and this is legal how, exactly?

[alecstilleyedye]

i've just noticed that you can find full albums on youtube (a 'video' with the album artwork static).

leaving aside the fact that i'm probably very late to the party here, how is this actually legal? do google (who own youtube) have some sort arrangement like spotify for paying royalties to artists, or is this just another way of listening to music completely gratis with absolutely no need for subscription?

puzzled :~

 

[MossCommuter]

YouTube detects copyrighted content and pays royalties unless the content owner wishes to block the video.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2620262?hl=en-GB&ref_topic=2778546

 

[spen666]

Its legal, because there is no law against it.

In a common law based jurisdiction, like England & Wales, things are legal unless there is legislation to prevent it.

 

[CopperBrompton]

As Moss says, YouTube has (extremely sophisticated) software to detect music, and then the treatment is as per the preferences of the licence-holder: block it, allow it or monetise it.

 

[Mark Grant]

Several years ago I uploaded a video which I'd put a music track over, a few months later I got an Email from YouTube to say that the artist or record company (can't remember which) claimed the music was theirs and did I accept this. I just said yes, the video is still there so I guess it is sorted somehow.

 

[User16625]

Always hated copyright laws on software.

 

[gaz]

Its legal, because there is no law against it.

In a common law based jurisdiction, like England & Wales, things are legal unless there is legislation to prevent it.

*cough* Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

 

[spen666]

*cough* Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

and......

Do you see any action being taken against Youtube owners?

Would suggest its not illegal despite your randomly quoting titles of Acts of Parliament.

 

[gaz]

and......

Do you see any action being taken against Youtube owners?

Would suggest its not illegal despite your randomly quoting titles of Acts of Parliament.

Perhaps you should read the other comments here. It quite clearly is A. Illegal (I even provided some legislation that you asked for) B. YouTube do take action against it.

 

[spen666]

Perhaps you should read the other comments here. It quite clearly is A. Illegal (I even provided some legislation that you asked for) B. YouTube do take action against it.

I did not ask you to provide any legislation, but quoting random titles of acts of parliament mean nothing. If you want to quote legislation, then what is the offence? ie which section of the act are you referring to. You quote the title of an act of parliament that has over 300 sections. The majority of those sections do not create any offences.

and in the case quoted in the opening post, it is clear that You Tube have allowed the material to remain and therefore they have not taken action against it


So, lets look at what we know:

a) You have not pointed to any offence
b) You Tbe seem content not to take action



This would suggest to me that the material referred to in the opening post is not illegal.

 

[spen666]

[QUOTE 3051828, member: 1314"]You Tube have, imho, passed the buck of copyright infringement

In a common law jurisdiction, that is how it should be.

Things are legal unless illegal, not illegal unless legal[/QUOTE]

 

[spen666]

[QUOTE 3051850, member: 1314"]That's why I mentioned the ethics of copyright and respecting other people's Intellectual Property - it's not just about the legalities. Of course that opens up another related debate about why should I, how should I respect the ethics of others' IP.[/QUOTE]

When the question in the opening post is about how is something legal, then ethics are irrelevant and legalities are what matters.

 

[gaz]

I did not ask you to provide any legislation, but quoting random titles of acts of parliament mean nothing. If you want to quote legislation, then what is the offence? ie which section of the act are you referring to. You quote the title of an act of parliament that has over 300 sections. The majority of those sections do not create any offences.

and in the case quoted in the opening post, it is clear that You Tube have allowed the material to remain and therefore they have not taken action against it


So, lets look at what we know:

a) You have not pointed to any offence
b) You Tbe seem content not to take action



This would suggest to me that the material referred to in the opening post is not illegal.

Section 107 goes into detail about copyright offences and their punishment. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107

As for what action youtube takes, we can't quite tell what action they have taken from the OP's point of view as we don't have enough information. But as others have mentioned in this thread, the action they take is of varying degrees and choice is down to the right holders. The choices are remove, various forms of advertising where the money goes to the rights holder and not the uploader or nothing (this will happen if you see no adverts but the music is linked to an online store such as iTunes where you can buy the music).

I've had many copyright breaches on youtube and they have dealt with every single one in a way I deem reasonable and in a time frame that is reasonable.

 

[spen666]

Section 107 goes into detail about copyright offences and their punishment. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107

As for what action youtube takes, we can't quite tell what action they have taken from the OP's point of view as we don't have enough information. But as others have mentioned in this thread, the action they take is of varying degrees and choice is down to the right holders. The choices are remove, various forms of advertising where the money goes to the rights holder and not the uploader or nothing (this will happen if you see no adverts but the music is linked to an online store such as iTunes where you can buy the music).

I've had many copyright breaches on youtube and they have dealt with every single one in a way I deem reasonable and in a time frame that is reasonable.

So lets look at S107

Where is the evidence that the person who posted the clip knew or believed they were infringing copyright - without that there can be no offence

Where indeed is the evidence that anyone has indeed infringed copyright at all



The evidence from the OP seems to be you tube are hosting something. No one has been prosecuted. You tube don't seem to be taking the vidoe down.

So, where is the evidence that any offence has occurred

 

[gaz]

So lets look at S107

Where is the evidence that the person who posted the clip knew or believed they were infringing copyright - without that there can be no offence

Where indeed is the evidence that anyone has indeed infringed copyright at all



The evidence from the OP seems to be you tube are hosting something. No one has been prosecuted. You tube don't seem to be taking the vidoe down.

So, where is the evidence that any offence has occurred

Like I said previously (you seem to be good at skipping over things that people have said). The OP hasn't linked to the video in question, so how can we say anything?

BTW, ignorance to the law or to someone else's copyright is not a scape goat for getting out of it