[foepys]

They absolutely can play popular music. They just don't want to pay for it.

All popular YouTubers and streamers are businesses which is a part that is often forgotten. They are all acting like they are friends with their viewers but in reality they are businesses just like a car wash, restaurant, plumber, etc.

[J0_k3r]

Let's say you're a youtuber or streamer who listens to a variety of different music, are you really going to pay to license every one of your favorite songs for business use? No.

Instead they go to No Copyright Sounds or Kevin McLeod and grab their stuff instead because why are you going to sacrifice that money to license the music when you're small and starting out?

[foepys]

When streamers are streaming, they are working. If you want to listen to your favorite music, you can do that in your own private time. In a business context, other rules apply.

> why are you going to sacrifice that money to license the music when you're small and starting out

Does this also apply to utility bills?

Just use non-copyrighted music. If that isn't enough, you need to pay or just live with it.

[sharpneli]

The original post talked about this causing a lack of discovery for the new music. If the streamer doesn't pay and just uses non-copyrighted music no harm done to the streamer. It's still great fun. But the users don't get exposed to potentially interesting music content.

Why should the streamer pay for the privilege of being basically an advertisement platform for a commercial product? And they don't, and thus there is less discovery. Hence what is meant by the music industry shooting itself in the foot.

I personally listen mostly to music I listened as a teenager and early 20's. Sometimes I learn of something new and nice from my friends, but otherwise I find discovering new music quite hard.

A new game comes out: Tons of reviews and letsplays and whatnot. Looks interesting, I'll buy. New music comes out: Its advertised maybe in Spotify but that's it. Making a review or analysis is not possible (without paying extra), so I can't encounter it. And thus I won't listen it.

[intricatedetail]

You are assuming that no copyright content is not interesting. That's often the case, but this is a chance for artists who don't subscribe to the exploitative model offered by most labels. People discover new music just fine, only that it doesn't come from greedy labels.

[J0_k3r]

\>Does this also apply to utility bills?

If people could cut costs by using electricity that isn't from their local state monopoly then definitely.

\>Just use non-copyrighted music. If that isn't enough, you need to pay or just live with it.

The original post is complaining about a lack of discovery, and you don't seem to care about finding any sort of solution to the problem originally posed.

No one's going to pay to advertise your crap, thus no one is going to listen to it.

[dmitriid]

That is true, to. very large extent. However, paying royalties for music is a chore that even big companies struggle with.

Do you know who to pay royalties to for a piece of music if it's broadcast in the US? In Europe? In Japan? It's not uncommon for a piece of music to be co-owned by multiple companies with weird things like "in the US the rights belong to Warner, in Europe it 27.5% Warner, 13% Sony, 1% the original production company that still exists and the rest goes to UMG"

[daniellarusso]

This is wrong.

If I want to DJ a livestream on Youtube, I can only play certain songs, regardless of my willingness to pay for the songs.

Certain music is prohibited from the platform.

It is not a business, I am not trying to sell ads or promote anything.

[maxfurman]

Is your video monetized? Either way, youtube is certainly trying to sell ads on top of it. Adding content to youtube is a for-profit enterprise. Whether any of that profit accrues to the creator is another issue.

[canofbars]

Because they don't have to pay for it. They have plenty of free music available and they aren't losing fans over it.

[ubercow13]

Can they? Is Youtube's system set up to allow that? They'll still get hit by content ID or automated takedown notices from labels or whatever, have to fight each case, and still have the possibility of the strikes causing their channel to close, or the entirety of the income from a video being diverted to a record label.

[mytherin]

The system is not set up for this. You cannot play copyrighted music in a stream or YouTube video without jumping through hundreds of hoops with licensing. Especially if you are listening to a variety of songs (e.g. Spotify or a radio) this is a nightmare.

You are right that many (not all) YouTubers and streamers are businesses, but pinning this on streamers for being cheap/greedy and not wanting to pay ignores the reality of the situation. If this was in any way realistic you would see a certain percentage of streamers pay and legally play popular music. Instead, that percentage is zero.

There is no reasonable path to pay for playing popular music, and that is entirely the fault of the record companies.

[taurath]

And they don’t cause... why would they when they don’t have to?

[pjc50]

One underestimated part of the gig economy is that eventually everyone will be a business, and eventually they will be on the clock all the time. I guess that will be the end of music.

Do Uber drivers have to pay a license to have the radio on in the car?

[rbradford]

> Do Uber drivers have to pay a license to have the radio on in the car?

In the UK, yes, https://pplprs.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/PRS-for-Music-Tariff...