411–420 of 470 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are published on the old ones. The old ones don't all get shut down simultaneously.
So old school! They gonna release an MCP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes your honor, we've identified one Big Bird of 123 Sesame St as being affiliated with the operators of the site based on the registration data. The only reason you have to tell the truth is if you want to reduce the risk of arbitrarily losing control of the domain, such as having a chance to contest any abuse reports that might be filed against you.
It’s well established if the US wants to they can find them and crypto can be traced. Same question though how are they paying for the domain, assuming this is on the plaintiff to trace
Anna's Archive exclusively uses Monero, which can't be by design
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nitpick: that’s trademark, not copyright. While it’s bundled under IP, it’s a different beast altogether.
The above claim was in fact regarding “intellectual property”. If you break it down, there are plenty of IP rights which make a lot of sense. Here’s one for copyright: “Do you think any corporation should be allowed to make closed source forks of GPL software?”
You might argue that doesn't help much if they never distribute that code (only runs on their servers). Here’s the inconvenient truth: GPL already allows that. Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. You’d need AGPL to forbid that. GPL is only concerned if you further distribute the modifications.
Next one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder.
> Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder. "Piracy" as a term for copying others' creative works dates back to the 1600s, and is in a 1736 dictionary: > The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorised copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright.[8] In 1668 publisher John Hancock wrote of "some dishonest Booksellers…
You're saying there is a moral obligation to be incorrect.
If anything this is the type of mistake where it's never too late to make things right. 10 billion years could pass and you would still be doing people a favour by calling things by their names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't like what they do to artists Not sure if you're aware, but it's the labels, not Spotify: > It pays roughly two-thirds of every dollar it generates from music, with nearly 80% allocated to recording royalties and about 20% to publishing, though how much artists and songwriters ultimately receive depends on their agreements with rights holders, which Spotify does not control. [0] Spotify is frantically trying…
Wow. This is certainly a take. Two things: 1. Spotify has had a policy for a couple years now of not paying artists who generate less than 1,000 streams per year PER song. So if I get 999 streams on each of my 50 songs every year, I get nothing from Spotify. 2. Major labels own major stakes in Spotify. They are one and the same.
Ad 2, you’ll be surprised to hear the labels only held cumulative 20% stake up to the IPO and all of them subsequently wound it down. Their stake is now insignificant.
However, they had, have, and will always have, enormous leverage due to licensing-they’re monopolists and Spotify can either agree to whatever the terms are, or shut itself down.
Imagine if Netflix never started producing original content. They’d be at mercy of others or, more probably, already dead. Music doesn’t work that way and Spotify can’t just generate a bunch of pop hits to avoid paying the labels. They are trying to do that with podcasts.
Spotify here is the victim as much as the artists.
This doesn't change things much , besides making domain name registration more difficult, but I continue to think this Spotify thing was a really dumb move on the part of Anna's Archive. AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a strong argument to be made for the moral goodness of that -- that even if it's illegal, it's at least in the spirit of a p…
The value is in people controlling data. Any company with a data mote will always have an advantage, this damages the free and fair market on which capitalism is built.
Spotify has removed millions of songs over the years, so while the value to you, may be tiny, the value to the public is much larger than the marginal increase in risk to the project as a whole.
It should be under AA since it follows AA philosophy and benefits from AA's branding and brings more interested preservationinst parties who may be unaware of AA. Your strategy is the first step in divide and conquer, AA's is too big to fail
This doesn't change things much , besides making domain name registration more difficult, but I continue to think this Spotify thing was a really dumb move on the part of Anna's Archive. AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a strong argument to be made for the moral goodness of that -- that even if it's illegal, it's at least in the spirit of a p…
Reminds me of internet archive’s emergency library that they felt magically didn’t have to follow the law because of COVID. Some folks out there seem to have their otherwise good intentions sort of trend into self destructive waters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. 100 people subscribe to spotify and listen for 100 hours a month each, for $10 a month. You listen to your favourite artist for 50 hours and other stuff for 50 hours. No-one else listens to your favourite artist. I assume that if this is band is treated as the "average" Total listening hours = 100 * 100 = 10,00. Total money: 100 * 10 = $1,000. They get: 50 / 10,000 * $1,000 = $5 That…
The unfairness comes when you spend an abnormal amount of time listening. If you listen less than the average user then the bands you like won't be getting x% of your money that lines up with your listening habits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. 100 people subscribe to spotify and listen for 100 hours a month each, for $10 a month. You listen to your favourite artist for 50 hours and other stuff for 50 hours. No-one else listens to your favourite artist. I assume that if this is band is treated as the "average" Total listening hours = 100 * 100 = 10,00. Total money: 100 * 10 = $1,000. They get: 50 / 10,000 * $1,000 = $5 That…
You don't see the problem because you're using the same number of hours for everyone. When you have some accounts using 500 hours and others using 50 there are problems. And the 500 hour account is more likely on autopilot and reinforcing whatever's already popular.
1) It was in their name rather than a disconnected splinter group or name, and
2) They went off half cocked releasing the analysis and metadata with no music.
They should have held silent until the entirety of the music collection was ready to release, and it should have been a 'new' seemingly unaffiliated group.
Either the leaders' egos have inflated too big, or someone is trying to hurt the project by making intentional strategic errors. I don't see any good reason to release only metadata, cover art, and analysis in a blog post, and little or no music, under your group's name, unless you want a massive ego stroke!
For shame, and highly unprofessional, like modern UI devs who think an interface should change more often than once a decade (STOP BREAKING VISUO-MUSCLE MEMORY YOU TWITS! INTERFACES ARE THE HUMAN API!)...