Yet another "anti-YouTube is killing music" letter, but a good one

[Richie Royale]

BBC article about YT and BPI

[Drew Stephenson]

Someone that downloads free music is _not_ a customer, it's a thief. Liking music does not entitle anyone to steal it.

YouTube is relevant for music because it allows you to listen without paying. No market can survive its product being given away for free.

Someone that watches free music on youtube isn't downloading and is probably watching an official version of the video uploaded by the record label. As a result the artist (well, the label at least) is getting paid. Equating streaming with sales is a flawed assumption.

The advertising industry survives quite nicely by giving its content away for free, and the digital recording is only one revenue stream of the music industry.

Let me be clear, I'm not endorsing copyright infringement - but I am saying that there is a lot of hyperbole on this thread and some confused thinking.
I do think the music industry could have reacted very differently to the internet and had they done so the landscape would look very different now.
I also think copyright needs massive reform and the collateral effects on free speech and liability are real and damaging across a host of industries.

[DC-Choppah]

There is great naivete in thinking that the internet providers, and YouTube and Google etc. are some sort of heroes for challenging the music industry and exist to benefit the artist. YouTube now IS the media distributor. They ARE the music industry. Yet they treat the artists even more poorly than before and hide behind safe harbor technicalities by claiming they are NOT the music industry. They claim they are just some innocent kids with some computers that allow their friends to share files over the internet and sell advertising to make money (i.e. bootleggers, fences and pimps).

When are the folks that defend the internet because of its so-called benefits to the artists, going to realize that they have grown up, and THEY are now that music business guy that oppresses and exploits the artist.

[DC-Choppah]

Since the late nineties the music businesses responded to the internet by prosecuting their customers and internet companies. Had they been positive and exploited the new opportunity they might have built something that made Youtube irrelevant for music.

Someone that downloads free music is _not_ a customer, it's a thief. Liking music does not entitle anyone to steal it.

YouTube is relevant for music because it allows you to listen without paying. No market can survive its product being given away for free.

+1

You will notice that the only defense offered against this claim of stealing is an attack on the person making the claim. That one should have been more creative. One should have done something different. One should have embraced it. The victim has done something wrong. The victim is to blame. This is the standard legal tactic when being accused of something where the evidence is clear. Attack the witness!

[CS70]

Someone that watches free music on youtube isn't downloading and is probably watching an official version of the video uploaded by the record label. As a result the artist (well, the label at least) is getting paid. Equating streaming with sales is a flawed assumption.

You don't say why you claim the assumptions should be flawed, so can't say much about it.

But for the rest - that some videos are uploaded by record labels...

- For one, there's lots (and I mean *lots*) of content which isn't, but is instead uploaded by idiots who even write in the comment "I don't mean to infringe copyright" and similar bullshit.

- Secondly, I already wrote it above. Vevo and other producers of "free music" did these deal only because of piracy. The alternative is to have a little something or nothing. If someone's waving a gun at you and you sign a contract to leave your house and rent it for ten bucks, and the police doesn't do anything, they have the contract, someone's living in your house and you have ten bucks and are homeless.

Then when you complain about the someone stealing your house, some people will go around saying "hey, but you accepted the ten bucks". And so long the police does not do anything, they still have that gun to wave.

The entire model is *born* out of theft. There's no going around it.

(ans as a technicality: whomever watches youtube *is* downloading content by definition - there is a data copy and transfer going on from youtube servers to your local machine. That's a key issue, but not so important for the specific points you raise)

The advertising industry survives quite nicely by giving its content away for free, and the digital recording is only one revenue stream of the music industry.

Advertising industry giving its product for free? In which world? You pay, and you pay _a lot_. Bar a few very special cases, advertising is a very most significant expense for any product (music included). It's not a case that Google is among the most capitalized companies in the world.

If you meant that the public can watch ads for free... what has that one to do with anything? Nobody would ever dream to pay to see ads - because they're in the interest of the product maker, not of the public.

Let me be clear, I'm not endorsing copyright infringement - but I am saying that there is a lot of hyperbole on this thread and some confused thinking.
I do think the music industry could have reacted very differently to the internet and had they done so the landscape would look very different now.
I also think copyright needs massive reform and the collateral effects on free speech and liability are real and damaging across a host of industries.

Hehe I can endorse that there's confused thinking.

