601–610 of 661 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload) Hm? What codec was uploaded if it's an official upload?
Presumably a lossless one. As opposed to some mp3 ripped off a scratched CD in some guy's drawer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what.
> Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload) Hm? What codec was uploaded if it's an official upload?
Presumably a lossless one. As opposed to some mp3 ripped off a scratched CD in some guy's drawer.
Why?
For example, there are many songs on YouTube listed as "Provided to YouTube by CDBaby". (Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHpQ668gzA )
CDBaby only provides one format, which is mp3. They'll accept uploads in any of four formats, of which one is also mp3.
So you'd need to answer two questions:
1. Is the file that CDBaby distributes to YouTube the same file they distribute to everyone else, or is it the same file they receive from the artist? (Note: if the answer is #1, that is likely to save CDBaby a bundle on storage!)
2. What did the artist upload to CDBaby?
And then you'd also need to answer analogous questions for the other major providers of official music on YouTube; there are tons and tons of them. CDBaby appears to be unusual in that, in addition to providing your music officially to YouTube, it will also sell it to consumers. Most of these services don't appear to offer anything but official distribution to major websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a similar thought a few years ago when trying to think of "useful" uses of NFTs. It could be great if I could buy music, etc and then play it on any streaming service via some sort of proof-of-right-to-play mechanism.
It will never happen. Why would the future platform owners, or especially separate service owners, want to let you enjoy the benefit of their hosting costs when they get nothing?
Thwn, you can stream your own music and Spotify's music side by side.
And, it's a double win, since they're not paying an royalty fees for a single user streaming music they already own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Musician deserve to be paid for their work Nobody prevents them from doing live performances, you know?
Live performances are great! But the average person listen to hundreds of different artists through Spotify, and they most certainly don't go to the live performances of all those artists. I'm not advocating for Spotify in particular. If you can support the musicians more directly, that's even better! But it's not fair to pay nothing, block ads, and then keep consuming content without giving anything back.
When you listen to the radio you pay for nothing. I don't really see where is the injustice here.
I 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.
why would you need spotify's permission to look up a youtube video?
But if you aren't going to apply things in context they won't make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in my opinion, you're much better off buying merch / vinyls online.
Right, which is why I said... >... if people are really digging a piece of music then please buy it directly from the label, the artist, etc. via other means, if possible.
do artists only deserve to be paid only when someone "decides to pony up for an album"? that's a nice $10+ hurdle that will ensure it happens as rarely as possible. even $1 for a single song is apparently enough of a hurdle.
do artists not deserve to be paid if their song is just being played? it's just stiffing artists, whose music continues to play for free, for even that way of getting paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
$250 for Windows?? You’re off by an order of magnitude, just buy it from a reseller: g2a.com/search?query=Windows I’ve never had a problem with that site.
Other comments have pointed out why G2A is also more or less piracy except you pay someone for an illegitimate key instead of using a cracking tool to generate one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$250 for Windows?? You’re off by an order of magnitude, just buy it from a reseller: g2a.com/search?query=Windows I’ve never had a problem with that site.
You don’t even need to buy a license. Alternate activation servers exist.