Rick Beato is not happy

[jbd3]

It seems to me that Rick brings a new look at a song with his What makes this Song Great vids. He's not playing the whole song. Just portions that demonstrate his point. I dont get the outrage. Do the outraged really feel that way because of 15 second snippets of songs are being used for analysis or are they just that happy in all aspects of life?

I have actually bought records (yes I still buy records!) from artists because I'd been curious enough about them to watch one of Beato's vids. I don't see how he's costing artists money, it seems like the reverse. Beato (or Rhett Schull, or whomever) is one of the many figures who seem to get TGP really mad. I don't get it. I'm happy to see someone talking seriously about rock music & the guitar; hard to see how that's a bad thing.

 

[kakev]

Exactly - And can he be any more smug? Plus he's the one who convinced Ol Rick to start a YT channel - Many thanks!

Smug indeed. Didnt know he's to blame about Beato utube channel. I am usually against corporal punishment. In this case I'm willing to make exception.

 

[sanhozay]

rick works hard for the money, he doesn't phone it in.

it's a gift if his base is being introduced to your work. he's celebrating you not exploiting you.

a total blessing.

 

[Eddie-Applegate]

Rick Beato
is not
a puppy

 

[MrTAteMyBalls]

39 pages now. Rick won big-time.

 

[JB Eckl]

Wow, just a ton of ignorance in this thread. Where do I start?

(1.) You don’t have to like Rick’s personality. I don’t find him annoying myself, but I could see how one might. He’s from New York, he’s not for everyone.

(2.) His big issue isn’t demonetization or giving the revenue to artists. His big issue is videos getting BLOCKED by the artists/labels who still don’t get the whole YouTube thing.

(3.) You really don’t think his channel is giving relevance and free publicity to artists? He has 3 MILLION subscribers. If he makes a viral video about your song, new or old, it’s Great news for you whether you’re Joe Schmo or Pink Floyd.

(4.) Fair use and educational content will have to be resolved eventually. Right now there seems to be no common sense rule to this. There will be eventually.

(5.) As many have stated in this thread, Rick’s enthusiasm and knowledge are genuine, whether you go for his vibe or not. He seems to truly love music, love guitar, and love teaching. Questioning his motive… well onto the last point:

(6.) Some of your hatred for these guys smacks of jealousy. You have probably personally learned or at least been entertained by Rick, or That Pedal Show, or Rhett Shull or some of these other guys, but you act like they have nothing to offer. They have worked very hard to get to this level… you probably know that.

(7.) I do agree that he posts too many rants about this topic. It’s not a good look.

 

[Twoinch]

That’s not the point- the point is that he is crying because someone asserted ownership of their intellectual property that he is trying to monetize for himself.

He is creating content. Spending huge amounts of time doing so. With lots of equipment..

He is not posting artists works in any whole form.. and rarely more than 15 unbroken...

To apply full monetization to the songwriters... And zero to the dude creating the content people are choosing to watch is idiotic...

 

[59stratocaster]

Let me ask you a simple question. If someone records and releases a piece of music, should they have some say as to where and how that recording is used?

How many times do you have to be told that when it comes to fair use the answer is no?

That's the literal point of fair use.

 

[CC Overdrive]

The same people bitching about Beato are the same people griping about pay for cover bands, all the while wondering why "hold on loosley" doesn't work like it used to.

I mean a 1985 single used in Stranger Things has made Kate Bush over a million bucks, and 3 weeks a top the UK billboard. The world is a radically different place now. Money is made in different ways now. Ffs, get over it.

 

[59stratocaster]

You can keep saying it but that does not make it so. It's just not as cut and dried as you seem to think. Just take a minute and read this. (There's lots more available and the general message is about the same)

Music Licensing: What is Considered Fair Use?

If you’re going to rely on fair use, you need to factor in how much risk you’re willing to take. Here are a few examples of fair use.

www.copyright.com

And if you don't want to bother following a ling or reading the whole piece, here's her final paragraph

"Fair use comes down to individual, specific circumstances for each use. But remember, when you use music within a company setting or for business purposes, it’s likely that your company’s use of that music requires a license."

How about instead of telling me to read about license agreements you just state outright that you think rights holders ought not to be subject to fair use if they don't agree with the usage of their material?

At least then we can have an honest conversation.

You're so unbelievably transparent you might as well save us all the time. But instead you continue to insist on doing the whole boo-hoo routine.

If Rick wants to do a video on that CD you have listed in your signature and it actually does fall under fair use (which is something we can debate, but it's not what you are debating), he can. He doesn't need to ask for your permission, or otherwise play by your imaginary rules that suite your taste. If you try and use the copyright system because you don't like it, then you are straight up in the wrong.

Deal with it.

 

[NotTheArrow]

Wow, just a ton of ignorance in this thread. Where do I start?

(1.) You don’t have to like Rick’s personality. I don’t find him annoying myself, but I could see how one might. He’s from New York, he’s not for everyone.

(2.) His big issue isn’t demonetization or giving the revenue to artists. His big issue is videos getting BLOCKED by the artists/labels who still don’t get the whole YouTube thing.

