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

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 years 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.

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 2 points 2 years 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.

[–] GreyFalcon@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 2 years ago

I like your style! Keep it up! We live in a world where people are increasingly choosing to live in delusion.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

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

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years 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?

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years 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.

[–] Hillock@kbin.social 3 points 2 years 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.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years 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)

[–] 1Fuji2Taka3Nasubi@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 years 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?

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

China has the right ideas on copyright. I don't give two shits if someone steals my music from YouTube, I make it for the joy of making it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

As long as they get to profit from it and not you, then it's not piracy for them. If a record label wanted to sue Google, they would have a hell of a time.

[–] Blindsite@lemmy.today 1 points 5 months ago

I think Google justifies the whole process with ads. Sure it's all piracy but you come for the music, pirated or not, and they sell ads to you and someone gets paid revenue. I think YT would have an easier time of it if they improved gemini and integrated it as a DJ like spotify has its own music DJ.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments