make shows? Or does it slam its name onto filmmakers it pays to make content? If so, one of those things simply requires throwing cash at people, which I think is a skill that most people can learn.
Did the pirate site pay anyone to make new shows?
They had to operate under the radar to avoid the law, so you know the answer to your question
So Netflix actually pays for shows to get made, so when everyone pays for Netflix, it lets everyone enjoy them. Pirate sites only extract value from the hard work of the producers, without paying them.
producers don’t make the content, they speak to the right people in their exclusive circles to finance it, put their name on it, and then pay the directors and actors a tiny fraction of what it earned
Okay, now tell me how pirate sites contribute to creation of said content
Does Netflix? Or do they pay production companies for content?
They use the subscription money to pay production studios. What did the pirate site use the subscription money for?
Servers, electricity, bandwidth, blackjack and hookers.
Proving Netflix could be
replacedoutdone by five hard working people.Proving Netflix should
couldbereplacedoutdone by five hard working people.ProvingNetflixshouldcouldbereplacedoutdoneby five hard working people.
Things are easier if you can steal stuff. And operate on a small scale.
They didn’t need the army of lawyers to get license deals, so that’s not a fair comparison.
Or fund new content
Its almost like its unecessary shit made up in order to keep profits away from working people artificially
Yeah its almost like if we didn’t keep extending copyright protections a bunch of stuff would be in the public domain and any streaming service could offer it without having to deal with licensing.
I mean that’s all well and good, but then how would the very deserving shareholders get dividends?
Won’t somebody think of the shareholders!?
maybe if they actually invested some money somewhere they would make some money for once.
PLS KEP LNE GOE UUP
- Take over a failing company
- Hold a shareholder meeting
- Show the line going down
- Turn the chart upside down
- Become a hero to the shareholders
It’s true that Hollywood is corrupt and csuite pay is absurd, but those deals are the only mechanism by which ANY money makes it to the writers, actors and staff who deserve it
It’s the exclusivity bullshit that gets me.
It could be: New movie is released! Anyone who pays the price tag gets to stream it!
But no, we must bidding war gouge.
On top of that, X Y and Z services exist in America, but not in other countries, so in this other country, everything is on Netflix, while I had to jump between three different services at one point just to watch Stargate
Hey, you’re just salty that you didn’t get in on the ground floor when Stargate was being exclusively streamed in a dedicated Stargate streaming service
Stargate+ Maxx Ultraviolet
If we get rid of the licensing we get rid of the lawyers.
If you get rid of licensing you get rid of the content
If you save the cheerleader you save the world.
If you save the cheerleader then the creepy serial killer will join the team.
Not really. I can undersgand licensing but at this point it’s become a distopian practice completely separated from the basic need to monetize the content an make a profit. That’s why those companies become such gargantuans monsters.
Nope. People will still make content. It’ll be on far less of a budget, but that didn’t stop the Film School generation of independent films in the 1970s (before which you had to sell your life and soul and beating heart to a studio). In between all the schlock were the occasional arty films we consider classics today.
And then there’s government subsidization of art projects, as per the National Endowment of the Arts.
I think the MCU movies, the DC movies, the many studio iterations of Spiderman have shown us what capitalism eventually churns out. Sony actually chose this path content as product the same resort to formula that plagued the music industry in the 1980s (and drove the Hip Hop Independent movement of the next half-century).
We just need to empower artists. Make sure they don’t have to moonlight as restaurant wait staff in order to eat and pay rent while they create, and make sure they have access to half-decent (not necessarily high end) hardware with which to do their thing. And yes, as Sturgeon observes, most of it will be schlock, but through sheer quantity of content we’ll get more gems than Hollywood is putting out.
If you take away the ability to own and control your intellectual property, then you won’t be empowered.
Licensing art allows creators to earn a living off of their hard work.
