• rglullis@communick.newsOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • rglullis@communick.newsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

          • rglullis@communick.newsOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

              • rglullis@communick.newsOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

                  • rglullis@communick.newsOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    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?