The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
I have to say I disagree with Rick Beato about this one major issue
| Pontificating arousing address toaster | 08/03/25 |
| Brilliant Well-lubricated Scourge Upon The Earth | 08/03/25 |
| Pontificating arousing address toaster | 08/03/25 |
| Diverse hall | 08/03/25 |
| Pontificating arousing address toaster | 08/03/25 |
| Pontificating arousing address toaster | 08/04/25 |
| charismatic poppy immigrant | 08/04/25 |
| Pontificating arousing address toaster | 08/04/25 |
| charismatic poppy immigrant | 08/04/25 |
| Pontificating arousing address toaster | 08/04/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 3rd, 2025 2:11 AM Author: Pontificating arousing address toaster I have no qualms with record labels slapping his channel with content ID claims when he plays copywritten music. This fair use claim is ridiculous. You're making videos for profit and in them you play snippets of other people's work. This is insane Boomer cope that you have the right to make money off of other people's copywritten material. This guy makes dozens of videos spazzing about how the record company took all the money from his video where he shows people how to play Fleetwood Mac songs or whatever. Like hey buddy if you don't want them to take the money from your video just don't play the song. You can either play the song and get traffic on your channel from people clicking on it, or don't play the song. I hate that this guy feels entitled to profit off of other people's work. Fair use was meant for criticism and education, not hey listen to this clip someone recorded in a studio on their own dime. Pathetic. Boomers are all ass. I wouldn't dream about playing a clip from a famous song and then claiming it was fair use. Joe Rogan never plays copywritten songs on his podcast. Chill out Rick. You didn't build that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2E#49152273) |
Date: August 3rd, 2025 3:51 AM Author: Brilliant Well-lubricated Scourge Upon The Earth I was thinking something very similar after watching the latest video about this.
It's an imperfect system (one I don't know 100%) but it's entirely under his control whether he gets affected by it.
Now, I do believe that what he does in his videos when breaking down recordings or analyzing musical compositions is totally fair use and no one should be able to prevent him from using the material, monetization or not. |
 |
Date: August 3rd, 2025 4:20 AM Author: Pontificating arousing address toaster The only thing he's bitching about is not getting paid for profiting off the work of others. Back in the era before the internet, random music teachers used to publish guitar tabs of famous songs but they had to change them enough that they weren't quite exactly like the riffs in the famous songs. They would say here's a riff that resembles the famous riff to Back in Black or something. They would change it just enough to not get sued.
If you put out a book for sale that had the exact guitar riff to Back in Black why would you be able to sell that for profit? It's the same concept. You would get sued.
It's the same what Beato is doing. Sure, make a video showing exactly how to play a famous song. But the copyright holder gets to submit the content ID claim to YouTube and collect all the money from that video. Rick is 100% wrong here.
I've never heard Anthony Fantano play a clip from a famous song in his review. The only examples of fair use in criticism I can think of is when people do movie reviews and there's a few seconds of a film clip in the middle of the review. But I think there's some really fleshed out law on that. It's limited to a certain number of seconds and the movie is obviously over an hour long.
Rick's point is obviously wrong that it's just criticism. If it were criticism he'd be reviewing the song and giving his opinion. Instead he just goes, this song is awesome. *plays song*. He feels entitled to use the content because he is correct that his videos would not be as impactful and exciting without the use of someone else's copywritten material. He is profiting off the work of others. Fantano just holds up an album cover and gives his opinion. It's much more honorable. Rick is grifting hard. Make whatever video you want but don't complain about demonetization when your popularity depends on the work of others. Copyright law has always been this way he just thinks he's different because he's a big YouTuber. He's being an absurd Boomer booming. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2025 3:58 AM Author: Diverse hall copyrights should expire after 17 years like they used to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2E#49152309) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2025 11:59 AM Author: Pontificating arousing address toaster (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2E#49152677) |
|
Date: August 4th, 2025 11:33 AM Author: Pontificating arousing address toaster (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2E#49155081) |
|
Date: August 4th, 2025 11:39 AM Author: charismatic poppy immigrant Educational uses have long been protected under fair use even if it’s a for profit exercise. That’s true even if done on YouTube with millions of viewers. Besides, he’s not competing with the artists. Nobody is watching beato instead of streaming the song on Spotify. If anything he’s enriching their brand by creating more viewer connections with it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2E#49155102) |
|
Date: August 4th, 2025 11:47 AM Author: Pontificating arousing address toaster Well that's his argument and I'm here to tell you that it's wrong. Whether or not it benefits the artist is immaterial. The artist doesn't owe some random guy anything to promote their track. Yes maybe if they're savvy about trends then yes they could choose to view it as a way to boost popularity. But it's ultimately up to the artist.
The reason I don't think it's fair use is that it's not educational. It's just for profit entertainment. If they put your music in a movie they have to pay you. It's the same thing. There's nothing educational about Rick's content. It's entertainment and he admits his content wouldn't be as good if he didn't play people's copywritten material. |
|
Date: August 4th, 2025 10:48 PM Author: charismatic poppy immigrant The fact that his content wouldn’t be as good without the copyrighted material has morning to do with fair use.
And the fact that he doesn’t compete with the artist does in fact 100 percent importance to fair use. You aren’t an IP lawyer. |
|
Date: August 4th, 2025 10:59 PM Author: Pontificating arousing address toaster I'm not an IP lawyer but you know who has IP lawyers? Sony, Warner and Universal, ask well as Google. And they're winning. Rick wouldn't be bitching if he wasn't losing this fight. And he complains about this literally all the time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2E#49157239) |