←back to thread

335 points coloneltcb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
ethagnawl ◴[] No.45301807[source]
> He suggested that perhaps labels just "don't like the Internet Archive's way of pushing the envelope on copyright and fair use."

This seems to be the whole ballgame.

They're (UMG, specifically) doing the same to YouTuber Rick Beato. His music theory/analysis/reaction videos are very careful to abide by the rules of _fair use_ and, yet, UMG is still drowning him in copyright violation claims. He's had to hire representation to deal with the backlog of claims that are (extremely likely) all bogus and _hope_ to keep his videos and channel online.

On one hand, their behavior is baffling, as I've streamed and purchased music from these companies I would not have otherwise because of Beato's channel. On the other, it's completely unsurprising, as they stand to _have their cake and eat it too_ by introducing chokepoints for _all_ access to their music (in theory, anyways) and suing anyone in the hopes of inking these bullshit settlements with anyone who dares get within a few miles of their moat.

replies(7): >>45302055 #>>45302638 #>>45303336 #>>45303357 #>>45303910 #>>45305362 #>>45307727 #
1. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.45307727[source]
Not only it's 2025, so anyone still using YouTube(/Google/Alphabet) to make money is complicit with totalitarian extremists,

but this ContentID nonsense has been going on since at least 2009,

and we have had easy alternatives like PeerTube for several years now,

where they would have to actually go after him directly,

(and depending on jurisdiction, DMCA (screw that totalitarian extremist nonsense BTW) is more or less enforced),

rather than having YouTube do their censorship for them.