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

[–] seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do they still do takedowns for videos based on that content IDing if the video isn't even monetized in the first place?

Like, I know youtubers who try to make money hate this, but what about youtubers who aren't in it for the money but just want to throw content on the platform? Can stuff like AMVs actually stay up?

Because, frankly, I've found that it's been pretty easy to dodge YouTube ads, by means of uBlock Origin.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I recall correctly, the copyright holders can decide what they want to happen automatically.

The automatic options are something like:

Disable all ads.
Enable ads (if disabled) and take all (?) money.
Mute/remove the infringing content.

They can also do stuff like issue copyright strikes but I believe that those have to be done manually since they can be so destructive to creators.

Tom Scott made a really good video about how copyright works in general and how it works on YouTube, I highly recommend it. https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/1Jwo5qc78QU

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

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

[–] KonekoSalem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

They don't take it down often. But non-monetized videos will get set as monetized, ads will be added, and the profits go to the Copyright holder.