"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.news -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.news -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] rglullis@communick.news -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.news 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

AirBnB and Uber can afford to fight in court

Now, they can. But before they were established companies, they were just a handful of people working out of legal grey areas and figuring out shit as they go along.

I'm not encouraging people to openly go and break the law, but I also don't think it's healthy to never dare anything and just play along with morally corrupt systems like the one we have just because we are afraid of the consequences.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

$1.6m is nothing

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

Or, if push comes to shove, to operate in jurisdictions where people are not persecuted for disobeying draconian laws.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

jurisdiction will allow you to stream your music collection to your friends

Not what I said.

What I am saying is that there are jurisdictions where people can operate and will you not be persecuted (i.e, chased/harassed) even if some lawyer can find an IP address tied to "illegal" activity. Anyone that has looked into how to run a seedbox will quickly find out that there are plenty of providers catering to this market.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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.