2 Likes
Pathetic from the labels, imo, but I also find it rather amusing how this is not targeted at Youtube instead. It should surely be on them to prevent ātheftā of content on their platform, and if labels have such a problem with pirated content on Youtube, perhaps the content should not be on the platform in the first place.
Uff. What a hell of a topic.
I dont have a clear opinion on that.
My rebellious inner self says: Perfect! I hope they get sued, youtube-dl (and all other alternatives, but 99% use youtube-dl as backend anyway) gets forbidden, and sometime if Sony, Universal, and others gets big balls, sue Youtube too that they must implement any kind of effective DRM/Protection. Why? Because my rebllious inner self hopes that then alternatives shows up to youtube (im aware of alternatives like lbry or odysee), where the Channels i watch, would likely use.
But that is of course totaly āwrongā (point of view).
The other one in me says: Hehe good luck. Because you must imagine: The Musiclabels havent any other options. The only thing what they really could do, would be to sue youtube, because youtube didnt protect the uploads of them (for movies and co they do). But they would never do that, because they know, that Youtube/Google have (attention, exaggeration) 9320573254908234 times more Money as they self. In comparsion, they only little āaunt emma storesā. And they would never win that. And if they actually win, then they lost anyway. Because youtube simply removes everything from them then.
Time would show, what happens. But it is much likely that nothing happens. You could say about Germany what you want, but if this goes high enough (court wise), the more competent and thorough they get. And it isnt the first time that nothing would happen. Because first, its open source, and secound, we already have expierence with that. In the late 90ās and early 00ās they already tried exact the same a hundred times (Alcohol, CloneCD, Nero, and many other tools) to forbid these programs. And they lost. Then they tried to block the Websites on DNS Level. And they sued the Hosters, and so long. And they lost everytime, because āGermany saidā everytime: Only because you can buy Program XYZ, it didnt mean that the customer use this Program to make multiple copies (and to sell the copies. because you are allowed to make copys for your self anyway by law, but you arent allowed to share the copies).
But what makes me curious, is why they host the website on a another Hoster anyway. They could use github for that too (because it seems Github/Microsoft stands behind them).
Edit: @Celty didnt know why this post is a reply to yours. I must have missclicked 
Was just looking through to see if anyone had posted this, DT makes some really good points
1 Like
Yeah. Its true.
But in speciality to the end, he makes few dangerous statements. Because what we call DRM today, already exist since the stoneage in analog form.
DRM isnt actually a only Copyprotection. Its more a way to control that the Customer use the Product like described in the Terms and conditions. Because if you buy a Music CD, or a Movie on VHS, a Casette, a Software on a 1.44mb floppy, what ever, you have everytime Terms and Conditions you have to agree.
I have for example few Vinyls i buyed in the mid 80ās, and in they are little leaflet included, and on it is written what i am allowed to do with that vinyl and what not. And that i dont own the Music self, i own only the right to hear the music.
Same for old Amiga and C64 games. Long before the Internet.
It didnt matter if you have a physical copy or a digital one. You never have, and had, the product himself, only a aggrement/license that are you allow to use/listen/view the product.
1 Like
True, will respond better later when Iām behind the computer, my phones keyboard keeps freezing
One has to wonder what the point is. There cannot possibly be a cost benefit to this kind of stuff, and users who pirate 128kbps tracks from Youtube are not going to purchase a cd or subscription to Spotify, and lawsuits are expensive. I know there is another thread on piracy, and this has all been rehashed a hundred times, but we continue to see new piracy-related lawsuits decade after decade and none of them have a substantial effect on piracy. If you want to address the actual issue, provide a service or product which people can afford and find value in supporting. Spotify is such an excellent example of this, prior to its launch, music piracy was far more widespread than it is now.
1 Like
3 Likes
They should make all music licensed under Creative Commons, and make it really easy and convenient to donate to musicians.
And musicians should do more gigs and less recording, and work under patronage (either from the rich people, or from crowd funded sources). And the big record labels? They are parasites and nobody is any better off from their existence.
This is how it worked since the dawn of music. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethovenā¦ none of them had big record labels with an army of copyright lawyers, ready to destroy the life of every kid who copies an audio file and shares it with a friend.
1 Like
Well, on the other hand, if there were kids at that time that could copy the work of there guys and play it at home with their friend then they probably rightfully deserved it. 
How do you think Bach as a kid got any music? He heard it played by someone else, either copied it or wrote it down, and played it at home on his brotherās clavichord.
Being an orphan who stayed at his brotherās home, I assure you, he did not have any money to buy printed music from Amsterdam or Venice. He copied it, often under the moonlight.
1 Like
Love it.
Sorry mate, too out of it, maybe one day Iāll look at this again