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

Backing up Spotify

annas-archive.li

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 732 posts

Re: Backing up Spotify

#591

Post by klabb3 »

jotaen wrote: post #422
klabb3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people I know who go through the trouble of pirating and downloading vast libraries of music are all musicians themselves, or at the very least total music nerds. They don’t want to lose access to their stuff, plus if they ever need to import audio into a DAW, DRM is a no-go. They are the same people who spend large amounts of money on vinyls, and support smaller independent artists through concerts, merch and (b…

> piracy is often the only option to ”own” any media at all. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here, but I find that nowadays the process of buying high-quality, DRM-free MP3 music is as simple and straightforward as it can be: you purchase the files (on Bandcamp, Amazon, Apple Music, etc.), download them legally, and then physically own them forever. By the way, when purchasing through Bandcamp, 80+% goes to the…

> Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here

Nope, you are just more informed than me, thanks for the correction. I was extrapolating based on general trends in all forms of media (like games and movies too). It would be interesting to know what ratio of music can be acquired DRM free today.

Re: Backing up Spotify

#592

Post by Retr0id »

grishka wrote: post #433
reassess_blind wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many premium accounts Anna’s Archive had to use to scrape the whole thing. Surely Spotify has scrape protection and wouldn’t allow a single account to stream (download) millions of separate tracks.

I haven't looked at the code but I would be surprised if the premium account "requirement" is anything more than an if statement that can be commented out.

You are correct

Re: Backing up Spotify

#593

Post by komali2 »

v9v wrote: post #555
komali2 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it. I challenge you to ask 10 creative people in your life if they would stop doing whatever it is they do if they had a billion dollars.

Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars?

> Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars?

No, probably not. Isn't it a shame we live in a world where we have the technology to automate all meaningful production, but people still need to justify their existence through often meaningless labor?

That said, I know artists that make the bare minimum to survive, on purpose, so they have more time to focus on art.

Re: Backing up Spotify

#594

Post by komali2 »

dagss wrote: post #558
komali2 wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would recommend Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" for you, you would probably like it. It talks about the history of "shared delusions" as you call them, as a critical piece for development of society. Already read it. Counter: read "Debt, the first 5000 years" by Graeber for, finally, a non- "Chicago school of economics" take on the history of trade amongst humans.

Thanks for the tip. Just to be clear, I agree the money abstraction is not working particularly well. And that in the age of computers something that is more directly linked to the underlying economy could have worked better. But what needs to replace it is a better and improved "delusion", not a lack of it.

But, why? Regarding your farmer example, there are examples throughout history of farming that fed many without the involvement of currency or the paying off of debt. Take a look into syndicalized Spain if you ever get a chance (~1936-1939). Farms were collectivized and worked on by volunteers, distributions done by need with some bookkeeping to track how many people were in certain regions. Worked pretty well until the communists decided it needed to be centrally controlled and kicked out the anarchists!

Everyone always starts every future speculation assuming capitalism, or at least, currency. Isn't it worth challenging these core baseline assumptions? At the very least, the other ground is well covered, so we might come up with a little more interesting.

Re: Backing up Spotify

#595

Post by Mr_Minderbinder »

> Over-focus on the highest possible quality

This is not an issue in my view. I like the fact that I can download 100 MiB ultra-high resolution TIFF files of scans of photographs from the original negative from the Library of Congress and 24-bit/96kHz FLAC files of captures of 78 RPM records from the Internet Archive. In addition to maintaining completeness and quality of information, one of the main goals of preservation is to guard against further degradation and information loss. You should try to preserve the highest quality copies available (because they contain more information) and re-encoding (deliberate degradation) should only be used to create convenient access copies.

Inferior copies, in addition to being less informative, have the potential to misinform. Only the archivist will enjoy space savings. All the readers who might consult your library in the infinite future will bear the cost.

> ...(e.g. lossless FLAC). This inflates the file size...

This is entirely the wrong view. The file size of a raw capture compressed to FLAC should be thought of as the “true” or “correct” size. It is roughly the most efficient (balancing various trade-offs) representation of sampled audio data that we can presently achieve. In preservation we seek to preserve the item or signal itself and not simply what we might perceive thereof. This human-centric perception view is just wrong. There is data in film photographs which cannot be perceived visually yet can be of interest to researchers and be revealed with digital image analysis tools.

As an example of how much information celluloid can contain see: https://vimeo.com/89784677 (context: he is comparing a Blu-ray and a scan of a 35mm print)

Re: Backing up Spotify

#598

Post by woctordho »

lurk2 wrote: post #208
toomuchtodo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You go where the money is. Infra isn’t free. Churches pass the plate every Sunday. Perhaps one day we’ll exist in a more optimal socioeconomic system; until then, you do what you have to do to accomplish your goals (in this context, archivists and digital preservation).

> Infra isn’t free. There is a certain irony in people providing copyrighted works for free justifying profiting from these copyrights on the basis that providing the works to others isn’t free.

Data are basically free. Infra to store and transfer data is not.

Re: Backing up Spotify

#599

Post by _DeadFred_ »

0x3f wrote: post #580
lurk2 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can cover almost everything with a handful of monthly subscriptions these days. The majority of people on earth cannot afford more than two or three of these subscriptions. > But then who would be making the knock-offs and what would be motivating them? Ten years ago there was a popular blog that got posted on /r/anarcho_capitalism with some frequency. IP was a contentious topic among the then-technologically l…

> The majority of people on earth cannot afford more than two or three of these subscriptions. I would guess the majority of people on earth don't even have good enough internet to pirate HD video, nor the technical skills to do it, so we're not really talking about global averages here. > Without any* copyright law, any content that is generated effectively gets arbitraged out to the most efficient hosts and promote…

Anyone is free to release under free use in our current system. You already can live with the benefits of no IP law by just limiting yourself to those people that chose to to release this way.

Re: Backing up Spotify

#600

Post by _DeadFred_ »

moritzruth wrote: post #448
silcoon wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point but then let's not complains if creativity dies and things all look the same. Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it.

> Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it. That is simply not true. Most artists do what they do without ever seeing any money for it.

Under the current system people can release everything they want as free use.

How much media that the average person choses to consume is this 'free use' media? How much is media that artists chose to make money from?

Post reply on HN