Musi Fans Refuse To Update iPhones Until Apple Unblocks Controversial App (arstechnica.com) 103
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
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 app store because they don't want to deal with copyright infringement laws. Sounds like a fair response. Seems, if you update your iphone, you lose access to the app. Since people love their i-trash and their i-trash closed garden, this is essentially what they signed up for. To be told by Apple which applications they are allowed to run.
It's pretty comical to be mad at Apple but I imagine Apple could be held liable for allowing Musi in their store since apparently is an application meant to commit copyright infringement.
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.
This does of course illustrate why walled garden's are bad for user choice but once again, Iphone users signed up for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You don't need permission from the copyright holder to stream from youtube.
Copyright is all about permission. The holder has at best given Youtube permission to stream the copyrighted data.
And youtube itself is giving implicate permission to stream from them by serving up the stream. "If you continue using this service" TOS shrink wraps are not valid.
I am skeptical that Youtube serving up a stream is at all implicate permission in terms of copyright.
The Terms of Service are at minimum in place so that Youtube can point to them if the copyright holder comes complaining about something like Musi and Youtube can claim they have done their due diligence.
They signed over this control when they allowed it to be streamed on youtube. If the copyright holders have a grievance, it's with youtube.
They signed over the right for Youtube to stream with certain monetary kickbacks I am sure. I
Re: (Score:2)
> But Musi does not have permission and is bypassing the Youtube interface
You don't need permission from the copyright holder to stream from youtube. And youtube itself is giving implicate permission to stream from them by serving up the stream. "If you continue using this service" TOS shrink wraps are not valid.
> violating the copyright holder's claim to be able to control the streaming of the data?
They signed over this control when they allowed it to be streamed on youtube. If the copyright holders have a grievance, it's with youtube.
So, I borrow a copy of a (presumably copyrighted) book from the library; then I scan it and provide it for free on my website.
How is that legal?
Just because there are multitudinous examples of exactly that all over the internet, doesn't make it less of an infringement, and Apple any less liable or culpable for contributory negligence.
Apple had no choice but to Remove the App from the App Store. It is merely a side-effect of the iOS Update Process that Musi was Removed from the Updater's phone.
It's a legal g
Re: (Score:2)
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: So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing implies something is taken, this is just copyright infringement
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing implies something is taken, this is just copyright infringement
Sigh. Not This Again. . .
Stop with the Infantile Sophistry. Please.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright lasting forever is already unfair. People/corporations shouldn't get a government enforced monopoly basically forever, that doesn't encourage new creation.
Corporations hate the idea of competition and the public domain so they push gullible people to believe that committing copyright infringement is like stealing a car
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright lasting forever is already unfair. People/corporations shouldn't get a government enforced monopoly basically forever, that doesn't encourage new creation.
Corporations hate the idea of competition and the public domain so they push gullible people to believe that committing copyright infringement is like stealing a car
Offtopic much?
Re: (Score:2)
It was in response to someone calling copyright infringement stealing so that's pretty solidly on topic
Re: (Score:2)
It was in response to someone calling copyright infringement stealing so that's pretty solidly on topic
But TFA was about certain people resisting iOS updates because they were afraid of losing access to an App that Apple Removed from the App Store pursuant to Federal Law.
Whining about the general merits and concepts of Copyright itself here is, at best, a Strawman Argument; therefore it is, by definition, Off-Topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah you must be new to the internet, I can explain:
The articles posted here tend to be a "starting point" for discussions. People will comment on them and there will be replies that will discuss those topics.
For example, someone might post a concern about copyright infringement on an article about an app that lets users listen to music for free and that thread could then be discussing the merits of copyright. If someone posted about puppies, that would be off-topic.
It can be a bit confusing at first but yo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
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 update can be quite large, and this increases the chance of apps being offloaded.
In the past, you could do all your updates via iTunes, which kept a copy of the apps on your computer. You could even copy apps from somebody elseâ(TM)s phone to your own phone this way (side loading?). I donâ(TM)t know of thatâ(TM)s still possible because I switched to doing everything over the air including backups to iCloud since before Apple moved phone support out of iTunes to Finder.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite interesting and I didn't know all that about Apple. Of course, half of what you just said makes me want to have even less to do with Apple and that's not really possible since I don't own a single Apple item. Still, interesting post!
