[thrashh]

I paid Plex for a lifetime pass a long time ago and unless something changes, I will likely never pay them again and somehow I expect more features.

So it’s not surprising they’re looking at other sources of revenue if they expect to continue paying for developers, hosting and the entire company.

I also don’t see how ripping with youtube-dl is relevant. They need a legal source from somebody, maybe with a SLA, that they can sign a contract with, not set up some hack.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> They need a legal source from somebody, maybe with a SLA, that they can sign a contract with, not set up some hack.

I'm not asking them to provide the video files.

I'm asking for the feature. And if someone doesn't understand that's what I'm asking for, then I have to conclude that what they think Plex is supposed to be is very different from what I think it's supposed to be.

That'd make me wrong, except that 10 years ago everyone who knew about Plex agreed with me. Including the original developers.

[LeFantome]

I think it is fine for Open Source software to behave as you describe. It is much more difficult for a commercial service. Any kind is service would be borderline but charging money for it pushes it over the edge in my view.

At the very least, I think you would need two entities where one creates the software and other one hosts it. That way “the service” is hosting the software and not the specific features that the software provides.

Plex mixes both and so downloading the video files becomes part of the commercial service they are offering. Providing commercial access to somebody else’s copyright sounds illegal to me.