Primarily, that the music industry had really much say in the matter, is a myth. The reason is basic economy. In *any* market where a product was sold (hence there was an industry for it), if the product is suddenly given away for free, and nobody enforces copyright protection, the market is quickly reduced to zero and any actors stops making money in that market. It's simple as that. The concept of market is based on the idea of paying for something. If no payment occurs, the market disappears. There's no market for sand in central africa, or for ice at the poles.

So, missing the active policing of copyright, the music industry could do absolutely nothing, nada, zero. It could have put a nicer face, but that wouldn't have changed the result a little bit (and we would be discussing, now, why they were so dumb).

What they failed to do is to lobby governments and politicians well enough to crack down on piracy.

As of the damage of copyright, you need to give a bit more details to clarify which damage you are thinking about and why.

[Drew Stephenson]

When are the folks that defend the internet because of its so-called benefits to the artists, going to realize that they have grown up, and THEY are now that music business guy that oppresses and exploits the artist.

So the likes of youtube, bandcamp et al are offering me a free service to distribute and monetize my product around the globe but they're oppressing and exploiting me? I guess I just don't see it like that.

[Drew Stephenson]

Someone that watches free music on youtube isn't downloading and is probably watching an official version of the video uploaded by the record label. As a result the artist (well, the label at least) is getting paid. Equating streaming with sales is a flawed assumption.

You don't say why you claim the assumptions should be flawed, so can't say much about it.

Because if I download an mp3 I can stick it on any of my devices, play it in the car, on the train, whenever and wherever I am. Streaming doesn't work like that, it's a different product.

But for the rest - that some videos are uploaded by record labels...

- For one, there's lots (and I mean *lots*) of content which isn't, but is instead uploaded by idiots who even write in the comment "I don't mean to infringe copyright" and similar bullshit.

And if they've chosen to monetise their content they get paid from these copies as well. ContentID isn't perfect but it's improving all the time.

- Secondly, I already wrote it above. Vevo and other producers of "free music" did these deal only because of piracy. The alternative is to have a little something or nothing. If someone's waving a gun at you and you sign a contract to leave your house and rent it for ten bucks, and the police doesn't do anything, they have the contract, someone's living in your house and you have ten bucks and are homeless.

Then when you complain about the someone stealing your house, some people will go around saying "hey, but you accepted the ten bucks". And so long the police does not do anything, they still have that gun to wave.

The entire model is *born* out of theft. There's no going around it.

You know all the musicians guilds had exactly the same argument when music recording technology came along? Recorded music was going to kill live music, no-one was going to be able to make a living playing music if people could just buy something once and listen to it again and again.
When the movies first started all the theatre companies were up in arms for the same reasons. Disruptive technology disrupts and there will be winners and losers (hint: the artists are always the losers because they're the ones who will keep doing their thing anyway - because they're driven to do it).

The advertising industry survives quite nicely by giving its content away for free, and the digital recording is only one revenue stream of the music industry.

Advertising industry giving its product for free? In which world? You pay, and you pay _a lot_. Bar a few very special cases, advertising is a very most significant expense for any product (music included). It's not a case that Google is among the most capitalized companies in the world.

If you meant that the public can watch ads for free... what has that one to do with anything? Nobody would ever dream to pay to see ads - because they're in the interest of the product maker, not of the public.

Yeah, sorry, that was a very bad analogy on my part - in my defence, it was late and it's been a long week!

Let me be clear, I'm not endorsing copyright infringement - but I am saying that there is a lot of hyperbole on this thread and some confused thinking.
I do think the music industry could have reacted very differently to the internet and had they done so the landscape would look very different now.
I also think copyright needs massive reform and the collateral effects on free speech and liability are real and damaging across a host of industries.

Hehe I can endorse that there's confused thinking.

Primarily, that the music industry had really much say in the matter, is a myth. The reason is basic economy. In *any* market where a product was sold (hence there was an industry for it), if the product is suddenly given away for free, and nobody enforces copyright protection, the market is quickly reduced to zero and any actors stops making money in that market. It's simple as that. The concept of market is based on the idea of paying for something. If no payment occurs, the market disappears. There's no market for sand in central africa, or for ice at the poles.

A market exists where there is an exchange of value. Where people can't see a value they won't engage in that market. But similarly if you're not willing to move to a new market, but someone else does, then don't be surprised if your customers go elsewhere.