Re: So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Which bit don't you like?
Re: (Score:2)
There are several reason I won't consider Apple products.
1) Cost to much. I'm not buying tech for fashion so I don't care if what I buy is "popular"
2) I build my own desktop systems. Isn't the whole point of Apple to buy their pre-made solution?
3) The fact that updating my system or Iphone could result in applications no longer being there is highly disturbing.
4) Apple has less game support then Linux. Linux with Steam works fabulous for me.
5) I'm not a walled garden sort of person and that's what my perspe
Re: (Score:2)
You could even copy apps from somebody elseâ(TM)s phone to your own phone this way (side loading?).
First off, Kudos! Your Post was mostly correct and Informative.
However, I cannot remember a time when an iOS User could Directly Transfer App Store Apps (via AirDrop, perhaps?) between Users not part of the same Family Plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I did it a with a few apps with my wife. We've never been on Family Plan (that sounds wrong!). I think we stopped when she got her iPhone 11 because it didn't work with my very old late 2007 MBP. Up until then I was backing our phones up to the laptop. I had iTunes configured with two different libraries in the same local account and was downloading the apps in iTunes. I would then copy paid apps between our libraries (or dragged them from Finder to iTunes? I don't remember now). After that, whenever
Re: (Score:2)
I did it a with a few apps with my wife. We've never been on Family Plan (that sounds wrong!). I think we stopped when she got her iPhone 11 because it didn't work with my very old late 2007 MBP. Up until then I was backing our phones up to the laptop. I had iTunes configured with two different libraries in the same local account and was downloading the apps in iTunes. I would then copy paid apps between our libraries (or dragged them from Finder to iTunes? I don't remember now). After that, whenever an app from the other person needed to be updated, you'd be prompted for their Apple ID and password.
Hmmm. Interesting. . .
LOL! "Family Sharing!" Less creepy. . .
https://www.apple.com/family-s... [apple.com]
Well, I guess I stand corrected, and edumacated!
But the fact that one User was prompted to re-authenticate an App after the other Updated that App tells me that somehow, DRM was being detected and (semi)-enforced, despite your seeming ability to Exploit a Security Hole!
As I said, Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
Perhaps they have an app for reading comprehension.
Exactly.
The savvy iOS User (you can even find them on Slashdot!) would have Turned Off Offload Unused Apps in Settings (in the "App Store" Settings), before Updating, and (hopefully!) avoided the problem.
Doing that, however, means the User must have enough On-Device Physical Storage to Download and Install an OS Update.
Re: (Score:2)
A
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an Apple user and don't really care, but I guess it then comes down to the definition of "unused". If people miss it I can only assume it was used sometimes. So is there an official definition for "unused" (days, weeks, etc.) that they stick to consistently, or is anything removed from the app store automatically marked as "unused" for everyone? Or to put it another way, if you use that app every day and do an update that needs free space, does it still get removed? The article is not clear.
Also IMO that is a crappy non-selective way to free up space in the first place, but just reinforces why I am not an Apple user.
Do not know. Do not care. It seems to work pretty well (obviously, Musi may be a corner-case, due to the DMCA issue).
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Those websites from biblical times... were they written in Aramaic?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No court has ordered Apple to do anything in this matter so far.
Nobody has claimed that the app itself is a copyright violation.
In fact, Apple is arguing against an injunction that would make them put it back up.
Re: (Score:2)
No court has ordered Apple to do anything in this matter so far.
Nobody has claimed that the app itself is a copyright violation.
In fact, Apple is arguing against an injunction that would make them put it back up.
Citation, please?
Re: (Score:2)
A careful reading of TFA and an understanding of how the DMCA works.
Re: (Score:2)
A careful reading of TFA and an understanding of how the DMCA works.
Or, IOW, "I'm not going to do your Research for you."
Nice Try. Your Assertion; your Burden of Proof.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one asserting that Apple acted under a court order. I explicitly do not claim that making the app itself available is a copyright violation.
In fact, Apple is arguing against an injunction that would make them put it back up.
That last one is in TFA.
So I guess you need to demand a citation from AC.
You seem a bit wrapped around the axle here.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are, no, Apple won't face liability.
