Oggify: Download Songs Directly from Spotify
github.com
github.com
Edit: wait, 2019? What gives? How is this not taken down?
You can't even take a screenshot of a Netflix show, thanks to DRM; but you can download Spotify tracks?
There's also a lot of tools to rip movies from Amazon Prime or YouTube to MP3 sites. It will never be possible to take down all of them, especially if they are not located in the US.
Works fine on linux even in 1080p.
How close to the liquid crystal cell do we have to be to get unencrypted pixel data?
Yes there is encryption (HDCP), but it was broken almost immediately. Many choices to buy a cheap decrypter on Ali Baba…
Yes. If your device and cables don't support HDCP [0] you won't be able to play netflix, prime, hulu, etc on it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/netflix-1080p...
With regards to Netflix I run Windows under Proxmox with a Netflix PWA, and I surely can make a screenshot of my NoVNC connection. Though I am pretty sure Netflix isn't 4k / Widevine L1.
EDIT: Apparently fixed for most tracks: https://www.mattmontag.com/music/an-update-on-umg-watermarks
As for where to actually rip from, I've never actually had to backup a song that only existed on spotify.
The windows snipping tool (which got renamed to "Snip & Sketch" at some point) takes screenshots just fine even when Netflix is running in full-screen mode.
Feels like the gave up to overcome muscle memory. At least i continued using the og snipping tool under windows 10 because in german the new tool was named "Ausschneiden und Skizzieren" and that didn't map to me searching for "sni" and pressing enter.
Only Microsoft Edge and natives apps are providing the highest definition available. You can see the stats by pressing CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-D while Netflix is active.
There are some leaks indicating that Spotify is working on a higher quality plan, but it hasn't happened yet.
It's the same as re-encoding a photo to JPEG repeatedly. Every time you save (esp if the quality settings are a little bit different each time, or if a different encoder is used) you get a few more artifacts.
At high enough quality settings though, you can do this many times before the result is noticeable. So I bet the quality from re-encoding a Spotify song once is inaudible to most people, just like you can brighten a JPEG and save it without suddenly seeing lots of rectangles everywhere.
A bad transcode means that during the transcode process, the file has either been converted to a lossy format more than once, or the file has been converted from lossy to lossless. Bad transcodes are prohibited on What.CD.[0]
[0]https://opentrackers.org/whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-t...
https://github.com/tehforsch/striputary
which also records the music (meaning you need to wait for the entire length of the playlist for it to finish) and cuts it into songs. It doesn't require you to provide any credentials (and it should in principle work with other streaming services as well, but I haven't tried). It is probably not the smoothest user experience, given that nobody except me has ever used it, but I've successfully recorded thousands of albums with it so far.
I actually would like to know how to modify librespot to do so, since I am not a developer or know any Rust at all. Thus this project seems useful to me.
Yes please. :)
@dang if you're reading this, please delete this listing, Thanks.
https://github.com/librespot-org/librespot/blob/650d41b02069...
.set_system_information_string(format!("librespot_{}_{}", version::SHA_SHORT, version::BUILD_ID));
Then it would be more of an exercise of finding clients behaving in an odd way that's not mapping to an official client. That's way harder to detect though.
Trying to pretend to be an official client was a game I never wanted to play. There's so many tiny differences in the way I've implemented the protocol it would be trivial for Spotify to notice this if they wanted to. It then becomes an whack a mole game between them and us.
Spotify is fully aware of librespot and has tolerated it so far. If they change their minds are try to block it it would be the end of the road for librespot. This is why, despite repeated requests from users, librespot has never supported free accounts nor downloading files in order to avoid pissing Spotify off. I always knew it would be trivial for anyone to implement this using the librespot source code, but it makes me a bit sad someone actually did it.
(That being said, I personally don't contribute or use librespot anymore, so really I don't care)
Currently dealing with this with a project of mine, it's hard to see people take and "abuse it", but there's nothing you can do really - licenses don't stop anyone.
It's not useful for acquiring files for your personal collection.
I suspect that secretly there are some people at Spotify who are sympathetic to open source and/or use Linux, and have convinced the business people and bean counters that not being openly hostile to free software is good business.
I have mixed feeling about Spotify in general, but it's still not as "closed" of a platform as it could be, and I'm at least a little bit happy about that.
These streaming services are even worse than I thought they'd be.
No way I'm ever giving up my local lossless audio collection.
Radio tracks that might start off with just vocals might have a "extended club mix" which has a clean 16/32/48 bars of instrumentals before the vocal kicks in. The same for the outro.
Can you elaborate "equally useful"? The only problem I could see is that you can't play them anywhere but in the app. So what? If you were to copy them around (and most likely share with other people for free) you are violating their ToS (and other legal aspects) anyway.
> No way I'm ever giving up my local lossless audio collection.
