Replies (63)
Ideally systems get built that make it easier to simply pay & stream than to pirate. Feels like that transition between Napster and iTunes again.
I support and appreciate it. Information should flow freely. Music is information. You can't own it, thus it can't be stolen. IP is bullshit and is holding humanity back in general. Ideas need to be shared. Music is an idea
Is it pirated?
My music is uploaded by me.
The other music; yes.
Put yourself in their shoes. Would you want someone to upload your music and get paid for it?
Well, Iβve actually been in these shoes just not with music. People sold my product as their own and got paid.
I didnβt like it but I didnβt waste too much time on thinking about it. If I couldnβt be bothered to sue them, thereβs no point in stressing out. Something tells me the record labels CAN be bothered to sue and might.
> this kind of thing happening here
Its happening everywhere. Its happening on the internet. Most artists love the internet.
I'm a realist. Once information is published it no longer belongs to you. Legally it does, intellectually it does, but tangibly, everyone can now access it and there's nothing we can do about that.
Everyone is going to listen to your music for free. *some people* are going to then, afterwards, decide its worth paying for and pay you, *if you make it easy.* thats why streaming services are the model now.
Dp I support it or appreciate it? No. But its the world I live in, and I prefer it to a world where someone has the power to stop everyone from doing it.
Fuck Metallica. They ruined napster.
In this particular case, I guess the difference is that instead of Daniel Ek (Spotify) taking the money, now Jay does, assuming someone chooses to zap the music.
Music that gets released isn't just an idea. It's the product of labour. Other than the hours spent it is very expensive to pay for studio time, engineers, mixing mastering, artwork, etc, etc. Because it exists digitally and can be duplicated without loss does not mean it was without associated costs.
I aint gonna zap βborrowedβ music, unless it goes to some pot where the actual singers can redeem in the future or something.
Listen to it for free like a normal person lol.
Maybe Spotify links would be less exploitative to artists
@ππ’ππ π΄ββ οΈπΆ . They treat music fairly and respectfully after all, and artists always get a fair deal there.
Don't blame
@Jay, I made the tool for doing this. Nostr is for anyone to build anything, so I built this.
gruuv
Decentralized Music Sharing
Any other music site can easily filter out these tracks, their events have a tag specific to my app.
This is all inevitable οΏΌand apps just need to filter it out.
@Sunami @Nostria @npub1u663...46r8 and all other Nostr Music apps might want to look into this if they don't want it in there apps.
They tried to ruin filesharing in general but really just led to the advent of bittorrent.
Intellectual property is a legal fiction.
That said if I'd ever zap music that wasn't from the artist, I'm zapping the person for putting it in front of me, and not paying what I'd pay an artist for creating it. Both have their place.
Though ideally they're posting links to where the artist hosts it so that I can consume it there and at least give them their metrics even if I'm absolutely still blocking their ads.
Adding tags that indicate whether the artist is the event signer will likely be the best place to do it. Currently, these sites assume the signer is the artist, and that makes me the most prolific artist on Nostr at the moment. A title I will gladly accept.
If artists of songs I uploaded had npubs, I would want to include them in the song metadata. Clients could see that I'm not the original artist and route zaps to them.
That'd be ideal, I agree. Or even a zap split, as there is a sense in which you bringing your followers is a distribution platform. However people want to swing it.
I'm all for artists making money, but the idea of doing it by creating artificial scarcity is an abomination. And given what we've seen from a variety of artists and other producers of things such as software who BENEFIT from piracy (just ask Notch, the guy who made Minecraft), it seems not just grotesque but also an unsound business strategy.
Many people are happy to pay artists for what the music has done in their lIves, and to entice the artist to make more. Not everyone has the means, or values things the same, but even they can give value back in directing the attention of others, who may be more inclined to pay.
It's not a business model everyone has the stomach for of course but it is primarily how performing arts have been compensated throughout history.
There are other ways to monetize music as well of course, such as pairing it with otherwise monetized products, such as advertising platforms like YouTube or Spotify, or being used in ads directly. And selling physical media is always an option, though, no promises about the demand for it being anything other than a free market...
Not blaming anyone. Just shining a spotlight on what happened and inviting people to share their thoughts.
With Nostr, we actually have a chance to build the world we want to see. If we do it well, it will grow strong.
Yes, I agree. These tracks should likely be filtered from other Nostr music apps. In my app I specifically haven't enabled zaps, as I'm not looking for monetary returns. Merely a place to share and discuss music with friends.
This. If ever these artists do come to Nostr, there should be a way for them to claim their tracks. They could write a copy of the music event without the 'unlicensed' tag. (Or maybe properly licensed music should have a license attached π€)
Agreed! That doesn't invalidate my points though...
you ruined everything and deliberately, ok
It makes the ecosystem stronger πͺ
If artists uploading their own songs can be differentiated from users uploading their personal libraries, then what is currently ruined can be fixed.
If only there was a way for artists to sign their releases with a key...
Singing and playing Mattβs song is using his idea freely. Deciding where Mattβs recording may exist is taking control over his labor.
Lol if only
The thing is that you can lie in the tags, attributing your own npub as the original artist.
But the community would recognize that's not true. You put a "p" or "credit" tag in the metadata event that points to an npub, you check if the event author is the same as the credit npub. And if it's not there, it's implicitly "unlicensed."
That's my retarded way of doing it, but requires artists to identify that the credit for the song belongs to them. Imo that's how it should have been done to begin with. But it's harder to do now and leaves things broken longer while artists update their releases. The easy fix is for unlicensed releases to self-identity. And the best is for both to tag correctly. But the reality will be some level of permanently broken releases and wildly different filtering logic.
