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

321–330 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#321

Post by arthur_sav »

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…

Good luck finding your favorite movie on Netflix. And Spotify keeps taking songs off their catalogue which ruins my favorite playlists and saved songs.

To be fair, streaming services are usually not at fault here. They have to negotiate with the content owners. But at the end of the day, I don't care.

Piracy still has place and it's not a money issue.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#322

Post by hedora »

blibble wrote: post #225
jsnell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking the music without compensation and pretending that you're totally going to buy some music or merch from some other artist doesn't actually lead to artists being compensated. While in the plan where you buy music and only listen to the music you bought you don't need this app at all.

I spend quite a lot on bandcamp and amazon's mp3 store (couple of hundred bucks a year maybe?) I am very very happy to pay for DRM free music however this getting increasingly difficult as companies don't even seem to want to provide it for sale at all under no circumstances am I going to pay a monthly subscription for a digital product that can be delivered as a one off download

I know people that still buy CDs.

I've been meaning to dump my Tidal artist list to a spreadsheet or something, and figure out how to pay a few dozen artists directly this year.

One possibility is to buy their albums and copy them to my NAS. Paying for DRM-free downloads seems easier / better, but I'd want to make sure the artists' cut is higher than with streaming.

For what it's worth, iTunes is apparently DRM-free these days. I don't want to figure out their terrible GUI, but presumably there's some tool that'll copy the songs out of it and into a filesystem.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#323

Post by Brian_K_White »

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…

The entire list of features are all things the official clients don't offer.

I DO pay for spotify and still want all those features.

You attempt to critique other people's behavior, while completely failing at "be a good person" yourself. It is always that way. The person pointing the finger is the one most in need of a mirror.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#324

Post by iamsaitam »

WilTimSon wrote: post #25
iamsaitam wrote: post #17

"It is still recommended to support the creators by watching/liking/subscribing to the artists' YouTube channels or liking their tracks on Spotify (or purchasing a Spotify Premium subscription too)." I hope musicians can pay bills with likes, since ponying up €10.99 is a huge ask. PS: not that many musicians are able to pay bills with their spotify checks, but that's not the point.

> PS: not that many musicians are able to pay bills with their spotify checks, but that's not the point. What IS the point, though? You seem to be criticising people who don't purchase a Spotify Premium while also admitting Spotify barely pays them anything. Yes, this client gives nothing to the artist, Spotify gives next to nothing, both are bad in different ways. If anyone genuinely wants to support musicians - buy…

The point is that the musicians still deserve to get paid from streaming. Ridiculous nonsense to say that if something isn't well remunerated, might as well go the illegal route and not pay anything at all.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#326

Post by linsomniac »

Somewhat related: A month ago I migrated from Spotify to YTMusic (Youtube), and published the scripts I used to do it. People have kind of come out of the woodwork: reporting issues, starring the repo, asking questions, last night I found someone has written a GUI for it.

https://github.com/linsomniac/spotify_to_ytmusic

The biggest reason I ditched Spotify is that their shuffle play of playlists is laughably bad. I like listening to just a shuffle of my favorite music, but their player seems to "stick" on just a few of them. I ask it to shuffle a few thousand "liked" songs, during my shower every day, and I'll hear the same song 3 times in a week, for example.

There was a "bug" open in their support forum since 2017 that they replied "maybe we'll look at it eventually". It has hundreds of pages of replies. And they just laid off a significant portion of their workforce, so I figured it'd never get resolved. And for a company doing music playback, it just seems like they can't get one of the basics right.

Since going to YTMusic, I've been hearing songs from my playlists that I haven't heard in years.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#327

Post by znpy »

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…

> Musician deserve to be paid for their work

If anybody actually cares even one tiny bit about a specific musician they should go to live events, buy the original merchandise and/or buy the CDs.

Paying Spotify and similar services is the least efficient way to get money into artists’ pockets.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#328

Post by crazygringo »

unnamed76ri wrote: post #277
crazygringo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah sorry, I hadn't picked up on that -- thanks. But it still doesn't change the overall point at all.

So if you've got 2 albums of 10 tracks each, then you need 1,000 listens of each album to reach a minimum payout of $80, which you've got an entire year to accumulate. So Spotify isn't on the low side -- it's comparable with AdSense's minimum payout of $100.

But honestly, compared to the effort involved in producing an album, that's... nothing. $80 is not the difference between making or breaking your music career. It's under $7 a month. A slightly more expensive coffee.

I just don't understand how that can be upsetting. If your streams on Spotify are that low, then you're doing it as a hobby anyways, for the love of it. Which is wonderful. But it isn't your source of income.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#329

Post by wombat-man »

someotherperson wrote: post #196
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…

Piracy is largely a convenience issue, not just a financial issue. When Netflix's streaming platform rolled around people were largely happy to stop pirating, when Netflix's catalog fragmented across two dozen different services that forbid account sharing then piracy became a thing again for many people who stopped pirating. I had a Paramount+ subscription (alongside Disney, Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV) and wanted to…

Yeah I just don't understand how paramount+ is so bad. I've unsubscribed but I got it to watch a tv show on a plane, and so downloaded it onto my phone. The app would NOT play the video on the plane. At first I thought for some reason it needed to connect to the internet. Then after landing it wouldn't play even with the internet.

Then there's the chromecast app. I want to watch an episode of survivor, a show with 45 seasons now. Apparently it just loads all the episode data for the entire show in one go, and hangs for a bit when opening the episode select page. This is one of their bigger shows I think.

It's just so lazy and bad.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#330

Post by jonplackett »

jjulius wrote: post #258
screye wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree, but this tool is for spotify. Spotify is about as convieinient as a streaming music platform gets. That being said, most people (including me) happily pay for spotify, so your point still stands. I refuse to pay for a streaming platform that's not Netflix or prime. The former benefits from being grand fathered in and the latter is a free bonus on something I would buy anyway. It also sucks that cancel…

>Spotify is about as convieinient as a streaming music platform gets. Convenient for users, but you'd be hard-pressed to find artists who are content with the payments they get from Spotify. And that's across the spectrum, from world-famous pop artists to indie artists struggling to get heard. I'm huge into music so I'm "OK" with Spotify for the sake of convenience and all that, but if people are really digging a pie…

The solution isn’t to then pay them nothing
Post reply on HN