>>31856499>>31856640The difference between before and after seems mostly they actually consulted a lawyer who knew what they were talking, rather than weird bullshit and avoiding the problem. Monetization is mostly irrelevant.
What matters is if they have the rights to perform something live or not, whether they have rights to play certain versions of the instrumental or not, etc. All of these rights and licenses are fragmented into tiny slices of permissions and you need several different types for every broadcast and video. Unarchived is just an attempt to dodge the need for the licenses to publish the video in a non-live format, which Cover probably doesn't have. The fact that they need to use Karafun (purchasing the rights to Karafun's performances of instrumentals) and JASRAC (which tells them which songs they have rights to perform and which they don't) shows me they actually thought through licensing now. That's all very simplified but it's more correct than they were doing before.
Even if they don't trigger YT's automated punishment, contractors for labels have automated tools that search live streams for music and flag them for manual takedown or later legal action. Rights holders can always fall back on lawsuits rather than bothering to use YT's claim, takedown, and strike tools. Losing a lawsuit over multiple songs worth of infringement could easily shutter the company so the risk is "literally everything". I can see why they're shy about it.
