Stream Mix integration (youtube, spotify...)

[mixxxbot]

Reported by: ferranpujolcamins Date: 2012-02-21T21:29:08Z Status: Confirmed Importance: Wishlist Launchpad Issue: lp938180 Tags: cloud

---

It would be very useful if Mixxx could natively buffer songs on the fly from a stream service like youtube or spotify and then be able to play them like local tracks.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: esbrandt Date: 2012-02-22T06:18:30Z

---

This is a interesting request and would be a valuable addition to Mixxx.

But it raises some legal questions.

E.g. the Spotify FAQ say it is licensed "only for personal use", see http://www.spotify.com/us/help/faq/premium/public-usage/. Even if a DJ uses the paid membership (http://www.spotify.com/us/get-spotify/premium/) he probably can`t legally generate income by playing tracks to an audience trough Spotify. So we might need a disclaimer which again points to the terms of use.

Furthermore the free use of the Spotify API would limit Mixxx from generating any income trough the application itself, now or later, see paragraph 3.3 on http://developer.spotify.com/en/libspotify/terms-of-use-us/ .

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ferranpujolcamins Date: 2012-02-22T08:30:34Z

---

Well it would depend on how would you use Mixxx. Maybe I just want to record a mix to play on my car stereo. Or just wanna practice in my room.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2012-03-13T21:36:30Z

---

This could be implemented with the reuse of the clementine-player code base. They support

• Digitally Imported
• Icecast
• Jamendo
• Last.fm
• Grooveshark
• Magnatune
• Sky.fm
• SomaFM
• Spotify

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: kunthar Date: 2013-03-09T22:40:58Z

---

+1 for this functionality

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: tim-m-davies Date: 2013-05-18T14:39:33Z

---

Massive +1 from me.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: shinigam Date: 2014-08-05T19:39:40Z

---

I'll like to support the OPs original request or perhaps add a feature suggestion of my own.

I'm a hobby python programmer and thought about perhaps offering an upload feature to SoundCloud or even better Mixcloud. I know both have APIs that could support this feature.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2014-08-05T21:16:44Z

---

Hi Gabriel,

thank you for offering your help. A SoundCloud and Mixcloud upload would be a nice addition.

Please keep sure you have a powerful development environment before starting to work. Here are some hints:
http://www.mixxx.org/wiki/doku.php/bugfix_workflow You should ask for help at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel if you get stucked.

The other issue is the businesses part of connecting to commercial services.
Since a integrated upload system is a kind of in app advertise, we have to decide what are the conditions to add it to th master build. We have discussed this some time ago. A possible work around is a Plug-In Interface for such upload tools. Would it be possible implement the API in QT Script (Java script)? This way each service could provide it's upload extension like we currently did with controller scripts.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2016-06-08T13:59:42Z

---

Releated Forum threads: http://www.mixxx.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7091&p=24220 http://www.mixxx.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8339&p=29050

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2017-04-14T21:27:54Z

---

Maybe look at Clementine. They use an external plugin to add Spotify Support to the app to make sure they are not in trouble with licensing and stuff. What about a small Mixxx plugin to integrate Spotify and similar web streaming services.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2017-04-15T07:44:30Z

---

A kind of plugin solution to support Spotify an similar services would be indeed the best solution. Do you have fun and time to work on it?

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2017-04-15T16:38:05Z

---

If you mean me: I haven't got any programming skills in c++ but I would gladly assist in development basing on how you want to implement a plugin into mixxx.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2017-04-15T16:55:49Z

---

I propose a simple library extension format to add other library types later. I think every one has his own library managed in some software and wants to use it in Mixxx. So what about a format like

LIBRARY.extension [config] name=LIBRARY connection=local,api,... type=free,non-free,... required-data=[USERNAME,PASSWORD]

[playlist] supported=true connection=https://api.spotify.com/v1/users/USERNAME/playlists encoding=json fetch-playlist-name=JSON KEY TO GET VALUE OF fetch-playlist-index=JSON KEY TO GET VALUE OF ...

[library] ...

[search] ...

And then you can enter the values you need for the different apis or the file structures (in case of local stored libraries)

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2017-04-16T21:19:40Z

---

Nice Idea. Does Clementine use such format? I am afraid that we need a lot of special case code to adopt the different services.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2017-04-17T09:07:35Z

---

No, I don't think that they use such a format. There is a "spotiy" folder with alot of c++ code in it, so I think it is an active plugin, not a passive config format. Yeah, may be we will need special case code but I think that it is easier than coding everything directly into Mixxx. And because of licensing of spotify and probably other services we will need external plugins to install. Syntax could be like my proposition but of course XML is only a useful format.

I will try to have a closer look at the spotify plugin of Clementine if I got some time.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: debayanbanerjee Date: 2017-05-01T08:03:55Z

---

Hello.

Since nobody has mentioned it, I thought just to mention that Alogriddim has developed a platform DJay Pro which seamlessly integrates with Spotify.

The catch is that it is only available for Spotify premium users.

So personally for me, there is a precedent to use and integrate spotify with third party apps. It would be great if Mixxx takes this on priority since Mixxx also supports a lot of older MIDI controllers which don't receive updates anymore.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: jjgh Date: 2017-06-13T20:05:42Z

---

Huge +1. I registered to this bugtracker just to say this! :)

This will be a game changer for Mixxx and yes IMHO it should take a high priority.

Any news from from this side?

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: officebeats Date: 2018-05-07T05:42:12Z

---

Correct, Algoriddim DJ allows you to use a spotify premium integration. They don't let you record your sessions into a file.

PLEASE include this!!! I personally pay for algoriddim pro and it's ONLY because of this feature.

If MIXXX can introduce this I will completely switch over as I use linux and hate to dual boot into mac just to DJ in a modern way.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-07T15:20:56Z

---

This is very unlikely to happen for several reasons:

1. Mixxx is free software that respects its users freedom. As such, it will never impose artificial restrictions on functionality like disabling recording, especially not to appease some company's demands.
2. Using Spotify's API without disabling recording (and probably broadcasting too) would clearly violate their terms of service. As soon as they found out, they would probably disable Mixxx from connecting to their service. Otherwise, Mixxx would likely become known as a free way to save songs from Spotify, even by people who have no interest in Mixxx otherwise.
3. Even if Mixxx did impose artificial restrictions, it is free software, so those restrictions could be removed quite easily. Thus it is unlikely that a company demanding artificial restrictions would agree to allow Mixxx to use their service.
4. This is speculation, but I would be somewhat surprised if Algoriddim's contract with Spotify is not exclusive. No other DJ software integrates with Spotify and I suspect Algoriddim made sure that would never happen in their contract.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-07T15:31:01Z

---

For Mixxx, it does not matter that Clementine can use Spotify. Clementine is a different kind of application. It does not record, nor does it broadcast, nor is it designed for playing to an audience. Mixxx using Spotify brings up legal issues as discussed by myself above and jus in comment #⁠1 that Clementine does not have to deal with.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: debayanbanerjee Date: 2018-05-07T15:40:54Z

---

I dont think using 3rd party integration plugins according to their terms and conditions are akin to restricting user freedoms. Using the third party app is voluntary and should not be confused further.

There is still a strong case for Mixxx integration with spotify.

On Mon, 7 May 2018, 17:35 Be,

This is very unlikely to happen for several reasons:

1. Mixxx is free software that respects its users freedom. As such, it will never impose artificial restrictions on functionality like disabling recording, especially not to appease some company's demands.
2. Using Spotify's API without disabling recording (and probably broadcasting too) would clearly violate their terms of service. As soon as they found out, they would probably disable Mixxx from connecting to their service. Otherwise, Mixxx would likely become known as a free way to save songs from Spotify, even by people who have no interest in Mixxx otherwise.
3. Even if Mixxx did impose artificial restrictions, it is free software, so those restrictions could be removed quite easily. Thus it is unlikely that a company demanding artificial restrictions would agree to allow Mixxx to use their service.
4. This is speculation, but I would be somewhat surprised if Algoriddim's contract with Spotify is not exclusive. No other DJ software integrates with Spotify and I suspect Algoriddim made sure that would never happen in their contract.

-- You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug report. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/938180

Title: Stream Mix integration (youtube, spotify...)

Status in Mixxx: Confirmed

Bug description: It would be very useful if Mixxx could natively buffer songs on the fly from a stream service like youtube or spotify and then be able to play them like local tracks.