Apple did not remove the app because it infringed copyright. Apple removed the app because they received numerous DMCA requests to take down the app. As per the DMCA, that action shields Apple from the consequences
Re: (Score:2)
They received ZERO DMCA requests to remove the app. A DMCA request is an assertion that the thing itself belongs to you. The copyright of the app is not in question.
What Apple received was requests from 3rd parties asking them to pull the app.
Re: (Score:2)
They received ZERO DMCA requests to remove the app. A DMCA request is an assertion that the thing itself belongs to you. The copyright of the app is not in question.
What Apple received was requests from 3rd parties asking them to pull the app.
77866
From TFS:
"Apple kicked Musi out of the App Store after receiving several copyright complaints."
Those "3rd Parties"? Perhaps they were the actual Copyright Holders?
Sounds like DMCA requests to me!
Re: (Score:2)
I think copyrights are bad.
There, I made a copyright complaint. I did NOT make a DMCA complaint though.
DMCA complaints can be made by a copyright holder to someone who is hosting the protected content.
Re: (Score:2)
I think copyrights are bad.
There, I made a copyright complaint. I did NOT make a DMCA complaint though.
DMCA complaints can be made by a copyright holder to someone who is hosting the protected content.
And that seems to be what any reasonable person would conclude was done.
But yet, you insist on "debating" on a six-year-old's level.
This is getting tedious. . .
Re: (Score:2)
You seem quite desperate to not be wrong. What copyrighted content do you believe Apple was hosting that drew a DMCA complaint?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Apple has a simple rule: They don't get involved in any copyright disputes. And their rules say they can refuse to do business with anyone. If YouTube told them musi does copyright infringement then Apple removes musi. If musi takes youtube in court and proves this was all lies, then youtube has to pay damages (like loss of income) and it goes up on the store again.
There was a case not long ago where someone wanted to put GPL licensed software on the App Store and the copyright holder (GPL software alway
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, by doing that, Apple was a contributory infringer on the publisher's legitimate license.
And actually you CAN legally sell Free software as long as you honor all parts of the license. Of course, the first buyer is free to also start selling the Free software and undercut your price.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, by doing that, Apple was a contributory infringer on the publisher's legitimate license.
By doing what, exactly?
So anxious to blame Apple for anything, you can't even compose a coherent, self-contained, Post!
Re: (Score:2)
By assisting the author's attempt to violate the licence legitimately held by the person who put the app up on the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
By assisting the author's attempt to violate the licence legitimately held by the person who put the app up on the app store.
WTF are you even saying?
Pretzel Logic, much?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not true; since Apple is the sole arbitor of whether a particular App is available on their Private App Store, there is a more solid case to be made for Contributory Negligence (at the very least!) on Apple's (Deep Pocketed) Part, if Apple left the App "up" while In Controversy; particularly DMCA-style Controversy.
Apple is acting in Good Faith here.
Re: (Score:2)
It is unclear if, absent court direction, they have any duty to prevent the use of an app that might or might not be used for copyright infringement.
As a public entity, they are not allowed to make completely arbitrary decisions about access.
Re: (Score:2)
It is unclear if, absent court direction, they have any duty to prevent the use of an app that might or might not be used for copyright infringement.
As a public entity, they are not allowed to make completely arbitrary decisions about access.
A Publicly-Held Corporation is not the same as a Government Entity.
There is no "Prior Restraint" here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
More complicated than that. If the app is streaming a Youtube video rather than YT Music then it's not a case of having a license or paying royalties, it's a case of advertising revenue. The bypassing of advertising revenue is the Google considers off brand Youtube players a breach of the Terms of Use.
The complex part comes with the companies going after such services under the "copyright" banner, including services like youtube-dl which we've covered here before. It's an interesting case from a legal persp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
typical (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, Android users have a choice of Spotube [f-droid.org], InnerTune [f-droid.org], Harmony [f-droid.org] and Bloomee [github.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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].
Bullshit.
See, literally, the Post directly above yours:
https://mobile.slashdot.org/co... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Do the absolute bare minimum and click those links I gifted your lazy ass. Those apps are available for anybody because, as mentioned above, this isn't a problem that affects Android users.
To spell it out for the slow kids like you, Google doesn't have a walled garden. Put the dunce cap back on, NoMoreACs.
