hmm... stealing. Taking something that doesn't belong to you.
So, are they taking credit for your music or are they creating links to what you already put on line so that you still get credit?
They are taking music from a CD -- or scraping it directly from youtube, etc., they are uploading it -- not for personal enjoyment but to monetize it on youtube. Note that I've already uploaded it there myself.
What specifically are they taking that belongs to you?
I think I know where you are headed with this. I believe they are taking my right to profit from my music. It's not fair use IMHO, it's a cynical appropriation of something they did not create for the purpose of profiting.
Obviously they can't take what you haven't made available. The assumption that people 'should' do often times varies depending on country and culture.
Obviously. And if I don't make my music available? Aside from the crushing loss the world will suffer (sarcasm), what would be the point in making any music. I don't want to encourage these (rather poor) attempts at philosophy, but I would point out that if artists did not make their art available, then art itself is likely to disappear--at least in any public or social sense.
'Copywrite' is a type of 'virtual' property the exits only because of certain western laws. It has a long and complicated history and I'd say that it is at more then debatable weather there is a philosophical / natural right to control what happens to the art you create once it has left your hand.
First of all, it's called Copyright. Second, as a once-and-future recording artist, I'm abundantly aware of the implications of releasing recorded music into the world in a really florid and extravagant way that a lot of folks will never understand. Releasing music is an experience fraught with anxiety, excitement, potential embarrassment, etc. Art theory has a lot to say about this kind of thing. I'm well aware of it. But rather than getting lost in the philosophical weeds, I'd like to focus on the safe harbor provision.
Copywrite exists as a kind of carve out by western government to promote the arts and industries by allowing them to control the sails of copies of their art as a way of generating income. Historically no such 'right' existed before the 19th century.
Again, it's Copyright, not "copywrite." And yes, I know this too. You can see the relative lack of copyright/trademark protection in places like China where everyone was creating counterfeit iphones and apple stores that had no connection whatsoever to the Apple Corp that we all know and love/hate. While it is certainly arguable that copyright law is a mistake, I think it might be worth comparing the cultural output of nations that protect copyright versus those who don't. I might be culturally myopic and maybe I'm totally missing the next big thing, but I'm not really aware of any tremendous musical movement emanating from countries who do NOT respect copyright. And as long as we're talking philosophically, do you feel that it is moral for someone to profit from someone else's labor when they did nothing at all to assist? When people wax philosophical over copyright and fair use and such, this often gets overlooked. I strongly feel that some dickhead in cyprus ripping CDs and uploading songs to the internet not for enjoyment but to sell them is an asshole -- especially if the music is already there and available for a free listen on youtube or SoundCloud or something. Remove of safe harbor provision would introduce market conditions that would discourage this type of bottom feeder.
So, if someone is not in the united states and not subject to it's laws saying they are 'stealing' by not following laws that don't exist in their country is kind of like saying the Chinese government impinges on your freedom of speech by not allowing you to say what you want in their country. You would actually probably have a better claim, philosophically to the later, as there is a lot better argument to be made for the freedom of speech as a natural / moral right then there is for copyright.
Ignoring for a moment the exact letter of the laws in respective countries, I think there is a moral case to be made internationally that distributing someone else's music for profit without giving any of that profit to the original creator is in fact immoral. It cannot be questioned that artists will benefit less if people don't break them off a piece of the profits. Do artists suffer if they don't get a cut of money made off their music? That's a harder case to make. I'd love to buy a house and start a family with my wife but I can't afford it. Apparently I spent too much time making music and I have fallen behind in the rat race. I do other stuff to pay the rent,
I'd also like to clear up one thing about the Safe Harbor provision. This provision denies me of my right to sue any online service provider when my music is uploaded to their system. We're not even talking about criminality here -- and I'm not advocating for any criminal statutes. I might like to be able to take my case to court and sue Youtube for letting some Cypriot asshole profit from my music.