Plex blocks IP addresses from Hetzner as of October 12, 2023

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, thewelshbrummie said:

xcept it makes it someone else's problem. not Plex's.

Its  already not Plex's problem. They are not obligated in any way, shape, or form to police the users private files that never touch their servers.....

[LAwLz]

31 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Its  already not Plex's problem. They are not obligated in any way, shape, or form to police the users private files that never touch their servers.....

It might actually be a problem for Plex, depending on the local laws and what other companies are saying to them. 

Anti-piracy laws can be very draconian and it's not unheard of that companies and people get hit with stupid lawsuits because they are vaguely associated with some case.

Plex might be trying to cover their own ass and they feel like they aren't losing any valuable customers in the process.

 

 

That doesn't make things right though. I completely agree with you that it shouldn't be Plex's problem what someone does on a non-Plex-owned server with their own private files. Plex has nothing to do with it really, but it only takes a few people out for "revenge" on pirates to make one hell of trouble for Plex.

 

With all that being said, if this was the case then I think it would be better if Plex just stood up for their users instead of instantly caving without informing their users more than a few weeks before the change happens, and then respond in a very vague way.

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It might actually be a problem for Plex, depending on the local laws and what other companies are saying to them. 

Dont think so, then the media dinosaurs wouldve already coerced everyone to do their bidding including OS devs..... They provide the SW but legally speaking they cannot be held liable for what the user is doing with  it.

[strajk-]

On 9/15/2023 at 12:18 PM, Lurick said:

Because Emby will be okay with people selling access to their Emby instances?

 

 

To the article:

This has been an ongoing battle for a long time but Plex is now being forced to do something at a larger scale because it's one of those places where a lot of people are profiting off pirated content by selling access. I'm sure this wasn't a lightly taken decision and Hetzner (at least I wouldn't be surprised) probably pushed for some of it too. Hetzner already took away GPUs because people were mining on them back in the day too.

Why would it matter what Emby thinks?

It is Open Source, do whatever you want with it.

And if Emby is not your cup of cake you also have Jellyfin which is also a popular Open Source alternative to plex.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Dont think so, then the media dinosaurs wouldve already coerced everyone to do their bidding including OS devs..... They provide the SW but legally speaking they cannot be held liable for what the user is doing with  it.

That's never stopped things like HDCP being forced in to connection standards and other copy protections. Then there is the issue of companies like Disney no longer selling physical media in Aus/NZ and that is going to keep spreading. Whatever communication direct or indirect that is happening with Plex if I were them I'd see some pretty clear writing on the wall going on here, if eventually the only media (new) that could possibly be in people's Plex media libraries is illegitimately obtained then it is in it's entirety a piracy platform i.e. the only source of this media is on a paid content streaming platform with no re-distribution rights. 

 

It's probably not a good idea to give these companies excuses to push this type of agenda.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, strajk- said:

Why would it matter what Emby thinks?

It is Open Source, do whatever you want with it.

And if Emby is not your cup of cake you also have Jellyfin which is also a popular Open Source alternative to plex.

Open source is not immunity for litigation. Best case in a losing battle Emby repos and official downloads get taken down and continued work on it becomes technically illegal.

 

Open source has never been and never will be "do whatever you want with it", no matter how much freedom there is with such things it's not actually complete and absolute.

[LAwLz]

31 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Open source is not immunity for litigation. Best case in a losing battle Emby repos and official downloads get taken down and continued work on it becomes technically illegal.

 

Open source has never been and never will be "do whatever you want with it", no matter how much freedom there is with such things it's not actually complete and absolute.

You are right on paper and in theory, but realistically it would be near impossible to do what you propose (make it illegal to even work on it) and in practice it would just keep working like normal.

I mean, how often have people not gone after torrenting clients? And as we can see with those, it hasn't slowed down development or made it any harder to get. The same thing would happen if someone went after Emby or Jellyfin. Them being open source makes them a million times more resilient to legal threats than Plex, because if Plex folds for legal pressure nobody can pick up the torch, and they will fold as soon as they risk losing money (because they are a for-profit company).