So, missing the active policing of copyright, the music industry could do absolutely nothing, nada, zero. It could have put a nicer face, but that wouldn't have changed the result a little bit (and we would be discussing, now, why they were so dumb).

What they failed to do is to lobby governments and politicians well enough to crack down on piracy.

I'm going to disagree with you on this at a fundamental level, I think this is a business model problem not a legislative or technological problem. The fact that there are models out there now in a whole host of creative fields that are using the new technology quite effectively to function. But they are new models - and in any market, if you don't adapt you fail.

As of the damage of copyright, you need to give a bit more details to clarify which damage you are thinking about and why.

Plenty of examples, primarily around free speech and activism. News agencies in Russia being closed down after taking an ant-establishment line because of claims that their office software wasn't genuine. Legal companies claiming copyright on threatening letters to try and get them removed from the threatened party's blog or website. Diebold using copyright to try and shut-down criticism of flaws in its e-voting system...
Seriously, the list is longer than this post! Just google it.

I support the principles of copyright, I really do, but I think it needs a massive overhaul to get back to its original purpose - which is not to allow a middle man and their grand-children to retire off one piece of someone else's work. I suspect we all agree on that but we will probably not agree on the other stuff.

[CS70]

Because if I download an mp3 I can stick it on any of my devices, play it in the car, on the train, whenever and wherever I am. Streaming doesn't work like that, it's a different product.

True, but you mean nobody downloads music from either spotify or youtube? There's dozens sites where all you have to do is to put the URL in. The only difference between the two is the presence of a data network connection. The value of the content is very similar - streaming should cost a little less because you aren't going to need much storage and you pay a fee to the network provider. A bit like owning the car and leasing one. The relationship which exists nowadays has several order of magnitude of difference - as if in leasing a car costed a dollar a month versus a thousand.

And if they've chosen to monetise their content they get paid from these copies as well. ContentID isn't perfect but it's improving all the time.

Exactly - you say it yourself (and it was the point of the article): the alternative is between a pittance or nothing. You - the content producer - have totally lost control of when and how your content is made available and how to do business with it. Just like the labels use to do with young artists, btw.

You know all the musicians guilds had exactly the same argument when music recording technology came along?

No I didn't - always something new to learn . But that argument was obviously flawed - the distance between recorded and live music is just as big as between theater and book publishing. Streaming/YT and recorded music is like giving books for free vs. selling them.

And regardless: have you considered my metaphor? How would you feel if you were forced to rent your house for a pittance at gunpoint, the police didn't do anything, and people came about saying "hey, but you signed the contract"?

Yeah, sorry, that was a very bad analogy on my part - in my defence, it was late and it's been a long week!

No stress, been there.

A market exists where there is an exchange of value. Where people can't see a value they won't engage in that market. But similarly if you're not willing to move to a new market, but someone else does, then don't be surprised if your customers go elsewhere.

Exactly right: exchange of *economic* value - either as barter or, in the last couple thousand years, mediated by money. That's what a marketplace is. There's of course many things of value, whose value is not economical, but they're not pertinent to this conversation. We're not talking of the fun you and I have when making music.

Now, when I can obtain something with no effort (i.e. no correspondent), for whatever reason, that thing stops having economic value. That doesn't mean it doesn't retain it usefulness, or fun value, or affective one etc. But it is no longer the basis for an industry.

I don't see how it's possible to argue with such a simple and basic concept.

I'm going to disagree with you on this at a fundamental level, I think this is a business model problem not a legislative or technological problem. The fact that there are models out there now in a whole host of creative fields that are using the new technology quite effectively to function. But they are new models - and in any market, if you don't adapt you fail.

You are not disagreeing with me, but with reality. There is no sustainable business where a product given away for free retains economic value. There must be scarcity somewhere. It's basic economy.

Note that I have nothing to do vs. disruptive technologies. I have nothing about the technology of guns. But I have a lot against criminals using guns to rob others.

The technology we are talking about - fast global data transfer - has millions of perfectly fine uses. It's the criminal uses that I don't like - and the fact that, for an accident of time and place, certain uses at start weren't recognized as such.

Music, btw, is not the only field. Technology affect thing everywhere. For example, everybody's incredibly happy of the new means for payments (say minibanks, net banks, mobile payments etc). They are incredibly useful and make life much easier than in the past. And yet they create opportunities for fraud of size and type never seen before. Nobody's against the technology (it would be silly) but I guarantee to you that government and police go very seriously against the fraud.

