PDA

View Full Version : Feature request: downloading songs from SlimServer



sp0bjogu
2006-07-09, 11:08
The option to download a song in the detail view is neat, but here's a few enhacement suggestions:

1. Download current playlist.
The server could zip the songs in the playlist to a single temporary archive available for the web client to download.

2. Download current playlist with conversion.
Usefull for those with portable audio players; let the server convert the songs in the playlist to the format and quality chosen, zip the result to a temporary archive available for the web client to download.

Any more suggestions?

/sp0

funkstar
2006-07-09, 11:59
good ideas, something i had thought of in the past, but never bothered sharing :)

Patches are welcome :P

sageryd
2006-07-09, 14:05
Seems like it could be a useful feature, would be neat to have a choice of bitrate aswell.

Keep up the good work!

j

bephillips
2006-07-09, 15:39
This is exactly what I want. Some easy way to convert a SS playlist of flac files to a folder of MP3s to put on my iPod. Now that I've gotten rid of CDs in my life, this is what I need for a portable solution. I don't have the skills to implement this, but it seems like it would almost be a trivial addition for someone who knows what they're doing. So all I can add is my plea for someone to do this. Is there an enhancement request in Bugzilla I can vote for?

MrSinatra
2006-07-09, 16:33
i would actually like internet users to have the ability to DL whole albums with a single click, instead of having to grab each song individually.

is that similar to what you guys are suggesting?

sageryd
2006-07-12, 13:38
If the server had a cd burner, one could make use of a feature that would automatically burn an audio cd from a selected album.

Not a simple thing to implement I would suppose, but would be a quite useful feature imho. Just a click from the web interface, and you have a cd for use in your car or wherever.

About the download thing, how about:

- A global setting for mp3 bitrate (and perhaps other encoding options aswell, and maybe choices of file format?)
- A link beside each song in the web interface for download
- A link beside each album for download of a zipped package of the entire album

I recon I would use such a feature all the time, for making files for portable devices.

j

MrSinatra
2006-07-12, 13:44
there is a link besides each song, if u drill down deep enough.

there is also a bitrate limiter for streaming. i don't think one would really want that for downloads.

as to burning a cd, what if you could from album view, click a button that would put the songs into the built-in XP burning feature?

of course, it may be problematic if you want a standard audio cd, as opposed to a cd of mp3s.

still, i wonder if there's a free app out there that SS could "load up" with stuff to do... ie make a mp3 or regular audio cd, out of albums or playlists, or whatever.

kdf
2006-07-12, 14:06
Quoting MrSinatra <MrSinatra.2auo0z1152737101 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:


> as to burning a cd, what if you could from album view, click a button
> that would put the songs into the built-in XP burning feature?

Lets not forget that the cornerstone of slimserver design is that it
is cross-platform. As such, other OS's must always be considered: OSX
10.3, 10.4 Mac/Intel, plus <insert top ten linux distros here>, and
<insert fairly obscure (but still very vocal userbase) and possibly
older linux variants here>

easy bulk downloading has that masty P2P connotation. Being able to
support grabbing of albums and playlists might only be possible by
preventing slimserver from ever being accessible from outside the home
network. A search on google can reveal just how many users do have it
open, whether intentional or not.

-kdf

MrSinatra
2006-07-12, 14:36
i guess i should clarify that i didn't necessarily mean it should be part of SS proper... but an easily installed plugin.

as a feature, i'm sure users of multiple platforms would appreciate it.

as to bulk downloading... i'm not sure i catch your point?

SS is very def not p2p, AND it does already have a per song DL feature. i mean, in for a penny, in for a pound.

i don't see why the feature would lead to an "internal only" result. the user, not SS, is responsible for how the info is used. since a security feature exists, i think its a legit point and request.

kdf
2006-07-12, 14:56
Quoting MrSinatra <MrSinatra.2auqkn1152740401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:


> i think its a legit point and request.

no one said it wasn't. It was discussion, I thought.
here we are, one sided again. my participation in this one is now ended.

Thanks for the lively give and take.
-k

MrSinatra
2006-07-12, 15:05
be more sensitive and defensive kdf, PLEASE, b/c you aren't enough now.

jeez, i was merely positively affirming his POV which you were being cautious against. i didn't say or imply you said it wasn't valid, i was just vigorously backing his request INDEPENDENT of, but in response to, your thoughts on that matter.

i did say i didn't catch your point, which implies i might not understand your intent. and you take that last bit out of context as well, as i was saying since there's a security feature, i think that vaildates his wishes, against any reason against them. thats simply MY OPINION, and nothing more. the comment you object to is NOT objectionable in context.

relax.

kdf
2006-07-12, 15:13
Quoting MrSinatra <MrSinatra.2auryn1152742201 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> be more sensitive and defensive kdf, PLEASE, b/c you aren't enough now.