With Emby and Jellyfin, anyone can pick up the torch, preferably (and probably) someone in a country with less oppressive laws. 

Them being open source also means that it is harder to strike it down using local laws. If New Zealand makes it illegal to work on because "it might be used for piracy" then someone in France for example might work on it instead, and in France it might not be illegal. It's way easier to go after a corporate entity than individual contributors.

 

 

 

Edit:

I think it is worth noting that Plex is not really a program to stream your own local content anymore. It can still do that, but a simple look at their website is very telling. Plex, the company, want the program to be a streaming service, and since they are partnered and rely on companies like Warner Bros, Paramount, Lionsgate, MGM, Viacom, BBC and so on, they probably don't want to risk pissing them off and losing their business model.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You are right on paper and in theory, but realistically it would be near impossible to do what you propose (make it illegal to even work on it) and in practice it would just keep working like normal.

I mean, how often have people not gone after torrenting clients? And as we can see with those, it hasn't slowed down development or made it any harder to get. The same thing would happen if someone went after Emby or Jellyfin. Them being open source makes them a million times more resilient to legal threats than Plex, because if Plex folds for legal pressure nobody can pick up the torch, and they will fold as soon as they risk losing money (because they are a for-profit company). With Emby and Jellyfin, anyone can pick up the torch, preferably (and probably) someone in a country with less oppressive laws. 

A media streaming product probably requires a little more effort than a torrenting client and I'd imagine people would be a little more picky about who's they use. I don't think many clones of Emby is really going to fly compared to a torrent client.

 

You do actually want to pick an Emby source that will actually get updated and maintain the software quality.

 

The main issue is anyone that hosts the repo can be ordered to delete it which is the whole downfall of the "we can do whatever we want". Yes you can, until you make it public then ehhhh not really.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

A media streaming product probably requires a little more effort than a torrenting client for sure and I'd imagine people would be a little more picky about who's they use, I don't think many clones of Emby is really going to fly compared to a torrent client.

 

The main issue is anyone that hosts the repo can be ordered to delete it which is the whole downfall of the "we can do whatever we want". Yes you can, until you make it public then ehhhh not really.

When you say "media streaming product", what do you mean exactly?

If you're just talking about the interface used to pull videos from your own collection, then I don't think people will be that picky. I would be very surprised if a clone of for example Emby didn't pop up and get popular if for some reason someone went after Emby.

If you're talking about a servicer provider, like Plex wants to be, then I agree that people will be more picky. But I don't think the people who use Emby and Jellyfin are looking for some service where they stream content someone else provides them with.

 

As for a repo being taken down, that's just cutting off the head of a hydra. It doesn't work. We have seen this time and time again. How have the attempts at taking down the pirate bay worked out? And that is a way bigger target than some video player clients. If you want a more apples-to-apples comparison then just look at torrent clients.

Going after Emby and Jellyfin would be like going after VLC. It would never work. Not just because it's such a massive stretch to call them a "piracy program", but even if some countries did them being open source makes them very agile and they typically have no firm base or company they belong to, and that's the usual angle of attack for these types of litigations.

 

Them being open source absolutely makes a massive difference.

Them not being a company also makes a massive difference.

Them not being a "service provider" like Plex, that requires partnerships from massive media-providers like Viacom makes a massive difference.

 

Jellyfin and Emby are in my opinion not at all in the same situation as Plex. Plex is very vulnerable and has to play ball when pushed around. Jellyfin and Emby do not.

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

When you say "media streaming product", what do you mean exactly?

Emby, Plex, Jillyfin... isn't literally what we are talking about the obvious thing we are talking about 

 

Edit:

And remember just because it might work for 6 months or a year doesn't mean it's a long term solution and survival. Do you want to run Emby from 2011?