That simply didn't happen for music.

Plenty of examples, primarily around free speech and activism. News agencies in Russia being closed down after taking an ant-establishment line because of claims that their office software wasn't genuine. Legal companies claiming copyright on threatening letters to try and get them removed from the threatened party's blog or website. Diebold using copyright to try and shut-down criticism of flaws in its e-voting system...
Seriously, the list is longer than this post! Just google it.

Well it seems to me you're mixing very diverse examples here. Obviously in a state like Russia, where the rule of law is questionable, all bets are off. Like the recent episode of BBC journalist held in North Korea, really anything goes to do what the chieftain wants.

On the other side, if you do use on a blog content originally produced by someone, it's bloody right that you should at least ask for permission! That *is* the concept of copy right. You cannot claim to support it and then see that as a problem. It's your product, you decided how it's used. That said, very few copyright holders would be so nasty to disallow real fair use.

For the Diebold issue, of course there will attempts of abuse. But the ruling was in the end against them.
You don't throw away the baby because someone uses it as an excuse to, say, sell you something?

Let me be clear: thru adverts, the pirate bay can sustain itself *because* it contains massive amount of copyrighted work and gives it away for free. YouTube, whose current form is a temporal and conceptual *consequence* of the PB-like sites, would be far less interesting to advertisers if it didnt contain copyrighted music uploaded without consent. Note that the original YT concept - users uploading their own home made videos - would pose zero problems.. but whould have no business at all! Spotify, which is a consequence of both, would have had zero base for existing without allowed piracy.

It's not much about copyright really, it's about criminal activity to make money.

[DC-Choppah]

When are the folks that defend the internet because of its so-called benefits to the artists, going to realize that they have grown up, and THEY are now that music business guy that oppresses and exploits the artist.

So the likes of youtube, bandcamp et al are offering me a free service to distribute and monetize my product around the globe but they're oppressing and exploiting me? I guess I just don't see it like that.

All you need for global distribution is your own web site where you control the content. Basic internet access is like a utility, it does not cost that much. But Google, Youtube, etc are figuring out how THEY make money with it.

Have you ever had a hit song that people found on the radio first and then those people went to YouTube to download a ripped copy for free, thus depriving you of the sales from your legit website?

That is where the money comes in. That is where the value happens on the part of the pirate's business plan. They take the music that people would otherwise pay for, give it away for free, and either charge for the bandwidth (monthly fee) or make you watch advertising, that people pay for. They offer you nothing. You already have the global distribution system built into the internet itself. You don't need the pirates to distribute.

[Drew Stephenson]

As I said earlier in the thread to Frisonic, we're coming at this from different angles and we're never going to agree. But from a basic market perspective, if your unit cost is effectively zero then any potential customers are never going to pay much more than that. Especially when half the world is on less than a few dollars a day. So you have to find other sources of value - you have, as CS70 says above, to find the scarcities and use the non-scarce (the mp3) as advertising.
There are plenty more far more articulate sources on this so I'm going to stop here, especially since I've got a couple of mics set up and a bit of time.

[DC-Choppah]

But from a basic market perspective, if your unit cost is effectively zero then any potential customers are never going to pay much more than that.

But the key point of the article was: 'If YouTube valued music, then it would allow artists to have the same control which YouTube grants to itself. YouTube has created original programming. Those programs sit behind a "paid wall" and are not accessible for free unless YouTube decides to make them available that way. If a fan wants to watch the YouTube series "Sister-Zoned," that fan has to subscribe to YouTube Red for $9.99 a month. But the same does not apply to music.'

So, to your point, YouTube has zero per unit cost to distribute its own material, but HAS figured out how to protect it and makes you pay. Meanwhile, they say they have no way to control what other people put up and distribute for free. Pirates!

Sorry. I am not buying it. This is not a matter of ideology or perspective, we are simply illuminating the criminal exploitative business plan.

The entire point of copyright protection IS to protect things that are easy to copy, like books, medicines, intellectual property, photographs. Why single out music? Why not throw out all protections of things that are easy to copy? What if I start uploading files that contain full texts of books in YouTube, or designs for expensive drugs, or plans for new computer chips, things that have zero cost to reproduce?

