4 ms·
> still contains tons of illegal stuff I came across whole episodes of British TV on there this very week that were uploaded 12 years ago. I know they have a s
by adhesive_wombat 3y ago
> still contains tons of illegal stuff
I came across whole episodes of British TV on there this very week that were uploaded 12 years ago. I know they have a strict "no humans involved, ever" system going, but the programme name was in the title and the video was one of those ones inset into a fake background and the audio was original. I find it amazing that no one (or rather nothing) with a ban button has noticed that for so long.
If they actually cared even a microgram and they couldn't even get an intern to do a days' work searching for TV show titles, there'd be enough failed Reddit moderators out there who they could recruit who would gleefully do the job for free. Not that I would want them to - it's bad enough when only bring reactive to often-spurious complaints - but it's such a completely perfect lack of interest that it must be very deliberate.
- dageshi 3y agoIs it illegal though? Who owns it? General principle of the internet seems to be people can host what they like till someone who has legal ownership of it tells them to take it down at that point they're expected to take it down and keep it off their service unless added by the owner. That's what google is sticking to because frankly any other method would be a nightmare. The old tv episodes might have muddy/unclear ownership and so things continue to coast along until someone exercises their right of ownership.
- seydor 3y agoyes it s entirely illegal hosting it , as it is copyrighted content, it even says so in the credits. there are tons of tv series from around the world being hosted, and it's not fair use even under the relaxed US laws. The fact that someone has not issued a takedown request doesn't make it legal either.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoThe TV show was first aired in 2009, and they're still on streaming services so it's hardly an orphan work. Not that I'm agitating for more or stricter enforcement, far from it, but it seems strangely lackadaisical compared to the "walk past a shop playing music and cop a copyright strike" that also happens on the very same platform. Then again I guess YouTube makes money from ads on these videos being up, so that does explain the sphinx-like impassivity.
- redwall_hp 3y agoMy favorite is that cover songs are basically outlawed by default on YouTube, even though they're entirely legal. ContentID can come and slap your channel for melodic similarities...and it's entirely down to the rightsholder whether they "allow" the video and simply take all monetization or if it is taken down and counts as a copyright strike against your channel (eventually leading to termination). And there's no way to know which will happen until you upload. But the thing is: copyright law specifies that mechanical royalties are compulsory. Artists don't get to stop you from covering songs, as long as your distributor pays the legal n% to their distributor. But even if you pay LANDR or whoever to administer those royalties, so you can release your cover to Spotify and whatever, YouTube will still smack your channel for uploading the cover. At worst, content strike, at best you still lose all monetization. As it turns out, "sync licenses" (the right to pair music with visual media) are not compulsory and that's what YouTube primarily cares about. Even if it's just a "video" of your album art with the music playing, you can still be arbitrarily penalized on the most popular platform for music discovery, because it's technically video and record labels can do whatever they want within the opaque framework YouTube has created.