Comment by kiawe_fire | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kiawe_fire | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Too bad to see this go - this was the only API out of the modern streaming services that you could actually use to build something truly new.

The new Spotify API (along with others like Apple Music) basically allow you to do some of the things the official players offer for browsing and managing music, and give simplistic playback options - effectively, you can build a Fisher Price version of the official app, following the official app’s template, and that’s about it.

I get that it’s all DRM driven, but it really sucks - from Spotify to Netflix and everything in between, we have all these online services with great(ish?) content but terrible UI, bloated embedded browser-based apps and just all around bad user experiences. So much could happen to better these services if they offered open APIs to subscribers.

It’s frustrating that we have so many tools for building apps that run everywhere, yet everything seems so increasingly locked down.

This should be one of the most tinkerer-empowering times of humanity, and yet it feels like it’s becoming one of the most restrictive times.

> This should be one of the most tinkerer-empowering times of humanity

Why? The internet is a massive, low-friction distribution channel. The economic incentives and legal/commercial imperatives are almost entirely geared (and heavily so) towards the centralisation and walled-gardening of value.

I get the sentiment, and wish it were so, but it just isn't so and nothing in the current "times" suggests to me that we have much outside of token pockets of resistance to these practices.

So what's the problem here: is it laws (DRM) or is it profit driven?

If it's law/DRM - then the law is broken, no? How then does the law/policy exist to allow "the most tinkerer-empowering times of humanity"?

Those are good questions.

I think the primary driver is DRM, which itself is driven by the content owners more so than service providers.

While the streaming services themselves surely want to protect their service from theft, they would largely benefit (with some caveats) from having a platform that's extensible and flexible as a competitive edge, similar to how a phone vendor wants to have a thriving third party app scene.

Meanwhile, the content owners still use misguided tactics that punish legitimate users in the hopes of stopping piracy. Piracy that always seems to find a way to continue.

This leads to some good questions around what kind of policy can be made to give content owners legal rights to their IP while also respecting user's rights to build and extend.

Because ultimately the core offering of these streaming services is their breadth of content and the license negotiations and library management they do. Their apps are just front-ends to that.

So, a "right to extend" initiative that pairs with the "right to repair" initiatives could be something interesting to explore.

Late responding, though the conclusion I always seem to reach regarding piracy is that it should be frowned upon as a society with the caveat that it not be illegal, and that it being some version of legal or tolerated sufficiently to act as a counterbalance to a potential system out of balance: 1) if platform providers suck (which maybe includes a lack of interoperability, e.g. walled gardens for only Disney content), and/or 2) content providers are trying to extract too much value from society - which balances with how wealthy society is on average - then if you can only afford shelter/food and other necessities for a minimal acceptable quality of life (including whatever telecommunications and entertainment or education access is arguably necessary for enjoyment of life including being able to have interests to talk about with people, which may be movies or series you pirate because government policy has structured society to suffocate the individual or not help them adequately - arguably driven by industrial complexes capturing our political systems and influencing to dictating policy that helps them at cost of the individual), etc...

If 100% of people pirate and no money is going to funding creativity then something is likely incredibly wrong with our systems' designs and society, but at least if piracy is not illegal then authoritarian control and punishment can't be a violent-force tool to extract value that sovereign individuals decide isn't worth it to them compared to their other costs; this then would arguably cause all parties, all industries, to align to make sure the foundation - the floor - of society is solid and generating/producing [in sustainable way] to extract some value to then reinvest to generate more ROI for society; there are some more recent theories regarding a Universal Basic Income that the ROI from the UBI will actually [at least eventually] pay for the cost of the UBI itself.

TL;DR - Piracy is a useful and valuable mechanism to keep a competitive greed driven for-profit industry in check.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com