[HN Gopher] Funkwhale - Decentralized, self-hosted music server
___________________________________________________________________
Funkwhale - Decentralized, self-hosted music server
Author : peterstensmyr
Score : 482 points
Date : 2020-11-12 08:25 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (funkwhale.audio)
(TXT) w3m dump (funkwhale.audio)
| gwillz wrote:
| This is great! I used to run a Subsonic server for myself but it
| kind of fell apart because the licensing in version 6 kind of
| broke the community around it.
|
| But it looks like this supports the same Subsonic protocol, which
| is pretty great. It's cool to not only take inspiration from
| predecessors but to also support and build on the same ecosystem.
| ezst wrote:
| Airsonic is what I went for after the licensing woes,
| recommended if you liked the server-side UI and want to keep
| the old data.
|
| If you think you won't miss accessing your tracks by directory,
| navidrome (written in go) has a smaller footprint and is quite
| actively developed (but the web UI is rather awkward)
| mattbk1 wrote:
| I can recommend Navidrome on yunohost; Airsonic install kept
| breaking for me.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I had never heard of Funkwhale. How does it compare (usability
| wise) to Ampache? _Also decentralized, as in you can link
| databases with others_ [1]
|
| [1] - https://github.com/ampache/ampache/
| anonzzz wrote:
| I was a longtime Subsonic user and was mostly pleased. For some
| reason, I stopped using it after moving to a new server.
|
| These days, I have been very pleased with
| https://radioparadise.com. It is an eclectic mix with a couple of
| different channels. This station offers familiar tunes mixed with
| new ones. It is a nice gem that I love to tell other music lovers
| about.
|
| Note: I am in no way affiliated with Radio Paradise. Just a
| listener/fanboy.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| I see it supports Raspberry Pi installation. Can anyone speak
| off-hand to what the performance is like on a Pi, or what
| generation minimum is recommended? I'm assuming my original Pi
| Model B might be a little long in the tooth, and my Pi Zero might
| be under-speced.
|
| But I could see myself setting this up on a newer Pi and plugging
| in my 1.5TB external into it to share out all my music with my
| family. Right now I've got a Samba share on my Windows HTPC for
| my internal network, but something the rest of the family can use
| would be sweet.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Could you not use a Pi to mount the samba share for funkwhale
| and expose funkwhale/ the pi that way?
| JacobSuperslav wrote:
| 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
| BRedSox wrote:
| > 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?
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Does BitTorrent fall under that? Or YouTube? Plex? Google
| Drive?
| BRedSox wrote:
| BitTorrent, yes.
|
| YouTube, no. They take down videos with copyrighted
| material.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| So by extension browsers allowing file downloads also
| falls under that? That's just what BitTorrent is after
| all.
| Asooka wrote:
| 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.
| glenstein wrote:
| Right, and Bandcamp is probably the most pro-artist of the
| major music platforms, I would say. The project also
| benefits the artist but creating an infrastructure not
| controlled by Youtube or Soundcloud.
| BRedSox wrote:
| Source?
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| 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.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Me too! I used to frequent their Matrix room a year or so ago
| and it was a very nice place. Very refreshing to find a tech
| community that made me feel like I could say what I wanted
| without being interjected by STEM and debate lords.
|
| Unfortunately life drove me away from the project, especially
| now that I work remote and barely leave my home, but every now
| and then I feel like contributing again just because of how
| nice everyone is.
| dvdgsng wrote:
| Well, they banned folks for really minor reasons from their
| Matrix channel, e.g. saying "Hi guys, I have a question about
| ..." can get you banned. So no, this CoC leaves a very bitter
| taste in my mouth for the entire project.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| I have no memories of that happening. They'll probably tell
| your not to use the word "guys" in that context though,
| which is fair imo.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| I tend to support these things but only if they are brief and
| consistent. The more you add the more loopholes pop up and the
| more it's likely to piss people off.
|
| Some examples where you can see reasonable people starting to
| take issue:
|
| >The only exception to sexual topics is channels/spaces
| specifically for topics of sexual identity.
|
| Eh, why? Why should there be any sexual topics at all? Why do
| sexual preferences of a certain kind give you a pass to breach
| an otherwise taboo subject here?
|
| >Making light of/making mocking comments about trigger warnings
| and content warnings.
|
| Why? Even people who use these can make light of them
| sometimes. Imagine a thread starting with "TW: copyright
| fetishism" that's funny for a service that lets you stream your
| own purchased music to your friends and family!
|
| >Any attempt to present "reverse-ism" as examples of
| oppression. Examples of reverse-isms are "reverse racism",
| "reverse sexism", "heterophobia", and "cisphobia".
|
| Again, these things can and do happen. Different groups and
| communities have different norms. And it's human nature to
| punish/mock deviance from the norm. That can happen to anyone.
| I totally get that there is a longer andore fleshed out history
| of racism in, say, the US against black people than against
| anyone else. But still, this seems unnecessary and guaranteed
| to cause problems...
|
| >Any of the above even when presented as "ironic" or "joking".
|
| They will ignore this of course when anyone jokes about how
| conservatives or whoever is a racist / sexist / etc.
|
| I actually like the anti-meritocracy statement. If people take
| the time to read it, they'll find it largely agreeable. I
| strongly dislike the code of conduct though. That's guaranteed
| to stir up conflicts.
| LockAndLol wrote:
| Anti-meritocracy just sounds to me like you want to be judged
| or given privileges by who or what you are, not by what you
| contribute. It pretty much goes against equality but is being
| presented as a means to equality.
|
| Am I just misinterpreting it or do people supporting it just
| not thought more deeply about what it is they're supporting?
| stewx wrote:
| > The field of software development embraces technical change,
| and is made better by also accepting social change.
|
| Really? _All_ social change is good for the field of software
| development? Utter nonsense. This product itself is, if
| anything, a rejection of the social change towards centralized
| ad-supported streaming services.
|
| > We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a
| right.
|
| I don't have a right to work as a software developer? Last I
| checked, I lived in a free country where I can do what I want.
| This is some authoritarian language, implying that people
| should be ejected from the industry if they don't play
| according to one person's set of rules.
| rafram wrote:
| You don't have a "right" to work in any particular field.
| Harvey Weinstein has no right to work in the movie industry
| because of his actions. For that matter, coal miners have no
| right to continue being coal miners - those jobs are
| outmoded. You have a right to earn a living, but not to any
| particular job.
| stewx wrote:
| In the absence of a licensing authority for software
| developers, we have the freedom to work for anyone who will
| hire us, or for ourselves. No one has the right to work for
| a particular employer, but also no one can kick a person
| out of our industry altogether.
| monokh wrote:
| A free, decentralised and open network with an enforced code of
| conduct? I cannot reconcile these 2 concepts.
| Munksgaard wrote:
| I'm guessing the code of conduct primarily concerns the
| software development process?
| monokh wrote:
| Doesn't seem so:
|
| > If a community member engages in .... up to and including
| expulsion from all Funkwhale spaces
| Kaze404 wrote:
| The maintainers have no power over federated instances.
| The code of conduct is pertaining to the repository and
| official Funkwhale communities (such as the Matrix chat
| and discussion boards).
| JacobSuperslav wrote:
| IIRC you can't just kick out an instance from a
| federation by switching a button?
| rapnie wrote:
| They were taken from https://postmeritocracy.org/ by Coraline
| Ada Ehmke.
| [deleted]
| cousin_it wrote:
| 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.
| glenstein wrote:
| 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.
| cousin_it wrote:
| (deleted, I was overreacting a bit)
| progval wrote:
| 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"
| [deleted]
| encom wrote:
| A joke is not an action. It can never bring harm to
| another person.
| glenstein wrote:
| Here's an NIH paper going over the harms this brings to
| other people:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4659767/
| claudiawerner wrote:
| There is no yet identified metaphysical difference
| between speech and other actions, and freedom of
| expression laws frequently also protect non-speech
| actions such as burning flags.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will
| really hurt me"
| pjc50 wrote:
| Americans come from a country where, in living memory,
| having a different colour skin removed whole areas of
| your legal rights. Interracial marriage was banned in
| several states until roughly the time of the moon
| landings. This is why Americans are rather touchy about
| people making light of racism.
| [deleted]
| glenstein wrote:
| >someone else's wrong joke
|
| >punishing people for jokes
|
| Again, we're talking about sexual harassment and racism.
| It's important not to leave that part out.
| viraptor wrote:
| It's still a dangerous territory. Do you remember when
| Adria Richards overheard two guys talking about dongles
| and forking at a conference, assumed it was
| offensive/sexual and got them fired, before we learned
| that... they were talking about dongles and forking?
| glenstein wrote:
| So on the one hand, we have a massive systematic problem
| across virtually all online platforms. This problem
| involves (at least) thousands of new examples every day
| and so far has proved nearly impossible to control. And
| next to that we have a different problem based largely on
| idiosyncratic examples, and extrapolations from those
| idiosyncratic examples to hypothetical worst case
| scenarios.
|
| I find this way of engaging with the problem to be
| profoundly misguided in two ways. One, it's a failure to
| correctly evaluate the relative scale of the two
| problems, and to consistently think and speak clearly
| about them in terms that reflect their relative scale.
