7 ms·

And this once again is why I still prefer to "pirate" music. Most "legal" services are either very vague about format, quality and DRM, not available in my cou

by rickmb 14y ago

And this once again is why I still prefer to "pirate" music. Most "legal" services are either very vague about format, quality and DRM, not available in my country and/or have a limited collection. The effort involved in buying something legally and DRM-free is just ridiculous, and the notion that I can trust pirates more to be honest, transparent and upfront about their offering really takes the cake. Only in the copyright exploitation industry is the legal business more shady than the "criminals".

thejosh 14y ago
This is why I'm a huge fan of Spotify. I'm not going to buy music (in either CD/MP3 format) so I'm happy enough to pay the small fee to have access to a huge music library across all devices. They also have a Linux client that works perfectly for me which is also a huge bonus.
- grogs 14y ago
  It was only announced this month that spotify would add Metallica's back catalogue. They hardly have a complete library of music.
  - lleims 14y ago
    They have a complete enough library for 90% of the Internet population.
- gioele 14y ago
  > I'm happy enough to pay the small fee to have access to a huge music library across all devices. As long as it lasts. I want my music collection to be accessible also when Spotify will go out of business, sued into oblivion or acquired and shut down.
  - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
    Why would they be sued? Last I heard Spotify was very much running a legal business.
    - Ygg2 14y ago
      Just because they are running a legal business now, doesn't mean they will run a legal business in future. Either they can change, or more likely laws will change, rendering them a vulnerable target for suing. Plus, I'm sure they are breaking some ridiculous patent somewhere anyway.
  - cageface 14y ago
    Doesn't have to be one or the other. Pay Spotify $10/month to discover new music and then go buy lossless copies of the albums you really care about. Most records I could live without but those few special ones I have backed up in S3 in FLAC.
    - aes256 14y ago
      Notwithstanding something exceptionally rare, why the need to back up FLACs on S3? I back up my music collection locally, and I have double-redundancy of sorts (it's backed up to a RAID 5 array on a file server, so in theory it could withstand the failure of the original drive and one of the back up drives), but if worst comes to worst I could just acquire everything again. With a couple of exceptions they're just lossless copies of widely available music recordings...
      - justincormack 14y ago
        Are you suggesting backing them up on pirate music sites?
        aes256 14y ago
        Not advocating copyright infringement, nor was I suggesting that in particular. That would be a viable back up strategy, though. Have a rare copy of a recording? Make it widely available, then if your copy is destroyed, the odds of you being able to acquire an identical copy again are much improved.
- demallien 14y ago
  Does Spotify have access to "entire album only" tracks?
aes256 14y ago
If I want a copy of an album, I can go to iTunes/Amazon/etc. and download the copy they offer, in a format I don't really want, encoded at 256kbps or similar. I have no idea what happened behind the scenes; which version of the album I'm downloading, what the source material was, how it was transferred from the source to their systems, so on and so forth. Alternatively, I can go to a not-so-legitimate website, and be presented with 10+ different versions of the same album (originals, remastered editions, reissues, international releases, vinyl rips, etc.), each of which is typically available in all the popular formats (FLAC, MP3 320kbps, V0, V2, etc.) I can plump for the FLAC, along with which I will often get high resolution scans of the source material, as well as a LOG file to verify the veracity of the copy. If I want to re-encode it, I'm free to do as I please. Then to top it off, the legal services have the audacity to charge as much as a physical copy of the CD. I despair...
- brador 14y ago
  Illegal activity is okay if it's convenient? come on. In the end, they created the product. Under US law, they have the right to sell it any way they like. They could charge $10000 per digital download and load it with DRM. If you don't like the rules, don't buy the product, that's the choice. But please don't play the victim and justify what you're doing with a "it's their fault for dressing too damn sexy".
  - aes256 14y ago
    This is a discussion about service issues in the legal music download sector. I'm only referring to 'alternative' means of acquiring music as a benchmark to elucidate these service issues. I'm not interested in justifying copyright infringement, and I have better things to do than get dragged into that tired old debate.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      Whenever a comment compares copyright infringement to rape, it's probably best to not respond to it. Nobody takes the argument seriously and it's only there to make you mad.
pretoriusB 14y ago
>And this once again is why I still prefer to "pirate" music. Even read TFA? It has no DRM at all, this is a BS misunderstanding by the blogger.

