Prohibited.... Unless you have the appropriate licenses for the music.
Much ado about nothing. Did anyone ever bother to read the post?
Much ado about nothing. Did anyone ever bother to read the post?
Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events can be in-person or online. As an example: it is legal ("fair use") for someone in my family to strum a popular, copyrighted tune on their guitar during a family gathering. Another example: it is also legal for us to listen to music that only one family member owns a legal copy of -- this happens any time someone puts on a CD during Christmas. These perfectly legal, normal, un-bureaucratic activities seem to be prohibited by Facebook's new rules.
During COVID-19, online experiences have replaced many experiences that people would otherwise have had in-person. Facebook's rules seems to be unnecessarily restrictive, which is especially disappointing during this time when many experiences people would be having face-to-face are now taking place on its platform, or on competitors' who may imitate Facebook's policies.
But it is legal for you and Facebook to enter into an agreement to sublicense that content for Facebook's commercial use? You may get the benefit of Fair Use, but the same may not be the case for Facebook, who also must have a valid right to distribute the content.
I guess it depends on whether DJs are getting bits, subscriptions, etc. from their content.
I think the music companies are cutting off their nose to spite their face but that would probably be the argument against allowing DJs streaming mixes.
The first activity you describe is legal because a special copyright licensing regime applies to derivative musical works like strumming a tune in your guitar, so you could also steam your guitar cover of the popular song on YouTube without issue, even for commercial use. (And thousands of musical performers do, without issue.)
The second activity is part of the implied license granted by physically owning music on a licensed media like a CD. Unlike the first activity, there isn't a special licensing regime and so streaming that music online requires it's own manually acquired license... Even for non-commercial use. The license costs a few cents...
Facebook's rules aren't any more restrictive than they've always been. They're just letting you explicitly know what they have always been.
(I handled music licensing at my old job and we were a Facebook video partner back in the day so I'm very familiar with how the musical licensing works in the US.)
Having a license means nothing to modern copyright holders and they just massively spam shotgun takedowns on everything and anything. They even managed to pervert the law to the point where there's no consequence to themselves and the creators need to prove they're NOT guilty. Again and again and again because the holders will not stop requesting takedowns even after the creator has proven their right to play sounds in their own creation repeatedly.
This is textbook abuse.
Facebook does not respond kindly to false takedown claims and unlike Google will revoke someone's right to use the online reporting function (meaning that future claims must be filed the old fashioned way, through a document or other means of communication that exposes the complainant to legal liability if they make a false claim.
Twitter is generally the same, as in 280 characters you can't meaningfully infringe many copyrights.
This is not textbook abuse. It's literally just Facebook making a bare statement about copyright licensing.