←back to thread

TV Garden

(tv.garden)
772 points vkdelta | 4 comments | 30 Mar 25 14:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
forks ◴[02 Apr 25 21:52 UTC] No.43562093[source]▶
One of those things that's so cool it's hard to believe it's legal
replies(2): >>43562344 #>>43562445 #
caseyy ◴[02 Apr 25 22:17 UTC] No.43562344[source]▶
There are many broadcasting laws worldwide, many quite archaic. Even Radio Garden got meaningfully restricted in the UK (only licensed national radio stations are allowed by a high court ruling). I worry for projects like TV Garden but they are undoubtedly very cool.
replies(1): >>43562486 #
lxgr ◴[02 Apr 25 22:31 UTC] No.43562486[source]▶
Wait, what? Receiving foreign web radio streams in the UK is prohibited?!

How is that even enforced?

replies(1): >>43562615 #
caseyy ◴[02 Apr 25 22:44 UTC] No.43562615{3}[source]▶
A UK High Court ruled in 2019 that websites like TuneIn are distributing illegal music[0]. It went to appeals but the previous ruling was upheld. There hasn't been much clarification beyond that nor very clear enforcement. But the precedent this ruling set makes companies fear repercussions if they accidentally link to a stream that has content not licensed for the UK. To interpret this ruling broadly would be to break the internet[1]:

> The claimants say that a finding for the defendant will fatally undermine copyright. The defendant says that a finding for the claimants will break the internet.

As usual, this happened due to rather rabid approach to copyright by big American labels. They may be legally in the right, though their actions, as always, have meaningful negative externalities. How far they reach in this case is unclear, but TuneIn and Radio Garden both have blocked non-UK streams for UK listeners.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TuneIn#Legal_issues

[1] https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2019/11/did-uk-judge-ju...

replies(1): >>43562684 #
1. lxgr ◴[02 Apr 25 22:51 UTC] No.43562684{4}[source]▶
Wow, truly bizarre.

And TuneIn and Radio Garden don't even host any streams, to my knowledge; they're mere directories!

replies(1): >>43562753 #
2. caseyy ◴[02 Apr 25 22:58 UTC] No.43562753[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43562811 #
3. lxgr ◴[02 Apr 25 23:05 UTC] No.43562811[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>43567930 #
4. Mindwipe ◴[03 Apr 25 11:13 UTC] No.43567930{3}[source]▶
They did not.