From first post:

Really?

 

Yes really, otherwise Peter Frampton would not have earned a mere 1,700 dollars for 55 million plays on playlists by Spotify users with ASCAP taking them to task and subsequently, they're still in court along with many others. This is off topic but I know too many well-known artists who are fighting an Internet law versus copyright law problem. Streaming playlists were not around pre-2000. So yes, it's changed to accommodate anyone but the owner in many cases.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2021

No, no. We were talking about physical compilations, hence Noa's pic upload.
Nothing has changed there regards licensing.
And anyway, it was mentioned because of the OT in this thread!
Yes; it was and is OT.

 

@Smoove Grooves
Now tell me copyright and the like has not changed - Licensing was only previously available to companies and radio stations before streaming. Since streaming, any Jane Doe and John Doe can do it.
I posted a licensing link for the author earlier

 

Jeez. Yes, it hasn't changed.
We are still due our money, just as before the digital revolution!

All this OT, and you are still missing the points we have said. I don't know what you are trying to prove.

This was regards physical compilations, and I'm sure the same legalities apply in the online world.

 

See Author's post below "legal'

Theoretically, there is nothing legal about it uness the artist gets their dues which has been my point the entire time. The Frampton link and everything else clearly says it does not matter whether it is written in stone. An ACT overrides any EULA or TOS or even a licensing agreement, but Spotify and others exist. so legally? Whatever anyone wants to do pretty much as long as they do not get taken to task or Spotify and playlist streamers would never exist. if people can get away without paying the artist their dues, they will and MP3 playlists are just another form of Napster where nobody can accurately track who is making the money, other than the people who own it, aren't.

 

I get what you are saying, but one last time:

Please let this make sense now! lol

 

I posted what was ASKED for in terms of what is available, earlier on the prior page (below) not what is necessarily legal.


And streaming license information
https://www.easysonglicensing.com/p...-licensing/music-licensing-for-streaming.aspx

 

Okay. But OP asks for legal ways.

Which is what was asked for in the OP.
My other response to your above comment was "Duh, yeah!"

 

You did not click the link did you?
It's legal in terms of what is considered acceptable usage, but that will change even though likely not in yours or my lifetime. What is considered acceptable usage is still a copyright breach. The site is legal, by streaming standards.