Backing up Spotify

Post by cm2012 » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 9:58 PM UTC

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #119

cm2012 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ageee with you, this release is obviously a scummy thing to do. Same as if someone released every book on Kindle for free. There are rules. Project Gutenberg is great. They don't just steal every book they can. Not to mention the organization is openly trying to profit from this data by selling it to big tech orgs for AI training! None of the artists consented to that, I am sure, to say nothing if Spotify's interests…

You don't think that would be a good thing?

Post by cm2012 » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 10:02 PM UTC

VanTheBrand wrote: post #59

crazygringo wrote: post #11

This is insane. I definitely was not aware Spotify DRM had been cracked to enable downloading at scale like this. The thing is, this doesn't even seem particularly useful for average consumers/listeners, since Spotify itself is so convenient, and trying to locate individual tracks in massive torrent files of presumably 10,000's of tracks each sounds horrible. But this does seem like it will be a godsend for researche…

The metadata is probably more useful than the music files themselves arguably

Post by Gander5739 » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 10:02 PM UTC

ChadNauseam wrote: post #90

WD-42 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is gonna download a 300TB torrent just to get the latest Taylor Swift album. There are much easier avenues than that. What’s actually scummy is Spotify paying artists $1 per 1000 streams. Buy CDs. Use Bandcamp.

> What’s actually scummy is Spotify paying artists $1 per 1000 streams. My spotify wrapped says I listened for 50,000 minutes this year. Assuming 2 minutes per song, that's 25,000 streams. I paid them $110, aka $0.004/stream. Assuming I'm a typical user, they obviously could not afford to pay any more than that per stream. I googled "spotify pay per listen" and the first result is a reddit comment saying "The average…

Post by uhfraid » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 10:06 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #55

Slow_Hand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I wouldn't call this scummy I do agree with your sentiment. It is technically stealing and those copyrights should be respected. Full disclosure, I am a career musician AND have been known to pirate material. That said, I think this is a valuable archive to build. There are a lot of recordings that will not endure without some kind of archiving. So while it's not a perfect solution, I do think it has an importa…

> It is technically stealing It is technically not. Stealing means you have a thing, I steal it, now I have the thing and you do not. You can’t steal a copyright (aside from something like breaking into your stuff and stealing the proof that you hold the copyright), and then a song is downloaded the original copyright holder still have copy. Calling piracy theft was MPAA/RIAA propaganda. Now people say that piracy is…

Post by BonoboIO » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 10:07 PM UTC

jsheard wrote: post #78

Aurornis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is, this doesn't even seem particularly useful for average consumers/listeners, since Spotify itself is so convenient, and trying to locate individual tracks in massive torrent files of presumably 10,000's of tracks each sounds horrible. I wouldn’t be so sure. There are already tools to automatically locate and stream pirated TV and movie content automatic and on demand. They’re so common that I had non-t…

> The Anna’s archive group is ideologically motivated. They’re definitely not doing this for AI companies. They have a page directly addressed to AI companies, offering them "enterprise-level" access to their complete archives in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars. AI may not be their original/primary motivation but they are evidently on board with facilitating AI labs piracy-maxxing.