You're the one with the Dunce Cap, as are the Developers of Musi.
Apple received several Copyright (DMCA) Notices regarding Musi on the App Store.
Pursuant to the DMCA, Apple promptly removed the App that was the Subject of those Complaints.
Also, pursuant to the DMCA, Musi could have sent Apple a Notice claiming Non-Infringement, requiring Apple to Reinstate the Musi App, but they did not. Why?
So, you appear to be angry at Apple for following Federal Law.
Now who's the Dunce? From the Point of View of The Law,
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You've Just got to get that "dig" in at Apple, even while admitting their hands were tied, legally!
You Haters are ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
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 block ads myself any one person's costs to Youtube for doing so are vanishingly small, but in aggregate if you're one of many thousands of users all doing the same it start to add up so don't kid yourself thinking there really is "no harm, no foul" doing so.
Perfect framing of the actual monetary cost of Musi to YouTube (Google).
Define “legal business” for me. (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
musi isn't streaming from youtube, the user is.
Lets hope you didn’t fall right into this, but define “user”. Within the legal framework of all TOS and EULAs known to all parties.
And... what law are they breaking? Running a youtube stream though an interface that hides video and skips ad's should not be illegal. This is no different that what you can accomplish with a browser extension.
Say that again. Slowly, and in your personal business owners voice to your family who are hungry and wondering why there’s no food on the streaming table because the blocking thief came by and stole it. Again. (Forget the rich executive. Consider the struggling creator/artist who can be actually impacted.)
Those browser extensions are some of the most
Re: (Score:2)
So before litigation on this matter is concluded, you have decided Musi is streaming music illegally from YouTube?
I must have missed the part where there was a finding of guilt. Can you help me out by pointing to where I can find it?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a dog cock that needs sucking. Get back to work.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a dog cock that needs sucking. Get back to work.
I thought it was your turn.
Re: (Score:2)
So before litigation on this matter is concluded, you have decided Musi is streaming music illegally from YouTube?
I must have missed the part where there was a finding of guilt. Can you help me out by pointing to where I can find it?
I see you must be new to the Internets.
There is an implied "In My Not So Humble OPINION" in front of Every. Forum. Posting.
Got it? Good!
Re: (Score:2)
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 from back in her Metalli-Napster days..
Pre-cisely!!!
It's not "Musi fans" it's "Apple users" who want.. (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What in the ever-loving FUCK are you Blathering about?!?
Begone, Hater!
Sounds like a clear cut violation of App Store (Score:2)
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.
Re: Sounds like a clear cut violation of App Store (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's breach of contract, so civil law vs. criminal. This still counts as 'illegal'.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it also means Apple has the right to remove the app from the App Store, and there isn't really any grounds for an injunction.
I wouldn't be surprised if the judge laughs in their face and award costs to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't listen to YouTube on a phone in the background with the official app unless you pay for YouTube premium.
5.2 has been there since at least 2018
Before that, as far as Wayback machine goes, in 2014
8.5
Apps may not use protected third party material such as trademarks, copyrights, patents or violate 3rd party terms of use. Authorization to use such material must be provided upon request
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Exactly Correct!
Epic App Store (Score:1)
Seems reasonable (Score:2)
You decided to buy a personal computer which is intended to work against your interests. Any time there is a conflict between what you want and what Apple wants it is directed to serve Apple and deny you.
That's what you knowingly bought.
Now there's a conflict (you want the Musi app; Apple doesn't want to send it to you) and the personal computer is correctly fucking you over, as you intended.
What's the problem? It's degrading you as you wished.
You imagine life as a person who has only one foot, and it sound
Re: (Score:2)
Or..
You bought an appliance (that technically happens to be implemented as a personal computer) with the knowledge that what you can do with it is governed by rules
If something you've been doing with that appliance turns out to not abide by those rules, you simply get on with your life, as it's really not that important.
Re: (Score:2)
Or..
You bought an appliance (that technically happens to be implemented as a personal computer) with the knowledge that what you can do with it is governed by rules
If something you've been doing with that appliance turns out to not abide by those rules, you simply get on with your life, as it's really not that important.
Ding, Ding, Ding!!!
We have a WINNER!!!