Musi Fans Refuse To Update iPhones Until Apple Unblocks Controversial App

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Who up missing Musi?" a Reddit user posted in a community shocked by the free music streaming app's sudden removal from Apple's App Store in September. Apple kicked Musi out of the App Store after receiving several copyright complaints. Musi works by streaming music from YouTube -- seemingly avoiding paying to license songs -- and YouTube was unsurprisingly chief among those urging Apple to stop allowing the alleged infringement.

Musi was previously only available through the App Store. Once Musi was removed from the App Store, anyone who downloaded Musi could continue using the app uninterrupted. But if the app was ever off-loaded during an update or if the user got a new phone, there would be no way to regain access to their Musi app or their playlists. Some Musi fans only learned that Apple booted Musi after they updated their phones, and the app got offloaded with no option to re-download. Panicked, these users turned to the Musi subreddit for answers, where Musi's support staff has consistently responded with reassurances that Musi is working to bring the app back to the App Store. For many Musi users learning from others' mistakes, the Reddit discussions leave them with no choice but to refuse to update their phones or risk losing their favorite app. The app may remain unavailable for several months as the litigation unfolds. "After Apple gave in to the pressure, Musi sued (PDF) in October, hoping to quickly secure an injunction that would force Apple to reinstate Musi in the App Store until the copyright allegations were decided," reports Ars. "But a hearing on that motion isn't scheduled until January, making it appear unlikely that Musi will be available again to download until sometime next year."

Further reading: Google, Apple Drive 'Black Box' IP Policing with App Store Rules

So let me get this straight...

[sarren1901]

This application, Musi, allows the user to stream music, for free, by essentially streaming the music from a youtube link. Obviously, if the music is copyrighted, you would be receiving a copyright stream that you haven't paid for. I'll go out on a limb here and say, youtube probably has permission to have music videos of copyrighted work on their site and likely pay royalties to do so.

Musi is likely not paying anyone for anything and neither are Musi users.

Now, Apple has decided to remove this app from the

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

What's the difference if I listen to these same streams on Youtube, or using an app?

Re:

[bartoku]

I would guess that Youtube has an agreement with the copyright holder and is not violating the copyright by streaming the data. But Musi does not have permission and is bypassing the Youtube interface, violating the copyright holder's claim to be able to control the streaming of the data?

From a practical stand point, Youtube sells ad space in its app that pays for the servers and compensates the copyright holder?

Re:

[geekmux]

What's the difference if I listen to these same streams on Youtube, or using an app?

I’m willing to bet Musi has one hell of an ability to block the advertised answer to your question. That’s the difference.

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

Under what laws can an app be illegal? Please be specific.

Re:

[Kernel Kurtz]

I totally agree that walled gardens are bad for user choice, but Apple booting illegal apps off their store is not the best illustration.

Apple removing any apps from people's phone without permission is repugnant.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[sarren1901]

Exactly this! If a user is breaking the law. Go after the user. If an application maker is facilitating the user breaking the law, go after the application maker.

I would say Apple shouldn't be liable for what a user does with the iphone but since Apple controls what apps you have on your phone, they've basically made themselves the gatekeeper and are therefore liable for applications that can assist users in breaking the laws.

It's definitely disgusting that Apple can delete stuff off your phone. But hey, Iphone people signed up for this, right?

Re:

[viperidaenz]

Sounds like Apple don't go deleting apps from peoples phones.
Sounds more like the apps are automatically reinstalled when the phone is upgraded. Can't reinstall an app that's not available any more.
New iOS, needs apps compiled against the new API?

Re: So let me get this straight...

[Malc]

Apps donâ(TM)t get reinstalled when updating iOS. TFA mentioned offloading, which is a process IOS uses to manage space. You donâ(TM)t have to enable offloading, but it can save some effort if space is low and you donâ(TM)t want to manually deal with it. In this case, iOS will remove apps (not their data) that havenâ(TM)t been used recently, and it gets redownloaded next time you run it. If space is really tight, apps you use more frequently also start getting offloaded. An iOS updat

Re:

[Rinnon]

I would say there's nothing to see here

The only thing I disagree with about your post is that this "news" article isn't newsworthy enough to have been worth the time it took for you to write it.

Re:

[CoolDiscoRex]

I'll go out on a limb here and say, youtube probably has permission to have music videos of copyrighted work on their site and likely pay royalties to do so.

I would not go too far out on that limb because YouTube is one the most copyright-violating websites in the history of the world. And I am talking all the way back to biblical times too.

