
Popcorn Time for music is here - bokmann
http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/13/popcorn-time-for-music-is-here/
======
6stringmerc
_...is an interface that makes searching through the sea of legally hazy music
files easier._

Matthew Hussey, don't be a fucking disingenus asshole and/or moron. Unless it
only searches for orphaned works, those which have copyrights that have
expired, or are licensed under Creative Commons, then it's a piracy tool. Full
stop.

Trying to frame it so politely is a total dick move, as if I took your whole
article and reposted it in block quotes, slapped ads all over it and kept the
income for myself.

~~~
Spivak
The author is absolutely right though, if torrent sites only hosted music that
was legally allowed to be redistributed then that's all that would appear. By
your reasoning every search engine is a piracy tool, wget is a piracy tool,
hell the internet is a piracy tool too.

Why is the burden on the developer to implement software to detect whether the
work you're downloading is copyrighted in your country when it's the user who
is in control and makes all the decisions.

~~~
6stringmerc
I read closer over at Billboard Biz - this author did a shit job of getting
into the technology.

"Legally hazy" is still a terrible overview.

The guy readily admits he's using public APIs to pull files. Do I think he's
violating Terms of Service by leeching content this way? Absolutely! It may
not be "throw him in cuffs" kind of rule/law breaking, but I do feel that he's
relying on loopholes that were not intended when rights holders and service
providers (ex: YouTube) allowed the YouTube API to function.

Also, the developer claims that the service will allow "editing of audio" and
that opens a whole new dimension of violating copyright by creating derivative
works. Even if they're not saved, they're being "performed" when the sound
comes out of the speakers.

I'm really, really big on wanting to see copyright reformed and updated to
suit modern technology and user habits. Absolutely! But this guy over here
says the only reason he created the service was because Pandora didn't work
one weekend and he didn't like Spotify's ads. What a cheap, selfish little
person.

~~~
ersoft
Well, there are countries (for example Romania), where
Spotify/Rdio/Pandora/Netflix/Hulu, etc are not available at all due to
copyright licences.

There is no other option to stream music/videos legally, even with a paid
service.

~~~
6stringmerc
Right, I do understand. I think the point I was trying to make is that "rights
holders" made legally binding deals with certain entities, and trying to use
those entities (YouTube) in a work-around violates a different kind of binding
deal - how a system uses an API. It's pretty hard to describe, but I have a
really bad feeling about the approach being shown off and asserted as
legitimate.

~~~
ersoft
I remember that streaming from Youtube on your own website/app is not
prohibited by Terms of Service as long as the website/app developer adds the
youtube video as embed. If this app shows the embed video in bottom corner (I
don't know if it does, it fails to run on my Mac), I don't see it breaking the
ToS.

~~~
6stringmerc
I sincerely doubt that the video runs in the bottom corner, and I'm not going
near the program at all. I'm criticizing from far, far away. I like to think
I'm on the high ground, metaphorically speaking, after reading what he says it
does.

He's just been sued by 3 majors, immediate injunction type of case. My guess?
He'll be toast by the end of 2015.

------
bewatson
First "Airbnb/Yelp/other-big-startup for ______" now "Popcorn time for _____".
Its like we are starting to highlight black hat startups

