I agree. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is the deprivation of something taken without permission. If I borrow a DVD from a friend, rip said DVD, then return it, I have performed an act of copyright infringement, but not theft. If I walk into HMV and take a DVD without paying for it, that is theft, as HMV no longer have the DVD to sell and make revenue from that sale.
YouTube pays royalties where they know who the copyright holder is, and when the content fingerprints are correctly registered with Content ID. I’ve mentioned this already. Content ID is nowhere near infallible, neither is YouTube’s copyright infringement reporting mechanisms. Look at this case where someone’s white noise is flagged multiple times as infringing. A cursory Google reveals tonnes of cases where Content ID just Does Not Work, fails to pay out anywhere near the figures quoted by Google/Alphabet, and can in fact be hostile to independent musicians.
Again, you are dreaming of an infringement-free utopia, which is laudable, but does not take into consideration the real-world operational requirements to run a user-generated content site.
Additionally, I would question the potential revenue from a small forum like this.
I would look further than the echo chamber that is YouTube’s own forums. A discussion of the legal ramifications in the EU, for example. A critical part in the linked response is that knowingly embedding infringing content presents risks. This is the part which I’m trying to drill into this conversation.
Chill knowingly embedded YouTube videos that he knew contained full copies of movies which had not been uploaded by the copyright holder. Full movies on YouTube never, if ever, get left up once a copyright infringement has been reported or detected. Clips get left up when they can be monetised by the copyright holder, but what royalties will YouTube deliver when it’s an entire movie? None, because the Content ID-based royalties system is for music, not films or TV, because the royalties system is based on deals with major record labels. Also, YouTube is a streaming video rental service, and do you really think Universal, Fox, Disney et al would rather collect cents from ad revenue over $3-10 for a movie rental?
You have miscategorised this entire line of argument by focusing on music. I am trying to point out the original actions were embedding whole movies. I am also repeatedly trying to point out that the primary concern here was that the requests of moderators and presenters were being ignored.
No-one is trying to stifle culture or content sharing here, but there are limits to which anyone must see that the breaching of those limits crosses a line.
I am unhappy with the characterisation being presented that any attempt to stop repeated, wholesale, legally risky actions is somehow bad, and that by denying Bono a fraction of a cent in royalties will bring our culture crashing down around our ears. I am unhappy with the characterisation being presented that the people asking that these actions not take place are “misguided”, misinformed, and somehow not in full possession of the facts. I mean, don’t mind me, I’ve only been on the Internet for TWENTY-FOUR FUCKING YEARS.
And on that unfortunately sour note, I’m off to bed again. Apols.