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

[Ed DeGenaro]

I can’t comprehend giving away music for fractions of pennies being perfectly cool but someone discussing a 10 second clip from an appreciative and theoretical POV is egregious. I’m completely reversed on that in that I’d begrudgingly put my music on Spotify while if I saw Beato made a vid about one of my songs, I’d be ecstatic it struck a chord with someone enough to put the effort into discussing it. Just having the song resonate with anyone else but me is worth a fuck load more to me than the $1 I’d get in a year or two of Spotify plays.

And since you make that choice it’s fine. So simple accept that my interests are different.

 

[fetishfrog]

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.

According to the video he posted, Beato only has one strike left, so it appears in two cases, the 'if' doesn't apply.

And since you only need three strikes to get banned, it may be in his best interest to play by the rules.

To your statement about 4000-0, something doesn't add up. He has 1900+ videos. This includes videos with without music, videos with music that have or have not filed a complaint, shorts, long form interviews, etc.. He's averaging over two strikes per video. That's a lot. It seems like an exaggeration. I may be wrong. Doesn't matter. He has one strike left and he could lose his channel, which would be a shame since his artist interviews are typically excellent.

 

[fetishfrog]

One thing I never understood about Beato's view of fair use is, he uses his channel to drive traffic to his site where he sells durable goods. It could be rather easily argued that the music he plays is serving as advertisement to drive that traffic, and the copyright holder should be compensated.

I also realize he does some educational videos, but I would argue fair use in this context is wholly different than fair use at say, a university setting for a variety of reasons: class size, exposure, revenue generation, etc..

 

[Chocol8]

One thing I never understood about Beato's view of fair use is, he uses his channel to drive traffic to his site where he sells durable goods. It could be rather easily argued that the music he plays is serving as advertisement to drive that traffic, and the copyright holder should be compensated.

Whenever he uses more than a brief clip of a song, the videos are demonetized and the rights holders DO get the advertising revenue and are therefore compensated at rates agreed to with YouTube.

I also realize he does some educational videos, but I would argue fair use in this context is wholly different than fair use at say, a university setting for a variety of reasons: class size, exposure, revenue generation, etc..

The Universities have the same limits on fair use. If they are teaching more than snippets, they pay, or the students do.

 

[fetishfrog]

Whenever he uses more than a brief clip of a song, the videos are demonetized and the rights holders DO get the advertising revenue and are therefore compensated at rates agreed to with YouTube.

I didn't mention anything about monetizing videos here. I specifically called out that his use of music on a YouTube channel, that also serves as a direct channel to his website where he sells goods, could easily be argued as unpaid advertising.

The Universities have the same limits on fair use. If they are teaching more than snippets, they pay, or the students do.

I know. That's why I am surprised Beato thinks he shouldn't have to pay. His channel 'class size' and reach are much greater than a university's individual class or series of classes. And, these classes drive traffic to his website where he sells durable goods.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

I didn't mention anything about monetizing videos here. I specifically called out that his use of music on a YouTube channel, that also serves as a direct channel to his website where he sells goods, could easily be argued as unpaid advertising.



I know. That's why I am surprised Beato thinks he shouldn't have to pay. His channel 'class size' and reach are much greater than a university's individual class or series of classes. And, these classes drive traffic to his website where he sells durable goods.

And fwiw, the world isn’t just the US. EU has no fair use. Poland has something similar as fair use as do Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia.

 

[fetishfrog]

And fwiw, the world isn’t just the US. EU has no fair use. Poland has something similar as fair use as do Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia.

Don't I know it :)

It's tough to enforce copyright in a nation that doesn't recognize copyright as a thing.

 

[Chocol8]

I didn't mention anything about monetizing videos here. I specifically called out that his use of music on a YouTube channel, that also serves as a direct channel to his website where he sells goods, could easily be argued as unpaid advertising.

A demonetized video means the money goes to the rights holders, not the video creator, so they are getting paid. If the music rights holders get paid, how exactly are they unpaid? These anti Beato arguments are hilarious for the lack of logic and facts.

I know. That's why I am surprised Beato thinks he shouldn't have to pay. His channel 'class size' and reach are much greater than a university's individual class or series of classes. And, these classes drive traffic to his website where he sells durable goods.

He does pay when he uses more than a small clip. Just like a university can quote a few sentences from a book, but has to pay to use a chapter, or they can discuss elements from a song but need to pay if teaching the majority of or the entire song.

 

[fetishfrog]

A demonetized video means the money goes to the rights holders, not the video creator, so they are getting paid. If the music rights holders get paid, how exactly are they unpaid? These anti Beato arguments are hilarious for the lack of logic and facts.

