You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

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 isnโ€™t as foolproof in legal terms unfortunately. With torrent websites thereโ€™s still some ambiguity as the website doesnโ€™t host the copyrighted material, just the torrent files. But here the website itself is liable, painting a massive legal target on their backs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

hosting copyrighted material.

There are so many โ€œmusic lockerโ€ and โ€œcloud storageโ€ services out there, how come none of them are targeted like you say?

I think you are jumping from โ€œhostingโ€ to โ€œsharing publiclyโ€, 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 .

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I already wasnโ€™t getting good vibes from your comments, but the use of โ€œFUDโ€ is a surefire way to lose credibility.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Music locker services are frequenly targeted and taken down, as GlitterInfection mentioned. Thereโ€™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. Thatโ€™s not FUD, thatโ€™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 doesnโ€™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 doesnโ€™t actually shield you from legal liability.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Fediverse

!fediverse@lemmy.world

Create post

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all itโ€™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

Community stats

  • 5.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.9K

    Posts

  • 65K

    Comments