To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/938180/+subscriptions

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-07T16:04:36Z

---

When their terms and conditions require restricting user freedoms, then yes, they are the same.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: debayanbanerjee Date: 2018-05-07T17:34:45Z

---

Your argument about Clementine being a different app and Spotify having user restrictions doesn't hold water because for the user the end result is the same.

You might be looking for some moral high ground, which is of no concern to me.

For me Clemtine and Spotify integration, both are equally important.

On Mon, 7 May 2018, 18:16 Be,

When their terms and conditions require restricting user freedoms, then yes, they are the same.

-- You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug report. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/938180

Title: Stream Mix integration (youtube, spotify...)

Status in Mixxx: Confirmed

Bug description: It would be very useful if Mixxx could natively buffer songs on the fly from a stream service like youtube or spotify and then be able to play them like local tracks.

To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/938180/+subscriptions

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-07T19:06:52Z

---

If you do not care about the issues raised above and using Spotify is important to you, then you can use Algoriddim djay.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2018-05-07T19:41:54Z

---

Well, I just wanted to add some thoughts about what was said earlier:

The use of a special "library plugin" format was already discussed. So why not add the important options for library plugins and let users develop and share their own plugins, like for Spotify, youtube (i think Soundcloud was also stated, even if I wouldn't use it).

These could shift the legal issues from the Mixxx core application to the actual plugin developer.

If Spotify still demands the disabling of a record, couldn't you just add a plugin option to "temporarily disable recording due to legal issues" (and probably disable the plugin when the user wants to record)?

The argument that Spotify is only for private use seems queer since this other DJ app apparently uses it. Does it violate the ToS then or do they have some kind of exclusive agreement?

The argument that people could bypass these limits is only somewhat relevant: Because users could also change the behaviour of Clementine and there are already Spotify downloaders as far as I know.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-07T20:22:20Z

---

Algoriddim has a business partnership with Spotify and has negotiated their terms of use.

couldn't you just add a plugin option to "temporarily disable recording due to legal issues"

No. There would be no difference whether the artificial restriction is directly integrated into Mixxx or Mixxx provides an API for an external plugin to activate an artificial restriction. Mixxx will never impose artificial restrictions on users.

The argument that people could bypass these limits is only somewhat relevant: Because users could also change the behaviour of Clementine

Clementine has no recording functionality, so it's not that simple. Using Clementine to record from Spotify would require adding a whole new feature to Clementine. In Mixxx, it would be as simple as deleting a few lines of code and recompiling, which anyone could do quite easily and put those modified versions online, which would then be easy to use for recording from Spotify. Because of this, it would be unlikely that Spotify would agree to partner with Mixxx like they have with Algoriddim (if their contract with Algoriddim even allows Spotify to partner with other DJ software).

and there are already Spotify downloaders as far as I know.

Yes, and these are clearly violating Spotify's terms of use. I doubt Spotify can shut them all down as fast as they appear.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: debayanbanerjee Date: 2018-05-07T20:32:32Z

---

I wouldve if it wasnt a shitty program.

On Mon, 7 May 2018, 21:25 Be,

If you do not care about the issues raised above and using Spotify is important to you, then you can use Algoriddim djay.

-- You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug report. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/938180

Title: Stream Mix integration (youtube, spotify...)

Status in Mixxx: Confirmed

Bug description: It would be very useful if Mixxx could natively buffer songs on the fly from a stream service like youtube or spotify and then be able to play them like local tracks.

To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/938180/+subscriptions

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2018-05-07T20:42:50Z

---

No. There would be no difference whether the artificial restriction is directly integrated into Mixxx or Mixxx provides an API for an external plugin to activate an artificial restriction. Mixxx will never impose artificial restrictions on users. I still consider it acceptable as long as the user can simply decide between the plugin or the restriction.

I agree with the rest of your message.

---

May we move away from focusing Spotify and see if there are other music streaming services that could be implemented?

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-07T21:05:28Z

---

Whether the restriction is activated by a plugin or not is irrelevant IMO. Either way requires code directly in Mixxx to artificially disable functionality.

There would be the same issues with other streaming services. If they provide APIs for third party programs to use their service, their terms of service forbid recording the stream. The concept of streaming depends on this, otherwise it would just be downloading music the old fashion way.

I wouldve if it wasnt a shitty program.

