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

Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 470 posts

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#241

Post by erkt »

ffsm8 wrote: post #215
weinzierl wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's not about the money primarily. There are enough parties out there that want the people behind Anna's archive behind bars and I'm afraid this will end the same way as for the Pirate Bay guys in the best case and like it ended for Aaron Schwartz in the worst.

Fwiw, piratebay continues to be the -to my knowledge- biggest public tracker out there, with basically every media production available. And I think that was his point. They may ruin some people's life's... but aside from that, they achieve nothing.

Just visited two nights ago and was pleasantly surprised to see domains active with fresh magnets. The people are returning to nature.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#242

Post by procaryote »

matthewkayin wrote: post #193
echelon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to feel about any of this. First and foremost, I feel like Spotify is scummy. I don't like what they did when they were founded, I don't like what they do to artists. I hate the hyperscalers being in this business (Google, Apple, Amazon) as that's another thing they do that devalues an otherwise healthy market. Bringing in outside business division revenues to dump on another market's prices is ecolo…

> why then switch to a mode that pays artists nothing at all? Do Bandcamp. Buy merch. Do something to support the artists. I don't like this perspective because it puts the onus on the individual consumer. Many people who listen to music struggle to make ends meet. They do not have the extra money to afford buying albums off of bandcamp, yet they are contributing members of society and they deserve to be able to list…

There would be no money floating around the music business, spare or otherwise, if no one paid for music

I guess you could fund it with taxes?

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#243

Post by master-lincoln »

basisword wrote: post #113
input_sh wrote: post #35

Spotify was also forced to remove 60 or so endpoints from their API: https://developer.spotify.com/documentation/web-api/referenc... ...and add a bunch of other restrictions like limiting API access to premium users, ludicrously increasing the cap for acceptance into the extended quota programme (250k MAU), and so on and so on. So the most fucked in this situation are neither Spotify nor Anna's Archive, but anyone tr…

Yep, the API is now basically useless and you can't use it in production. All because of some anonymous greedy dickheads.

Do you mean the stock holders of the major labels?

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#244

Post by downrightmike »

krabat wrote: post #83

So, let us assume AA could or would pay Spotify for "profits lost". Now that we know AA's abduction of files were the files that actually received playtime, we would immediately see a lot of music artists embursed, yes? Well... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Watch the Spotify DOCU.

Right, OpenAI stole everything that wasn't nailed down and nothing happened

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#245

Post by zenmac »

JoshuaDavid wrote: post #201
6thbit wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the beauty of wikipedia as dns is its easy access, are there similarly easily accessible uncensorable ways?

Ideally it is common knowledge that the onion service exists, and then people can go look at the onion service and update Wikipedia based on what they see there.

Also onion doesn't require a domain register

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#247

Post by jjice »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #213
jjice wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, all together? I'd agree that copyright terms are often much too long, but if you write a book, I'm totally okay with you owning the rights to that and making money off of it for a while.

We need to split "a creation" and "a set of ideas used in creation" You created entire book ? Sell it for 40 years, sure But that should not apply to someone taking a tiny thing from it and making their own stuff around it, 10 years maybe.

> But that should not apply to someone taking a tiny thing from it and making their own stuff around it, 10 years maybe

Totally agree with that idea.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#248

Post by ranger_danger »

hirako2000 wrote: post #73
adrian_b wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have lost a few domain names. For instance, they previously had a Swedish domain, which was taken down, together with a few others, possibly as a consequence of this lawsuit. Hopefully they will succeed to keep the others.

If they lose them they will create new ones, and someone will update the wikipedia page with the active URL(s). Worst case scenario they could solely rely on Tor URLs, which would be virtually impossible to shut down.

> virtually impossible to shut down

It has been proven through at least Snowden files that multiple world governments have been working for decades now to operate as many tor nodes as they can in the hopes of decloaking as much traffic as possible, should they need to go after specific people.

I don't think it's safe to say this is virtually impossible. They have more money and resources than you can fathom.

Even if they don't currently have enough nodes to catch a certain person... should it become more important for them to do so, they could always quickly increase that number on short notice to try to increase the chances of tracking them down as needed.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#250

Post by Planktonne »

matthewkayin wrote: post #193
echelon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to feel about any of this. First and foremost, I feel like Spotify is scummy. I don't like what they did when they were founded, I don't like what they do to artists. I hate the hyperscalers being in this business (Google, Apple, Amazon) as that's another thing they do that devalues an otherwise healthy market. Bringing in outside business division revenues to dump on another market's prices is ecolo…

> why then switch to a mode that pays artists nothing at all? Do Bandcamp. Buy merch. Do something to support the artists. I don't like this perspective because it puts the onus on the individual consumer. Many people who listen to music struggle to make ends meet. They do not have the extra money to afford buying albums off of bandcamp, yet they are contributing members of society and they deserve to be able to list…

> yet they are contributing members of society and they deserve to be able to listen to music

By the same token, artists are contributing members of society and they deserve a host of things, including enough to make a living.

You can't demand one group's output as a right for everyone else unless you also grant them rights in return.

Post reply on HN