# The ethics of listening to classical on YouTube



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Many of the recordings on youtube are not uploaded by the owners themselves and are not in the public domain either. Is it immoral, and are we doing a disservice to the performers, to listen for free instead of buying the CDs? Is it piracy?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

level82rat said:


> Many of the recordings on youtube are not uploaded by the owners themselves and are not in the public domain either. Is it immoral, and are we doing a disservice to the performers, to listen for free instead of buying the CDs? Is it piracy?


The artist/composer can claim royalties if a video is monetized.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

If there is an ethical issue, it resides with youtube.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

I get free music, as well as free books, from my library. I have no problem with that. Every time a tax renewal or increase comes up on the ballot, I vote yes.

Amazon has basically killed any chance an artist has to profit from his or her music. Nobody is going to pay $15.99 for a CD when they can buy their favorite song off of an "album" for 99 cents. That's why a ticket to a concert costs $75 +. Used to be artist profited from album sales ($5.99 or less) and toured in support of their recordings. You could pay $5 and see two top acts and a third newer group thrown in. 

I have no idea how classical composers make any money.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

level82rat said:


> Many of the recordings on youtube are not uploaded by the owners themselves and are not in the public domain either. Is it immoral, and are we doing a disservice to the performers, to listen for free instead of buying the CDs? Is it piracy?


If you have any qualms, then listen to it, and if you like it, purchase the CD/download.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> If there is an ethical issue, it resides with youtube.


You mean that the end user is not stealing, only the supplier is stealing? I'm not sure that's sound ethics, especially if the end user knows it is stolen.

That is, of course, if it is a matter of stealing at all. I don't know if it is.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

In terms of personal ethics, regardless of Law, my own impression is downloading something you would have bought either on CD or Mp3 is equivalent to stealing. But downloading, if you weren't going to buy the music anyway is not. Listening is no problem. I find Spotify has a lot of stuff I can't find on Youtube anyway, and that is pretty clear to me it's ok to listen to.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

gregorx said:


> I get free music, as well as free books, from my library. I have no problem with that. Every time a tax renewal or increase comes up on the ballot, I vote yes.
> 
> *Amazon has basically killed any chance an artist has to profit from his or her music.* Nobody is going to pay $15.99 for a CD when they can buy their favorite song off of an "album" for 99 cents. That's why a ticket to a concert costs $75 +. Used to be artist profited from album sales ($5.99 or less) and toured in support of their recordings. You could pay $5 and see two top acts and a third newer group thrown in.
> 
> I have no idea how classical composers make any money.


Millions of plays on Youtube, Spotify or iTunes can translate into quite a bit of money (assuming there aren't too many splits ie perfermers and composers).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I use youtube to preview new music. I don't use youtube to systematically listen to music I really like. If I like a work, I place it in my long list of enjoyable works I don't have. That list informs me of what to purchase.

When I was young and only listened to popular music, I would listen to songs on the radio. I would then purchase songs or albums I liked. In some sense I use youtube that way, but I don't repeatedly listen to classical works as I would popular songs on the radio. I will listen a few times to determine that a work is something I really want, and then I will purchase the CD. Without youtube (or Naxos Music Library), I would certainly purchase fewer CDs.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The audio streaming quality on youtube is also lower than that of CDs. I believe the standard bitrate on youtube is 128 kbps (mp3), and even if you upload with a higher quality, youtube cuts it down to 128 kbps in the encoding process. Whereas with CDs, you can rip at higher quality, up to 320 kbps.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> In terms of personal ethics, regardless of Law, my own impression is downloading something you would have bought either on CD or Mp3 is equivalent to stealing. But downloading, if you weren't going to buy the music anyway is not. Listening is no problem. I find Spotify has a lot of stuff I can't find on Youtube anyway, and that is pretty clear to me it's ok to listen to.


I'm quite sure that *downloading* something which is copyrighted (assuming that you don't own the copyright) and which you haven't bought is not legal. I personally don't have a problem with listening to something on YouTube. Usually copyrighted stuff is taken down, at least if it reaches the level of popularity that will affect the profits. Btw, I'm pretty sure that YouTube can work as a way to popularise a performer or an artist as well (e.g making a few works freely available). That might, in the long run, be sometimes much more profitable.

I don't use YouTube to listen to music systematically but rather to watch performances I'm interested in.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

annaw said:


> I'm quite sure that *downloading* something which is copyrighted (assuming that you don't own the copyright) and which you haven't bought is not legal.


Streaming involves downloading, but only temporarily and in little chunks.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

level82rat said:


> Streaming involves downloading, but only temporarily and in little chunks.


But on sites like iTunes the artist gets paid for such streaming.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

janxharris said:


> But on sites like iTunes the artist gets paid for such streaming.


That's correct but I'm just trying to dispel the idea that there is a difference between downloading and streaming.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

level82rat said:


> That's correct but I'm just trying to dispel the idea that there is a difference between downloading and streaming.


