Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#301

Post by dpoloncsak » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 1:21 PM UTC

AlecSchueler wrote: post #286

prmoustache wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Searching for and playing music from YouTube (including integration with playlists and SponsorBlock), Jamendo, Audius and SoundCloud From what I understand the _farmers_ themselves are distributing their _cheese_ freely on various website and this tool is just a glorified search engine to find them more easily. Not sure why the _farmers_ would complain?

Some of them are but not all of them are, some of them are having their cheese redistributed without their involvement. The ones who are complaining are the ones who aren't happy, such as the musician quoted in the testimonials saying "fuck everything about this.'

Isn't that literally 'shooting the messenger'?

You can Google search for pirated music too. It's not 'Fuck Google' for indexing these, its 'Fuck those sites' for hosting it, right?

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#302

Post by partomniscient » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 4:01 PM UTC

lukan wrote: post #153

slg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musicians are not the consumers, but it's their work being consumed and this software would have no purpose without them. And to be clear, my problem isn't that this software upset some musicians. It's that the developers highlighting that fact as part of their marketing suggests they take pride in angering musicians. That is a level of disrespect that goes way beyond the sort of passive consumer level disrespect of…

It is one musician whose negative comment is displayed along with people complaining that the whole thing is slow garbage. You might be reading too much into it.

One musician can be ripped off and not compensated and have to take the 'big guys' to court on the off-chance they find out about their work being used despite the (fucked up) copyright laws [0].

It is a massive problem. It's the rich poor divide with propoganda fucking over the genuine little people in favour of the richer/established/more connected people. Human life is like this. Call it out if you see it if you value truth over greed.

The future is built on the past. Claimed "Ownership" of the past fucks up the present for the established powers over creativity (e.g. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act). AI just takes it to a whole 'nother level.

[0] https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/unauthorized-rap-samples/

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#303

Post by tracker1 » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 8:25 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #248

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like having asshole defined in writing. That is, saying all rules are made up on the spot by whatever mods are in power means that you don't want anyone to know the rules ahead of time, which is suspicious and seems like you don't want help with the project

You either get rules made up on the spot or selective enforcement / creative interpretation of rules.

Exactly... it's like everyone thinks they're a lawyer and want "clearly defined rules" until they get them and find there's gaping wide holes for interpretation, etc. Just like kids will push boundaries on literal interpretations. Then, as a parent, you clarify with "you know what I meant when X, right?" ... and then holding them to account all the same.

IMO, you're better off with expecting common decency and having leadership act as a judge when people act up. It's not "fair" but it's about as fair as reality is going to get. Most people are mostly good, and mostly reasonable. If you aren't rocking the boat, you aren't likely to have problems.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#304

Post by pxoe » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 12:04 PM UTC

prmoustache wrote: post #292

pxoe wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's there when you listen on bandcamp, it's not there in the player. It's removed from the listening experience in this app, and made further obscure by not linking out. Are we actually gonna argue whether a "music player focused on streaming" that touts removing everything else, isn't doing the thing it's doing?

A music player goal is to play music, not purchase stuff. What if the music has already been purchased but not available on that particular local device?

iTunes/Apple Music (where you can literally pay per track), Spotify (pay for streaming access and some other stuff), bandcamp itself (the web page is the player. purchases are also available within android app), are all music players where you can buy music and stuff, with decades of history. iTunes goal was literally to purchase music and play it, all in the same player program, and that's been released over two decades ago. Countless web platforms of different scales offer buying music (album or track by track) and function as a player as well. Amazon still sells mp3s in that way, and Amazon Music website is both a music store and a music player. There's a long history and wide variety of platforms with a goal of both purchasing and playing music, all within the same surface, be it an app or a web page.

What's next, arguing that these aren't actually "music players"? that paying for streaming access to music isn't actually paying for music?

There's just a variety of music players with different goals. Some players' goals are to prevent people from buying music or even discovering that they can pay for music. Again, with bandcamp it's not even removing bad third party ads or anything, it's just removing a purchase option, when it very often doesn't even prevent you from listening to music for free anyway, or sometimes even just downloading some music for free.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#305

Post by prmoustache » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 10:24 PM UTC

pxoe wrote: post #304

prmoustache wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A music player goal is to play music, not purchase stuff. What if the music has already been purchased but not available on that particular local device?

iTunes/Apple Music (where you can literally pay per track), Spotify (pay for streaming access and some other stuff), bandcamp itself (the web page is the player. purchases are also available within android app), are all music players where you can buy music and stuff, with decades of history. iTunes goal was literally to purchase music and play it, all in the same player program, and that's been released over two dec…

Not providing a feature since day 1 != removing

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#306

Post by graynk » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 9:40 AM UTC

raffraffraff wrote: post #275

graynk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very certain this is intentional. Sorta "look how much we don't care" bravado.

Why would they not care if people were saying that the product itself was complete trash

Because they are confident that it's not

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#307

Post by pxoe » Sat, Sep 13, 2025, 9:21 PM UTC

prmoustache wrote: post #305

pxoe wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iTunes/Apple Music (where you can literally pay per track), Spotify (pay for streaming access and some other stuff), bandcamp itself (the web page is the player. purchases are also available within android app), are all music players where you can buy music and stuff, with decades of history. iTunes goal was literally to purchase music and play it, all in the same player program, and that's been released over two dec…

Not providing a feature since day 1 != removing

That project is many years old. Apparently they added bandcamp support somewhere in 2020, and then continued to not "provide" any clue that music could be bought there. They could do something, but clearly supporting artists, or rather, letting other people support artists and not getting in the way of that support, is not in their interests even on better music platforms.