271–280 of 347 posts
I hope there's a way to export Spotify playlists.
My backout plan is to manually copy over all the artists I'm following. It'll take an hour or two, and I'd have to remember which of their albums I liked the most.
For custom playlists? Currently you're shit out of luck, you'll have to do it manually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The billion dollar question. Why didn't you leave. Couple of weeks ago been talking to a coworker and said him that _sometimes_ people end up in uncomfortable situations. Family, children, debt, divorce, medical, elderly parents and so on - he said, that's not possible, because people _should_ plan their lives.
Ah, the Just World Hypothesis. "Something bad happens, you must've screwed up somehow. Just look at me, I'm doing fine and I instinctively know that random good-luck had nothing to do with it."
People believe in the witchdoctor's raindance because the alternative is to believe your entire life is at the mercy of the random chance of weather and could be destroyed at any moment. Which is true, but hard to deal with mentally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about. Even radio is on the receiving end reproduced bit by bit, copied multiple times and stored in some kind of memory, which could be analog or digital.
>"That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about." No thats exactly what copyright it about. Its called a mechanical license and it is a type of copyright. See: https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights And Specifically: "Mechanical licenses apply to reproduction and distribution of musical works on records and CDs, in permanent digital downloads, and in some other digital uses."…
Physically they are the same thing. A buffer could be large enough to hold a complete copy and all storage is persistent to greater or lesser degrees.
It sounds like you are claiming if you buffered a small track in a future non-voltile RAM suddenly it's a different license?
The legal difference is intent. What can the user do with the copy and does it feel like a copy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem outlandish to claim there's a distinction between a broadcast, where you might hear a song at a particular time of day, and having an on-demand copy of a song at any time. The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify.
There is, but that distinction does not exist with internet distribution. It's arbitrarily enforced via DRM (which doesn't really work ), which is in turn enforced by Section 1201 of the DMCA. > The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify. That depends on whether you want to support the record label/artist, a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the vast majority of the internet users, it does. They won't "hack" the online radio to download (rip) the stream. Even if it's just a click away via countless stream downloading services found via any web search engine. DRM raises that technical bar by a few notches, but it doesn't really work for non-interactive content, because there are again countless sites that offer non-DRMed access. (So DRM works for game…
> So DRM works for games, because it takes a while to crack them.) It really doesn't. > For the vast majority of the internet users, it does. The significant majority of internet users have been carefully conditioned with propaganda to be afraid of file sharing and other more convenient options. The idea that it works just enough to be valuable is what these media corporations are constantly telling themselves, and e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem outlandish to claim there's a distinction between a broadcast, where you might hear a song at a particular time of day, and having an on-demand copy of a song at any time. The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify.
People used to regularly create mix tapes from radio broadcasts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem outlandish to claim there's a distinction between a broadcast, where you might hear a song at a particular time of day, and having an on-demand copy of a song at any time. The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify.
Broadcasting a song and on-demand streaming is technically isomorphic. 1. Clearly on-demand streaming implies broadcasting. 2. Presumably I could turn a broadcast into an on-demand radio stream by setting up a radio station which loops through all songs. Then I get into my rocket ship and travel away from Earth at near lightspeed and return, arriving exactly when the song I want to hear on-demand is being broadcasted…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UMG, Warner, Sony and Spotify cannot share bills for running a common database on AWS today without creating yet another corporation and relinquishing power over the data to it. Blockchains are not the next big thing in databases. They are here to revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts with each other, and even allow individuals themselves co-ordinate directly with each other witho…
> Blockchains are not the next big thing in databases Blockchains are the next big thing in nothing. They are not here to revolutionise anything [1] > hey are here to revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts with each other etc. Nope. There are about zero things in blockchain that help with that. Because at the end of the day someone has to do all the job of, you know, adding all the…
I beg to differ [1]
> So how in the seven hells is blockchain going to help?
It's not a silver bullet, and most things are not ones that were not possible before. But it facilitates some combinations, makes some things a lot more practical, and opens space for innovation.
In this case, in particular, what comes to mind is:
- there's a replicated consensus of all this attributions. Every single company agrees and has a shared database of the rights and the licensing. - the disintermediation: there's not necessarily a need to have a middle man managing this informations and agreements. - auditable, notorized, unforgeable history: you have this immutable record of when songs were released, who held their records, who and when licensed them, etc. - open information: if you design this system as an open network, any interested party can join and get the information it wants without needing APIs, etc.
All this without getting into tokens and handling the payments and distribution of royalties on the chain, and other innovations that the capabilities of the blockchain can bring.
[1] https://blockchaintechguide.com/a-blockchain-based-future/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t. Because you assume that blockchain will magically identify and attribute every single of 30 million songs in Spotify’s database.
Oh. I just realized another thing. 30 million songs can easily fit into a database running on a Macbook Air. Stick it on a medium-sized server, and you can already serve thousands of users. Blockchain meanwhile... something something ... 4 txns/second ... 1 terrawatt per txn ... up to several days to clear a txn when network is congested
Don't mistake Bitcoin's limitations for Blockchain limitations. These are characteristics of the consensus mechanism, of Proof of Work in particular.