• @lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      531 year 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.

    • Metal Zealot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

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

        • Kuori [she/her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          141 year ago

          nothing should ever be better than it was in the past. everything should continue to suck forever.

              • @lud@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year 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.

              • @lud@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year 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.

          • @lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

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

            News is pretty expensive.

            • Metal Zealot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

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

              • @lud@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year 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.

            • @Jerkface@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year 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.

        • @Spazsquatch@lemmy.studio
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      91 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

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

        • kbal
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year 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