Aurous is a free and questionably legal way to stream music - Polidicks

[QUOTE=dedo678;48901050]I miss Grooveshark. Nothing has been able to fill the hole it left.[/QUOTE] what about grooveshark.im

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;48900528]It's missing albums from obscure music artists.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the artist can easily decide whether or not their work is on Spotify? If they're obscure then they should see your request for it.

Isn't this basically just what Google does? If it's pulling music from other (legal, licensed) sources and isn't hosting anything, I don't see how it could be illegal.

[QUOTE=cccritical;48901841]Isn't this basically just what Google does? If it's pulling music from other (legal, licensed) sources and isn't hosting anything, I don't see how it could be illegal.[/QUOTE] Grooveshark was doing that too and it got owned

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;48899174]Lol they don't though, before she condemned Spotify for not giving her enough money that they were at the time barely making Taylor Swift ran off with around ~7 million in revenue for doing [B][I][U]nothing[/U][/I] but granting permission to use her content. [/B] People need to fucking realize that; 1. A single listen isn't worth shit, if a video view on YouTube is valued around ~2 cents then then obviously audio only advertisements that aren't as frequent isn't going to big bucks per individual user. Streaming is making money that these people WOULD NOT have otherwise, people by and large DON'T but their music. 2. Musicians aren't fucking starving artists, it's by far one of the most top heavy professional Fields. They're not marginalized minorities ffs[/QUOTE] Regardless of how they're doing monetarily they're still getting fucked. Or is it ok to screw over people if they're already wealthy?

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;48899174]2. Musicians aren't fucking starving artists, it's by far one of the most top heavy professional Fields. They're not marginalized minorities ffs[/QUOTE] There are plenty more ~starving artists~ than there are millionaire pop stars.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48901898]Grooveshark was doing that too and it got owned[/QUOTE] Yeah but for the same reason many legal things get owned, because there's literally no way you can win if you don't have a big enough income and they keep throwing lawsuits at you.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;48899174]2. Musicians aren't fucking starving artists, it's by far one of the most top heavy professional Fields. They're not marginalized minorities ffs[/QUOTE] Believe it or not but making music doesn't instantly make you a success. You have to get really lucky. There are plenty of obscure musicians who don't make shit from Spotify because their low-numbered audience doesn't generate anything for them, and at the same time their current audience doesn't have to worry about paying for albums or EP's because they can just listen to the music for free on Spotify. The way Spotify works is designed to reward really popular musicians and pretty much no one else. Of course this comes down to a moral standpoint about supporting the musician at that point.

[QUOTE=Keychain;48901444]Pretty sure the artist can easily decide whether or not their work is on Spotify? If they're obscure then they should see your request for it.[/QUOTE] nah in order to put your work on spotify you have to pay them a premium unless you're signed to a major record label. [editline]14th October 2015[/editline] and then i believe it's a yearly fee after that

It's a really badly made program. Lots of crashes, the music is disorganized as fuck and the search sucks.

Do you guys think its a bad idea to add some pull requests to Aurous' github? I've already started working on organizational features and when i finished them i was thinking about putting it up there but I wouldn't want to get in legal trouble.

[QUOTE=QuinnithXD;48902232]Do you guys think its a bad idea to add some pull requests to Aurous' github? I've already started working on organizational features and when i finished them i was thinking about putting it up there but I wouldn't want to get in legal trouble.[/QUOTE] Why should you be responsible? You're just some guy, you're not on a payroll.

[QUOTE=Keychain;48901444]Pretty sure the artist can easily decide whether or not their work is on Spotify? If they're obscure then they should see your request for it.[/QUOTE] It's a bit difficult with foreign artists, you have to jump through hoops in order to buy currency for their domestic music services.

