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

41–50 of 306 posts

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#41

Post by cf_ »

BRedSox wrote: post #27
feanaro wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on both the music in question and your jurisdiction. There is nothing inherent about "music" that makes it illegal to share it with others. Is it Taylor Swift or something your friend recorded? It makes a big difference. This is a tool to satisfy the use case of sharing music with others. Sometimes such sharing will be illegal, but at other times it won't.

Couldn’t the same be said for youtube-dl? Again, I don’t know.. just curious.

Yes, the same could and has been said about YouTube-dl. It depends what you do with the tool. If you are using it to download videos that specifically allow this, then there is nothing illegal about it. It's the same thing with a hammer. You can use it for legal or illegal actions, but that doesn't make the hammer an illegal tool...

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#43

Post by rglullis »

vincnetas wrote: post #36
BRedSox wrote: post #6

Honest question, how is this legal? It looks as if there is the ability to share your music online. Can someone explain the difference between this and say Napster, Limewire, Kaza, etc? Rather than storing it locally, it’s just online... or am I missing something here?

For example one of nodes : We are are a curated Funkwhale music server promoting libre audio - usually released under Creative Commons licenses and through netlabels. https://open.audio So this should answer your question. It's legal because it's not illegal.

Not just that. Sharing access with a friend would fall under fair-use.

I've been meaning to deploy this at my home server, but then with Covid and WFH my need to have it available outside has been reduced dramatically.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#44

Post by crispyporkbites »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #30
JacobSuperslav wrote: post #9

I know this kind of thing might not be very popular on HN, but I like their anti-meritocracy statement: https://funkwhale.audio/en_US/code-of-conduct

How ironic that this statement of inclusivity is preceded with this one: >We're sorry but funkwhale.audio doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.

JavaScript is a choice. Inclusivity generally refers to things which are not a choice.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#45

Post by progval »

cousin_it wrote: post #39
glenstein wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To include some important information you left out: It says that sexual harassment is bad and that racism is bad, and using jokes to "ironically" do things like that is also bad.

(deleted, I was overreacting a bit)

There is a middle ground between "sending people to camps for a wrong joke" and "no one should be held accountable for any of their actions if they claim they are jokes"

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#46

Post by fabrixxm »

BRedSox wrote: post #38
fabrixxm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as long the musician licensed his/her work in a way that let you do it. In some cases you also allowed to reuse that music in your work. Take a look at: https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ https://www.jamendo.com/start http://ccmixter.org/

I’m not talking music that is under a CC license - I’m talking lil bow wow and the spice girls.

It's the same. It's not "who is?", it's "have you a license to do it?". If you have a license to reshare spice girls works, and you want to use funkwhale, well, you can.

Nine Inch Nails have CC licensed albums. So "being famous" and "music that is under a CC license" is not mutually exclusive...

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#47

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Asooka wrote: post #24
BRedSox wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on software that will negatively impact the well-being of other people. Such as creating a platform for people to listen to music for free by sharing it with others without paying the artist?

You can also say it benefits the artist because it makes it easier to listen to them, which incentivises people to give them money to support them. This is more or less the entire model of Bandcamp.

You can indeed say that - and people who demand artists work for "exposure" often do.

But there's no evidence it's factually correct.

And Bandcamp's model is based on selling tracks and albums with free previews, which is entirely different to free listening.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#49

Post by BRedSox »

fabrixxm wrote: post #46
BRedSox wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not talking music that is under a CC license - I’m talking lil bow wow and the spice girls.

It's the same. It's not "who is?", it's "have you a license to do it?". If you have a license to reshare spice girls works, and you want to use funkwhale, well, you can. Nine Inch Nails have CC licensed albums. So "being famous" and "music that is under a CC license" is not mutually exclusive...

I don’t think there is anyone on HN confused on that. I’m sorry if it slipped beyond you but I’m specifically talking music people don’t have permission or the rights to sharing.

Re: Funkwhale – Decentralized, self-hosted music server

#50

Post by disruptalot »

glenstein wrote: post #35
cousin_it wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't like it. It says making wrong jokes is an offense. On the plus side, it doesn't yet say that failure to report someone else for making wrong jokes is an offense.

To include some important information you left out: It says that sexual harassment is bad and that racism is bad, and using jokes to "ironically" do things like that is also bad.

Problem is, making accusation of such is a breeze.

> Intentionally posting or disseminating libel, slander, or other disinformation.

Let's face it. It's just a policy that allows them to expel anyone that doesn't fit their views, whatever that may be.

Post reply on HN