Funkwhale might be the most overlooked Fediverse project
Funkwhale might be the most overlooked Fediverse project
You're viewing a single thread.
So if you have a good mix of friends who kept/ripped their CD/Vynil collection or bought songs from their favorite indie musicians, you can end up with a pretty extensive library. This makes it a decent (and legal) alternative to sneaker-net piracy.
Isn't that still not considered legal?
Legality aside, this is the huge barrier of entry for most people, I'd think.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's been ruled you technically aren't even allowed to make digital backup copies of your media. There's just no world they'd go after you for that.
Since I'm German and pay an extra fee with every storage medium for it I sure am allowed to do just that. Even though they try to make it absurdly hard for you to do so.
I can even share it with friends and family, just not put it out for the whole world to use it.
The libraries you share can be set to private or "invite-only". So, if you share only with a small group of friends and not make it publicly available it should still be under fair use.
At least in the Netherlands this would still constitute unauthorised copying of licensed material, and therefore be illegal.
Honestly, the question in this case then becomes "how will anyone be able to enforce it?"
ISPs can be compelled to share name/address information of anyone involved in publishing licensed material through the courts. Then they'll summon you to stop or pay a fairly hefty fine.
You'd have to first establish that the person under the IP is actually sharing copyrighted material. This is easy to track on something like BitTorrent, but virtually impossible through a regular website. You'd have to have someone pretending to be your friend, getting access to your song and then filing a complaint.
They would be able to sue the webhost in order to retrieve basically all the data if they have strong and reasonable suspicions that the website is hosting copyrighted material.
This really isn't as foolproof in legal terms unfortunately. With torrent websites there's still some ambiguity as the website doesn't host the copyrighted material, just the torrent files. But here the website itself is liable, painting a massive legal target on their backs.
hosting copyrighted material.
There are so many "music locker" and "cloud storage" services out there, how come none of them are targeted like you say?
I think you are jumping from "hosting" to "sharing publicly", which to me seems like a really big jump and, quite frankly, FUD.
They would be able to sue the webhost
Seems like another marketing point for 1984.hosting .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_music_lockers
Many were sued into oblivion, and of the big names, only Apple, which negotiated with the record labels before launching the feature, still has one going.
I already wasn't getting good vibes from your comments, but the use of "FUD" is a surefire way to lose credibility.
Music locker services are frequenly targeted and taken down, as GlitterInfection mentioned. There's multiple cases on the Wikipedia page.
There is a jump between hosting and sharing, but that jump is very small. Share it with 1 other person, and you have made unauthorised copies of the licensed material, and are therefore acting against the law. That's not FUD, that's been reality for the past few decades.
Whether or not the illegal sharing of licensed material is done via a generic website, a federated service of even carrier pidgeon doesn't matter, an unlicensed copy is an illegal copy. Rightsholders have pleny of avenues to force a takedown against specific instances. And if they can successfully argue that the primary purpose of this software is piracy, they may even have enough legal arguments to force a takedown of the sourcecode.
Of course, the main question is whether rightsholders will bother with this as long as it remains small-scale. Legal costs would likely outweigh the missed income. But that doesn't actually shield you from legal liability.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to this article talking to one about this type of use-case as a result of the Covid pandemic.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/is-streaming-movies-to-friends-through-discord-and/1100-6476735/
"Fair use comes in a couple of flavors," the professor said. "There is--let's call it the 'small uses,' the quotations and quotes and clips; there is 'satire, parody, transformation;' and there is one thing I think of as 'reasonable, normal consumer uses,' which can include all media, provided it's very personal and appropriately limited to things you already had some kind of access to.
I think the third is the part of Fair Use that you're talking about. But he goes on to say:
The case gets worse as you get to larger and longer media like watching an entire movie; the case gets worse as you raise the quality of the streaming, so as you switch to streaming it through the software itself rather than just picking it up with the microphone; the case gets worse as you include more people and as people are less related to each other--as you get beyond the immediate nuclear family into a larger group of friends."
So streaming to even your family is already a gray area, but it seems that doing what you're suggesting is a much weaker case for Fair Use.
He also doesn't mention the amount and frequency of sharing, which would likely factor in.
If you create a library of every album you ever owned, with a large amount of high quality on demand streamable copyrighted content to all your friends, you're squarely in "most likely not fair use, but you won't know until they catch you" territory.
It all comes down to how likely do you think you'll be caught, and what you think you can prove in court. I definitely would not want to be the first person the RIAA makes an example of.
The other use-cases are very cool seeming. Killing Bandcamp should be every music lover's goal, and this seems like a good platform to do it with.
It all comes down to how likely do you think you’ll be caught, and what you think you can prove in court. I definitely would not want to be the first person the RIAA makes an example of.
The streaming companies only start squeezing down on the "people sharing account passwords" for economic reasons, and I don't recall hearing of anyone being worried about a lawsuit over a clear violation of their ToS. I find it really hard to believe that it would ever make sense for the MPAA to go after someone because they were sharing their music collection with friends/family.
Streaming companies pay streaming license deals for the content they stream.
They have distribution rights. Which you and I do not.
The RIAA is evil enough to kick a grandmother in the face because she remembered her wedding song if it meant they could make a buck.
Not the point, but arguing any further is pointless. When/if anyone gets an actual lawsuit because of their Plex/Navidrome/Funkwhale server being shared with friends and family, I'll (sadly) concede.
Then feel free to concede...
And maybe don't give legal advice.
And read up on your very recent history on topics before you talk about them?
I wasn't giving "legal advice", but okay... The article is not exactly clear about the source of the material being distributed, so perhaps the case would be different if he could have proved having bought the original movies.
Anyway, you are right. We are living in a world where people can be sued over sharing files with friends and family, so those that are afraid of it shouldn't do it. Still, It doesn't make it any less acceptable and we should all be sad about this being the state of affairs. Reading these articles make me want to double down on "pirating" stuff and refuse any corporate service. Copyright law needs an urgent reform, but I doubt we will see anything until we break corporation's business models.
It is definitely depressing to read about.
And the fediverse doesn't map well to the laws, but it can't afford to get it wrong.
it can't afford to get it wrong.
Why? Why is that Valley companies like AirBNB and Uber get a pass for skirting regulations and only after they corner the market they start asking for government help, and we the people need to be constantly afraid of whatever rules?
Why should we feel afraid?
It shouldn't be this way, but it definitely is this way.
Even with all of what you and I have been discussing in this thread, the answer to "is this legal" comes down to "how much can you afford to pay to find out the answer to the question?" Settling a lawsuit is often cheaper than going to court even if you could win the lawsuit.
The average person can't afford to defend their rights even when they are legally right.
AirBnB and Uber can afford to fight in court and often prolong legal battles while trying to lobby to get laws changed in the process.
The fediverse is built on small islands of average people hosting instances of a specific platform. Getting this wrong puts the individual hosts on jeopardy very directly.
The recent illegal content spam on lemmy and lemmy's image copying made it clear that instance admins are at risk. They have responsibilities under the DMCA in the US and similar laws elsewhere.
Fortunately the DMCA has its safe harbor provision which likely applies to all the individual instances. Unfortunately I don't think any of them actually are meeting the requirements it outlines. But hopefully we never find out.