Rick Beato is not happy

[rh]

Is the TGP making a profit from us members?

I hope so.

 

[atarilovesyou]

Then it's SETTLED:

Music is Win is HOT GARBAGE.

 

[toughblues]

He wouldn't be complaining about being blocked if he was worth that much. Because it wouldn't matter.

Tell me you never met a narcissist without telling me you never met a narcissist.

 

[atarilovesyou]

As is usual for TGP, the weird anger toward anybody on YouTube makes you miss the point. His point is that the YouTube system is broken and it makes it nearly impossible to play a clip of any popular for fair use purposes. Even for a video that is strictly created to be educational.

If you created a 30 minute educational video about different types of harmonies, for example, and then put in a few 15 second clips of popular songs to use as examples, your entire video will get demonetized. So all of the revenue generated by your work goes to a record label even if that portion of the video is like 1 or 2% of the content of the video.

If you don't understand why this is a bad thing for music education and music appreciation in general, I don't know what to tell you.

And here is the crux as to WHY it SHOULD be demonetized: because without those CLIPS, Beato's videos would get MINIMAL VIEWS. He complains about that all the time too.

He knows that his most watched (read: lucrative) videos involve music that other people wrote. So, why shouldn't those people be compensated? It's THEIR music!

Fair Use was never intended for people to make money from things that don't belong to them. It was created for people who EDUCATE others, basically as volunteers. There's a reason you can't watch full movies on YouTube, or SNL episodes, etc. No matter how 'educational' it is, people like Beato are looking to make money on something they don't own rights to.

Beato is an ENTERTAINER, and there's nothing wrong with that. Almost everybody on YouTube, after all.

Put it this way; if he didn't use ANY copyrighted materials, would he have the views and subs he does?

ABSOLUTLEY NOT.

Case closed on this drama-machine nobody and his YouTube 'empire of dirt'. Without other people's material, he literally would have a 50k sub total. Just like every OTHER 'real' YouTube music educator. But he doesn't WANNA be a small fish, he's RICK BEATO, don'tchaknow?

A real SOMEBODY!

 

[mikeratan00]

What do I need to do to make Beato happy?

 

[mikeratan00]

Every poster should cash app $5 to Beato!

 

[Title17]

And here is the crux as to WHY it SHOULD be demonetized: because without those CLIPS, Beato's videos would get MINIMAL VIEWS. He complains about that all the time too.

He knows that his most watched (read: lucrative) videos involve music that other people wrote. So, why shouldn't those people be compensated? It's THEIR music!

Fair Use was never intended for people to make money from things that don't belong to them. It was created for people who EDUCATE others, basically as volunteers. There's a reason you can't watch full movies on YouTube, or SNL episodes, etc. No matter how 'educational' it is, people like Beato are looking to make money on something they don't own rights to.

Beato is an ENTERTAINER, and there's nothing wrong with that. Almost everybody on YouTube, after all.

Put it this way; if he didn't use ANY copyrighted materials, would he have the views and subs he does?

ABSOLUTLEY NOT.

Case closed on this drama-machine nobody and his YouTube 'empire of dirt'. Without other people's material, he literally would have a 50k sub total. Just like every OTHER 'real' YouTube music educator. But he doesn't WANNA be a small fish, he's RICK BEATO, don'tchaknow?

A real SOMEBODY!

You obviously do not know anything about copyright law or fair use in particular. Fair use absolutely was always intended to apply to commercial, profit-making uses. In fact, the vast majority of uses found to be fair in court have been commercial uses. Usually, it is not worth the time or expense to litigate uses that are not generating money. There is a reason why the Copyright Act does not end at section 106 (the exclusive rights). The constitutional purpose of the copyright act is to encourage the creation of new creative works. It does that, in part, by giving the exclusive rights to creators. But if that was all the Copyright Act did, it would actually undermine copyright's purpose. That is why there are a bunch of exclusions, defenses, privileges, and other limitations on those exclusive rights, including fair use. There has to be balance. Criticism and commentary are two of the key fair use purposes that are expressly listed in the statute (though there are others and those listed are non-exclusive). That does not mean that any use for criticism or commentary is always fair use. It is a complicated and fact-intensive analysis and you never know for sure until the verdict comes in. But whatever you think of Beato and his videos, he certainly is using the clips for commentary, criticism, education, etc., so the idea that none of these uses could possibly be fair use just because he makes money off of the videos is simply wrong.