 

If it's on Github and ordered to be removed then it'll keep getting removed. Even if it doesn't it actually needs to get developed or it's a dead end software. Not being a company doesn't remove the issue at all. Someone somewhere has to host it and you can't tell me massive usage and approval is going to happen on a not well-known and trusted site. Sketchysources.com isn't going to be viable place for EmbyClone#2821

 

The Pirate Bay isn't even a comparable example, torrent clients yes sure that is. Torrent clients however have, like Emby etc currently do, a legitimate argument for their usage to not be exclusive to illegal file sharing since it is actually used for legitimate software and file distribution. As does Emby etc for now. However like I mentioned if zero physical media exists from any media company in XYZ region the only content after that date this was instigated is illegal content always. If it's only illegal content that can now be used with the software, ignoring old content since we know that's how it'll get played out, then the legitimate usage argument comes under more serious scrutiny.

 

"This software can only be used with illegal content, it must be banned". It's an argument not won with torrenting, does not mean it cannot be won here.

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Emby, Plex, Jillyfin... isn't literally what we are talking about the obvious thing we are talking about 

Plex is a fairly different type of product compared to Emby and Jellyfin.

 

Emby and Jellyfin are very focused on playing your own media. They are basically VLC but with a different skin.

 

Plex is a subscription service that does allow you to play your own media, but judging by their website they are more focused on being a Netflix type of service.

 

I just want you to clarify what exactly you mean with "media streaming product" so that we don't talk past each other. Plex and Jellyfin/Emby are not really the same category of programs. There is some overlap in functionality, but they are still pretty different. I guess you could call Emby and Jellyfin a subset of what Plex is. 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Edit:

And remember just because it might work for 6 months or a year doesn't mean it's a long term solution and survival. Do you want to run Emby from 2011?

 

If it's on Github and ordered to be removed then it'll keep getting removed. Even if it doesn't it actually needs to get developed or it's a dead end software. Not being a company doesn't remove the issue at all. Someone somewhere has to host it and you can't tell me massive usage and approval is going to happen on a not well-known and trusted site. Sketchysources.com isn't going to be viable place for EmbyClone#2821

If it keeps getting removed from Github then it could (and would) move to a different platform. We have seen this happen with other programs.

 

But that is assuming the program would even get removed to begin with, which is a massive stretch and far more unlikely than Plex caving to pressure from their business partners.

 

 

If you think Jellyfin and Emby are just as vulnerable to getting shut down as Plex then I don't know what to tell you. 

They absolutely aren't. No way in hell. And that's for several reasons I have already listed.

[strajk-]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Open source is not immunity for litigation. Best case in a losing battle Emby repos and official downloads get taken down and continued work on it becomes technically illegal.

 

Open source has never been and never will be "do whatever you want with it", no matter how much freedom there is with such things it's not actually complete and absolute.

Why would Emby or Jellyfin get canceled if a part of its userbase uses it for nefarious actions? 

If that was the case Deluge and many others would had long been shutdown.

 

EDIT: just read the whole spiel between you and LAwLz, which I basically subscribe to what he said. 

[leadeater]

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Plex is a fairly different type of product compared to Emby and Jellyfin.

 

Emby and Jellyfin are very focused on playing your own media. They are basically VLC but with a different skin.

 

Plex is a subscription service that does allow you to play your own media, but judging by their website they are more focused on being a Netflix type of service.

No they aren't that different at all. They are all competing software which is why the comparisons/arguments always come up when someone says I use or want to use Plex because 90% of the time someone will chime in with the "Why not use Emby/Jellyfin because they are open source". All 3 are great products that offer extremely similar capabilities. The reason why I'm still on Plex is because they support more obscure clients like PlayStation as that actually is my primary device for Plex usage.

 

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Plex and Jellyfin/Emby are not really the same category of programs.

Yes they are.

 

All 3 are content libraries for hosting media files and for streaming them over the network. They all have nice client interfaces to browse content and play it.