|
| And secondly, it mistakenly sets up the two problems as
| being in a relationship of interference with one another,
| such that talking about one is used to mean we should
| stop talking about the other. Instead of saying "this
| statement that racism is bad and sexual harassment is bad
| is a statement I do not support" it would be more helpful
| say "yes, that is a problem, I agree, we need to solve
| it. And meanwhile here's this other thing, but don't let
| this other thing detract from the importance of the first
| problem or imply we don't need to actively work on the
| first problem."
| cthalupa wrote:
| We can agree both things are bad.
|
| People shouldn't use jokes as a cover for racism, sexism,
| etc. We know people do this. We should do things to stop
| it. No one is saying you can't make whatever jokes you
| like in private with people you know won't be offended,
| but they are saying that those jokes can be harmful to
| people they want to have in their community, and that you
| can't say them in that community. It's their right to do
| so.
|
| People also shouldn't try to get others fired over things
| like people talking about dongles and forking, assuming
| they're actually talking about dongles and forking. If
| someone approaches you and makes a joke about how they
| want to fork you with their dongle, well, it's pretty
| obvious what they mean. If you overhear someone talking
| and hear the words fork and dongle, well, it's not so
| obvious and we probably shouldn't get them fired.
|
| That being said, it sounds like the joke was at least in
| part actually a sexually charged joke about a "big
| dongle" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 -
| though the forking seems to have not been intended to be
| sexually charged. This is perhaps another reason that
| people should consider their words - if you just made a
| joke about a "big dongle" and then immediately say "I'd
| fork his repo," there's a chance it's going to be
| interpreted in a sexual manner because of the context.
|
| Making a joke about "big dongles" in public is probably
| not something you should do. Someone being offended
| doesn't automatically mean they're right, but it's also
| not a high bar to not make dick jokes around thousands of
| other people that you don't know and don't know how
| they'll take it.
| [deleted]
| disruptalot wrote:
| 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.
| glenstein wrote:
| >that doesn't fit their views, whatever that may be.
|
| Their "view" is that sexual harassment is not something
| they want on their platform.
| generalk wrote:
| Which community have you been a part of, online or
| otherwise, where "flagrant violation of the norms"
| doesn't carry the potential for expulsion?
|
| Without a written code of conduct, there are still
| values, views, and norms, usually created and run by the
| most disruptive members who are free to behave in any way
| they see fit and ostracize those who that behavior hurts.
| birracerveza wrote:
| You like an _ANTI_ -meritocracy statement? We truly have gone
| backwards.
| cthalupa wrote:
| Here's the issue with meritocracies: They pursue individual
| excellence at the expense of group excellence.
|
| We know[1] that a more diverse group creates better group
| outcomes than a non-diverse group where specific individuals
| may have better performance. Even from a wholly selfish
| perspective for the people running a project, prizing
| diversity of qualified individuals over a pure meritocracy is
| the right play.
|
| From a "making the world a better place" perspective where
| some altruism is shown, it also helps to acknowledge that not
| everyone has all the same advantages and tailwinds so that it
| is fundamentally more difficult for them to have had all the
| same opportunities and advantages, and providing those
| opportunities and advantages to them gives them that chance
| to even the playing field. The amount of unconscious bias
| built in to humans also means it is difficult for us to be
| effective judges of ability for those that are not like us.
| You don't have to be racist/exist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.
| to have built in biases - you just have to be human. They're
| difficult to overcome without explicitly stating goals around
| it.
|
| [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&as_v
| is=...
| sjy wrote:
| I agree with the last paragraph of your comment. However,
| the "wholly selfish" economic argument for "diverse"
| workplaces is management consultant bullshit which is not
| supported by the evidence. Here's an excerpt from the first
| article that comes up in those Google Scholar search
| results:
|
| > The result of [social] categorization processes may be
| that work groups function more smoothly when they are
| homogeneous than when they are more diverse ... This
| analysis is corroborated by findings of, for instance,
| higher group cohesion (e.g., O'Reilly et al. 1989), lower
| turnover (e.g., Wagner et al. 1984), and higher performance
| (e.g., Murnighan & Conlon 1991) in more homogeneous groups
| ...
|
| > In contrast to the social categorization (and
| similarity/attraction) perspective, the
| information/decision-making perspective emphasizes the
| positive effects of work group diversity. The starting
| point for this perspective is the notion that diverse
| groups are likely to possess a broader range of task-
| relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, and members with
| different opinions and perspectives ... Corroborating this
| analysis, some studies find an association of diversity
| with higher performance and innovation (e.g., Bantel &
| Jackson 1989).
|
| > In their simplest form (a main effect of diversity),
| neither analysis is supported. Evidence for the positive
| effects as well as for the negative effects of diversity is
| highly inconsistent (Bowers et al. 2000, Webber & Donahue
| 2001, Williams & O'Reilly 1998) and raises the question of
| whether, and how, the perspectives on the positive and the
| negative effects of diversity can be reconciled and
| integrated.
|
| The case for workplace diversity needs to be argued on
| social justice principles, because there isn't enough
| evidence for the economic efficiency argument.
| herbstein wrote:
| The word 'meritocracy' was coined as a derogatory term about
| the education system in England in the 50s in a satirical
| text. It mocked the idea that such a thing could exist
| because the system obviously wasn't designed for it. If you
| value "intelligence", but only give rich people access to
| good education, then you've just created a two-step process
| that selects for rich people.
| sjy wrote:
| I don't think this is an accurate summary of the book. The
| satirical history of the "modern education system" in
| chapter 3 describes how funding for public education was
| increased, and students were aggressively streamed into
| different schools based only on IQ tests. Eventually
| expensive private schools went out of fashion because they
| were attended only by students who couldn't get into the
| best public schools, so they no longer conferred academic
| prestige. Early in the book, capital levies are introduced
| which prevent the building of new fortunes, and in chapter
| 7, an Equalization of Income Act is passed so that all
| citizens receive the same basic income. The meritocracy is
| transformed into an aristocracy not because "merit" is a
| proxy for heritable wealth, but because "intelligence" (as
| defined in the book: "the ability to raise [economic]
| production, directly or indirectly") is also heritable, and
| in the book this effect was amplified through eugenics. You
| can find a more modern and less satirical take on this
| argument in Fredrik deBoer's _The Cult of Smart_.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| Ok, so what? It's not used in that context anymore. It's
| the same pitfall as the
| master/slave/blacklist/whitelist/etc. arguments: people
| have a problem divorcing historical meaning from present-
| day usage. Meanings change and evolve over time. If we
| follow this stunted logic, then there's going to be _a lot_
| of other English words /phrases that need to be banned as
| well. The only people associating them with their
| historical meanings are those wanting to ban the phrases.
| These etymological fallacies do nothing but pointlessly
| divide people. It needs to stop.
| rafram wrote:
| The present-day usage of the term still refers to an
| impossibility.
| cthalupa wrote:
| The term was coined in a derogatory manner because the
| person who coined the term thought it was a ridiculous
| concept.
|
| No one is saying ban the word meritocracy, but people are
| saying that if you're arguing for one, you've missed the
| point.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The concept that was considered ridiculous was only
| giving rich people access to the resources to make it in
| a meritocracy.
|
| But for a while, the UK actually didn't do that. New
| universities were created, "grammar schools" were mostly
| replaced, new hiring practices adopted, and the
| stranglehold of the establishment was broken a little
| bit, for a little while.
|
| That was because as ridiculous as the original idea might
| have been, good people with good intentions started to
| believe in "meritocracy", and used the idea to make
| changes.
| JacobSuperslav wrote:
| it's not like what their doing is rocket science
|
| And, yes, I believe the world would be a better place if we
| followed these rules with many projects regardless of the
| field.
|
| Btw, there are some interesting facts about the history of
| the word, "meritocracy": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
| Rise_of_the_Meritocracy#....
| lomereiter wrote:
| A recent PEL episode went into why meritocracy is not as good
| as it seems: https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2020/10/12/ep-
| 254-1-sandel...
| ecmascript wrote:
| What is it with americans and their meaningless code of
| conducts?
| BRedSox wrote:
| > The registered office is located at 92, rue Consolat, 13001
| Marseille, France
| disruptalot wrote:
| > Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences.
|
| > Gracefully accepting constructive feedback.
|
| > Showing empathy and kindness towards other community members.
|
| Yada yada, seemingly inclusive and tolerant then goes on to add
| a catch all list where every possible action can be deemed
| unacceptable, getting you expelled everywhere and
| "identification of the participant as a harasser to other
| members or the general public."
|
| Anti meritocracy is a cover for the most intolerant.
| generalk wrote:
| Which of the actions they've listed would you like to be able
| to do without fear of repercussion? This sounds an awful lot
| like "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service? So much for the
| 'tolerant left.'" > Anti meritocracy is a
| cover for the most intolerant.
|
| The Paradox of Tolerance indicates that a society that is
| infinitely tolerant will eventually be overrun by the least
| tolerant.
|
| Having a written set of guidelines that define the behavior
| expected seems like...I dunno, a good idea?
