Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
FUCK ADOBE!
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
Never pay for music again, and don't let anyone you know do that shit either.
They come for archives–nothing should be off limits.
If you never pay for music, artists won't be able to make new music. Where possible buy as directly as possible from the artist, e.g., through bandcamp.
And concerts
If you send the artist money in the form of a check or a donation more of that money goes to the person who produces the thing.
It's not possible to reach 100%, but every little bit of your dollar you ensure enters the pocket of a person who worked for a living is one less bit of that dollar that ends up in the hands of a leech or a parasite.
Giving Spotify or Google or Apple or whoever has inserted themselves into the system to absorb money for something that they don't pay for is fundamentally not healthy for any part of the ecosystem of art.
Open https://bandcamp.com/discover?s=rand and check how many albums have sold more than 5 copies.
How are those artists able to make music without making money? Because according to you, they can't.
Because with your logic they'd make nothing.
Never heard of passion projects?
Artists can't pay rent now. They make music though.
I work for a better world. I do not look for excuses to reward corporations that steal from artists to burn libraries, thanks.
I feel like "not paying artists" makes as much for a better world as "not tipping waitstaff".
It's really not something i consider worth my time and attention. I know your liberal programmed virtues tell you that supporting artists under capitalism with your dollar-vote is the done thing, but i don't agree and won't be wasting any more of my time trying to reason you out of such a convoluted position on something that barely matters.
You could play the world's smallest violin for them. Couldn't get paid for it apparently, but still.
More seriously, we probably disagree and I won't try to persuade you. Abolish capitalism and all that is preaching to the choir, but while we will live under it, if an artist you like has a direct way for your support (cash, bank transfer, crypto, whatever floats your boat) that doesn't fatten music labels, would/do you?
Maybe, if it were convenient. Won't be though, so it's not something I've considered at length. They went after the archives though, and I think the entire concept of paying for media should take any hit that can be issued in retaliation.
"Some media company sued the Internet archive so now I'm not paying any artists for their work or the media I consume" is entitled bullshit. Esp after acknowledging many struggle to pay rent.
Burn your CDs and listen to the silence. Maybe a thought will wander through your skull-cavern
That's an awfully defeatist way of looking at it, IMO.
Do you, in the grocery store, grab every brand of pasta and figure out protein:carb:$ ratios manually, every time you walk down the aisle, or do you just decide whether you want pasta or not, and throw some in your bag if you do?
If the former, do you do this for every single thing in the store? How many hours does it take you every single time?
Never pay for music again, and don’t let anyone you know do that shit either.
That's quite a big umbrella. You don't have to pay labels to pay artists. Plenty of artists release HOURS upon HOURS of high quality COMMERCIAL FREE underground bass / drum and bass / jungle / etc. You just have to know where to look.
I'm a bass aggregator for my local music scene and here are some artists putting out absolutely high quality shit free to you on the regular: https://odysee.com/@shades:3/liquidSoulBirthday089-4hr20min:6 https://odysee.com/@shades:3/fullcornmoonweek37:1
I plug into the mixer after about 5 minutes in the first link and 10 in the second. Please go pay your local artists and stop listening to cookie cutter produced for the masses music. It's so much more rewarding when your favorite artists recognize your face and remember your name.
and the artists will get zero
Confidentiality in such a case is so stupid.
Court rulings have elaborate reasoning on how they come to their conclusion. Would be nice if we could have something like that when public goods like the Internet Archive are under pressure. For all of us to have a better understanding of the law, rights, and consequences.
Right, sounds like intentionally blinding the public
That is the whole point if a settlement though. It is outside the reach of rhe court that both parties agree to a certain resolution.
It may very well be the case that IA was offered a substantially smaller settlement sum, but only under the consition that the exact sum is not publizised so that it would bot become part of settlement sum reasoning in possible future court cases.
Makes me wonder how much of this was due to IA having the federal deposit label now. That had to have chopped the lawsuit in half as they can legally hold all of that music. The confidential part speaks volumes.
If you have any FLAC CD rips you downloaded from IA, you might want to burn them to a physical copy in the actual likelihood those rips might get taken down for copyright reasons now, especially if it's long out of print; that's what I did for Ecco: Songs of Time, I burned it as an audio CD recently, that way you'll ideally have a full-quality physical copy you can rip from should the files get corrupted.
Of course that should also be followed up with the FLAC files themselves being stored on some form of external media as well and not just a burned audio CD copy, but yeah.
This also counts for any legally-purchased FLAC albums off 7Digital and the like because there's always the threat of those getting delisted for future download from such sites; I lost half my 7Digital library to exactly that.
If available, if I buy any more music in the future, it's going to be a physical release that I'll rip to FLAC myself so that I can at least still have that album in a physical format it should it get delisted from digital storefronts for any reason.
Just as an extra note, keeping backups should be strongly encouraged, but self-burned CD/DVD/BluRay are extremely easy to get scratched and then no longer be readable. The store bought disks have an extra plastic layer on the bottom that protects the actual data section of the disk, but in order to be able to burn them at home this extra plastic layer cannot be present. Thus any scratches/scuffs immediately damage the underlying data not just the plastic protection.
Self-burned discs is just added protection, ideally you should also have the files themselves stored both locally and on some form of external drive as well.
And technically, BD-R HTL discs are chemically similar to M-DISC DVDs in that they use an inorganic composite to store data where BD-R LTH discs are dye-based like CD-Rs and normal DVD-/+Rs, so they should be more robust because of that, not to mention M-DISC DVDs themselves use glassy carbon to store data.
Too bad there was never a CD-R equivalent to M-DISC DVDs because those would've been handy for burning WAV files or even FLAC files as an audio CD for long-term archival.
Thank you for the reply. I definitely learned something new about long term storage today.