Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

gethiphop.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#111

Post by runeks »

jdswain wrote: post #80

This kind of app appears to be prohibited in the YouTube terms of service https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms : II. Prohibitions Your API Client will not, and You will not encourage or create functionality for Your users or other third parties to: 8. separate, isolate, or modify the audio or video components of any YouTube audiovisual content made available through the YouTube API; 9. promote separately the a…

The response to that would probably be for HipHop to integrate code used to download YouTube content (like that used by https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/). API access isn't necessary.

EDIT: Looks like they already use a YouTube downloader, and not the API: https://github.com/hiphopapp/hiphop/blob/master/coffee/_play...

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#112

Post by Touche »

Mikushi wrote: post #45
newaccountfool wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No adverts?

It always has to be free with you people... You don't want adverts? Pay for the service. Spotify is well worth the money, £10/month is almost giving it away.

Artists make nothing from Spotify, so why is it so much worse to use a service that is completely free?

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#113

Post by Argorak »

runeks wrote: post #107
Argorak wrote: post #69

> 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.

> I'm not commenting on the moral aspect of it, only the practical.

I would accept the practical part if they hadn't put out that statement.

I am commenting on the moral aspect of it, not on the practical.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#114

Post by runeks »

d135_1r43 wrote: post #17

As a part time musician who needs to spend around 10k for a new album I find this frustrating.

> As a part time musician who needs to spend around 10k for a new album I find this frustrating.

If people download your album for free, and they listen to it and like it, they might want to buy concert tickets/merchandise/etc.. Isn't that a good thing, at least?

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#115

Post by oalders »

Touche wrote: post #109
Argorak wrote: post #69

> 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.

Even if the artist chooses not to distribute digitally, it may well appear online in some digital format anyway.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#116

Post by Touche »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #96
aaren wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musicians have only recently been able to make money from recorded media. I see this as a temporary anomaly allowed by the state of technology in the 20th century (i.e. existence of mass media as a physical product). Musicians (and other artists) can still make money from e.g. performing live - which I'm assuming was their dominant form of income before the 20th century. I don't believe that a monetary incentive is n…

>> "I don't believe that a monetary incentive is necessary for good art." It's not necessary but it's important. I'll explain how: 1) If artists can not earn money from their art the need a full time job to support themselves, provide food and shelter and pay the bills. 2) They will also need some of this money to pay for equipment and in the case of musicians studio time, sound engineers, mastering engineers, design…

There wasn't great art pre 20th century?

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#117

Post by Touche »

oalders wrote: post #115
Touche wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if the artist chooses not to distribute digitally, it may well appear online in some digital format anyway.

Only if they are creating art that is inherently digital.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#118

Post by Touche »

peteretep wrote: post #83
tiglionabbit wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, video is solved by Amazon Instant Video. They have everything, and it's usually $2-3 a video.

Maybe I should look more in to that. I'm using Netflix, which I pay for, and Amazon's ondemand video stuff I get from Prime. I paid for the most recent Sherlock, but I think I'm still a bit cheap for anything that isn't All You Can Eat.

So you're saying that music is priced reasonably but video is not... which is the difference between PT being good and HipHop being bad... what makes you the sole decider of pricing? To me it seems that either both are valid or none are.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#119

Post by runeks »

tpio wrote: post #48

It seems the quality of many of the songs are sub-optimal. Would be nice to have some sort of bit rate indicator in the GUI so that I could skip the 128kbps songs. Other than that it seems to have everything I've looked for

As far as I can see, they prefer 128 kbps Vorbis (but I'm not that good with Coffee script): https://github.com/hiphopapp/hiphop/blob/master/coffee/_play...

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#120

Post by Touche »

afro88 wrote: post #59

The first thing I thought of as a successful independent music producer - are my tracks on there? And why are they trying to steal away my 0.000000001c that Spotify pays me? (exaggeration for effect) Also, why the opinion that listening to music should always be free? How is that a worthwhile cause? It's like saying driving cars should be free, but owning one should cost money. edit: Just saw that it uses Youtube for…

Why the opinion that it shouldn't be free? Technology has made it defacto free.
Post reply on HN