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| 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.
| crispyporkbites wrote:
| JavaScript is a choice. Inclusivity generally refers to
| things which are not a choice.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Is it a choice on iOS 9?
| SippinLean wrote:
| Yes. On every version.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Is it a choice if my browser freezes up on a simple site
| with JS enabled, and there is only a global JS toggle?
| topbanana wrote:
| > We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on
| software that will negatively impact the well-being of other
| people.
|
| Except musicians apparently
| deepstack wrote:
| wow, totally support decentralized stuff like this.
|
| wonder how long will this get taken down like popcorn time?
| black6 wrote:
| It uses the ActivityPub protocol, so all someone has to do is
| spin up another instance in the fediverse (there are already
| many) if one gets taken down.
| keyle wrote:
| I just gotta say I love the name. From groove shark, to sound
| cloud, to funk whale. Cannot wait for slimy eel.
| TheUndead96 wrote:
| groove shark, now theres a name I have not heard for a long
| time...
| keyle wrote:
| Grooveshark was awesome! From the brand, the UI, the service.
| RIP Grooveshark.
| jumpkick wrote:
| Check this out, if you want to know a little about the
| internal history of Grooveshark: https://sharklore.org/
| Lambdanaut wrote:
| They really were the best, and they had obscure music that
| I would have never expected they'd have. Old SNES game OST
| like the super mario rpg soundtrack was there. It felt like
| if I could think it, I could find it. Ad-free and flawless
| free experience.
|
| Truly a gem.
| altendo wrote:
| Yes! And there were the deep cuts of songs too.
|
| It was a wild ride. I am so fortunate to have been there
| for the time that I had.
|
| Appreciate the love everyone's been sending in the
| comments. It's good to not be forgotten :)
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Indeed. I was a paid user, hoping for the site to get
| some legitimacy.
|
| Unfortunately we need to change the copyright system for
| music to require a uniform fee only if we ever want to
| see another groveshark.
| SuperPaintMan wrote:
| I was using it at my job when it went down. Music
| stopped, things weren't responding, reloaded the page and
| knew it wasn't coming back.
|
| I was using it way back when you could use their Java
| Applet to upload your music. Had my entire library on it!
| anon_cow1111 wrote:
| If you're looking for that specifically and weren't aware
| of it already, there's a ton of old videogame OSTs
| archived on KHinsider.
| smcleod wrote:
| I must admit I did read the title somewhat incorrectly at first
| and had a good old laugh, it's a solid title.
| munificent wrote:
| I'm holding out for Bassbass.
| BlameKaneda wrote:
| Groove Shark was the tits. At the time, it was an excellent way
| to discover hard to find and rare tunes.
| tegiddrone wrote:
| This looks nice! I am really interested in this space because I
| have a long build collection of mp3s and I'm not as interested in
| yielding to Spotify but I'm not always at the same computer or
| building for the accessibility.
|
| Thus far I've been using mStream https://mstream.io/ with decent
| success. You can federate collections with your friends. My tries
| with NFS or SSHFS doesn't work reliably on windows/mobile hosts,
| especially across the (mobile) internet.
|
| I know there is at least a few other projects in this space, some
| mentioned in the comments (Ampache.)
| quyleanh wrote:
| What about quality of this platform? If I self-hosted Hi-Res
| music, can my friend also play Hi-Res?
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Yes. Iirc there are transcoding options too.
| dang wrote:
| If curious see also
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17933574 - a short but
| somewhat good thread from 2018
| dvno42 wrote:
| I've been using this for a little over a year and like it a lot
| but it lacks the music discovery features of commercial platforms
| (which becomes important when you have terabytes of music) and
| takes a lot of effort to organize music and create play lists.
| The music onboarding process typically starts with organizing
| metadata with Musicbrainz Picard then import the collection into
| Funkwhale's DB via a cli admin tool. I have funkwhale hosted at
| home attached to my own music collection. There is an unofficial
| mobile client called Otter that makes listening to music on
| Android very pleasent. Admin overhead aside, this program has
| become a part of my daily life and I greatly appreciate the
| developers efforts.
| HeadsUpHigh wrote:
| How big is your collection and how well does it work with it (
| and what resources does it consume)?
| greggman3 wrote:
| Which music service's discovery features actually work? For me
| the only one that worked was Google Play Music. The rest have
| been total and utter crap at discovery.
| riedel wrote:
| I think it depends in personal taste. Spotify and amazon give
| me mostly boring mainstream ... . The only discovery
| algorithm i keep enjoying is pandora. due to semi effective
| geoblocking in my vountry, I, however , hesitate to go for
| the ad-free subscription.
| bigyikes wrote:
| I have been reasonably happy with Spotify's discovery. It
| hasn't been impressive as YouTube recommendations, but it's
| still the primary way I find new music. Their generated
| "Discovery Weekly" playlist is a favorite of mine.
| GrinningFool wrote:
| When Pandora first did discovery based on the attributes of
| the music you're listening to, it was amazing.
|
| Then it became trendy to provide discovery based on what
| other people who listen similar things like. Not so amazing
| ever since. Not _bad_... just not great. I haven't found any
| (even GPM) that do a good job at pulling together suggestions
| that fit into my eclectic listening habits.
| syoc wrote:
| I would pay the monthly spotify fee for their "discover
| weekly" playlist alone.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| > Which music service's discovery features actually work?
|
| It depends on what you mean by "work".
|
| Discovery capabilities have certainly gotten vastly better.
| 10+ years ago, the only decent one was the now (effectively)
| defunct Last.fm. These days, they're all pretty good.
| Spotify, pandora, google music, and now youtube music will do
| a good job of giving you recommendations based strictly on
| what you've been cue-ing up.
|
| But the recommendations from these services are the
| equivalent of going into a record store and getting advice
| from a dim-witted and disinterested employee. You'll get all
| the obvious stuff, maybe things you forgot about, and if you
| happen to like popular stuff the recommendations will work
| OK. But you won't get challenging, provocative
| recommendations that expand your taste. You'll get cloying
| recommendations that try to cater to your taste like it was a
| static attribute. Oh, yeah, and there's "the surveillance
| capitalism thing" which happens to be the centerpiece of all
| these services. Is that a problem? Yes.
|
| The best "discovery algorithm" is still HUMAN BEINGS.
|
| If your cool friends aren't available, then the next best
| thing is a mag like pitchfork (https://pitchfork.com/), xlr8r
| (https://xlr8r.com/) or in-depth reviews like Anthony
| Fantano's channel
| (https://www.youtube.com/user/theneedledrop).
| HeadsUpHigh wrote:
| Spotify has gotten worse. They don't want you to listen to
| too much music, they want just enough to keep you subbed.
| greggman3 wrote:
| > These days, they're all pretty good
|
| Your experience is vastly different than mine. Youtube
| music seems to be recommending nothing but what's popular.
| Justin Bieber is being recommending to me. I've never
| listed to him or anything remotely related.
|
| No good recommendations on any of the others.
|
| Maybe you have a different definition of "good"
|
| Good to me means "sounds similar and in the same genre as
| what I'm currently listening to". It does not mean "people
| who liked this song also liked that song"
| crispyambulance wrote:
| > It does not mean "people who liked this song also liked
| that song"
|
| Actually, yes, it does (and many other things too), but
| to be fair "good" is a highly subjective judgment which
| is going to be different for everyone.
|
| I don't think, at this point in time, we have
| recommendation engines that can do much more than fling
| out recommendations based on an unknown convolution of
| your listening history combined with music meta-data
| combined with social network data and a mix of paid stuff
| courtesy of your surveillance capitalism purveyor.
|
| I know it's possible to capture some characteristics from
| the music track itself, like bpm (perhaps usable for EDM
| DJ's?). The "holy grail" would be to have a system that
| can truly assess the nature of a piece of music based on
| audio and use it make "interesting" and non-obvious
| recommendations. We are very far from doing that in
| software, but humans are still very good at it.
| vidarh wrote:
| The problem with "people who liked this song also liked
| that song" is that very often I don't want to listen to
| that song _now_ even if it 's something I really love.
|
| If I'm listening to ambient music I don't suddenly want
| to be ambushed by something uptempo. If I'm listening to
| e.g. Debussy, you might be excused for suggesting
| something vaguely new age in a similar mood and tempo,
| but certainly not rock.
|
| Another problem is that you can't just take raw overlap
| in tastes, because some people like "everything", and the
| fact their tastes overlap with mine does not mean I'll
| like everything else they like.
|
| I've yet to hear a recommendation system that chooses
| music I want to listen to reliably enough that I can
| generally stand to listen to them for more than a few
| songs at a time without it turning into an endless
| annoying sequence of skipping.
|
| Respecting genre (segues need to be gradual, if at all),
| respecting mood and tempo needs to come _first_. _Then_
| you can consider what others who likes the same songs
| _within those constraints_ also likes _within those
| constraints_. Honestly if I have to choose between
| personalised recommendation and precise control of genre
| and mood /tempo, I'd take genre and mood/tempo over
| personalisation any day.
|
| Another pet peeve of mine is lack of visibility into how
| to teach a system what I want. E.g. if I dislike or skip
| a song, will it get that it doesn't fit my current mood
| or what I want to listen to now, or will it wrongly infer
| I don't like the song at all?
|
| Sometimes it feels as if the people designing these
| systems don't use them.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| > _Which music service 's discovery features actually work_
|
| My best experience has been talking with people or listening
| to artist interviews on influences.
| glenstein wrote:
| >The rest have been total and utter crap at discovery.
|
| Strongly agree that music discovery is, in some sense,
| generally 'broken' across most platforms and not very good. I
| have been deeply dissatisfied with just about every system. I
| found Google Play music to be okay.
|
| My best luck these days is what I would call a "brute force"
| search through record labels, last.fm similar artists,
| bandcamp pages for genres, sputnik listings for particular
| genres, etc.
|
| It's very hit or miss, but I feel like it leads to me to my
| occasional lightning strikes, which are what I _really_ want.
| These discoveries are quite different from the guesses put
| forward my recommendation engines, which seem to smooth out
| the interesting edges and signatures of personality and
| gradually draws toward a lowest common denominator, with no
| lightning strikes.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| I personally enjoy Spotify discovery a lot, the "Discover
| Weekly" and "Release Radar" playlists made me discover some
| bands I would have otherwise missed.
| davidwparker wrote:
| I use Spotify and have great luck there.
|
| Playlists: Discover Weekly tends to result in ~3-5 (new to
| me) musicians/week that I hadn't heard of that I would
| actually listen to. That's a pretty high ratio IMO.
|
| Release Radar tends to result in ~1 (new to me)/week.
| Granted, it's supposedly mostly ones I listen to, but still
| has several I've never heard of.
|
| Daily Mix 1-6 are a mixed bag and sometimes result in
| something new, but mostly just things I like (and may have
| forgotten about too).