Not in the US or the EU. If you make music in the States, then RCA or Sony owns your content, not you, and when they decide they’ve paid you enough (which is much less than they’re getting) then they still own your stuff. Also, if you make an amazing film or TV series ( examples: Inception, Firefly ) and the moguls don’t like it, they’ll make sure it tanks or at least doesn’t get aftermarket support, which is why Inception doesn’t have any video games tie-ins, despite being a perfect setting for video games.
Artists are empowered in their ability to produce art. If they have to worry about hunger and shelter, then they make less art, and art narrowly constrained to the whims of their masters. Artists are not empowered by the art they’ve already made, as that has to be sold to a patron or a marketing institution.
No, we’d get more and better art by feeding and housing everyone (so no one has to earn a living ) and then making all works public domain in the first place.
Intellectual property is a construct, and it’s corruption even before it was embedded in the Constitution of the United States has only assured that old art does not get archived.
I think yes, an artist needs to eat, which is why most artists (by far) have to wait tables and drive taxicabs and during all that time on the clock, not make art. The artists not making art far outnumber the artists that get to make art. And a small, minority subset of those are the ones who profit from art or even make a living from their art, a circumstance that is perpetually precarious.
But I also think the public needs a body of culture, and as the Game of Thrones era showed us, culture and profit run at odds. The more expensive art is, the more it’s confined to the wealthy, and the less it actually influences culture. Hence we should just feed, clothe and home artists along with everyone else, whether or not they produce good or bad art. And we’ll get culture out of it.
You can argue that a world of guaranteed meals and homes is not the world we live in, but then I can argue that piracy (and other renegade action) absolutely is part of the world we live in and will continue to thrive so long as global IP racketeering continues. Thieves and beggars, never shall we die.
Sorry, I’m not going to read all that, but it seems like you’re upset about the shitty deals made by record labels and other large corporations, not intellectual property rights.
Certain types of content. But YouTube’s own existence started because people made content without licensing rights.
Technically YouTube exists because three horny nerds wanted a dating site with video integration. It only turned into a video sharing site when they realized they couldn’t find the clip of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction and they decided they wanted to build that platform instead.
I wonder what youribe would have been like if they didn’t sell to google
I don’t think YouTube really compares to Netflix
Their scale was also an insignificant fraction of what Netflix has, making the point even more irrelevant.
The best figure I could find on Jetflicks user count was 37k, where as Netflix has 269 million users.
Prices should go down with scale not up though.
There’s initial investment on the initial servers (and the software), and afterwards it should be a linear increase of server costs per user, with some bumps along the way to interconnect those servers.
The cost also scales per content. Because that means more caching servers per user and bigger databases, and licenses.
So this service has less users and more content, it should be way more expensive. The only reason they are cheaper is because they don’t pay those licenses.
The cost of storage in this case is more or less irrelevant - traffic is what matters here. You’re also not getting any mentionable bulk discount on the servers for that matter.
The key is that you can engineer things in completely different way when you have trivial amounts of traffic hitting your systems - you can do things that will not scale in any way, shape or form.
It’s sad that these people got taken down. Maybe the next people to do it will do it from a country that does not have extradition with the United States, so they would be safe.
deleted by creator
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)
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.
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)
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.
piracy is a service issue.
also, fuck IP owners, pigs got too fat while cutting on service.
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.
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.
because piracy is a service problem
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.
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.
Access to Usenet providers is not free
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.
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.
Because all the legal services are incredibly anti-consumer and are offering less services, with (more) ads, for more money every year.
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.
“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.
Yes. Charging money for sharing content like that makes them little better than grifters
Guessing they used Sonarr, Radarr, qBittorrent, maybe an NZB client…
Would you look at that, I’m sophisticated now.
Maybe even Jellyseerr
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I run a massive streaming service too, which is also way bigger than all the streamers combined. It’s just only distributed over my private home network. Jellyfin for the win!
How many PBs you got and how many clients (humans)?
How much traffic across your network in terms of a daily average?
Do you have a local recommendation system running? For example I found a last.fm clone, self-hosted hut I haven’t found much for video
Uh it’s just me and whoever is on my local network. I don’t port anything or have any users outside my home. When I go on trips I just download movies and shows from my network to my devices
Love my Jellyfin server, but I have 2 gripes over just using VLC.
