[deleted]
HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
101–110 of 163 posts
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are collating youtube content... So... everything you said is a bit ridiculous.
Not the parent but I agree completely with him. First of all YouTube content is monotised by video ads which you won't be able to see with this. Secondly their statement that: "... listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost" is nothing but greedy and entitled. Nobody has the right to decide that something someone else has spent time and money creatin…
> First of all YouTube content is monotised by video ads
None of that money goes to the artist... that goes to google... So you are okay with someone else making money of the free labour of artists, but not someone NOT making money of the free labour of artists. Interesting position.
> Nobody has the right to decide that something someone else has spent time and money creating should be available for free without the creators having a say.
The creator does have a say. They can not release the content, they can DMCA the youtube videos, etc etc.
Who decided that you should pay for culture? Who has the right to decide such thing? If society disagrees with that decision is that not another "piece of culture" ?
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#103> We believe that listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost. I hate this entitlement. As if it was their decision. As if they were running a social movement. I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.
Exacty.. Is it also their "belief" that artists that worked hard on something should not be paid for what they made? Because then I think that would be as awesome as: Hey I have an idea, and you can be my partner. There is no money involved now, but would you be willing to work for a year without pay? See you Idea-Man
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Spotily for streaming however I don't use it to create a offline library exactly for this DRM shit. I'd rather outright buy the songs somewhere else and have them backed up on another computer as well with btsync just in case these DRM apps try to pull some crap.
I used to buy songs from an online store ( Flyte by Flipkart.com, which later was shutdown ) and upload it to Ubuntu One ( which too is going to be shutdown ). The above scenario worked perfectly for me. I could access all my music anytime and from any device but unfortunately looks it didn't work out for the vendors :)
I'm looking into this (again! I used to buy from 7digital but it seems they're no longer in the same business model) after having used Rdio for quite some time, because I just hate not being able to play songs when I most want to because I don't have internet or it's flaky or I'm at another machine.
From a quick research it seemed that Amazon MP3 was DRM-free.. not that I trust them too much or would want to support Amazon, but it seemed the only option with a good catalogue.
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the parent but I agree completely with him. First of all YouTube content is monotised by video ads which you won't be able to see with this. Secondly their statement that: "... listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost" is nothing but greedy and entitled. Nobody has the right to decide that something someone else has spent time and money creatin…
> First of all YouTube content is monotised by video ads None of that money goes to the artist... that goes to google... So you are okay with someone else making money of the free labour of artists, but not someone NOT making money of the free labour of artists. Interesting position. > Nobody has the right to decide that something someone else has spent time and money creating should be available for free without the…
> None of that money goes to the artist... that goes to google...
Youtube uses an ad-revenue sharing program. So video creators/uploaders do get a share of money from the ad, even if it is marginal.
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#106> We believe that listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost. I hate this entitlement. As if it was their decision. As if they were running a social movement. I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.
"We believe your HipHop software should be open source and available for everyone to investigate."
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#107> We believe that listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost. I hate this entitlement. As if it was their decision. As if they were running a social movement. I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.
> I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.
Looks like this very app proves your assertion wrong: programmers -- by creating this app -- made it so listening to music is free.
I'm not commenting on the moral aspect of it, only the practical.
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#108The main selling point of Popcorn Time is that it allows to watch movies more easily than solutions that asks money for that. I don't think music industry has this problem — there are services like Spotify, Rdio and many more that offers painless listening. That aside, the app looks really polished and I'm glad it has Linux support backed in.
The main selling point of PT is that it allows watching movies for free. It's not easier because you can't easily watch PT on a Television, the main place people watch movies.
This duplicates PT's main selling point.
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#109> We believe that listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost. I hate this entitlement. As if it was their decision. As if they were running a social movement. I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.
I hate the "have your cake and eat it too" mentality. If you want to control distribution don't put things on the Internet. This isn't 1999, what happens when you put stuff on the internet is well-known at this point. If you're unhappy with it, start a new network that has DRM baked-in so this isn't an issue.
Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music
#110I know that there's a kick to be got out of circumventing the draconian rules big music/film industry lobby into law, but what do the writers think about independents that they effectively take down in the same blow? This is a genuine question, not an attack. I've spent a lot of time studying/writing/playing music and through that have got to personally know many of the most talented and versatile musicians I've ever…
> But they have to make the assumption that the music they want to do - their own music - will never make any money in a recorded format, forcing them to do wedding gigs during the day instead.
Or concerts/show. Is that such an alien concept? A musician performing their art live, in front of an audience?