▲ 140 ▼ Backing up Spotify - Anna's archive (annas-archive.li) submitted 7 months ago by TheBigRoomXXL@leminal.space to c/datahoarder@lemmy.ml 31 comments fedilink hide all child comments Anna archive continues it's awesome work.
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 160kbps ogg files is it really worth backing up permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why wouldn't it be? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (3 children) Archives should be lossless unless there's literally no other source available. Archiving low quality sources like this just degrades the overall integrity of the whole permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 months ago (3 children) Normally you're mostly right, but in this case I have to agree that lossy existence is better than lossless absence. 300TB puts it at the upper limit of pro-sumer capacity, but it's still doable from a personal archive perspective. If you went FLAC lossless, though, you're looking at 3-6PB. That quantity is almost completely unattainable by hobbyists, and presents challenges even for enterprise entities. This archive is the "photo of the original document" for the collection. It's not optimal, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but the alternative is to just not do it at all permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* They actually have a section where you can generate a magnet link based on how many teribytes of data you have available. here permalink fedilink source parent [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago I dont thinm we need people to be able to download the entire thing. There should be a viable way to partially download the torrent and archive based on your storage availability. permalink fedilink source parent [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (2 children) I'd argue that no one is gonna be archiving 300tb either though and will likely be picking and choosing which files to download from the torrents. What I don't know is if this is how Spotify is storing this music on their end or if they have some other lossless source they pull from. I know Deezer has flacs available for most stuff and mp3 320 (I think) for what isn't lossless. Not many hobbyists are going to dedicate that much space to bad quality audio, or even have that much space to begin with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago Eh - maybe - there are definitely hoarders with the ability to absorb 300TB. They're not common, but they do exist. There are probably close to zero hoarders that could spare 3PB, especially for a collection that they won't listen to a majority of. It's like saying that it isn't worth digitizing wax tube recordings because the source is so low quality. If preservation is the goal, anything is better than nothing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 7 months ago Spotify has a lossless quality option in their apps. The link says "The quality is the original OGG Vorbis at 160kbit/s", so I guess that's what Spotify uses for the "high" desktop/mobile setting described at https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) 160kbps ogg is not exactly low quality. Most people can't tell the difference between 160kbps ogg and lossless, nor do they have the equipment when listen to. And with huge amount of data like this, it might be impossible or too expensive or too time consuming for them to archive in lossless quality. I agree, archiving audio files should be lossless when possible, but that is not a requirement. 160kbps ogg is "good enough". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) I consider anything under 256kbps to be not worth getting unless it's the only ever rip of something that doesn't exist anymore. If its lossy it should be 320kbps mp3 ideally. I also try to stay away from VBR rips permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) You just say it should not, but why? As said 160kbp ogg is for most people not distinguishable from uncompressed. I think it is worth archiving this, especially if it is in mass like this. Why do you stay away from VBR? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago Archival should be as close to source quality as possible. VBR just adds more noise to the audio whether you can hear it or not. That means copying it to different mediums will eventually start to notice the quality reduction over time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] helloworld@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago How many millions would they need to spend on downloading the lossless equivalent of 300 TB of ogg files lol. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why wouldn't it be? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (3 children) Archives should be lossless unless there's literally no other source available. Archiving low quality sources like this just degrades the overall integrity of the whole permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 months ago (3 children) Normally you're mostly right, but in this case I have to agree that lossy existence is better than lossless absence. 300TB puts it at the upper limit of pro-sumer capacity, but it's still doable from a personal archive perspective. If you went FLAC lossless, though, you're looking at 3-6PB. That quantity is almost completely unattainable by hobbyists, and presents challenges even for enterprise entities. This archive is the "photo of the original document" for the collection. It's not optimal, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but the alternative is to just not do it at all permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* They actually have a section where you can generate a magnet link based on how many teribytes of data you have available. here permalink fedilink source parent [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago I dont thinm we need people to be able to download the entire thing. There should be a viable way to partially download the torrent and archive based on your storage availability. permalink fedilink source parent [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (2 children) I'd argue that no one is gonna be archiving 300tb either though and will likely be picking and choosing which files to download from the torrents. What I don't know is if this is how Spotify is storing this music on their end or if they have some other lossless source they pull from. I know Deezer has flacs available for most stuff and mp3 320 (I think) for what isn't lossless. Not many hobbyists are going to dedicate that much space to bad quality audio, or even have that much space to begin