Rick Beato is not happy

Messages
553
This.

This isn't the first or even the 5th time he's had content either blocked or demonitized.

He could try one of the multiple workarounds or alternate paths available to him, and choses not to. And the follow-up videos aren't designed to trigger any sort of change in YouTube's approach....they're purely to recoup some of the money lost from the original vid (hey, good on him that he has sufficient following to make that a viable option) and to validate his feeling of being hard-done-by with an audience that's already predisposed to agree with him (I mean...I guess he's earned that echo chamber).

It's an approach designed purely to get away with what he can, with the knowledge he's not losing much if he can't.

As you say, nothing wrong with trying to make a buck. He's played the YT game well, and deserves whatever he can get from playing it...but he's certainly not a victim or in need of anyone's support.

This is all true but I still think he's got a point that the automated blocking system and the massive power asymmetry inherent to doing musical content on youtube, the internet's second largest search engine and the source of income for a LOT of people in 2022, is pretty messed up. A system built, btw, as a response to rules created by septuagenarians being spoonfed by a historically overaggressive industry in a way that normal people would probably characterize as corruption.

He also has a point that the rights holders for some classic rock groups are so committed to a pre-2010 world that they are in danger of being missed by younger audiences. And if you make even playing a riff too well radioactive because it's a risk to get blown up by the youtube bots because you played a few notes on your own guitar, no one will talk about those groups, and they may fade.

Neither of these excuse him from the rules, of course.

I'm not even necessarily suggesting his content is adequately educational or transformative. To me it feels like it is, clearly to other it does not.

What I don't like is the idea that we're going to enforce the rules mainly because we all (or at least rather a lot of us, because I agree), think this guy is not just a clown but the whole circus.

Or even worse we're going to enforce the rules because we want daddy RIAA to step on us (which one person in this thread is guilty of)
 

JRicoC

Member
Messages
244
I like Beato, but he's done too many Rant Videos. It just seems that he's annoyed that copyright laws exist. If I were this frequently annoyed by what I was doing for a "living" (or, in this case, supplemental income) I'd do something else. Or do nothing ...
 

WickedPenguin

Member
Messages
850
This is all true but I still think he's got a point that the automated blocking system and the massive power asymmetry inherent to doing musical content on youtube, the internet's second largest search engine and the source of income for a LOT of people in 2022, is pretty messed up. A system built, btw, as a response to rules created by septuagenarians being spoonfed by a historically overaggressive industry in a way that normal people would probably characterize as corruption.

He also has a point that the rights holders for some classic rock groups are so committed to a pre-2010 world that they are in danger of being missed by younger audiences. And if you make even playing a riff too well radioactive because it's a risk to get blown up by the youtube bots because you played a few notes on your own guitar, no one will talk about those groups, and they may fade.

Neither of these excuse him from the rules, of course.

I'm not even necessarily suggesting his content is adequately educational or transformative. To me it feels like it is, clearly to other it does not.

What I don't like is the idea that we're going to enforce the rules mainly because we all (or at least rather a lot of us, because I agree), think this guy is not just a clown but the whole circus.

Or even worse we're going to enforce the rules because we want daddy RIAA to step on us (which one person in this thread is guilty of)

I don't really feel like a rant video on YouTube is really doing anything substantial to fix what's wrong with YouTube. Kinda feels more like he's cynically leveraging YouTube's flaws to make a buck on both ends (both when he does get protected content to stand, and when he doesn't but monetizes the tantrum after the fact).

I mean, we agree that YouTube's system is less than ideal at best, and flatly broken at worst. We're in general agreement that the recording industry is also a mess (if we disagree, it's over how it got that way, and we probably don't disagree much).

But if that were a thing Beato really cared about, there are ways to attack those problems that don't involve yelling into an echo chamber and cashing the resulting check.

There's some truth in the words he's using....I just don't see it in the man saying them. He's certainly not a champion of more balanced and rational access to protected material...at least not out of anything other than convenience.
 

cellarstrat

Member
Messages
21
Let's get to the important issues here. Has anyone that owns the Beato Book actually paid full price for it???
As I am now poor I downloaded it free on a torrent out of curiosity (Rick earns 500k a yr fair enough pal) ....a lot of the content is available in other books to be fair if you are studying music ...and let´s face it, it is not a book but only an expensive pdf ..one has to have a printer & ink and go through all that hassle to print it and saves him the publishing cost as well too so no cost overhead..clever plan.
 