no, I'm just not going there. I realised that I shouldn't have
bothered posting in the first place. that is all.

as for my point. a single download link...I don't agree with either.
Perhaps it fits under the radar for now, but filesharing is
filesharing. sooner or later, some legal idiot decides to make an
issue of it. I simply point it out as a potential roadblock to Slim
devices supporting such a feature. Third party plugin, might just
avoid that whole issue. Best plan, I'd say.
-k

MrSinatra
2006-07-12, 15:22
then we are in full agreement. (who knew?)

kdf
2006-07-12, 15:30
historic info:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=21
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2536
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2861

bephillips
2006-07-12, 16:06
Thanks KDF for the bugzilla links, I added a comment requesting a transcoding option on this one about downloading playlists.
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2536
I presume that if one could download a playlist, one could also have it do the same thing on the local host.
I voted for it. I urge other readers of this thread to also vote for it.

chiphart
2006-07-12, 20:06
MrSinatra wrote:
> i don't see why the feature would lead to an "internal only" result.
> the user, not SS, is responsible for how the info is used. since a
> security feature exists, i think its a legit point and request.

Feel free to yell at me for being stupid, but isn't this
*exactly* what has gotten all of the P2P folks in trouble?

It's not like Pirate Bay actually HOSTS any first-run movies.
Just the information about where to get them. It's not like
Napster actually hosted any mp3 files, the users did. Etc.

KDF's point is something I've always wondered about. Boy, that
"download song" link is awfully handy. I wonder if anyone has
run through the net looking for slimserver running on open :9000
ports, kinda' like people who leave their cameras open
(deliberately or not).

--
Chip Hart - Pediatric Solutions * Physician's Computer Company
chip @ pcc.com * 1 Main St. #7, Winooski, VT 05404
800-722-7708 * http://www.pcc.com/~chip
f.802-846-8178 * Pediatric Software Just Got Smarter.
Your Practice Just Got Healthier.

radish
2006-07-12, 21:01
It's not like Pirate Bay actually HOSTS any first-run movies.
Just the information about where to get them.

Indeed, and that's why they're still up and running and the Swedish government is currently facing some tough questions involving the words "USA" and "puppet".



It's not like
Napster actually hosted any mp3 files, the users did.

Different jurisdiction, different laws. US law essentially makes it illegal to provide information or tools for the purpose of copyright infringement.

In our specific case, the purpose of slimserver in it's current form can hardly be argued to be copyright infringement, and so I don't think there's an issue there. Of course if someone decided to run an instance wide open to the world and people started downloading from it, well there's clear infringement there. But they're basically just using slimserver as a webserver, and no one has (yet!) considered sueing Microsoft or Apache for aiding copyright infringement by supplying webservers.

MrSinatra
2006-07-12, 21:09
MrSinatra wrote:
> i don't see why the feature would lead to an "internal only" result.
> the user, not SS, is responsible for how the info is used. since a
> security feature exists, i think its a legit point and request.

Feel free to yell at me for being stupid, but isn't this
*exactly* what has gotten all of the P2P folks in trouble?

It's not like Pirate Bay actually HOSTS any first-run movies.
Just the information about where to get them. It's not like
Napster actually hosted any mp3 files, the users did. Etc.

KDF's point is something I've always wondered about. Boy, that
"download song" link is awfully handy. I wonder if anyone has
run through the net looking for slimserver running on open :9000
ports, kinda' like people who leave their cameras open
(deliberately or not).

i actually happen to know a lot about this...

napster got busted b/c they had central servers the info ran thru, and it was contended they should have been aware of the massive illegal misuse.

the law thinks "facilitating" is crime.

but SS has no central server, and is not facilitating, no more than AIM that has a file sharing feature (and allows you to "get" whole directories) does.

there is no "search" feature for example.

and btw, napster only lets you get a song at a time, not whole albums unless u used wrapster or the file shared was such.

there is a huge difference between SS and p2p apps, which is analogous to the difference between p2p apps, and AIM.

so again, i don't see the problem with SS doing this. in for a penny, in for a pound. and like AIM, you can make it secure if you wish.

i have always thought its so arrogant of the law or whoever to assume the use is lawless. plenty of material out there is LEGALLY traded. the grateful dead spring to mind.

kdf
2006-07-12, 21:22
On 12-Jul-06, at 9:09 PM, MrSinatra wrote:
>
> i have always thought its so arrogant of the law or whoever to assume
> the use is lawless. plenty of material out there is LEGALLY traded.
> the grateful dead spring to mind.
>
I totally agree. However, the real issue behind adding such a feature
isn't ethics or legality.
In making the move, what must be considered is what reaction you might
face from those arrogant controlling parties who
may, at a whim, decide to make you a target. A lawsuit is a lawsuit.
Win or lose, there is a cost.