with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago Eh - maybe - there are definitely hoarders with the ability to absorb 300TB. They're not common, but they do exist. There are probably close to zero hoarders that could spare 3PB, especially for a collection that they won't listen to a majority of. It's like saying that it isn't worth digitizing wax tube recordings because the source is so low quality. If preservation is the goal, anything is better than nothing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 7 months ago Spotify has a lossless quality option in their apps. The link says "The quality is the original OGG Vorbis at 160kbit/s", so I guess that's what Spotify uses for the "high" desktop/mobile setting described at https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) 160kbps ogg is not exactly low quality. Most people can't tell the difference between 160kbps ogg and lossless, nor do they have the equipment when listen to. And with huge amount of data like this, it might be impossible or too expensive or too time consuming for them to archive in lossless quality. I agree, archiving audio files should be lossless when possible, but that is not a requirement. 160kbps ogg is "good enough". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) I consider anything under 256kbps to be not worth getting unless it's the only ever rip of something that doesn't exist anymore. If its lossy it should be 320kbps mp3 ideally. I also try to stay away from VBR rips permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) You just say it should not, but why? As said 160kbp ogg is for most people not distinguishable from uncompressed. I think it is worth archiving this, especially if it is in mass like this. Why do you stay away from VBR? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago Archival should be as close to source quality as possible. VBR just adds more noise to the audio whether you can hear it or not. That means copying it to different mediums will eventually start to notice the quality reduction over time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] helloworld@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago How many millions would they need to spend on downloading the lossless equivalent of 300 TB of ogg files lol. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (3 children) Archives should be lossless unless there's literally no other source available. Archiving low quality sources like this just degrades the overall integrity of the whole permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 months ago (3 children) Normally you're mostly right, but in this case I have to agree that lossy existence is better than lossless absence. 300TB puts it at the upper limit of pro-sumer capacity, but it's still doable from a personal archive perspective. If you went FLAC lossless, though, you're looking at 3-6PB. That quantity is almost completely unattainable by hobbyists, and presents challenges even for enterprise entities. This archive is the "photo of the original document" for the collection. It's not optimal, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but the alternative is to just not do it at all permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* They actually have a section where you can generate a magnet link based on how many teribytes of data you have available. here permalink fedilink source parent [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago I dont thinm we need people to be able to download the entire thing. There should be a viable way to partially download the torrent and archive based on your storage availability. permalink fedilink source parent [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (2 children) I'd argue that no one is gonna be archiving 300tb either though and will likely be picking and choosing which files to download from the torrents. What I don't know is if this is how Spotify is storing this music on their end or if they have some other lossless source they pull from. I know Deezer has flacs available for most stuff and mp3 320 (I think) for what isn't lossless. Not many hobbyists are going to dedicate that much space to bad quality audio, or even have that much space to begin with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago Eh - maybe - there are definitely hoarders with the ability to absorb 300TB. They're not common, but they do exist. There are probably close to zero hoarders that could spare 3PB, especially for a collection that they won't listen to a majority of. It's like saying that it isn't worth digitizing wax tube recordings because the source is so low quality. If preservation is the goal, anything is better than nothing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 7 months ago Spotify has a lossless quality option in their apps. The link says "The quality is the original OGG Vorbis at 160kbit/s", so I guess that's what Spotify uses for the "high" desktop/mobile setting described at https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) 160kbps ogg is not exactly low quality. Most people can't tell the difference between 160kbps ogg and lossless, nor do they have the equipment when listen to. And with huge amount of data like this, it might be impossible or too expensive or too time consuming for them to archive in lossless quality. I agree, archiving audio files should be lossless when possible, but that is not a requirement. 160kbps ogg is "good enough". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) I consider anything under 256kbps to be not worth getting unless it's the only ever rip of something that doesn't exist anymore. If its lossy it should be 320kbps mp3 ideally. I also try to stay away from VBR rips permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) You just say it should not, but why? As said 160kbp ogg is for most people not distinguishable from uncompressed. I think it is worth archiving this, especially if it is in mass like this. Why do you stay away from VBR? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago Archival should be as close to source quality as possible. VBR just adds more noise to the audio whether you can hear it or not. That means copying it to different mediums will eventually start to notice the quality reduction over time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] helloworld@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago How many millions would they need to spend on downloading the lossless equivalent of 300 TB of ogg files lol. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 months ago (3 children) Normally you're mostly right, but in this case I have to agree that lossy existence is better than lossless absence. 