by rickmb 14y ago

thejosh 14y ago

This is why I'm a huge fan of Spotify. I'm not going to buy music (in either CD/MP3 format) so I'm happy enough to pay the small fee to have access to a huge music library across all devices. They also have a Linux client that works perfectly for me which is also a huge bonus.

grogs 14y ago
It was only announced this month that spotify would add Metallica's back catalogue. They hardly have a complete library of music.
- lleims 14y ago
  They have a complete enough library for 90% of the Internet population.
gioele 14y ago
> I'm happy enough to pay the small fee to have access to a huge music library across all devices. As long as it lasts. I want my music collection to be accessible also when Spotify will go out of business, sued into oblivion or acquired and shut down.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  Why would they be sued? Last I heard Spotify was very much running a legal business.
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    Just because they are running a legal business now, doesn't mean they will run a legal business in future. Either they can change, or more likely laws will change, rendering them a vulnerable target for suing. Plus, I'm sure they are breaking some ridiculous patent somewhere anyway.
- cageface 14y ago
  Doesn't have to be one or the other. Pay Spotify $10/month to discover new music and then go buy lossless copies of the albums you really care about. Most records I could live without but those few special ones I have backed up in S3 in FLAC.
  - aes256 14y ago
    Notwithstanding something exceptionally rare, why the need to back up FLACs on S3? I back up my music collection locally, and I have double-redundancy of sorts (it's backed up to a RAID 5 array on a file server, so in theory it could withstand the failure of the original drive and one of the back up drives), but if worst comes to worst I could just acquire everything again. With a couple of exceptions they're just lossless copies of widely available music recordings...
    - justincormack 14y ago
      Are you suggesting backing them up on pirate music sites?
      - aes256 14y ago
        Not advocating copyright infringement, nor was I suggesting that in particular. That would be a viable back up strategy, though. Have a rare copy of a recording? Make it widely available, then if your copy is destroyed, the odds of you being able to acquire an identical copy again are much improved.
demallien 14y ago
Does Spotify have access to "entire album only" tracks?

aes256 14y ago

If I want a copy of an album, I can go to iTunes/Amazon/etc. and download the copy they offer, in a format I don't really want, encoded at 256kbps or similar. I have no idea what happened behind the scenes; which version of the album I'm downloading, what the source material was, how it was transferred from the source to their systems, so on and so forth. Alternatively, I can go to a not-so-legitimate website, and be presented with 10+ different versions of the same album (originals, remastered editions, reissues, international releases, vinyl rips, etc.), each of which is typically available in all the popular formats (FLAC, MP3 320kbps, V0, V2, etc.) I can plump for the FLAC, along with which I will often get high resolution scans of the source material, as well as a LOG file to verify the veracity of the copy. If I want to re-encode it, I'm free to do as I please. Then to top it off, the legal services have the audacity to charge as much as a physical copy of the CD. I despair...

brador 14y ago
Illegal activity is okay if it's convenient? come on. In the end, they created the product. Under US law, they have the right to sell it any way they like. They could charge $10000 per digital download and load it with DRM. If you don't like the rules, don't buy the product, that's the choice. But please don't play the victim and justify what you're doing with a "it's their fault for dressing too damn sexy".
- aes256 14y ago
  This is a discussion about service issues in the legal music download sector. I'm only referring to 'alternative' means of acquiring music as a benchmark to elucidate these service issues. I'm not interested in justifying copyright infringement, and I have better things to do than get dragged into that tired old debate.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Whenever a comment compares copyright infringement to rape, it's probably best to not respond to it. Nobody takes the argument seriously and it's only there to make you mad.

pretoriusB 14y ago

>And this once again is why I still prefer to "pirate" music. Even read TFA? It has no DRM at all, this is a BS misunderstanding by the blogger.