I'll actually try to explain this like you're five, because that doesn't ever seem to happen on here anymore.
Aaron Swartz was a man who was a part of a whoooole lot of really cool things. He helped to make a thing called "RSS" which helps people learn all the stuff they want to without going to all the different websites that that takes. It's like if you want to make a sandwich, but normally you'd have to go to a bread store, a meat store, a cheese store, and a vegetable store. RSS makes it so you can get that all at once (and enjoy your sandwich much more easily).
Aaron also was part of a group of guys who helped give out information from "PACER", which is a big system full of information about what happened at courts. But, even though all of this information should have been free, they charged people for it. Imagine if each time you asked your teacher a question you had to pay a quarter. Even though that's their job, and it should be free, they made you pay. Well that sure did make some law-people mad. They started to investigate Aaron, but eventually stopped when they realized Aaron was right.
Aaron did some more stuff, too. You know this website you're on? Aaron was a big part of it at the very beginning. A lot of people call him one of the founders, but that's not entirely true. What is true is that Aaron helped to shape and mold and make this website what it is today. It's like when mommy buys you Play-Doh. She actually started it, but you're the one that made the amazing sculpture out of it (with help from your friends, of course).
Aaron also did something that made some people pretty mad. You see Aaron thought that information should be very free. He though that people like you, and me, and everyone else should be able to read as much information as we could on stuff. He thought that the work that scientists did at colleges should be seen by everyone! So he went to MIT to access JSTOR, basically a virtual library of science, and went "out of bounds" according to MIT. He went somewhere he wasn't supposed to go, and went there to try to get all this information and science from JSTOR, which he was actually allowed to do. The problem was like this though. Imagine Aaron went to the library. He can check out as many books as he wants, right? What Aaron wanted to do was check out every book, and make sure that everyone around the world had the same chance to read them that he did. But in order to check out those books, he had to go behind the desk, which was a no-no.
So what happened is that Aaron got in trouble with JSTOR, the library, and with MIT, who is pretty much the librarian. Eventually, JSTOR decided they didn't think Aaron did anything wrong, and didn't want to try anymore. MIT was a little slower though, and didn't say much. Then the US Attorney's office came in. They're like the cops that might come to the library. The owners of the library didn't think that you did anything wrong, and wanted the cops to leave. The librarian didn't answer as quickly though, so the cops stuck around and kept asking Aaron questions and checking through his pockets for stuff.
This whole thing was very scary for Aaron. Aaron didn't have a whole lot of money, and if he got in as much trouble as the cops wanted to put him in, he would have to give it all up, and go to prison for a long time. This scared Aaron a lot. This was especially tough for Aaron because he had been really sad for quite some time. It was a special kind of sad that doesn't go away with a tight hug from mom, so it was especially hard to deal with.
On Friday, Aaron hung himself. Some people think it was because he was so scared of the cops that he just couldn't deal with it. Some people think it was because he was so sad that he just wanted it to go away. But most people think it was a combination of the two.
There are a lot of people talking about it now though, because if the cops hadn't been so mean to Aaron, he'd probably still be alive today. This makes people very sad and very angry, because Aaron was a very smart, very kind person. We wanted him to stay around much longer than he did, and now we want to make sure that nothing like what happened to Aaron will happen to anyone else again.
Thank you! I have limited internet package (for the whole family) and wouldn’t have watched the video, this short resume made me appreciate how Aaron is one of those whom represent the essence, beauty and the entity of internet.
he had been really sad for quite some time. It was a special kind of sad that doesn’t go away with a tight hug from mom, so it was especially hard to deal with.
As someone with depression, that has to be the cringiest way to describe depression.
I think a mixture of Jellyfin and Lidarr are what you’re looking for, but I haven’t tried out Lidarr personally. If it’s as good as Sonarr then it probably works well.
Jellyfin is a media server, so can be access from any device. Most use it for TV and films but its music player and library work well also.
-Arr services are used to crawl usenet/bittorrent trackers for different kinds of media.
I’d imagine the process for this would be you add an album you want to Lidarr, which will then look around for the audio files, use a downloader you point to in order to download it, and then move it into your Jellyfin library.
Edit: I’ve pointed at Docker repos because I’m a container whore but I believe they all have bare-metal builds also.
I was an early adopter of Jellyfin and love it - but personally prefer Navidrome for my music server. Granted, I haven't looked at the music capabilities of Jellyfin in a long while, because I've been running Navidrome.
Symphonium android client is my recommendation for that (and I believe it also works for Jellyfin) but there are others.
My pipeline is essentially as you describe though Lidarr --> nzbget --> Navidrome
It’s a music tracker + finder + social network. You can see how your taste changes over time. Personally my favorite feature is the weekly stats with a genre timeline.