300TB puts it at the upper limit of pro-sumer capacity, but it's still doable from a personal archive perspective. If you went FLAC lossless, though, you're looking at 3-6PB. That quantity is almost completely unattainable by hobbyists, and presents challenges even for enterprise entities. This archive is the "photo of the original document" for the collection. It's not optimal, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but the alternative is to just not do it at all permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* They actually have a section where you can generate a magnet link based on how many teribytes of data you have available. here permalink fedilink source parent [–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago I dont thinm we need people to be able to download the entire thing. There should be a viable way to partially download the torrent and archive based on your storage availability. permalink fedilink source parent [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (2 children) I'd argue that no one is gonna be archiving 300tb either though and will likely be picking and choosing which files to download from the torrents. What I don't know is if this is how Spotify is storing this music on their end or if they have some other lossless source they pull from. I know Deezer has flacs available for most stuff and mp3 320 (I think) for what isn't lossless. Not many hobbyists are going to dedicate that much space to bad quality audio, or even have that much space to begin with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago Eh - maybe - there are definitely hoarders with the ability to absorb 300TB. They're not common, but they do exist. There are probably close to zero hoarders that could spare 3PB, especially for a collection that they won't listen to a majority of. It's like saying that it isn't worth digitizing wax tube recordings because the source is so low quality. If preservation is the goal, anything is better than nothing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 7 months ago Spotify has a lossless quality option in their apps. The link says "The quality is the original OGG Vorbis at 160kbit/s", so I guess that's what Spotify uses for the "high" desktop/mobile setting described at https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* They actually have a section where you can generate a magnet link based on how many teribytes of data you have available. here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago I dont thinm we need people to be able to download the entire thing. There should be a viable way to partially download the torrent and archive based on your storage availability. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (2 children) I'd argue that no one is gonna be archiving 300tb either though and will likely be picking and choosing which files to download from the torrents. What I don't know is if this is how Spotify is storing this music on their end or if they have some other lossless source they pull from. I know Deezer has flacs available for most stuff and mp3 320 (I think) for what isn't lossless. Not many hobbyists are going to dedicate that much space to bad quality audio, or even have that much space to begin with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago Eh - maybe - there are definitely hoarders with the ability to absorb 300TB. They're not common, but they do exist. There are probably close to zero hoarders that could spare 3PB, especially for a collection that they won't listen to a majority of. It's like saying that it isn't worth digitizing wax tube recordings because the source is so low quality. If preservation is the goal, anything is better than nothing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 7 months ago Spotify has a lossless quality option in their apps. The link says "The quality is the original OGG Vorbis at 160kbit/s", so I guess that's what Spotify uses for the "high" desktop/mobile setting described at https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0rnman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago Eh - maybe - there are definitely hoarders with the ability to absorb 300TB. They're not common, but they do exist. There are probably close to zero hoarders that could spare 3PB, especially for a collection that they won't listen to a majority of. It's like saying that it isn't worth digitizing wax tube recordings because the source is so low quality. If preservation is the goal, anything is better than nothing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 7 months ago Spotify has a lossless quality option in their apps. The link says "The quality is the original OGG Vorbis at 160kbit/s", so I guess that's what Spotify uses for the "high" desktop/mobile setting described at https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) 160kbps ogg is not exactly low quality. Most people can't tell the difference between 160kbps ogg and lossless, nor do they have the equipment when listen to. And with huge amount of data like this, it might be impossible or too expensive or too time consuming for them to archive in lossless quality. I agree, archiving audio files should be lossless when possible, but that is not a requirement. 160kbps ogg is "good enough". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) I consider anything under 256kbps to be not worth getting unless it's the only ever rip of something that doesn't exist anymore. If its lossy it should be 320kbps mp3 ideally. I also try to stay away from VBR rips permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) You just say it should not, but why? As said 160kbp ogg is for most people not distinguishable from uncompressed. I think it is worth archiving this, especially if it is in mass like this. Why do you stay away from VBR? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago Archival should be as close to source quality as possible. VBR just adds more noise to the audio whether you can hear it or not. That means copying it to different mediums will eventually start to notice the quality reduction over time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) I consider anything under 256kbps to be not worth getting unless it's the only ever rip of something that doesn't exist anymore. If its lossy it should be 320kbps mp3 ideally. I also try to stay away from VBR rips permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) You just say it should not, but why? As said 160kbp ogg is for most people not distinguishable from uncompressed. I think it is worth archiving this, especially if it is in mass like this. Why do you stay away from VBR? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago Archival should be as close to source quality as possible. VBR just adds more noise to the audio whether you can hear it or not. That means copying it to different mediums will eventually start to notice the quality reduction over time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) You just say it should not, but why? As said 160kbp ogg is for most people not distinguishable from uncompressed. I think it is worth archiving this, especially if it is in mass like this. Why do you stay away from VBR? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago Archival should be as close to source quality as possible. VBR just adds more noise to the audio whether you can hear it or not. That means copying it to different mediums will eventually start to notice the quality reduction over time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago Archival should be as close to source quality as possible. VBR just adds more noise to the audio whether you can hear it or not. That means copying it to different mediums will eventually start to notice the quality reduction over time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] helloworld@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago How many millions would they need to spend on downloading the lossless equivalent of 300 TB of ogg files lol. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 1 point 7 months ago (4 children) It's not legal what they are doing, isn't it? Don't they have basically the whole worlds police force after them already? Where are they even hosting? permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 7 months ago (3 children) They just need to say they are using the archive for AI training data. Then it's legal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago They just need to say they are using the archive for AI training data. Then it’s legal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago They released the scraped data though and are openly against copyright laws permalink fedilink source parent [–] moondoggie@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago Well, they do sell access to their data to train AI, so that’s a start permalink fedilink source parent [–] hayvan@piefed.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children) This is the view from Belgium indeed. Edit: alternative link available: https://nl.annas-archive.org/blog/backing-up-spotify.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 13 points 7 months ago (1 child) Well this is ironic permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hayvan@piefed.world 4 points 7 months ago Haha, wow permalink fedilink source parent [+] not_me@piefed.social 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fetus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Or Cloudflare DNS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) VPN usually saves your IP too. And they have to give your IP address if requested by government. This might not be true for all countries and all VPN, but be mindful about this. I wouldn't do anything illegal thinking its safe with a VPN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago Spotify started with piracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 0 points 7 months ago It is illegal to distribute these files. And they accept money, so it makes it even worse: Donate to Anna’s Archive. Any amount helps! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 7 months ago (3 children) They just need to say they are using the archive for AI training data. Then it's legal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago They just need to say they are using the archive for AI training data. Then it’s legal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago They released the scraped data though and are openly against copyright laws permalink fedilink source parent [–] moondoggie@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago Well, they do sell access to their data to train AI, so that’s a start permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago They just need to say they are using the archive for AI training data. Then it’s legal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago They released the scraped data though and are openly against copyright laws permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moondoggie@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago Well, they do sell access to their data to train AI, so that’s a start permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hayvan@piefed.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children) This is the view from Belgium indeed. Edit: alternative link available: https://nl.annas-archive.org/blog/backing-up-spotify.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 13 points 7 months ago (1 child) Well this is ironic permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hayvan@piefed.world 4 points 7 months ago Haha, wow permalink fedilink source parent [+] not_me@piefed.social 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fetus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Or Cloudflare DNS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) VPN usually saves your IP too. And they have to give your IP address if requested by government. This might not be true for all countries and all VPN, but be mindful about this. I wouldn't do anything illegal thinking its safe with a VPN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 13 points 7 months ago (1 child) Well this is ironic permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hayvan@piefed.world 4 points 7 months ago Haha, wow permalink fedilink source parent