[QUOTE=leontodd;48902197]It's a really badly made program. Lots of crashes, the music is disorganized as fuck and the search sucks.[/QUOTE] Also it's 130mb.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;48899223]Fuck all ads. I'd rather buy music than have to [B][I][U]listen to corporate propaganda.[/U][/I][/B] And fuck Spotify Premium too.[/QUOTE] A bit extreme eh? Premium was worth it for me since I could download all my music for offline use for when I go back to me dad's during the week (Satellite Internet sucks for music streaming). Also everything syncs over to my phone without having to do jack shit, it also syncs local files added to playlists as well.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;48905298]A bit extreme eh? Premium was worth it for me since I could download all my music for offline use for when I go back to me dad's during the week (Satellite Internet sucks for music streaming). Also everything syncs over to my phone without having to do jack shit, it also syncs local files added to playlists as well.[/QUOTE] I'm right there with ya. Spotify Premium was the best musical investment I made tbh

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;48899223] And fuck Spotify Premium too.[/QUOTE] [B][U][I]what[/I][/U][/B] Spotify Premium is genuinely the best $10/mo I spend.

Spotify premium is a really good deal if you're always listening to music.

[QUOTE=Keychain;48901991]Believe it or not but making music doesn't instantly make you a success. You have to get really lucky. There are plenty of obscure musicians who don't make shit from Spotify because their low-numbered audience doesn't generate anything for them, and at the same time their current audience doesn't have to worry about paying for albums or EP's because they can just listen to the music for free on Spotify. The way Spotify works is designed to reward really popular musicians and pretty much no one else. Of course this comes down to a moral standpoint about supporting the musician at that point.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is it bad that only top musicians are rewarded? It seems fairly normal and obvious. Is it bad that fans can listen to their albums for free on Spotify? Because these artists chose to put them there, they can also remove them if they feel it's unfair or hurts them. The point is, as an unknown artist you will not be making money from your music directly no matter what. Main incomes for these people come from merch and performing or licensing music for media use. Direct music sales will rarely be profiting enough and that's normal in music industry. It's not Spotify's or users' fault. If you're not on top, you will be making less money, I think most musicians knew that when they entered the field. That's kinda how it is in most art fields. Hell, writers are failing horribly right now but many of them write due to passion, not profits. The fact that most artists get little to no money from streaming and similar is the norm and there is no way to solve it. These listens are worth nothing so there's no way anyone can pay the artists a lot. Having your music on spotify is a way to get more fans and discovers, not direct money.

I literally never said I had a problem with anything in relation to Spotify. I was just explaining how it worked and why I believed the person who I was replying to was wrong.

[QUOTE=Keychain;48906529]I literally never said I had a problem with anything in relation to Spotify. I was just explaining how it worked and why I believed the person who I was replying to was wrong.[/QUOTE]He's not exactly wrong. If you make it past the bottom, you will be doing really well. It's one of these fields with no middle ground and if you're at the bottom it's normal to have an actual job and music being a hobby. Just like with writing.

My point is that there are many and plenty of cases where musicians struggle to stand out, just like any profession of art. Spotify wouldn't necessarily help you in that case due to how it works. That's pretty much all I was saying. The person I was replying to seemed to only be acknowledging obviously famous musicians like Taylor Swift for some reason, some musicians out there [I]are[/I] "starving artists."

[QUOTE=Keychain;48906558] Spotify wouldn't necessarily help you in that case due to how it works[/QUOTE] Can you elaborate on this? I've found a lot of small artists through spotify, more than I'd ever find through normal means (probably none since I don't actively look for them but spotify does suggestions well)

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48906628]Can you elaborate on this? I've found a lot of small artists through spotify, more than I'd ever find through normal means (probably none since I don't actively look for them but spotify does suggestions well)[/QUOTE] I've personally never really used Spotify to find obscure artists, let-alone new ones at all, only to listen to ones I know of.