 

[chop chop]

What do I need to do to make Beato happy?

Tell him that you've seen the light and he does in fact know everything.

 

[ferrinbonn]

And here is the crux as to WHY it SHOULD be demonetized: because without those CLIPS, Beato's videos would get MINIMAL VIEWS. He complains about that all the time too.

He knows that his most watched (read: lucrative) videos involve music that other people wrote. So, why shouldn't those people be compensated? It's THEIR music!

Fair Use was never intended for people to make money from things that don't belong to them. It was created for people who EDUCATE others, basically as volunteers. There's a reason you can't watch full movies on YouTube, or SNL episodes, etc. No matter how 'educational' it is, people like Beato are looking to make money on something they don't own rights to.

Beato is an ENTERTAINER, and there's nothing wrong with that. Almost everybody on YouTube, after all.

Put it this way; if he didn't use ANY copyrighted materials, would he have the views and subs he does?

ABSOLUTLEY NOT.

Case closed on this drama-machine nobody and his YouTube 'empire of dirt'. Without other people's material, he literally would have a 50k sub total. Just like every OTHER 'real' YouTube music educator. But he doesn't WANNA be a small fish, he's RICK BEATO, don'tchaknow?

A real SOMEBODY!

Cool hot take, bro.

 

[KevWind]

Fair use absolutely was always intended to apply to commercial, profit-making uses.

Except you have worded this just ambiguously enough to possibly sound like it was not also intended to apply to non profit and educational uses.. And ignores the fact that the first of the four factors "Purpose and character of the use" is based on ::
From the US Copyright Office website
"the fair use statute dictates that nonprofit or educational uses are favored more over commercial ones. "

That does not mean that any use for criticism or commentary is always fair use. It is a complicated and fact-intensive analysis and you never know for sure until the verdict comes in. But whatever you think of Beato and his videos, he certainly is using the clips for commentary, criticism, education, etc., so the idea that none of these uses could possibly be fair use just because he makes money off of the videos is simply wrong.

Both of these are correct, as far as they go You forgot to include in your Beato's list of uses ,, the obvious Primary "purpose and character " for the use of the clips,,, is in fact for profit. Does that automatically disqualify his video's? NO
But rest assured the ancillary vehicle used, of comment, criticism, or education, in his videos does not automatically make his use, qualified as fair use either ...

 

[mrav jon]

I don't feel hurt lol just bemused and perplexed as to why the guy inspires such animosity. I have my theories.

I didn't see the exchange you're referring to so I can't speak to it. Usually when someone accuses an author of plagiarism they have concrete examples to back it up, otherwise it's just slander which perhaps explains the angry reaction. If it's more that his materials are "inspired by" other materials as you say, that's kind of a stretch. It's like saying a math textbook was "inspired by" another math textbook. Music theory has been common knowledge in the public domain for centuries, it's the individual approach to conveying the same set of concrete facts that is what differs between instructors. And it's a self-published PDF FFS, not an academic publication that requires footnotes and a bibliography.

Bottom line, if you think his book's not worth it don't buy it. If you find him annoying don't watch his videos. Personally I find him entertaining for the most part and extremely knowledgeable on a wide range of topics. The constant personal attacks from his detractors are bizarre and reek of sour grapes. Multiple threads, hundreds of posts bashing the guy for putting music content on YT that many people find valuable. He's like the John Mayer of music teachers lol

i don't watch his videos and i never watched one from start until the end because i'm allergic on fakers, it was enough for me to stumble 5 or 6 times on the videos due to YT is recommending Him non stop same as the FB. After i saw that he acts like a bully toward professor and some other people i had no desire to waste time on His videos any more because he whines all the time about ''fer use''.

He is constantly asking for money, pretending to teach while actually giving some pitiful crumbs to the viewers and it boils down to "Buy my book or method, join me on patreon".
For me, He behaves as the enemy of enthusiasm.
I already told and this for the 3rd time i don't know Him nor i have any issues with him personally, but what i see on YT and his faking, bullying, manipulations are ugly and i dislike that.

It is a lot of work to name all the books were you can find the same data and to underline you every part.
As i mentioned a good book about guitar theory that is over 150 pages usually have bibliography or at lest point out were you can search more for some of the topics, maybe recommend another books etc.

THIS IS HOW GOOD BOOK LOOK LIKE and respects I.P. aka has a BIBLIOGRAPHY
''Practical Theory for Guitar A Player's Guide to Essential Music Theory in Words, Music, Tablature, and Sound'' By Don Latarski https://www.alfred.com/practical-theory-for-guitar/p/00-F3339GTXCD/

NOTE I hope that Rick Beato fan boys won't go now and bother the author of this books due to every guitar theory book which i saw is IMHO better then the Beato book.

 

[SoPhx]

I can't watch this guy's stuff. He's stuck in the 70s/80s infinite loop and it's a snore fest.

 

[mrav jon]

I don't feel hurt lol just bemused and perplexed as to why the guy inspires such animosity. I have my theories.

I didn't see the exchange you're referring to so I can't speak to it. Usually when someone accuses an author of plagiarism they have concrete examples to back it up, otherwise it's just slander which perhaps explains the angry reaction. If it's more that his materials are "inspired by" other materials as you say, that's kind of a stretch. It's like saying a math textbook was "inspired by" another math textbook. Music theory has been common knowledge in the public domain for centuries, it's the individual approach to conveying the same set of concrete facts that is what differs between instructors. And it's a self-published PDF FFS, not an academic publication that requires footnotes and a bibliography.

Bottom line, if you think his book's not worth it don't buy it. If you find him annoying don't watch his videos. Personally I find him entertaining for the most part and extremely knowledgeable on a wide range of topics. The constant personal attacks from his detractors are bizarre and reek of sour grapes. Multiple threads, hundreds of posts bashing the guy for putting music content on YT that many people find valuable. He's like the John Mayer of music teachers lol

Just to add google the topic about his book mate, lot of people have shown that is basically sum of data that you can find on net for free or in other books.

This isn't the promotion of this video but there are some good points and it sums a lot of issues regding RB book, as i told check it on 4 minutes there is a picture from Wikipedia in the book.



When i mentioned that you as his former student, might have the need to defend him, I didn't mean anything bad by that. IMHO that is normal. I just try to understand the person I'm talking to.

 

[Aceman893]

So, I have only read 2 pages. I do Root Cause Analysis for a living (among other things). Sometimes, you just come across a train wreck where there are no winners.

If I were facilitating a meeting between Rick, YouTube, and the Artists, here is what I would do:

1. Everybody in the room, write down what you are doing wrong quietly on sticky notes. You have 2 minutes. Go. Does anyone want more time? No - cool...give me the stickies.

2. Now, everyone write down what the OTHER two are doing wrong. You have two minutes. Anyone need more time? Everyone - ok - you all have 5 more minutes.

And then we could sort it out.

Rick:
+ Is educating people, and turning them on to some cool stuff
- Is using songs to attract subscribers

YouTube
+ Supports artists regarding their IP
- Makes fair use impossible

Management (Because I think most of these artists have no idea what their management does
+ Get a lot of good press for free
- Are inadvertently preventing people from even discussing their material

And the solutions then become very easy to sort out....not that anyone wants to.

 

[milli vanilli]

Given some of these comments….it’s safe to assume all of you in cover bands are happily cutting royalty checks the original artists for using their content.

 

[audiomo]

36 pages on a video topic he's done like 8 times... Gotta give him credit, he really has figured out how to maximize his Youtube and how to rile up the community both in his supporters and detractors. He's laughing to the bank regardless.

 

[meterman]

i don't watch his videos and i never watched one from start until the end because i'm allergic on fakers, it was enough for me to stumble 5 or 6 times on the videos due to YT is recommending Him non stop same as the FB. After i saw that he acts like a bully toward professor and some other people i had no desire to waste time on His videos any more because he whines all the time about ''fer use''.

He is constantly asking for money, pretending to teach while actually giving some pitiful crumbs to the viewers and it boils down to "Buy my book or method, join me on patreon".
For me, He behaves as the enemy of enthusiasm.
I already told and this for the 3rd time i don't know Him nor i have any issues with him personally, but what i see on YT and his faking, bullying, manipulations are ugly and i dislike that.

It is a lot of work to name all the books were you can find the same data and to underline you every part.
As i mentioned a good book about guitar theory that is over 150 pages usually have bibliography or at lest point out were you can search more for some of the topics, maybe recommend another books etc.

THIS IS HOW GOOD BOOK LOOK LIKE and respects I.P. aka has a BIBLIOGRAPHY
''Practical Theory for Guitar A Player's Guide to Essential Music Theory in Words, Music, Tablature, and Sound'' By Don Latarski https://www.alfred.com/practical-theory-for-guitar/p/00-F3339GTXCD/

NOTE I hope that Rick Beato fan boys won't go now and bother the author of this books due to every guitar theory book which i saw is IMHO better then the Beato book.

Just to add google the topic about his book mate, lot of people have shown that is basically sum of data that you can find on net for free or in other books.

This isn't the promotion of this video but there are some good points and it sums a lot of issues regding RB book, as i told check it on 4 minutes there is a picture from Wikipedia in the book.



When i mentioned that you as his former student, might have the need to defend him, I didn't mean anything bad by that. IMHO that is normal. I just try to understand the person I'm talking to.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think he's a faker, with a master's degree, 35 years of teaching experience, a gold record and almost 100 writing and production credits.

You think he drops "pitiful crumbs" of knowledge and constantly begs for money, yet you admit you haven't really watched his videos. If you had you would know he has dozens of videos like this 20 minute lesson on modes with a couple minutes of promotional stuff:

.

Or maybe you're talking about the "shorts" videos that started as Instagram posts, like this one, what a hack lol:



You can't be bothered to find concrete examples of plagiarism because "it's alot of work" but would rather make accusations without any evidence to support them and then tell me to "google it" or take the word of some anonymous 'professor'

And to top it off you post a "critique" video which shows its hand in the first 5 seconds with a selectively edited clip taken out of context to make him sound like a troll. That even takes a cheap shot at Nuryl, which is based on established scientific research. Talk about a ****ing parasite. I guess you know you've made it when the trolls start coming after you to make money b/c they have nothing of value of their own to offer.

At least the legal fair use discussion is interesting and has some merit. This petty personal tripe is just lame. Just admit you don't like the guy and move on, stop with the weak rationalizations.

 

[59stratocaster]

And even that is secondary to “does Beato’s video violate the guidelines of any of YouTube’s copyright enforcement algorithms”, which appear to operate in a broader, blunt, and less nuanced fashion than an actual fair use test. And are fully within YouTube’s rights as a private entity to employ, to minimize their risk exposure, regardless of what Beato or any of us think about it.

YouTube is the second largest search engine in the world, behind only the one operated by another company in the ownership of Alphabet.

I think you could make a really strong case that YouTube's situation is no longer a "my house my rules" kind of place, and in fact that appears to be the political reality they face these days.

 

[TwoHandsTenThumbs]

I think you could make a really strong case that YouTube's situation is no longer a "my house my rules" kind of place

I agree, in principle; but so far the courts have seemly resisted the ‘town square’ argument. The closest I’ve seen, as far as wrangling that notion under the auspices of 1A, is Packingham v. North Carolina.

SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for NC to prohibit former offender’s access to social media websites that may have underage users (Lester Packingham was an admitted, former child sex offender). Justice Kennedy opined:

“By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square”

I’m inclined to think that SCOTUS would have decided differently had the policy been promulgated by Facebook (the social media site in question), rather than the state.

That challenge will get necessarily thorny, on a number of levels, and would be extra challenging argued before a court disinclined toward regulatory intervention.

I suspect “their house, their rules” will persist, at least for some time.

 

[59stratocaster]

I agree, in principle; but so far the courts have seemly resisted the ‘town square’ argument. The closest I’ve seen, as far as wrangling that notion under the auspices of 1A, is Packingham v. North Carolina.

SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for NC to prohibit former offender’s access to social media websites that may have underage users (Lester Packingham was an admitted, former child sex offender). Justice Kennedy opined:

“By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square”

I’m inclined to think that SCOTUS would have decided differently had the policy been promulgated by Facebook (the social media site in question), rather than the state.

That challenge will get necessarily thorny, on a number of levels, and would be extra challenging argued before a court disinclined toward regulatory intervention.

I suspect “their house, their rules” will persist, at least for some time.

Well, that is all fair. And I cannot argue that you have a good point from a legal perspective.
But youtube does not operate in the US alone, and said legal body is not the only stakeholder here.

And maybe even beyond that, I am not a lawyer myself and am not arguing from the perspective of one, i.e. I care less about the exact legal implications and more about what I think would benefit the society I participate in. And I do feel justified in stating my piece on that even if it is at odds what some legal bodies made primarily of poopy-alist society folks think.