Good news: You don't have to. Streaming services are called "streaming" services for a reason. You are apparently not the target audience and that's completely fine.
Stream or Download albums/movies from your home server to your phone from anywhere.
Years ago, I used to have a MPD + Icecast setup that streamed audio to my phone over OpenVPN, and it worked flawlessly.
A non-issue. I don't take music with me, or listen to music on the go. I'm not glued to a phone's screen either.
I'm tired of people who pretend they don't understand the advantages of a solution. Spotify has revolutionized the way I listen to music and discover new stuff. And I used to have a decent lossless collection I listened to on a FLAC supporting Cowon player. But it's so much better now.
Since I'm on Spotify, the amount of new music I'm discovering is almost overwhelming. It's hard to keep up with my check playlist, I keep finding interesting new artists through song radio. It's also excellent for finding music in languages I do not speak or can even read. Trying to Google in Cyrillic was a pita.
Discovered this on a recent flight. Airline didn't offer in-flight wifi. Tried to listed to an album which I'd downloaded but taken out of my regular rotation, and it just wasn't there.
People should feel entitled to do whatever they can get away with. Why, you ask? Well read on..
The record labels are extremely greedy, and Spotify et. al. are merely a thin proxy wrapper in front of them. Oh yeah, and Spotify barely pays the artists anything at all. So if you "pay" for Spotify, the degree to which you're providing support to the musicians you love so much is questionable. At least with Deezer, they allocate more of the revenue to actually go back to the artists.
Back to the point, Spotify and Deezer aren't looking out for me or you. Downloading is an appealing alternative to hoping songs don't disappear when licenses change for no discernable reason.
Life is short, I advocate for individuals to do what they want when it doesn't measurably harm anyone else. Going into the grave knowing I committed few or no music license violations is such a low value goal, how do people not realize this?
Nowadays there isn't a shortage of music, at all. Especially not due to folks downloading songs, in fact this makes the artists even more popular. They should be grateful for getting popular enough to warrant any form of piracy. Lots of music creators would love to have this "problem".
I have enormous respect for professional Craftsman musicians, but I don't know if they make a real dent in the numbers when compared to the trendy Biebs and Gagas.
One of the biggest problems facing new artists is local live music is dying. I'm talking about music at bars and clubs. It's not completely dead, but it's not what it once was. Now people are happy, or maybe even happier, to have a DJ. Unfortunately the best way to improve your musical skills is to play with other musicians in a live setting - and there's less opportunity for that. There's simply fewer musicians able to even get started.
You've gotten started, you're playing with a group of people, been playing some gigs - now what? You want to record! Get your music out there! I'm not going to go into all the details of recording but let me just say it's neither easy, nor cheap. It's gotten even more expensive these days because while the quality of the music itself may be suffering, the quality of the production is skyrocketing. This is similar to the gripe in movies where people complain the special effects are awesome but the actual story kinda sucks. But people don't want movies having crumby special effects - they want both: great special effects and a great story line. So it is with music. People want great production and great music. Well, you're going to pay to get that great production!
Maybe that's a bit of the modern music biz you don't know much about. The producers get paid up front. So do the distributors. Who pays for it? The musicians. The musicians now have their recording in hand, they've distributed their music to Amazon Music, Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify, Pandora, and a host of other lesser-known platforms. What happens? They get pirated. Most of the time they don't even break even. For most musicians, recording and distributing your music is a net financial loss. If you're lucky it may increase traffic to your live gigs.
Honestly, when you throw in the cost of gear and the years spent practicing and playing to get good enough to be presentable to the public - it's no wonder fewer and fewer people are going into music. That's our loss.
Does illegally downloading songs in and of itself cause this collapse? Probably not. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's the last straw breaking the camel's back.
Do they work? Yes.
Do you want to do this? Probably not.
Why not? Spotify does not have lossless / Hi-Fi audio yet and what you're getting is a lossy transcode. You would be better doing something like this with Deezer or Tidal (insert other competitors here) that offer a lossless format.
Whilst I've not done this, I would probably advise that if you are doing this that you strip the resulting file of all meta-data (everything!) and then use MusicBrainz Picard to add clean metadata back.
Also, I listen with bluetooth headphones, and bluetooth has its own lossy compression on top of the original anyway.
The effects of lossy compression do stack, so you're making a bad problem worse.
I played a lot of cheap tapes back in the day. That's far worse quality than any MP3, especially if you're young and buy cheap, normal C120 tapes, and play them on a cheap device over and over.
When MP3 players were a new thing, I had one with all of 64MB flash on which I played 64 kbps music with dirt cheap earbuds. That wasn't perfect, but I still found it useful.
Today Spotify offers 320kbps, which is far superior to a lot of stuff I listened to, and my hearing certainly didn't get any better over the decades. I don't think I notice much difference above 128 kbps these days anyway.
