spotify-qt VS dmca

If you want to run Spotify on a Raspberry (or PinePhone or some other device), there’s Spot, which is great, but kinda heavy and slow. There’s Spotify-qt which is faster, requires messing with Spotify developer dashboard, and UI doesn’t fit on small screens. Spotify-qt is itself based on Spotify-tui which runs in the terminal (pretty cool IMO). And a bare client/daemon is spotifyd. So you have quite a few choices there.

Would like to add that you can also use clients such as spotify-qt and Spotify TUI to control said "device". There's also Spot and psst that are standalone (librespot not required but no Connect functionality).

spotify-qt, https://github.com/kraxarn/spotify-qt - in the repos

You could use an an unofficial client, for example: - Spot (GTK, can stream directly) - spotify-qt (QT, just a Spotify connect frontend, so you need something like spotifyd running) - spotify-tui (terminal, again just a Spotify connect frontend) - spotifyd (daemon that is controlled via Spotify connect)

IIRC, Spotify requires that you be a premium user to have API access to be able to use unofficial native clients like this one, and Discord will straight up ban your account if you try to use a third party client too much. BetterDiscord is a mod for the first-party client, so it behaves similarly enough that it's difficult for them to detect it. But it happened to a friend of mine that was using the WeeChat plugin while it was still being developed. There's plenty of other instances of similar situations with other services.

> Spotify is a big ask because google would have to port widevine (the web DRM.)

Spotify shouldn't be a problem [0][1] using librespot [2]. As for banking, I can't speak for all of Europe, but web apps are generally optimized for desktop use, apps have some convinient features, like scanning the QR code of a bill and pay it with one tap, instead of having to type in everything manually when it's on paper, or copy paste it from a PDF.

Additionally some banks require an app for 2FA for the web interface on PC too.

[0] https://github.com/kraxarn/spotify-qt

Every DMCA takedown notice in https://github.com/github/dmca is a net win for git as a decentralized version control system, especially for repositories that require signed commits. Unfortunately, some people upload only a snapshot of their repository working directory instead of... using git like it is supposed to be used I guess?

I’m with you thus far, but I’m trying to parse the notice to see why GitHub is even complying (see https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/03/2024-03-1... ) and I think Torrentfreak got it wrong. I think they’re trying to claim infringement on Plex Server, but the English in the takedown notice is barely legible (and it feels like a mixup between trademarks and copyright), to the point that I find GitHub’s compliance odd.

Text of tweet thread:

Hello everyone. We have some unfortunate news to share with you.

Today, we received a DMCA takedown from Valve on all our public GitHub repositories and all its forks made by the community.

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/01/2024-01-1...

While we were discussing the project's future internally recently, we already came to the conclusion to stop the development of the project due to the current state of the code being unusable anymore with s&box's recent major engine changes, and that we overall moved on from it.

Sadly, this means this DMCA takedown is the nail in the coffin. We cannot bring it back and we've hit Valve's attention, it seems like they definitely don't want us to use their IP (which is totally fair and legal from them).

DMCA from GitHub: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-10-mazda.md

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-10-mazda.md

https://www.thedrive.com/news/mazda-slaps-developer-with-cease-and-desist-for-diy-smart-home-integration

https://web.archive.org/web/20231014070536/https://old.reddit.com/r/homeassistant/comments/1771ywu/removal_of_mazda_connected_services_integration/

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/mazda-connected-service/354221

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/removal-of-mazda-connected-services-integration/625885/36

https://www.home-assistant.io/

https://youtu.be/l2qKEkG29gI

https://youtu.be/NfiIXooD77s

https://youtu.be/PrtbYu1OYhY

https://youtu.be/nigJMu0lUbM

https://youtu.be/qLlxOD5IHYc

> Is there anything that average folk can do against these notices when they're sent to companies like GitHub?

They can file a counter-notice, commit to accepting service of process if the other party wants to sue, and wait 10-14 days. There's a guide at https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic... and there are plenty of example counter-notices in the https://github.com/github/dmca repo.

From the posted notice[1], they answered "No" to the question "Do you claim to have any technological measures in place to control access to your copyrighted content? Please see our Complaints about Anti-Circumvention Technology if you are unsure." Is that the same thing you are referencing?

[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-1...