It’s a hassle to download stuff off of YouTube? There are Firefox plugins that make it a matter of a mouse click to do so.
Well maybe it’s just me, but it seems like those are sort of hit-or-miss as to whether they’ll actually work at any given time. The standalone programs also have a nasty habit of installing malware.
Used to be you could go into your cache and find the file that was cached for a particular video and rename it with a video extension and play with VLC, I think they caught onto that though. The unregistered version of Jing will allow recording of anything on your screen for up to 5 minutes at a time.
Internet Download Manager does, very quickly.
I’d be very surprised if that worked in most cases. Modern fingerprinting and watermarking technologies for video and audio are designed to be robust against trivial transformations (such as altering the speed, transposition, scaling, cropping, transcoding, voice-overs, superimposing subtitles or logos, etc.).
There is a test site where that option was explored. I’m not going to search for it right now, but please, be my guest. The outcome was that the comparison algorithms (and this was just a few years ago) were amazingly sophisticated and level and sample rate changes did not disturb them at all. You pretty much had to distort the song beyond recognition for it to pass the filter. A minor pitch change absolutely didn’t work.
I’m currently battling a copyright dispute – I think it’s fair use, YouTube’s copyright claimant does not. So far, I’ve been able to render the song backwards without a copyright claim, but you might argue that backwards defeats the purpose. Maybe.
If I can indulge in a mini-rant here…I fail to see what purpose this policy serves. Should royalties be paid? If so, why doesn’t YouTube collect those from viewers at a fair rate from the advertising they charge for already? Since that isn’t happening, the end result is that the public is denied the experience of listening to the song, the video is removed or corrupted, and the copyright holder gets nothing. That’s Dog In The Manger thinking, and everyone loses.
YouTube may do the scanning, but none of the copyright claims I have received have been from YouTube, but third parties, supposedly the copyright holders. I’d say about 80% of them are bogus beyond belief (A Palestrina copyright, anyone?). As Dick Shawn said in Springtime for YouKnowWho, “They try, oh how they try!”
While I hate to even sound like I might be defending some of the RIAA-type jerks out there, copyright means having the right to dictate how a work is distributed, or even if it is distributed at all. If I don’t want additional copies out there, it’s my right as an owner to prevent them. Eventual public domain should take care of ny lasting value to society, though that’s another rant entirely…
I also have the right to make exclusive arrangements for distribution of my work. If I start putting full Game of Thrones episodes on YouTube, HBO should absolutely be within their rights to have them taken down.
You are correct as to the rights. My comment was directed at the practical outcome…the copyright holder gets no money, YouTube gets no income, the public gets no music, and the video producer can’t express his desired artistic expression. What benefit is there to this policy, and to whom?
It’s the decision of the copyright holder to determine how its works will be distributed.
It’s up to YouTube to decide how to structure its revenue model. It doesn’t want to directly charge users because that will inhibit its popularity.
In fact, as has been mentioned, many copyright holders agree to license works to YouTube in exchange for a share of advertising revenue. However, it’s the right of the copyright holder to decide that it’s too small.
YouTube is not the sole outlet for the public to hear music. It never has been. The music industry made a ton of money before YouTube existed. The current YouTube, Spotify, Pandora, etc., models are for shit as far as artists are concerned. They make micropennies per stream.
And they are making less than micropennies for CD sales right now. So maybe they need to adjust to the times or expire?
Bring back LPs! When men were men, and sheep were groovy!
Actually, they still make more from CDs than they do from streaming. They also make more from legal downloads (iTunes, etc.) than they do from streaming. If there are absolutely no sources of revenue that offer them a living, then they will expire. That still doesn’t mean they should let you enjoy their work for free. More likely, they’ll just stop making it.
Since it’s your post I find it slightly worrying that you have to make such presumptions.
Why is a video site the number one place on the internet for streaming audio? Can I send someone a link to a song without them having to watch a video consisting of various still photos of the artist?
Yes. Use Soundcloud or Reverb Nation.
I’ve heard of Soundcloud but I thought it was more like a Spotify-type internet radio. I’ll have to check these out now, thanks.
That said, why are there so many non-videos on Youtube if there are alternative sites that don’t require a video component? Is it just a matter of Youtube came first and is more popular? Or does Google’s size and weight protect allegedly infringing content in a way Soundcloud can’t?
There are a number of factors, one being that Youtube has become the go-to site for people looking for audiovisual comment as a matter of habit. You can search without first creating an account. Its close tie-in with the Google search engine is certainly relevant.
Youtube’s entire business model is based in taking advantage of its safe harbor to capitalize on infringement.
Spotify is more a legitimate radio operation. It doesn’t rely on user-generated infringement. If Spotify hosts infringing content, it will get sued out of business.
I think it’s just that YouTube has videos and audio (and has been around longer), and Soundcloud et al. are sort of having to compete with file sharing sites. That, and search engine power. If you Google a song, YouTube is probably going to be in the first couple of hits and audio-only sites aren’t.
Because they can get away with it. Viacom sued them, but lost.
Viacon didn’t lose. The case was set for jury trial and the parties settled.