How do musicians get paid on this platform?
With that said, it appears there is the ability to share music socially - which seems like p2p sharing.
Which is fine as there is plenty of music that is allowed to be shared free.
Scary thought, being able to purchase music these days rather than a streaming service lease, I know...
I don't talk with the attorneys who create these complex licensing rules at Amazon, iTunes, etc. I talk to musicians. None of whom have ever had a problem with listening to their music with a small group of friends or family. The problem is with a platform that allows me to fire up a server and then invite thousands or millions of people to listen to someone's music for free.
Don't want to accidentally leak any copyrighted joy to your neighbors without payment!
You are free to do whatever you like with your free time, of course.
It seems like you are implying I am. When all I'm trying to do is make sure musicians get fairly paid for their work. So yeah, I'm not super concerned about playing music loud in my car as you sarcastically suggested I should be.
I am concerned about joining a music platform where something I purchased can be shared for free to millions of people with the musician getting nothing.
If there is a service that pays musicians directly and cuts out ASCAP and RIAA, then even better.
The sad thing for me, is that even if something like that were to function, and no matter how well, people would find another reason the artists don't deserve payment.
So as it stands, organizations like that are how artists get paid at all.
And not as any hard defence of the RIAA in all aspects, but it's not like they don't do anything. They did help set the standards for effective vinyl mastering and playback...
You are here talking down the tool and implying software you have not used is not legal while uncritically repeating their claims, which are more aggressive than many copyright lawyers believe is accurate.
I'm sorry if you find my flip characterization uncharitable. If you need a less off-the-cuff one, you are uncritically lending your voice to the legacy copyright cartel's continuing attempts to monopolize music distribution.
That does do several things. Promoting fairness for musicians is not one of them.
Especially when I said this, right? "If there is a service that pays musicians directly and cuts out ASCAP and RIAA, then even better."
That doesn’t seem to be the intent or reality of how Funkwhale is used. All of the public pods I saw had less than 200 members. I imagine you’d run into scaling problems with larger pods.
There's a definite difference between providing atmosphere in a restaurant, and providing the content as some sort of production, or providing others with broadcast-quality copies from a single master without permission of the artist.
It most certainly does in my country (and probably in most of Europe I would hasard).
The only thing you can't do is public performance and distribution but sharing it with your friends is definitely legal.
From the top of their landing page.
Every DSP (Digital Service Provider) is required to register with the Mechanical Licensing collective, and the administrative fee is $5,000 per year if you fall under the threshold number of streams. If you pass that, then it's $60,000 to unlimited...
Of course you'll have to file monthly reports and pay the royalties due under the blanket license as well.
Some comments here are making assumptions about the motivations/ethical principles of the developers, but how about reading directly what they say?
It turns out that they've been thinking quite a lot about this problem: https://agate.blue/blog/2018/05/11/funkwhale-content-monetiz...