Most people have extremely weird ideas of what's considered piracy and what isn't. Downloading a video game rom is piracy, but if you pay money to some Chinese retailer for an SD card containing the roms, that's somehow not piracy. Exploiting the free trial on a streaming site by using prepaid visa cards is somehow not piracy either. Torrenting an album is piracy, but listening to a bootleg on YouTube isn't.

YouTube noticed this at some point and is now happy to let everyone know how much pirated music is available on their site. One of their main points for shilling YouTube premium is how their music catalogue is way better than Spotify. Of course the piracy site has more. That's always how it works. Spotify actually has to license the music on their platform and is subject to copyright law. They can't just get the Neil Young discography from soulseek one day and wait until his estate notices, facing no repercussions whatsoever aside from agreeing to a takedown request. Imagine if Pirate Bay or Napster were considered completely above-board businesses just because they took down torrents if explicitly requested by the copyright holders.

Not that I'm complaining especially when a lot of the music on youtube isn't publicly accessible anywhere else. It's just been extremely strange to see this go from an "open secret" to something they're shouting from the rooftops and face no repercussions for. In the future I want everything to be like that and I'd rather keep youtube how it is than see them get the punishment that by all rights they should be getting. It's just so strange that this is the position things have ended up in.

Note: The following text is intentional abuse of the tagginator bot. Fuck you.

#ADHD #BOSTON #NYC #OpenSource #FOSS #SelfHosted #Soccer #3dprinting #Memes #GodotEngine #Unity #UnrealEngine

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can tell you that there are more than a handful songs on there preformed live by my band and then someone uploaded it who was there and we are not getting paid anything. I will not go after them obviously because I don't have the time nor money to do so.

[–] radix@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Big labels have a direct line to YouTube via ContentID. Indie artists have to do it the hard way.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago

So does that mean albums ripped and uploaded to Youtube do result in royalties being paid to the artists?

What about in the case where there are no ads?

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't that one of the points that OP is making?

[–] clearleaf@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah it's kind of the entire point I was making. If I could only listen to the music on YouTube that's been properly licensed and identified, then I wouldn't use YouTube for music. In that situation it would just be another Spotify.

Here's an example of something that's absolutely not supposed to be on youtube, which the IP owner goes to great lengths to enforce. But people keep reuploading every time it's taken down. It's literally a bootleg.

https://youtu.be/xtukRSw6k1w?si=IpVSw7ErcaGSc32_

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/xtukRSw6k1w?si=IpVSw7ErcaGSc32

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago

Live music isn't what I'm referring to though, it's the ripped and uploaded albums