Yeah, it comes as a command-line exe. you have to manually set it up as a service so it can autorun and have the right permissions. But I really do enjoy it so far
Lidarr doesn’t need your whole library, just what you need to download. You can add your local music to Jellyfin alongside anything you get from -Arr services.
I know when I’ve used Sonarr it’s also managed to parse my local library when I’ve added a series I’ve already downloaded to look for future episodes.
What do you mean “local”? Lidarr is not a player. It looks at your already existing music files and pulls any missing albums from the list of artist you already have.
Haha, be careful with the word ‘local’ when talking about IT stuff. I took it as ‘local machine’.
In terms of your actual tastes, I wouldn’t know where to recommend for that. I don’t do much music piracy myself outside of SittingOnClouds for game soundtracks that I then put on Jellyfin and YouTube Music (Nintendo put your fucking soundtracks on music services I swear to God).
Unfortunately, I think “local” is the best word usually, just not when also talking about computers. I’ve tried to think of an alternative and haven’t come up with one. I think you need a phrase like “music from local artists” or something.
Yet, that's the exact opposite of Stremio for the music world. The point of Stremio is that you do not queue stuff, download it, save it all to your hard drive and all.
Music Stremio would be cool, but I think hosting it yourself is the closest you can get with music while still retaining a decent user experience :/
I guess they could also throw a load of adblockers onto YouTube? Ublock Origin, ReVanced YT Music etc. But that isn’t really ‘piracy’ at that point if OP is purposely wanting to avoid the actual big names.
I mean, the label doesn't matter in the end, does it? Like, it doesn't need.to be called Piracy to be worthwhile. If you use the big one's servers without any limitations but aren't paying them for it,.isn't that "avoiding the big one's" in a way?
I’m not sure if OP is privacy focused, or doesn’t want their playlists tied to one service, or something like that; I’m just pulling assumptions out my arse.
This person gave up on pirating MP3s because it was too complicated and the top suggestion is to start a homeserver. LOL you guys are woefully out of touch.
No, I have Nord. At the time I subscribed, I hadn’t discovered all the wondrous things on Sail the High Seas or FMHY. Nord looked like my best bet judging by search engine results.
I just tried Tailscale. Downloaded & installed, then nothing. Task Manager told me their GUI was running, but I didn’t see it. Repaired (via uninstall) & tried again. Same. Uninstalled & reinstalled. Same. Tried running as admin, just in case. Same. I’ll try again another time.
nord is a double edge sword w/ all their advertising. more customers but more government notice. iplayer may have borked nords ips or nord might just be fuckin up. doesn’t seem like you need tailscale, seems like you need a different vpn to test with. mulvad is an easy recommendation, but i recommend shopping around and finding somebody you can conceivably trust. because when you route your internet through them you should probably personally vet past their ads.
Interesting write-up. But I wonder e.g. what the benefit of this would be over using Wireguard? It’s easy enough to set up on a UK router and then with a tap of the button you’re sending requests via your personal VPN to UK to the internet.
Thanks for that explanation. I have seen references to Tailscale forever and even looked at the official web site… And you explained it better than they did.
How is this different from a VPN provider? Both are breaking out from a node in the country where you want to consume your media. Only one is used by 1000’s, one is used just by you.
Not dissing tailscale or anything. But just curious from a technical pov.
There are a ton that have weird fucking usernames. I was confused at first why my Bluetooth was showing BobByJimSmith4345 as the "artist" after telling it to play a song, but yeah they'll pretty much just look whatever up by name from YouTube and play it.
Probably, but at least with genres like vocaloid, you'll find plenty of people taking songs/videos from sites like Bilibili or Niconico and they'll either just straight up upload the video or will instead just slap on subtitles and upload without consent. There's also a similar phenomenon with anime music as well, but that's usually for just the music.
The music on YouTube isn't any more piracy than unblocked Spotify. YouTube's "official" music uploads (these that are a square with a blurred background behind the square) are acquired by paying DistroKid or record labels. Unofficial uploaders usually aren't monetized, either bc they didn't enable it、are niche、or got ContentID'd by YouTube. Those few that are monetized(e.g. Si𝚕vaGunner and Gi𝚕vaSunner (i.e. not Si𝙸vaGunner or Gi𝙸vaSunner)) usually get DMCA'd eventually.
Downloading from YouTube is piracy though, though like OP says some don't think so for some reason.
And many non-official uploads are let stay because somebody sent them a dmca and they chose to keep the video up but let monetization pay out to the org that copyright claimed the content. So the ancient "song name (hd)" video from cheeselicker9000 isn't official but the record label likely gets paid for any ad revenue they make from it. Most labels just strike the non official stuff and upload their own nowadays though. I know when I did some youtube that was one of the options for a response, just letting the claimant take ad revenue and manage monetization.