The quality of proprietary DJ programs is none of Mixxx's concern. If you have complaints about djay, you can communicate them to Algoriddim.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2018-05-08T06:16:51Z

---

Streaming integration will IMHO happen one day. I'm mainly depends on a contributor who has the skills and time to do this. Is anyone interested?

As such, it will never impose artificial restrictions on functionality like disabling recording, especially not to appease some company's demands.

Why not? We can easily stop recording once a stream is played. If that is the "price" to pay, it is fine. I never record my sets, so it would be no limitation for me. The argument, that you can patch this feature out, can't really be serious, because it is much more easy to install a loopback soundcard (on line in the terminal) and record Spotify, than build Mixxx with such a patch included.

Mixxx will never impose artificial restrictions on users.

That's one opinon. It is finally the users decision to use the Spotify plug-in in line with their rules or not use it. Disabling recording helps the user not to accidentally violate their rules.

It is finally Spotify's decision to give us an API key. If the do not like us, no issue, there are alternatives. This bug is requesting a general stream integration.

I dont think using 3rd party integration plugins according to their terms and conditions are akin to restricting user freedoms.

Not offering a streaming plug-In restricts the user freedom. If the user is already paying for a stream, he should have the freedom to use it wherever and however he likes.

So why not add the important options for library plugins and let users develop and share their own plugins, like for Spotify, youtube (i think Soundcloud was also stated, even if I wouldn't use it).

That is the way to go. We can't integrate any commercial service into Mixxx by default for free anyway, because it would be a free advertise for them.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-08T13:38:36Z

---

Putting artificial restrictions in Mixxx would make Mixxx no longer free software as it violates freedom 0, the freedom to use the program for any purpose. There is absolutely no wiggle room here as far as I am concerned. I will not be associated with software that is not free and will stop contributing to Mixxx if artificial limitations are put in the code.

Not offering a streaming plug-In restricts the user freedom.

That is absurd. Spotify (and other companies) demand restricting user freedom. There is no freedom in caving to their demands.

If the user is already paying for a stream, he should have the freedom to use it wherever and however he likes.

I agree. Unfortunately that violates the terms of service.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2018-05-08T16:29:36Z

---

I agree with daschuer, isn't it more a restriction to say "We won't allow you to develop a plugin" than to say "I give you the opportunity to disable things in the software if you want to"?

If you add this limit, but the user decides not to use any streaming plugins, we'll reach status quo - nothing changed in mixxx, the user won't notice anything. It only gives the user the freedom to develop and install additional plugins which have the chance to disable functionality to reach their purpose. The user is at no time forced to give up any of the opportunities for using Mixxx, there's no forced restriction on the user, it's still up to the user to develop, install, configure and use these additional plugins.

I think the plugins should not be distributed officially, I think the sharing of them will happen in the forums and stuff like that. I still go with the idea to allow them to modify mixxx options since the user explicitly requests to disable these features in order to use the plug-ins.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-08T17:07:33Z

---

If you add this limit, but the user decides not to use any streaming plugins, we'll reach status quo - nothing changed in mixxx, the user won't notice anything.

This is not true. We will have violated users' trust by allowing Mixxx to act against them (for the benefit of a for-profit company). Once this line is crossed, the user cannot trust that Mixxx will act in their interest.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-08T17:16:30Z

---

It only gives the user the freedom to develop and install additional plugins which have the chance to disable functionality to reach their purpose.

This is not freedom. This is giving power to external influences to control how the user can use data on their own computer. It turns the computer from a tool that serves its owner to a tool that a company uses to control the supposed owner of the computer for the company's interest.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-08T17:47:30Z

---

If code is committed to Mixxx to impose artificial restrictions on users, I will fork Mixx.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: debayanbanerjee Date: 2018-05-08T18:11:50Z

---

I think Be has a lot of assumptions and is unnecessarily trying to take the moral high ground.

This forum is for feature requests and not to debate on philosophies.

If you won't contribute to Mixxx through your assumed prejudices and premonitions then one cannot help you unfortunately.

Spotify plugin should be available and it is upto the user to see if he/she wants to use it or not.

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Be

If code is committed to Mixxx to impose artificial restrictions on users, I will fork Mixx.

-- You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug report. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/938180

Title: Stream Mix integration (youtube, spotify...)

Status in Mixxx: Confirmed

Bug description: It would be very useful if Mixxx could natively buffer songs on the fly from a stream service like youtube or spotify and then be able to play them like local tracks.

