I don't know why anyone would give Spotify money when they pay Joe Rogan to spread vaccine disinformation and union bust.
I use YouTube music. It's far inferior to what Google Play Music was, which was literally perfect, but it's not Spotify and I really think it does mixes best of all. Apple Music is so very Caucasian, I gave it a shot but it just comes back to the whitest music possible every time.
You know, it is literally pick your poison, google/alphabet is not a better company either.
It's not, you're right, but I just can't stomach Joe Rogan.
You know there's hundreds of hours of videos of Joe Rogan on youtube right?
This is probably the first time I've seen anyone argue that paying Google is the more ethical choice. Fuck that company with all of my heart, I literally pay for both email and search just to use their services as little as possible, and will be caught dead before I start paying for YouTube.
I guess it's one devil or the other. I just can't pay for deliberate disinformation is my belief on the subject.
What ethical option is there? I don't know.
Using Last.fm for recommendations and buying the albums from bancamp (yes, I'm aware of the recent news about bandcamp, I'm very worried but depending on what happens a new platform may emerge like bandcamp, who knows) or just... pirating it
What are the recent news about bandcamp?
This, so much this
I don't know why anyone would give Spotify money when...
Frankly, I do because I share a family account with a bunch of people I haven't spoken to since high school my family. The amount of money I pay is absolutely negligible for me, it's less than what I give to homeless people on the street.
I tried quitting Spotify because I really do hate it for a number of reasons. Apple Music was pretty shite on Android (and Linux). I also tried living without a streaming service, but ironically a lot of smaller bands don't release their music through anything but the popular streaming services. Piracy also sucks when you can only download popular music at best.
That's perfectly reasonable. I just can't do the disinformation!
I have YouTube music too . It's worth it for me for how much I use it along with YouTube . Don't have to worry about ads and I'm pretty sure you can't use youtube in the background without premium. I know there are alternatives like newpipe but I don't mind paying for a service I use for hours everyday .
I just really like the mixes. I get into bands I don't know or didn't consider via the radio service.
I just wanna pitch something:
What if it was impossible to publish something through a preferred publisher? What if any published piece of music was legal to redistribute with a published fixed global royalty?
As in: You can start a music distribution service and you don't need to make any deals, you just use what's out there and pay the fixed fee per user who played the song.
This could perhaps be enforced by there simply being no more legal grounds to stop your service as long as you pay, with fines for secret deals being extremely high and the award for whistleblowing also being very high.
In general I feel like movies, shows and video games could be treated the same. Ending exclusivity has been something I've kinda wished to see forever. I think if you reconsider the ethics many of you might conclude that you agree with me.
That's a really interesting idea!
Like GEMA in Germany? You don’t want that.
GEMA aeems to be doing a lot of shit I don't think should be done, like charging for live performances of GEMA-owned music. I also don't see why there should be an organization with memberships? That's not at all related.
I'm also not pitching an organization at all, I wouldn't expect an additional one to be necessary. It's just conceived as a legal framework change,
When I'm talking about starting companies, I'm talking about several, not competing through the size of they're libraries, but rather through other things like cost, quality, UI, searchability, recommendations, etc.
I think that was what Grooveshark (claimed to) try to be. It didn't work out. It was banned in a lot of places and had a lot of lawsuits from record labels.
I am not talking about a concept for a company, I'm talking about revised ethics to inform revised laws which could perhaps enable what you seem to describe Grooveshark as.
I think the DMCA experiment has gone on long enough and it's time to try to mitigate the negative results of it through a different approach.
I don't know why anyone would give Spotify money when they pay Joe Rogan to spread vaccine disinformation and union bust.
I use YouTube music. It's far inferior to what Google Play Music was, which was literally perfect, but it's not Spotify and I really think it does mixes best of all. Apple Music is so very Caucasian, I gave it a shot but it just comes back to the whitest music possible every time.
You know, it is literally pick your poison, google/alphabet is not a better company either.
It's not, you're right, but I just can't stomach Joe Rogan.
You know there's hundreds of hours of videos of Joe Rogan on youtube right?
This is probably the first time I've seen anyone argue that paying Google is the more ethical choice. Fuck that company with all of my heart, I literally pay for both email and search just to use their services as little as possible, and will be caught dead before I start paying for YouTube.
I guess it's one devil or the other. I just can't pay for deliberate disinformation is my belief on the subject.
What ethical option is there? I don't know.
Using Last.fm for recommendations and buying the albums from bancamp (yes, I'm aware of the recent news about bandcamp, I'm very worried but depending on what happens a new platform may emerge like bandcamp, who knows) or just... pirating it
What are the recent news about bandcamp?
This, so much this
Frankly, I do because I share a family account with
a bunch of people I haven't spoken to since high schoolmy family. The amount of money I pay is absolutely negligible for me, it's less than what I give to homeless people on the street.I tried quitting Spotify because I really do hate it for a number of reasons. Apple Music was pretty shite on Android (and Linux). I also tried living without a streaming service, but ironically a lot of smaller bands don't release their music through anything but the popular streaming services. Piracy also sucks when you can only download popular music at best.
That's perfectly reasonable. I just can't do the disinformation!
I have YouTube music too . It's worth it for me for how much I use it along with YouTube . Don't have to worry about ads and I'm pretty sure you can't use youtube in the background without premium. I know there are alternatives like newpipe but I don't mind paying for a service I use for hours everyday .
I just really like the mixes. I get into bands I don't know or didn't consider via the radio service.
I just wanna pitch something:
What if it was impossible to publish something through a preferred publisher? What if any published piece of music was legal to redistribute with a published fixed global royalty?
As in: You can start a music distribution service and you don't need to make any deals, you just use what's out there and pay the fixed fee per user who played the song.
This could perhaps be enforced by there simply being no more legal grounds to stop your service as long as you pay, with fines for secret deals being extremely high and the award for whistleblowing also being very high.
In general I feel like movies, shows and video games could be treated the same. Ending exclusivity has been something I've kinda wished to see forever. I think if you reconsider the ethics many of you might conclude that you agree with me.
That's a really interesting idea!
Like GEMA in Germany? You don’t want that.
GEMA aeems to be doing a lot of shit I don't think should be done, like charging for live performances of GEMA-owned music. I also don't see why there should be an organization with memberships? That's not at all related.
I'm also not pitching an organization at all, I wouldn't expect an additional one to be necessary. It's just conceived as a legal framework change,
When I'm talking about starting companies, I'm talking about several, not competing through the size of they're libraries, but rather through other things like cost, quality, UI, searchability, recommendations, etc.
I think that was what Grooveshark (claimed to) try to be. It didn't work out. It was banned in a lot of places and had a lot of lawsuits from record labels.
I am not talking about a concept for a company, I'm talking about revised ethics to inform revised laws which could perhaps enable what you seem to describe Grooveshark as.
I think the DMCA experiment has gone on long enough and it's time to try to mitigate the negative results of it through a different approach.