I'm surprised you have this working with how jank even our own control panel is at the mo (sometimes I don't even know how it still works), GG 😅

inb4 someone remakes VRCDN-like queue bots to replace VRChat queuing 🤭

Just to advise on this. They both are exactly the same quality wise (it's literally the same data in a different container), just mpeg-ts has a higher buffer so you get higher delays, we find this to help on certain devices or connections where stability isn't guaranteed, for ex: WiFi on a quest

VRChat picture of a skeleton (DJ Dave) looking into the camera.

Still waiting for a set by DJ Dave...

We kind of *assume* licensing for music unless told otherwise (we've been told we shouldn't by previous solicitors) as the licenses are relatively cheap in comparison to e.g. movies. We are awaiting more legal advice as we would love to switch to notice and takedown, but want to wait until we are legally told we are A-OK to do so.

We can add exceptions to our system as long as we get proof of licensing.

And to add onto what @jazzy.land said about "think we purposely prevent...", if we could enjoy safe harbour laws in the UK we probably would, so we could wait for takedown requests. But Safe Harbour is US DMCA specific.

Wanna know the funny part, they use feet as an example of a "common fetish that isn't inherently sexual" so isn't under the law without other context or content. Like.. they use THAT as a direct example in their official government docs.

to be honest, it would be a lot cheaper for us if we didn't have to, but there we go 🤣

Ultimately its law in the UK that we have a "duty to moderate" or a "duty of care", Made more prevelant by the recent Online Safety Act that passed here in the UK (See ICU C1 and C2).

To what we understand, we believe what you've said is still correct. The primary focus has to be sexual arousal for audio, music with the odd moan in it, fine. Audio that isn't music but a straight up rip from porn, probably not fine.

To my understanding, Unless your audios primary goal is to cause sexual arousal, you should be fine.

This account is linked to VRCDN so I need to disclaim that this is my own opinion and not that of VRCDN.

But I'll join in, the laws and regulations for the UK are made by old farts that don't understand the internet nor modern society.

You are fine as long as sexual arousal isn't the purpose, if its in a song for effect etc, you will be fine.

There is more to it then that however, but thats a good guideline, As to what "sexual arousal" means in this case, some of this is outlined in the document from Ofcom.

www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/r...

Although this account is small I will clarify with an overarching overview of what the OSA means in terms of streaming to VRCDN.

You can essentially ask yourself "Is this sexually arrousing, and is that the main point?" if it is, its likely not allowed. If its not, you will most likely be fine.

Image of a table from Ofcom describing content associated with common or known fetishes, but that is not graphic or overtly sexual in nature, the list includes videos or images of feet with no context or sexual purpose as well as depictions of individuals in commonly sexualised fancy dress, e.g fur suits, nurses, maids/butlers and police officers

You would be fine, Fursuits are in the list of non inhernatly pornographic content

The law essentially just included content made for the purpose of sexual arrousal, I wouldn't count this under that.