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

[nicolasrivera]

Dude is a piece of shit. He was confronted on it, and continued to do it. I don’t wish him harm, but he doesn’t deserve attention anymore.

Absolutely agree with you man!

 

[woody]

4 pages deep into Google and I can’t find a detailed breakdown of it, just his videos getting reposted elsewhere.

I did find one about Queens of The Stoneage blocking a video, with the video being blocked by WMG and UMG and that’s what I’m getting at; are there actual artists who are taking issue with it, or is it record labels?

“Fleetwood Mac blocks Rick Beato video” can mean two different things; everyone working for/with Fleetwood Mac blocked the video, or actual band members of Fleetwood Mac blocked the video.

I want to hear band member’s themselves speak on it.

The QOTSA video was with Eric Valentine
Josh Homme did not like it:

 

[Sascha Franck]

The rights to the sound recordings is owned by the artist’s label.

No. The rights to monetize the recordings are owned by the label.

 

[Sascha Franck]

The QOTSA video was with Eric Valentine
Josh Homme did not like it:

So, this is proving that Beato's videos have been taken down because the artists didn't like them or the (suggested by you) illegal use of multitracks?

 

[PLX]

He should put the video out anyway tbh

Trust me.. the very day Beato's channel views start to drop off, that video will surface faster than the Red October.

 

[DrewJD82]

The QOTSA video was with Eric Valentine
Josh Homme did not like it:

I’m having a hard time understanding how Josh not wanting people to know his tone “secrets” fits in with all the legal aspects you covered previously. These seem to be entirely different issues and not at all related to each other.

 

[Chocol8]

I’m a bit confused…..Beato is doing the wrong thing by making content, when the content host itself is the one who holds the cards for resolving payment issues with labels?

Does any evidence exist of a single artist being angry about how they were or were not paid as a result of a Beato video? Seems to me, every time he interviews a musician they end up thanking him for his content. Namely Vai, who is very protective of his IP and publishing. Seems if they actually had an issue they’d tell him to stop playing their music while sitting right in front of him during the interview? Maybe they’re secretly texting their lawyers after, but something tells me that’s not happening. I know Yngwie goes after YouTube content all the time, he didn’t seem to have an issue sitting 2’ from Beato while he played his music.

This just seems like “I really don’t like Beato, so here’s my legal interpretation of why he’s wrong for putting out content even though he has no barter power with the labels and the content host itself holds all the cards for negotiating proper payout to ensure the labels and Google get all their money before they pay the artist out their $0.004 per 1,000,000 views”

What’s next? Taking money out of street buskers hats to send to labels because they aren’t covered by ASCAP licenses?

I’m more than happy to cede my POV if any artists/bands/musicians have actually come out and stated how Beato’s videos are a disservice to them or taking money out of their hands in any way whatsoever.

Beato's use of music on YouTube is payed for by YouTube. Some artists/labels want the money and they demonetize the videos which simply means Youtube pays the rights holders not the content creator. The other option is the artists (Hendrix family, Beatles etc.) don't want their content used at all, and they ask for things to be taken down.

The Beato haters and their law degree from the Google School of Law don't seem to understand how the business works at all.

 

[JiveTurkey]

I might need a sandwich

 

[DrewJD82]

Beato's use of music on YouTube is payed for by YouTube. Some artists/labels want the money and they demonetize the videos which simply means Youtube pays the rights holders not the content creator. The other option is the artists (Hendrix family, Beatles etc.) don't want their content used at all, and they ask for things to be taken down.

The Beato haters and their law degree from the Google School of Law don't seem to understand how the business works at all.

The part I’m specifically asking about is artists or artist families personally requesting stuff being taken down, as I do not believe that’s a thing at all. So far Josh Homme is the only example and it wasn’t due to any royalties or money.

 

[PLX]

View attachment 43263
I might need a sandwich

 

[Devin]

So far Josh Homme is the only example and it wasn’t due to any royalties or money.

