Not exactly what you’ve asked for but you can download something like lidarr and plug it into your spotify recommendations and let it go. you’ll wind up with a huge library of everything you like to listen to.
Thanks, this sounds like a great way to start building a library and might actually be more effective than downloading massive torrents, especially as it claims to handle metadata and tagging effectively. Definitely will give it a try!
Lidarr is definitely worth a try (and also worth figuring out docker containers for).
Lidarr can be very effective at building a library, but be prepared for it to grab a bunch of stuff you maybe didn’t know you wanted and sometimes struggle to get that one specific album you need to go complete a set. It takes quite a bit of fiddling to get it going on it’s own. I’ve never really let it have free reign. I make it add torrents paused so that I can approve them individually and I don’t let it touch the part of my collection that I consider final and good. For example, I’d never want it to over write the stuff I ripped from my personal collection of physical media. So far as I can tell Lidarr is still also not the right tool if you have or want a bunch of live recordings or bootlegs.
I still buy a bunch of music, but now it’s almost all purchased as directly from the artists as I can reasonably manage; like live show merch tables, band websites, Bandcamp, etc. It wouldn’t be odd for me to grab a rip from Lidarr at the same time I buy a copy in my preferred physical format from the artist. Don’t forget to add that new stuff’s metadata to musicbrainz.org if it doesn’t already exist. Past me has definitely saved present me some hassle by doing this when I wanted to reorganize my library.
Not necessarily - depends on the way of obtaining the file. Downloading a copyrighted video is not illegal (it’s fair use), sharing it with others is illegal. If they downloaded it directly without sharing, that’s perfectly legal.
It’s completely down to your opinion. Legally I would guess that you’re not allowed to do it, but nowadays we live in a hellscape where we own nothing so I wouldn’t base your moral compass off of the rules that corporations set. Personally if I’ve already bought it somewhere it is mine. They’re lucky I even purchased one copy, they’re not getting anything else from me.
A Raspberry Pi will not be good enough for streaming and the wireless adapter on it is pretty terrible. I tried using a Raspberry Pi and it was literally unusable for me so I bought a cheap Optiplex. I’ve been using a 3060 and it’s been great so far.
A PI will not be powerful enough to run Plex. For one person with direct play maybe but I’d suggest a lenovo tiny or something like that. Old desktop would be fine too.
If you want to transcode 4k or have a lot of users, a desktop+video card is recommended
Would commercializing the trained AI count as a commercial public performance though? The legal problems with AI don’t come with the training, but when you start selling it.
I’m actually pretty pro-AI (and in particular, pro-FOSS AI), so I’m pretty unhappy about this myself ;p
If nothing else, this kind of shit will mean that only the existing “Intellectual Property” holders will have access to using AI. It would entrench things even more >.<
Probably stating the obvious but „are in no threat of being deleted“ is an absolute joke.
A company holding the IP can just make it unavailable tormorrow. A big chunk of us is here because reddit somehow is allowed to delete our posts because the law is idiotic. At least european people are allowed to get their data but the cooperative works of thousands of people is threatened due to those laws.
As concrete examples, try to get a copy of Disney’s 1946 movie, “Song of the South.” It’s been removed from circulation because of its whitewashed presentation of “happy slaves.” Similarly, 6 of Dr. Seuss’ books, including “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” were withdrawn because of racial imagery (the mentioned book had a “Chinaman” drawn with a WWII stereotype style - rice hat, sloping eyes, buck teeth).
What exactly are you trying to convey? That these „works“ made by ordinary people who have only a basic understanding of copyright law should be deleted if someone feels like it? That the law is more important than justice?
Also, do you really think you‘re cool by implying things phrased as a question? Won‘t you just talk like a normal person and state your opinion instead of fake-calling-out others?
Posts you make on a forum are not “works” that are copyrightable. Deleting a post is not an injustice.
Sentences phrased with a question mark means it’s asking a question. When someone asks a question, the normal response is to then provide an answer to that question.
But you’re just being an asshole. You know exactly what I’m saying, and you know you’re saying ridiculous things so your only response is not answering either of the two questions and and then try to twist it.
piracy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.