Visits to music piracy websites went up more than 13 percent last year, a new report says. The majority of those visits were to sites that allow users to download the audio from YouTube URLs.
13%!?!? WHOOOOOA!
I’m pretty current on technology but honestly never heard of Youtube-To-MP3 conversion.
Thinking this may be the ticket to cutting the cord with Spotify, but as others have suggested, I fully intend to buy tracks of my favorite indie folks too.
Do artists actually get a decent cut from Band Camp?
Bandcamp, according to their help page, takes a 15% cut from purchases until the artist makes 5k in sales, in which case they take 10%
Bandcamp was recently sold as far as I’m aware. Also, after a recent purchase I made from them I had my credit card frauded. Can’t say with 100% assurance that it was because of something going on with bandcamp, but it’s my belief it was them. Something seems off from before, so I’ve decided to take a break from buying anything from them for a while.
They were bought by epic games recently, but I don’t think it was bandcamp that stole your card info
Ah. And you’re probably right. Just a coincidence.
If you’re on linux use yt-dlp, it’s the tits, works on bandcamp too. If you’re on windows - they may have a win version, idk, check though because it rules.
Can’t answer the other question though, sorry.
Wow so we call downloading YouTube piracy?
I guess most content creators are pirates.
Wow, that’s stupid. I consider ripping songs from YouTube to be the modern equivalent of taping songs off the radio. The quality is poor.
If I cannot buy on Bandcamp or Boomkat or directly from the artist then I sail the high seas, proudly.
I refuse to stream.
I want to counter that buying individual songs and albums would get too expensive compared to streaming, but then I realized I’ve been listening to the same set of playlists in the past few years and the total cost of streaming subscription in those period is probably more than enough to buy those songs.
My current favorites playlist, accumulated over 15+ years, is 4,235 songs. I don’t think I can afford to buy that.
Looks like you’ve paid 15 years * 12 months / year * $10 / month = $1800
Seems like you’re getting a pretty good deal!
Assuming each of those tracks is about 3.5 min long, that’s about 250 hours of music. Given your numbers they paid an average of 7 bucks per hour of music.
For context, 25 years ago a typical 45 minute album would fetch 15 bucks. And that’s not accounting for inflation adjustment.
I’m sure that’s totally sustainable for those artists…
One, this is just my favorites list, not every album I’ve listened to. And I’ve listened to my playlists on random quite a few times over the years.
Two, I don’t listen to pop music, so the average is probably closer to 4-5 minutes per song. (About 362 hrs of music on the playlist, if you must know.)
Three, you can’t just plug in a yearly rate, convert it to hours, and use it in any meaningful way.
Your first two paragraphs make the picture worse, not better.
As for your last, I’m not writing an economics thesis. It was a quick analysis to illustrate a problem no sane person disputes: streaming services have substantially driven down revenue for artists, to the point that for many it’s genuinely impossible to create their art while making a living wage.
Is it better than piracy? Sure. At least the artists are getting something (well, unless you drop below Spotify’s streaming cutoff, in which case you can get fucked). But it’s still a shitty deal and gives consumers someone else to blame as artists slowly bleed out.
Heh. I never thought about it this way. I just need to finish downloading my Spotify playlists I guess, then plexamp l the way
wakes up in 2002
The Napster has you, Neo
Your comment just made me smile. Those were the days.
sites that allow users to download the audio from YouTube URLs
you guys use sites for that? I just use vpn + yt-dlp
Soulseek for life! There should be a documentary about this because…. how? How has this been able to go this strong for so long? One of the first installs on any new OS I spin up. And when it comes to supporting the artists? Live shows and merch, when possible.
Because they dont advertise the fact that theyre a music sharing platform. Its the most basic possible p2p platform that can exist and they dont seek the laws attention like Napster did.
They also comply with requests to blacklist certain artist search results. Try searching for the Beatles on slsk, you dont get any results.
My searches for Michael Jackson also gets zero hits which I thought was bizarre. This explains it
Search for album names
Yes, word of mouth. I love my band shirts. It’s always a great conversation starter. I have SXM, that’s how I learned about Motionless in White, Beartooth, Starset, and Ice Nine Kills.
