Asklemmy

43912 readers

1037 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why do copyright holders restrict access to their videos on youtube? (lemy.nl)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am faced with the fact that the music video of my favourite band is not available in my region.
I found out about this video by accident, thanks to an app for Invidious.

Perhaps the decision to restrict access belongs to the record label? But what's the point if the band's discs and vinyl records are sold in my country?

(Old music videos and a few new ones are available for viewing. Only one video is not available.)

Arte TV's YouTube channel also has some interesting phenomena going on.

They post recordings of concerts, and after a while they remove them from public access. This can happen a few days after the release or a few months later.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

The default for IP holders is to be a twat. If they focused on making their portfolio available to the most people, there might pass an un-pinched penny through their claws. As a result, any kind of IP license must, apparently, be the maximum amount of pain and circumscription and sheer, bloody-minded pettiness it could possibly be.