"Muso, a research firm that studies piracy, concluded that the high prices of streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music are pushing people back towards illegal downloads. Spotify raised its prices by one dollar last year to $10.99 a month, the same price as Apple Music. Instead of coughing up $132 a year, more consumers are using websites that rip audio straight out of YouTube videos, and convert them into downloadable MP3 or .wav files.

Roughly 40% of the music piracy Muso tracked was from these “YouTube-to-MP3” sites. The original YouTube-to-MP3 site died from a record label lawsuit, but other copycats do the same thing. A simple Google search yields dozens of blue links to these sites, and they’re, by far, the largest form of audio piracy on the internet."

The problem isn’t price. People just don’t want to pay for a bad experience. What Apple Music and Spotify have in common is that their software is bloated with useless shit and endlessly annoying user-hostile design. Plus Steve Jobs himself said it back in 2007: “people want to own their music.” Having it, organizing it, curating it is half the fun. Not fun is pressing play one day and finding a big chunk of your carefully constructed playlist is “no longer in your library.” Screw that.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      but yt audio quality is terrible.

      So are the bluetooth speakers and ear buds that most people use to listen to music these days.

    • FrameXX@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It’s very fine unless you decide you just must and have to convert that audio to MP3 (the audio loses quality with every lossy compression), because you are an old boomer and other formats scare you even though almost all modern device can play OPUS or at least M4A or you are one of those people who call themselves “Audiophiles” to feel more special, but wouldn’t recognize a shit if I played OPUS 192kbps on their 2000$ home audio setup instead of the 24 bit uncompressed FLAC that has over 30MB in size each. I have most of my library from YT Music which is ~128kbps OPUS and it has been transparent on all audio devices I have played it till now.

      • NotPersonal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Look, we all have bad days, but there’s no need to be so aggressive to random people online. Everyone’s hearing is different. Some people are more sensitive to certain sounds than others. I tried youtube, spotify and tidal. And youtube is the audio quality I disliked the most. Just for clarification. I’m not a boomer, I’m a millenial, I work in computer science so I enjoy testing new formats. I have tried everything from atrac (sony) to DSD, I don’t have a $2000 home audio setup but I have a couple of decent pairs of cans, with mid-range DAC and amps. And I have tested multiple audio formats at different levels of compression and bitrate to find what I like the most. To me 128kbps feels like listening to the radio over the phone. If that’s enough for you, then great, more power to you. No need to be disrespectful.

        • FrameXX@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I am sorry. I went to a little rant, but I meant it rather funny even though I realize it feels aggressive 🤣. I am just enthusiastic about this topic even though I don’t know that much.