 

As a Plex user for more than a decade Plex primary usage and reason it existed was for playing your own media, and that is still the case today. More recently they have "other things" and that's as I said more recent and pretty sparse in offered content and bad user experience. Whatever their source is for things like movie trailers, of my own movies, sucks and buffers horribly.

 

But again they are all comparable and competing software with the same primary use case.

 

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If it keeps getting removed from Github then it could (and would) move to a different platform. We have seen this happen with other programs.

Like I said that doesn't mean people will follow and development will continue long term. Many torrent clients simply stopped existing because of this very issue.

 

And it's not like I'm saying this is that likely to happen but refer back to original point, "It's open source so we can do whatever we want" which the reality is no. The more of a problem you are perceived the more difficult it'll become. The longer term threat is the removal of legitimate ownership of media at all, I'm already not able to legally obtain Disney media in my country region format. It's not currently illegal for me to buy a US Region 1 Blu-ray on Amazon and import it, currently. It's also currently possible to do this, currently.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, strajk- said:

Why would Emby or Jellyfin get canceled if a part of its userbase uses it for nefarious actions? 

If that was the case Deluge and many others would had long been shutdown.

All torrent clients have an actual defended usage case of "can be used for legal distribution" and is actively used for those purposes.

 

Ok now you are Disney, you release zero content via any method other than Disney+. What is the legal status of any content on Plex/Emby/Jellyfin going forward. Illegal redistribution right? Now lets add in the rest that start going the same path.

 

What is the long term status of Plex/Emby/Jellyfin?

[Donut417]

24 minutes ago, strajk- said:

Why would Emby or Jellyfin get canceled if a part of its userbase uses it for nefarious actions? 

I recall Kodi being cancelled due to nefarious users. The reason is the project made it easy to pirate and thats what users were using it for. I know in the case of Plex you can share access to your Plex server over the internet. Now Ive never used Emby or Jellyfin, but if they offer similar capabilities that could be an issue. I can tell you that under US law its illegal to break copy protection on DVD's and Blurays. So it you have ripped any movies on to your server you are technically breaking the law, because you have to strip the copy protection to do it. The only reason the FBI doesn't kick in your door is because the law only really applies to distributors of copyrighted content. But if you share your Plex server with others over the internet and you have content not created by you on it then technically you are distributing copyrighted material and are breaking the DMCA. 

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I recall Kodi being cancelled due to nefarious users. The reason is the project made it easy to pirate and thats what users were using it for. I know in the case of Plex you can share access to your Plex server over the internet. Now Ive never used Emby or Jellyfin, but if they offer similar capabilities that could be an issue. I can tell you that under US law its illegal to break copy protection on DVD's and Blurays. So it you have ripped any movies on to your server you are technically breaking the law, because you have to strip the copy protection to do it. The only reason the FBI doesn't kick in your door is because the law only really applies to distributors of copyrighted content. But if you share your Plex server with others over the internet and you have content not created by you on it then technically you are distributing copyrighted material and are breaking the DMCA. 

Kodi does still exist btw, it's just really hated, to the point Google removed "Kodi" from it's autocomplete search citing "associated with copyright infringement". Although checking now it seems to be back and allowed autocomplete word 

 

Limewire, eDonkey2000, eMule, Kazaa (not open source though) are all victims and in the past, to be fair though torrent kind of helped kill them too. Hilariously LimeWire got sued for 72 trillion, they lost multiple lawsuits

 

Quote

On October 26, 2010, U.S. federal court judge Kimba Wood issued an injunction ordering Lime Wire LLC to prevent "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality" of its software in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC.[8][9] A trial investigating the damages necessary to compensate the affected record labels was scheduled to begin in January 2011.[10] As a result of the injunction, the RIAA initially suggested that LimeWire was responsible for $72 trillion in damages, before eventually settling for $105 million.[11][12] Thereafter, the company stopped distributing the LimeWire software, and versions 5.5.11 and newer have been disabled using a backdoor installed by the company.

