Well that's the best on this clusterf**k

[sashimi]

I can’t remember which Beato interview it was, but the guy said something that stuck with me, to the effect that Spotify’s most profitable customers are the ones that pay the monthly fee and don’t listen to much or any music, so they collect their money but don’t have to pay out any royalties to the musicians. Their least profitable customers are the ones that stream a lot of music. So you’ve got an industry that is totally backwards, the bigger the music fan you are, the more you use their service, the less they care about you. This is more a symptom of the fucked up music industry and not necessarily the cause, but still interesting.

 

[Chocol8]

I can’t remember which Beato interview it was, but the guy said something that stuck with me, to the effect that Spotify’s most profitable customers are the ones that pay the monthly fee and don’t listen to much or any music, so they collect their money but don’t have to pay out any royalties to the musicians. Their least profitable customers are the ones that stream a lot of music. So you’ve got an industry that is totally backwards, the bigger the music fan you are, the more you use their service, the less they care about you. This is more a symptom of the fucked up music industry and not necessarily the cause, but still interesting.

The Spotify system is totally messed up. The labels saw it as a lesser evil than Napster and figured fractions of a penny were better than nothing. I think they were hoping that growth would make streaming more profitable and then they could collect more money, but Spotify ended up giving massive sums to podcasters and that has limited cash available to pay for music. With their scale and market dominance Spotify can set the terms, which means the labels, publishers and musicians all get less. It definitely sucks.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Thanks, I do appreciate that. It gives me some insight behind the reasoning you’re taking issue with the Beato thing.

I can certainly understand how earning a living off music can create a huge difference in perspective with someone like me, who has never earned a living off music. I just never think of anything I do musically in relation to money, outside of “I need this much money to buy the gear I want to make the music I want” and the only thing I’d be stoked about happening with my music after I’ve recorded it and got what I needed from it, is for others to enjoy it. 20 years ago that would have been a very different story for me as I was still pushing for a career in the music business.

That said, I still find the labels accepting fractions of pennies for plays to be far, far more egregious than anything Beato has done, but I can also see how that’s likely an “it is what it is” situation for many who get those Spotify checks.

Sadly my stance used to be if I make music I need to have one of the 3 basics.
Get paid, learn something, have a blast.
If I have two I call it a great day, all three and I make Snoopy happy dance.
Now the pay has to happen. And it’s gotten harder and harder.

 

[woody]

Universal has licensing agreements with YouTube which covers use on their platform by third party content creators, so they have already granted permission for (most of) their music to be used on the platform. Mercedes Benz would have to have their own agreement or be covered by someone else's the way content creators are. Oh and it's not free if they are getting paid!!! Why is that a difficult concept for people on this forum? If a music rights holder receives money from YouTube there is no rational argument for describing the use of the music as "free" or "unpaid." That's simply false.

Sorry, you guys are still wrong, but keep attacking me!

In this thread I have been arguing three major points:
1. Rick Beato heavily leans into at least gray areas of fair use and does not go through the proper channels of sync licensing
2. There are labels that are not happy with that.
3. Youtube creates uncertainty for it's creators by not negotiating proper deals with even the big labels about blanket sync licensing.

The Beato vid I posted kinda proves all of those three points.
Beato gets slammed with strikes by Universal and enough of them stick to the point that he needs to leverage his popularity and make one of those videos to not loose his channel on a pretty regular basis.
You have been incredible personal in the way you've given me shit about "being wrong" about this.
I'm just not.
Have a nice life.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

In this thread I have been arguing three major points:
1. Rick Beato heavily leans into at least gray areas of fair use and does not go through the proper channels of sync licensing
2. There are labels that are not happy with that.
3. Youtube creates uncertainty for it's creators by not negotiating proper deals with even the big labels about blanket sync licensing.

The Beato vid I posted kinda proves all of those three points.
Beato gets slammed with strikes by Universal and enough of them stick to the point that he needs to leverage his popularity and make one of those videos to not loose his channel on a pretty regular basis.
You have been incredible personal in the way you've given me shit about "being wrong" about this.
I'm just not.
Have a nice life.

I blocked him but I can guess the gist from your reply.

The thing is use the IP as in performance parts of some one’s tune requires a mechanical license. That does not cover using the original recording.

Fair use has nothing to do with the label or mechanical licenses. It calls under copyright loophole. And copyright is publisher and writer, just as the performing artist doesn’t get paid off airplay but the publisher/writer.

 

[Dom Mcsweeney]

saw this and thought of this thread: