Technology

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] netchami@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I'm occasionally buying used Blu-rays from eBay, ripping them using MakeMKV, putting the content on my Jellyfin server and sharing it with my friends and family over Tailscale. Works like a dream and no one can do anything about it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=RZ8ijmy3qPo

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 6 points 2 years ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/watch?v=RZ8ijmy3qPo

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

parent

[–] pathief@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Can you ELI5 why you need/use Tailscsle on your setup?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Because allowing access to your VPS/homelab without VPN is like having a one night stand without a condom. You might be ok one time but eventually your gonna wake up with a nasty virus

parent

[–] goldgate@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

To make the server accessible via internet, it's a VPN service.

You could do it without tailscale too, but using it makes things extremely easy.

parent

[–] goldgate@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

How much are you paying for tailscale?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] netchami@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago

Nothing. It's free for 3 users with a limit of 100 devices. The traffic isn't relayed through Tailscale servers, instead, Tailscale just orchestrates the peer-to-peer connections.

parent

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You're missing the point.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[+] lud@lemm.ee -12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Calling people idiots doesn't make you right, and trying to make a different point doesn't show that you understood the original point—quite the opposite.

The point is that if a company can choose not to honor its legal obligation to consumers who have purchased content from them, then there is no reason for consumers to honor their legal obligation to refrain from accessing the same content outside the system the company has provided—or in this case failed to provide.

Moreover, if the legal system of your country doesn't require everyone to uphold their legal obligations, then why should we allow it to hold us to the obligations it has placed on us?

Now you'll probably write a reply that reply that shows no understanding of the difference between ownership and licensing, or between theft and unauthorized access, but you can't say I didn't try.