Open link in next tab
https://links.plex.tv/e/evib?_t=3bef3c50f13f4320a9e31b8be79c6ad2&_m=df59a9eb59db44d2a0dbdbd0ebb61ee5&_e=xDXT7pYRisN-4z7uioydETDUiISVYQQUM0Y_a8MKNPZP6DN9yUpJaWCmlnGMyQQb
https://links.plex.tv/e/evib?_t=3bef3c50f13f4320a9e31b8be79c6ad2&_m=df59a9eb59db44d2a0dbdbd0ebb61ee5&_e=xDXT7pYRisN-4z7uioydETDUiISVYQQUM0Y_a8MKNPZP6DN9yUpJaWCmlnGMyQQb
Seeing a lot of talk about pirated material breaking the TOS. I don't believe that's what Plex is responding to here.
There are individuals who are setting up servers, and then advertising for others to pay for access. They're using Hetzner's infrastructure to facilitate all of this, essentially starting their own paid streaming service.
That's the issue at hand here. Plex doesn't know what is on your server, and has no incentive to find out. That whole pathway opens them up to liability that no company would want. They provide a way for private individuals to share their personal, legally collected media within their own circles.
Admin wise, it's easier to block the entire IP block than to play wack a mole. On the Plex forums, one of the employees made it clear they recommend hosting on your own IP and hardware for this reason. You may be collateral damage here, but they do not technically support hosting on 3rd party hosting.
Basically, this is Plex showing they do due diligence when someone is crossing the line into profiting from media, which is highly illegal.
Plex doesn't know what is on your server, and has no incentive to find our
How in the world can you say this with any kind of authority?
Because they've stated that on many, many occasions. The only time they /might/ have any idea is on metadata retrieval, which is highly anonymized. Their relationship to you is highly a "Don't ask, Don't tell" one.
You could, and others have, spent time sniffing Network traffic to see what data goes out and when to confirm for yourself.
If they did know, they would place themselves in the spot of policing what is on your media server (and how it got there), rather than being the platform and leaving it up to each individual to collect, rip, and store their mass collection of blu rays.
Basically, this is Plex showing they do due diligence when someone is crossing the line into profiting from media, which is highly illegal.
How does it show that? This seems to be an issue with the hosting provider, but it suggests hosting elsewhere and links instructions for migrating the server elsewhere. If the issue was users profiting from media, then hosting their Plex-based streaming service elsewhere wouldn't solve that at all.
This seems to be an issue with the hosting provider, but it suggests hosting elsewhere and links instructions for migrating the server elsewhere.
Is it? We're flying without all the information here, but a disproportionate number of servers on one infrastructure could resist alarm bells and lead to a naming of the entire IP range in conjunction with that hosting provider which no longer wants this kind of behaviour in it's infrastructure.
It's totally feasible, just conjecture. Possible deniability Andy adjusting you're willing to be proactive as an organization matters legally.
Is it?
Yes, as clearly indicated by this part of the linked notice:
Due to the large-scale violations occurring from that hosting provider, we will be taking action soon to block access and activity from Plex Media Servers hosted by that provider.
but a disproportionate number of servers on one infrastructure could resist alarm bells and lead to a naming of the entire IP range in conjunction
Not sure what you're even trying to say here. There's nothing here or elsewhere indicating that too many Plex servers on the same infrastructure is a concern. I haven't read through the Plex TOS with a fine-toothed comb, but I don't imagine there's anything about making sure your server isn't hosted too close to a bunch of others.
with that hosting provider which no longer wants this kind of behaviour in it’s infrastructure.
Has there been anything from the hosting provider to indicate this, or are you just making stuff up? The notice is pretty clearly Plex indicating they have an issue with something Hetzner is doing that violates their TOS.
Possible deniability Andy adjusting you’re willing to be proactive as an organization matters legally.
Plex isn't gaining any plausible deniability. They're providing instructions to migrate the servers to other hosting, which is effectively saying "you can do what you're doing, just do it over here instead."
It seems you've got it all figured! Cheers.
FWIW: https://forums.plex.tv/t/not-allowed-to-use-hetzner/853570/15
You're blowing smoke, without looking anything up from the source. Happy reading.
You’re blowing smoke, without looking anything up from the source.
Everything I've said was based on part of the link in the OP, which I did read.
Happy reading.
That link doesn't include anything new and explicitly states as much in the first sentence. Not sure what you're on about, but you're not making the point you think you are.
Hm... they only mention a general violation of the TOS.
