• Metal Zealot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    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

    • @emax_gomax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 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.

    • @lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -181 year ago

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

      • Kuori [she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 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
              -31 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
          -111 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
              01 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
              21 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.