Youtube will remove it if they get a complaint about or become aware of pirated movies. I know someone who has had his channel shut down 3 times that I know of. He just makes another one.

A search for his moniker shows he has another one up under a different registration name right now.

It depends on what you deem to be important. YouTube has very many legal videos, from that guy who wants to show the dangers he faces on his motorbike in traffic to Beyoncé's record company uploading her latest, and they are being added far too fast for anyone to check whether they are all legal or not.
I would say that the status quo is fairly good for all as infringement, when spotted, is dealt with very quickly but uploading isn't a two-month process whilst the content is checked.
That said I do believe, also, that Google can be deliberately awkward about this kind of thing as one of its missions seems to be to remove from copyright works which should have been public domain for decades -- so publishing things it forces the content-owner to claim property. If patents had that kind of thing going on it may well be that we'd be in a better place regarding "intellectual property". Of course, Google does not do this just for the public good but neither do any of the rights holders.

the RIAA keeps tiring to ram rod bills through congress that would make it impassible
to copy any thing form one computer to another
some of these bills would even have stereo incapable of copying music and would have mandated an encrypted signal all the way to the speakers (this one almost got through)
this would have been the end of new HiFi stereo

as long as the RIAA wants to get in between me and MY computer screw them

let what ever web site provide all the copyrighted media for downloading they want

Similarly, here in the UK it is illegal to rip CDs for listening to on computers and portable media players. Since I've done that I'm already considered a "thief" by the recording industry so I hope their "product" get distributed without them getting a penny -- sadly I doubt they'll all lose their jobs but we can hope.
Edit: This is what I am referring to, in case anyone is not familiar with the change in law.

therefore UK should ban Youtube because there are many ripped audios on it, simply enter in youtube search "album music"

The legalities are much more complicated, thankfully.
I'm pleased whenever I hear of the music industry making a loss. Anyone who takes my money then calls me a theif deserves to starve.

i remember the time when "sampling" was a new thing: using small bits of somebody else's music in a repetative way, mostly in hiphop/rap sort of music, but later everywhere, as we all know.

nowadays it's become so normal, but there was a huge cry of outrage and legal problems back then (late 80s / early 90s i guess).

it was the first time maybe that digital copying caused so much fuss, and since then both laws and industry (and the populace) are struggling to get to terms with a new world, where you can have millions of identical copies of anything (art, entertainment...), in original quality, but still use the morals and ethics of a world where there was an indisputable original, and clearly recognizable copies of any work of art...

Every single time a piece is "sampled," the owner of the sampled work gets paid. The practice of sampling was opposed only when it was denied the owners of the sampled work the right to share in the profits, if any. Once that copyright question was settled, it became an additional source of rightly-earned revenue for the artists whose works were sampled.

The bottom line is really very simple: there are artists, and writers, and composers, and arrangers and engineers, and performers, and many others, who work together to create these works that you love so much ... as their business. They're entitled to be paid for what they've done, just as you are. A great many people whose contributions you've never heard of are financially dependent upon that revenue stream, and you wouldn't have the works you enjoy if they weren't out there doing it.

I disagree that it is so simple. Technology gives and takes and always has, and let's not forget who always does the most taking, management. Their are many artists, perhaps even most who have always been ripped off by management at all levels from club owners to heads of recording studios. Let's not forget that there was a time when no manner of recording was possible so a way to write musical scores was invented so others could copy and play songs, even whole symphonies written by others. This both spread some writer's fame and took away credit from others. The only way an original could make money was to tour and perform, live.

Then recording of audio became possible and a whole new industry popped up around it. It was no longer required to tour and perform endlessly since the records could be sold. Once it was found that touring increased sales, a whole new (and grueling) industry began. At first recording was so expensive only the wealthy could afford to do it and they very often neglected to pay artists. Enter cheaper reel-to-reel tape and later, recording cassettes. Oh that was touted as the death of the Music Industry. Instead it thrived. Then video came along and put many acts out of business by favoring those with a certain look as well as sound. Remember the song "Video Killed The Radio Star" ? Then CDs and DVDs made it possible to record and reproduce even those and again the Industry bitched and moaned, all the while stealing millions from artists.

Today we have services like YouTube, NetFlix and Amazon not to mention cable TV, that charge end users for material copyrighted as much as 100 years ago, a great deal that is 30,40, 50 years old. This even includes what was TV broadcasts of information that is now hopelessly out of date while some are just lost or abandoned because it is assumed they won't sell or the niche is too small to make availability profitable.

Few seem to recognize that touring was enhanced and improved by copying and sharing. The Dead encouraged recording and Pearl Jam released full albums of dates on the same tour, playing the same songs and some bought more than one date's recording of the very same songs because performances vary. Lars Ulrich who went on TV bemoaning the thievery of online sharing and harshly castigating those who did it, especially Napster (another new technology that both gave and took away) fully admitted how avidly he copied whole albums on cassette that was a catalyst in his becoming a professional musician in the first place. Yet some teams of lawyers tried test cases to sue local bar bands who made their living playing cover tunes, even though so-called Tribute Bands make a living copying even the look as well as the tunes.

Just how exactly is all this "simple"? and whose ox is being gored? Finally, Ahmet Artegun, head of Atlantic Records during their most prolific and profitable era remarked that producers today know nothing about music and upon hearing a musician stating he can't find the right note, recommend a bank. Art and Business - Oil and Water, or at least very strange bedfellows with artists almost always on the bottom, including all those techs who help make production of Music and/or Video possible. It is an ever changing field with one constant - those on top will always be on top even if it means killing the goose who lays the golden eggs.

I'm glad I don't live in the UK...I'd be cooling my heels for a long time. I listen to all my music on my laptops through headphones.

In the United States it is not illegal to make a copy for your personal use of a recording that you have purchased. "If you want to make a cassette copy of your LP so that you can play it in your car," ahem, you may legally do so. But, you may not give the tape to your best friend.

Now, realistically, nobody's going to care if you do. (The Grateful Dead band made a fortune from fan-initiated promotion.) But they will object if you start producing a significant number of copies, and sell them.

I've learned from bands that a best way to support a band is to go see them live, buy a ticket or t-shirt.
Talked to a few Americans, band members, they didn't like labels very much, asked if they had any CD to sell and they said no.
I think youtube and internet helps them reach many people who otherwise couldn't afford a high quality recordings that labels provide.

I would quite-candidly tell most bands, today: "Don't bother with plastic. If I want a copy on plastic, I can get it for myself."

The cost-of-goods-sold of a digital copy is: zero. And sometimes that makes all the difference. "The song costs a quarter, and 22.5 cents of that is yours to keep." Any and every other distribution alternative which has ever existed could not come even remotely close to that kind of "margin."

all in all, i just want to illustrate a point:
in a world of digital media, and the ever-present miracle of the endless feeding of the masses, old concepts of ownership of public content are shifting, will change, need to adapt to new realities.

==========================================================

getting into a discussion with sundialsvcs
nevertheless..
it's not that simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampli...9#Legal_issues
I remember from that time, there was talk about "if it's less than 30 seconds, you can use it" - that's probably simplifying, but there's one portion in the above mentioned copyright act that refers to this:
again, most countries have similar laws regarding this.

so much for sundialsvcs, the ever-spouting fountain of politicking/stammtisch argument.

==============================

all in all, i just want to illustrate a point:
in a world of digital media, and the ever-present miracle of the endless feeding of the masses, old concepts of ownership of public content are shifting, will change, need to adapt to new realities.