Text:
I consent to Plex to: (i) sell certain personal information (hashed emails, advertising identifiers) to third-parties for advertising and marketing purposes; and (ii) store and/or access certain personal information (advertising identifiers, IP address, content being watched) on my device(s) and share that information with Plex’s advertising partners. This data is used to deliver personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. Your consent applies to all devices on which you have Plex installed. You can withdraw your consent at any time in Account Settings or using this page.
Soure: https://www.plex.tv/vendors/ (Might have to clear cache)
Can also read about the changes here: https://www.plex.tv/about/privacy-legal/
I don't share videos with people using google to log into any site.
The whole anti Google holier than thou is annoying at these levels.
Ok fine, don't use Google. But telling your friends and loved ones to switch email providers over your crusade is worse than vegans telling you about their diet.
I'm all for kicking Google to the curb. I'm not for shoving my beliefs down other people's throats.
It's not "shoving my beliefs down other people's throats" telling them that these are the options for signing in the service I'm hosting
Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
No ma'am, this is a Wendys drive thru.
But really, I think you misunderstood the intended inference from OP, it has nothing to do with email and everything to do with data collection, algorithms, and not quite fair use media access that get's logged to Google (a third party) ad infinitum.
:)
I don't know that Google gets to log your access in that scenario, Plex is just using their login system.
Plex sure does know, though, whether you log in via Google or not, so "I don't share videos using google to log in" is still a bit of a weird statement and not the reason you'd be worried about your piracy habits.
Incidentally, if a friend or family member is hosting a service and "tells me these are the options to sign in to the service I'm hosting" I'd tell them to go away, which is something my own relatives have done to me a bunch when my proposed self-hosted alternative isn't perfectly smooth and just as convenient as the corpo alternative.
Not surprisingly, the only two selfhosted things my family has ever used are Plex and Home Assistant.
Come on, you've got a password manager that saves passwords and usernames. It couldn't be more convenient to login.
Why would you give the responsibility to google for your logins?
Why would you lock yourself into the vendor google by using their login system for every other service? You can't migrate anywhere easily.
I'm just not enabling such a method. It's not implemented. People who don't think about it and hence don't care usually still use the service eveb if they cannot use "login with google"
I have a password manager.
My parents do not.
They do have a Gmail account and know how to use Netflix, so they know how to use Plex.
I mean, that's not the dealbreaker, there are plenty of bigger issues with Jellyfin than not having a Google authentication integration. They definitely can log in with a password and do for other self-hosted services, but the fact is that Plex having the option does remove one annoyance from the process.
Huh? Google would, at a minimum, know what service is requesting authentication, and plex would know which google user account is being used to authenticate. Maybe they hash that information, but why would anyone trust that? Even if you're not breaking any laws with what you're hosting on your plex account, I totally understand why someone might not like the idea of google or plex having data about the identities of users accessing your server and what services are being run from it.
Yeah, you kinda got to the breakdown in this conversation. Google sure knows that you're using Plex.
That is not a concern, though. Plex is a perfectly legal piece of software.
I think people are taking me saying "Google doesn't know what you're streaming with Plex, but Plex does, so that'd be a bigger issue" as irrelevant because they assume Plex is itself a liability, which it isn't.
It's weird how corporate copyright assumptions have seeped to the mainstream and people assume that anything you do with your owned media is illegal unless you're paying somebody.
There are a bunch of reasons why it might be a concern, and only the least of them has to do with the legality of copyright use.
Except plex has already proven themselves willing to ban users based on their use and streaming practices, so it clearly is a liability
If you live inside the US (or a state with trade agreements with the US) and are ripping physical media to store on your server and stream digitally, you are absolutely breaking the law. Doubly so if you are sharing that media with others outside your household.
'It's not a problem because I have nothing to hide' <- you are here.
Well, if you have an issue with people knowing you use Plex at all, then... tough luck, because I hate to tell you this, but a media server needs a client and it's a vanishingly small group of people that will use either Plex or Jellyfin clients and not let Apple, Google, LG, Samsung or whatever other device is running the client software that this is happening.
