Clamp Down on Illegal Links

[Spud in Disguise]

Ok, before this goes too far down the route of 'is SOPA a good or a bad thing?', I will clarify one very good point n00b tr00per raised. I have updated the policy page to make it clearer and include a quote below:

Many users post links to youtube videos of songs or soundcloud pages, for illustrative purposes. If the destination page contains a link to download the material we will not allow it. If the page does not facilitate the illegal downloading of the material then the link may remain.

In my defence I would like to say that I am merely upholding the rules set in place on the Daft Club. These are ideals that I set in place as I try to live my own life by them, it just so happens they dovetail quite nicely with the law. As it states on the policy page I don't agree with illegal downloading as it seems so counter-intuitive to me. If you like an artist enough to want to own their music pay them for it. There are certain leniencies outlined which I feel are fair, to both users and the artists in question.

And the bottom line is, it's the law.

To tell the truth I'm not 100% sure on what exactly is and is not legal - or indeed what the consequences beyond the site being shut down are. However, I firmly believe the rules set in place are justifiable and offer enough flexibility to let everyone enjoy the site.

I hope this doesn't all sound too imposing, that's really not my aim - it's just with all the uncertainty on this subject at the moment I need to be extra careful with what's being posted up. I hope everyone can understand that.

[Fundave]

That seems a bit more realistic, and i totally understand you are just trying to enforce the law on this site. Anyway, i never post links to downloads of copyright material, and from now on ill make sure to check youtube videos so that they dont contail links to downloads in the description.

[AnonymsDogMan]

What about if the artist has uploaded it themselves with the intent that it be available for free? So they give you the link to download it. I assume they are alight?

[scutheotaku]

What about if the artist has uploaded it themselves with the intent that it be available for free? So they give you the link to download it. I assume they are alight?

That would be a *legal* download, so I assume this would be okay.

[Spud in Disguise]

That would be a *legal* download, so I assume this would be okay.

Indeed. If the artist has given the song up for download then it's legal... However, if the song is also commercially available and the artist posts it up for free they may be in breach of their contract and the law. But yes, generally speaking, if an artist posts up their own original work for download you're good to go.

It's a minefield.

[something awesome]

What about VEVO stuff on youtube? Isn't there some deal with that?

[icjburke]

What about VEVO stuff on youtube? Isn't there some deal with that?

yeah VEVO sucks!

[something awesome]

Really? I think it's good artists can use it to post their stuff on youtube. Misslabeled songs on youtube make me crey.

[hutson.bryan5555]

Sorry to resurrect this but I have a question.

Daft Punk has said themselves that they haven't released concert movies because they believe the fans do a better job. (Or something along those lines, I forget.)

Would I be in the right in posting a link to a fan made Alive 2007 concert DVD?

[piroteki]

Sorry to resurrect this but I have a question.

Daft Punk has said themselves that they haven't released concert movies because they believe the fans do a better job. (Or something along those lines, I forget.)

Would I be in the right in posting a link to a fan made Alive 2007 concert DVD?

i believe because no official Alive 2007 concert DVD was ever released that you'd be in the clear. the only problem i could see is that if the soundtrack to said DVD was the Bercy show as recorded on the commercially released CD/album. if instead the soundtrack is the ever popular Coachella bootleg or from some other 2007 show, it would be fine.