The only ideology going around on this thread is folks who think the internet is some kind of ideal world that can't be challenged.

[chris...]

If a fan wants to watch the YouTube series "Sister-Zoned," that fan has to subscribe to YouTube Red for $9.99 a month. But the same does not apply to music.'

It does for Apple Music, which is £9.99 / month. Similar for full-fat Spotify. I'm not sure off hand what the Amazon music service charges, but unlikely to be hugely different.

[chris...]

YouTube Red - I assume they've thought that name through, and are confident it won't be confused with the similarly-named pornography site...

Anyway, if people are happy to pay for pr0n, then hopefully they'll be happy to pay for music

[Drew Stephenson]

But the key point of the article was: 'If YouTube valued music, then it would allow artists to have the same control which YouTube grants to itself. YouTube has created original programming. Those programs sit behind a "paid wall" and are not accessible for free unless YouTube decides to make them available that way. If a fan wants to watch the YouTube series "Sister-Zoned," that fan has to subscribe to YouTube Red for $9.99 a month. But the same does not apply to music.'

So, to your point, YouTube has zero per unit cost to distribute its own material, but HAS figured out how to protect it and makes you pay. Meanwhile, they say they have no way to control what other people put up and distribute for free. Pirates!

Except they have. They have a notice and take-down system. They have developed and implemented ContentID. Seriously, what else are you expecting them to do? Pre-vet the content?

The only ideology going around on this thread is folks who think the internet is some kind of ideal world that can't be challenged.

I'm not aware of anyone arguing that point?

[ezza]

That is where the money comes in. That is where the value happens on the part of the pirate's business plan. They take the music that people would otherwise pay for, give it away for free, and either charge for the bandwidth (monthly fee) or make you watch advertising, that people pay for. They offer you nothing.

Google have a system called Content ID. If you lodge your audio recording with them they can identify everytime someone uploads your music and offer you the option to take it down or take a share of the ad revenue.

[DC-Choppah]

Oh please give me a break with this content id thing. Like this means that YouTube actually cares and is trying to prevent copyright infringement.

Ever wonder why most of the songs on YouTube are slightly shifted or altered? There are plenty of little things that can be done to thwart the automatic content id and plenty of sites that will process your music for you to do this. Why? because YouTube wants to fully automate the process so they don't have to spend real time and money actually protecting copyrights. If they did, their business model fails. It is a disingenuous attempt to claim they care about copyrights.

Not buying it. If YouTube is going to be the biggest distributor of music and charge advertisers to have access to the people who are attracted to their site (just like a radio station) then they have to actually be a music distributor and yes, that means THEY are responsible for copyrights management of the material on their website.

Safe Harbor laws for YouTube must be overturned.

Let's say they were overturned. And then lets say black market music distribution went back to underground sites again. Would you defend those sites? At least admit that what you want is free music and will get it on the black market if you have to. Don't try and pretend that YouTube is somehow an innocent multi-billion dollar company that just happens to have massive server farms to distribute copyrighted material massively.

I remember confronting a bootlegger back in the day at a store in NYC. He had all CDs copied on PCs in his store with bargain prices. A real-looking music store, but all bootlegs in the bins, and lots of customers. I asked him how he sleeps at night. He said 'Integrity is not an option' and then described his business plan.

At least he saw himself as a criminal, he just admitted that he could not make money as a legit music store. His only option was to steal. He never claimed anything else. When the cops would shut him down, he'd pop up somewhere else. Then one day, they threw him in jail for a long time, and his music store disappeared.

[Drew Stephenson]

Safe Harbor laws for YouTube must be overturned.

Guess what? I disagree with you. Youtube is about much more than music. And what comes after youtube?

Let's say they were overturned. And then lets say black market music distribution went back to underground sites again. Would you defend those sites? At least admit that what you want is free music and will get it on the black market if you have to.

No to your question and no to your demand. I'm not defending copyright infringement nor am I someone who just wants free music.
I think we've gone beyond a sensible discussion here, I look forward to agreeing with you on a different thread.

[CS70]

Except they have. They have a notice and take-down system. They have developed and implemented ContentID. Seriously, what else are you expecting them to do? Pre-vet the content?

Of course. If a magazine publishes a photograph, they have a due diligence process to assess if it's in the public domain or not. In doubt, they don't - because they know that if they print thousands of copies and it turns out the pic was copyrighted, they may be forced to retired and destroy them or pay hefty penalties.