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Discover Weekly was rather boring for me. It was about 6
| weeks before I heard a song I hadn't heard before and only
| one musician I hadn't heard before in the 3 months I used
| it.
|
| I had much better success with Pandora when I tried it, but
| it still wasn't exactly deep cuts.
| ynac wrote:
| If by Music Discovery we mean finding music that's new to us
| as apposed to finding particular music we already have / own,
| I have two main sources:
|
| * Freeform radio stations (preferably with live playlists):
| WMFO, WFMU are my favorites. Even people who are immersed in
| music can't help to hear something new every hour. For me,
| it's a constant wave of new-to-me music. Many free form radio
| stations are also layering tracks, interviews, noise, and
| other audio treats that make for unique experiences that may
| never (or should never, haha) happen again. Just under free
| form radio there are countless excellent LPFM and college
| stations around the country - Hollow Earth Radio, nearly
| every college radio station from Boston to Milford PA.
|
| * I also use Bandcamp for getting deeper into a genre or
| trying out new ones. They write up articles that profile
| maybe a dozen artists that represent the boundaries of a
| style - whether you read them through or just listen, it's an
| amazing value. Easily on the level of what the New York Times
| does for classical music. Bandcamp is obviously growing like
| a weird and wonderful weed the last year - I would really
| like them to add a few more features for building random
| playlists within a few criteria.
|
| https://wfmu.org
|
| https://www.wmfo.org
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/arts/music/five-
| minutes-c...
|
| https://www.hollowearthradio.org
|
| http://www.csgnetwork.com/lpfmradiotable.html
| tristanMatthias wrote:
| I love Spotify's. I discover new stuff every week because of
| it in a very broad range of musical categories
| alias_neo wrote:
| GPM worked very well for me and I've used it since the
| beginning; it was great for new releases and finding new
| music I like. I ditched it recently due to the YouTube music
| thing and moved to Spotify. I find im always listening to the
| same playlist because I just can't find anything I want to
| listen to on Spotify unless I search explicitly.
| gavin_gee wrote:
| all depends on how niche or diverse you previous listening
| history is
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Spotify is outstanding in this regard. "Go to radio" from any
| given track or album; works every time. For even more passive
| discovery, their "discover weekly" and "release radar" do a
| good job of surfacing things too.
| rapnie wrote:
| "discover weekly" was okay, but it is now completely broken
| to me. It suggests 80-90% of songs I already downloaded,
| and the remainder are always the same. Also discover weekly
| stops after, what, 2-3hrs of listening. Then the list is
| done and apparently Spotify thinks there's no more to
| discover.
|
| Luckily indeed there's the radio feature.
| greggman3 wrote:
| Sorry but Spotify is absolutely horrible in this regard. At
| least for me.
|
| Every group I like pick "Radio" and with in 2 to 4 songs
| it's playing completely unrelated stuff.
|
| The rest has all been crap too. "discover weekly" has never
| once suggested a single thing I'm interested in ever.
| cyrialize wrote:
| Spotify is quite great at the Daily Mixes (I don't check the
| other playlists that much).
|
| I go through phases where I deep dive into genre's. Each
| Daily Mix ends up representing one of the genre's I've been
| listening to lately pulling in music that I like and other
| songs that I may like.
|
| That being said, that may be due to the fact that I deep dive
| into genres that don't have that much of a cross over, e.g.
| Japanese Hip-Hop & Lo-fi beats, R&B, 90's indie rock, etc.
| Still, the Daily Mixes are a great way to listen to music I
| like separated by genre.
|
| Last.fm's discovery feature is pretty neat too. I don't use
| it as much as Spotify's because I don't listen to music on
| Last.fm but I think the key feature of Last.fm over other
| music discovery tools is that it has a profile for many
| artists.
|
| Spotify, Apple Music, etc. are limited by what music is on
| their platform. If an artist isn't on Spotify, then they
| won't have a profile. Last.fm isn't limited that way so you
| can find even more artists, including artists that may be
| more underground or niche.
| erfgh wrote:
| Youtube.
| Findeton wrote:
| I cannot upvote Funkwhale enough. I've had the need for
| something like this for a long long time now. A decade ago I
| was lucky to have my own desktop computer (before it was a
| shared one with my brother, before that I had just my parent's
| from time to time). Nowadays, between the smarphone, the work
| laptop, my desktop and my laptop I cannot possibly have all my
| music available all the time. And I don't like using spotify
| where I don't feel I own the songs and they get dropped from my
| lists. I used to be a fan of grooveshark, but that went down.
| Now I can have my pod and share it with my friends? On my own
| server? Accessible everywhere? I'm in.
|
| Where can I donate some money?
| avinassh wrote:
| > Where can I donate some money?
|
| https://funkwhale.audio/support-us/
|
| (not affiliated with funkwhale, just found the link from
| their site)
| [deleted]
| dbrgn wrote:
| > I've had the need for something like this for a long long
| time now.
|
| Note that there are a few projects like this one, for example
| Subsonic or Mopidy.
|
| (Funkywhale certainly looks nice though!)
| xook wrote:
| Throwing this out here - Airsonic is the current FOSS
| iteration of the software https://airsonic.github.io/
|
| Subsonic went closed, and the rebrand to LibreSonic had
| some unrest with the maintainer, so Airsonic is leading the
| way in the line of *Sonics.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| Or if you want something that can run easily on a
| RaspberryPi but still gives you Subsonic compatibility,
| try https://github.com/sentriz/gonic
| anderspitman wrote:
| > There is an unofficial mobile client called Otter that makes
| listening to music on Android very pleasent
|
| Is there some reason servers like this require a special
| client? Can't you just provide URLs to m3u8s which in turn have
| URLs to mp3s? Is it just that there isn't an agreed-upon
| protocol for listing directories? Or maybe auth concerns?
| IndySun wrote:
| "Hi, we're Funkwhale. We use cool words like decentralized, self-
| hosted, music, server, and of course, funk & whale. If we named
| it more honestly, then our defunding of musicians and creatives
| that depended on sales wouldn't get any love (not publicly
| anyway), plus the ethically vacant developers would have to work
| on it secretly. And to be sure, we ourselves do not create or
| rely on income from artistic endeavours, we only make software to
| cut out the middle part."
|
| I love coming here, lots of interesting articles, but the most
| fun is reading the twisted english as people convince themselves
| digital theft is somehow not to be equated to physical theft.
| bronco21016 wrote:
| I initially downvoted you but after finally getting the project
| site to load I changed my mind.
|
| The project explicitly mentions many examples of sharing
| through federation and it seems to me they're explicitly
| advocating for illegal sharing of music.
|
| Now, I certainly have plenty of issues with copyright and I
| tend to lean more towards "piracy isn't a huge deal since we
| all want convenient (not free) access to media." However, this
| project seems to be positioning themselves as a free music
| sharing service. I can't imagine this ends well for them.
|
| Some may mention other means of sharing music such as Plex or
| Jellyfin. I think Plex etc are flirting with the edge a bit
| with their sharing features. However, their sharing features
| are meant to selectively share with say family members in your
| household. Funkwhale is positioning the hoster to share with
| anyone on the internet. Don't be surprised to get a DMCA notice
| if you open up a music library to the whole internet.
|
| It's too bad because there definitely is a space for someone to
| create a really nice self-hosted music library. Plex and
| Plexamp work ok but still leave a lot to be desired in terms of
| discovery.
| glenstein wrote:
| >The project explicitly mentions many examples of sharing
| through federation and it seems to me they're explicitly
| advocating for illegal sharing of music.
|
| They're explicitly against that in their docs:
|
| >If you are uploading content purchased from other platforms
| or stores, you should upload it in a private library
|
| >As a rule of thumb, only use public and local libraries for
| content for which you own the copyright or for content you
| know you can share with a wider audience.
|
| They also noted that they have made changes to funkwhale out
| of copyright concerns:
|
| >Managing the library at instance was cumbersome and
| dangerous: sharing an instance library over federation would
| quickly pose copyright issues, as well as opening public
| instances. It also made it impossible to only share a subset
| of the music.
|
| https://docs.funkwhale.audio/users/upload.html
|
| https://docs.funkwhale.audio/admin/0.17.html
| perpetualpatzer wrote:
| I agree with the concern. Tools like this (e.g. myTunes /
| ourTunes) tend to be used primarily to avoid paying for music
| that was produced to be sold. If you believe (as I do) that the
| supply of quality music creation / music discovery is elastic,
| that means it's a free rider problem for society to solve.
|
| I do think, however that your comment might have been better-
| received if delivered with less snark.
| perakojotgenije wrote:
| relevant xkcd - steal this comic:
|
| https://xkcd.com/488/
| Findeton wrote:
| Well I helped create the Spanish Pirate Party so I strongly
| believe Funkwhale is perfectly moral. If my idols want some
| money, I'll be happy to go to a concert or buy their music from
| their webpage (but I don't think Jimi Hendrix will complain
| much these days).
| IndySun wrote:
| Idols? Famous guitarists that have bubbled under your nose?
| What about new guitarists?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| New guitarists benefit the least from recording sales
| because they get such terrible contracts from labels. I've
| known many up-and-coming bands that pirate their own songs
| to try and get people to come to their concerts.
| Findeton wrote:
| Well if I am not listening to them why would they complain
| about me pirating their music?
| IndySun wrote:
| Is it because you're not interested in a cohesive
| society?
| Findeton wrote:
| What is it that I said that you're trying to guess the
| motivations for?
