4 ms·

As someone who actually has audio content posted on SoundCloud, this line gives me pause for thought: > We will create a Python script which will allow us to d

As someone who actually has audio content posted on SoundCloud, this line gives me pause for thought: > We will create a Python script which will allow us to download even those songs which are not enabled for downloading. What is the possible reason for making this achievable? For his next trick, will he post how to download any app from the Apple App Store for free too? Do programmers only consider their own code sacrosanct, but anyone else's creative output free game? Note: I make most of my content on SC downloadable anyway because I don't make money from my music, but the principle is still the same - I want the right to control whether my creative output can or cannot be downloaded.

pc86 9y ago
I think the larger point is that on a technical level, once you upload creative content to someone else's server (or even your own internet accessible server), you lose all ability to control where and how that is accessed. Again I'm speaking technically, not legally of course. You haven't lost the legal right to control your work but you will never have 100% technical ability so long as it's accessible online. Especially for music, which can simply be recorded and re-uploaded.
zaarn 9y ago
The audio quality the code grabs isn't that good. 128kbit/s MP3 vs FLAC is why I buy stuff on Bandcamp instead of ripping it off Youtube (though I still have about 1.6k youtube videos from promotional music channels archived as mp3)
trisimix 9y ago
Its basically impossible to make any media both availible on the internet and not availible for illegal/unethical distribution/collection.
swiley 9y ago
>Do programmers only consider their own code sacrosanct, but anyone else's creative output free game? I don't, and I share as much as I can after losing things a couple times. It's important to keep in mind though that software is really fundamentally different than art: software is a liability and has to be maintained whereas a work of art is (usually) more or less created once. The models that support software development probably don't work well with art.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
charlesdm 9y ago
If you can listen to it, it can be downloaded into a file. If you can read it, it can be scraped. etc
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
> Note: I make most of my content on SC downloadable anyway because I don't make money from my music, but the principle is still the same - I want the right to control whether my creative output can or cannot be downloaded. So you want X and !X at the same time, enforced by the client? First rule: don't trust the client. Second rule: if you release something online, you lose control of it. As a corollary of rule 2: accept that scarcity doesn't apply online with regards to digitized content. Third rule: DRM doesn't work. Giving encrypted files along with the key to decrypt is pointless. Fourth rule: Obfuscation only buys you time. It buys you even less time against a dedicated attacker. But, it does take time to understand and wrap your head around these rules. And I know not everyone accepts them up front. Many try to think of ways around these things, using 'creative' ways (aka: logical fallacies).
squeaky-clean 9y ago
It's not like anyone who wants to download music from soundbutt will be referring to this article and writing their own script. There are dozens of GUI tools and extensions that do exactly this already. > I want the right to control whether my creative output can or cannot be downloaded. Then you can't ever upload it online to a place where it can be streamed, ever. Or if you do you have to put audio "watermarks" over the track, and make sure you always have certain sections watermarked so no one can ever play a full "pure" version of your song. (Otherwise someone will just cut together 2 recordings with different spots watermarked). This method doesn't download the high quality original file. Only the 128kbps compressed file that is used for streaming audio. No matter how much you lock down the website, browser, file format, even the OS.... A $2 pair of cables plugged into a recorder can accomplish the exact same thing and is impossible to counter.
malka 9y ago
> I want the right to control whether my creative output can or cannot be downloaded. Then, your only solution is not to release it.

pc86 9y ago

I think the larger point is that on a technical level, once you upload creative content to someone else's server (or even your own internet accessible server), you lose all ability to control where and how that is accessed. Again I'm speaking technically, not legally of course. You haven't lost the legal right to control your work but you will never have 100% technical ability so long as it's accessible online. Especially for music, which can simply be recorded and re-uploaded.

zaarn 9y ago

The audio quality the code grabs isn't that good. 128kbit/s MP3 vs FLAC is why I buy stuff on Bandcamp instead of ripping it off Youtube (though I still have about 1.6k youtube videos from promotional music channels archived as mp3)

trisimix 9y ago

Its basically impossible to make any media both availible on the internet and not availible for illegal/unethical distribution/collection.

swiley 9y ago

>Do programmers only consider their own code sacrosanct, but anyone else's creative output free game? I don't, and I share as much as I can after losing things a couple times. It's important to keep in mind though that software is really fundamentally different than art: software is a liability and has to be maintained whereas a work of art is (usually) more or less created once. The models that support software development probably don't work well with art.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

charlesdm 9y ago

If you can listen to it, it can be downloaded into a file. If you can read it, it can be scraped. etc

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

> Note: I make most of my content on SC downloadable anyway because I don't make money from my music, but the principle is still the same - I want the right to control whether my creative output can or cannot be downloaded. So you want X and !X at the same time, enforced by the client? First rule: don't trust the client. Second rule: if you release something online, you lose control of it. As a corollary of rule 2: accept that scarcity doesn't apply online with regards to digitized content. Third rule: DRM doesn't work. Giving encrypted files along with the key to decrypt is pointless. Fourth rule: Obfuscation only buys you time. It buys you even less time against a dedicated attacker. But, it does take time to understand and wrap your head around these rules. And I know not everyone accepts them up front. Many try to think of ways around these things, using 'creative' ways (aka: logical fallacies).

squeaky-clean 9y ago

It's not like anyone who wants to download music from soundbutt will be referring to this article and writing their own script. There are dozens of GUI tools and extensions that do exactly this already. > I want the right to control whether my creative output can or cannot be downloaded. Then you can't ever upload it online to a place where it can be streamed, ever. Or if you do you have to put audio "watermarks" over the track, and make sure you always have certain sections watermarked so no one can ever play a full "pure" version of your song. (Otherwise someone will just cut together 2 recordings with different spots watermarked). This method doesn't download the high quality original file. Only the 128kbps compressed file that is used for streaming audio. No matter how much you lock down the website, browser, file format, even the OS.... A $2 pair of cables plugged into a recorder can accomplish the exact same thing and is impossible to counter.

malka 9y ago

> I want the right to control whether my creative output can or cannot be downloaded. Then, your only solution is not to release it.