But your reference was to illegal fownloading where the artist is _not_ paid.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

janxharris said:


> But your reference was to illegal fownloading where the artist is _not_ paid.


Correct. Watching videos on youtube where the money does not go to the original artist is by definition "illegal downloading where the artist is not paid" Obviously Itunes and Spotify are a different beast


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

level82rat said:


> Correct. Watching videos on youtube where the money does not go to the original artist is by definition "illegal downloading where the artist is not paid" Obviously Itunes and Spotify are a different beast


Artist can make content ID claims on youtube - a piece of music uploaded on a channel without the rightsholders permission could potentially earn money for the artist/composer. It needs to be monetized and popular of course.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

level82rat said:


> Streaming involves downloading, but only temporarily and in little chunks.


Yes, but there's not much difference between streaming and downloading a streamed track which you are not able to listen independently of the streaming service. So, you don't own it.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Artist can make content ID claims on youtube - a piece of music uploaded on a channel without the rightsholders permission could potentially earn money for the artist/composer. It needs to be monetized and popular of course.


Correct. If an artist does so, it is fair to assume that they are OK with the video being on YouTube and therefore I have no moral qualms about that. But how many artists take advantage of that feature, that is still up in the air.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> I'm quite sure that *downloading* something which is copyrighted (assuming that you don't own the copyright) and which you haven't bought is not legal.


Youtube also has "content ID system" that detects the content in any video that's uploaded. In any uploaded video, if they detect any content that's registered in their system by their copyright-holders, the youtube system automatically enforces their policies as soon as the video is uploaded. If the copyright-holder made the content not viewable in the countries you live in, you'll not be able to play the video and get a message saying "Video isn't available in your country/region".
There are no rules on youtube forbidding actual downloading of audio or video files, as long as the video is viewable in your country. It's actually not that hard, there are many simple apps/extensions/programs that you can use to download from youtube. They're not illegal. If you're the uploader, youtube even provides you the option to download your own video.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

level82rat said:


> Correct. If an artist does so, it is fair to assume that they are OK with the video being on YouTube and therefore I have no moral qualms about that. But how many artists take advantage of that feature, that is still up in the air.


Well - if they don't take advanture then they are missing out...potentially. There are content ID claims on youtube all the time.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Many years ago, particularly when I just started to listen to film scores, people made tapes for me, That was not technically legal, but it did encourage me to buy lots of recordings that I would not have otherwise. Is that just rationalizing? Perhaps. I generally check out youtube recordings chiefly looking to consider buying something.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

annaw said:


> I'm quite sure that *downloading* something which is copyrighted (assuming that you don't own the copyright) and which you haven't bought is not legal. I personally don't have a problem with listening to something on YouTube. Usually copyrighted stuff is taken down, at least if it reaches the level of popularity that will affect the profits. Btw, I'm pretty sure that YouTube can work as a way to popularise a performer or an artist as well (e.g making a few works freely available). That might, in the long run, be sometimes much more profitable.
> 
> I don't use YouTube to listen to music systematically but rather to watch performances I'm interested in.


You're right. So I don't keep the stuff I downloaded in my system for long. One exception is when the album is out of print. I would have wanted to buy it, if it was available.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Youtube also has "content ID system" that detects the content in any video that's uploaded. In any uploaded video, if they detect any content that's registered in their system by their copyright-holders, the youtube system automatically enforces their policies as soon as the video is uploaded. If the copyright-holder made the content not viewable in the countries you live in, you'll not be able to play the video and get a message saying "Video isn't available in your country/region".
> There are no rules on youtube forbidding actual downloading of audio or video files, as long as the video is viewable in your country. It's actually not that hard, there are many simple apps/extensions/programs that you can use to download from youtube. They're not illegal. If you're the uploader, youtube even provides you the option to download your own video.


Actually downloading Youtube videos is against Google's terms and both are owned by the parent company Alphabet. If the video only contains public domain content, downloading it should be legal but will violate the Google terms of use.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Ethics? Is that not a region just outside London?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Youtube is where you get your digitalized private acetate recordings, VHS-taped TV performances from the 1980s, smartphone-recorded jams, most obscure 1960s vinyls, and so on.

As for the official content, lossy, badly encoded music on Youtube is not the same sound as the one one pays for when buying CDs or subscribing to a streaming service. It's just not desirable and serves only demonstrative purposes as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Uploading new cds or downloading them is illegal and morally reprehensible. It astonishes me that some cds show up before I can even get them from Arkivmusic. It's bad for the business: who wants to keep producing new recordings if they can't make a profit or at least break even?? Youtube loves to monitor and silence conservatives; they should spend more time monitoring the uploading of copyrighted material. Youtube is a great resource of historical documentation for classical music, and that's fine since it doesn't break copyright law.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I never listen to albums on YouTube. Mostly just live performance videos and old TV programs with music. I agree with mbhaub that it is very unfair to artists and record companies to be uploading new CD releases when the company hasn't even had a chance to recoup their production costs or pay any artist royalties. YouTube will never spend money monitoring this stuff. The artists and record companies have to do it themselves and pay the legal costs.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2020)

level82rat said:


> Many of the recordings on youtube are not uploaded by the owners themselves and are not in the public domain either. Is it immoral, and are we doing a disservice to the performers, to listen for free instead of buying the CDs? Is it piracy?