-
Can’t use the scroll wheel for volume. It’s a pain aiming for the volume from across the room on the couch.
-
JF won’t boost volume past 100% like VLC.
Know of any fixes?
What platform are you on that you need to use VLC?
Windows PC. I’m wired from my 50" TV monitor to a 55" on the wall.
JF won’t boost volume past 100% like VLC.
For when you need to take it to 11
Couldn’t you just make 10 louder?
I don’t watch on my computer, that’s just where it’s hosted. I watch mostly on my AppleTV using Infuse (also great for other Apple products as well)
It’s weird to me that anyone would use a PC hooked up to a TV from a couch in 2024, but I’m sure it (otherwise) works for you.
Why is weird?
Instead of using a streaming or other settop device? That’d be far, far more normal for the use cade.
I find it convenient, but I’ve had pc’s hooked to tv’s since broadband became a thing. I can watch anything, download anything, play games, check banking, ect.
Fair enough.
I have one of those Google streaming devices but I hate giving up my privacy. Also, I saw fast food ads on the device’s home screen one day and I couldn’t disable those. That was the last straw.
So now I use a raspberry pi 5 running arch with Firefox to stream everything to my TV. I even got a remote working with it that works fairly well, moves the mouse and everything. It was a lot of work but now I own my experience and don’t have to give Google my data in that particular way anymore.
I’m using a wall-mounted TV as a 2nd monitor.
Already back in the 00s you could get a media player box, with a remote, that hooked to you TV and played video files from any share in your network or an HDD hooked up to it.
Nowadays you can get an Android TV media player box with Kodi on it (or you can install it), again with a remote and hooked to your TV to do the same as that 00s media player box but looks a lot more fancy.
Or instead of an Android TV you can get a Mini PC or older laptop, ideally with Linux, with an HDMI output which you connect to your TV, install Kodi on it and get a wireless air-mouse remote (if you get one with normal remote buttons rather than the stupid “for Google” ones, the buttons seamlessly integrate with Kodi so you don’t really have to use the air-mouse stuff).
Alternativelly if you want to avoid Android but don’t want to spend 150 bucks on a mini PC, you can get one of those System On A Board devices like one of the Orange Pi ones, put LibreElec on it (small Linux distro built around Kodi) and do the wireless remote thing with it.
The back end of any of this is either files on a NAS, on a share on a PC, a harddisk connected directly to the device or even something like Jellyfin running somewhere else (which can be outside your home network) or even any of the many IPTV services out there.
It has never been this easy to put together a hardware and software solution, entirely under your control - read: just as easy to use for corporate streaming services as for “personal” media - to watch media in your living room with the same convenience as purpose built devices for that, and it has never been this convenient to use or looked this good.
I think it’s just easier to use a cheap computer. You can use your vpn, adblockers, takes zero setup time to watch whatever you want to watch.
The 00’s comment, I modded the original xbox to run xbox media center (XBMC) which turned into Kodi. My friends where blown away I could download movies and watch them on my tv.
it’s not weird at all, for one, you get to use a keyboard, for second, you get to use actual real hardware that isn’t spying on you and selling your data. You also get to use a real QWERTY based, or whatever other layout you want that isn’t ABCDE what a fucking abomination that layout is.
plus you get a whole desktop OS if you please, or if not you can cold roll something specifically for a TV. You just have so many more options, than you do when using a smart tv or generic streaming box.
You might want to consider streaming it on your TV. Modern TVs should have a Plex app at the least. Or use a Chromecast or other setup. I watch on my couch with the TV remote. Its the same experience as watching Netflix.
I am streaming to my TV. 50" TV on my desktop for a daily driver, 55" (wired) on the wall for media.
Plex isn’t Jellyfin though. Lots of TV’s/TV OS’s have Jellyfin app but it’s pretty basic. I’d recommend an AppleTV with Infuse, it’s super built out with all sorts of great features. It’s a better app than all of the streaming services
Ew Apple
I know this might sound crazy, but I use both Apple devices AND non-Apple devices! Oh the horror!