I give zero craps about whether Google knows I or anybody else uses Plex via their login because they already know this form the Google Play Store, along with the manufacturer of every TV we collectively own.
And for the record I do not live in the US and the way their absolutely idiotic copyright loopholes apply here is very much in question. It doesn't get tested in court much because the times it has been it didn't go particularly great for copyright holders. Private copying owned media is a right regulated by law here and I will continue to do so. If a corporation wants to deliberate with our local courts whether my owning a drive that happens to not be super picky about on-disc DRM I don't have anything particularly intense going on this week.
Ironically, in our own dumb legal implementation we are allowed to back up movies but there is a carved exception for software, so making a copy of a game you own is a bigger deal. Go figure.
First:
but also, it's not just that they know you use plex or jellyfin, it's that they know which plex server you use and from what devices you stream from. If, for example, plex decides they want to limit the number of households can stream from a single server (like they've already done), all they'd have to do is lock or limit people's google SSO to that server. They could also report which users are associated with servers engaged in illegal activity when requested, or they could region lock their services or specific media IP's by request from copyright holders..... There's a ton of abuses that are made possible by even that tiny bit of information they share/collect.
You might not care about it, but a lot of us do. Nobody is trying to convince you to stop using Plex, we're just trying to explain why we really do not want to use it ourselves
I have no idea where you live, but plex is an american company. Plex will 100% be forced to comply with copyright takedown requests, and could absolutely penalize you for infringing on american copyright law. Could you be arrested? Maybe not. But there are still a ton of ways you could get fucked because Plex has enshittified their service and has made zero commitments to protecting you or your identity.
small thing, but in the US this is technically allowed, but as soon as you format-shift the media (e.g. rip a dvd into a digital format) it is no longer protected. It's assumed that 'backing up movies' is literally 'duplicate the media in exactly the same format it was originally purchased in'. On top of that, it's also doubly illegal to then share that media, even as a direct stream via a home server. Idk where you live but I'm actually am not aware of any country who allows for your stated use (unless you're somewhere without extradition or trade relations with the US like Russia or Cuba, because they don't give a fuck about US legal claims). Not that it's commonly prosecuted even in the US, but US companies routinely get takedown requests for that shit and Plex will absolutely throw you under the bus.
No you are not. This thread straight up opens on "why would anybody use Plex" and this whole branch is about how people don't want anybody using Google for login.
You are presenting a lot of great hypotheticals and I'll be happy to stop using Plex if and when they stop being hypotheticals. They are, though, so I don't particularly mind.
Especially because we've moved from "oh, maybe get your family to not use Google to log in" to "actually, get them to move to F-droid or install from source and do so under proper DNS filtering to stop telemetry gathering".
Friend, if people's relatives were willing to install their Plex client from source they wouldn't need anybody to host a Plex server for them. What the hell are you going on about and how detached are you from how people use software?
I swear, online... man, "posers" is so harsh, but I can't find a better word always pretend they are running some top secret off-the-grid operation like big corpo is coming after them specifically. Your data is probably not that tightly kept (mostly because a bunch of it probably doesn't depend on you) and it's not that much of a priority.
Oh, and while I get that you get a kick of repeating what your understanding of US law is at me, over here backing up to additional media is explicitly supported by the right to private copy. As is, implicitly breaking DRM.
Not that it matters because nobody is enforcing these at individuals for private use anyway because the rules being sought are absurd and holders know it and they just want scary tools to wave in front of individual users and to actually deploy against major sharers. You are playing out this weird scenario where a company goes to Plex to get your name as if Plex doesn't have a business built on helping you do the thing you think they're chasing you for and has a ton more money they could be sued for. It's nonsense. The reality of it is it makes you feel cool and savvy to secure your home computer as if it held state secrets.
And that's fine, but don't act like anything else is insanity. It's kind of obnoxious.
it's not hypothetical, Plex has already been banning users for various reasons, all of which stem from them having access to data about your account, connected users, and server data.
