Spotify premium user here; I'd like a better interface please.
Its the only reason I clicked, and I am disappointed that this is more about piracy than sane gui.
Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
331–340 of 661 posts
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#332Earlier 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]
I would say that the problem is larger than that, with how Spotify worked to close up and monetize a historically free and open medium (podcasts) and aggressively pushed their new business to users who were only interested in music.
The way they deprecated libspotify while promising a fully capable replacement only to never live up to those promises (current APIs/SDKs are incapable of playback) to strip paying users of clients that aren't official also sucks.
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially given how mediocre 95% of production has been in recent years Okay, then don’t watch it. If you’re watching it, though, you should pay for it. Your logic is the equivalent of going out to restaurants to eat, and then not paying because “restaurants aren’t good these days.”
It's probably closer to having to pay a monthly subscription fee to eat at the restaurant. And you actually have to get six different subscriptions at different restaurants because each one has a different rotating menu. And you're not allowed to share your food with your friends because they don't live with you -- they each need their own subscription. And no to-go boxes, you gotta eat it right there at the restaura…
Also, you can't figure out what to eat because instead of being indexed by nutrition information or by whether it contains potential allergens it's always indexed at the top level by subscription so you have to do a little inner join there on your napkin before you can tell your kid what their options are.
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sud…
The argument is that this artist is only available on streaming, and that that's where most of their revenue came from?
https://www.amazon.com/CDs-Vinyl-Nesrin-Sipahi/s?rh=n%3A5174...
They're selling CDs, Vinyl and MP3s on Amazon, but their SoundCloud only has 29 followers.
Maybe they screwed up when they went all-in on indie digital distribution back in... 1978?
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#335The 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…
When I pirate, it's sometimes based on convenience or quality (where else can I download DRM-free blu-ray quality movies? Or a band's discography lossless?), but other times, it's certainly about money. For example, I don't use FL studio anywhere near enough to warrant paying for it (I have literally just opened it a couple of times to play with it), but paying for a license would have been less work than pirating it. Same with Windows; I pretty much never use it, the last time I booted into it must be around a year ago, so I'm not gonna pay $250 for it. I like to have it on my PC however for the occasional situation where I need it to play some game which doesn't work in Proton with friends, so I pirated it, even though buying a license key would've been more convenient than dealing with cracking tools.
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#336Reason #1,000,000 why I'm glad I'm on Android. Can't even install this thing on iphone. Works great btw, using this app on my desktop and pixel thank you!
Reason #1,000,001 i’m glad i’m european: soon thanks to the digital markets act I’ll be able to side load this app onto my iPhone.
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
These aren't physical goods, and (my issues with the categorization of piracy as theft aside) given that we're talking about legally listening to music you have access to through a service you pay for, I don't even know how to engage with the suggestion that this is theft (on the part of the consumers anyway). If you have the means and inclination to pay more I strongly urge people to pay more also. There are issues…
Also, if, once a year, every spotify listener picked one band they liked at random, and paid them the amount of an annual Spotify subscription ($132), there'd be a hell of a lot more money in artist's pockets than there is currently. There are 8 million artists on Spotify, and 551 million monthly active users. That's $9000 per band on average per year. The 99.9th percentile band on Spotify makes $50K, and the 80th pe…
I think you're missing a few relevant things:
An annual spotify subscription in the U.S. is $99 (possibly less with boxing day deals and such), but I'd assume the majority of subscribers are outside the U.S. where prices are lower across the board.
But 6M of those artists may be AI-generated filler content, possibly published by bots. I don't think the correct idea is to divide the potential money people can spend by the number of artists. There should be some connection with what people are actually choosing to listen to, anything else would reward opportunistic publishers of low-effort, uninspired music (and encourage people to do even more of this).
Which then brings up the problem: If people were to fund one artist they listen to (lets say an artist they choose to listen to rather than an artist they accidentally listened to a song by once), are they going to choose at random from their list of such artists? How do they then get that list to pick from? How do they discover new music to potentially listen to more of in the first place
Apps like Spotify, (or OSS like YouSpot that piggybacks on Spotify) are both valid answers to those questions.
Then you have the dilemma of who's paying the cost of the bandwidth, and the development costs.
If you want to be fair, I think people should be encouraged to pay what they comfortably can with their budgets. They're using the infrastructure and platform of spotify (or similar) for discovery, so Spotify or similar should reasonably expect some money to cover costs and pay their devs. Then they can also pay any number of random artists whenever the mood strikes them.
If they can't afford spotify, they can still use YouSpot, kick the YouSpot devs one or several dollar per year, and then purchase music from their preferred artists up to the amount comfortable for them.
Using YouSpot is the closest actual thing to 'stealing' btw, because they're actually consuming a resource (bandwidth and server time) that's intended for subscribers, from a company that pays for it. Add to that, by using their software (and spotify's upstream), if they're not financially supporting the YouSpot devs and the Spotify devs for the work they're consuming then we're back to the initial claim (which I already said I disagree with) that consuming something that can be 'copied' ad infinitum without paying the producer is theft.
But I think any of the above are reasonable options for people who want to maximize the support of creators of the things they consume while staying within their means
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#338The 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…
Kind of related to this mentality, perhaps: On Sam Harris's most recent episode of "Making Sense" with TED's Chris Anderson[0] he shared a Reddit conversation he came across where people were discussing whether or not they subscribe, i.e., pay, for his podcast: >> I spectated upon this [Reddit] thread, something around "Do you support Sam's podcast and and you if do, why or why not?" and someone said "Well I would su…
Not sure if this is a complete explanation, but people tend to ascribe more value to physical objects and perhaps, because the general price of books is bounded within a known range that is fairly stable, don’t question the price as hard as they might. That is, if a book is roughly the same price of other books in the category you’ll tend to view the price as “fair.”
The value of a podcast seems more nebulous to me, and perhaps this raises more questions. Unless you already subscribe to a lot of podcasts you may not have the equivalent comparison point, so more questions arise.
On top of that, subscriptions create another barrier to entry and raise even more questions.
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#339I don't get it at all.
> No ads, thanks to the use of public & free Spotify and YT Music APIs¹
There's zero permission to use Spotify's APIs in this way. So what does "thanks" mean in this context?
I don't like projects like this that potentially ruin it for the rest of us.
Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client
#340Earlier 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]
I think there is no way you are being honest with yourself. there are a truckload of entities that do far more and more objective evil than Joe Rogan and being serious about this issue requires prioritizing attention in such a way that paying any to Joe Rogan is madness, especially when it's not even boycotting Joe Rogan himself but a whole different company that has thousands of contracts just because this one specific guy Do you even boycott other companies that also platform him (and way worse!) like Youtube, Twitter, Reddit?