Rick Beato is not happy

[teledude55]

that guy earns a living off of other people's music and he expects to get the privilege to use whatever he wants for free... what a d-bag.

every other Youtuber has to be very careful no copyrighted music is in their videos, but Rick is GOD, and can do whatever he wants

 

[Bluesful]

The dude just doesn't get it, does he?

 

[Jim Soloway]

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.

I agree but he never offered to pay them. He just used their music in a monetized video without consent. That's what makes it the same. The recording is theirs. They have the right to control how it's used. He took that right away from them.

 

[nnnnnn]

“The whole idea was to bring exposure to these songs”

Bull****. The whole idea was to get clicks and make money. I didn’t know anything about the guy before, but this is all I needed to know. He’s no better than the venue owners who don’t want to pay the bands they book for gigs.

If he's providing a thorough analysis of a particular song, using excerpts as appropriate and not just playing the song in full, then that should come under academic fair use, and it is reasonable that he also earn money from it - I don't expect teachers to work for free.

But if education is what he's doing then that should be the argument be makes for fair use, not claims about "bringing exposure" to the band.

I've seen a couple of his "what makes this song great" videos, and they seemed pretty superficial. There are much better song analysis videos on 12Tone's YouTube channel, or Adam Neely's.

 

[Guru Meditation]

Cherchez la...plata

 

[subst0]

Can we be done with this? Every few months Beato puts up a rant video...some posters bag on him, some support him....and his viewership increases each time.

Is it even slightly entertaining or educational at this point?

Yep, he periodically makes these videos even though he knows why it happened. I don't see the point of him needing to make yet another one of these rant videos

I think Beato would be better off making “in the style of” instructional videos that demonstrate how different artists construct and engineer their music, as opposed to dissecting individual songs. He might not get as many clicks, but he’d avoid copyright issues, and he could easily use these kinds of instructional videos to advertise additional material for purchase.

Guitar magazines would do this if they didn't have the permission or rights of the actual material. He should do the same. He won't, because using the actual songs draws more viewers and he wants the clicks. A lot of YT content creators (this includes non-music related content) feel they don't have to follow rules that other mediums have had to follow for decades. He's old enough to know this and does know this, so I always find his complaint videos to be nothing but trying to get views.

 

[Stressfest]

All hail Beato, king of the muppets.

 

[Jim Soloway]

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.

I don't believe it's nearly as cut and dried as that, especially when we're talking about the recording rather than the composition. Beato even acknowledged that when he said that he recorded excerpts of two of the songs on his acoustic rather than use the recordings because he knew those would be problematic. He could have done that with all of them but it was easier to use the recordings ... and 20 seconds is a substantial chunk of recorded music. Beato has built a very successful business that generates a substantial amount of revenue. At least some of that business owes it's success to the unauthorized use of other people's recordings. I doubt if that's what the courts had in mind when they ruled on the topic. When the supreme court ruled on the fair use doctrine, Justice Souter explained in the Court opinion that “The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.” I don't think that it's certain by any means which side of the line Beato's videos would fall on but I would hope that since he's using the recordings to generate revenue, he would at least have to share that revenue with the content providers without whom he would not have that content to sell.

 

[12TameMen]

In his Top 20 Odd Time Meter video he states right up front that each song clip is about 10 seconds long.

HE'S STEALING THE RIGHTS TO THE BAND'S MUSIC!!!!!!

or

He's using very brief examples that probably more times than not acts to remind the listener of band/song in the first place.

EVERY Top 20 video of his I watch I'm reminded of at least 1 forgotten gem from my past. What's the big bad harm here???

ridiculous

 

[mattmccloskey]

I agree but he never offered to pay them. He just used their music in a monetized video without consent. That's what makes it the same. The recording is theirs. They have the right to control how it's used. He took that right away from them.

The copyright owner has some right to decide how it is used, they certainly don’t have unlimited right to how it is used. They cannot walk into a classroom and demand payment and/or block use if a teacher is playing the music for educational purposes.
Now whether Beato’s purpose is educational or not, or if it can fall under fair use, could be debated, and would ultimately have to be determined in court, but I don’t think it’s that cut and dry.

 

[mattmccloskey]

I don't believe it's nearly as cut and dried as that, especially when we're talking about the recording rather than the composition. Beato even acknowledged that when he said that he recorded excerpts of two of the songs on his acoustic rather than use the recordings because he knew those would be problematic. He could have done that with all of them but it was easier to use the recordings ... and 20 seconds is a substantial chunk of recorded music. Beato has built a very successful business that generates a substantial amount of revenue. At least some of that business owes it's success to the unauthorized use of other people's recordings. I doubt if that's what the courts had in mind when they ruled on the topic. When the supreme court ruled on the fair use doctrine, Justice Souter explained in the Court opinion that “The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.” I don't think that it's certain by any means which side of the line Beato's videos would fall on but I would hope that since he's using the recordings to generate revenue, he would at least have to share that revenue with the content providers without whom he would not have that content to sell.

