The content hosted on Youtube cannot be 100% hosted legally. It is impossible to believe that you can find a full album of Pink Floyd hosted on Youtube and that’s a legal thing.

This is an extract from the support page of Google:

Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube’s contractual obligations

YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.

What is the bottom line here? Is Youtube big enough to be allowed to publish full albums of Pink Floyd? Or does Youtube pay a dime to Universal so they are allowed to publish the audio content?

My question is: If Youtube can go away Scot’s free with this, why can’t the fediverse? If we start to host massive video/audio content, what will happen to the fediverse?

    • PabloDiscobar@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about an artist just sue them instead, for repeatedly distributing their music without permission? If a russian website did this it would have been nuked into orbit by now.

      • dewritoninja
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also that music is distributed with permission. That’s what licencing is. When a label posts something to youtube they are accepting a licencing agreement. When some random person uploads copyright infringing material the rights holder can get youtube to take down that content or get youtube to give them the add money for that video.