5 ms·

I don't think any company would ever get into that space. RIAA (etc) will come after them for not verifying that each user has a license for everything song upl

I don't think any company would ever get into that space. RIAA (etc) will come after them for not verifying that each user has a license for everything song uploaded. The best the community could probably do is have a 1-click AWS instance that is already setup for running your own streaming server and then you just push your music up there. Could even have a lightweight open-source mobile apps to use the APIs of this server.

capableweb 4y ago
> I don't think any company would ever get into that space. RIAA (etc) will come after them for not verifying that each user has a license for everything song uploaded Why should that matter? As long as you're not making songs uploaded by one user available for another user to listen to without them also uploading the same song, it's fair usage. You're allowed to store the bytes wherever you want, it's the (re)distribution that is illegal.
- snarf21 4y ago
  Read about the company Aereo. That should have been legal too under fair use. The argument will be that this fictional company isn't licensed to be a transmitter because they are transmitting unlicensed content. YOU can store your bytes wherever YOU want. This would be someone else storing your bytes for you. You could get around it by using Dropbox or something but if you want a good streaming music system/app/experience, then you are locking into "knowing" that it is music, not just a user's files are a user's files.
- tssva 4y ago
  The RIAA has a very different take on that and no music service wants to get involved in an expensive protracted legal battle against the RIAA which it is very unclear you would actually win.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  This isn't an application of fair use. That doesn't allow you to make bulk copies of media with impunity. Lack of distribution only reduces the damages that can be claimed. For audio this is covered under the format shifting permission provided by the AHRA.

capableweb 4y ago

> I don't think any company would ever get into that space. RIAA (etc) will come after them for not verifying that each user has a license for everything song uploaded Why should that matter? As long as you're not making songs uploaded by one user available for another user to listen to without them also uploading the same song, it's fair usage. You're allowed to store the bytes wherever you want, it's the (re)distribution that is illegal.

snarf21 4y ago
Read about the company Aereo. That should have been legal too under fair use. The argument will be that this fictional company isn't licensed to be a transmitter because they are transmitting unlicensed content. YOU can store your bytes wherever YOU want. This would be someone else storing your bytes for you. You could get around it by using Dropbox or something but if you want a good streaming music system/app/experience, then you are locking into "knowing" that it is music, not just a user's files are a user's files.
tssva 4y ago
The RIAA has a very different take on that and no music service wants to get involved in an expensive protracted legal battle against the RIAA which it is very unclear you would actually win.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
This isn't an application of fair use. That doesn't allow you to make bulk copies of media with impunity. Lack of distribution only reduces the damages that can be claimed. For audio this is covered under the format shifting permission provided by the AHRA.