4 ms·
> I'm happy enough to pay the small fee to have access to a huge music library across all devices. As long as it lasts. I want my music collection to be acces
by gioele 14y ago
> I'm happy enough to pay the small fee to have access to a huge music library across all devices.
As long as it lasts.
I want my music collection to be accessible also when Spotify will go out of business, sued into oblivion or acquired and shut down.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y agoWhy would they be sued? Last I heard Spotify was very much running a legal business.
- Ygg2 14y agoJust because they are running a legal business now, doesn't mean they will run a legal business in future. Either they can change, or more likely laws will change, rendering them a vulnerable target for suing. Plus, I'm sure they are breaking some ridiculous patent somewhere anyway.
- cageface 14y agoDoesn't have to be one or the other. Pay Spotify $10/month to discover new music and then go buy lossless copies of the albums you really care about. Most records I could live without but those few special ones I have backed up in S3 in FLAC.
- aes256 14y agoNotwithstanding something exceptionally rare, why the need to back up FLACs on S3? I back up my music collection locally, and I have double-redundancy of sorts (it's backed up to a RAID 5 array on a file server, so in theory it could withstand the failure of the original drive and one of the back up drives), but if worst comes to worst I could just acquire everything again. With a couple of exceptions they're just lossless copies of widely available music recordings...
- justincormack 14y agoAre you suggesting backing them up on pirate music sites?
- aes256 14y agoNot advocating copyright infringement, nor was I suggesting that in particular. That would be a viable back up strategy, though. Have a rare copy of a recording? Make it widely available, then if your copy is destroyed, the odds of you being able to acquire an identical copy again are much improved.