this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023

255 points (70.9% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53779 readers

787 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

💰 Please help cover server costs.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

255

It's funny how google pretends the music on YouTube isn't straight up piracy and everyone just goes along with it (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

121 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (6 children)

What I don't understand is that any Joe schmo can upload to YouTube a licensed copyrighted song from another artist and post the lyrics with it and call it karaoke, and they get no copyright strikes whatsoever,

while one time I had a Phil Collins song playing in the background while bantering with my daughter, immediately after uploading it to YouTube they flagged & removed it for copyright infringement.

Why did the karaoke Joe schmo get away with it but I can't even accidentally have a song playing in the background while I'm bantering with my daughter?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Dude fucking same. I uploaded a 5 minute clip of my buds and I at a league of legends tournament we were participating at and it got striked because someone was playing a shitty song in the background for 30 seconds while we talked over it. Some minor who's who artist. It was low quality audio too, they must have an amazing system to be able to pick it out from all the rest of the noise.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

YouTube doesn't have a say in this, it's up to the copyright holder of each individual song. YouTube just detects if a song is copyrighted or not then gives the owner the option what to do. The three common ones are

Disable the Video.
Claim Monetization of it.
Do nothing.

So whoever holds the rights to Phil Collins song is the one responsible for your video being disabled. While whoever holds the rights to the song Joe Schmo decided to go with option 2 or 3.

This process has mostly been automated. So it feels like YouTube is doing it but they are just following the orders of the copyright holder.

The system is a bit overzealous in some cases and even fair use gets flagged.That's on YouTube. But to be fair, it's very hard to have an automated system detect the difference between fair use and not. YouTube should just implement a better way to dispute false copyright claims.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Because the music in Joe Schmo's video gets claimed by the artist's label/distributor, and they get paid for it. I experienced this first hand when I uploaded a music video of my song on my youtube channel and my distributor claimed it. I had to go and prove to them that I'm the very same person and owner of the music before they released the copyright claim on my video.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Perhaps it's being presented as fair use? Education via the documentation of the lyrics?

It's a bit of a stretch, but that's all I've got.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

lol good points and so true. reading this just makes me think of the old quote If the penalty for a crime is a fine, that law only exists for the lower classes. When I think of record labels and big film companies, let's just say that the first thing that comes to mind isn't starving artists but coastal elitists getting pissy bc they can't charge people even more.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A lot of technologies started out as pirate technologies.

Cable TV? The first people who started shoving TV over cables into people's homes didn't ask for permission. But now that's such a normal thing that we can't imagine it having been infringement at one point.

Player piano rolls too. No permission was sought and its legality wasn't figured out until they got sued. (And the courts decided that a royalty to the composers or rights holders was in order, and the courts set the going royalties rate in cents per roll, but they also decided the composers/rights holders couldn't deny any player piano roll maker the right to make player piano rolls of their songs.)

But then things shifted and now the courts are owned by Disney.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Hell, Crunchyroll was a pirate site until it converted into not being one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

its a resource like any other. use it, abuse it... while you can. with the impending browser restrictions the world might change a bit. a tiny bit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Not if people would wake up and just use freaking Firefox which Google has not (that great of) control over. I feel it's such a simple solution but somehow the Internet users collectively seem to have decided that they'd rather enjoy ads.

[–] mindbleach 2 points 9 months ago

Paying money is technically bootlegging, which I would argue is massively worse than piracy. But only because piracy is whatever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

What's your beef with the tagginator bot? It's certainly better than the reddit repost bots, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Is my understanding correct that Youtube only cares about paying the music right holders? (Because those complains the loudest?) That is, if someone creates an AMV by combining audio and visuals from different sources and uploads it to Youtube, Youtube only gives the monetize profit to the song owner, but not the visuals rights owners?

load more comments