I'm sorry but you have completely mischaracterized what I'm saying. I have never once in this thread said anything about what I want. I have not advocated for weakening the rules and I most certainly am not "making trouble". What I have talked about is the rules AS THEY ARE. I don't set the rules and neither do you so what we want is not really relevant. That's why I have posted the actual rules from the courts, the clearance agency and Google. Those rules represent the standards as they are actually applied both by the courts and by Google (which owns YouTube).This sounds an awful lot like "however much fits with the point I'm trying to make".
Your own analogy was photocopying a whole book.
Anyway that's the end of the rope I'm willing to give you to show a degree of seriousness about this. It's not that hard to tell when someone's just making trouble. You seem to want significantly weakened fair use rules and are willing to distort to argue for it and that's cool you do you, and I'm gonna do me.
Ok I should have said "most likely" of the 4 to qualify given the use of only short excerpts.. But waht can I say you are correct could be argued to the most important excerpt So OK then .....None of of 4
Remember that what we're talking about is the use of the commercial recordings, not the use of the music/song. He said himself in the video that he played two of them on his acoustic guitar because he knew that use of the recording would be challenged. The video he referenced was not an analysis of recordings but rather a demonstration of unusual time signatures in popular songs. He could have banged out all of his examples on his guitar, done his time signature lesson and probably have had no claims at all.That I'm not so sure is the case. I tend to think it would more pronouncedly constrain what he could and could not use in his analyses.
Remember that what we're talking about is the use of the commercial recordings, not the use of the music/song. He said himself in the video that he played two of them on his acoustic guitar because he knew that use of the recording would be challenged. The video he referenced was not an analysis of recordings but rather a demonstration of unusual time signature in commercial music. He could have banged out all of his examples on his guitar, done his time signature lesson and probably have had no claims at all.
Ha true, it's all about the number of views . or should I say postsYmmv, but everything "discussed" was exhausted by the first few pages. I guess this is what the youtube drama gossipers strive for though.
interesting perspective; not sure that view is very complete, though.I have significant sympathy for the original creators in that they are not often the rights holders. Especially because often the deal they got is pretty raw when you look at how much money they generate versus how much they end up getting.
interesting perspective; not sure that view is very complete, though.
whatever rights the original owners of the complete materials (ie, the artists) once held, and whichever of those rights are now controlled by Big Business (or whatevs), i would presume that the original owners had been compensated for their ceding of rights, in advance.
i mean: would you make a deal, wherein you got nothing in return for your full rights?
nope, you would not.
as well: unless the artists' rights were sold COMPLETELY --- which means including those of AUTHORSHIP, which remains uncommon (if becoming increasingly common of the .1% of musical artists who sell their stuff lock, stock & barrel, these days.
for those artists who maintain only their AUTHORSHIP rights, on paper they, too, are being protected by the "rules" that serve the Big Businesses.
to boot, some artists might still have some control (and financial reward) for both Publishing and Sync rights; as with every business transaction regarding Copyright, agreements tend to go down on a usually individual, case-by-case basis.
This relies on artists and the rights holders having a symmetric relationship, certain degrees of rationality, etc.
I think you can disagree with me on that front without suggesting my view is incomplete, when actually what I'm saying flows very logically from my premise that rights holders have the majority of the power in this relationship.
Your argument is also complete. It relies on an assumption I don't agree with.
Honest question, did you consider whether or not what I was saying would make sense under the rather reasonable premise that rights holders might have a long history of exploiting and taking advantage of their talent?
First time Beato popped up in my feed was searching for Pat Metheny and finding his interview. It was the BEST interview I've ever seen with a musician. Through that, I found interviews with Di Meola and Via. Again fantastic interviews, because Beato is SO excited about what these guys do, but can totally talk shop with them. I would LOVE to see him interview Jeff Beck.
I can't really do the song dissection stuff or the lessons, but the guy can conduct an interview.