12TameMen

Member
Messages
342
What I don't like is the idea that we're going to enforce the rules mainly because we all (or at least rather a lot of us, because I agree), think this guy is not just a clown but the whole circus.

Or even worse we're going to enforce the rules because we want daddy RIAA to step on us (which one person in this thread is guilty of)

It's official. Everyone's become their parents. :)
 

TwoHandsTenThumbs

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
2,042
It's all how the artist wants to look at it.
It’s pretty rare that the artists themselves are raising an issue, because…
For one thing, the overwhelming majority of who's being protected by the current regime are corporations--especially in terms of commercially valuable and viable copyrights.

Fair Use, as far as I know, isn't as clear cut as you or I want it to be in practical terms.
Indeed.
By "practical terms" I mean how the various platforms interpret it.
And that’s the crux of this. YouTube can choose to use a blunt and heavy handed approach (which they do), without much concern for the intricacies of fair use and copyright. By setting the bar high—some might say, unnecessarily so—they can expend way less effort on enforcement through automation, and generally stay out of the legal quagmire of claims disputes.

In the end, YouTube is free for viewers and posters, and can even generate revenue for posters as well. Their house, their rules. They could decide to block all cute pet videos, too. It’s really more of a company policy issue—that is adjacent and related to copyright enforcement concerns—rather than a copyright / fair use issue directly.
Also, any time our cover bands play covers, we should contact the owners for permission first, as people here seem VERY opposed to making any money off of anyone else’s IP.
Venues pay the PROs. The artists are making money off your cover band gig. Different scenario. If YouTube similarly paid licensing to the PROs, this would be a non-issue.
He could try one of the multiple workarounds or alternate paths available to him, and choses not to.
Absolutely. And it’s that he persists in complaining about how a service he pays zero dollars to use, to directly and indirectly generate revenue along multiple streams, keeps shutting him down (as if he’s surprised, again?) that’s silly.
 

sashavie

Member
Messages
421
And that’s the crux of this. YouTube can choose to use a blunt and heavy handed approach (which they do), without much concern for the intricacies of fair use and copyright. By setting the bar high—some might say, unnecessarily so—they can expend way less effort on enforcement through automation, and generally stay out of the legal quagmire of claims disputes.

In the end, YouTube is free for viewers and posters, and can even generate revenue for posters as well. Their house, their rules. They could decide to block all cute pet videos, too. It’s really more of a company policy issue—that is adjacent and related to copyright enforcement concerns—rather than a copyright / fair use issue directly.
Exactly.

People often forget that when companies get named in a lawsuit, it's the employees that have to deal with it. Companies may have unlimited money, but employees don't have unlimited time. NO ONE inside a company wants to be the poor schmucks having to deal with this. Yes companies even with an internal legal team will have to hire a litigation firm to represent the company. But, the employees tasked with handling it are stuck having to do a lot of the tedious work of collating mountains of data and paperwork. No one gets paid extra for this. If you've been tasked to deal with the lawsuit, it's simply extra work on top of your regular job. It's a thankless job as well. You're not going to get promoted for it, no bonuses for it, nothing. Because your bosses/exec team that tasked you to handle it simply want this: "make it go away" and if you bring it up, their question is "can you make it go away I don't want to talk about it". Not to mention that litigation lawyers, even the ones your company hired, are often unpleasant people to deal with.

So, from the internal legal team, to the product managers, to the engineers at these tech platforms - they will like you said set the bar higher than the minimum legal standard for that simple reason. No employee in the company wants the company to get sued because no one wants to be stuck working on a lawsuit.

And from my own limited experience, record label/publishing legal teams are amongst the most unpleasant I've ever dealt with, compared to film/tv, corporate/M&A, tech IP, etc. Music industry law must seem to attract a certain kind of personality, which the employees at Youtube probably experienced and want to avoid at all costs.
 
Last edited:

morganjj

Member
Messages
181
Summation.

50% respondents: he's a nice guy trying to help musicians while making a buck at it.

50% respondents: the guy's a jerk. he's stealing. those defending him are apologists. I hate life.