[+] not_me@piefed.social 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fetus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Or Cloudflare DNS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) VPN usually saves your IP too. And they have to give your IP address if requested by government. This might not be true for all countries and all VPN, but be mindful about this. I wouldn't do anything illegal thinking its safe with a VPN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fetus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Or Cloudflare DNS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] not_me@piefed.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) VPN usually saves your IP too. And they have to give your IP address if requested by government. This might not be true for all countries and all VPN, but be mindful about this. I wouldn't do anything illegal thinking its safe with a VPN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] not_me@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] not_me@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago Spotify started with piracy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 0 points 7 months ago It is illegal to distribute these files. And they accept money, so it makes it even worse: Donate to Anna’s Archive. Any amount helps! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml -2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Isn’t that just stealing royalties from the musicians? permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] turdburglar@piefed.social 3 points 7 months ago (1 child) ha! no, what royalties? play the song one million times and they get a dollar? spotify can get bent. long live bandcamp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 child) So let me get this straight: Anna’s Archive taking 100% from artists = good, Bandcamp taking ~20% = good, but Spotify taking ~30% = bad? That suggests the issue isn’t artist pay, it’s just which platform you’ve decided to hate. And Anna’s Archive’s framing around ‘free access to culture’ seems to mean free for scraping and ideological cover, but for-profit when it’s packaged and sold to AI companies. That’s not anarchy - it’s anarcho-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] turdburglar@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) i’m not so sure about your numbers there, friend. also bands don’t make money on streaming or selling records in stores anymore. they make money selling tickets and product at the shows. source: i have run a live music venue for 35 years. watching the changes in the business model has been wild. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago Not sure what the problem with the numbers is. Piracy = 0% to artists, Bandcamp = around 80% after fees and Visa, Spotify = pays rights holders around 70% of gross revenue, and artists often see 20% or less from labels. Blaming Spotify misses the real problem: labels control the payouts, not the platform. I get that you promote your business a saviour, but how do people find the artists they want to go see without streaming or distribution platforms? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 3 points 7 months ago (1 child) ha! no, what royalties? play the song one million times and they get a dollar? spotify can get bent. long live bandcamp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 child) So let me get this straight: Anna’s Archive taking 100% from artists = good, Bandcamp taking ~20% = good, but Spotify taking ~30% = bad? That suggests the issue isn’t artist pay, it’s just which platform you’ve decided to hate. And Anna’s Archive’s framing around ‘free access to culture’ seems to mean free for scraping and ideological cover, but for-profit when it’s packaged and sold to AI companies. That’s not anarchy - it’s anarcho-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] turdburglar@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) i’m not so sure about your numbers there, friend. also bands don’t make money on streaming or selling records in stores anymore. they make money selling tickets and product at the shows. source: i have run a live music venue for 35 years. watching the changes in the business model has been wild. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago Not sure what the problem with the numbers is. Piracy = 0% to artists, Bandcamp = around 80% after fees and Visa, Spotify = pays rights holders around 70% of gross revenue, and artists often see 20% or less from labels. Blaming Spotify misses the real problem: labels control the payouts, not the platform. I get that you promote your business a saviour, but how do people find the artists they want to go see without streaming or distribution platforms? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 child) So let me get this straight: Anna’s Archive taking 100% from artists = good, Bandcamp taking ~20% = good, but Spotify taking ~30% = bad? That suggests the issue isn’t artist pay, it’s just which platform you’ve decided to hate. And Anna’s Archive’s framing around ‘free access to culture’ seems to mean free for scraping and ideological cover, but for-profit when it’s packaged and sold to AI companies. That’s not anarchy - it’s anarcho-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] turdburglar@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) i’m not so sure about your numbers there, friend. also bands don’t make money on streaming or selling records in stores anymore. they make money selling tickets and product at the shows. source: i have run a live music venue for 35 years. watching the changes in the business model has been wild. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago Not sure what the problem with the numbers is. Piracy = 0% to artists, Bandcamp = around 80% after fees and Visa, Spotify = pays rights holders around 70% of gross revenue, and artists often see 20% or less from labels. Blaming Spotify misses the real problem: labels control the payouts, not the platform. I get that you promote your business a saviour, but how do people find the artists they want to go see without streaming or distribution platforms? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) i’m not so sure about your numbers there, friend. also bands don’t make money on streaming or selling records in stores anymore. they make money selling tickets and product at the shows. source: i have run a live music venue for 35 years. watching the changes in the business model has been wild. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago Not sure what the problem with the numbers is. Piracy = 0% to artists, Bandcamp = around 80% after fees and Visa, Spotify = pays rights holders around 70% of gross revenue, and artists often see 20% or less from labels. Blaming Spotify misses the real problem: labels control the payouts, not the platform. I get that you promote your business a saviour, but how do people find the artists they want to go see without streaming or distribution platforms? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago Not sure what the problem with the numbers is. Piracy = 0% to artists, Bandcamp = around 80% after fees and Visa, Spotify = pays rights holders around 70% of gross revenue, and artists often see 20% or less from labels. Blaming Spotify misses the real problem: labels control the payouts, not the platform. I get that you promote your business a saviour, but how do people find the artists they want to go see without streaming or distribution platforms? permalink fedilink source parent
all 34 comments