You're the only one making this complicated bud.
I was simply telling you that the US has a similar carve out for breaking DRM, but that it didn't include the use case you are describing. Just giving you a heads-up that it's a common misconception here, and it could be misunderstood wherever you are too. Chill out. BUT, even if it IS legal where you are, Plex is bound to US law and can and will ban you for breaking it.
Except Plex is enforcing it because it is excplicitly against their terms of service, and have already done so.
I'm not saying it's insanity you dipshit, i'm saying there are good and valid reasons to avoid a cloud-hosted service not within your control. You're free to disagree but fuck off with this incredulousness
No, the bans stem from the EULA. I am not breaching the EULA. Whether Plex can verify that or not is not much of a concern for me.
But to be clear, I have zero to lose here. The outcome of Plex banning me for not breaking their EULA (for some reason, which is technically possible but unlikely) is the exact same as the outcome of me dropping Plex in case they ban me. In both cases the only thing that happens is I'm not using Plex anymore.
Also, in your hypothetical Plex already knows the stuff you are worried about. The SSO has nothing to do with it. Plex doesn't need data from Google to know, they already have your personal information.
I guess adding to the list of reasons to use Plex "being berated by online randos wanting to be performatively tech savvy". Which, again, changes nothing practical, but hey.
Take another look bud.
spoiler
But maybe you don't care about any of that shit, either? Idk man the list of things you're dismissing as unimportant is really adding up.
Jellyfin has zero idea who I am or what accounts/IPs access my server, nor do they know what's a part of my media catalogue or if they are legally licensed to me. If I were to use google's SSO, then google would know which accounts/IP's are accessing my server, which isn't a huge deal by itself, but if jellyfin were to have information about my entire account and library then it would suddenly be a very big issue.
But Plex does know what's on your account, and they do limit the number of authenticated users of the account as a part of their TOS and through limitations surrounding their paid plex pass, and they have exercised their right to terminate accounts and pass personal information of infringers along to law enforcement and copyright holders. None of which is even a remote possibility with a completely self-hosted solution. But hey, if you're happy then more power to ya.
You are correct, I don't care about any of that either. And I know about the boilerplate. Bud.
You need to agree with yourself about what you're arguing. Are you saying that the problem is the SSO or Plex?
Because if Plex will go tell on you it will do it based on the data they have internally, not based on any data captured by the login flow, so the SSO is not additional issue compared to using Plex without the Google login and using the email login instead.
And if you're arguing that the SSO is the problem and not Plex which you indignantly reminded me is what the thread was about, then you're arguing against yourself, because it sure seems we agree that if Plex is going to take any action against you illegally sharing files through their system (which, by the way, they are legally obligated to do) it won't be due to the Google login at all, which is just a bit of convenience and doesn't seem to provide anybody with any data they don't already have.
Once again, you are super keen on playing up hypotheticals. Once again, the biggest issue with those hypotheticals is that Plex boots me out... of Plex. I am not doing anything illegal with it or even breaching their EULA, including the paragraphs you quote (not that something being written down in an EULA makes it applicalbe, but still). I will bite that bullet and live with Jellyfin's implementation if and when that happens. Which it likely won't.
There's a problem with SSO's and there's a problem with Plex. Go back and read the conversation - that's not the problem with plex, it's a problem. Someone said they don't trust google login, and you were indignant about why that might be, and I was exceedingly patient with explaining why it's a problem. I like that jellyfin does not provide a google SSO, because I can choose a better, less invasive one as a server admin. I've not said anything contradictory here, you've just been willfully misreading shit.
just fucking read the words I so kindly found for you in the TOS (not that it fucking matters if it's a tos or a eula anyway). It's also not a fucking hypothetical, Plex has already been exercising this. But I don't give a fuck if you're concerned about it, i'm just telling you why so many people are taking issue with it. And given that they've already demonstrated that they collect detailed data about your personal library and watching habits, it is certainly not out of the question that they could now sell that data as a part of their new privacy policy.
