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.
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
258 points (71.1% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
171 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
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
Hell, Crunchyroll was a pirate site until it converted into not being one.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
Paying money is technically bootlegging, which I would argue is massively worse than piracy. But only because piracy is whatever.
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.
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.
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.
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)
What's your beef with the tagginator bot? It's certainly better than the reddit repost bots, right?
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?