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Idols? Famous guitarists that have bubbled under your
| nose? What about new guitarists?
|
| What about them?
|
| If I purchase music, it's because I want to listen to that
| music.
|
| Whether that's Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Lari Basilio,
| Nick Johnston or anyone else, what business is it of yours
| (or anyone else, for that matter) how or where _I_ listen
| to the music that I 've purchased?
|
| This is the first I'm hearing about Funk Whale and I fully
| intend to install it, as I've been looking for a decent
| self-hosted, streaming music server to listen to music
| owned by _me_.
|
| It's likely that it won't meet my needs and I'll move on to
| something else.
|
| I suppose that just about any music streaming server
| _could_ be used to take food out of the mouths of the
| starving children of musicians.
|
| Rather than assuming (as it _appears_ you are doing) that
| _everyone_ who uses a self-hosted streaming server is
| engaged in stealing from musicians, please let us (me,
| especially) know what platform _you_ would recommend as a
| personal streaming server.
|
| I'd really appreciate any suggestions. Thanks!
| IndySun wrote:
| Glad to hear it.
|
| Absolutely not saying everyone will use it in a way that
| devalues creativity as a living, you rightly used the
| word 'seems'.
|
| The interconnectedness of digital content ultimately
| stifles competition. It means less chance of you ever
| hearing the next Jimi Hendrix. Given there are about 7
| billion people and there's only been one Jimi convinces
| me this is true. Of course there have been, and are, many
| Jimis, but you'll likely never get to appreciate them.
| Maybe you're ok with just Jimi and all the stuff already
| out there. If so, maybe music isn't so important to you.
|
| You have the right attitude to the software. I don't want
| to suggest an alt here. I'm talking more broadly. I would
| ask you to think about this from the reverse perspective,
| and if it is whatever it is you do to make a living could
| be made once, and distributed for free to the effect you
| couldn't do it anymore - is the point.
| throwanem wrote:
| Home taping is killing music!
| IndySun wrote:
| Yes, this was first stated in the late 70s. Back then duping
| 10,000 cassettes took some backstreet criminal a fair amount
| of investment. Now we are all that backstreet crim.
| [deleted]
| adar wrote:
| You're aware that popular legal sites like BandCamp exist where
| musicians sell their albums in no-DRM mp3 format, right?
| laurowyn wrote:
| Whilst it's DRM free, it's still licensed copyrighted content
| that cannot be shared unless the license permits. BandCamp's
| terms of use state that they take non-exclusive rights to
| sell and distribute works on your behalf, but they do not
| grant those same rates to buyers.
|
| DRM is not Licensing, but a mechanism to enforce a license.
|
| I think OP is implying that the sharing provided in funkwhale
| is likely violating the typical license terms of any
| purchased music, therefore is preventing a musician from
| making money from streaming services which have appropriately
| licensed the music for streaming.
|
| Buying a license doesn't mean that you own the work, just
| that you have the right to play it in specific circumstances
| (most of which nobody pays attention to anyway). I'm sure
| we've all played a song on a loud speaker for others to hear,
| but again that's against typical license terms.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| IndySun wrote:
| Note the word 'sell' in your remark.
| adar wrote:
| I noted it when I typed it.
| IndySun wrote:
| And?
|
| So you are aware people sell things they make, to live?
| and they hope not to sell to just one person who's paying
| $1 to put it online for 100,000 people to have it not
| sold.
|
| And that's ok with you because you don't, or don't need
| to, make a living creating music.
|
| Try thinking about this from the perspective of whatever
| it is you do to make a living.
| ephaeton wrote:
| Speaking as a musician here, I align with the decentralized
| approach personally, and we've just uploaded our best album so
| far as CC-BY, using the gracious offer of the funkwhale guys to
| join their libre audio effort under
| https://open.audio/channels/wergiftfresch_music/ There's other
| ways for us to get paid if you insist on it. I'm sure we'll
| find a way. And if you don't want to pay us, well, just enjoy
| some positive music :)
| StavrosK wrote:
| > people convince themselves digital theft is somehow not to be
| equated to physical theft.
|
| It really isn't, though. If you steal my car, I won't have a
| car. If you copy my car, I'll have a car.
|
| To claim that the two are equivalent is pretty indefensible, in
| my opinion.
| IndySun wrote:
| And where did the car come from?
|
| The deal is, work is rewarded, not stealing work, or did I
| miss a meeting?
| StavrosK wrote:
| It congealed from an amorphous mass of nutrients in the
| bowels of the earth. What does it matter where it came
| from? Stealing deprives the owner of their good, copyright
| infringement does not, therefore they are not equal.
| IndySun wrote:
| Sure. Your remarks only prove my point. But I am a
| realist. And I wouldn't keep focusing on music. It's an
| easy target. Audio happens to be my thing but I'm
| concerned at the cavalier attitude and on a broader
| level.
|
| Let's for one minute, expand the remit. It's not
| funkwhale, it's carwhale, foodwhale, healthwhale. Keep
| going. Keep thinking.
|
| If all we're doing is not creating anew, but instead
| forging special keys that give you access to anything
| anyone that made the considerable effort to creative
| something new - then we treadwater, as a human race. And
| I see exactly this in so many aspects of human life
| already.
|
| Not creating, not moving forward, not innovating, and
| only taking (in this case) other people's music AND then,
| here, loudly having the arrogance to declare that all
| music (or cars, or health, or food) should be free to buy
| once and you get the right to give it away.
|
| Don't complain, like I have often read on these pages,
| how modern music (and cars, and food, and apps, and
| laptops) all look and sound the same when we have merrily
| sucked dry the very chances of anything new making its
| first steps.
| StavrosK wrote:
| You insist on reading my argument of "it's not the same
| as theft" to "therefore it's fine". I didn't say whether
| it's better or worse than theft. I just said it's not the
| same, in the same way that murder or jaywalking is not
| the same as theft.
| IndySun wrote:
| Not true, I'm not doing that, though you do seem to be
| reading parts of my remarks and not others. I shouldn't
| have replied specifically to you, I'm trying, and failing
| on deaf ears, to make a much broader point. I'll save it
| for the pub.
| Lambdanaut wrote:
| > it's carwhale, foodwhale, healthwhale. Keep going. Keep
| thinking.
|
| You're describing a post-scarcity utopia where we can
| spend our creative energy where we want and not be tied
| down to jobs that we hate in order to pay the bills.
|
| Yes, I would very much like that for everyone. Thank you
| for bringing this topic up. Let it come.
| IndySun wrote:
| Haha. I've read that. Remind me, in this Utopia, who
| collects the trash?
| Lambdanaut wrote:
| Me.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Trashwhale?
| magnostherobot wrote:
| There's a short sci-fi story (whose name escapes me, but
| is mentioned in Cory Doctorow's Information Doesn't Want
| to be Free) in which the human race is given matter
| duplicators that can perfectly copy an item, including
| the duplicators themselves. It's basically a more fully-
| explored version of the "what if I can copy a car"
| thought, in which I think the conclusion is that
| creativity would flourish because less effort is put into
| making many of the same item. It's quite a far-reaching
| hypothetical, but it has strong parallels with digital
| rights issues.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Printcrime: https://ipfs.eternum.io/ipfs/QmTZo9mVX6JwN4hg
| CF7Ers1jJ9AMQkY...
| aidenn0 wrote:
| > ...as people convince themselves digital theft is somehow not
| to be equated to physical theft.
|
| Do you honestly thing the two are in any way equivalent? If I
| steal a physical item from you, you no longer have that item.
| If I download a copyrighted item that I never would have
| purchased, and you are entitled to royalties from then you lose
| nothing. If I download 100 items and I otherwise would have
| bought 5% of them, then you lose 5% of it.
|
| Note also that libraries work similarly. I have checked out
| many hundreds of books out from the public library and read
| them. That also cost authors money, but we do not equate that
| to stealing. I have bought 100s of used CDs. I saved a lot of
| money and the record companies and artists collected no money
| for that either.
|
| I also object to the concept that a creator has any moral right
| to monopolize their creations. There is no such moral right.
| The US provides for granting such a monopoly for a limited time
| in order to encourage people to create things. This has somehow
| morphed into the belief that someone creating something
| intangible has an indefinite monopoly on its use.
|
| Such policy is actively harmful to the arts to the point of
| being detrimental to creators! Disney's _Sleeping Beauty_ was a
| delightful film, if not a box office hit, but it would never
| had happened if the copyright laws (that Disney lobbied for!)
