4 ms·
Sounds like piracy with extra steps and a worse end result.
by brokenmachine 1y ago
Sounds like piracy with extra steps and a worse end result.
- rmunn 1y agoCertainly torrenting the same tracks you'd paid for through whatever no-downloads-allowed store, if you can find those tracks, would be fewer steps, and whoever put those up would likely have tagged them already. But if you have obscure tastes in music and nobody is offering those tracks in a torrent, Audacity can rescue you from vendor lock-in. The legality of torrenting music tracks you've already paid for elsewhere, which would be breaking the letter of copyright law but not (IMHO) its spirit, I will leave to others to debate.
- thw_9a83c 1y agoBased on the description, it seems like fair use. It's like transferring music from your own vinyl record to a tape. It's not up to other people to judge why someone prefers to listen to music from a reel-to-reel tape instead of a vinyl record. The same is true for streaming versus listening from WAV files.
- xp84 1y agoI think if you transcoded all the music you want from Apple Music so that you could just listen with an MP3 player or PC of your choosing instead of their software, if you continued paying the subscription fee indefinitely - would be pretty defensible, ethically upstanding, and let's be real, there is a 0.000000000% chance you'd ever get sued for doing that on your own. The hazards of course are that if someone were to do so and stop paying the subscription fee, they're in dubious moral territory, and if someone built a tool to "help" you do it automatically that person is going to be sued.