Yeah, certainly I'll go for quality if I can have it, but less than perfect is better than nothing and I'm very far from being a crazy audiophile. Modern tech is far beyond the point where I stop caring about further improvements.
I forgot to add the sarcasm indicator. Sorry.
Might have to go back to downloading, at least playback will be more reliable.
Maybe they don't care losing one customer for making sure their music stays private.
(I don't like that it is this way, but you cannot argue from an economic perspective without considering the other economic pressures on the company).
Why should the music industry care? Their utter majority of non-live gig income is the streaming services [1], and cutting off the biggest player would be a completely dumb move. Piracy of music is all but gone anyway since Spotify, Apple Music and others made music extremely affordable for large parts of the Western populations - one might argue that Spotify and the few pirates that remain are both needed as funnels towards live gigs. One can say, the music industry, the fans and pirates are in sort of an equilibrium.
In contrast, the movie industry is in a different bind... many people who watch a pirated movie won't go to a cinema (the closest equivalent of a "live gig"), so every case of movie piracy is a direct hit towards their profits - and the movie industry largely can't make these losses up by selling merch instead, and unlike the music industry which has a lot of dedicated whale fans going to all gigs on a band's tour the movie industry can't even have that unless the movie is really good (Avatar) or culturally significant (Avengers Endgame).
[1] https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/with-15bn-revenue-202...
I've looked for something like this on-and-off the last few years, and most viable options seem to use a Spotify reference to find the right metadata to download off another service, like Deezer.
If you're willing to indulge in piracy you might as well get something better out of it.
But I know where you're coming from. It sucks that Spotify is trying to turn this into a walled garden. Hence downloading the episodes, and listening to it in a better client
edit: It's due to it being a really old version of oggify. Try this one:
https://github.com/kescherCode/oggify
It supports episodes:
https://github.com/kescherCode/oggify/blob/master/src/main.r...
You can even download whole playlists with it.
Also, could this be the same pisto of RubberWorm fame?
I've listened, liked and disliked so many songs in so many services like pandora, rdio, grooveshark, last.fm, spotify, tidal. But all that information about me is locked and I cannot use it.
If these companies offered exporting of this data in some standard JSON format, we could develop open source apps that analyzed the history and provided recommendations.
How is YouTube better?
This is currently the best lossy codec available.
They are, separately from obtaining the material. Look up "performing rights" (which is specifically for songs; it's analogous for recordings, can't remember the exact name now).
> Also, using .mp3 as DJ is unwritten crime.
I would like to meet the person who can hear problems with well-encoded 320kbps mp3 when played in a crowded and noisy club.
One DJ, Errorhead IIRC, recorded a track from a taxis stereo in colombia, crowd goes bonkers every time he plays it. I once had a DJ spinnin vinyl bore me to death, made me sad to think about how much he spent for those records. I much rather have bangin tunes in mp3 than that. Physically there might be a difference, mp3 filtering out stuff you "can't hear". Should affect the deep bass you can only hear and feel on a clubs PA.
I discovered awesome music in the worst quality you could imagine, midi files via a cheap soundcard. Even with plastic guitars, Led Zeppelin still sounds awesome.
This is more a problem of Porsche, not having Spotify integrated into their PCM. It is coming on future models though. But we with a Taycan 2020-2022 model, will not get this.
So having a pile of ogg files is currently a great option.
It’s hard to tell if it’s just HN imaginary “horrible sounding” or if the mic is on for some reason which makes it actually sound that bad.
- In times with no internet, or traveling to places with bad connection. (offline features are very limited)
- have your music forever and not just as long the company offers it (see Neil Young)
- play your music with a better player (I think spotify works awful). Fine control fade in, fade out etc.
- privacy, I do not like the world to know at what times I listen to what music and how long
- Online services are unreliable: They can go offline at any minute, go out of business, ban your for any reason (including from automated ban systems tagging you for "suspicious activity" if you login from different counties, use vpns, etc).
- Costs money forever (or need to listen to ads).
- Their catalog of music can change: Songs can be deleted at any time.
- Better performance: searching local storage is faster, skipping around is faster, better battery life by not needing to power up the 4G radio/wifi.
Because all listeners are not the same. I for one, have two high quality listening systems (one is in the form of high end sound card, and other in the form as a proper Hi-Fi system), and am a former symphony orchestra player.
I personally appreciate the added resolution of lossless files and love to listen my favorite albums in lossless formats. When one gives the time and ear deserved by an album, the perception is very different, and the added resolution on the highs add a lot of immersion to the album in question.
I have a spotify membership, and it's convenient, yes. But it's not same as "listening to music" for me. Not close.
Also, opening your Spotify playlist and seeing some of your favorite songs missing due to license expiration is not nice. Been there, seen that.
Same for movies, but I'm not that of a movie nerd.