| we have today existed then, because Tchaikovsky 's ballet would
| still have been under copyright.
| IndySun wrote:
| Like many arguments defending wholesale sharing, they start
| at the end products and look forward, instead of being even a
| tiny bit cognisant of the process by which those items came
| to be.
|
| The thinking is along the lines of, look at this car and look
| at this mp3, they're so different. But obviously they share
| important similarities, those being that both needed
| ingenious human thought plus plenty of physical objects for
| them to come into existence. True, how they are sold is
| another question. How they are received. How are they shared.
| How they function. What is their purpose?
|
| Let's swap funkwhale to carwhale - yes, I can, because one
| day in the future, we will be able to push a button and have
| an exact copy of any car just by pointing a scanner at it.
| Suppose you worked on that car, all your life, in the hope
| others could enjoy it, and love it the way you have. And if
| you got it right, might be compensated for your time and
| efforts.
|
| But no, this is not in the future because everything should
| be free. Everything? Or just the mp3s? Just digital? Who's
| going to make that music? Or that car? Or perform your heart
| op?
|
| Most people, sadly here, are not respectful of creativity and
| its worth, I feel its more important than that car. And
| throughout history culture has been the most important aspect
| of any society; its strength and survival depend on it.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I certainly don't intend to _devalue_ creativity. Like many
| (most?) on HN I have a career where I get paid for my
| creative work.
|
| However, creative outputs are qualitatively (and legally)
| distinct from physical outputs and to pretend otherwise is
| only going to be a hindrance in properly creating a system
| to nurture cultural output.
|
| Let's start with the car example. I can buy a car, modify
| it and resell it. I can buy a cassette, modify it and
| resell it. Legally I can't buy a digital download, remix it
| and resell it. There's already a difference here.
|
| If I come up with an improvement to someone else's car
| design, am I allowed to print up one for myself on
| carwhale? Am I allowed to sell the new design? Am I allowed
| to describe my changes to someone else? Where do we draw
| the line? 100 years after the first car is printed from
| car-whale, does the estate of the person who designed the
| base model that the cars we are now printing hardly
| resembles still get royalties because the design before the
| design before ... the design before happened to use their
| car as a quickstart convenience?
|
| With physical objects it's clear. The person who built the
| car gets paid once and we don't have to debate 100 years
| later over ship-of-theseus questions. With creative outputs
| its far less clear.
|
| Just because we agree that it is a Good Thing for creators
| to be rewarded for their work doesn't mean that copying
| their work is equivalent with theft. It's its own unique
| thing and coming up with a framework to handle it correctly
| is quite challenging and to just say "digital theft is
| still theft" is a way to ignore those challenges rather
| than trying to meet those challenges.
| IndySun wrote:
| Ok, ignore the part about physical things being needed
| for creativity to happen.
|
| I don't feel we're pulling in opposite directions. You
| make points I agree with. I definitely want to understand
| more.
|
| Time limits, profits limits, distribution caps, all
| important and debatable facets.
|
| All I ask is you really try to put yourself, and only you
| can do it, in the shoes of a someone who's very existence
| depends on what you are casually, or strongly, or
| passionately, advocating. Are you the person to decide
| what 'product' is more valuable, either in recompense or
| admiration?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| We probably aren't pulling in very different directions
| at all.
|
| As far as this:
|
| > All I ask is you really try to put yourself, and only
| you can do it, in the shoes of a someone who's very
| existence depends on what you are casually, or strongly,
| or passionately, advocating. Are you the person to decide
| what 'product' is more valuable, either in recompense or
| admiration?
|
| I think that all individuals have a responsibility to
| decide what is and isn't more valuable and align their
| actions accordingly. The fact that an action causes harm
| to someone else does not make it necessarily immoral
| though. I can afford to buy every book I want to read.
| Nevertheless, I still frequent my local public library.
| This causes quantifiable harm to authors, yet few would
| call it immoral.
|
| I could probably come up with a dozen reasons why it's a
| good thing to frequent the library (libraries are
| awesome, and making them a ghetto of people too poor to
| afford to buy books would be to their detriment), but the
| simple fact is I don't want to spend $8 on a book I'm
| probably going to only read once when I can get it for
| free.
|
| This is a selfish action with quantifiable harm that most
| people do not consider immoral. I can come up with many
| post-facto justifications for why libraries are good and
| piracy is bad, but IMO the real reason why society falls
| this way is one is an old and revered institution, while
| the other is something teenagers do to get access to
| media because they are time-rich and money-poor.
|
| And at the end of all of this, I'm _still_ not going to
| advocate for general piracy, but I will say that it 's
| mostly two sides each inflating or deflating the actual
| harm done in order to justify a position they hold that
| was never grounded in any sort of utilitarianism in the
| first place.
| twostoned wrote:
| LOL Lars is that you?
| creeble wrote:
| Dot audio domains - $300/yr!
| zodiakzz wrote:
| I like it - keeps the squatter away. I just checked, many top-
| notch names available.
| strawberrypuree wrote:
| Not sure if you're saying that's cheap or expensive, but I am
| tempted to get <myfirstname>.audio just for this
| makeworld wrote:
| That's expensive for domains.
| benbristow wrote:
| Site seems to have had the HN hug of death.
| [deleted]
| haolez wrote:
| If I were to self host this on a big cloud provider, I'd be
| worried about the outbound bandwidth costs.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| So don't host it on a cloud provider. You can host it from
| home, or somewhere else. For example I rent a cheap dedicated
| server with a 1TB hard drive and unmetered 1Gb bandwidth, for
| PS8 a month, which would work great for something like this and
| there is no chance of unexpected costs.
| rmellow wrote:
| I'm looking for something similar (large storage, low
| bandwidth, hopefully with a VPS). Can you point me to the
| provider?
| lorenzhs wrote:
| OVH's kimsufi series (https://www.kimsufi.com/) has very
| cheap dedicated servers. I have a KS-2 and am quite happy
| with it. The servers are very low-end and have old
| hardware, though. Not a problem for me but you should be
| aware of it.
| MaKey wrote:
| I think Hetzner's Server auction
| (https://www.hetzner.com/sb) has better offers if you can
| wait a bit for a good deal and you're looking for a
| little bit more performance. A while ago I saw an i7 4770
| with 32 GB RAM and 2x 2TB HDD for ~26EUR. Their servers
| also come with an unmetered 1 GBit connection instead of
| just 100 MBit.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| Mine was from OneProvider. I think they're resold
| Online.net servers.
| dspillett wrote:
| https://www.serverhunter.com/ and https://en.metadedi.net/
| are useful resources for that. Though search for more
| information before signing up for anything expensive and/or
| long term as there are some truly crap hosts out there.
| There are some pretty good budget hosts in the mix though.
|
| If you can wait until the end of the month you might find
| black friday offers from some providers. They usually get
| discussed in places like https://www.lowendtalk.com/ (I'm
| not sure how quickly such short term offers are reflected
| on the above server search sites, if at all). Again, do
| research on the hosts you chose lest you buy a lemon.
| oysteroyster wrote:
| Does anyone have any experience with Gonic? Kinda similar and
| more lightweight imo: https://github.com/sentriz/gonic
| captn3m0 wrote:
| I switched recently from Airsonic to Gonic, mainly due to how
| resource-heavy Airsonic was. I primarily use 2 clients:
| Clementine/Linux and play:Sub/iOS. I also tested a audiobook-
| only-installation against BookSonic/Android.
|
| Notes:
|
| - Gonic doesn't support many routes. The *sonic protocol
| supports special routes for Podcasts/Audiobooks/Radio Stations
| for eg. [0] details missing routes
|
| - It heavily uses `folder.jpg` as the album art. Doesn't work
| well always. I used sacad[1], but it wasn't perfect.
|
| - Not all players will work perfectly with Gonic. I use
| play:Sub and it had some issues with album names being blank
| because Gonic used `name` field in album info while keeping
| title blank (I think). This is now fixed mostly, but I still
| have a few blank albums that I need to investigate
|
| - I liked the transcoding options on the server side. You can
| set it per-client and that client will forever get MP3 for eg.
|
| - It doesn't do artist art. Not sure why
|
| I haven't faced any breaking-issues other than the blank album
| names so far (and that was fixed).
|
| [0]: https://github.com/sentriz/gonic/issues/7
|
| [1]: https://pypi.org/project/sacad/
| dh-g wrote:
| Do you mean it doesn't automatically fetch album art? It does
| serve it to the client in my experience.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| Other players would use images embedded in cover-arts.
| Gonic only works with folder.jpg. I had cover.png files
| which Gonic ignored, so I had to hack around things.
|
| See https://github.com/sentriz/gonic/issues/11
| commotionfever wrote:
| hey thanks for your feedback! though it's strange that
| the scanner missed your artwork files. it should support
| lots of filetypes
|
| https://github.com/sentriz/gonic/blob/master/server/scann
| er/...
| captn3m0 wrote:
| Will check and create an issue.
| dh-g wrote:
| Been using it for about 6 months running on a PI. Very happy
| with it and I just opened a PR to add rating support(which was
| the only thing I wanted that it lacked).
| [deleted]
| dusted wrote:
| I've just used a samba share for the past.. 20? years, it's
| worked great always.. On the desktops, it's mounted with cifs, on
| the phone I access it via openvpn and play music from it via vlc,
| on the media-center, it's also just mounted with cifs.
