I am using their competitor’s products without issue, so I’m not seeing how this is anticompetitive.

But I do hate Meta.

Seems like the type of thing that if you cared about it you wouldn’t use a Meta product in the first place.

Then host it there if that’s what you want to do.

You are still better off knowing whether or not you are breaking the law when you do so.

I went to the article expecting rage inducing decisions based on your comment, but your TLDR has no relation to the article whatsoever.

The article is pretty glowing about Threads and Mastodon, and its author seems to be excited by them being connected through federation. They seem hopeful that they can use Mastodon to continue to enjoy their Threads communities.

They also claim that the default Threads experience is way better than the default Mastodon one, especially for the average user, but the API of Mastodon makes for a way better experience in terms of third party clients and tools.

They were able to consume the Threads content chronologically instead of through the algorithmic For You feed that none of us want.

Generally this is the first article posted I’ve seen that was talking about this from a UX perspective, as well as from a Threads user’s perspective, and I found it interesting to read.

There’s definitely stuff in the rest of the law that addresses how effective your solution needs to be. So just ignoring requests will get you into trouble.

It also would be fraud to name a person who isn’t real or isn’t aware of being appointed or isn’t actually doing anything in relation to the problem. You have to give their name and contact information to the copyright office.

It’s fun to think we could stick it to the RIAA if they came knocking, but if you don’t have the cash to back it up, you are going to lose that fight.

I was having a conversation elsewhere about funkywhale being used to share copyright protected content and in that conversation I ended up reading about the US DMCA Safe Harbor’s requirements.

It requires you to have a designated person with their name registered with the copyright office to be considered a safe harbor.

https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca/dmca-safe-harbor/

• designating agents to receive takedown notices from copyright owners and recording those designated agents with the U.S. Copyright Office;

This is enough for me to never want ro host my own instance of any fediverse software. I can’t imagine this is being done by every lemmy instance.

Is there something that makes it so this requirement isn’t important for lemmy?

I don’t think you will find that any jurisdiction will allow you to stream your music collection to your friends without them also purchasing that music first.

But if you do find a jurisdiction that allows that, then host it there for certain!

Good thing that didn’t happen here, then?

…

Can I go now?

I always feel like I’m taking crazy pills when the subject of Apple comes up on lemmy.

Uber got $1.6m in VC funding after showing their app at a conference.

The way the fediverse works it would require each instance to raise their own money.

The thing you suggested as legal is most likely not just grey area, but actively goes against the intent of copyright. A company would be better at fighting that than individuals.

It’s not fear to act wisely in the face of reality.

That’s good!

So it’s good faith to say that when Apple does something good that they are bad and it’s typical of them to be bad?

By allowing emulators on the app store… Apple Bad?

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.

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.

Then feel free to concede…

https://torrentfreak.com/courts-sentence-men-for-pirating-thousands-of-movies-tv-shows-including-via-plex-210325/

And maybe don’t give legal advice.

And read up on your very recent history on topics before you talk about them?

https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

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.

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’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.