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.
TiVo was an early digital video recorder that dominated the market for a while. Broadcasters brought lawsuits against the company saying the recording of videos was violating copyright laws, and advertisers hated it because you could skip commercials. TiVo argued in court that they weren’t pirating, but just time shifting the content. Similar arguments were used for people who ripped rented dvds and so on.
They really went hard on VCRs before all of that for the same reasons. Fortunately the time shifting argument was able to be backed by the courts. Otherwise TiVo and so many other formats would've basically been banned from the general public being able to have anything nice. Was especially important rulings for forcing most content providers and/or studios into using new ideas and technologies. They are the ones that hold back on everything that could actually make it easier to legally enjoy content.
They make things require so many hoops to go through and like a punishment for wanting to enjoy anything legally. While also making it cost more on their end overall. If these companies were to embrace stuff like torrenting tech, then it would mean less overall costs needed to always be running. We have so many ways of getting stuff from here to there and making sure media is not lost. Copyrights should at best last like 10 years imo. These companies still can't even be bothered to allow me to buy movies and shows digitally that maybe got a DVD release. So if they won't give options, then they forfeit the right to claim any "damages" or "lost sales."
The majority of those visits were to sites that allow users to download the audio from YouTube URLs.
This is not piracy. We've always been allowed to record e.g. radio and TV for personal use.
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.
2023 was absolutely the year I dove back into music piracy. I started with downloading youtube playlists but the real game changer was soundiiz, which allowed me to import text, m3u, csv, spotify, xspf playlists into qobuz and deezer so i can download whole playlists of FLAC with qobuz-dl and deemix-gui. My collection went from 20,000 to 100,000, downloading playlists from qobuz and deezer, xspf playlists from my remaining lossy music. I used streamripper on a few web radio stations just to get a list of songs to pull down this way. I only bought music for years and years, but that got me a narrow type of collection.
hey im a noob with music stuff, why would this be preferable to soulseek?
It's not they probably just don't know about soulseek / nicotine+
It's just so much better than any other method I have to assume anyone using these overly complicated methods just doesnt know
Just the idea of downloading playlists instead of albums / discographies feels so incredibly icky to me
Nicotine+ is OK, I upload about a tb a month on there and occasionally I find a missing track I can't find on Deezer, Qobuz or Bandcamp. Turns out other people aren't just imperfect versions of you.
Soulseek is good for downloading albums and discographies, soundiiz, qobuz-dl and deemix-gui are good for that and also playlists of whatever. It's also a good way to get FLACs. I download genre mixes, pitchfork's top albums, it's a good way to get 80gb of music in a night. It's taken me 3 months to get that much off Soulseek. Sometimes you want to try out artists without downloading their whole discography.
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.
Because it'll stop working on a not-insignificant portion of their userbases devices.
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
sites that allow users to download the audio from YouTube URLs
you guys use sites for that? I just use vpn + yt-dlp