You can ask Youtube, of course...on Youtube. For example...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Now discuss the ethics of streaming services and the payouts for performers.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 3, 2020)

The easiest solution is to attempt to access those recordings which have been uploaded by the label and/or artist in question -

These are fully authorized recordings which do not violate any copyright infringement laws. The labels themselves want you to listen to these recordings in the hope that you'll then go out and purchase either the actual CD or a FLAC download.

The trick is being able to find them.

The best way is to start out at Prestomusic and find the actual performer/conductor/recording that you wish to listen to - in this case let's assume you want to hear -

Ferenc Fricsay's version of "Bluebeard" - you would type in Friscay and Bluebeard in the search box -

https://www.prestomusic.com/classic...bartok-duke-bluebeards-castle-sz-48-op-11-etc

Copy the title - "Bartók: Duke Bluebeard's Castle, Sz. 48, Op. 11, etc." and open the YouTube page - Paste the title but add "Fricsay" right after it and you'll be taken here -

https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...ebeard's+Castle,+Sz.+48,+Op.+11,+etc.+fricsay

Despite however far down you scroll you won't find the complete label-authorized version which has all of the selections in one link.

The second selection on the page is "Bartók: Bluebeard's Castle, Sz. 48 (Op.11) - Ach! Blumenpracht" - click on that single selection and you'll then be at this page -






Right underneath "Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra - Topic" are the words "Show More" - Click on this and then find the actual title which in this instance is "Bartók: Bluebeard's Castle; Cantata profana"

And the fifth result of this page -

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bartók:+Bluebeard's+Castle;+Cantata+profana

Contains the complete opera with 14 selections - Click on "View Full Playlist"

and here's the complete label-authorized and legitimate with no infringement issues version -

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nsMoD0YaJAwS8qroGnPTA1tyW1zvqdVLs

Try this out with any variation of performer/conductor/recording - as mentioned, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but if you're looking for something specific and can't find it let me know and I'll try to assist in any way I can as time permits.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

annaw said:


> I'm quite sure that *downloading* something which is copyrighted (assuming that you don't own the copyright) and which you haven't bought is not legal. I personally don't have a problem with listening to something on YouTube. Usually copyrighted stuff is taken down, at least if it reaches the level of popularity that will affect the profits. Btw, I'm pretty sure that YouTube can work as a way to popularise a performer or an artist as well (e.g making a few works freely available). That might, in the long run, be sometimes much more profitable.
> 
> I don't use YouTube to listen to music systematically but rather to watch performances I'm interested in.


My understanding as well about the downloading.

Other points on there are very well made. You tube is a good venue for sampling - but not a way I personally want to listen to music or other performances - between having to be plugged into my computer to hear them, sometimes poor quality, interruptions by ads, etc. If there is a copyright conflict, youtube (or the copyright owner) removes it.

As someone on the thread mentioned, many composers got very little for their works (and it was a one time payment - no royalties!) and died with little or money.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Yeah, it's not an issue for me, because I would never be satisfied with YouTube audio quality, and I'm not going to listen to my computer or phone with my good headphones. So YT is purely for previewing potential purchases, seeing live video of performances, or for sampling historical curiosities.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

consuono said:


> Now discuss the ethics of streaming services and the payouts for performers.


What's to discuss? This constitutes a contract between the copyright holder and the streaming service.


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

I have a simple view - I think is wrong, I don't do it, and because of that barely think about it. I know that YouTube detects this stuff but not sure how it handles copyright of the work vs. copyright on the recording/performance - you might be playing some... let's say Telemann (just to mention something that is for sure out of copyright) BUT you still have rights on YOUR recording of YOUR performance... 

Not sure how or if YouTube ever handles that - this world being a pop world - I have the impression that in general YouTube (as big and smart as they are) might not have considered that case just because they are mostly young people that only know pop.

I might be wrong, of course...

v


----------



## BobBrines (Jun 14, 2018)

Just for grins, I popped up Youtube and the first suggestion was Albinoni oboe concertos on a Brilliant Classics compilation. 



. At the bottom of the notes is this:

Licensed to YouTube by
LatinAutor, and 1 Music Rights Societies

YouTube has the rights to allow me to listen to this performance. Same with hundreds/thousands of other CD's. This is how the record companies advertise these days. I assume this is also true of individual performances all over YouTube. Somebody is getting paid for clicks.


----------