YT should do the same. Rather than "publish first, check later", it should proceed with due diligence, and withheld publication of any upload for which there is a suspicion of copyrighted content.

This would avoid many illegal uploads, restoring the power of disposing of their creation to the rightful owners. Which by the way, used to be labels, but nowadays, in ever growing numbers, are the authors themselves. It would be their prerogative to allow or not publication, for free or associated to an advertising scheme to make some money out of it.

It would not impede at all the creativity of people who makes videos for fun and who could upload them to their satisfaction (and even decide how *their* work should be protected).

Ironically, with Content ID, YT has invented the technology which makes such preventive check possible in quantitative terms.

[ezza]

You're quite loose with your accusations. No, I'm not interested in pirating music. I spend a lot on CD and vinyl. Goodnight.

[Dynamic Mike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeTja7JXK9A Apparently the solution is a private listening party.

Tom Waits' take on internet piracy. Maybe given the genie is already out of the bottle, we need to re-think how we use the genie?

[DC-Choppah]

I'm not defending copyright infringement nor am I someone who just wants free music.

It is not enough to simply passively be against copyright infringement. The question is, will you fight for others when their material has been exploited? Will you stand up against the pirates who want to exploit people?

If you walk down the street and see someone beating up an old lady, do you just say, hey, I'm against that and walk on, or, do you do something, and call the cops?

[chris...]

YouTube has created original programming. Those programs sit behind a "paid wall" and are not accessible for free unless YouTube decides to make them available that way. If a fan wants to watch the YouTube series "Sister-Zoned," that fan has to subscribe to YouTube Red for $9.99 a month.

Any idea if the people involved in making this stuff get paid fairly ?

Perhaps the content creators, musicians etc may end up working ultimately for the likes of YouTube, Amazon, as opposed to Sony or whoever.

[Drew Stephenson]

I'm not defending copyright infringement nor am I someone who just wants free music.

It is not enough to simply passively be against copyright infringement. The question is, will you fight for others when their material has been exploited? Will you stand up against the pirates who want to exploit people?

If you walk down the street and see someone beating up an old lady, do you just say, hey, I'm against that and walk on, or, do you do something, and call the cops?

But what if there are large parts of the current set of copyright legislation that I don't agree with? Would you expect me to fight hard for that? If I was going to be active anywhere in the copyright arena it would actually be to scale things back, not to press for more. Plainly we're not going to find any common ground here.

[Drew Stephenson]

Except they have. They have a notice and take-down system. They have developed and implemented ContentID. Seriously, what else are you expecting them to do? Pre-vet the content?

Of course. If a magazine publishes a photograph, they have a due diligence process to assess if it's in the public domain or not. In doubt, they don't - because they know that if they print thousands of copies and it turns out the pic was copyrighted, they may be forced to retired and destroy them or pay hefty penalties.

YT should do the same. Rather than "publish first, check later", it should proceed with due diligence, and withheld publication of any upload for which there is a suspicion of copyrighted content.

This would avoid many illegal uploads, restoring the power of disposing of their creation to the rightful owners. Which by the way, used to be labels, but nowadays, in ever growing numbers, are the authors themselves. It would be their prerogative to allow or not publication, for free or associated to an advertising scheme to make some money out of it.

It would not impede at all the creativity of people who make videos for fun and who could upload them to their satisfaction (and even decide how *their* work should be protected).

Ironically, with Content ID, YT has invented the technology which makes such preventive check possible in quantitative terms.

All ContentID does is allow you to identify the soundtrack - fair use requires a human assessment. There are about 300 hours per minute of content uploaded - Just to listen to that, let alone provide trained legal assessment would require a constant staff of 18,000 people - 99.99 percent of whom would be adding no value at all at any one time.

[CS70]

All ContentID does is allow you to identify the soundtrack - fair use requires a human assessment. There are about 300 hours per minute of content uploaded - Just to listen to that, let alone provide trained legal assessment would require a constant staff of 18,000 people - 99.99 percent of whom would be adding no value at all at any one time. [/quote]

You can say the same for a magazine. Only difference for YT is size.

So yes, absolutely, it would probably make the current YT not viable as a business. Which is the whole point. It's *not* a viable business unless the default is not to give a damn about copy rights and authors.