To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/938180/+subscriptions

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2018-05-08T19:13:20Z

---

I propose the following:

If someone finds the time to work on this, we'll accept shortcomings in the application, as long as they are only activated when the user intends to activate them AND the user has full transparency about which features are disabled for what reason.

The development of the external plugins is not up to the main mixxx development and has to be done in the community.

Mixxx should not limit any of it's opportunities to cooperate with for-profit companies, any agreements are up to the plugin developers. If the companies reject cooperating with developers instead of the true application, we should not implement these streaming services.

I can totally trace the point of be. For example, I don't like FOSS which advertises with integration for different proprietary platforms and I think Mixxx shouldn't do so. But I still think that we should offer the user the opportunity to extend their software with plug-ins, which also have the chance to temporarily modify the behaviour of the application if the user explicitly wants them to do so.

I hope we can stay with (something like) that, and see if someone is going to implement the plugin management into the application.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2018-05-08T20:58:11Z

---

I fully agree to Ron here.

If code is committed to Mixxx to impose artificial restrictions on users, I will fork Mixx.

In general, an upstream fork is a bad idea for all parties, it doubles the work without any user benefit, so lets pull together for one great Mixxx. It is much better to fork Mixxx on the user side by adding Plug-Ins.

As a Spotify user, I have already accepted the user terms and conditions of not record the Spotify stream. So if a Mixxx version disables recording in the streaming case, it does not limit me any further. For me, a future Mixxx without any streaming features is much more an artificial restriction compared to that.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: rryan Date: 2018-05-08T21:15:44Z

---

Let's all take a breath and step away from the keyboards for a while. :)

I'd like to remind everyone of the code of conduct [1], and to communicate respectfully and with empathy and compassion for others' points of view. I think we're all trying to make Mixxx the best software it can be.

[1]: https://github.com/mixxxdj/mixxx/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-08T22:16:55Z

---

There is no opting out of making a moral decision here. Artificially disabling features requires code inside Mixxx that deactivates the feature. An external plugin cannot do this by itself. So either Mixxx condones this or it does not. If the Mixxx community decides that it condones violating the user's freedom to use the program for any purpose, then I can no longer trust the Mixxx community. Mixxx would no longer be free software and would therefore be worthless to me, so I would fork it.

Hypothetically there could be a plugin API for external audio sources that does not impose artificial restrictions on Mixxx's functionality, but there would be no practical, legal use case for this. If someone wanted to develop a plugin that violated the terms of service of some streaming API, then it would be up to the plugin developer to bear the potential legal consequences. If someone wants to do this as a deliberate act of civil disobedience, that is up to them. Most likely the streaming company would simply revoke the API key rather than bother with legal action (unless the developer tried to get new API keys or otherwise circumvent the ban), in which case all the effort spent developing the plugin and the plugin interface would be wasted.

Let's keep in mind that a plugin API would be a big maintenance burden. It would require interfaces both for sending audio into Mixxx and ways to interact with Mixxx's GUI. FWIW Mixxx already has an interface for receiving audio from any external sources (the auxiliary inputs).

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-08T22:40:07Z

---

There is also the issue that a streaming service provider may decide to or be coerced into shutting down their API or go out of business, in which case all the effort spent on developing the plugin and plugin API would be wasted.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: ron-granger Date: 2018-05-09T20:51:31Z

---

Would it be an option, to turn the limits in the other direction?

Like, the plugin has no way to edit the behaviour of Mixxx, but it has the option to query data from the software itself.

So it could check if the stream is recorded (and maybe even get notified if a record is about to start) and stop working then.

This would not change any of the behaviour of Mixxx, no artificial restriction is about to be implemented in Mixxx and it's up to the plug-ins to stop working, if a conditon in Mixxx is changing.

This way, it's not Mixxx who bears a restriction, but the plug-in code which is kinda restricted by the software.

Is this an option for keeping the software 'free' as in be's opinion?