Downloading from youtube is piracy? How? If it was like a Youtube Red show, sure, but the normal videos everyone can see for free?
For me piracy begins with aquiring things or features which usually cost money to get whilst also taking into account if its obvious a thing should cost money in such an environment (thats also how our piracy laws are worded here).
So our piracy laws also classify things as piracy if it was obvious the deal was too good to be true like Windows for 2$ on eBay or chinese ROM cards for 5$ with hundreds of games.
Videos on youtube, including music, are a normal occurrence. A full blockbuster movie is usually not.
I worked for one of the YouTube founders once, killed me when he explained how they benchmarked all the Copyright detection software available at the time and then picked the worst one to use for their licensing system.
Downloading a video game rom is piracy, but if you pay money to some Chinese retailer for an SD card containing the roms, that’s somehow not piracy
Literally never seen this argument, not even once. Guarantee you it’s a very small minority just assuaging some vague guilt (which is BS anyway because it’s still not your ROMs).
People do it primarily because it’s convenient. Downloading and testing hundreds if not thousand of roms - not to mention replacing all the bad ones - would take potentially days of work. Or you can spend like $10-$50 and be done with it.
What I don't understand is that any Joe schmo can upload to YouTube a licensed copyrighted song from another artist and post the lyrics with it and call it karaoke, and they get no copyright strikes whatsoever,
while one time I had a Phil Collins song playing in the background while bantering with my daughter, immediately after uploading it to YouTube they flagged & removed it for copyright infringement.
Why did the karaoke Joe schmo get away with it but I can't even accidentally have a song playing in the background while I'm bantering with my daughter?
They likely DO get a copyright claim. But a claim doesn't necessarily mean that your video gets removed. YouTube gives the copyright claimer the choice for what to do with videos they claim, which can include removing them, leaving them visible but taking any profit made from ads on the video, splitting the ad revenue, or just leaving it alone.
I do absolutely agree that removing a video for having a song in the background is bullshit. Just wanted to give an explanation for the inconsistency.
Ya, YouTube follows copyright law as closely as it can or it would have been sued into oblivion. I have used a few copyright songs in videos and they usually don't get outright blocked but the song creater counts those views towards revenue and if YouTube doesn't have a song license for a country the video is blocked in that country. YouTube tells this to the uploader.
Related, H3H3 had a huge lawsuit about fair use over video clips because YouTube would handle it the same way - leave the video up but transfer all revenue to the clip holder. H3H3 ended up winning that but the point is YouTube is extremely pro copyright, erring on the side of copyright holder in all cases until convinced otherwise.
Because the music in Joe Schmo's video gets claimed by the artist's label/distributor, and they get paid for it. I experienced this first hand when I uploaded a music video of my song on my youtube channel and my distributor claimed it. I had to go and prove to them that I'm the very same person and owner of the music before they released the copyright claim on my video.
Dude fucking same. I uploaded a 5 minute clip of my buds and I at a league of legends tournament we were participating at and it got striked because someone was playing a shitty song in the background for 30 seconds while we talked over it. Some minor who's who artist. It was low quality audio too, they must have an amazing system to be able to pick it out from all the rest of the noise.
YouTube doesn't have a say in this, it's up to the copyright holder of each individual song. YouTube just detects if a song is copyrighted or not then gives the owner the option what to do. The three common ones are
Disable the Video.
Claim Monetization of it.
Do nothing.
So whoever holds the rights to Phil Collins song is the one responsible for your video being disabled. While whoever holds the rights to the song Joe Schmo decided to go with option 2 or 3.
This process has mostly been automated. So it feels like YouTube is doing it but they are just following the orders of the copyright holder.
The system is a bit overzealous in some cases and even fair use gets flagged.That's on YouTube. But to be fair, it's very hard to have an automated system detect the difference between fair use and not. YouTube should just implement a better way to dispute false copyright claims.
A lot of technologies started out as pirate technologies.
Cable TV? The first people who started shoving TV over cables into people's homes didn't ask for permission. But now that's such a normal thing that we can't imagine it having been infringement at one point.
Player piano rolls too. No permission was sought and its legality wasn't figured out until they got sued. (And the courts decided that a royalty to the composers or rights holders was in order, and the courts set the going royalties rate in cents per roll, but they also decided the composers/rights holders couldn't deny any player piano roll maker the right to make player piano rolls of their songs.)
But then things shifted and now the courts are owned by Disney.
I believe their copyright claim system is set up so that any ad revenue for a song goes to the copyright holder, and they can have the video taken down if that isn't enough. It's why YouTubers are so careful not to use too much of a copyrighted song in their videos.
piracy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.