3 ms·

The moral of the story: if you willfully appropriate someone's trademark and intellectual property their lawyers will settle for nothing less than complete surr

The moral of the story: if you willfully appropriate someone's trademark and intellectual property their lawyers will settle for nothing less than complete surrender. Get over it and move on.

ynniv 15y ago
What's wrong with you people? Dude made an MP3 player... If the CBC was concerned, they wouldn't have an unencrypted MP3 stream. EDIT: Since when is HN frequented by people who dislike entrepreneurs, let alone an open web? Why are we not filing injunctions against all web browsers? iTunes? WinAmp? curl?
- jarek 15y ago
  > Dude made an MP3 player... A U2-branded MP3 player that only plays U2 music...
  - krobertson 15y ago
    And charges $2.99 for it.
  - ynniv 15y ago
    It only streams content from a public stream. It is no different from iTunes, WinAmp, RealPlayer, or a web browser. The fact that it only streams one URL makes it less suitable to the user, but legally no different than the other players.
    - jarek 15y ago
      Legally, intent matters.
      - ynniv 15y ago
        His intent was to provide a better experience to people listening to a public stream. People can already listen to it, he is making it easier and better. I know the joke about the guy getting upset that Someone is Wrong on the Internet, but this thread makes me want create a new private Internet where people need to show cognitive ability before opening their mouth.
        jarek 15y ago
        Hey, if you can create a new private real world where everything makes sense according to a technocratic viewpoint while you're at it, I'd sign up. Until then, we live in a world where internet streaming is legally different from radio broadcasting, and unless you're looking to go the ads-on-torrent-site route, if you're planning to sell things it might be worth taking that into account.
- butterfi 15y ago
  Since when does "open web" imply that its okay to put a wrapper around content that costs the CBC a significant amount of time and money, which they then give away for free, and sell that for your own gain? Unlike the programs you mention, this guy wrote software that serves one single purpose: to serve CBC streams.
  - ynniv 15y ago
    Do you remember when web browsers cost money? I do. If the content is publicly available, then it is free. The cost of the player of this content is independent of the cost of the content. iTunes is free, Lady Gaga is not. iTunes is free, the CBC stream is free. This guy's player is not free, the CBC stream is free. Where is the confusion here? CBC is providing the content for free so that people can listen over the Internet. If the CBC has a problem with people listening to their content over the Internet, maybe they should take it up with themselves.

The moral of the story: if you willfully appropriate someone's trademark and intellectual property their lawyers will settle for nothing less than complete surrender. Get over it and move on.

ynniv 15y ago

What's wrong with you people? Dude made an MP3 player... If the CBC was concerned, they wouldn't have an unencrypted MP3 stream. EDIT: Since when is HN frequented by people who dislike entrepreneurs, let alone an open web? Why are we not filing injunctions against all web browsers? iTunes? WinAmp? curl?

jarek 15y ago
> Dude made an MP3 player... A U2-branded MP3 player that only plays U2 music...
- krobertson 15y ago
  And charges $2.99 for it.
- ynniv 15y ago
  It only streams content from a public stream. It is no different from iTunes, WinAmp, RealPlayer, or a web browser. The fact that it only streams one URL makes it less suitable to the user, but legally no different than the other players.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Legally, intent matters.
    - ynniv 15y ago
      His intent was to provide a better experience to people listening to a public stream. People can already listen to it, he is making it easier and better. I know the joke about the guy getting upset that Someone is Wrong on the Internet, but this thread makes me want create a new private Internet where people need to show cognitive ability before opening their mouth.
      - jarek 15y ago
        Hey, if you can create a new private real world where everything makes sense according to a technocratic viewpoint while you're at it, I'd sign up. Until then, we live in a world where internet streaming is legally different from radio broadcasting, and unless you're looking to go the ads-on-torrent-site route, if you're planning to sell things it might be worth taking that into account.
butterfi 15y ago
Since when does "open web" imply that its okay to put a wrapper around content that costs the CBC a significant amount of time and money, which they then give away for free, and sell that for your own gain? Unlike the programs you mention, this guy wrote software that serves one single purpose: to serve CBC streams.
- ynniv 15y ago
  Do you remember when web browsers cost money? I do. If the content is publicly available, then it is free. The cost of the player of this content is independent of the cost of the content. iTunes is free, Lady Gaga is not. iTunes is free, the CBC stream is free. This guy's player is not free, the CBC stream is free. Where is the confusion here? CBC is providing the content for free so that people can listen over the Internet. If the CBC has a problem with people listening to their content over the Internet, maybe they should take it up with themselves.