Unless you live in a country without a copyright agreement with the US, you are absolutely liable under this. I have no idea if you do or not, but I'd venture a guess that most people here do. Good for you if it doesn't apply.
I don't give a shit what software you use.
I have absolutely not ben willfully misreading. You can't argue that the guy saying he has a problem with Google's sign-in specifically has a point and also say that the data mining happening within Plex is WAY more intrusive. If the point is whether giving Google this data is a problem it must be worse than using any of the other sign-in options. But it isn't. Your data is as widely available one way or the other. It is reasonable to think Plex's visibility over your server is too much, I accept that, particularly if your use case runs afoul of their EULA...
...but then you can't tell me "I don't trust Google", unless your argument is you trust Plex more for some reason. Which you shouldn't. It just doesn't follow.
Oh, and they do sell your data for advertising. There's an opt-in for it, though. Since we're talking about legality, it'd be a punishable offense for them to sell your data without your consent, which is why that's there, and they do need to tell you what data they collect if you request it.
And no, I am not liable under US law. There is a treaty that requires both parties to meet those requirements, but US law isn't directly applicable over here. What is applicable is our own legislation made to comply with those trade agreements. Which includes exemptions for private copy.
As far as I and every piece of legal advice I've seen about this knows, anyway. If you have a source for how apparently US law is directly applicable to any country they have a trade agreement with feel free to point me to this insane new paradigm of international law, though.
Those are not mutually exclusive statements. In fact, mostly it just makes you an idiot for not having a problem with either.
It is worse than an auth method that isn't maintained by a known data whore like google. It's substantially worse when you're using it with another data whore service. For those of us who administrate remote services and care about not being beholden to google's data addiction, it is absolutely not a good thing to provide it as the default auth method, which is what the OP was saying. Even if jellyfin included it, I would immediately disable it. Especially since, as a server administrator, I have a vested interest in keeping the activity of that server private. Even if the specific details of the media on it aren't exposed, I don't want any party with conflicting interests to my own to know what users are associated with my server. Just having a dozen or so users connected through jellyfin to my IP would be enough for a motivated legal entity to look at me, and I have more than just a private media server to worry about. Is it likely to happen? Probably not. But why would I even risk it?
I don't have a source for you, but typically using a US-based platform can give US authorities a jurisdictional hook, especially if the rights holders are US-based or can show commercial harm. That is why US based web services are extraordinarily strict with all of their users, even those who live outside the US. I'm not even saying it's common, just that it could happen. I seem to remember operators of p2p services getting nabbed at customs while traveling back in the day - it wasn't illegal where they were, but it sure as fuck was in the US and they were extremely interested in putting the kabash on it.
No question that plex is a more convenient service, but if you have the tech literacy to manage something that's completely private that is only marginally more complicated, why the fuck wouldn't you? Then again, maybe if you think you're more tech literate than you are, it doesn't seem all that simple.
Man, you keep thinking that taking digs about how it's all a skill issue is either an argument or an insult, and I keep reminding you that even if there was a skill issue at play (and there wasn't), being hard or annoying to use is the actual problem. If your UX allows for skill issues in making a straightforward setup run then it's a UX issue.
Also, me using Plex to host copies of my own software legally is not the same as operating a P2P service. But if it's any consolation I have no intention to set foot on that hellhole anyway, given that US authorities seem to not need copyright overreach to throw you in a room with no windows indefinitely these days. Good luck with that.
Oh, and yes, those are mutually exclusive. Or mutually inclusive, to be more accurate. If your concern is the govenrment overreach implications of having a portion of your data leaked, worrying about a smaller leak along the way of actively generating a larger leak is entirely pointless. Conversely, I'd argue that if you have a dozen users and are terrified that the cops are going to come and raid the... I'm gonna say meth lab you're running on the side, we're back to the conversation about how cool you are with that dozen users having their Jellyfin clients running on a bunch of Android devices, Smart TVs, Windows boxes or whatever else.