But I also have my own collection on my 1tb sd card in my phone.
Some of us never stopped
My philosophy goes like this: Pay for the hardware, get the content for free.
This is the way.
This is the way
That’s how it is in Switzerland: you pay a small piracy tax on every storage medium, in return downloading films and series is legal (but not uploading, though I never got a problem with torrenting)
I WISH I COULD HEAR YA OVER THESE HERE BANGING TUNES! 🏴☠️
But are they lossless 96kHz+? Only reason I use qobuz.
Did I misread 320bps mp3?
Hopefully it’s Kbps, otherwise…
Ç̶̡̡͙͖̝͙̩͖͈̣͚͓̹͇͓̲͈͔̤̭̳̘̤̖̰̟̱̱͙̓̒̍̿̀͗̏̒͒́̑̇͗̅̈́̈̉͊̂͆̔́͂̓̒̔̎̂̂́̌̀̄͑̀̆̽͒͆̕͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ơ̴̧̢̢̨̫̻̗̲̪͓̫̝̪̬͔͖͙͇̰͉̤̺̲̲̦̱͕̤͍̜̬͈͇͖̯̺̤̱̜͚̗̺͍̠͙̬̋̂̊͆̈́̐̓́̉̃͊̒̈͂̚̕ͅͅm̷̧̡̢̡̛̜̮̗̩̩̫̬̰̳͕̖͓̦̼̘͉̫̖̳͔̻͍̟͕̫̺̦̬̖̹̞̞̫̝̗̥͇̳̯̈́̈̔̎̈́̅͐̽̀͋̄̈́̾̆̄͆̋́̀̆͗̓́̌́̀̓̐̉͂̽̂͑͜͜͝͠͠͝ͅͅͅp̵͍̅̍̾͛͘͠r̵̨̡̡̧̧̢̨̙͔͓̦͕̻̻̣̭̮̝̼̦̹̰̗̬͓̺̤̱̤̖͖̻̙͖͖͔͎͓̮̟̝͈̭̠̮͂̾͊͋͐͊͌̏̇͋͗͜ě̵̡̨̩͖͖̻̗̞̘̮͈̾̓̽͋̎̈́͐́̀̀̈́̿̈̾͐͐̽̔̍̀͗̓̂̐̏̓͐̋̆̒͑͊͒̀̓̆̋͒̌̽̆͐̓̚̕͝͝ͅš̴̢̧̹̩̟͉̠̞̣̺̻͔͎͕̯̳̝̬̳̻̹͚̰̠͍̲̬̺͙̹̘̥͉̣̻̳͉͇̗̦͓̻̱̻͈͎̠̫̌̒̀̀́͒̊̍̋̚͘͜͜ŝ̷̡̨̫̙̯̠͖͔̫̰̯̹͉̱͈͚̩͐̐̈́ͅì̴̢̢̡̢̡̧̲̦͉̝͚̦͍̜͔̭̝͕̩͎͓͖̬͍̹̘͎̲̦̰̹̪̣̺̮͓̘̺̗̥̦̙̞̙͈̤͉͖͍͋̀̅͐͌͒̆̂̍̊̔́̌͛̈́̒̍̓̒̀͑͂̇̚͝͠͝ͅò̷̢̢̝͈̪̹̰͙̲̦͔̞̼̳͚͙̘̦̖̼̺͖͖̹̤̻̪̝͉͙̯̖͔̖͓̩̗̖̪̜̰͍͖̎̈́́͛̋̂̓̏͆̀̑̉̋̿̑̄͑̇̂̊̇̆̄͗̊̇̿́͘͘͜͝͠͝͠͝ņ̶̛̤͓̘̘̻͔̝̥̲͈̖̖͍̲̮͖͙͚͔̭̳͉͓͍́̉̿̉̒̍̈́̒̈́͂̉́̂̐͗̆̄̅̇̽́̇̉̑́͊͋̕͝͠͝ ̶̧͛̾̿̽̓̎͆͗̊̽͝g̶̡̨̢͚͈͔̹͚̳͎̩̝̜̦̖̬͉̙͖̜̪̖̟͚̯͔̟͉̮͖̻̮̺̼͓̰̱͈̪̟͈̺̲̘̅͒̉̈́̊̍́̈́̈͛̿̽́́̐͊̄̍̒̊̉̀̔͐͗̕̚̕͜͜͜͠ͅö̶̢̨̧̡͕͙̳͈̩̱͍̼͇̖̤̹̼́̈̓̓̏͊̅̿̽͝͝͝ͅ ̸̡̢̨̧̢̛̛̩͙̘̼̻̺̯̭̣̫͈͔̥̟̼͙͚̭͎̩͓̻̘̯̩̳̺̤̠̦̦̟̳̦̥̹̟̺͔̮͍̇̎̀́͌͛̂͌͜͝b̸̨̮̝͚͚̯̬̦̲̫̯̝̱̺̬̣̝̠̞̼̜̠̟̟́r̵̛̛̺̠̟̤̙̱̯̭̃̓͌̀̓̋̑͐̈́̿̾̒́̿̿́͊̉̏͆̓̿͌̅̈̐̀̒̐̽̀̕͝͝ͅṛ̸̢̢̡̧̨̛̫͈̲̜͍̥͇̩͉͚̳̝̼̪̬̯̗͍̗͙̦̭̠̻̯̹̮̺̻̳̹̠̟̪͍̬͓̝͙͗̏͌̀͌̈́͒́̐͗͌͗̈́̓̊̄̋̈̐́͌͘͜͜͝͝͠͝
Flac and opus on soulseek?
Tidal? You can even download all your music in lossless flac format
Can’t play music without the tidal client I think
You can extract an API key and use other players that support it like Strawberry.
I forgot that they had an API, but I don’t think you can download music without drm afaik
I already got a small server with sonarr and radarr. Is there any quick way to add up the music one?
I use Deemon for automatic music downloading from Deezer (free). Then I stream my music with Navidrome and some Subsonic compatible apps for mobile. I have this setup for over 3 years now and I have 3TB of music ;)