Please respond to what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

 

[Chocol8]

Please respond to what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

What you wrote was incorrect to the point of being stupid. Clearly you don't understand what demonetization means because it is extremely relevant. The music rights holders either get paid or they don't. In this case, they get paid (except for short fair use clips) but you incorrectly referred to them as unpaid. Thats not a matter of opinion, and the definitions of paid and unpaid are pretty fucking clear. He uses the music, arguably to advertise his website, the music rights holders get paid the money YouTube is not paying him, and you say it could "easily be argued" as "unpaid advertising." Yeah, I guess it is easy to argue anything if you ignore facts and the meaning of basic words, but anyone trying to make that argument is not going to look very honest or intelligent. They get paid by YouTube, there is no reasonable debate about that.

So what else do you want me to comment on? That Rick uses music to indirectly advertise for his book and lessons? Seems reasonably accurate. That the rights holders of that music should get paid if he uses more than a short clip? Yep they should and do.

 

[fetishfrog]

What you wrote was incorrect to the point of being stupid. Clearly you don't understand what demonetization means because it is extremely relevant. The music rights holders either get paid or they don't. In this case, they get paid (except for short fair use clips) but you incorrectly referred to them as unpaid. Thats not a matter of opinion, and the definitions of paid and unpaid are pretty fucking clear. He uses the music, arguably to advertise his website, the music rights holders get paid the money YouTube is not paying him, and you say it could "easily be argued" as "unpaid advertising." Yeah, I guess it is easy to argue anything if you ignore facts and the meaning of basic words, but anyone trying to make that argument is not going to look very honest or intelligent. They get paid by YouTube, there is no reasonable debate about that.

So what else do you want me to comment on? That Rick uses music to indirectly advertise for his book and lessons? Seems reasonably accurate. That the rights holders of that music should get paid if he uses more than a short clip? Yep they should and do.

I understand what monetized and demonetized mean, and why those concepts are likely beside the point in this case. I am not going to spend any more time on this with you.

Rick has one more strike to figure out how to work within the rules. I hope he does.

 

[Chocol8]

I am not going to spend any more time on this with you.

Good. No point in wasting time arguing when you know you were wrong!

 

[Frodebro]

Awful lot of pecker waving here, fellas.

 

[DrewJD82]

And since you make that choice it’s fine. So simple accept that my interests are different.

Care to explain your logic behind giving something away for fractions of pennies VS. having your music appreciated and discussed?

 

[DISTORT6]

Awful lot of pecker waving here, fellas.

I do enjoy a nice sword fight and jousting match.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Care to explain your logic behind giving something away for fractions of pennies VS. having your music appreciated and discussed?

Sure, although I don’t see the point.

My music is Fusion there hasn’t been money in it since the 70s.
The amount of plays I get on steaming would’ve made me about 150/yr. On iTunes.

As I said I made the choice since I see as released music as nothing more than a business card since even before Spotify.

The music day gig I used to have, she had millions of streams/yr. and saw fuck all due to her label. So either way it’s fucked.

It’s not like I don’t want my stuff appreciated or discussed. But I want to be asked or paid even if it’s next to nothing.

Call it a principal thing.

First time I thought in Asia 16 years ago I asked the class if they’d want a CD of my stuff and it was an unanimous “we already downloaded it”.
That didn’t sit well with me.

 

[woody]

Whenever he uses more than a brief clip of a song, the videos are demonetized and the rights holders DO get the advertising revenue and are therefore compensated at rates agreed to with YouTube.

With the same logic Mercedes Benz should be able to use any song whatsoever in their advertising for free, because they don't sell advertising, but they sell cars.

No matter how aggressively personally attacking people you try to ram your wrong Ideas through, they stay wrong.

 

[Sascha Franck]

With the same logic Mercedes Benz should be able to use any song whatsoever in their advertising for free, because they don't sell advertising, but they sell cars

That's just nonsense because Beato is actually analysing music.

 

[DrewJD82]

Sure, although I don’t see the point.

My music is Fusion there hasn’t been money in it since the 70s.
The amount of plays I get on steaming would’ve made me about 150/yr. On iTunes.

As I said I made the choice since I see as released music as nothing more than a business card since even before Spotify.

The music day gig I used to have, she had millions of streams/yr. and saw fuck all due to her label. So either way it’s fucked.

It’s not like I don’t want my stuff appreciated or discussed. But I want to be asked or paid even if it’s next to nothing.

Call it a principal thing.

First time I thought in Asia 16 years ago I asked the class if they’d want a CD of my stuff and it was an unanimous “we already downloaded it”.
That didn’t sit well with me.

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.

 

[Chocol8]

With the same logic Mercedes Benz should be able to use any song whatsoever in their advertising for free, because they don't sell advertising, but they sell cars.

No matter how aggressively personally attacking people you try to ram your wrong Ideas through, they stay wrong.

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!