I've heard MANY stories about Homme being an infamous douchebag tbh

 

[Sascha Franck]

The part I’m specifically asking about is artists or artist families personally requesting stuff being taken down, as I do not believe that’s a thing at all.

I actually seem to remember there being some Beato thing, but I don't remember whom it was. At first I though Radiohead, but that doesn't seem to be true. At least it doesn't seem to really be a thing, just as you say.

I've heard MANY stories about Homme being an infamous douchebag tbh

Yeah well...



(doesn't look like an accident...)

 

[JiveTurkey]

"Josh; what does your bassist do in his spare time?"

 

[woody]

I’m having a hard time understanding how Josh not wanting people to know his tone “secrets” fits in with all the legal aspects you covered previously. These seem to be entirely different issues and not at all related to each other.

Yes.
There's two things that get conflated and are intertwined.
There's the murky legal side of how royalties get distributed in youtube videos.
It's the result of youtube initially allowing mass copyright violations to grow and then levering their later market share to strongarm artists and labels into less than great deals.
Normally you'd need a sync license to publish a video using someone's music.
Some labels have negotiated blanket direct licensing with Google, some have not and some artists have special deals. Some labels obviously don't care at all.
It's still the wild west out there. The artists' share got decimated ruthlessly.

On the other hand it's the basic issue of control of intellectual property.
Who decides that it's cool to play a multitrack?
Why is monetary interest all that counts as an argument, there?
Historically speaking, artists owning their tapes was a strongly contended and kinda revolutionary thing.
Before, the artists had no control whatsoever over their music.
Fleetwood Mac not wanting their multitracks shared out of principle makes total sense to me.
But painting individual intellectual property as de facto commons is a way to devalue artist's rightful claims as frivolous individualism.
That's where those two threads meet: In a disrupted market that's skewed to not benefit the artists, but the streaming platforms, be it Youtube, Spotify or instagram.
By moving fast and breaking the traditional licensing models and by discrediting the artists right to have a claim on their art in the first place.

It's their stuff. If they don't explicitly give permission to share it, then it should not be shared.
If they agree to share it, they should have a say in the royalty split.
We are so used to that the stuff that artists poured their hearts into a) costs nothing to consume and b) is shared in a way the artists have no saying in and c) does not benefit the artist in any other way than "exposure".

But yeah, let's just share their property and see if they complain...

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

No. The rights to monetize the recordings are owned by the label.

Read what you quoted…

 

[paisleywookiee]

Two Germans walk in, but only one will emerge victorious!!!

(Disclaimer: I am 2nd gen American from Germany. Love my German bros and would love to visit.)

 

[woody]

Beato's use of music on YouTube is payed for by YouTube. Some artists/labels want the money and they demonetize the videos which simply means Youtube pays the rights holders not the content creator. The other option is the artists (Hendrix family, Beatles etc.) don't want their content used at all, and they ask for things to be taken down.

The Beato haters and their law degree from the Google School of Law don't seem to understand how the business works at all.

I'm not quite sure why you feel the urge to needlessly add those ad hominems with every post.

 

[spawnofthesith]

I find Beatoff pretty insufferable but I find it bizarre how this thread about italian sleazeball has turned into whataboutisms about a pretty dramatically different topic

 

[paisleywookiee]

I'm not quite sure why you feel the urge to needlessly add those ad hominems with every post.

Gotta bring that TOP vibe, bro!

 

[JiveTurkey]

I find Beatoff pretty insufferable but I find it bizarre how this thread about italian sleazeball has turned into whataboutisms about a pretty dramatically different topic

Always add the 2 Fs! Beato doesn't bug me but I'll only watch his interviews with people I admire. I don't find him to be an expert really in anything beyond maybe music theory as explained in his $250 Online Course?

The drama surrounded turd in the original thumbnail is scum but speaking honestly; I wouldn't recognize any of the elevator funk shred he stole in a blind test either. So it's kind of a wash for me.