If you just want to download the songs you need, you can use Deemix (I use this Docker image, you can just install it as an application too)
Tip: if you don’t want to setup a music server, you can use Syncthing to sync you music and playlists between devices :)
Lidarr is the corresponding program for music, setup is almost identical to what you’re already running. And if you use Prowlarr to manage your indexers, it also works with Lidarr.
Weird… yt-dlp -f “ba” url
Never need to use one of those horrible malware laden download sites again…
That’s not how I would get a discography, a non YouTube artist (some international ones), a whole album or lossless though - or am I mistaken?
I think he is talking about this
The majority of those visits were to sites that allow users to download the audio from YouTube URLs.
Makes sense, thanks for pointing it out!
I wonder how hard it is to make full torrent webclient on mobile
Why doesn’t youtube use DRM the way other Big Tech sites do?
Because it’ll stop working on a not-insignificant portion of their userbases devices.
DRM sucks. We don’t need more of it.
If that was adequate to explain Youtube’s decision-making, the platform would be unrecognizably different for all of the terrible things Youtube didn’t do because it would be – and indeed was – terrible
google sucks too so why aren’t they using the thing that sucks?
Because YouTube isn’t the biggest ripping source. That award goes to Spotify.
Spotify rippers are rife these days. I’ve even made my own.
That isn’t piracy. It’s time shifting, and it’s perfectly legal to do it.
It is piracy if you make it available for others to download. Plus the concept of time shifting doesn’t really apply to on-demand media.
It is infringement if you’re sharing the files, but if you make a copy for yourself, then it’s considered fair use. See: Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
Internet isn’t always available, such as in an airplane or someone might not want to give access to the Internet to their child but wants to give them video or audio on a tablet. They can legally copy the content and watch it later.
There are legal issues with software that is solely designed to bypass drm, but that only applies to the software creator, not the user.
The only way