The thing is that piracy has eliminated incentive to pay for music anymore. I could go out and buy a track with the full knowledge that very little of it is going to get to the artist, or I could listen to stuff off of Soundcloud and other places legally. Either way, I'm not paying anything to listen to major artists because I don't have to go very far to hear it otherwise, and the weird enforcement of dead ideals in a time where I can just play whatever through YouTube is futile. The times I have proudly paid is through services like Bandcamp where it is certain that a sizeable portion will get to the artists, but even then you have to ask yourself how much that money matters anymore. The people that are making bank are probably doing it because of the power of copyright and servicing that music for things like commercials and movies on top of revenue from going on tour. The people on the bottom with a make-shift stand in the middle of the internet playing ditties on his guitar is making very, very little because he's not taking part in any of that stuff that the recording industry capitalizes on. Spotify isn't the antithesis of either of these things and I don't think that a lot of these innovators should be looked at as evil, but either necessary or inevitable. This program just organizes what you are already able to do, and what you probably do anyway because paying for music is nonsensical, inconvenient, and unethical save for when it isn't. But at that point it doesn't matter, because he's not a part of the elite and therefore not going to make it very big. What these companies need to do is incentivize paying for the artist again. They need to market it as honest support and actually turn it into honest support. They need to advertise that they're willing to pay their artists much more honestly than they are now and [I]serve the customer[/I]. But they won't, and so we run into these issues.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;48905298]A bit extreme eh?[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/5i7caJx.png[/img] The purpose of advertising is to influence you to buy their shit. The only form of advertising I will ever support is a simple sign over an establishment describing what kind of services/products they have. In this day and age advertising has become an industry in itself, invading our lives in every concievable way. You can't go a day without seeing it, unless you live out in the sticks. It's gone as far as to enforce social norms and trends, and all just for that extra $$$. And I know it will never go away unless the capitalist system is dismantled, which will also never happen. That's why I take it upon myself to block internet ads and not pay attention to physical ads, and to never support advertising-based platforms. Call me extreme, I don't give a fuck. But I have my reasons, and I hope more people will eventually start looking at the advertising industry the way I do.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48906713]The thing is that piracy has eliminated incentive to pay for music anymore. I could go out and buy a track with the full knowledge that very little of it is going to get to the artist, or I could listen to stuff off of Soundcloud and other places legally.[/QUOTE] The issue with music piracy that I know of from my very limited personal experience, is that it's a very simple multi-point issue: 1) Music piracy is really, really easy. And often less aggressively defended next to Hollywood. 2) There is often a major disconnect between price ($10-30 an album, $1 a song), non-ease of legal purchase (be it physical, proprietary software ala iTunes, etc), and the average consumer. 3) Even when purchase is considered, it is often known that little of that money actually winds up in the hands of the band itself. Which helps champion the "eh fuck it, I'll pirate it" concept. I had a friend who went out of his way to thank, apologize for pirating, and send money to a band whose work he pirated, via letter. Instead of malice or legal action, the band sent him back thanks, signatures, and merchandise. It would be neat to see a music-oriented clone of Pateron or Good ol' Games. A centralized non-DRM system where you can support an artist on a one-off or reoccurring system, with bonuses for pledging such as early access to new songs, albums, news, etc. There's quite a few bands I would happily pledge $5 a month to, or the like. I just don't have the actual money to gamble on every new album release when it can be found illegally online in about thirty seconds.

[QUOTE=CoreWaffle;48899049]Every 30min is fine.[/QUOTE] If I'm going to have ads playing that often I might as well just listen to FM radio. Which I do.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;48899223]Fuck all ads. I'd rather buy music than have to listen to corporate propaganda. And fuck Spotify Premium too.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with Spotify Premium?

I've found that the older I've got, the less and less I've been using services like this and other legally questionable things, and now I've got a reasonably good income I don't see the point in pirating things like music. Music is cheap enough when using premium streaming services to not really notice a dent in your bank balance each month. I can slightly understand younger people using services like this as quite often they will not have any income other than pocket change from relatives, as something like £9.99 is quite a lot to those sort of people. To me, the £9.99 I pay monthly for Play Music All Access is so worth it. The ease of adding new music to your library, the convenience of having your music everywhere on anything and so much more. All this makes the £9.99 a month worth it and overshadows things like this, even though free things are always nice. There's the whole moral thing about it all but I'm not going to mention that since I'm sure we'd all be here all day if we did. Aurous is cool in terms of design, it's early days so a lot of it is broken/incomplete. As a local music player it's pretty cool. TL;DR Got a reasonable income? Don't be cheap, buy stuff* Not got a reasonable income or no income at all? I guess it's okay to use things like this. *If you're using things like Adobe Photoshop just for personal use and stuff, that's probably fine since that stuff is really expensive.