Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

There is replay; you can search many radio stations playlist for a specific title and play it.

What about Youtube? It seems most / all music is on YT, what licence do they use? Streaming services seem a lot like YT.

View on HN

YouTube is different though because as soon as you have visuals accompanying the audio you are in sync rights territory which is the kind of royalty that e.g. television broadcasters pay. Same goes for Twitch.

> YouTube is different though because as soon as you have visuals accompanying the audio you are in sync rights territory which is the kind of royalty that e.g. television broadcasters pay. Same goes for Twitch.

There are endless uploads to YouTube with a static title slide accompanied by a popular song. I see them constantly when searching for genuine music videos from my adolescence. Infringement seems pretty clear in these particular cases.

This is obviously distinct from Spotify’s streaming business, of course. I’m only attempting to address this specific subtopic.

Google provides a mechanism for copyright owners to claim those videos and either get advertising rights to them or remove them.

I think only music owners are allowed to post to YT, so they don't need a license like Spotify would.

But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity. There is a composer, if there are lyrics there is a lyricist, if it was translated then there is a translator, if it’s a cover or remix there is an arranger, there is a publisher that published the music, there might be a sub-publisher, then there is a record label… One of the main reasons behind the existence of this complex system of rights is the complex ownership structure of the copyright and related rights.

Isn't this the reason vevo exists? youtube pays a single royalty based on playback and leaves it to the uploader to split it up between all the interested parties.

Yes, that’s a common arrangement.

> But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity.

Great example, but you don't always have to split everything up 100 different ways, either.

There is commercial music in almost every genre owned entirely by the songwriter/composer/artist.

You are allowed to post covers on YouTube, which requires a performance license payment.

Covers are a compulsory license, so there is no way to disallow a cover from being posted if the license fees are paid.

Nope! You can totally pay for royalties and the entire right to perform on YouTube. It’s usually automatic.

YouTube don't need a license because they say they are covered by safe harbors / DMCA, so the record companies have negotiated separate agreements with YouTube. The fact that safe harbors were designed for passive intermediaries like ISPs and not a service like YT that promotes and makes money and gets value from all the music people upload (including record companies) is glossed over by YouTube.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com