Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#271

Post by chefandy »

madsbuch wrote: post #183
Reubend wrote: post #3

While it's nice to have an open source client, please think twice about bypassing the premium subscription/ads to listen for free. Musician deserve to be paid for their work, and it's not fair to them to bypass all of the mechanisms to do that. Spotify doesn't pay musicians well, but there are still indie artists making a living from it nonetheless. I hear a lot of people these days complaining about ads, and that's…

> But when it comes time to pay for content, those people rarely are willing to pony up. You can see this happening with journalism, music, apps, etc. I think this sentiment is wrong. Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding (Kagi, Fastmail, etc.) That said: I am never going to pay for YouTube. The issue is that the entire platform and all of its content is catered to ad-revenue . I could b…

> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding

While it would be a convenient reality, the people on HN are not even close to representative of the general population, and you can't generalize their tendencies. How many Kagi and Fastmail users are there compared to Google and Microsoft? Look at Google Play reviews for apps that front paid services: even for astonishingly cheap ones, a considerable percentage essentially say "not free: uninstalled! Those conniving bastards!"

And if you're willing to pay for services instead of using ad-supported platforms, you must pay all of your music and other content, then? You don't even have to stomach the DRM from Apple Music, Amazon, e-reader platforms, et al with music shops, book stores, movie theaters, Bandcamp, Patreon, Substack -- there are so many services through which you can exercise your principles and pay for content directly.

It's pretty common for the tech crowd to wag their finger at people who feel entitled to free commercial software and services (e.g. Kagi, Fastmail,) yet do the same exact thing with arts and entertainment. Getting access to content on ad-supported services isn't your right. There are alternatives.

I'm not saying you must uninstall your ad blocker-- there are many unavoidable and essential things-- e.g., things for work-- that contain ads even when they really shouldn't. But you can't just assume that since you pay for some stuff, then everybody else is paying for some stuff, and since the distributors are real jerks, you have ethical carte blanche to take people's work without any payment. Creators don't have a choice to use these systems because people won't pay (directly) for things.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#272

Post by jvanderbot »

chx wrote: post #249
jvanderbot wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has not been my 99% experience. I'm sure one or two of those stories are handy to have to justify a lifetime of unnecessary theft, but the bottom line for me is that I don't mind playing by their system on principle. This is how the artists asked us to do it, by selling their rights to distributors. Similarly with Spotify. I'd love to pay more to artists, I do go buy songs when I love them, and I'm happy to pay…

[flagged]

Taking revenue from all artists you like because you dislike one artist is madness.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#274

Post by metadat »

andrepd wrote: post #213
swozey wrote: post #179

The lengths that literal engineers will go to to not have to pay $10/mo for music or $3 to rent a movie in 4k immediately. Can't believe I have adult friends who make 70-300k and they still pirate based on money, not quality/directors-cuts/anti-cheats, etc. I quit pirating when I got a real job and could afford to pay developers and movie teams for their effort. I write software. I want to get paid too, right? Why sh…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvhv7bgmz64

Great guide, this about sums it up.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#275

Post by paulsen »

jzb wrote: post #257
junon wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in Germany, but I'm an american. Signed up for Crunchy Roll. Most the shows my friends are recommending are region locked. The remaining ones are mostly German-dubbed only, with no subtitles. Most don't have original Japanese either. Only a handful I want to watch actually have subs or English dubs. It's not like I don't want to pay for this stuff but when it's a huge conditional tree of if I'm going to have a…

Wouldn't a VPN solve this for you?

The problem is that I have to pay for another thing just to watch the thing I was already paying for.

Piracy almost always is caused by a lack of convenience, namely:

"I get the service, have a (sometimes very) limited selection of stuff, and have to pay for it, and if I want that other thing I have to pay for another entirely different service"

or

"I get anything I want with a little hassle, but for free"

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#276

Post by Tarq0n »

bayindirh wrote: post #114
anotheryou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, I think so. And youtube is mixed quality, especially for older uploads. Newer youtubes are "opus (251)", which I think is 128kbps 48KHz Opus (WebM standard). - Spotify at least used to be ogg vorbis and claims to be "320kbit/s [mp3] equivalent" I think the 128kps Opus is still considered quite lossy¹ and 320kpbit/s mp3s I know I can hear the difference to wav on some tracks in a blind test, but generally don't f…

Lossless still beats MP3@320CBR audibly, but you need a pipeline which can render that difference. I’ll not rewrite details here, one can search my comment history if more details are required.

Some of the best recordings I've heard (NPR) are only on YouTube. This leads me to believe recording quality is orders of magnitude more important than encoding, as long as a decent bitrate and encoding scheme were used.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#277

Post by unnamed76ri »

crazygringo wrote: post #190
richrichardsson wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starting in early 2024, tracks must have reached at least 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months in order to generate recorded royalties. This will take my Spotify income from pitiful to non-existent. Fuck Spotify.

Spotify pays ~$0.004/stream. 1,000 streams is $4.00. That's a coffee. Lots of services for creators have minimum payouts. Google AdSense won't pay you until you reach $100 . Patreon has a $10 minimum payout using PayPal. A threshold of just $4 is actually very much on the low side. I genuinely don't understand how this is something to get upset over. It's comparable to what an artist used to make in royalties from a…

You’re looking at it wrong. That $4 per song! What artist only releases one song ever?

Spotify and other streaming platforms pay royalties to an artist’s distributor and that aggregate of royalties from all platforms gets paid out to the artist when they reach the distributor’s threshold. Spotify is making that money no longer exist at all for indie artists.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#278

Post by apwell23 »

portaouflop wrote: post #261
apwell23 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea who that artist is. It something spotify recommended and I am into it. I didn't find that artist on bandcamp or any other non-streaming platforms. only on spotify, youtube, apple music. Are they not equivalent, didn't realize you were making a point specifically about spotify. And yes I will surely go to that artist concert if they are in my area. Me listening to on spotify has nothing to do with it. If anyth…

Nesrin Sipahi is a far cry from a small indie artist that relies on support by their fan base. And there are many options to buy her music as physical copies directly from her labels. Of course it’s fine to use Spotify to listen to music and find new artists - I’m saying the worst way to pay artists that rely on their fan base for income.

> Nesrin Sipahi is a far cry from a small indie artist that relies on support by their fan base.

Who said this though?

This is what you originally said.

> If you care about the artist here pay them directly either through bandcamp

I responded to this

> I assure you that every artist that wants to make money will have set up _something_

Why did you bring 'far cry from a small indie artist ' into the picture all of sudden when you said 'every' in original comment.

Your original comment was about 'small indie artist' only ? You should've said 'small indie artist will always set up something' if you meant that. agree that might be true for small artists.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#280

Post by rglullis »

hhh wrote: post #181
rglullis wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0. If you really want to support an artist, just ask what is the best way to just send them some hard cash every month? Patreon, ko-fi... even straight wire transfer (isn't FedNow already working?). Why do we keep insisting on having middlemen?

I don't believe most people care about a lot of the artists they listen to enough to seek them out and send money this way. Not that I believe it's good or bad either way, it's just cumbersome. People want easy solutions. A few of my long distance friends are artists, and it makes them happy to see that I have bought their new cassette or vinyl on Bandcamp above the regular price, and send nice notes with it. I can d…

> most people (don't) care about a lot of the artists they listen

Fair enough. Then don't pay anything?

> it makes them happy to see that I have bought their new cassette or vinyl

On the other hand, I do not want to buy merch, I don't care about physical media and I flat out refuse to buy something with DRM and/or through exploitative middlemen.

Post reply on HN