(3.) You really don’t think his channel is giving relevance and free publicity to artists? He has 3 MILLION subscribers. If he makes a viral video about your song, new or old, it’s Great news for you whether you’re Joe Schmo or Pink Floyd.

(4.) Fair use and educational content will have to be resolved eventually. Right now there seems to be no common sense rule to this. There will be eventually.

(5.) As many have stated in this thread, Rick’s enthusiasm and knowledge are genuine, whether you go for his vibe or not. He seems to truly love music, love guitar, and love teaching. Questioning his motive… well onto the last point:

(6.) Some of your hatred for these guys smacks of jealousy. You have probably personally learned or at least been entertained by Rick, or That Pedal Show, or Rhett Shull or some of these other guys, but you act like they have nothing to offer. They have worked very hard to get to this level… you probably know that.

(7.) I do agree that he posts too many rants about this topic. It’s not a good look.

I generally don't watch these guys, just a vid here and there because you guys bring it up. Otherwise, I don't care what people do, and if people enjoy what they do, cool.

 

[hunter]

It isn't just about music appreciation, obviously. But he still put in the work to make the video, so it's not unreasonable for him to make something from that. Nearly every large YouTube channel sells merch or has something like a Patreon page available that people can pay for, and these channels all get ad revenue too.

I think there's a clear difference between discussing a piece of music while playing stilted clips of audio versus simply throwing the entire original audio up in full length. If Rick were throwing up full uninterrupted tracks then it's a different story - but he isn't.

edit: as @Kurt L says above - he wrote what I was thinking more succinctly.

Try putting 15 seconds of the Who's Magic Bus in your next Greyhound commercial without permission or pay and see how you do. How often do entire songs get used in movie soundtracks? I don't think the stilted clips argument holds up as a basis for not paying for the use.

 

[hunter]

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.

If he wants to demonstrate harmony, he should do the work to demonstrate the concept. If he can't do the work, then he should pay those that did. He could also simply call out the song by name if he doesn't want to pay for use of the song.

 

[taez555]

He is creating content.

I mean... I guess it depends how you define 'content'. He's piggybacking off current trends using someone elses original content for his own economic gain.

There's no shame in it. That's how many Youtubers make a living. Same with paparazzi photographers and other vultures. It's how people make a living these days.

He knows the game. Just quit pretending to play the victim when you get caught using content you didn't create. Fair use? wahhhhhh!!!! It helps the artist? Wahhhhh!!!!!!!! Unless you created it yourself, actual original content, you know there may be consequences.

Anyway... time to go watch his newest Kate Bush video.

I'm sure Master of Puppets is coming soon.

 

[59stratocaster]

Try putting 15 seconds of the Who's Magic Bus in your next Greyhound commercial without permission or pay and see how you do. How often do entire songs get used in movie soundtracks? I don't think the stilted clips argument holds up as a basis for not paying for the use.

What is false equivalence, Alex?

The level of transformation is so different as to not even be comparable. Is this even a serious argument?

 

[hunter]

What is false equivalence, Alex?

The level of transformation is so different as to not even be comparable. Is this even a serious argument?

So you think use of content in youtube should be treated differently from content use in commercials and movies? Etc, etc.

 

[59stratocaster]

So you think use of content in youtube should be treated differently from content use in commercials and movies? Etc, etc.

What a strange question. But I'll answer anyway.

Not different because of the platform, no.

The usage is entirely different. A video discussing a song and breaking it down using clips from the song itself is at least prima facie educational and subsequentially at least a fair degree transformational while a bus commercial is clearly so fundamentally different I can't actually believe you're trying to make this comparison seriously.

 

[hunter]

What a strange question. But I'll answer anyway.

Not different because of the platform, no.

The usage is entirely different. A video discussing a song and breaking it down using clips from the song itself is at least prima facie educational and subsequentially at least a fair degree transformational while a bus commercial is clearly so fundamentally different I can't actually believe you're trying to make this comparison seriously.

I guess I fail to see it as educational or transformational. He is spicing up his vids with music others made. He can do the work himself if he wants to educate. He is doing opinion pieces. Not educating.

 

[59stratocaster]

I guess I fail to see it as educational or transformational. He is spicing up his vids with music others made. He can do the work himself if he wants to educate.

I would suggest then that you are willfully failing to see it.

If you want to argue about sufficiently transformational, fine. But you are suggesting a 30 minute video in which the form of the music is discussed for all but like 28 minutes and 30 seconds for shilling and listening, is not at all transformational? To the point where it's equivalent to a greyhound bus commercial?

That's either completely unserious or absolutely psycho.

 

[hunter]

I would suggest then that you are willfully failing to see it.

If you want to argue about sufficiently transformational, fine. But you are suggesting a 30 minute video in which the form of the music is discussed for all but like 28 minutes and 30 seconds for shilling and listening, is not at all transformational? To the point where it's equivalent to a greyhound bus commercial?

That's either completely unserious or absolutely psycho.

I pointed out that using small clips was not a basis for not getting proper permission to use the material and the post I quoted was addressing the length of the clip as determining criteria for free use. I gave examples where it was clear that just the length of the clip was not the determining factor.

As to whether it is educational or transformational, the length of the content clip used is not relevant. I think you want a different discussion. About meeting the educational transformational criteria. Good spin though.