Up in canuck-land, we all pay a fee on blank media simply because it
'might' be used for copying music.
So far it isn't all blank media, but every year the attempt is made to
add hard drives and CF to this list.

-k

MrSinatra
2006-07-12, 21:46
but kdf, RIGHT NOW there is the ability to DL songs one at a time, or, initiated one at a time.

in that sense, it is no different from napster as i type.

and yet, it has evaded any such targetting, b/c like AIM, there can be no justification for bringing a case where SS / SD is clearly not acting as a central server or in any way a facilitator.

if AIM can let you share entire hard drives, and not be an RIAA target, i don't see how Slim could be.

the lack of a "search" function connecting all users anonymously is legally speaking, HUGE.

kdf
2006-07-12, 21:58
On 12-Jul-06, at 9:46 PM, MrSinatra wrote:
>
> if AIM can let you share entire hard drives, and not be an RIAA target,
> i don't see how Slim could be.
>
again, it's not about becoming a target, it's about assuming the risk.
and really, that's not up to you or I.
-k

MrSinatra
2006-07-12, 22:13
again, it's not about becoming a target, it's about assuming the risk.
and really, that's not up to you or I.
-k

well, that was never in doubt. :)

but given that they have included the per song ability, i figure whats the difference?

kdf
2006-07-12, 22:27
how about a different take on this....
consider the issues, and consider how it should be implemented so that
it
isn't about "it's not our fault what the user does with it"

Factor in, that you might have to convince various partners that you
aren't going
to break their own levels of management. Rhapsody, iTunes (should
apple ever allow this party drm users)

feeding a list of file locations to a program on the same system is one
possibility. would it work as a cross-platform feature?
-k

MrSinatra
2006-07-13, 13:44
kdf, i am intrigued by what you are saying, but i confess i'm not connecting all the dots that you are... can u slow down and allow me to catch up? i'm not following your various points fully.

kdf
2006-07-13, 14:24
1)"it's not our fault what the user does with it"
Many aplications for file sharing, claim that it is only a tool and that they can't be responsible for what users do with it. Groups like the RIAA only see song titles and start issuing court orders. Search on google already and you can get song listings from someone's slimserver. Think in terms of not getting their attention at all, and not having to even get to teh point of arguing the finer points of 'facilitating'. How could such a feature be implemented in such a way that a user can't, say, through ignorance or a simple slip, end up with their entire song catalogue as a download (ie, maybe stay away from a simple playlist link, or at least make it not internet downloadable, for example)


2) Rhapsody, iTunes (should apple ever allow this party drm users)

Slim devices has recently brought in a couple of high profile partnerships with Pandora, and Rhapsody. The latter is very specific about how their api is used and what kind of access if there for their DRM. Now, I realise their music is internet and it woudlnt' be possible to download anyway, but lets assume their executives are not up to speed on the inherent impossibility of downloading a complete song. consideration must be given as to how to respond to their paranoia as well. Consider how that could be approached.


3) Lastly, one idea off the top of my head, a feature could be available that uses a playlist simply to feed a list of filenames to an outside application for conversion or burning, rather than an actual download of files that creates a "save as" dialog box. Something like a separate script, akin to the split scanner, that takes the list and dumps files to a pre-specified location on the same hard drive.

This is just one idea. I'm only suggesting consideration for a more complete discussion of the implementation, instead of just a chant for "make my albums downloadable" that leaves all the thought and effort to those at which the chanting is directed.

So, instead of disputing ethics and legality, try turning it into ways to work around those issues, to make them not an issue. I'm sure others can point out other potential roadblocks along the way. Discussing the issues and the ways to work around them will go a long way to making a real implementation.

It's the difference between going to the bank for a loan saying "I'm going to make a product that will sell millions" vs going in with a business plan stating r&d budget, and interim income sources via consulting services to fund development. You aren't asking for as much of a leap.

-kdf

MrSinatra
2006-07-13, 22:47
very interesting.


1)"it's not our fault what the user does with it"
Many aplications for file sharing, claim that it is only a tool and that they can't be responsible for what users do with it. Groups like the RIAA only see song titles and start issuing court orders. Search on google already and you can get song listings from someone's slimserver. Think in terms of not getting their attention at all, and not having to even get to teh point of arguing the finer points of 'facilitating'. How could such a feature be implemented in such a way that a user can't, say, through ignorance or a simple slip, end up with their entire song catalogue as a download (ie, maybe stay away from a simple playlist link, or at least make it not internet downloadable, for example)

i kinda reject this whole premise for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that the per song DL feature is already built in, and yet, has not brought the attention of the RIAA.

and lest we forget, the streaming feature (with or without bitrate limiting) is never going to go away, and there are many "stream rippers" that could do exactly what a normal DL would do. someone could loadup a playlist with anything, all albums, random, whatever, and a stream ripper would do exactly what a straight DL would do.

