this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
161 points (90.0% liked)
Fediverse
28499 readers
312 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't that still not considered legal?
Legality aside, this is the huge barrier of entry for most people, I'd think.
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.
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.
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.