Are you sure it wouldn't make a difference? Different music has different licenses. The way YouTube handles a particular video with copyrighted music in it might depend on the particulars set forth by the particular licensing organization that enforces the copyright and copyright related revenue stream of that particular piece of music. I mean, why wouldn't it?
Suppose you're a musician.
You write a piece of original music. Maybe you record the song in your basement, perhaps even make a video, or maybe not. Whatever the case, the important part is you register and work with a licensing organization to enforce the copyright of your original music. For this example, suppose you use
BMI for your license. I'm using BMI just as an example; it might be another licensing organization and the details of the license might depend on the country the music is being played and other factors. The important thing is you have a licensing organization that enforces your copyright, and there may be variables in the terms to the license.
Now, if the system works correctly, ever time your song is played on an electronic jukebox in a bar/pub, or on a streaming service like Pandora, a video format like what's played on YouTube, or even somebody performing a live cover of your music in a small venue*, the licensing organization will take a cut, and a portion of that will get filtered down to you.
*(Yes, theoretically, even live performances in small venues. That's why one of the expenses the bar/pub owner has to pay is a PRO [performing rights organization] music license. Of course it's not logistically feasible to have the bar owner keep track of each and every song played live; rather the idea is that the PRO license "divvies up" the revenue and distributes a portion to each of the copyright license holders.)
Suppose you're a YouTuber, and you don't use copyrighted music in a particular upload.
If your collection of videos haven't gotten enough views, and if you don't have enough subscribers, such that YouTube has not offered you a monetization account, then you don't get paid for your video.
If you have made a name for yourself enough that you do have a YouTube monetization account, YouTube might pay you for your video. How much you get paid depends on many factors, but as a rule of thumb, I'm told it's ballparked at something like $1 per 1000 views.
When you upload your video you have many options regarding how that video is displayed. You can enable or disable embedding for example. You can make it regional, restricting its play to certain countries. You can enable or disable comments. There are other options not mentioned here.
The important part here is that there are only two entities involved in this scenario: You (along with your preferences) and YouTube. That's it. 'Just the two of you. There may or may not be money involved. But if there is, it's just between you and YouTube.
Suppose you're a YouTuber, and you do use copyrighted music in a particular upload.
You might not realize it, but each and every video uploaded to YouTube is scanned and checked for copyrighted music.
Your upload is now "demonetized." That means that even if you have a monetization account, you won't get any money for that video. Remember that ballparked figure of around $1 per 1000 views? That doesn't go to you anymore, it goes to the licensing organization (BMI in this example), who takes a cut and the rest get filtered down to the original copyright stakeholders.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing for you. That is, if your goal wasn't to make money in the first place.
- You: No, you don't get money, but you do possibly get notoriety, and the number of views and subscriptions to your channel can work in your favor, particularly if you are trying to work toward gaining a monetization account with YouTube. So this still can be considered a partial win. 'Maybe a complete win if you're just looking for fame and/or higher view/subscription count.
- YouTube: YouTube makes ad revenue for your video, so it's a win for them.
- Copyright holders of music: They also make a cut of the ad revenue, and they didn't even have to do anything. Heck it might even boost their publicity too, so this can be a win-win for them.
So for the most part, everybody wins.
However, note that the original copyright holders
could complain to YouTube and issue a copyright strike against you. They usually won't though because it's not in their financial interests. But they
could. It's very, very rare that they do, but it
could happen. So it is something to keep in mind.
But an important part, relevant to this thread, is look at the number of parties involved. It's not just you and YouTube anymore. It's you, YouTube, and
now the licensing organization such as BMI.
Remember those preferences that you got to choose when you uploaded that video? Some of these preferences might conflict with the licensing agreement by BMI. And I can almost guarantee that YouTube is going to prefer the licensing preferences/restrictions over yours. (By that I'm guessing YouTube will choose the most restrictive options between the two.) And those licensing preferences/restrictions are likely different for different pieces of music. Some of these licenses (for say, Led Zeppelin for example) had their original incarnations before YouTube even existed.
So you can expect that the way YouTube ultimately handles the particular video might vary substantially compared to other videos with different copyrighted music. Different particulars in music licenses means YouTube handles things differently.
Conclusions:
Videos containing copyrighted music are much more complicated in the way that YouTube handles them, primarily due to copyright licensing and the corresponding way that ad revenue streams are handled.
Somebody a few posts ago suggested that the reason that PF is having a problem with embedding certain videos might have something to do with ads. Yes, that sounds reasonable. But my point is that I'm guessing there probably wouldn't be any problems had the particular video not contained copyrighted music. Again, copyrighted music in the video makes things more complicated.
Different videos might be handled differently due to different licenses.
Videos with copyrighted music represent a significant fraction of YouTube's overall revenue. They take it seriously. I would even guess that most videos containing copyrighted music were
not uploaded by the original copyright holders. That doesn't necesarily make it a problem though. But to imply that videos containing copyright "issues" are mostly taken down is simply not true. There are oodles and oodles of videos on YouTube that were not uploaded by the original copyright holders. That's a significant fraction of revenue for YouTube, the license organizations, and the original copyright stakeholders. Copyrighted music is a huge revenue source, even if the uploaders don't own the copyrights. That doesn't necessarily make it a problem, it just makes it more complicated.
.
):
