749
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lud@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

It sucks, sure. But it's been free for a really long time, and it costs money to run a service.

You can't really expect that a service will serve an increasing amount of people free stuff forever.

At least making people visit the site will encourage them to upload and help keep the service up.

Btw, it's not expensive and if you think it is. Just use some other service.

[-] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 45 points 11 months ago

THEN ASK PEOPLE TO DONATE, how tone-deaf can you be about your own community?? What the fuck do they think Wikipedia is doing?
I've found pirates & FOSS enthusiasts are FAR more likely to donate into something they use regularly and appreciate, this is a blatant slap in the face to those people.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They did do donations but maybe it wasn't enough 🤷 https://blog.opensubtitles.com/opensubtitles/thank-you-for-donations

It wouldn't surprise me if "VIP" was originally a tier given for donations which had some benefits.

Edit: that's indeed the case https://blog.opensubtitles.com/opensubtitles/free-vip-membership-for-first-20-users

[-] AbeilleVegane@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

Do they have a transparent budget on how the donations are used? Anyone can claim the donations weren't enough to survive.

[-] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This unfortunately helps sets a precedent for what the internet is going to look like in the future. Even the most basic things will be behind a paywall.
You cant even read a fucking news article from New York Times, who made 173.91 million dollars last year

[-] lud@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

News has never historically been free, only recently through the web and founded by ads.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You've never heard of broadcast radio or TV?

[-] lud@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Lots of ads

Edit: also tv news is also a new concept.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Right, so ads aren't a recent development.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Ads have existed for an extremely long time.

And most news has cost money since forever.

Tv news is a relatively new development and TV news is entirely founded by ads and as a way to drive viewers to a channel to keep them for other programmes.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

TV news is 80 years old. It's far from new.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Again, that was not my point.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Not sure why you keep stating it.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Why are you so stuck on the tv thing?

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Because you keep insisting on repeating falsehoods.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

I mentioned it as a sidenote. It's not important, forget about it.

Either way it's subjective and honestly 80 years is not that long, but who cares 🤷

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

It is in this context, and you're categorically wrong on all counts.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Again completely ignoring the point...

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

That everything you've been stating is wrong?

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

How is something 80 years old "new?"

[-] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Relatively new compared to news. Either way it doesn't matter, my point was that it's funded by ads.

Tv news also drives viewers to a channel which is probably the main purpose of it.

[-] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

True. I amended my comment to better convey my anger

[-] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

How much money do you think they would have made if they gave away all their content for free.

News is pretty expensive.

[-] Jerkface@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I don't know what is so controversial about this statement. Investigative reporting is fucking expensive. The people who do it need to eat. If you're not paying for it, who is?

[-] lud@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

People in this community can be a bit extreme when it comes to never paying for stuff and the need to justify it.

I also like piracy but the constant justifications attempts are pretty annoying.

[-] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

You mean the world renowned, universally known news agency in America owned by billionaires?

[-] lud@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

I am not familiar with who owns who in the USA. I do know that news wouldn't get made if no one wanted to pay for it.

[-] Spazsquatch@lemmy.studio 1 points 11 months ago

True, but just look at how much better it has gotten in the last couple decades. Putting the news behind the paywall runs the risk of ending the battle for impressions and might force nuance into well researched stories.

[-] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

A lot of things are already like that. IIUC this is restrictions on the API not the subs themselves. If you'd like you can still go to the site to download specific subs. What you can't do is use bazarr to bulk download subs. Personally I bought vip since I found the free tier API limit pretty bad and I didn't think the price was so bad for what you get back. Feel free to disagree tho. Before I automated my setup I was just manually searching for subs for movies I wanted and that worked pretty well and will continue to do so if you'd prefer that.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 9 points 11 months ago

But it’s been free for a really long time

Of course it has. You need to offer the world a useful service for some length of time before you have dominated the market to such an extent that you can cut the quality and jack up the prices without there being any meaningful competition to worry about.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

You talk like they are owned by some huge corporation and this was their plan from the beginning.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So who exactly does own OpenSubtitles Group Limited, and what are their motivations? If you're claiming to know, I assume you must be some kind of insider? Because they don't seem to be all that open about it. Otherwise we can only judge by their actions.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

I don't know who they are but it's quite evident that they at least we're a very small group in the beginning.

I also haven't seen any evidence that there is an evil corpo controlling them or something.

Occam's razor

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
749 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54390 readers
127 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS