Making a burner account isnt that hard and hardly a shittification in my books.
Just a measure to ensure the free api access is correctly monetized which is a valid reason for a service to me.
Would you work for free for your workplace without a compensation beyond a $5 bill and a pat on the back at times because your boss felt generous?
But we come a bit full circle here:
OpenSubs pays for the server and availability and service speed.
I assume the speed they provide ain’t the cheapest server they could get their hands on.
If the cost of a free/unauthenticated users and the server bill breaks even with the VIP payment (cant call it a donation imo) then they should have all the rights to limit free users.
Now if they actively lock features, then I have no feelings for them.
Every service that disabled or limited the API has seen an increase in running costs, because people turn to scraping, which costs them more resources overall, and cannot be controlled by the site owners as easily.
Let’s be honest, though, hosting text files with a search bar isn’t that much expensive to justify a response like this.
It’s fine if they want to earn money, but then they should be upfront about it, and not making up stories about fluke running costs. I’d rather see a donation button.
But I feel like business decision in these times are rarely backed by good reasoning beyond quick cash and seldom long term thinking. So good job OpenSubs? Yay?
Would you work for free for your workplace without a compensation beyond a $5 bill and a pat on the back at times because your boss felt generous?
Misleading question. These kinds of communities are volunteer-fed, so you are basically asking me if I would work for free for a charity, which is the point. Things change notoriously when the boss then decides to monetize the entire thing for themself and not for you.
Making a burner account isnt that hard and hardly a shittification in my books.
Just a measure to ensure the free api access is correctly monetized which is a valid reason for a service to me.
Would you work for free for your workplace without a compensation beyond a $5 bill and a pat on the back at times because your boss felt generous?
Opensubtitles does not create the subtitles, that’s done by the community, which is being monetised and sub authors get nothing out of it.
I agree, that that’s a bad part of it.
But we come a bit full circle here:
OpenSubs pays for the server and availability and service speed.
I assume the speed they provide ain’t the cheapest server they could get their hands on.
If the cost of a free/unauthenticated users and the server bill breaks even with the VIP payment (cant call it a donation imo) then they should have all the rights to limit free users.
Now if they actively lock features, then I have no feelings for them.
Every service that disabled or limited the API has seen an increase in running costs, because people turn to scraping, which costs them more resources overall, and cannot be controlled by the site owners as easily.
Let’s be honest, though, hosting text files with a search bar isn’t that much expensive to justify a response like this.
It’s fine if they want to earn money, but then they should be upfront about it, and not making up stories about fluke running costs. I’d rather see a donation button.
Totally valid and agree with your stance.
But I feel like business decision in these times are rarely backed by good reasoning beyond quick cash and seldom long term thinking. So good job OpenSubs? Yay?
Misleading question. These kinds of communities are volunteer-fed, so you are basically asking me if I would work for free for a charity, which is the point. Things change notoriously when the boss then decides to monetize the entire thing for themself and not for you.
Well yes.
I go with the 2nd view because IMO the first option barely applies anymore with the current business course and decision.