Yes: Magnification (2001)

suitkees wrote: Actually, I don't think that the "redundancy" is a problem for PA. The fact of embedding a video on a PA-page can be considered as a republication and then copyright comes into play. When you're only referring (linking) to it that is not the case. It is PA that is considered being the (re-)publisher - and thus accountable for republication and eventual copyright infringement -, not the member that embedded the video. Most artists (as copyright-holders) probably wouldn't mind the embedding of one or two of their works, but when it is an whole album it becomes a different kind of thing.

Cristi wrote: suitkees wrote: Actually, I don't think that the "redundancy" is a problem for PA. The fact of embedding a video on a PA-page can be considered as a republication and then copyright comes into play. When you're only referring (linking) to it that is not the case. It is PA that is considered being the (re-)publisher - and thus accountable for republication and eventual copyright infringement -, not the member that embedded the video. Most artists (as copyright-holders) probably wouldn't mind the embedding of one or two of their works, but when it is an whole album it becomes a different kind of thing. I was talking about the redundancy of Yes videos. Why doesn't anybody understand a word I say today?

suitkees wrote: Cristi wrote: suitkees wrote: Actually, I don't think that the "redundancy" is a problem for PA. The fact of embedding a video on a PA-page can be considered as a republication and then copyright comes into play. When you're only referring (linking) to it that is not the case. It is PA that is considered being the (re-)publisher - and thus accountable for republication and eventual copyright infringement -, not the member that embedded the video. Most artists (as copyright-holders) probably wouldn't mind the embedding of one or two of their works, but when it is an whole album it becomes a different kind of thing. I was talking about the redundancy of Yes videos. Why doesn't anybody understand a word I say today?  I do understand what you say, but you may not understand what I am saying: "redundancy" is not a legal problem for PA, copyright infringement is.

Suitkees is getting it. Embedding whole albums (in one video or many) and significant portions of the album is discouraged both for legal reasons and out of courtesy to the artists unless officially sanctioned. We have been more tolerant of it in Suggest New bands and Artists for evaluatory purposes. This is not your site or my site, but the owner's site, and we use this site according to certain rules and expectations. If not everyone agrees it doesn't matter as it is not everyone's site and not everyone has to deal with the fallout of complaints or legal action. I said that linking to youtube could be okay. You can make your own playlists on youtube and hyperlink to that if you want. I have tried to explain this several times. Feel free to post, say, your favourite track from the album (if an album has but one track that would be a problem if not done with permission), or provide a link to a playlist. I have not heard Magnification and have no desire to, and this is not about how well known the band or album is. I usually keep a youtube tab open when browsing this site, by the way.

If the OP can still see the videos that's because I only hid then, and when the OP is logged in then he/she can see those posts, as can any moderators. I have not re-instated those.

if this site is not for you, so be it. You can make your site with your own rules, or lack thereof, and is you face legal consequences or complaints, then you can deal with that at your own site.

I don't know why this is so hard to explain, avoid embedding full albums without permission from the artist or label. it doesn't matter if it's the Prog Britannia thread, the Krautrock thread, a Yes topic..., the policy remains the same. Hyperlink to a youtube playlist if you must.