So this is essentially a Popcorn Time-type-thing, but aping Soundcloud rather than Netflix. Cool, I guess?

But also too bad! Because when I first read the headline (and the Github description: "Streaming music player that finds free music for you"), I had imagined this to be something entirely different, and much more interesting to me: a "streaming service" that brings together various types of copyright-free and "abandonware" music.

Think:

• pre-1930s public-domain recordings from Archive.org

• chiptunes from modarchive.org

• songs/albums available for "free" or "pay-what-you-want" on Bandcamp

• "doujin music" (https://doujinstyle.com/, but I'd also include e.g. OCRemix in this category)

• various royalty-free music libraries

• Creative-Commons-licensed AI-generated music (if you like that kind of thing)

• rips of "background music" and "muzak" from long-out-of-business companies who specialized in producing that kind of thing

• free public-shared performances of non-IP-burdened plays / musicals / opera

...but presenting all of that, through a slick, Soundcloud-like interface.

Wouldn't that be neat?

▲

gpm 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> So this is essentially a Popcorn Time-type-thing

If I understand this software correctly, that's not a fair comparison. Popcorn time plays movies from sources that did not have the right to give you a copy (illegal torrents). This plays music from sources that did have a right to give you a copy (e.g. youtube).

An app for liberally licensed/public domain music would be neat, this isn't that, but it's also not obviously illegal piracy the same way popcorn time was.

▲

derefr 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> This plays music from sources that did have a right to give you a copy (e.g. youtube).

The distinction being that any random copy of something on YouTube might be there not because the rightsholder explicitly wants it there, but merely because the rightsholder 1. doesn't work with a big label that participates in the YouTube DMCA content fingerprinting program, and 2. doesn't have the resources to stay on top of every unauthorized upload of their work on their own (or perhaps doesn't even have awareness that anyone is doing such.)

In other words, while YouTube Music (the music and music-video hosting and proxied-leadgen service) is essentially as authorized as MTV, YouTube (the user video hosting service, where a video might just so happen to be music + a static screen/lyrics) is a definite "grey market" for music. There's plenty of legit music there (e.g. live performances by the musicians themselves) but also plenty of freebooted content (...of mostly non-RIAA musicians, sure; but what of it?)

And in my mind, that makes YouTube (again, not YT Music, YT-the-video-host — yes, they're collapsed together at the UI level, but crucially, not at the API level!) not really any different from your average BT tracker, in terms of its ability to guarantee authorized-ness of what it hosts; which is why I think the comparison between "an app that plays videos it finds on torrent trackers" (Popcorn Time) and "an app that plays music it finds on YouTube" (Nuclear) is valud.

	▲	gpm 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Eh, the distinctions being that - With YouTube, unlike with torrenting, you aren't distributing the files. - You have no reason to believe that YouTube doesn't have an entirely valid license - while you do with torrents. YouTube takes reasonable (though not foolproof) steps to attempt to ensure that. Asserting you can't use YouTube because someone might have uploaded a copyright infringing work would lead to the conclusion that you can't browse the rest of the public internet for the same reason. - YouTube complies with the DMCA for whatever the safe harbor provisions are worth (under US law). If it's a grey market, it's a very light-grey market.
	▲	account42 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is a theoretical distinction. Most currently popular mainstream music has an authorized upload on YouTube.

▲

riedel 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem to me is the OP using the ethical loaded definition of free in one's choice of licence and at the same time referring to the use of copyrighted material (that is clearly in a bit of a grey area) is at least strange. (And the attitude of the OP is clearly a bit popcorn time. )

I like the app because the official clients tend to suck. But I am also paying for a lot of music previously downloaded from the sites. The problem I see with such clients is that if they would become popular they trigger reactions that make the web typically less free in any sense. But there is definitely better ways to support artist than streaming subscriptions...

▲

grugagag 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Try Radiooooo, you sound like you may enjoy this app. It’s free, you only have to register your email with them.

	▲	edm0nd 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Very neat. Using it now. Kinda cool, you can pick a place in the world and then a date timeframe and it will do the rest.