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

[nicolasrivera]

What's a "gigant"? I want one!

you cant have one, too gigantic

 

[DrewJD82]

There needs to be SEVERE penalties for false claims for both the label and YouTube or any other platform that is enabling it.

I am all for protecting rights holders, but fair use is completely legal and for good reasons that benefit our society. Congress needs to step in and add penalties for fraudulent shake down tactics. If a label makes a false claim on a 10 second clip being used for educational purposes, they should pay all expenses to fight the claim plus $10k the first time, escalating to $100K the second, $1M the third, etc. until they stop their fraudulent shake downs. Same for Google. They have the tools to automatically vet and reject these false claims with minimal human involvement, and should be held accountable for not doing so.

I can’t disagree. Shit, even Ola England has gotten copyright strikes for his own music by some shitbags in another country somewhere claiming it’s theirs.

 

[Chocol8]

I’m entirely clueless as to why it seems people are in support of the label winning. Is this some “Rick Beato sucks” thing?

It's tough for me. I am 100% for musicians and songwriters getting paid for their work, and that means labels and publishers being able to control use and collect royalties. That mechanism needs to exist and be easy and low cost to use. That said, there needs to be limits and rules, and reasonable penalties for breaking the rules and outright abuse.

Should parodies, reviews, and educational uses be allowed? Traditional and current law say yes, and the reasoning has been the benefit to society is much greater than the cost to the rights holder. Unless the law changes, what Rick is doing in most of the videos I have seen is completely legitimate. Same with the Professor of Rock and many other channels. They are using short clips to help educate the viewer as part of a larger video where their own content is the primary driver of value. I also believe when Rick uses more of the song, his videos are legitimately demonetized with the money going to rights holders, and the videos are blocked by certain rights holders who don't want their music used that way (Beatles, Hendrix family, etc).

If they were playing large chunks of the song with a video of some AI girl dancing, obviously that would be very different and that definitely should be subject to copyright controls.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Regardless whether you like Beato or not (personally I don't care much these days, even if he sometimes has some interesting interview guests), UMG's and YT's behaviour on this is just ridiculous. They're doing absolutely *noone* a favour apart from the lawyers involved, who are getting paid.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

I’m entirely clueless as to why it seems people are in support of the label winning. Is this some “Rick Beato sucks” thing?

It’s some the label’s own the copyright and he makes money of it thing.

 

[Sascha Franck]

It’s some the label’s own the copyright and he makes money of it thing.

By that token, news channels make money of, say, reporting about terrorism. Maybe the terrorists in question should claim their rights.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Regardless whether you like Beato or not (personally I don't care much these days, even if he sometimes has some interesting interview guests), UMG's and YT's behaviour on this is just ridiculous. They're doing absolutely *noone* a favour apart from the lawyers involved, who are getting paid.

As far as I’ve seen there are usually zero lawyers involved.

Ands let’s get real for a second, the copyright is held by writer/publisher not performing artist.

I tell you what my drummer has done live vids of my tunes and got copyright strikes from some African hip hop guys. The tune in question was like apples to motoroil.

So the issue if you will is YouTube. But again, use copyrighted material of someone else and monetise it even if it’s just 10 seconds expect some one to stomp their foot.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

By that token, news channels make money of, say, reporting about terrorism. Maybe the terrorists in question should claim their rights.

If they had copy written it they could.
Is that really how you think this works? This is US no GEMA and GVL.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

He doesn't ignore it which is why he wins every single one of these fights. The problem is he and everyone else has to keep fighting and spending money on it, no matter how many times they win.

The labels are likely using something automated to make their claims at little cost, so they are just spraying and seeing what sticks. There should be a major cost to false accusations that cost other people money.

He certainly does not. And what money you think he spends on this? The time it takes to fill an online form.

Here’s the deal even the stuff he willingly demonetises carries ads for his stuff, so it will make him bread.

 

[Sascha Franck]

As far as I’ve seen there are usually zero lawyers involved.

He's fighting those claims with his lawyers. And even if it's not lawyers, there's likely some 3rd party folks hired by UMG doing the dirty work.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Is that really how you think this works?

No, but I think fair use is fair use, regardless of whether you make money from it or not.
You could never teach anyone a tune in case there wasn't fair use.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

He's fighting those claims with his lawyers. And even if it's not lawyers, there's likely some 3rd party folks hired by UMG doing the dirty work.

I’d hazard a guess and say those are called interns.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

No, but I think fair use is fair use, regardless of whether you make money from it or not.
You could never teach anyone a tune in case there wasn't fair use.

If you teach a tune do you distribute the original audio on YouTube?

