copyright is-x-legal online-piracy
Is using Youtube illegal if the uploader does not have distribution rights?
<p>This question is propted by <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1648/is-downloading-youtube-videos-legal">this one</a>.  The answers seems to assume that youtube has a valid licence to distribute the work.  What if that is not the case?  Is it illegal to watch/listen to a video that is obviously distributed without a licence?</p>
<p>Somewhat famously the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music" rel="nofollow noreferrer">British Phonographic Industry (BPI), a British music industry trade group, claimed that home taping was illegal</a>:</p>
<p><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Home_taping_is_killing_music.png" alt="Home Taping Is Killing Music logo" /></p>
<p>A standard fact pattern of home taping would be Alice buys a record, and allows Bob to make a recording of that record.  Alice does not have distribution rights, therefore Bob is breaking the law by making an unauthorised copy.</p>
<p>If one uses youtube to listen to music that is 1 to 5 decades old ones &quot;youtube stream&quot; will be dominated by music that appears to be almost exclusively uploaded without the rights holders permission.  Most obviously the &quot;mixes&quot; tend to have very low production values with respect to the transitions and the graphics while playing very high profile songs.  This would appear exactly analogous to home taping, in that one is receiving and making a copy of a work that the providing party does not have distribution rights to.  In the US youtube would be protected by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 230</a>, and I think the <a href="https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/how-other-countries-have-dealt-intermediary-liability/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">UK has similar notice and takedown provisions in their intermediary liability laws</a> but I do not think the user would have such protection.</p>
<p>Given that a work is uploaded to youtube without an appropriate licence, and the user believes correctly that this is the case, is viewing that work on youtube illegal?  I am particularly interested in the UK, because of the fame of the &quot;Home Taping Is Killing Music&quot; claim, but other jurisdictions would be interesting.</p>

<p>Theoretically it is illegal in the <a href="/questions/tagged/european-union" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;european-union&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;european-union&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="european-union-container">european-union</a>. The European Court of Justice ruled on this matter in 2017 (case <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CJ0527" rel="nofollow noreferrer">C-527/15</a>). They ruled that users who watch media online do act illegally if it should be obvious to them that the distribution of the work is not sanctioned by the copyright owner.</p>
<p>However, in practice these users are very rarely persecuted. The reason is that in order to sue someone, one has to explain to the court what financial damages they had due to the behavior of the defendant. In this case, each individual user could at most be sued for what they would have paid if they had consumed the work legally. So at most the cost of a cinema ticket or DVD or the cost for a licensed streaming service subscription. That's just not worth it.</p>

<h2>The uploader <em>could</em> be sued</h2>
<p>However, it is absolutely <em>awful</em> PR and in the early 20th century when those notices were created and record and film companies actually sued kids, they found out just how bad the PR was notwithstanding their legal right to do so.</p>
<p>So, since then, they just get the infringement taken down and don’t kill their brand by taking 13 year olds to court.</p>
<p>The downloader is an innocent infringer and while this is illegal, damages are so limited as to be uneconomic.</p>