Ew Apple
Macbooks beat the shit out of any comparable windows laptop. And iPads beat the shit out of any android tablet. And AppleTV is the best TV OS by far. Life must be hard when you just hate things because its popular to hate them.
You can run your Jellyfin connection inside of Kodi which has a ton of configuration options like the volume control.
Are you playing directly on your server?
For the first one at least you could solve it by running JF with a Chromecast or similar device.
Feels cleaner than a wireless mouse in the living room too, IMOUse kodi for last mile?
VLC is great as a file playing app, terrible as a home server…
Can’t use the scroll wheel for volume. It’s a pain aiming for the volume from across the room on the couch.
apparently this is supposed to be coming in the 9.0 feature release. So soon™ I’d have to look to be sure, but apparently it’s coming.
Volume is weird, i feel like i’d almost like either a “volume target” option, to match volume levels between content, or some sort of fixed audio boost level. Idk.
Volume is weird, i feel like i’d almost like either a “volume target” option, to match volume levels between content, or some sort of fixed audio boost level. Idk.
Adding replaygain tags to your content could help here, but it’s a manual process, particularly since it’s not normally included in released videos. And I’m not sure if jellyfin supports replaygain tags from video (presumably it does for audio only files).
mpv definitely does support it at least, with “–replaygain=track”.
Of course, none of this helps with OPs situation, because enabling replaygain will actually lower the volume on most files, so it can account for high dynamic range content.
-
You’re under arrest!
Throw this national menace into federal max security solitary confinement, next to Hannibal Lecter >:/
You ever heard of a man Hannibal Lecter he was a “nice guy”.
- Donald J Trump
Not without paying licencing fees for Hannibal Lecter first!
What a terrible shame it would be to have a friend over to watch the telly without a loicense…🧠, wouldn’t you say?
Love how they make this sound like some incredible feat. When you aren’t bound to license agreements, turns out it’s actually very easy to have a “massive” content library. Literally the only hurdle is storage space.
I mean, distributing it isn’t a small feat. Plus you need to manage subscriptions, billings, CMS, a front end to navigate the content, etc.
That’s no small amount of work, even if they used out of the box solutions for many layers.
Both Wikipedia and Stack Overflow just have a few dozen fast servers despite being some of the world’s highest trafficked websites
The entire content of the wikipedia fits in a pen drive.
Streaming video is a lot more expensive than text and images.
That is just the text content, Wikipedia has pictures and videos as well. Not to mention the other Wikimedia projects
I doubt Wikimedia streams even 0.1% of what netflix does.
Not only that, stackoverflow does it using windows! (or used to, at least)
All of those things already exist. Typically it’s just a Plex server running on a cloud service.
Yeah like… Netflix has peering agreements and whatnot but… It’s not 2005.
5 people could do it though.
Depends how many users.
But yeah a lot.
Yeah it costs, depending on quality of course.
My 14 TB disks are filling up faster than I expected and I am not close to Netflix’s catalogue.Yeah, I got a 14tb drive back in February and it’s 90 percent full already. My media collection will always grow to fill the space available.
You guys wouldn’t happen to have any tips on DVD ripping would you? I’d like to go all digital but I just can’t make Handbrake work.
I’ve never gotten Handbrake to do anything I wanted. DVD Shrink, on the other hand, is one of my top five most-used apps. It’s quite old, but DVD encryption hasn’t changed since its release.
This is my fork of an existing solution
https://github.com/JustAnotherIdea/MakeMKV-Auto-Rip-Concurrent-Ripping-and-Blu-Ray-Fix
183,200 TV episodes is pretty modest compared to alternative “non-approved” sources.
One datapoint is one source (that has a rule against any TV/show content released in the last 5 years) has a total number of 19.5K shows and TV movies/specials, with ~80 K releases. For many shows a single release can be a full season.
The poor copyright holders. Won’t someone think of the corporations for once?
