Why isn't their a YouTube for audio?

Why is it that uploading video is more acceptable from a copyright point of view than audio?

Well... there have been "YouTube for audio" but they've bombed.

Perhaps the obvious answer is that audio just isn't interesting enough for random time wasting. Also, the most interesting YouTube videos are very short. Music is just too boring...

Althought... A huge number of YouTube videos are just static photos while music plays...

In Facebook, you can create a page for your band and upload a trillion videos of yourself without any checks or balances. And yet, if you try to upload your songs, you must send a copy of your identification with a photograph to ensure you have the right to do so?

Doesn't a video of a song potentially violate 25 (frames) x copyrights a second on top of the audio?

It is a confusing contradiction...

Very interesting article in The Age's Green Guide today. It informs the Australian public that "everyone" downloads TV from the internet, it tells you how to get it including naming bittorrent websites, it tells you how to easily play DivX video (with pretty much any cheap DVD player these days) and it goes as far as to quote the relevant authorities that such downloads won't be investigated.

It goes further to say the relevant parties are all looking into possible ways to police such downloading, but no-one will agree, and it seems, no-one cares enough to make it happen.

Perhaps surprising and brave words from a respected newspaper.

ISPs, police and the relevant copyright authorities are all fighting over jurisdiction, the burden of proof and privacy laws. Still, just like they were years ago. It will probably never change, without major new laws, or a cheap and easy alternative.

The article also informs of the various legal options available, including the fact most local TV channels now allow viewers to download whole (locally produced) shows after they have aired for free (after some initially trialled it for a cost). No mention of file formats...

One obvious use for the Book ATM is for unpublished authors. Such a machine would allow authors to publish and earn money from sold copies of their book, without any publishing deal at all. Much like iTunes and the such allows independent sales for a setup fee and percentage of sales.

I wonder if such a use for the technology is being looked at?