4 ms·

Yes, if you are the one distributing the podcast directly on a platform you control and the platform is primarily to distribute music you don't own the copyrigh

by Kranar 6y ago

Yes, if you are the one distributing the podcast directly on a platform you control and the platform is primarily to distribute music you don't own the copyright to, it doesn't matter if you happen to be dancing while the music is playing, that is copyright infringement and under this law would be criminal. You can always have a podcast that reviews songs, and people have been reviewing songs for as long as there has been music without the need to play substantial portions of the song itself. You just can't be the one distributing songs as a commercial enterprise and then saying that because there's a video of you dancing that makes copyright infringement acceptable.

mod 6y ago
"Vocal coach reacts!" I, for one, will be glad if these go away. (Plus, get them out of my feed, youtube. I don't watch them.) Apparently they're so successful that other people are doing it now. I saw someone totally unrelated to music reacting to amateur music songs.
- Kranar 6y ago
  Well those videos on Youtube won't be impacted by this. This law doesn't go after individuals who upload infringing content, rather it goes after the platform itself. It's unlikely Youtube will be affected by it.
  - btown 6y ago
    While that may indeed be the intent, an aggressive prosecutor could make a strong argument that individual streamers dancing or singing unlicensed karaoke are providing a digital service (the word "platform" never appears in the text) that "is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works." Which would now be a freaking felony.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      Going by the quoted portion of the bill up thread, "platform" doesn't appear in the relevant portions text but neither does "digital service" - it says "digital transmission service". I am not certain whether that makes a difference.
      - dllthomas 6y ago
        From the definitions section of the bill as linked above: > the term ‘digital transmission service’ means a service that has the primary purpose of publicly performing works by digital transmission; So it probably makes less of a difference than we might hope.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    A YouTube channel can be considered a 'digital service'. I don't see 'platform' in the text, where did you get that from?
  - jmull 6y ago
    > This law doesn't go after individuals who upload infringing content, rather it goes after the platform itself. Be careful. That's not what the law actually says. It doesn't mention "platform". The term used is "digital transmission service", which is defined in terms of the undefined term "service". Perhaps there is some established narrow legal definition of the term "service" that will keep this law from being abused? Let's all hope so!
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      I would read "digital transmission service" as a service offering digital transmission, but that's not what the bill says. It says "the term ‘digital transmission service’ means a service that has the primary purpose of publicly performing works by digital transmission;" which to my eyes does not clearly restrict it to platforms as opposed to, at, a YouTube channel. Unless, as you say, there is a restriction somewhere unspecified on what can be meant by "service".
- ryder9 6y ago
  nobody is forcing you to watch those, stop acting like a child
dylan604 6y ago
> that is copyright infringement and under this law would be criminal. Whoa. This is crazy. Laws are stupid in that they can't be custom tailored for the situation of the accusation at hand. If I come out with a 0-day that allows me to bypass encryption of say Netflix that allows me a pristine copy of a video source that I then later stream on a paid-for streaming platform, then yes, that would be stealing. Therefore, criminal. However, if you're some YT streamer, podcaster, etc that happens to receive money from ad share revenue and you have a segment with some copyrighted music in the background, then that is a far far way off from a criminal act. Civil maybe, but come on. Laws need to be written so the punishment fits the crime/offense.
- Asooka 6y ago
  > that would be stealing No, that would be copyright infringement, which is not theft.

by Kranar 6y ago

mod 6y ago

"Vocal coach reacts!" I, for one, will be glad if these go away. (Plus, get them out of my feed, youtube. I don't watch them.) Apparently they're so successful that other people are doing it now. I saw someone totally unrelated to music reacting to amateur music songs.

Kranar 6y ago
Well those videos on Youtube won't be impacted by this. This law doesn't go after individuals who upload infringing content, rather it goes after the platform itself. It's unlikely Youtube will be affected by it.
- btown 6y ago
  While that may indeed be the intent, an aggressive prosecutor could make a strong argument that individual streamers dancing or singing unlicensed karaoke are providing a digital service (the word "platform" never appears in the text) that "is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works." Which would now be a freaking felony.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    Going by the quoted portion of the bill up thread, "platform" doesn't appear in the relevant portions text but neither does "digital service" - it says "digital transmission service". I am not certain whether that makes a difference.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      From the definitions section of the bill as linked above: > the term ‘digital transmission service’ means a service that has the primary purpose of publicly performing works by digital transmission; So it probably makes less of a difference than we might hope.
- belltaco 6y ago
  A YouTube channel can be considered a 'digital service'. I don't see 'platform' in the text, where did you get that from?
- jmull 6y ago
  > This law doesn't go after individuals who upload infringing content, rather it goes after the platform itself. Be careful. That's not what the law actually says. It doesn't mention "platform". The term used is "digital transmission service", which is defined in terms of the undefined term "service". Perhaps there is some established narrow legal definition of the term "service" that will keep this law from being abused? Let's all hope so!
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    I would read "digital transmission service" as a service offering digital transmission, but that's not what the bill says. It says "the term ‘digital transmission service’ means a service that has the primary purpose of publicly performing works by digital transmission;" which to my eyes does not clearly restrict it to platforms as opposed to, at, a YouTube channel. Unless, as you say, there is a restriction somewhere unspecified on what can be meant by "service".
ryder9 6y ago
nobody is forcing you to watch those, stop acting like a child

dylan604 6y ago

> that is copyright infringement and under this law would be criminal. Whoa. This is crazy. Laws are stupid in that they can't be custom tailored for the situation of the accusation at hand. If I come out with a 0-day that allows me to bypass encryption of say Netflix that allows me a pristine copy of a video source that I then later stream on a paid-for streaming platform, then yes, that would be stealing. Therefore, criminal. However, if you're some YT streamer, podcaster, etc that happens to receive money from ad share revenue and you have a segment with some copyrighted music in the background, then that is a far far way off from a criminal act. Civil maybe, but come on. Laws need to be written so the punishment fits the crime/offense.

Asooka 6y ago
> that would be stealing No, that would be copyright infringement, which is not theft.