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

Spotifyd

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: Spotifyd

#161

Post by swexbe »

pdntspa wrote: post #137
ubercow13 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the sense that you own the physical CD but only have a license to use the music on it. Ripping a CD is not legal in many countries including UK and probably the US [1], so do you 'own' the music any more than someone who has pirated it? I guess, in some sense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Legality

The license is meaningless if you hold the physical bits and choose to ignore everything else

Ownership is a social construct. The leviathan can come and take away your bits at any time.

Re: Spotifyd

#162

Post by kovezd »

winternett wrote: post #102
nzoschke wrote: post #16

Always great to see new ways to integrate with Spotify. I think that if you're paying for a Spotify Premium subscription you should be able to stream music wherever you want! However Spotify doesn't agree. If this is based on librespot its using stuff Spotify doesn't support and could easily shut down for unauthorized clients any time. Their supported paths are iOS and Android SDKs for mobile, and the Web Playback SD…

Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…

I agree with the problem (getting distribution is not easy), but not necessarily with the solution (calling out anti-competitive practices).

If the problem is serious enough, the capitalist solution would be to develop a platform that solves the problem for independent artists. However, as others have pointed out, the real customers for Spotify are not indie artists but rather paying users, and established artists.

While it is tempting to blame platforms for commercial failure. One has two recognize the truth of the business: making music follows a long-tailed distribution, and ultimately the listeners decide who rips those benefits.

Re: Spotifyd

#163

Post by ponco »

slondr wrote: post #114

Hi, I'm one of the spotifyd maintainers, happy to answer any questions people have - though I'm coming to this thread awfully late... We recently cut a new release for the first time in over a year, which is very exciting for all of us (and I'm guessing why the project has been submitted here now :D)

Is there an existential threat looming? Could Spotify make an API change that would completely break libespot and Spotifyd? Any insights as to why/why not that might be likely?

Also, any plans to add the ability to save the tracks that are streamed? (for e.g. offline playback or for exporting to mp3 etc.)

Re: Spotifyd

#164

Post by halflings »

winternett wrote: post #102
nzoschke wrote: post #16

Always great to see new ways to integrate with Spotify. I think that if you're paying for a Spotify Premium subscription you should be able to stream music wherever you want! However Spotify doesn't agree. If this is based on librespot its using stuff Spotify doesn't support and could easily shut down for unauthorized clients any time. Their supported paths are iOS and Android SDKs for mobile, and the Web Playback SD…

Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…

> even if the link goes to Spotify, they do a ton of things to siphon listeners that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays

If always playing songs from the same artists is what people wanted (e.g. lead to more overall listening time), Spotify would 100% do that. You can't pick what a radio station plays next after starting one of your songs, likewise Spotify gets to pick what their users prefer (visibly: not always songs from the exact same artist).

Re: Spotifyd

#165

Post by robbiep »

halflings wrote: post #164
winternett wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…

> even if the link goes to Spotify, they do a ton of things to siphon listeners that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays If always playing songs from the same artists is what people wanted (e.g. lead to more overall listening time), Spotify would 100% do that. You can't pick what a radio station plays next after starting one of your s…

Users don’t know what they want. This is hugely true of the on-play from spotify or any other service. They’re delivering something that works, but who is to say there aren’t 50 other algorithms that work as well?

Re: Spotifyd

#166

Post by vineyardmike »

halflings wrote: post #164
winternett wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…

> even if the link goes to Spotify, they do a ton of things to siphon listeners that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays If always playing songs from the same artists is what people wanted (e.g. lead to more overall listening time), Spotify would 100% do that. You can't pick what a radio station plays next after starting one of your s…

> If always playing songs from the same artists is what people wanted (e.g. lead to more overall listening time), Spotify would 100% do that.

1. This assumes someone has actually A/B tested to see if this works. I would believe no one at Spotify has tried this.

2. What about if other music had lower royalty rates? Doesn't Spotify lose money, so wouldn't they want to pick cheap music?

Re: Spotifyd

#168

Post by Jataman606 »

dahdum wrote: post #38
nzoschke wrote: post #16

Always great to see new ways to integrate with Spotify. I think that if you're paying for a Spotify Premium subscription you should be able to stream music wherever you want! However Spotify doesn't agree. If this is based on librespot its using stuff Spotify doesn't support and could easily shut down for unauthorized clients any time. Their supported paths are iOS and Android SDKs for mobile, and the Web Playback SD…

> I assume that always going into auto-recommendation mode is intentional to juice playback stats. That’s one of my favorite features, sometimes I’m too distracted driving or doing something else to manage Spotify, but that doesn’t mean I want the background music to stop entirely.

That’s one of my least favorite features, sometimes I’m too distracted driving or doing something else to manage Spotify and i want my albums to restart from beginning, but then it goes to some radio i don't want. And no, clicking "repeat playlist" button doesn't work because they flip it off randomly.

Re: Spotifyd

#169

Post by e-v »

smolyeet wrote: post #50
iamacyborg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, my bad, I assumed most folks would have a base level of empathy.

Well , it’s either I listen to it using this easy platform for us common folk, or I don’t listen to them at all. Or i pirate. It’s not that deep , you can get off your high horse.

There's no high horse. Your message doesn't answer the argument. The fact (A) that one wouldn't buy music if Spotify weren't available is not related to (B) not caring about how Spotify treats artists.

Even if A is true, it doesn't imply that one has no empathy for artists.

Re: Spotifyd

#170

Post by rashkov »

halflings wrote: post #164
winternett wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one minor tweak of what plays next can totally rip off independent artists on the platform. We have reached an era where algorithms aren't transparent, so artists like me are bewildered that for all the promoting we do on our own music, we rarely get any views and listens unless we literally spend thousands of dollars on advertising to break the visibility barrier... For example, if I tweet a link to my own song…

> even if the link goes to Spotify, they do a ton of things to siphon listeners that came for my music away from listening to my music, including NOT playing more of my music after the intended song plays If always playing songs from the same artists is what people wanted (e.g. lead to more overall listening time), Spotify would 100% do that. You can't pick what a radio station plays next after starting one of your s…

Radio royalties cost far less than direct plays, FYI
Post reply on HN