 

RIAA has a non-zero win count.

[Kisai]

41 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Kodi does still exist btw, it's just really hated, to the point Google removed "Kodi" from it's autocomplete search citing "associated with copyright infringement". Although checking now it seems to be back and allowed autocomplete word 

Every single "Free TV" box sold on ebay sold over the last decade has been a "Kodi" box with pirate distribution backends. Basically think customized Android (with the nvidia shield being the most capable, albeit expensive compared to some of the other SoC's) and usually the backends of these were a mixture of Openload (shut down in 2019), facebook itself, and file sharing lockers.

 

The Kodi software, to my knowledge, never contained these backends/modifications out of the box, they were always part of a the third party pirate network who also sold the boxes behind the scenes.

 

41 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Limewire, eDonkey2000, eMule, Kazaa (not open source though) are all victims and in the past, to be fair though torrent kind of helped kill them too. Hilariously LimeWire got sued for 72 trillion, they lost multiple lawsuits

 

 

RIAA has a non-zero win count.

 

Napster, Kazaa, eMule, Limewire, and so forth were only shutdown because of the "hosting" aspect of these systems. Where as bitTorrent has no implicit hosting element to it. Napster came out at a time when a lot of people were on dialup and "music ripping" was the new hot thing. Up to that point most media piracy was done via IRC and the alt.binaries usenet hierarchy. 

 

MPAA, RIAA, BSA, ESA, etc have no means of shutting down bittorrent because bittorrent is nothing more than a protocol, it's like trying to shut down down "the web". There is no means of doing so that isn't "shutting down the interent", and believe me, the the elderly suits in the legacy media companies would love to shut down the internet and return to selling CD singles at $100.

 

I would rather physically own the media, but optical media is subject to wear and hardware manufacturers still producing ODD's, while other kinds of media (eg usb sticks, sd cards, Nintendo Switch carts, etc) are not guaranteed to last due to flash media not being mask-ROM and thus self-erasure is certain at some age.

 

The thing is, and let's be serious, if the "internet" was no longer a viable option for pirates, people would just go back to copying the physical media anyway, and it would just result in a return of the "bootleg" market in a larger way than already exists in large cities. People quickly forget that "Canal Street" is a thing. These physical markets exist because copying things like a designer purse is harder than copying a CD.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The thing is, and let's be serious, if the "internet" was no longer a viable option for pirates, people would just go back to copying the physical media anyway, and it would just result in a return of the "bootleg" market in a larger way than already exists in large cities.

Not when there is no physical media, but it would be physical copies of content ripped from streaming platforms. 

 

As for bittorrent I know, but it's been tried many times to kill it and one of the things that saved it was the actual legitimate usage of it, unlike LimeWire etc. If the only thing standing in the way of making bittorrent illegal were written laws then they'd simply get changed. Thankfully it's not that simple, if it were then I would say RIAA would probably have gotten that type of law change through.

 

Overall I don't particularly care much about these things, however throwing caution to the wind and thinking everything is fine can have the same outcome of LimeWire who literally thought the same thing.

 

And I really hate what Disney has done and will do in more regions. The death of physical media has never been closer, will others follow?

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I recall Kodi being cancelled due to nefarious users.

Kodi still exists and is actively developed. So if someone at some point tried to "cancel" them it kind of just proves my point that you can't take down open source software like that.

It is way easier to take down commercial and proprietary software because you can hit them where it hurts them, their profits, and the source code is most likely only accessible by a few people. 

 

 

Of course, it is kind of possible to take down open-source software, but it is not in the same ballpark as how easy it would be to take down proprietary software. 

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Ok now you are Disney, you release zero content via any method other than Disney+. What is the legal status of any content on Plex/Emby/Jellyfin going forward.

The vast library of content that was legal to obtain and rip before this proposed mass cleansing of content outside of Disney+, or home made movies, or movies not from Disney.