Looks like we were typing at the same time! Yes I think it would have to be decided in court.

 

[Rollie1983]

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.

A few things to keep in mind from an intellectual property perspective. There's the rights to the song, and additionally the rights to that specific recording of that song. The publishing and recording rights could be owned by two different entities. Some of his videos use excerpts of original well known recordings, and aren't just him playing the song examples on a piano or guitar which sets up additional opportunities for a rights holder to file a claim.

Working previously in intellectual property I've heard this debate for years about how sharing music is helping promote the artist, and it's a shame people still don't understand how it works. If I own a song the burden of proof is on you to prove it's fair use. Even if it is technically fair use, I can file a claim and make you prove it in court. Philosophically you can debate this but legally the property owner decides how its used. If you use someone else's work it doesn't matter if the impact is positive or negative, all that matters legally is that you got permission from the owner first.

 

[Fuzz_Mountain]

Holy hell he’s still going on about this?

 

[johnnyjj]

So if I start a new YouTube channel (called Rick Beats It) which simply reuploads every Beato episode (with a quick to-camera intro and bookend commentary from me), can I retort in my defence (when Beato inevitably files a claim against me to YouTube) that I'm simply increasing the exposure of Beato to a new audience?

 

[PatrickE_FenderADV]

Wait… haven’t we done this thread a few times before?

 

[geezberry]

Beato has himself in a bind. He's brilliant when it comes to music theory but continually gets demonitized when he tries to explain famous songs. He's a great guitarist though

 

[sashavie]

There are plenty of music instruction channels out there that have learned to live with and/or avoid copyright strikes altogether. And probably a few out there that have their gripes about the copyright system.

The difference is, they don't make entire videos about it.

Yes, the copyright system in the US and globally needs some reform, but making entire videos complaining about it is simply a bad look.

Especially when you are the only one really making these "I got copyright strikes again" and you're one of the biggest music youtube channels out there.

Channels at his level have a direct line to Youtube product managers. From what I know, the big channels once they hit certain metrics, eventually get a specific Youtube manager assigned to them as a primary contact for any issues. He also worked in the music business prior - he has contacts or can find ways to get a hold of the publishers to discuss.

Again, the copyright system needs reform. I don't know if he's being disingenuous or not (generating outrage for clicks) or he's just angry and impulsive and decided to do it, but the fact that you don't have other big music youtubers rallying around him publicly to me suggests that many of his youtube peers don't see him nor want him to be the spokesperson for the cause.

(Aside: I got a copyright strike this past week on Instagram for uploading MY OWN ORIGINAL MUSIC to my own account hahaha so I know how frustrating and broken the system can be online).

 

[12TameMen]

So if I start a new YouTube channel (called Rick Beats It) which simply reuploads every Beato episode (with a quick to-camera intro and bookend commentary from me), can I retort in my defence (when Beato inevitably files a claim against me to YouTube) that I'm simply increasing the exposure of Beato to a new audience?

No. But you can play brief 10 seconds clips of each of his Top 20s. Kind of like a preview.

That's apples to apples.

Like him or not, Beato is famous. He's not only got a decades old very respectful pro resume, personally knows a who's who of famous players, and has 3 million subscribers, - his vids average around 1/4 million views each.

Unless you are a Queen, Zeppelin, Beatles, etc., Rick playing brief clips of your music is pretty incredible free exposure, or maybe for older stuff, a re-exposure.

When was the last time 250,000,000 random folks were reminded of that killer Elliot Easton riff from "Just What I Needed"? - for example.

I swear, some folks wake up in the morning looking for sh*t to b*tch about.

 

[ShortintheSleeve78]

In his Top 20 Odd Time Meter video he states right up front that each song clip is about 10 seconds long.

HE'S STEALING THE RIGHTS TO THE BAND'S MUSIC!!!!!!

or

He's using very brief examples that probably more times than not acts to remind the listener of band/song in the first place.

EVERY Top 20 video of his I watch I'm reminded of at least 1 forgotten gem from my past. What's the big bad harm here???

ridiculous

Don't know why he ever would, but I'd be happy for him to use a 10-20 second clip of one of our songs in one of his popular videos, even if it were titled "Bands That Should Stop Making Music." It would expose more people to our music than all our YT plays combined.

 

[Horace S. Aars]

Looks like we were typing at the same time! Yes I think it would have to be decided in court.

And that is something YouTube wants no part of, so they call it. Fair use is not some irrevocable god given right that YouTube must grant to its users, it is a legal argument that they do not care to test. Their site, their call.

Edit: if Beato wants to test it he can sue YouTube — problem solved.