The vast majority of YouTube songs are up-loaded by people who say no copyright intended or some such thing,

Thus it is balls out move by YouTube, although I guess the

Re:

[TheMiddleRoad]

Those websites from biblical times... were they written in Aramaic?

Re:

[BenBoy]

Nope, English ... just the way God spoke it! You can read the King James Version yourself if you don't believe me.

Re:

[Senshi]

One of Apple's top accomplishments is pulling the wool over customers' eyes. Like using the term artificial intelligence which is obviously tech companies' attempts to fool customers. If such artificial intelligence really exist, it should be independence with ability to think and reproduce on their own. So correct term should be automaton industry, they still could call it AI tho. It's easier to con a person than telling a person that he or she has been conned, Mark Twain.

Re:

[geekmux]

All and all, I would say there's nothing to see here. You got mad iphone copyright infringers threatening to weaken their devices security so they can keep getting "free" music.

Oh, you think there’s nothing to see here, but just wait until you see how all these mad iPhone users get even by downloading the latest iPhone hack next week. That’ll teach ‘em not to try and help secure devices!

Damn right I brought extra popcorn..

Re:

[sjames]

Actually, the courts are still deciding if the app infringes or not. If the court finds that Musi is not infringing, Apple may have liability as well. Had they maintained status quo and looked to the courts for direction, they would have less liability.

typical

[ne0n]

This is always going to be an Apple issue. Whether the holdouts get a new iPhone or not, the problem will keep happening, apps will get banned for no good reason, and iPhones will always be at the mercy of a whimsical giant that doesn't give a flying fuck about their owners' wants or needs.

Meanwhile, Android users have a choice of Spotube [f-droid.org], InnerTune [f-droid.org], Harmony [f-droid.org] and Bloomee [github.com].

Re:

[Shrubbman]

If it would've been free for listener on Youtube, who surely still get the play counts to assess artist payment, then no harm, no foul. It's just a different interface to access that free content. More akin to a custom, site-specific browser.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, I haven't looked into it for this app specifically, but these sorts of alternate frontends for Youtube do tend to block Youtube's ads. Views only pay for themselves if there's ad revenue being generated from those views, otherwise this is just leeching Youtube's bandwidth and adding to the views that Youtube will have to pay the royalties on without giving anything back. I'm not going to tell people not to use ad blockers or these sorts of alternative frontends, I bl

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Even if there is harm, there's no foul, because they're being assholes.

But equally, it's dumb to expect Apple not to do this, they really don't have the option not to.

But also equally, it's dumb to buy a phone without sideloading.

There are no heroes in this story.

Define “legal business” for me.

[geekmux]

Musi sued in October, hoping to quickly secure an injunction that would force Apple to reinstate Musi in the App Store..

So, let me get this straight. Musi streaming music illegally from YouTube, files a lawsuit to demand Apple allow them to continue their illegal behavior in Apples backyard because Apple stopped them on behalf of the actual legal content owner?

Since when is Blatantly Fucking Stealing a reasonable corporate charter? The hell exactly are we calling a legitimate business these days? Is Musi Too Big To Fail or some shit? Taxpayers didn’t get the memo on that one.

Meanwhile, Grandma still has a record fro

It's not "Musi fans" it's "Apple users" who want..

[gavron]

It's not "Musi Fans" it's Apple's software and hardware customers who have paid for their hardware and software...
"Who refuse to upgrade" meaning that if I buy something I HAVE TO upgarade it even if the upgrade DEGRADES what I bought it for? Hell no.

There's a big problem on how this is being put.

The issue isnt with "Musi Fans" at all. It's with Apple REQUIRING their prepaid customers to DOWNGRADE the software so they CAN NO LONGER [newly] USE IT AT ALL EVER AGAIN."

Who's the bag guy here, genius?

FAPPLE.

Sounds like a clear cut violation of App Store

[viperidaenz]

App store guidelines:

5.2.2 Third-Party Sites/Services: If your app uses, accesses, monetizes access to, or displays content from a third-party service, ensure that you are specifically permitted to do so under the service’s terms of use. Authorization must be provided upon request.

If your apps uses another service and violates the terms of that service, no App Store for you.

Further to that, to make to abundantly clear:

5.2.3 Audio/Video Downloading: Apps should not facilitate illegal file sharing or include the ability to save, convert, or download media from third-party sources (e.g. Apple Music, YouTube, SoundCloud, Vimeo, etc.) without explicit authorization from those sources. Streaming of audio/video content may also violate Terms of Use, so be sure to check before your app accesses those services. Authorization must be provided upon request.

Downloading audio or video from YouTube without explicit authorization is prohibited.

Epic App Store

[emangwiro]

just post it on the Epic Store and i'll get it from there