Again, I keep struggling with the irony of this weird position having entirely bought into the narrative that self-hosting media is inherently illegal or dangerous. I came into this argument from the UX angle, you guys are increasingly convincing me that a significant disincentive for self-hosting to become mainstream is that its entire community is convinced that they are doing something wrong, apparently. It's not that I hadn't noticed how central to the whole thing a bunch of P2P-specific paraphernalia happens to be, but I wasn't ready for the gatekeeping to come with a side of edgy 90s we're-so-bad hack-the-world stuff.
I'm not explaining this to you again. What you described is not legal on a US hosted service like Plex, and even most other countries with DRM exceptions for personal use do not include sharing outside your immediate household. Even if it's perfectly legal in your country, and the US can't touch you where you are, Plex is still obligated to abide by US restrictions. Good enough if that doesn't bother you, but it isn't completely without risk and you should be well aware of it.
What exactly does "government overreach" mean in this context?
Using Google SSO independently is bad. Plex independently is bad. Using both together is worse. Using either while also breaking the law, when there's a perfectly acceptable way to do neither of those things and still just as easily break the law is a whole lot better.
I'm just not a dumbass. Having a dozen users log in without any of them publicly pointing at me or my server IP is a hell of a lot safer than letting a private service log every sign-in and stream event of the server, and then letting a separate private service link those users to accounts with detailed personal information. Those people can install jellyfin on their phones and tablets all they want - google wouldn't know what servers those clients are connecting to anyway. And even if they did, my server is not associated with my personal details or ISP-assigned IP address. Maybe you just didn't know that, idk.
Using a google SSO isn't a prerequisite for self-hosting becoming mainstream. Maybe SSO generally is, but there are a dozen other ways to achieve the same thing. Maybe I don't care if it becomes mainstream? Maybe what I actually want is for people to learn tech self-sufficiency so that we're not indefinitely reliant on SAAS. Maybe i'm content with my special little hobby and I'd rather point and laugh at people who get fucked over by services they delude themselves into believing won't ever screw them, just because they can't be bothered to learn a new skill.
If you're as concerned with self-hosting becoming as mainstream as you claim you are, then I'd imagine you'd be more concerned with the late-stage capitalist reality of media distribution and the increasingly restrictive laws surrounding its use. Where I live, the legal structure that protects the right to self sufficiency is very much under question, and continues to get worse. I got burned several times in the napster/limewire days, before it was established precedent that sharing digital copyright material was illegal, and unheard of still that anyone actually got punished for it. I know better than most that you can't count on those protections indefinitely.
But as an anarchist, I think a little bit of crime is good, actually. More people should be doing crime. But if you're gonna do it, do the rest of us a favor and don't be a dumbass about it.
What
Agreed. I have a dozen or so people using my Plex. There is no conceivable way I'm going to get my less tech literate friends and family to use jellyfin, much less am I going to find a way to set it up for remote access with my limited knowledge. Plex is just too convenient right now.
All of my less tech literate friends are getting a warning to abandon their computers entirely.
I'm vegan and it's my diet!
Hello vegan, I'm vegan as well
Hello vegan, I'm vegan as well as well
Hello vegan, I'm dad.
Ok but there are a million SSO options out there - just because someone doesn't want to allow google as a SSO provider doesn't mean they're telling anyone they have to switch fucking email services.
If you want a remote service to handle your authentication you don't have to use google. I feel like that's something I shouldn't have to point out in a self-hosting community on an open-source and federated social media platform.
So you don't do a lot of tech support. Nice.
It has nothing to do with email
It's not a personal crusade. Everyone should be trying to get people away from Google. They are an absolutely fucked corporation who makes a fortune spying on you and everyone you know.
ITT: bunch of nerds with literally no friends or family to share media with lol
Damn, I was with you until the unnecessary vegan bashing.
ITT: bunch of nerds with literally no friends or family to share media with lol
👍