Why would it matter for the company behind PLEX what the location of the server is? I searched the TOS for 'home', 'private' and 'remote' to find some kind of restriction that remote hosting wasn't allowed but those keywords didn't show anything.
I'm not affected by this, but I thought in the past as well about setting up a server in a data centre instead of my home.
I have no idea, but it sounds like Plex was contacted by Hetzner.
It's a very good question as to either party would give a shit.
Maybe some people host huge Plex servers there and they have gotten DMCA notices and Hetzner doesn't like that.
Copyright/DMCA notices for Hetzner have been mentioned already but that seems unlikely.
Nobody knows what's on a PLEX server, they are not public. No rights agency can run checks for any info about hosted media. Family & friends reporting their own family member for copyrighted material? Hetzner illegally snooping in customer data?
A copyright notice would go to the customer who owns/rents the server, not to the data centre owner (Hetzner).
It just doesn't fit together with copyright, so I assume another reason.
There's a big 2nd hand market for people sharing Plex servers with people for money on eBay and stuff. Idk if Plex goes out of their way to hunt those down but they are violating tos. I've seen pictures of servers with 200+ active users before. It was a bigger problem when Drive had uncapped storage because you could duplicate a blob with a click and link a new Plex instance to it and leverage Google's servers for just about everything.
So I doubt it's just families snitching. It's probably copyright holders hunting down these and other streaming websites and figuring out where the stream is coming from and reporting to Heztner. That's standard mo. They don't send you a copyright notice they send your ISP a notice and vaguely threaten them. And then your ISP tells you. That's always how it worked.
Is this maybe about the USA? As Hetzner is mainly in Germany/Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzner) and a private person sharing copyrighted data (e.g. torrent) over their internet access, commonly leads to an information request to the ISP and then a written warning letter to the account owner, including a few hundred Euro fee to pay - just for the warning. There is of course the option to not pay and dispute the matter at court, which makes everything more complex and expensive. The warning letter with fee is just the simple option for first offenders to avoid court.
If the copyright infringement is not just private but has a business model behind it, the account/server owner can even expect a police raid in the morning hours to impound IT and secure financial statements and income, which will later determine the scope of the penalty.
Hetzner would have to hand out the server owners details upon legal request, if someone has gotten knowledge of any copyright infringement e.g. via (semi-public?) PLEX. In a case with eBay & payments, there is no simple written warning letter with small fee.
I assume copyright holders search around for those paid plex servers and then send a notice to them.
I have heard that Hetzner forward notices to customers and then they force them off the platform in x amount of days. Maybe it's a hassle to deal with or they want to keep the service reputable. Not sure why they would complain to Plex though. It might be something entirely different.
yeah got the same mail makes me really angry they don't even name the hosting provider or what part of the TOS are violated. might just put Plex behind a vpn
Is it a different hoster in your case and not Hetzner?
But what would a VPN change? On the technical side, Hetzner knows what is on their servers, PLEX knows the libraries and you (and people you grant access) do as well. PLEX has settings for secure connections only.
With or without VPN, no one else knows.
My guess is pirated material.
Distribution of User Content may be subject to third-party rights. You agree that by using the Plex Solution you will not upload, post, display, or transmit any of the following:
anything which defames, harasses, threatens, offends, or in any way violates or infringes on the rights (including, without limitation, patents, copyrights, or trademark rights) of others;
I'm assuming that benefit of hosting Plex somewhere is that it scales to multiple users better when running/selling Plex as a paid service and this is too visible for their plausible deniability.
I also don't think it's copyright related. PLEX server are small communities, family & friends and not some open tracker.
And I don't think Hetzner started illegally snooping around in their customers stored data and complaining to the PLEX developer about it. PLEX themselves? They could close all servers if they started snooping around what the users have. And no other party can see what media is on there.
I think there is some other reason but no clue what.
Hetzner running some diagnostics and seeing high traffic and storage? Then they would probably just inform their customers themselves and not via PLEX.
I hope we get more information in the next few days.
I afraid Microsoft will ban me for reading news articles copied from websites without permission, or just having a pirated game on my Windows partition.
Or maybe Chrome (I use FireFox, just an example) ban me for visiting "unclean" websites.
Maybe even the landlord of my rental will kick me out for keeping book post due from the local library.
It's a scary society we live in.
Sharing for money with strangers.
Plex likely has been monitoring offerings of "Plex Shares" online, identifying a pattern of where they are hosted primarily, and taking action.
all the more reason to ditch plex. It's a shit company, with shit product. Jellyfin is so much better.
Open source and free yes, better? I don’t know how you can say that considering everything plex allows via their plugins (recreate your own audible library) and also the more professional polish of their UI