in reply to TROM

So first up, I am not a lawyer, even if I play one on TV. Seems to me though that even if you didn't post the video, that if your server is seeding it, then technically you, among others, *are* hosting it?

Surely in this case though you could comply just by defederating that particular piece of content / user?

It's interesting though that Amazon are recognizing Peertube content, even if just for copyright. That to me suggests they're keeping an eye on it, even if they likely don't consider it a major threat... yet.

#Peertube #Amazon #Copyright

in reply to Blort™ 🐀Ⓥ🥋☣️

> if your server is seeding it, then technically you, among others, *are* hosting it?

I don't think that's how @peertube works. Remote videos are discoverable by searching on a PT service, but it's the viewer that's seeding them by watching (because WebTorrent), not the PT service providing the search results.

You're right that copyright lawyers and often judges haven't cared much about such nuances though, or we would have won the CopyWars.

@trom

This entry was edited (11 hours ago)
in reply to TROM

"The video in question, a documentary about "aliens", a garbage piece of content, was NOT hosted on our instance, of course"

As other have said (and may yet say) IANAL

*That said* there is a vast difference between "hosted on" and "served from"

Your instance may *not* be the sole source for that content, but if a video consumer *gets* it though you, guess what?

It doesn't matter what "makes sense"

This is law, and lawyer-speak

Good luck with it

cc @peertube@framapiaf.org

This entry was edited (1 day ago)
in reply to FinchHaven sfba

If you make the instances that "display" a piece of remote content, liable for the content, you are destroying the internet itself. I cannot be responsible for a remote content. Federation cannot work if this is the case. It is utterly insane to do that. It is like making your Browser responsible for the content people display on it.

Maddad ☑️ reshared this.

in reply to Maddad ☑️

@maddad
If a forum page embeds a YT video isn't it displaying just a link?

Anyway, if we become relevant they will drown us in lawsuits, not because their claims are reasonable but because we can't afford the lawyers to prove that.

That's how the justice system works.

I guess only #EFF could solve this by defending some cases to establish a rule of law.

@trom @FinchHaven

in reply to FinchHaven sfba

@FinchHaven
The way Peertube federates is different from how Mastodon does its federation. As long as the video in question is not stored on your server and is just streamed from a different instance then that instance should be contacted for the removal - that's what any competent lawyer would do. But now what they've achieved is merely made us put up a curtain to hide the video from their view, a video that still exists on the original instance and free for anyone to watch.
in reply to FinchHaven sfba

(1/2)

@FinchHaven
> And you clearly don't understand the usage of the word "Federated"

You probably intended this as a nonchalant segue into your next point (I've done this). But FYI it comes across as quite patronising and out of context. @trom is hosting a PeerTube server. Chances are they have a pretty good understanding of the range of things "federated" can mean in this context.

This entry was edited (11 hours ago)
in reply to Strypey

(2/2)

You're not wrong that a lawyer might see a search result as a 'source' for copyright purposes. This is exactly what they've done with TPB et al. But ...

@FinchHaven
> federated makes *every* federated instance the [a] source

On Mastodon et al, yes. Because text posts are automatically delivered in full to everyone following the account that posted it. But PeerTube doesn't work that way, it just sends a title and a link to followers (or the wasted storage and bandwidth would be extreme).