Originally Posted by teh603
Legally more viable, but functionally not. If you don't have the youtube channel, then you won't get many sales. It's all about getting attention and advertising, and the RIAA wants to choke that off from anyone who hasn't signed a record deal.
Yes, there's a lot of issues marketing wise (not to mention talent wise), but it strikes me as silly that joe public can't upload clips of themselves singing or playing a certain song. Yet, they could sell a cd/mp3 of the same (but not a video of it).
Clearly it's not silly from an artist pov, the former gets them no money, the latter gets them at least mechanical license payments.
However, when it's unlikely that the free version will harm artists considering they're covers and not non-commercial/amateur, I think the laws around that need revising. If anything, the more the public cover a song on youtube the more that song is heard and the more likely people will want to buy the original version. Maybe that's just my experience and not a general trend though
Either way, the internet is causing some laws that previously did make sense to be problematic. That's not to say the original laws are bad or wrong, just that they're perhaps in need of tweaking.