If they had more content on offer than the big legal streaming services combined, should that not tell us something about the quality of legal offers?
What’s there to learn that isn’t already widely known? Existing (copyright) laws are asinine and all corporations eventually become consumed by greed. That’s America in a nutshell.
It’s not even copyright laws, it’s everyone insisting on exclusive contracts. There’s no reason a piece of content couldn’t be on Netflix and Disney+ at the same time. It would be a lot better for consumers if streamers could compete on price and service instead of which content they managed to create/licence.
Exactly. I like Netflix’s service, but Disney’s content. Why can’t I just pay for a Disney bundle on Netflix? Likewise with Max, Peacock, etc.
Lawyers are why we can’t have nice things.
Music streaming has proven this for years now, all the major brands have massive collections that make its super easy to pay and listen to just about anything.
Early Netflix proved this when everything was readily available for an affordable pricre.
The situation is a lot better with music, but it’s not perfect. There’s still issues with region locking content, and content only existing on one service and not another.
There are also issues paying creators instead of rights holders
Yep, you choose between Spotify, Tidal, etc based on price and how well the app works, not because one service has the band you like while the other one doesn’t (not that music streaming isn’t its own shitshow for other reasons, of course).
Me in the 90s and 00s: yarrrr!
Me in the 10s: it feels good to be legit
Me in the 20s: YARRRRRRRRR!
Capitalism wherever it is found. Not just the USA.
Just slap them on the wrist and send them on their way.
No, slaps on the wrist are only for rich people. If you inconvenience rich people, that’s unforgivable.
I wonder how that compares to my own collection…
I haven’t found a source for the size of Netflix/Amazon/Hulus libraries; but I haven’t looked all that hard either.
Impressive porn collection you got there.
It’s probably all just Harry Potter fan fiction tbh.
porn collection
Harry Potter fan fiction
These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I’m gonna need a lot more lotion…
You gotta pump those numbers up
Storage is expensive :/
That’s already almost 36tb, after conversion to HEVC which compressed it ~40%
How did you convert to hvec? I’d love to do that on my entire library but don’t know where to start. I’d also love to burn subtitles into some foreign films since Plex is generally terrible at doing subtitles…
Up until now, I’ve been using the convert tool in Emby server. You can select a whole library and convert it, or individual items/playlists/collections; with options to automatically convert new media as it’s added.
Tbh, I’ve been having a bit of trouble with it re-converting media it’s already done, so I was looking for another solution.
Someone in this thread mentioned tdarr, so I’m going to be looking into that this weekend. Seems like a much more manageable tool with more powerful options.
/edit; I should also mention, this is a long process. Using an rtx4080, it was almost 3 full months non-stop to convert my entire media library from mostly h264 -> h265.
I should also mention, this is a long process. Using an rtx4080, it was almost 3 full months non-stop to convert my entire media library from mostly h264 -> h265.
and if you’re looking to do software conversion you’re easily looking at years, but considering how long most media servers will be up for, it might actually be worthwhile to aggressively automate that so it just runs in the background while you aren’t looking. Also eats up additional CPU time which might be a benefit for someone.
Cool, I’ll check out tdarr. My server is sitting idle most of the time so I’m fine with it taking it’s time doing it in the background.
Storage is cheaper than it’s ever been if you get HDDs
Cheaper, but it’s still not cheap and I really don’t have a whole lot of disposable income rn.
You can get 12tb renewed drives for $100. A lot will even have decent warranties. If you’re lying for like, 3 streaming services, and cancel all three in favor of saving your own media locally it pays for itself quickly. Especially if you download stuff from like HBO Max.
This is doubly true now that streaming services have started raising prices and pay walling content.
really large hdds are still really expensive, the prices have somewhat plateaued at this rate. Nobody really needs such massive drives, and their isn’t exactly an incentive to produce larger drives, especially now that everyone seems to be moving to ssds.
They aren’t though, price per GB on renewed storage with warranty is less than 10 cents a GB. That’s insanely low compared to just five years ago.
