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

[Ed DeGenaro]

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

And you come up with this number how?

 

[Chocol8]

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

Whether or not someone can use your song is a different issue, and no you don't get to decide all circumstances, for example, if it is a short clip used under fair use.

 

[Chocol8]

And you come up with this number how?

A lot of experience working with Lawyers and what Rick has publicly stated which you clearly are not aware of when making comments suggesting he just fills out a form. You don't have a very good picture of what is actually happening.

 

[Chocol8]

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

That is absolutely 100% false. There are plenty of cases where making money does not violate fair use.

 

[Sascha Franck]

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

Well, even if it was, both UMG's and YT's behaviour is still ridiculous. What do they expect to come out of these strikes? Beato taking down the videos? Why? Or sending the money generated their way? Why?

 

[Chocol8]

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

Maybe you should read it. Here is an example where the author is making money but claiming fair use:

"Using myself as an example, I often give presentations on rights clearance matters. If I’m talking about a lawsuit involving a claim of copyright infringement involving music, I’ll play a short clip of each selection so the audience can hear musical selections’ similarities. This is a classic fair use case and I’m comfortable in relying on it for this purpose."

 

[DrewJD82]

Maybe you should read it. Here is an example where the author is making money but claiming fair use:

"Using myself as an example, I often give presentations on rights clearance matters. If I’m talking about a lawsuit involving a claim of copyright infringement involving music, I’ll play a short clip of each selection so the audience can hear musical selections’ similarities. This is a classic fair use case and I’m comfortable in relying on it for this purpose."

Glad I saw this before I posted-

Every music teacher I've ever had, going back to 3rd grade, has played songs in the classroom to use as examples of what they're teaching. While I personally never saw their paychecks, I can only assume they were on the school's payroll. I see this being no different than what Rick does, except Rick has the artist right there and can get their input.

 

[DrewJD82]

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

Dude, you're not doing yourself any favors when you don't know what's actually going on. Watch this video -



tl;dw- He's hired a lawyer full time because in 9 years he estimates he's had about 4000 copyright claims against him. And every single time it's gone to court he has won.

 

[Chocol8]

Glad I saw this before I posted-

Every music teacher I've ever had, going back to 3rd grade, has played songs in the classroom to use as examples of what they're teaching. While I personally never saw their paychecks, I can only assume they were on the school's payroll. I see this being no different than what Rick does, except Rick has the artist right there and can get their input.

Ed is seeing what he wants to see and not reality. I don't know if it is looking out for musicians, or a simple hate for YouTubers, but he is very very wrong about the law and case law.

Things with a (paid) music teacher do get a little tricky. If you are teaching about a concept and use 10 seconds of a song as an example, that is definitely fair use. If you are teaching how to play the full song, and provide audio and sheet music, that is definitely not. There is a LOT of grey area in between.

What Rick does can't be summed up as a single thing because he does a lot of different video types. Playing a brief clip in a long interview is clearly fair use, but his "what makes this song great" videos are really pushing it, and I do not believe he has claimed fair use for those. There is a strong argument to made that he is analyzing the song for musical education, but on the other side, the amount of the song used, and the focus on a single song strongly weigh against fair use. He has stated multiple times that he avoids a number of artists because they or their representatives do not want their songs used, which is acknowledging that he does not believe they are fair use, or at least not worth the risk.

 

[DrewJD82]

Ed is seeing what he wants to see and not reality. I don't know if it is looking out for musicians, or a simple hate for YouTubers, but he is very very wrong about the law and case law.

Things with a (paid) music teacher do get a little tricky. If you are teaching about a concept and use 10 seconds of a song as an example, that is definitely fair use. If you are teaching how to play the full song, and provide audio and sheet music, that is definitely not. There is a LOT of grey area in between.

What Rick does can't be summed up as a single thing because he does a lot of different video types. Playing a brief clip in a long interview is clearly fair use, but his "what makes this song great" videos are really pushing it, and I do not believe he has claimed fair use for those. There is a strong argument to made that he is analyzing the song for musical education, but on the other side, the amount of the song used, and the focus on a single song strongly weigh against fair use. He has stated multiple times that he avoids a number of artists because they or their representatives do not want their songs used, which is acknowledging that he does not believe they are fair use, or at least not worth the risk.

Even with the 'What Makes This Song Great?' vids, I can't see it as anything other than Fair Use simply for what I mentioned earlier; no one is watching them to enjoy the song itself.

If the case can be made that the label or artist is losing money as a result of those videos existing, I'd certainly give it some credence.

I just can't take the "Rick is in the wrong" crowd seriously when there's FAR more egregious shit happening in the music business. If Beato posting a 15-second clip of a song is that big of an issue, Spotify paying out fractions of a penny for plays and the labels allowing it should be a 5-Alarm call to arms. That's the WHOLE song, lossless audio, handed out around the world for FREE.

