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

Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

funkwhale.audio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 306 posts

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#131

Post by StavrosK »

IndySun wrote: post #123
StavrosK wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people convince themselves digital theft is somehow not to be equated to physical theft. It really isn't, though. If you steal my car, I won't have a car. If you copy my car, I'll have a car. To claim that the two are equivalent is pretty indefensible, in my opinion.

And where did the car come from? The deal is, work is rewarded, not stealing work, or did I miss a meeting?

It congealed from an amorphous mass of nutrients in the bowels of the earth. What does it matter where it came from? Stealing deprives the owner of their good, copyright infringement does not, therefore they are not equal.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#132

Post by laurowyn »

adar wrote: post #120
IndySun wrote: post #113

"Hi, we're Funkwhale. We use cool words like decentralized, self-hosted, music, server, and of course, funk & whale. If we named it more honestly, then our defunding of musicians and creatives that depended on sales wouldn't get any love (not publicly anyway), plus the ethically vacant developers would have to work on it secretly. And to be sure, we ourselves do not create or rely on income from artistic endeavours,…

You're aware that popular legal sites like BandCamp exist where musicians sell their albums in no-DRM mp3 format, right?

Whilst it's DRM free, it's still licensed copyrighted content that cannot be shared unless the license permits. BandCamp's terms of use state that they take non-exclusive rights to sell and distribute works on your behalf, but they do not grant those same rates to buyers.

DRM is not Licensing, but a mechanism to enforce a license.

I think OP is implying that the sharing provided in funkwhale is likely violating the typical license terms of any purchased music, therefore is preventing a musician from making money from streaming services which have appropriately licensed the music for streaming.

Buying a license doesn't mean that you own the work, just that you have the right to play it in specific circumstances (most of which nobody pays attention to anyway). I'm sure we've all played a song on a loud speaker for others to hear, but again that's against typical license terms.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#133

Post by bronco21016 »

IndySun wrote: post #113

"Hi, we're Funkwhale. We use cool words like decentralized, self-hosted, music, server, and of course, funk & whale. If we named it more honestly, then our defunding of musicians and creatives that depended on sales wouldn't get any love (not publicly anyway), plus the ethically vacant developers would have to work on it secretly. And to be sure, we ourselves do not create or rely on income from artistic endeavours,…

I initially downvoted you but after finally getting the project site to load I changed my mind.

The project explicitly mentions many examples of sharing through federation and it seems to me they’re explicitly advocating for illegal sharing of music.

Now, I certainly have plenty of issues with copyright and I tend to lean more towards “piracy isn’t a huge deal since we all want convenient (not free) access to media.” However, this project seems to be positioning themselves as a free music sharing service. I can’t imagine this ends well for them.

Some may mention other means of sharing music such as Plex or Jellyfin. I think Plex etc are flirting with the edge a bit with their sharing features. However, their sharing features are meant to selectively share with say family members in your household. Funkwhale is positioning the hoster to share with anyone on the internet. Don’t be surprised to get a DMCA notice if you open up a music library to the whole internet.

It’s too bad because there definitely is a space for someone to create a really nice self-hosted music library. Plex and Plexamp work ok but still leave a lot to be desired in terms of discovery.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#135

Post by brmgb »

tchaffee wrote: post #96
awalton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get paid from whatever service you bought your music from - be it from CDs, MP3 sites like Amazon or Google Play (RIP), etc. Scary thought, being able to purchase music these days rather than a streaming service lease, I know...

If I am only sharing with my family, then fine. But it looks like this software allows you to create a pod and share with whoever you invite. Which my purchase doesn't cover, right?

> Which my purchase doesn't cover, right?

It most certainly does in my country (and probably in most of Europe I would hasard).

The only thing you can't do is public performance and distribution but sharing it with your friends is definitely legal.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#136

Post by commotionfever »

captn3m0 wrote: post #90
dh-g wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean it doesn't automatically fetch album art? It does serve it to the client in my experience.

Other players would use images embedded in cover-arts. Gonic only works with folder.jpg. I had cover.png files which Gonic ignored, so I had to hack around things. See https://github.com/sentriz/gonic/issues/11

hey thanks for your feedback! though it's strange that the scanner missed your artwork files. it should support lots of filetypes

https://github.com/sentriz/gonic/blob/master/server/scanner/...

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#137

Post by perpetualpatzer »

IndySun wrote: post #113

"Hi, we're Funkwhale. We use cool words like decentralized, self-hosted, music, server, and of course, funk & whale. If we named it more honestly, then our defunding of musicians and creatives that depended on sales wouldn't get any love (not publicly anyway), plus the ethically vacant developers would have to work on it secretly. And to be sure, we ourselves do not create or rely on income from artistic endeavours,…

I agree with the concern. Tools like this (e.g. myTunes / ourTunes) tend to be used primarily to avoid paying for music that was produced to be sold. If you believe (as I do) that the supply of quality music creation / music discovery is elastic, that means it's a free rider problem for society to solve.

I do think, however that your comment might have been better-received if delivered with less snark.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#138

Post by [deleted] »

adar wrote: post #120
IndySun wrote: post #113

"Hi, we're Funkwhale. We use cool words like decentralized, self-hosted, music, server, and of course, funk & whale. If we named it more honestly, then our defunding of musicians and creatives that depended on sales wouldn't get any love (not publicly anyway), plus the ethically vacant developers would have to work on it secretly. And to be sure, we ourselves do not create or rely on income from artistic endeavours,…

You're aware that popular legal sites like BandCamp exist where musicians sell their albums in no-DRM mp3 format, right?

[deleted]

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#139

Post by [deleted] »

adar wrote: post #120
IndySun wrote: post #113

"Hi, we're Funkwhale. We use cool words like decentralized, self-hosted, music, server, and of course, funk & whale. If we named it more honestly, then our defunding of musicians and creatives that depended on sales wouldn't get any love (not publicly anyway), plus the ethically vacant developers would have to work on it secretly. And to be sure, we ourselves do not create or rely on income from artistic endeavours,…

You're aware that popular legal sites like BandCamp exist where musicians sell their albums in no-DRM mp3 format, right?

[deleted]

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#140

Post by Inhibit »

tchaffee wrote: post #116
_jal wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be sure you soundproof your home/apartment, and don't turn it up too much in the car. Don't want to accidentally leak any copyrighted joy to your neighbors without payment!

Seems like you are being sarcastic, but yes, if you play loud enough and to a big enough audience you do indeed owe royalties. In fact bars and restaurants are required to pay for this exact reason.

Depending on what they're playing and how, friendly ASCAP employee.
Post reply on HN