I genuinely can not find a single thing to like about it. It feels like development was stopped shortly after they finished the wire framing. Plex and QuMagie are significantly better (and they suck).

I’m not blaming my hardware or Elestio for the archaic user interface. It looks like it was developed in the 90s and never made it out of alpha.

Thanks again! I just moved a publicly shared photo album from Google Drive to Ente and it’s great. Just the fact that you can sort images properly is a relief. I can’t believe how horrible photos sites are in the 2020s. Ente certainly has a lot of missing features but I’ll be using it for stuff like sharing (less than 5GB) photo albums with friends and family.

As I said, I already tried that. Immich is a hard no.
Frankly, it’s shocking so many people recommend such a really bad photo application.

Ente

Thanks!

Appreciate that. Archaic, no?

Fair enough. Plex may not have the bells and whistles but it’s simple and intuitive to use. I’ve also tried the QuMagie app on my QNAP which does have all those features but found it to be a bit more cumbersome than it was worth.

I tried Google Photos briefly as well and was very shocked at how bad it is, compared to Apple Photos. It took me several days just to figure out how to delete more than one picture at a time. I have to assume it’s much more robust on an Android than on an iPhone but even their web interface was horrible.

I don’t know why people recommend Immich. I found it to be the most bare-bone photo app I’ve ever used. It feels ten+ years old. I tried really hard to make it work but Plex photos is about 20% better and it still sucks.

I’m not getting into how long a copyright should last. I don’t have a meaningful opinion on it.

What it seems people are overlooking (or forgiving?) is that the guy published a book about characters (IP) he doesn’t own. Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is theft.

Whether or not Amazon should option his material is irrelevant if he didn’t get permission to use it in the first place. I mean, fan fiction is one thing. Creative license and educational purposes could be argued. But he published a freaking book!

Do you think Zack Snyder should get to put out a Rebel Moon and call it “Rebel Moon: A Star Wars Story” without getting permission or paying for licensing? Is this the reality this sub believes we live in? If you write a novel and I read it and soon start writing better more successful stories based explicitly on your characters without crediting you or sharing in my profit, how would you feel? Should your work be public domain? Is that what you (collective) feel is best for “the public”?

I don’t really have an opinion on what should happen with the work either. I could see some cases where it would be a major loss for the public to have the work erased. This could be catastrophic for classic literature. For something so new and not having any established cultural significance (as much as you wish it did), I’d go with whatever a judge believes is best under the law. You’re welcome to argue the validity of the law, and I may agree with you, but that’s a different conversation.

Are you all children in here? Did you have nap time and your sippy today?

Everything you just said is the opposite of reality and facts. What’s going on in this sub?

There is a new work by an author using someone else’s intellectual property. That’s what’s this is about. That’s how they were sued.

Copyright laws specifically promote new ideas by punishing those who re-use existing ideas.

You can profit from others’ ideas by asking permission and paying a licensing fee. This happens all the time. It’s how business is done every day.

This entire sub is delusional. You believe in things which are untrue. You make things up to justify theft. It’s funny and it’s sad. I really don’t know where you get these irrational theories or how you’d ever justify them in a court.

If you want to live in literal communism, sure, you can establish that any idea anyone expresses belongs to the world. In the world we actually live in, we have laws protecting people’s intellectual property in order for them to generate content and profit from those original ideas. Otherwise, what’s the point of having an idea at all if anyone can make money from it. This further promotes new original ideas that aren’t derivative of existing ones. This is exactly what the OP stated and I agreed with.

K. Evidently reading the room is more important than reading the article.

I’m not defending anyone. I’m explaining the contradiction in the previous statement.

It’s mind boggling how anyone could possibly consider otherwise. Aside from your own life, there’s nothing more belonging to oneself than their thoughts.

Yes, copyright exists to encourage new works - which the author ignored by creating content violating copyright law. Never mind the public, this dude stole from the copyright holders. He’s a pirate and he got caught.

So, you won’t even click a link and glance at a platform unless it’s free (/ has ads that you can bypass with a blocker)?

Here’s the important bits…

How do the creators get paid?
Nebula profit is divided 50/50 between the creators and Standard. The creator pool is paid out based on watch time.

Who owns Nebula?
Nebula is owned and operated by Standard and the creators, with Curiosity Inc (CuriosityStream) holding a minority stake and a board seat. There are no plans to bring in additional investment.

That’s called nebula.tv

The idea that piracy is stealing is so foreign to me.

It’s literally the definition. Do you think pirates were invited on board to take a ship’s volume of goods without compensation? I’m at a loss how you believe the acquisition of something with a price tag on it without paying for it is not theft.

Your Shakespearian example is very clearly theft. If you sit down at a theater and transcribe the entire show then produce the exact same show, you have stolen intellectual property. What example of “copycat movies” are you considering? I’ve never heard of such a thing nor can I comprehend how it might exist. If someone is literally copying the exact same movie, if someone is producing a movie with the exact same script, it’s theft. Intellectual Property is a thing that can be stolen (hint, it’s in the second word).

You’re right in regard to licensing. We no longer purchase a product but a license to consume that product for a period of time. This was established in the DMCA as media moved from physical to digital formats. When you buy a DVD, you purchase the license to view the content on that medium. If you sell or give away that medium, you are transferring that license to the new owner. There’s a company called Kaleidescape that takes all your physical movies and rips them to a local server. You have to sign an agreement that confirms you own a physical copy of that movie and if you give that movie away you must delete the file from your server. So, you can watch the movie however you like on whatever medium you like, provided you’ve paid for and currently hold the rights to that license.

I’d like you to further explain your philosophy of original content being of no value and everything being free.

Just because I know something is wrong does not mean I feel bad 🏴‍☠️