Based on member demand, The Gear Page is pleased to announce that our Apparel Merch Shop is now open. The shop’s link is in the blue Navigation bar (on the right side), “Shop,” with t-shirts, hats, neck buffs, and stickers to start. Here’s the direct link: www.thegearpageshop.com
You’ll find exclusive high-quality apparel and merchandise; all items are ethical, sustainably produced, and we will be continuously sourcing and adding new choices.
We can ship internationally. All shipping is at cost.
We might have a chance if he expands his series to "What Makes This Song Mediocre".Beato might consider that everything/every decision, is not about money.
That said, I like his videos and would hardly complain about his covering of a tune I wrote.
Which won't ever happen.
Is it twisted logic that YouTube should be paying those ASCAP/BMI fees in the same way that restaurants/bars/venues pay, because the restaurant/bar/venue is the constant that has paid to stay within the law, while the entertainment is a revolving door of passing the time, much like YouTube?!?!?!?! I’m not a lawyer but I did hangout out on TGP.......... (holiday inn express joke for you youngins!!!)"I'm not making any money from the song!"
In 1917 the Supreme Court ruled in ASCAP's favor and thus established the foundation for the organization's future existence, its subsequent power and influence, and, in some measure, a new respect for songs as individual artistic creations. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ruled that establishments, notably restaurants, had to pay for music even if they did not charge an entry fee: "It is true that music is not the sole object, but neither is the food, which probably could be got cheaper elsewhere...If music did not pay, it would be given up. If it pays, it pays out of the public's pocket. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is a profit, and that is enough."--Ben Yagoda, "The B Side"
Rick uses other people's content to drive attention to his monetized videos. You show up to find out "Why this song is great" and then subscribe and watch a few of his monetized videos. You can argue that the law is wrong-headed in this case, but it is still the law for the time being.
Fair use concepts typically take into account the intent of the user, and making money is often a key factor - i.e., that it may be educational does not necessarily bring the use under the exemption. And outside the US, in some countries the mere publication of something - regardless of whether it’s educational and regardless of whether the user is profiting - would exclude it from qualifying for fair use (or whatever it’s called in that country).From Youtube's website article on Fair Use--
"In the U.S., works of commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting might be considered fair use, but it can depend on the situation."
There's that "situation" part and they also say it's case by case, but I would ask why Beato's videos wouldn't qualify. They contain commentary and teaching, as opposed to many music videos that I see get posted with a "fair use" disclaimer in the text that are just the song and often the performance of the original artists.
I'm not taking Beato's side here, and his using the" exposure" defense doesn't help him. I just wonder, and also it seems he gets singled out.
Yeah, generally the fair use analysis rests on weighing a number of factors to determine which side "wins." Beato's YouTube profit would certainly work against him, but from what I've seen he generally only plays snippets of the songs and that would favor him. The "teaching" aspect would also favor him potentially. That said, unless he decides to take it to court we won't really know whether his use is fair or not. Until that happens YouTube can continue to enforce their own view on fair use and block his content pursuant to their terms.Fair use concepts typically take into account the intent of the user, and making money is often a key factor - i.e., that it may be educational does not necessarily bring the use under the exemption. And outside the US, in some countries the mere publication of something - regardless of whether it’s educational and regardless of whether the user is profiting - would exclude it from qualifying for fair use (or whatever it’s called in that country).