@New Music Nudge Unit and
@Hash Power Music had this issue with Nostr Music because they upload tracks from their artists but it's all signed from the labels account. Can't really be solved besides allowing them the edit the artists name etc but that's more an issue with the NIP I think.
Uploaded other peoplesβ music at scale to get personal zaps is wack and different to sharing a song because you like it and think other people might too.
Sure you can just do things⦠like being wack. It is what it is.
Personally if I like something, I want to support the work so the people making it can continue. Iβm not one for making a big song and dance about it thoughβ¦
It should be fine for the writer/artist/producer etc. to administer a wee slap should they meet irl. I think thatβs fair.
Iβd rather a P2P option where the makers get paid too, fuck Daniel Elk. Itβs part of what interests me about this part of The Internet.
Could do many "credit" tags
credit,npub1,50
credit,npub2,25
credit,npub3,25
50-25-25 zap split across three artists.
The music event already has zap splits built in π
I did wonder when I saw that, I didnβt see any musicians Iβm familiar with here.
I hope people use it as a discovery tool and support the music that resonates with them, be that going to shows, buying physical or getting them zapped.
Everyone likes a freebie but there comes a stage when the musicians either starve or get a bullshit job and quit making music publicly available.
It is what it is.
π― I have a large "pirated" music collection I've been amassing & sharing for 25+ years, but I've also bought hundreds of albums, tapes & CDs, and support live shows when I can. I've always believed that the worst pirates are also likely the best customers too.
Next I'm going to implement some social features on the site, maybe some will be successful and can be of benefit for other music sites. We'll see what happens.
I am open to suggestions to make these coexist better. Development will continue...
I LOVED pirate radio growing up and always enjoy trying to find physical copies of music I love so Iβm inclined to agree. I also technically work outside the law with my own showβ¦ whilst working at a small indie label and mixing live shows for a living.
The people who donβt really like music tend to have Spotify accounts lol.
For some music is just a tempo to work out or to avoid eating in silence. Someone who obsessively hoards and enjoys every recording an artist ever made is built differently imo.
Noice
Ideally, anyone doing this should keep the money set aside to pay the artists when they join nostr (but only then)
Very balanced take
It should be a fund they can redeem by joining nostr
Like a private gatekeeper/bank?
So basically anyone except the artist who actually made the work and paid for the recording gets to make these decisions, and the artist can choose to comply or stop releasing music.
Sounds a lot like the legacy world, just slightly worse.
Starting to see why onboarding new artists isnβt exactly easy.
We would actually have a working model if people were allowed to upload their own recordings.
It only gets complicated when other people want to decide what the artist should do, and when they should do it.
If you don't support piracy just stand on the corner with a sign saying you'll suck dick for free, don't waste my time with anti-piracy-person replies
Guess I hit the sensitive nerve πΈ
A maxim of law is "He who creates, owns and controls". Just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done.
But music cannot be shared as an idea. It can be demonstrated/performed.
If my idea has costs associated in order to be able to share it, and I don't receive any value in return then I stop sharing my idea because I can't afford it.
Does fewer musical ideas being shared also not hold humanity back? Should I be forced to labour without compensation in order to perform an idea that should flow freely?
Rhetorical but feel to if you have answers. I certainly don't.
Yer a scurvy dog
- Maybe the closest thing to represent the idea of music are musical notes, but I agree that the implementation of it could still be more diverse than other ideas that could be described amd sharded.
- It depends on the motive for making music. If it's only done to make money, I think you are right. However, if it's done to express your intrinsic creativity, itch your own scratch or establish your talents for a greater public, I doubt if you would stop even if it has costs associated to it. Many artists these days (writers/musicians/painters, etc) establish themselves through their craft and monetize it indirectly through concerts/workshops/public speaking, etc.
- A good concrete analogous example are open source software developers. Or, imagine the inventor of fire/wheel/electricity/etc to artificially restrict its access...
- Lastly, I personally think it's a good thing to support and I am willing to pay creative, productive people and great implementations of ideas...
I have to admit that I do not financially support enough of the FOSS I use.
I love the value-for-value model for music but it should remain my choice to use it for my work (or not).
If someone covers my song and puts it out v4v then that's more like my idea being used.
But which key is the real key π
Smoke and mirrors all the way down π
"If someone covers my song and puts it out v4v then that's more like my idea being used."
π―π―π―πππ
Totally agree with Matt. The choice to make a product Open Source, Value For Value, etc. should of course belong to the creator.
The musical idea itself is the lyrics, melody, chords, and possibly the arrangement. That idea can then be turned into a product through the labor of performance, recording, production, mixing, mastering, and so on.
The discussion around ideas being free is an interesting one, and definitely worth having.
I also have a lot to say about PROs and the various (copy)right organizations. In many ways, they feel outdated.
I suspect composers, writers, and others who are not necessarily seeking the spotlight themselves may have a lot of value to contribute to this discussion. Our world would definitely be a bleaker place without them.
what is the tag do you use?
Good thoughts. Will look into implementing this
All the uploads are tagged with gruuv
I have had those thoughts as well. I think it could be a great tool to get artists to truly appreciate bitcoin. I would just want there to be someway to ensure the artist receives the zaps.
Just to make it clear (because apparently, I am mistaken for supporting this) that I DON'T support this. I saw it happen and want to know what the community has to say about it.
What we really need is onchain zaps, tied to a single unique nsec identity so when UMG find the treasure trove they can really get their teeth stuck inβ¦ π
Oh trust me, when the likes of UMG get a wind of this their legal department will be very excited, especially with onchain zaps. π
Plausable deniability