 

[Chocol8]

Even with the 'What Makes This Song Great?' vids, I can't see it as anything other than Fair Use simply for what I mentioned earlier; no one is watching them to enjoy the song itself.

I could see courts going either way on those. Personally, my wife and I have watched a handful of them, and the ones we picked were selected in large part because we were interested in hearing his takes on the specific artist and song. So, the song played a big role in us watching, but we were also watching for Rick's content rather than just listening to the song. IMHO, the revenue from something like that should be shared, but that structure, legally and practically doesn't exist at this time.

I view those videos similarly to all the "reaction videos" where people listen to a song supposedly for the first time. Their reactions, and in some cases, expert analysis are certainly part of the draw, but I bet the vast majority of viewers are fans of the songs first. I think artists should be paid whenever their work generates an audience for others. If you play the music in a bar, in an ad for a TV show, or on your YouTube channel, I think the artist should get a fair royalty. Not 100% of the revenue, but a fair amount for the use of their work to generate the other business.

 

[Sascha Franck]

but his "what makes this song great" videos are really pushing it, and I do not believe he has claimed fair use for those.

Didn't he even de-monetize some vids of that series on his own in advance?

Anyhow, even if not, he's never playing the full song. So what harm is done? Do the artists or rightholders want money from him? I mean, it's free advertising, possibly causing some folks to actually listen to the original, which they otherwise may have never done.

Sure, might still be against whatever laws, but seriously, what is it with common sense these days?

 

[Chocol8]

Didn't he even de-monetize some vids of that series on his own in advance?

Anyhow, even if not, he's never playing the full song. So what harm is done? Do the artists or rightholders want money from him? I mean, it's free advertising, possibly causing some folks to actually listen to the original, which they otherwise may have never done.

Sure, might still be against whatever laws, but seriously, what is it with common sense these days?

Again I see it as going both ways. People doing these videos are promoting the songs and artists and to some extent helping keep the music relevant and maybe exposing younger generations to it. That said, the songs and the artists are definitely drawing people to the YouTube content.

Ideally, and I know this isn't current law, If I had a hit song from decades ago, I would see it as good business to allow people to use it, but I would want some revenue from it and I would want some control over who uses it. For example, I would want the ability to say no to any political use, advertising use, or use in TV/Movies I am not a fan of, and also YouTubers who I don't think are adding anything. Someone like Charles Cornell or Beato I would be happy to say yes to.

 

[fetishfrog]

I’d imagine taking it to court and winning, repeatedly, over several years, has given him that thought.

Add in the fact that that the law isn’t 100% one way or the other in regard to playing clips of music in a review/critique, doesn’t seem that hard to understand.

According to google ai search, Rick has never taken a copyright strike case to court much less won that case in court.

He has put quite a bit of effort into making his case elsewhere, including testifying before congress, but never litigated.

Perhaps his time would be better spent elsewhere, like maybe just securing a license to use the music he uses.

And no, this isn’t an ‘I hate Rick and want the label to win’ stance. I just think he’s in the wrong here. Maybe one day he’ll litigate it in court and we’ll see.

 

[Chocol8]

I just think he’s in the wrong here. Maybe one day he’ll litigate it in court and we’ll see.

If he has won all 4,000 strikes through the YouTube process, 1) Why would he go to court, he already won? and 2) Why on earth would you think someone who has a 4,000 to 0 win loss record is wrong? I think the evidence is beyond overwhelming that YOU are wrong, not him.

As far as "securing a license" uh OK, let me know when you have gone through the process to secure a license to use Universal Music on YouTube.

 

[fetishfrog]

If he has won all 4,000 strikes through the YouTube process, 1) Why would he go to court, he already won? and 2) Why on earth would you think someone who has a 4,000 to 0 win loss record is wrong? I think the evidence is beyond overwhelming that YOU are wrong, not him.

As far as "securing a license" uh OK, let me know when you have gone through the process to secure a license to use Universal Music on YouTube.

According to the video he just posted he might just lose his channel over it. He might have a vested interest in doing things the right way. It might also be too late.

My wife used to work in special markets/licensing for UMG, EMI Capital, and others so I know it’s not impossible to get a license to use music. It’s not always easy though. Seems better than losing your revenue stream in any case.

 

[Chocol8]

According to the video he just posted he might just lose his channel over it.

He and many others…IF they get too many strikes and IF they get upheld.

But, you keep ignoring his 4,000 to 0 win record. If he is wrong about fair use, his channel would have been gone years ago. Hmmmm.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Beato is weird. I like his interviews but at the same time; I could give less of a microscopic fuck about what he think makes a song.

 

[FuzzyAce]

You'd think Universal would pay him by now, seeing he sends them tons of business?

 

[Alex Kenivel]

I would guess that it's completely automated.

Username checks out