Rick Beato is not happy

[Jim Soloway]

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.

This. And he does it without asking for permission from the rights older.

 

[Jim Soloway]

I’m shocked how many people dislike this guy. I love his channel.

I don’t see why his argument is so bad. He’s not playing full length clips of the songs. If he does play the full song, it’s over 30 minutes with analysis of the instruments and tracks. Is it really fair that all the money from that video is demonetized just because it has a portion of the song in there? I’m not saying he should get it all, but a split would make sense, no?

If I sell your guitar without your permission will you split the proceeds with me?

 

[gigsup]

How dare they? He was only trying to expand these bands' listenership!

Yet... here is the video itself, embedded on this website, fronting your viewpoint.

You see how this works?

The whole premise is such a mind f--k.

 

[jojobean39]

If I sell your guitar without your permission will you split the proceeds with me?

Lol. Not quite the same.

How exactly is he taking money away from the artist? That’s a genuine question. Maybe I’m missing something.

My point was, I think the artist should be paid, but not for the entirety of the video.

 

[InkStained]

Sinner!!!

Outcast unclean.

I like Rick. I don't hang on his every video, but he's OK.

 

[mattmccloskey]

This. And he does it without asking for permission from the rights older.

From what I’ve read on the topic, in accordance with fair use doctrine, he doesn’t have to. Just like I’m not required to get permission from the composer to play a recording to my class and analyze a transcription.
Likewise, a writer engaged in literary criticism is allowed to reprint an excerpt of a novel without permission of the author, for the sake of that criticism.
It only violates fair use if the reproduction somehow hinders the sale of the original work.

 

[Manny Scott]

Apparently YT believes that they do in fact have that right. Rick knows that full well. The reason he posts those bitchin' videos is for click-bait to draw gullible viewers in to make money to replace the free money he was making off other people's IP until it was yanked.

Spot on…..

 

[tktk]

I think I know what you’re referring to and in that case he was talking about his “What makes this song great” series. When it comes to those videos he doesn’t claim fair use and accepts the copyright claims (though he rants when they get blocked).

I don't think so.

 

[Horace S. Aars]

I’m pretty sure YouTube, as a private company, isn’t bound to any “fair use doctrine”.

I think they can establish their own stricter policy. They couldn’t get too loose with intellectual property without opening themselves to litigation, but I think they are perfectly within their rights to tighten the rules as much as they want to cover their own assets.

Beato is perfectly aware of their policy judging by his biannual tantrum show special where he gets to whine freely to his amassed minions to make up for the cash deficit, so no real harm done.

 

[morganjj]

While this is a Rick thread, let me outline why I loathe his "What makes this song great," series.

Universally, he goes through and describes the song mechanically - "This is a I, vii, V" "Here they add a synth," etc etc. None of that has anything to do with what makes a song great.

All he ever does is an autopsy, lifting organs out one at a time and then purporting to understand the thoughts, passions and feelings of the corpse on the table without every having actually engaged with them.

Here's an exercise in contrast from Bowie - he actually knows why the Pixies are great and can articulate it. He speaks to their influence on the moment, the stagecraft, the message and genuinely explains why they're important and influential in 3 minutes. Half an hour of Beato and you'll know what chords they used but never understand anything about why it matters.

That's Beato all the way. Anatomy without insight, description without meaning.

 

[firehawkkwah]

Some of Rick's videos are great, and I think he's a really great technical musician with some fantastic insight into songwriting, history, music theory, etc.
I'd love to have him produce my band, I'll bet in one day be could make our songs suck less. Ha.

But he's into the "just create content" trap, same as the 24x7 news channels.

He has some good stuff, but the drive to push new videos all the time is unsustainable.

 

[A-Bone]

From what I’ve read on the topic, in accordance with fair use doctrine, he doesn’t have to. Just like I’m not required to get permission from the composer to play a recording to my class and analyze a transcription.
Likewise, a writer engaged in literary criticism is allowed to reprint an excerpt of a novel without permission of the author, for the sake of that criticism.
It only violates fair use if the reproduction somehow hinders the sale of the original work.

Fair use is generally not cut and dry, but a multi-factor,* fact-specific-determined affirmative legal defense to the claim of infringement. In this case, unlike in an in-person classroom setting, there's the complication of publication. Plus, Beato is using his videos for commercial purposes.

*1. The purpose and character of the use: including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work treated as a whole.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for (or value of) the copyrighted work.

 

[mattmccloskey]

Fair use is generally not cut and dry, but a multi-factorial,* fact-specific-determined affirmative legal defense to the claim of infringement. In this case, unlike in an in-person classroom setting, there's the complication of publication. Plus, Beato is using his videos for commercial purposes.

*1. The purpose and character of the use: including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work treated as a whole.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for (or value of) the copyrighted work.

Yeah, I understand that, the classroom example is an easier case to make. But isn’t it also fair use if, for example, I write a critique of “Novel X”, which includes excerpts, and publish it in the New York Times, while being paid for the work, and the Times selling newspapers?
Obviously every case is specific, but isn’t Beato doing something similar, excerpts with commentary and analysis? (I’m not terribly familiar with his videos as I’m not particularly interested, but this is my understanding of what he does).

 

[riker4208]

He's doing God's work and no one gets it!

 

[mattmccloskey]

I’m pretty sure YouTube, as a private company, isn’t bound to any “fair use doctrine”.

I think they can establish their own stricter policy. They couldn’t get too loose with intellectual property without opening themselves to litigation, but I think they are perfectly within their rights to tighten the rules as much as they want to cover their own assets.

Beato is perfectly aware of their policy judging by his biannual tantrum show special where he gets to whine freely to his amassed minions to make up for the cash deficit, so no real harm done.

Well on that point sure, I was more thinking big picture in terms of copyright law.

 

[BlueRiff]

"Now, this video, is a promotional video for theses songs! Because the whole idea of making these videos is to bring people in and then expose them to artists they hadnt heard before."



He monetizes his vids. To make money for himself.

Is it possible for him to do both?

 

[A-Bone]

Yeah, I understand that, the classroom example is an easier case to make. But isn’t it also fair use if, for example, I write a critique of “Novel X”, which includes excerpts, and publish it in the New York Times, while being paid for the work, and the Times selling newspapers?
Obviously every case is specific, but it’s Beato doing something similar, excerpts with commentary and analysis? (I’m not terribly familiar with his videos as I’m not particularly interested, but this is my understanding of what he does).

Criticism is covered by fair use (along with comment, news reporting, classroom teaching, research, and scholarship), although it remains an affirmative defense, so there's a certain amount of depending on the rights holder accepting from the outset that a given use is fair or raising the defense in a legal case that follows. There's a great deal of precedent for what the Times is doing when it publishes criticism that includes otherwise copyrighted material, but I'm not so sure that's true for what Beato's involved in.

 

[Apheliongod]

He's too much. I personally find him on level with the music is win guy...

This

 

[ratedepth]

Supposedly he's a producer/engineer? Imagine hiring this guy to record your album. It'd be like paying Cliff Clavin to record you.

 

[prsjcm]

I am glad I don't watch any of this BS. Too many people talking too much about nothing.