A curious thing I noticed about this article (aside from the fact that it misses out some really obvious tunes) is that it appears to be using YouTube videos for audio playback only.
Took a look at the CSS and there’s a custom class called “youtube” that positions the embedded video object so that the video window is totally obscured, leaving only the playback transport strip.
First thought was “how clever is that?”
Second thought was “that can’t be legal…” As well as reducing the embedding video player down to an audio player, it also removes YouTube’s branding, channel access, links and adverts.
That must contravene YouTube’s sharing and copyright regs, right? That’s before we even begin to consider the copyright ramifications of using copyrighted content without license (the songs themselves – though that’s more YouTube’s problem, I guess).
And this is no amateur or underground blog here. This is the NME, the UK’s biggest weekly music paper.
Mind you – when did the mainstream press ever really understand online copyright? Or, more pertinently, when will the mainstream press begin to understand online copyright?
Originally posted on my G+ feed: https://plus.google.com/100320175239277283592/posts/KqVxmqC3HYB