▲ | caseyy 2 days ago | |||||||
It is rather awkward that the US right-holders chose to sue TuneIn in the UK, rather than US radio broadcasters that stream online without appropriate licenses. However, TuneIn was profiting from the premium subscriptions relating to content they knew didn't pass muster legally, and their service foundational was based on such content. There are certainly many things to be said about it. But unfortunately the debate is already settled by the appeals court in the UK. Overall, the UK TuneIn service was valuable to the public. And it is an example of such value being destroyed by copyright laws. This is yet another topic that many people have said much on. | ||||||||
▲ | lxgr 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> Overall, the UK TuneIn service was valuable to the public. I agree about stream directory services in general, but I'm a bit on the fence about TuneIn in particular. It started out very useful, especially as the de facto backbone for Google Home devices – I believe they back or at least used to back "Hey Google, play <station name>". But lately they started playing "pre-roll ads", and I think lately even playing ads over the live content, and I'm not entirely sure if they even share the revenue of those, or of premium subscriptions that avoid ads, with the underlying radio stations. | ||||||||
|