I'll hang with the first half!
I'm not in either of those halves. My position can be summed up neatly as :

1. Copyright law is very complicated, and everyone making an analogy (it's like stealing your cheese grater, and then returning it full of cheese!) is missing the point. IP law and fair use are not legally 'like' anything else. Generally you'd have to test stuff in court. On top of that, YouTube is a private platform with its own terms. So 90% of the discussion here is trying and failing to grapple with stuff they're terribly unqualified to grapple with, to no avail.

2. Copyright law is failing humanity badly in the current historical moment. We have reciprocal rights to the culture we exist in that are not covered by giving companies a century long contract to extract money out of us. IP reform is necessary. Remix culture, sample culture, and an understanding that companies only have these rights because they were granted them is key to getting to a better future. They've engaged in extensive lobbying and rent seeking to extend and expand those rights. The law is on their side at this point in time, but morality is not. I make 100% of my income from creating IP and have done for over a decade. I support aggressive reform of IP law, even though it will take money out of my own hands.

3. Rick makes some good videos, but mostly he doesn't. I really don't like his approach to most things. On this topic, he knows he's legally out on a limb, and his arguments are pretty nonsensical.

4. That said, the world will be a better place when you can make videos talking about and dissecting 40 year old music without issue.

5. YouTube has it's own rules, but it really shouldn't. It's an effective monopoly and people saying "If you don't want to follow the rules go elsewhere," are shilling for big corps just like those who suggest broken copyright laws are some kind of holy screed.

So yeah, my take is : it's complicated. Many things are true at the same time. I know I'm not the only one to say that, and that's because there's a really interesting discussion to be had about a lot of the nuance here. It just keeps getting interrupted by people who only want to have a black and white discussion.

Make no mistakes - if you're trying to press a single, simple answer on this situation or divide the conversation into two even sides, you're missing the point. Let complicated things be complicated.
 

mattmccloskey

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
5,832
It’s pretty rare that the artists themselves are raising an issue, because…



Indeed.

And that’s the crux of this. YouTube can choose to use a blunt and heavy handed approach (which they do), without much concern for the intricacies of fair use and copyright. By setting the bar high—some might say, unnecessarily so—they can expend way less effort on enforcement through automation, and generally stay out of the legal quagmire of claims disputes.

In the end, YouTube is free for viewers and posters, and can even generate revenue for posters as well. Their house, their rules. They could decide to block all cute pet videos, too. It’s really more of a company policy issue—that is adjacent and related to copyright enforcement concerns—rather than a copyright / fair use issue directly.

Venues pay the PROs. The artists are making money off your cover band gig. Different scenario. If YouTube similarly paid licensing to the PROs, this would be a non-issue.

Absolutely. And it’s that he persists in complaining about how a service he pays zero dollars to use, to directly and indirectly generate revenue along multiple streams, keeps shutting him down (as if he’s surprised, again?) that’s silly.
Nicely stated.
 

bon ton

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
358
Was it P.T. Barnum who said something like, "I don't care what they say as long as they keep talking about me."?

Beato must see threads like this and laugh his ass all the way to the bank.
 
Messages
158
It seems likely to me that Beato makes the rant videos because his audience likes them. It's clear from the comments that they do. Maybe he also makes them in order to vent a bit, or to generate some monetized views. If they were bad for business, he'd stop, and he has plenty of data to go on by now.

He's not going to change anything with his rants, and he should know that by now. Maybe he feels a little better after the vent, and maybe he gains or loses a few viewers with each iteration. But that's it.
 

12TameMen

Member
Messages
342
Let complicated things be complicated.

You're not my wife so you only get one shot with the patronizing. ;)

Whatever!! It's an opinion. I'm not lobbying here.

Anyway, for the record I highly doubt the Beato family is relying on YouTube to pay any of their monthly bills. Check out the credits! :oops:



Untitled.png
 
Messages
158
If one person who didn't know the guy reads this, checks him out and gives him a buck he's a buck ahead.
And that's about the scale of likely impressions - which can also go the other way. Someone reads the thread, decides he's a whining stealer, and clicks "Don't recommend channel." The result, they don't buy the Beato Book or watch the other videos they might have. Both will happen to a very small extent. I know there's a very naive view (pushed by people whose job it is to make exposure always seem good) that all exposure is good. But again, these days most of it is just noise, and when it rises above the noise, both good and bad publicity clearly exist.
 




Trending Topics

Top Bottom