The list goes on and on.

 

Honestly, I think this conversation has gotten pretty ridiculous. To me it just seems like you really like Plex (which is fine) and as a result, got mad when someone brought up Emby/Jellyfin. So instead of acknowledging that they are in vastly different situations, we are now discussing a pretty ridiculous theoretical scenario that would put Emby/Jellyfin in a tough spot. Where it becomes outlawed to work on a media player and several countries all pool their resources together to crack down on a video player.

 

 

 

I think you understand the difference in resilience between an open-source project and a closed-source one in the context of being erased. This whole discussion seems ridiculous to me. Of course it is harder to shut down an open-source project than a closed-source one. That doesn't necessarily mean the open-source program is the one very one should use, but I think it is silly to pretend like a government could just as easily shut down or make demands to Jellyfin as they could Plex. They absolutely can't. 

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's never stopped things like HDCP being forced in to connection standards and other copy protections. Then there is the issue of companies like Disney no longer selling physical media in Aus/NZ and that is going to keep spreading. Whatever communication direct or indirect that is happening with Plex if I were them I'd see some pretty clear writing on the wall going on here, if eventually the only media (new) that could possibly be in people's Plex media libraries is illegitimately obtained then it is in it's entirety a piracy platform i.e. the only source of this media is on a paid content streaming platform with no re-distribution rights. 

 

It's probably not a good idea to give these companies excuses to push this type of agenda.

Well they couldnt take down any torrent clients/force video players to detect pirated content so i very much doubt they could do anything to plex.....

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The vast library of content that was legal to obtain and rip before this proposed mass cleansing of content outside of Disney+, or home made movies, or movies not from Disney.

The list goes on and on.

A list getting ever shorter which is the point. Anyone not seeing the death of physical media is simply blind. Ask Blockbuster lol

 

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

got mad when someone brought up Emby/Jellyfin.

What? No. <edit> Sorry misunderstood what you were referring to. I find it really amusing you think I got mad because I use Plex lol. That had nothing to do with it. I'm pointing at the naivety that open source can let you do anything and is protection from being shut down. <edit>

 

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think you understand the difference in resilience between an open-source project and a closed-source one in the context of being erased. This whole discussion seems ridiculous to me.

It is and it isn't, depends if you ignore the point and drill down on things that don't matter. Emby and Jillyfin will die off like other open source projects like LimeWire if they become too difficult to host, too difficult to associate with and too high risk. If these types of software get branded like LimeWire no amount of being open source will save them, like LimeWire.

 

The only real difference between these and LimeWire was that LimeWire was made obsolete by bittorrent, thus not making it worth trying to save.

 

Assuming ease of anything I said is on you, how you see it. Nowhere, at no time, did I say anything about ease, bar my last post. But simply ignoring open source projects that have been killed off by these companies is not a good idea and history revisionist. 

 

P.S. I probably wouldn't be using Plex still if the other 2 had real PlayStation apps, not that I even pay Plex money anymore since I have an ancient life time pass.

[Donut417]

31 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well they couldnt take down any torrent clients/force video players to detect pirated content so i very much doubt they could do anything to plex.....

Plex inc the company behind the software is US based. So yes someone can absolutely do something. I’m betting big Media has deeper pockets than Plex. Remember the deeper the pockets the more the legal system can work for you. 

[jagdtigger]

36 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Plex inc the company behind the software is US based. So yes someone can absolutely do something. I’m betting big Media has deeper pockets than Plex. Remember the deeper the pockets the more the legal system can work for you. 

That would be like suing a knife making company for assisting in a murder, which is pure BS......

[Donut417]

55 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

That would be like suing a knife making company for assisting in a murder, which is pure BS......

And McDonalds was sued over a hot cup of coffee…… How that one turn out? 

[jagdtigger]

Just now, Donut417 said:

And McDonalds was sued over a hot cup of coffee…… How that one turn out? 

Not living in the USA so IDK......