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-09T21:09:31Z

---

No, that would merely change implementation details without changing the substance of the issue. If information about whether Mixxx is recording was already made available to other programs, I might have a different opinion. But that information is not presented by Mixxx for other programs because there is no use case for it except for assisting those programs in refusing to work.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: daschuer Date: 2018-05-09T22:32:08Z

---

Mixxx has already global accessible control objects for it: [Recording], "status" with RECORD_OFF (0.0) RECORD_READY (1.0) RECORD_ON (2.0) and RECORD_SPLIT_CONTINUE (3.0) and [Recording], "toggle_recording". These controls might be used from a PlugIn, to enforce the streaming user conditions. If [Recording], "status" is different from 0.0 the Plug-In may stop either the stream or the recording via [Recording], "toggle_recording"

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-09T22:41:20Z

---

It seems I did not make myself clear enough. If code is committed to Mixxx to impose artificial restrictions on users, I will fork Mixxx. If code is committed that pretends to work around this moral issue by changing technical implementation details, I will still fork Mixxx.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Pegasus-RPG Date: 2018-05-10T15:22:40Z

---

Please keep to the topic. This bug is about adding streaming support to Mixxx, which there is clearly much interest in. If anyone wants to discuss the merits of that, please do so in Zulip, not here. Thank you.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-11T02:20:31Z

---

Any integration of Mixxx with Spotify would explicitly violate their API terms of use even if recording was artificially disabled. From https://beta.developer.spotify.com/terms/#iv : "Mixing, overlapping and re-mixing. You may not, and you may not permit any device or system used in connection with the Spotify Service to, segue, mix, re-mix, or overlap any Spotify Content with any other audio content (including other Spotify Content)"

Rebroadcasting music from Spotify is also forbidden: "Integration with Third Party Services. You will not create any product or service by integrating the Spotify Platform, Spotify Service, or Spotify Content with (i) any non-interactive internet webcasting service or (ii) streams from another service."

Related: http://djtechtools.com/2017/09/14/spotify-axes-dj-software-streaming-virtual-dj/

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-11T02:33:55Z

---

We regularly use Launchpad bugs to discuss whether and how to change Mixxx. Please do not fragment this discussion by trying to move it to another medium.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Pegasus-RPG Date: 2018-05-11T05:34:05Z

---

The T&Cs of one particular service notwithstanding, the fact remains that Mixxx should be able to make use of streaming services that do allow this use, as well as to be able to integrate custom streams such as from other remote DJs, as requested in bug #⁠1545288 and bug #⁠1496739.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Be-ing Date: 2018-05-11T07:33:53Z

---

I feel it is condescending to call your opinion fact. The fact remains that every streaming service forbids recording the stream (even Jamendo https://devportal.jamendo.com/api_terms_of_use section 3.3). It is my firmly held opinion that complying with this condition would violate the right of every Mixxx user to use Mixxx how they wish. Therefore, I would fork Mixxx if such an artificial restriction is implemented. You can have me contributing to Mixxx or you can implement artificial restrictions, but you cannot have both.

Is anyone really interested in using streaming services besides Spotify inside Mixxx anyway? Do you care enough to do a large amount of hard work implementing and maintaining code to use the service in Mixxx? Do you care enough to work on this instead of other Mixxx features? Do you care enough to risk this hard work being made worthless at the whim of a record or streaming company like what happened to VirtualDJ? ( http://djtechtools.com/2017/09/14/spotify-axes-dj-software-streaming-virtual-dj/ ) Do you care enough to risk this hard work being made worthless by the streaming company going out of business? That is not a hypothetical concern. PulseLocker shut down without warning ( http://djtechtools.com/2017/11/10/pulselocker-folds-streaming-dj-software/ ) after Serato, RekordBox, and Virtual DJ all invested in integrating the service. Spotify, the biggest player in the industry, has been in business for 10 years but is still not making a profit.

Most other music streaming services (Apple Music, Amazon Music, TIDAL...) don't even have a public API for third party developers anyway so this discussion seems moot.

I could consider this resolved if the status of this bug is changed to Won't Fix.

integrate custom streams such as from other remote DJs, as requested in bug #⁠1545288 and bug #⁠1496739.

This is a separate request that is already implemented with the auxiliary inputs. There is no need for integrating user account authentication or library browsing like there would be with streaming service integration.

[mixxxbot]

Commented by: Pegasus-RPG Date: 2018-05-11T14:07:35Z

---

Those are all good points. (But whether you fork or not is your decision alone. That's the beauty of open-source.) To the other followers of this bug: would you still be interested in this feature if Spotify support was not possible due to their terms of use? I.e. are there other services you would want to use, even if recording was not possible while using them?