The assumption is that it will be, regardless of intent. Saying otherwise is absurd.
And YouTube and Spotify target that software legally wherever they feel they are being harmed by it.
They do what they can but they don’t go anywhere because they’re not illegal. Not say to anything of actual torrenting software like qbittorrent or Stremio that have been around for years.
The assumption is that someone will come along and develop a frontend that ravages their bandwidth? provides convenient access to the hosted files.
Of course they will.
Providing access to copyrighted content without a license is indeed illegal.
No it is not. If it was, these apps would be gone as soon as they went up. Shit, if that was the case your browser would be illegal. Hosting the files is illegal, and I said said before, I’m not sure how AA gets away with that.
But we’re explicitly not talking about torrenting.
LOL we’re talking about software that facilitates access to copyrighted content. It doesn’t matter if it’s torrented or not. Is that why you seem confused?
then we’re back to my original comment about how music players already exist.
Not a trick. What you were saying did not reflect my statements, so I adjusted it so that it did while still getting the point across.
Agree to disagree with copyright law then.
Law is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of fact. Do you really think Google and Spotify would allow these software to exist if it were illegal?
Again, the bandwidth ramifications are dramatically different. Keep up.
We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It’s literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.
You do realize that strengthens my point that it already exists
LOL what? No, it’s just the opposite. Your point is about the playback of local music and the discussion at hand is about streaming remote music. You’re saying the software is illegal. The fact that it still exists, and has for many years suggests that it’s actually not.
Law is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of fact. Do you really think Google and Spotify would allow these software to exist if it were illegal?
Name a software they are allowing to exist that provides easy access to a repository of copyrighted media files.
We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It’s literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.
Absolutely none of those provide unauthorized access to copyrighted media files. It’s perfectly legal to build a frontend to display publically accessible content like YouTube. It would not be legal for that app to provide public access to downloaded copies of those files on a separate server. You fundamentally don’t understand the law.
Not in that sentence, and you know it. You’re just arguing in bad faith now.
So you’re just debate trolling then, and not actually trying to have a discussion about my comment. What a surprise.
Doesn’t matter.
Of course it does, but you’ve debate trolled yourself into getting lost in the sauce.
Let me hold your hand:
There are 2 logical ways to look at this question. Either, it’s a frontend that streams directly off of AAs servers, which is bad for bandwidth and draws a lot of legal attention. Or, it’s a way to play torrents, which already exist. Odd question.
The assumption is that it will be, regardless of intent. Saying otherwise is absurd.
They do what they can but they don’t go anywhere because they’re not illegal. Not say to anything of actual torrenting software like qbittorrent or Stremio that have been around for years.
The assumption is that someone will come along and develop a frontend that ravages their bandwidth?
If that’s truly your stance then we’re essentially just done.
Providing access to copyrighted content without a license is indeed illegal.
But we’re explicitly not talking about torrenting. Is that why you seem confused?
If we’re talking about torrenting the files and playing them, then we’re back to my original comment about how music players already exist.
Of course they will.
No it is not. If it was, these apps would be gone as soon as they went up. Shit, if that was the case your browser would be illegal. Hosting the files is illegal, and I said said before, I’m not sure how AA gets away with that.
LOL we’re talking about software that facilitates access to copyrighted content. It doesn’t matter if it’s torrented or not. Is that why you seem confused?
You do realize you can stream torrent files?
Neat trick.
Lol. Okay. Agree to disagree with copyright law then.
Again, the bandwidth ramifications are dramatically different. Keep up.
You do realize that strengthens my point that it already exists
Not a trick. What you were saying did not reflect my statements, so I adjusted it so that it did while still getting the point across.
Law is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of fact. Do you really think Google and Spotify would allow these software to exist if it were illegal?
We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It’s literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.
LOL what? No, it’s just the opposite. Your point is about the playback of local music and the discussion at hand is about streaming remote music. You’re saying the software is illegal. The fact that it still exists, and has for many years suggests that it’s actually not.
Name a software they are allowing to exist that provides easy access to a repository of copyrighted media files.
We were discussing both.
From a particular server.
Shit, where do I start:
NewPipe
FreeTube
GrayJay
Seal
Stacher
SimpMusic
AudioTube
Pipeline
Parabolic
Revanced
Should I go on?
Not in that sentence, and you know it. You’re just arguing in bad faith now.
Doesn’t matter.
I no longer believe you’re interested in an honest discussion so I’m gonna stop wasting my time.
Absolutely none of those provide unauthorized access to copyrighted media files. It’s perfectly legal to build a frontend to display publically accessible content like YouTube. It would not be legal for that app to provide public access to downloaded copies of those files on a separate server. You fundamentally don’t understand the law.
So you’re just debate trolling then, and not actually trying to have a discussion about my comment. What a surprise.
Of course it does, but you’ve debate trolled yourself into getting lost in the sauce.
Let me hold your hand:
There are 2 logical ways to look at this question. Either, it’s a frontend that streams directly off of AAs servers, which is bad for bandwidth and draws a lot of legal attention. Or, it’s a way to play torrents, which already exist. Odd question.