| blackflame7000 wrote:
| On the web it's a target of ransomware via usage of the eternal
| blue exploit pkg
| sir_brickalot wrote:
| There is one Spotify feature I started enjoying lately: Seamless
| playback between all connected players (including Chromecast) and
| every instance works as a remote for the other players. Just
| great!!
|
| Any FOSS service with this set of features?
| teddyc wrote:
| Wish I would've known about this before I spent hours and hours
| transferring my GMusic library to Plex on a rpi in my house. Oh
| well, I'm too lazy to change again. Gonna stick with Plex for
| now.
| Dahoon wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20201109033834/https://funkwhale...
| tchaffee wrote:
| How do musicians get paid on this platform?
| awalton wrote:
| They get paid from whatever service you bought your music from
| - be it from CDs, MP3 sites like Amazon or Google Play (RIP),
| etc.
|
| Scary thought, being able to purchase music these days rather
| than a streaming service lease, I know...
| tchaffee wrote:
| If I am only sharing with my family, then fine. But it looks
| like this software allows you to create a pod and share with
| whoever you invite. Which my purchase doesn't cover, right?
| brmgb wrote:
| > Which my purchase doesn't cover, right?
|
| It most certainly does in my country (and probably in most
| of Europe I would hasard).
|
| The only thing you can't do is public performance and
| distribution but sharing it with your friends is definitely
| legal.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Without even looking at the law I'm going to guess
| there's some kind of clause about "within reason". As in,
| you can't reasonably claim that all 350,000 people who've
| downloaded the music you uploaded can be classified as
| "friends". That would certainly fall under broadcast or
| distribution licensing and legal terms.
| _jal wrote:
| Be sure you soundproof your home/apartment, and don't turn
| it up too much in the car.
|
| Don't want to accidentally leak any copyrighted joy to your
| neighbors without payment!
| tchaffee wrote:
| Seems like you are being sarcastic, but yes, if you play
| loud enough and to a big enough audience you do indeed
| owe royalties. In fact bars and restaurants are required
| to pay for this exact reason.
| Inhibit wrote:
| Depending on what they're playing and how, friendly ASCAP
| employee.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Exactly. Most often this is covered by the fact that the
| restaurant or bar is playing satellite or other radio
| which bears the broadcast permissions. And, the obvious--
| most people aren't horrible selfish goblins.
|
| There's a definite difference between providing
| atmosphere in a restaurant, and providing the content as
| some sort of production, or providing others with
| broadcast-quality copies from a single master without
| permission of the artist.
| _jal wrote:
| I am aware of ASCAP and the RIAA's (and friends) claims;
| I just don't uncritically accept them, let alone act as a
| volunteer copyright-cop for them.
|
| You are free to do whatever you like with your free time,
| of course.
| tchaffee wrote:
| > I just don't uncritically accept them, let alone act as
| a volunteer copyright-cop for them.
|
| It seems like you are implying I am. When all I'm trying
| to do is make sure musicians get fairly paid for their
| work. So yeah, I'm not super concerned about playing
| music loud in my car as you sarcastically suggested I
| should be.
|
| I am concerned about joining a music platform where
| something I purchased can be shared for free to millions
| of people with the musician getting nothing.
|
| If there is a service that pays musicians directly and
| cuts out ASCAP and RIAA, then even better.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| > _cuts out ASCAP and RIAA_
|
| The sad thing for me, is that even if something like that
| were to function, and no matter how well, people would
| find another reason the artists don't deserve payment.
|
| So as it stands, organizations like that are how artists
| get paid at all.
|
| And not as any hard defence of the RIAA in all aspects,
| but it's not like they don't do anything. They did help
| set the standards for effective vinyl mastering and
| playback...
| sjy wrote:
| > a music platform where something I purchased can be
| shared for free to millions of people
|
| That doesn't seem to be the intent or reality of how
| Funkwhale is used. All of the public pods I saw had less
| than 200 members. I imagine you'd run into scaling
| problems with larger pods.
| _jal wrote:
| > It seems like you are implying I am.
|
| You are here talking down the tool and implying software
| you have not used is not legal while uncritically
| repeating their claims, which are more aggressive than
| many copyright lawyers believe is accurate.
|
| I'm sorry if you find my flip characterization
| uncharitable. If you need a less off-the-cuff one, you
| are uncritically lending your voice to the legacy
| copyright cartel's continuing attempts to monopolize
| music distribution.
|
| That does do several things. Promoting fairness for
| musicians is not one of them.
| tchaffee wrote:
| > you are uncritically lending your voice to the legacy
| copyright cartel's continuing attempts to monopolize
| music distribution.
|
| Especially when I said this, right? "If there is a
| service that pays musicians directly and cuts out ASCAP
| and RIAA, then even better."
| _jal wrote:
| OK, that does require an apology; I missed that, and it
| does change the tenor of your argument. It is unclear to
| me how to combine supporting musicians' abusers with
| supporting musicians, but this is not a productive
| conversation, so I'm dropping it.
| HeadsUpHigh wrote:
| If you are suggesting people to buy the CD then you are
| not contributing much to artists.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Did your purchase cover your family? Why should your spouse
| and children be allowed to listen to music licensed to you?
| choward wrote:
| Do you remember CDs, cassettes, records, etc.? Is it
| illegal to let family listen to those?
| tchaffee wrote:
| My goal is that musicians get fairly paid for their work
| as opposed to making sure I am following every subtle
| licensing technicality in my own home, which is only an
| exercise in pedantry and accomplishes nothing practical
| for musicians.
|
| I don't talk with the attorneys who create these complex
| licensing rules at Amazon, iTunes, etc. I talk to
| musicians. None of whom have ever had a problem with
| listening to their music with a small group of friends or
| family. The problem is with a platform that allows me to
| fire up a server and then invite thousands or millions of
| people to listen to someone's music for free.
| LockAndLol wrote:
| Donations I think. They should be able to add links to their
| homepage, PayPal, patreon, etc. Or maybe that's an upcoming
| future, I can't remember exactly.
| tchaffee wrote:
| If this is an existing feature, or when they add it, the
| platform becomes way more interesting to me. I'd love to pay
| musicians directly instead of the embarrassingly low payouts
| from services like Spotify.
| lomereiter wrote:
| A feature would be nice to have, but right now you can just
| go to an artist-friendly shop (such as Bandcamp or Qobuz)
| and buy an album of the artist you'd like to support.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Agate Berriot, the lead developer of Funkwhale, is creating a
| donation mechanism https://agate.blue/2019/06/09/introducing-
| retribute-a-decent...
| sneak wrote:
| This isn't a platform, it is software you install and run on
| your own client and server.
| tchaffee wrote:
| "Funkwhale is a community-driven project that lets you listen
| and share music and audio within a decentralized, open
| network."
|
| From the top of their landing page.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| I want to be surprised by how controversial this simple
| question seemed to be, and yet I'm not. I'm disappointed,
| though.
| BRedSox wrote:
| I'm guessing when people purchase the music as it's not a
| streaming service.
|
| With that said, it appears there is the ability to share music
| socially - which seems like p2p sharing.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| > With that said, it appears there is the ability to share
| music socially - which seems like p2p sharing.
|
| Which is fine as there is plenty of music that is allowed to
| be shared free.
| BRedSox wrote:
| That wasn't their question. We all get that there is music
| available to be freely distributed.
| mawise wrote:
| I really like this. It seems like the federated model is gaining
| traction among the decentralized community (Mastadon, peertube..)
| but I'd love to get to the point where self-hosting is as
| accessible to internet users as signing up.
|
| My vision for music (and other things) sharing is your personal
| library is on your personal private server, and you can give
| access to whoever you want individually. Now your streaming
| source is your library and your friends library--and if a friend
| likes one of your tracks they can "save" it to their library and
| give access to their friends.
|
| I've been trying to build this for status updates (like a
| Facebook alternative) as a simple private blog+rss[1] that's easy
| to self-host (raspberry PI or AWS) but I can see a world where
| everyone has their own server enabling an amazing multitude of
| distributed usage--music sharing, personal restaurant
| recomendations, the ability to post and share things with only
| your friends without a mega-corp in between is a future I would
| get really excited about.
|
| [1] https://simpleblogs.org
| pedro1976 wrote:
| I would push it even further. All these isolated,
| unstandardized and closed silos are really horrible. I want
| that in some future we will own all of our networks, not just
| the data. So, your social graph private and professiinal, your
| knowledge graph (which could include music) and when you meet
| someone, that person could grant you access to his graphs.
| "Stand on the shoulders of giants" would then also be true for
| your close private family, where you would have access to e.g.
| your fathers knowledge.
| asab wrote:
| There is an effort under way, one of which is led by Tim
| Berners-Lee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_(web_decentr
| alization_pr...
| mawise wrote:
| Everytime I read about solid I just can't see it working
| out. It's HARD for someone to host something themselves,
| and when you talk about decoupling the data from the
| interface that means any user needs to deal with two system
| when they used to deal with one. Ease-of-use is one of the
| most important things for broad adoption--that's everything
| is "signup and we take care of everything" instead of "run
| this code on your computer".
| jordanarseno wrote:
| name is a nod to grooveshark? ;)
| RantyDave wrote:
| Didn't we do this and wasn't it called Napster?
| encom wrote:
| Yea, imagine what kind of Napster we could build today, with
| ~20 years advancement in bandwidth and storage. This looks
| super interesting.
|
| EDIT: Never mind. It's another "pipe curl into bash" type of
| app, since nobody knows how to package software any more.
