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

Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 470 posts

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#421

Post by [deleted] »

duxup wrote: post #361
crazygringo wrote: post #300

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.

[deleted]

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#422

Post by danparsonson »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #399
danparsonson wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...scrobbling to MusicBrainz... Forgive the out of touch questions, but, doing what? And why?

Privacy friendly version of Last.fm for those that want to see a history of the things they've played. I have a history that goes back almost 10 years at this point on a self hosted service.

I see, thanks. What do you use the history for? Is it just curiosity about your own evolving interests, or do you have some other use for it?

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#423

Post by iso1631 »

darkwater wrote: post #224
mikepurvis wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all listens show the same intention. If I go to the barbershop and they're playing Spotify top-40 playlists running all day long, that is very different from me actively choosing what I want to listen to for a few hours a months while I'm listening in my car, or putting on Friends Per Second while doing the dishes. My $7/mo should be going to the artists I actually chose to listen to, not the stuff that droned pa…

I mean, I understand and agree, and I'm pretty sure that Spotify Premium users are very skewed towards less mainstream tastes, so I agree it would be better for smaller artists and would probably change the power balance (well, if we forget that music labels exist). But yeah, if as others pointed out you were to give 70% of your subscription cost to the artist that composed/performed the single track you listened thi…

It would be better.

If my listening is to Ed Sheeran for 9 hours a day and I pay $10, spotify take $3 for a platform fee, and Ed should get 10% of the rest - $7

If your listening is to Dave Smith for 1 hour a day and you pay $10, spotify take $3 for a platform fee, and Dave should get 10% of the rest - $7

That would be a fair way of distributing the revenue

But it's not. Instead Ed Sheeran gets 90% of listens and Dave Smith 10%, the listen pot is $14, so Ed gets $12.60 and Dave gets $1.40

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#425

Post by rustcleaner »

Clamchop wrote: post #221
gverrilla wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"property" as an idea has to go away

I agree in fractions. I think land ownership should be abolished. That'll never happen for a lot of reasons, but it's highly unethical in my opinion. Ignoring who the land was stolen from to begin with, I also feel that it's looting the future, land ownership often being generational and severely kneecapping society from making better, more productive use of a finite resource as its needs change over time. I do not t…

No private person should be taxed for the space he needs to occupy to survive, that is slavery to the state! Return to allodial titles!

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#426

Post by rustcleaner »

llbbdd wrote: post #400
Clamchop wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in fractions. I think land ownership should be abolished. That'll never happen for a lot of reasons, but it's highly unethical in my opinion. Ignoring who the land was stolen from to begin with, I also feel that it's looting the future, land ownership often being generational and severely kneecapping society from making better, more productive use of a finite resource as its needs change over time. I do not t…

Who was the land stolen from?

*Conquered. All's fair in love and war.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#427

Post by casey2 »

erelong wrote: post #81

[flagged]

Lengths just have to be reasonable, comparable to time in production (median of salaried employee-hours / median # of employees over the period) of the average item in a class. The vast majority of the private value is captured well within that time. It also keeps people honest and discourages rentseeking that isn't tied to labor.

Ownership of intellectual property still matters, but right to copy&modify shouldn't last that long. It isn't hard to imagine another system of IP rights that provide value to the creator but not to the expense of society. Disney used public domain to build it's foundation then pulled up the ladder. Disney's market cap is lower than the damage longer copyright has caused, it's already been trillions, hundreds of trillions looking into the near future.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#428

Post by arnvald »

munksbeer wrote: post #419
Dylan16807 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is that unfair? Do the maths for me please?

Let’s say I listen to 10h a month of a single artist, nothing else. So 100% of my payment (minus Spotify take) should go to that artist.

Let’s say you listen 90h to another artist, and nothing else.

In the current model both artists are put together, 100h and let’s say $20 to split. Your artist gets 90% because they’ve been listened to for 90h, so they get $18 and my artist gets $2

In my model my artist gets $10 because they get 100% of what I pay and your artist gets $10 because they get 100% of what you pay.

The difference is 50/50 vs 90/10 split

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#429

Post by imtringued »

flexagoon wrote: post #411
dnnddidiej wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So old school! They gonna release an MCP?

No idea how an MCP is relevant to the discussion, it still needs a working domain name to talk to the service. But, https://github.com/iosifache/annas-mcp

His point is that you don't need a working domain name since the MCP can just hardcode the IPs of the servers or resolve them through any other method that isn't DNS.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#430

Post by munksbeer »

arnvald wrote: post #428
munksbeer wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that unfair? Do the maths for me please?

Let’s say I listen to 10h a month of a single artist, nothing else. So 100% of my payment (minus Spotify take) should go to that artist. Let’s say you listen 90h to another artist, and nothing else. In the current model both artists are put together, 100h and let’s say $20 to split. Your artist gets 90% because they’ve been listened to for 90h, so they get $18 and my artist gets $2 In my model my artist gets $10 beca…

Ah right, I get it now, thanks.
Post reply on HN