Why do you think so many books have transcriptions in the style off as opposed to just the transcription of whatever? Cause for that the publisher wants to get paid.

Not a hard concept to get.
Just cause guys got in early when it was the Wild West on YouTube doesn’t mean the rights holder should just sit in the corner and play with his balls.

Same reason I can record any released tune as long as I buy a license but as soon as I turn it into a parody I need permission.

This shit ain’t rocket science. And any one on Beatos side that wants to make money from music is fucking nuts.

 

[DrewJD82]

It's tough for me. I am 100% for musicians and songwriters getting paid for their work, and that means labels and publishers being able to control use and collect royalties. That mechanism needs to exist and be easy and low cost to use. That said, there needs to be limits and rules, and reasonable penalties for breaking the rules and outright abuse.

Should parodies, reviews, and educational uses be allowed? Traditional and current law say yes, and the reasoning has been the benefit to society is much greater than the cost to the rights holder. Unless the law changes, what Rick is doing in most of the videos I have seen is completely legitimate. Same with the Professor of Rock and many other channels. They are using short clips to help educate the viewer as part of a larger video where their own content is the primary driver of value. I also believe when Rick uses more of the song, his videos are legitimately demonetized with the money going to rights holders, and the videos are blocked by certain rights holders who don't want their music used that way (Beatles, Hendrix family, etc).

If they were playing large chunks of the song with a video of some AI girl dancing, obviously that would be very different and that definitely should be subject to copyright controls.

I think anytime a piece of work isn’t played in a way where it can be utilized for it’s intended purpose, IE- listening for enjoyment, it’s fair game.

No one is watching Beato’s videos to hear a 10-15 second clip of a song because they want to hear the song itself. Even if he goes an entire year of doing nothing but Top 40 songs/artist, it still won’t happen.

I disagreed with the sentiment around Napster and “It helps people find new bands without wasting money” because that was straight up theft, but with Beato’s vids, shit, just this morning I added The Doors ‘The End’ to Apple Music and I really don’t like The Doors that much at all, but that song is great and had it not been for that damn interview with them constantly repeating on my Youtube account, I’d never have thought of it. Definitely not the first time I’ve obtained music the modern, legal way, as a result of Beato’s channel.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

For the guys that don’t understand fair use start here

Music Licensing: What is Considered Fair Use?

If you’re going to rely on fair use, you need to factor in how much risk you’re willing to take. Here are a few examples of fair use.

www.copyright.com

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

I think anytime a piece of work isn’t played in a way where it can be utilized for it’s intended purpose, IE- listening for enjoyment, it’s fair game.

No one is watching Beato’s videos to hear a 10-15 second clip of a song because they want to hear the song itself. Even if he goes an entire year of doing nothing but Top 40 songs/artist, it still won’t happen.

I disagreed with the sentiment around Napster and “It helps people find new bands without wasting money” because that was straight up theft, but with Beato’s vids, shit, just this morning I added The Doors ‘The End’ to Apple Music and I really don’t like The Doors that much at all, but that song is great and had it not been for that damn interview with them constantly repeating on my Youtube account, I’d never have thought of it. Definitely not the first time I’ve obtained music the modern, legal way, as a result of Beato’s channel.

I think is all fine and good but if I hold a copyright I get to decide what happens to it not someone fave YouTuber. End of story

Why did Fleetwood Mac come undone over Beato using their stuff? Seemingly they didn’t find him advertising their stuff necessary.
And as copyright holder IT IS their decision. No matter how much he bitch moans.

When I get busted for drunk driving I’d love to argue that at 6’6” 250lbs the legal limit man’s squat to me. Sadly ain’t how that works.

 

[Sascha Franck]

If you teach a tune do you distribute the original audio on YouTube?

Come on now. Playing a little snippet of audio is "distribution"? That's ridiculous.

 

[Chocol8]

He certainly does not. And what money you think he spends on this? The time it takes to fill an online form.

Here’s the deal even the stuff he willingly demonetises carries ads for his stuff, so it will make him bread.

He has been paying a lawyer. I would guess that his spending on defending against strikes is a 6 figure number, not pocket change.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I think is all fine and good but if I hold a copyright I get to decide what happens to it not someone fave YouTuber.

Did you watch Beato's video? He's been interviewing some folks and playing some of their stuff in the background - and got a CR strike.
Besides, fair use allows fair use of anything. The copyright holder can't tell you not to use their stuff, say, for teaching.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Did you watch Beato's video? He's been interviewing some folks and playing some of their stuff in the background - and got a CR strike.
Besides, fair use allows fair use of anything. The copyright holder can't tell you not to use their stuff, say, for teaching.

Read the link I posted on fair use.
I was very clear you make money if the vids it ain’t fair use.