| progval wrote:
| > It's another "pipe curl into bash" type of app, since
| nobody knows how to package software any more.
|
| According to https://docs.funkwhale.audio/installation/ , the
| curl|bash is only one of the ways to install it. They also
| provide an ansible role, install instructions on Debian and
| Arch without the curl|bash, an AUR package, a NixOS package,
| a Yunohost package, and a Docker image
| encom wrote:
| They don't provide, those are all third party packages.
| rglullis wrote:
| It's open source. Is there such a difference between
| "third-party" and "application developers who focus more
| on _developing_ a web application than _packaging_ it? "
| encom wrote:
| Okay, let me rephrase: When a project puts `curl | sudo
| bash` front and center as their primary method of
| installing that software, that's a planet-sized red flag.
| Not just because piping to bash is a terrible idea, but
| because it's an awful and silly way to install software,
| and it makes me suspicious of the way the rest of the
| project is being made.
|
| First impressions matter. curl>bash is a bad first
| impression.
| progval wrote:
| `curl | sudo bash` is for the non-technical people who
| may have just sshed into a server for the first time. If
| you don't put it front and center, they will be lost.
|
| The experienced sysadmins such as you and I can skip the
| paragraph and find an alternative we like.
| asutekku wrote:
| Non technical people are not going to run terminal
| commands to install software.
| jowsie wrote:
| We were all non-technical people once, and many of us
| learnt by doing just that.
| SamBam wrote:
| If you're setting up a home server, particularly on
| something like a Raspberry Pi, which they mention, then
| you're already "slightly technical," and should know
| about the terminal.
|
| Indeed, for many people setting up a home server might be
| the first time they're dealing with the terminal. So this
| is a "non-technical step into being technical."
| znpy wrote:
| They are, and they're going to also do a lot more worse.
| rglullis wrote:
| You must be fun at parties. Tell me if you don't mind how
| many web applications did _you_ get released with the
| "proper" way to install again?
|
| Yeah, I don't like curl > bash either, but it's a
| distributed application that may run into many different
| platforms. It makes sense for them to not worry about the
| packaging specifics of each and let the community pick up
| the slack.
|
| If all you can do is criticize an open source project
| that does not worship your sacred cows, the only bad
| impression I am left with is your project management
| skills.
| LockAndLol wrote:
| Would you be willing to contribute code to fix the
| problems you see?
| capableweb wrote:
| > it makes me suspicious of the way the rest of the
| project is being made
|
| This is why we can't have nice things. Because the
| developer rather focus their time on developing the
| project instead of the arcane packaging of the various
| repositories, the entire project deserves to be
| dismissed?
|
| Piping curl to bash is basically the same as if you
| download the tarball/clone the repository and running
| `make`, but no one bitch about that. They rather cargo-
| bitch about "piping curl to bash is obviously always bad
| and your entire project is bad if you even include curl |
| bash as one method of installing".
|
| Long gone are the days where projects are judged by the
| quality of the project itself, and today we want to get
| outraged as soon as possible, at every little detail.
| Munksgaard wrote:
| On the one hand, I agree. It is not good practice to
| blindly download and install through curlbash. On the
| other hand, that particular method of installation is
| ubiquitous nowadays. Hell even Rust presents it as the
| suggested method of installation[0]. Would you suggest
| Rust is a low-quality project? I don't think you can
| completely disregard something based on whether it
| suggests bashcurl for downloading and installing it.
|
| Of course, in the ideal world, that's not the way it
| should be, but such is the reality we live in.
|
| 0: https://rustup.rs/
| encom wrote:
| I have opinions about Rust, but I already get downvoted
| enough as it is. :)
|
| But Rust doing it doesn't make it a good practice, and as
| you say yourself, it's not the way it should be. I'm just
| resisting the move towards an inferior standard.
|
| EDIT: I triggered HN rate limiting with my lukewarm
| takes, so to the post above suggesting I'm not fun at
| parties: At the parties I go to, we do not talk about
| software packaging best practices for Linux. Thankfully.
| BRedSox wrote:
| 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?
| Vinnl wrote:
| There is music you are allowed to share, e.g. music licenced
| under some Creative Commons licences. It's up to whoever hosts
| a Funkwhale instance to ensure that it only hosts legal music,
| I'd assume.
| gitgud wrote:
| If it's decentralised, then I guess it doesn't have to be
| legal...
| vincnetas wrote:
| 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.
| rglullis wrote:
| 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.
| sjy wrote:
| Which copyright law are you talking about? My impression is
| that opening up a reasonably large collection of
| copyrighted music (say 10,000 tracks) to a reasonable
| number of friends (say 10) would not be considered fair use
| by U.S. courts. The RIAA doesn't sue people for this
| because it's hard to detect and the damages are trivial,
| not because they accept it as fair use.
|
| In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court said that it would
| not be fair to use copyrighted works in a way which "if it
| should become widespread ... would adversely affect the
| potential market for the copyrighted work." Time-shifting
| was not considered to adversely affect the market for
| commercial TV. But surely a tool like Funkwhale, "if it
| should become widespread," would adversely affect the music
| streaming industry?
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| From my understanding it's legal for the same reason Apache,
| nginx, curl, etc. are legal. The software can be used to
| violate copyright, but that doesn't make the software itself
| illegal.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Tell that to youtubedl. Embrace for stricter control from
| copyright groups because they don't like the tools either.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| Well, as much as you can make software freely available, you
| can also make music and podcasts freely available. However,
| there is no such thing as "Github for Music". I like the
| decentralized approach.
| JacobSuperslav wrote:
| the same way as Youtube or Bittorrent are legal
| feanaro wrote:
| I don't understand your confusion. Are you under the impression
| that the very act of sharing music online is illegal?
| BRedSox wrote:
| Yes, maybe that's where my confusion sits. If I take a bunch
| of music and put together a playlist and post it on, say
| YouTube or my own site, that is perfectly fine?
| fabrixxm wrote:
| 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/
| BRedSox wrote:
| I'm not talking music that is under a CC license - I'm
| talking lil bow wow and the spice girls.
| fabrixxm wrote:
| 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...
| BRedSox wrote:
| 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.
| feanaro wrote:
| The problem was with how you phrased your original
| comment. You implied that _it_ (the tool?) is not legal
| because it offers "the ability to share your music
| online". This is why people started replying in this
| sense.
| rglullis wrote:
| It depends on who you are sharing with and the context.
|
| I could setup a server with my music collection and give
| access to my friends. That is fair-use.
| feanaro wrote:
| 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.
| BRedSox wrote:
| Couldn't the same be said for youtube-dl? Again, I don't
| know.. just curious.
| toyg wrote:
| People seem to assume that, just because youtube-dl got a
| single takedown request from a prospective plaintiff,
| it's now as illegal as cocaine. The reality is that
| youtube-dl is a perfectly legal tool, and it will
| continue to be so _at least_ until a judge rules
| otherwise -- and even then, only in a specific
| jurisdiction.
|
| Should you be considered a child-molester just because I
| accuse you to be one?
| BRedSox wrote:
| Wow, you got real dark with that one.
| cf_ wrote:
| 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...
| LarvaFX wrote:
| By watching videos or listening to videos, you make a
| non-digital copy of it in your mind! Is that legal? If
| you hum the song, is it illegal reproduction? If you
| describe the video to a friend, is that unauthorized
| reproduction? If you formulate a critique of it, is it an
| illegal derieved work? Who gets payed in these cases?
| IndySun wrote:
| Here comes the hilarious twisted language to justify
| 'sharing'.
| feanaro wrote:
| Exactly, youtube-dl is a legal tool. You have to expect
| that everyone is trying to game the law and push the
| scales in their favour.
|
| In that case, it is in RIAA's best interest that
| everything is locked down and they maintain exclusive
| control over as many things as possible. It is also in
| their favour to make the public view anything related to
| sharing of media files as suspect. That doesn't mean this
| position is reasonable and valid.
| HugThem wrote:
| Lots of confusion in this question. Where do I even start ...
|
| First of all, what do you mean by "this"?
|
| You mention Napster and Limewire. These are things. Things
| cannot be illegal. Actions can be illegal.
|
| A certain action is illegal if there is a paragraph in the
| applicable jurisdiction that forbids it.
|
| It might be illegal to manufacture, own, fake, destroy or
| distribute a thing. But a thing on its own cannot be illegal.
| What would that even mean.
|
| So who did what, which jurisdiction is applicable and which
| paragraph forbids it?
| croo wrote:
| Uhh, is youtube-dl a thing?
| _jal wrote:
| Yes. Much like the RIAA, you are confusing distribution
| with ownership.
| BRedSox wrote:
| Let's start with number one. By this, I mean the act of
| publicly posting music for others to listen to for free
| without paying the artist.
|
| Edit: You have since edited your comment but let's still
| start there.
| geoah wrote:
| Same great area that plex lives in i guess
| snorremd wrote:
| As others have said. There is nothing inherently illegal about
| the software. As long as you are licensed to share the music
| you host in the instance there is nothing illegal going on.
|
| Though the RIAA might see it differently, as they have with
| other open-source software in the past (ref the recent DMCA
| takedown requests of youtube-dl GitHub repositories). They
| might argue the software is designed for copyright infringement
| and as such should be blocked.
| 3131s wrote:
| Have you ever seen an <audio> element on a web page? That also
| has the ability to share your music online.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-12 23:02 UTC)