i think all acknowledge that file sharing isn't the purpose of the app, and as a p2p app, its miserable, b/c u have to use something like google to search.

as a defense to the google search, SS could be configured to not be open by default, assign some default pword, or randomize it per SS DL.

avoiding red flags is a good idea... but to what degree? is it really necessary to avoid straight album DL links when it can be achieved song by song, or as a stream? i don't think the RIAA has the right to assume criminality when there is a legitimate use.

it also depends what is shared. lets not forget, p2p itself is not illegal. should we deny tools b/c some might use it illegally?

i believe in the rights of copyright holders, but i don't believe those trump my rights to p2p or whatever else legally. i think its reprehensible to err on the side of killing all p2p to protect copyrighted material, instead of erring on the rights of those to legally p2p.

but without a built in search app, and since SS is so clearly other things first and foremost, i don't think the RIAA could ever take action, although they might one day eventually notice.


2) Rhapsody, iTunes (should apple ever allow this party drm users)

Slim devices has recently brought in a couple of high profile partnerships with Pandora, and Rhapsody. The latter is very specific about how their api is used and what kind of access if there for their DRM. Now, I realise their music is internet and it woudlnt' be possible to download anyway, but lets assume their executives are not up to speed on the inherent impossibility of downloading a complete song. consideration must be given as to how to respond to their paranoia as well. Consider how that could be approached.

whats interesting about this, is that in response to the insanity of DRM, hardware is already available to defeat it.

as far as i know, DRM does not impede the RCA lyra device i mentioned elsewhere. in addition to that, linksys has put out this product:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Linksys_WMB54G_Wireless_G_Music_Bridge/4505-3243_7-31660626.html?tag=pop

the reason DRM doesn't work on these, is that it places the sound card on the OTHER end of the equation... this is just going to keep going on, DRM is a dumb idea whose time will end as solutions defeat it.

personally, i wonder what SB will do to keep pace with these DRM defeaters.

to more specifically answer your Q, i don't know how anyone can successfully fully answer and meet the concerns of someone who is unreasonable.


3) Lastly, one idea off the top of my head, a feature could be available that uses a playlist simply to feed a list of filenames to an outside application for conversion or burning, rather than an actual download of files that creates a "save as" dialog box. Something like a separate script, akin to the split scanner, that takes the list and dumps files to a pre-specified location on the same hard drive.

i don't know what the split scanner is or does, but sure, i have no problem with whatever method to feed a burner or whatever locally.

however, i still want the ability to simply grab an album remotely without having to go thru the unnecessarily clumsy streaming method.


This is just one idea. I'm only suggesting consideration for a more complete discussion of the implementation, instead of just a chant for "make my albums downloadable" that leaves all the thought and effort to those at which the chanting is directed.

So, instead of disputing ethics and legality, try turning it into ways to work around those issues, to make them not an issue. I'm sure others can point out other potential roadblocks along the way. Discussing the issues and the ways to work around them will go a long way to making a real implementation.

i absolutely hear you on this, but unfortunately, i can't think of a way... unless you'd be open to SS acting as a ftp server, and not just a web server?

anyway, interested to hear anyones response. -mdw

stinkingpig
2006-07-14, 12:01
....
>
>
> as far as i know, DRM does not impede the RCA lyra device i mentioned
> elsewhere. in addition to that, linksys has put out this product:
>
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/Linksys_WMB54G_Wireless_G_Music_Bridge/4505-3243_7-31660626.html?tag=pop
>
> the reason DRM doesn't work on these, is that it places the sound card
> on the OTHER end of the equation... this is just going to keep going
> on, DRM is a dumb idea whose time will end as solutions defeat it.
>
> personally, i wonder what SB will do to keep pace with these DRM
> defeaters.



Out-feature them. These are generally referred to a Very Long Cable
Emulators. For certain applications they're fine, but it ain't the same
thing.


to more specifically answer your Q, i don't know how anyone can
> successfully fully answer and meet the concerns of someone who is
> unreasonable.
>
> kdf Wrote:
> > 3) Lastly, one idea off the top of my head, a feature could be available
> > that uses a playlist simply to feed a list of filenames to an outside
> > application for conversion or burning, rather than an actual download
> > of files that creates a "save as" dialog box. Something like a
> > separate script, akin to the split scanner, that takes the list and
> > dumps files to a pre-specified location on the same hard drive.
>
> i don't know what the split scanner is or does, but sure, i have no
> problem with whatever method to feed a burner or whatever locally.
>
>
The split-scanner is in 6.5, it's a separate process to handle scanning. At
the very least it is cool because it allows the CPU to multitask, so
scanning doesn't murderize streaming and web UI... at the best, it should
someday allow people with NAS devices to do the scanning on a more powerful
computer.

--
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
So across the Western ocean I must wander" -- traditional