It's so time for some to follow:

@funkwhale FunkWhale: Open source federated alternative to GrooveShark and SoundCloud

@prismo Prismo: Federated open source alternative to Reddit, in development.

@Fairphone and @WeAreFairphone Fairphone: Makers of fairtrade modular smartphones

@kevinbeynon Libreture: eBook storage site and comprehensive list of non-DRM eBook publishers.

@clickblaster ClickBlaster: Endless clickbait! :blobastonished:

@switchingsocial didn’t know about funkwhale. really cool, thanks a lot

@switchingsocial @funkwhale So if I understand correctly, Funkwhale is a server where you upload your music, people join your server, they upload their music, and everyone gets to listen to things they don't own? Wouldn't that get sued out of existence?

@Magess @funkwhale

It depends on the rights to the music.

If it's licensed under creative commons you are allowed to distribute it. (For example the site is full of creative commons music.)

If you're a band or musician creating original tracks, you might also want to share your music through this kind of service. Many artists use Soundcloud like this to get noticed.

Some musicians mix and match, releasing a few tracks under CC with others remaining commercial.

@Magess @switchingsocial while you can use Funkwhale like that if you want, Funkwhale is bundled with very conservative defaults:

- Closed registrations
- Users cannot upload anything without explicit permission
- Accessing other instances libraries require approval

Thus, you can use Funkwhale as a personal/friend/family music server if you want. Or you can federate your music with only a handful of small servers.

Having public instances with user uploads and federation is possible as well.

@Magess @switchingsocial and we do not actually encourage deploying this kind of instances with copyrighted content.

@funkwhale @switchingsocial I would imagine not. But people are people.

Is it covered under DMCA safe harbor?


@funkwhale makes the software available to whoever wants to use it, but has no control over how that software is used.

It's the instance owners (and the uploaders of content onto those instances) that are legally responsible for uploaded content.

@switchingsocial @funkwhale That's an interesting shift from the current model.


It is, it's really cool :) Lots of little sites instead of a few huge ones.

But really, it's how the internet used to be before large content aggregators like Google and Facebook took over.

@switchingsocial I know. I'm curious to see if Web 3.0 looks suspiciously like Web 1.0, except now more people can afford to pay for things to keep them going.


Hopefully we would have the social connectivity without the dangerous monopolies.

Long way to go, but let's keep our fingers crossed.

@switchingsocial I keep trying to nudge the dev of to look at AP. Livejournal was cool, but unable to sustain itself.

Lots of little pillowforts that specific communities could spin up for themselves seems like it would be more sustainable. But I haven't been able to get them to reply. :( And if they were hoping to make it a business, the idea wouldn't fly.


Don't know much about pillowfort, but the Indiegogo page does look like it was going to be a private business rather than an open alternative?

@Magess @switchingsocial Well, I'm not a lawyer, nor an american citizen.

But assuming you have a public instance with user uploads on, I think it may be the case, assuming you are answering take down notices and eventually banning users that upload infringing content repeatedly?

As an instance owner, you may fall in the "storage safe harbor" if you're not selling access or earning money from your instance?

Just in case: I'm not a lawyer, those are hypothesis

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon is a microblogging site that federates with most instances on the Fediverse.