segler-alex
commented
5 years ago should i post this on www.radio-browser.info so that more people know about the problem?
Open segler-alex opened 5 years ago
segler-alex
commented
5 years ago should i post this on www.radio-browser.info so that more people know about the problem?
werman
commented
5 years ago I have doubts about validity of such claim.
1) I think "Zeno Media Copyright Board" should contact you directly because someone told you that someone wants you to delete something is strange.
2) I very much doubt that they can claim copyright on public stream url, maybe on icon but...
maybe in the future we have to ask stations for the right to be published on radio-browser.info
Probably add the checkbox which confirms that to the best user's knowledge the information doesn't violate any copyright claim.
should i stop the possibility to add stations until we have a solution?
No, its copyright claimers work find infrigments. If we remove the stations then probably they should be added to the blacklist and only them.
I think in the end it's better to decouple the radio station list from the app even more to prevent such issues.
If they contact you it's better to remove the stations, even though they probably are wrong and lying. They hold the power and will abuse copyright knowing they google will bend over to satisfy them.
Wikinaut
commented
5 years ago @werman Yes. +1 @segler-alex I sent you an E-Mail, just right now, with addresses.
Wikinaut
commented
5 years ago " decouple the radio station list from the app" +1
Wikinaut
commented
5 years ago I guess this will fire back to them. (#streisandeffekt)
Wikinaut
commented
5 years ago @segler-alex 2. E-Mail geschickt. Hast Du erhalten?
segler-alex
commented
5 years ago hi, yes i received it. thank you for your help! it is really good to be not alone with this. i do not want to completely stop this service.
segler-alex
commented
5 years ago decoupling already came a long way, there is already a almost ready version of the backend ready to deploy for every one on their own server, which mirrors the main one. https://github.com/segler-alex/radiobrowser-api-rust
werman
commented
5 years ago decoupling already came a long way, there is already a almost ready version of the backend ready to deploy for every one on their own server, which mirrors the main one.
Nice, the best end result would be a selection of server providers on application start, then I don't think copyright claims could be filed against the android app which is the most vulnerable. And copyright claims against the server wouldn't be effective.
segler-alex
commented
5 years ago there is already a test server at de1.api.radio-browser.info and de2.api.radio-browser.info which mirrors the main server. it is changeable from the settings. it may have still bugs
segler-alex
commented
5 years ago that is also why i did the change to UUID from the normal database id, so i am independent of the single database.
werman
commented
5 years ago But for the observer it is really a server and a mirror - not several separate station lists provided by different people.
that is also why i did the change to UUID from the normal database id, so i am independent of the single database.
Now it makes sense
ciconi
commented
5 years ago Just wan't to tell that I'm also willing to help you with publicity and a crowdfunding if you get in trouble. But as people said above, this doesn't seem to be a serious claim anyway, there is no copyright on URLs. Read this detailed article on the topic (german) https://irights.info/artikel/europaeischer-gerichtshof-verlinkung-bleibt-urheberrechtsfrei-wenn-inhalte-frei-zugaenglich-sind/21522
Also it's forbidden to scrape lists, but this isn't the case here. But your measures are a good idea, because it could get you in trouble if someone is entering a pirated radio stream of a non-public radio (even if it's unlikely).
davidhedlund
commented
5 years ago what do you suggest? maybe in the future we have to ask stations for the right to be published on radio-browser.info
should i just do as i am told for now? remove the stations? should i stop the possibility to add stations until we have a solution?
It's not feasible to ask approval by every hosting provider for permission. Just add a clear disclaimer to your website.
Example from https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Replication_index
davidhedlund
commented
5 years ago By the way, shouldn't this issue should be merged to https://github.com/segler-alex/radiobrowser/issues ?
kekukui
commented
5 years ago they claim that they own the rights to the stations
But they do not own the rights to the HTTP protocol, and a making a list of artworks is not the same as copying them. No copyrighted material has been replicated here, so this claim of copyright infringement is false:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/08/europes-top-court-rules-linking-can-infringe-copyright-if-done-for-profit/ https://abovethelaw.com/2017/11/does-sharing-a-link-to-online-content-amount-to-copyright-infringement/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing https://www.eff.org/search/site/linking
maybe in the future we have to ask stations for the right to be published on radio-browser.info
Absolutely not. If you do this you are surrendering your rights. Never ask permission when you have a right!
should i just do as i am told for now? remove the stations?
NO, do not set that precedent, this is extortion! Do not surrender to terrorists who have no legal authority!
should i stop the possibility to add stations until we have a solution?
No, that is absurd.
It's not feasible to ask approval by every hosting provider for permission. Just add a clear disclaimer to your website.
Agreed, something like this should be sufficient:
"The RadioBrowser service is a public directory of free audio streams which can be played in any web browser. These streams are not owned or hosted by RadioBrowser or its affiliates."
morckx
commented
5 years ago Agreed, something like this should be sufficient:
"The RadioBrowser service is a public directory of free audio streams which can be played in any web browser. These streams are not owned or hosted by RadioBrowser or its affiliates."
I think we can easily add "non-commercial", to take the wind out of the sails of any claims regarding our duty of care regarding links added by users from the outset:
"The RadioBrowser service is a non-commercial public directory of free audio streams which can be played in any web browser. These streams are not owned or hosted by RadioBrowser or its affiliates."
or:
"The non-commercial RadioBrowser service is a public directory of free audio streams which can be played in any web browser. These streams are not owned or hosted by RadioBrowser or its affiliates."
i got an email, via the developer of TuneFM (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fm.radio.sanity.radiofm) that Zeno Media Copyright Board wants me to remove 335 stations from the list. (https://www.zenomedia.com/) they claim that they own the rights to the stations. and there could be more stations they own in the index.
the problem is, that people can at any time add them again. it is the nature of an open board.
what do you suggest? maybe in the future we have to ask stations for the right to be published on radio-browser.info
should i just do as i am told for now? remove the stations? should i stop the possibility to add stations until we have a solution?
this is the list of stations i have to delete: