4 ms·

I cannot imagine how viewing/scraping a public website could ever be illegal, wrong, immoral etc. I just don't see the argument for it.

ronsor 2y ago
AI hysteria has made everyone lose their minds over normal things.
- tucnak 2y ago
  I guess people just LOVE twisting themselves in knots over some "ethical scandals" or whatnot. Maybe there's a statement on American puritanism hiding somewhere here...
insane_dreamer 2y ago
It's scraping content to then serve up that content to users who can now get that content from you (via a paid subscription service, or maybe ad-sponsored) instead of visiting the content creator and paying them (i.e., via ads on their website) It's the same reason I can't just take NYT archives or the Britannica and sell an app that gives people access to their content through my app. It totally undercuts content creators, in the same way that music piracy -- as beloved as it was, and yeah, I used Napster back in the day -- took revenue away from artists, as CD sales cratered. That gave birth to all-you-can-eat streaming, which does remunerate artists but nowhere near what they got with record sales.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  One more point on this, lest some people think, "hey Kanye, or Taylor Swift, don't need any more money!" I 100% agree. But the problem with streaming is that is disproportionately rewards the biggest artists at the expense of the smaller ones. It's the small artist, barely making a living from their craft, who were most hurt by the switch from albums to streaming, not those making millions.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    As a musician, Spotify is the best thing to happen to musicians. Imagine trying to distribute your shit via burned CDs you made yourself. The entitlement of thinking "I have a garage band and Spotify isn't paying me enough" is fucking ridiculous. 99.99% of bands have never made it. The ability to easily distribute your music worldwide is crazy. If people don't like it, you're either bad at marketing, or, more likely, your music is average at best. It's a big world.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Read up on how Spotify remunerates artists.
      - bongodongobob 2y ago
        I have multiple Spotify artists. I get it and think it's a fantastic service. Anyone complaining about it probably gets a couple dozen monthly plays because they don't know how to market, gig, and tour, or more likely their music sucks.
        insane_dreamer 2y ago
        Spotify pays $400 a month for 100,000 streams[0]. And that may be split between the artist and a publisher if the artist went through one (probably not if they're small). So an artist has to be extremely popular to get any real money from streaming. The way smaller artists make money is through live gigs (nothing wrong with that). [0] https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/ https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Serve it in a better way or wall it. The Internet is supposed to be free. If you don't want unauthorized eyes to see it, you have the ability to hide it behind logins.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Free to access != free to copy and redistribute for profit
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    This will further push websites to paywalls making the internet less feee.

ronsor 2y ago

AI hysteria has made everyone lose their minds over normal things.

tucnak 2y ago
I guess people just LOVE twisting themselves in knots over some "ethical scandals" or whatnot. Maybe there's a statement on American puritanism hiding somewhere here...

insane_dreamer 2y ago

It's scraping content to then serve up that content to users who can now get that content from you (via a paid subscription service, or maybe ad-sponsored) instead of visiting the content creator and paying them (i.e., via ads on their website) It's the same reason I can't just take NYT archives or the Britannica and sell an app that gives people access to their content through my app. It totally undercuts content creators, in the same way that music piracy -- as beloved as it was, and yeah, I used Napster back in the day -- took revenue away from artists, as CD sales cratered. That gave birth to all-you-can-eat streaming, which does remunerate artists but nowhere near what they got with record sales.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
One more point on this, lest some people think, "hey Kanye, or Taylor Swift, don't need any more money!" I 100% agree. But the problem with streaming is that is disproportionately rewards the biggest artists at the expense of the smaller ones. It's the small artist, barely making a living from their craft, who were most hurt by the switch from albums to streaming, not those making millions.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  As a musician, Spotify is the best thing to happen to musicians. Imagine trying to distribute your shit via burned CDs you made yourself. The entitlement of thinking "I have a garage band and Spotify isn't paying me enough" is fucking ridiculous. 99.99% of bands have never made it. The ability to easily distribute your music worldwide is crazy. If people don't like it, you're either bad at marketing, or, more likely, your music is average at best. It's a big world.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Read up on how Spotify remunerates artists.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      I have multiple Spotify artists. I get it and think it's a fantastic service. Anyone complaining about it probably gets a couple dozen monthly plays because they don't know how to market, gig, and tour, or more likely their music sucks.
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        Spotify pays $400 a month for 100,000 streams[0]. And that may be split between the artist and a publisher if the artist went through one (probably not if they're small). So an artist has to be extremely popular to get any real money from streaming. The way smaller artists make money is through live gigs (nothing wrong with that). [0] https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/ https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/
bongodongobob 2y ago
Serve it in a better way or wall it. The Internet is supposed to be free. If you don't want unauthorized eyes to see it, you have the ability to hide it behind logins.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Free to access != free to copy and redistribute for profit
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  This will further push websites to paywalls making the internet less feee.