Rick's making a pretty good point here

[p-ninety]

 

[gtrdave]

He's got a point and the "law" is on his side regarding fair use for educational purposes, but as he basically says it would be a complete waste of time trying to fight it and he'd ultimately probably lose.

 

[drewl]

Not a perfect system, but YT has basically stolen revenue streams for artists.

Only the powerful ones can reap what is owed.
Not that it's the case in this instance.

 

[guitarjazz]

Rick's hustle is pretty humorous. I was reaching for the Kleenex at the end and ready to send him my money I usually send to Jimmy Swaggert. lol
That being said ..it is ridiculous for Big Brother to try to squeeze him for playing the the melody on guitar.
I remember in the hot and heavy jingle boom in the 70's, 80's and 90's, when it was always a little dance to see how close you could come to some hit song as the bed of a jingle. The one that stands out is a back-to-school jingle we did for a department store that came a little too close to Chuck Berry's School Days. Chuck just happened to be in town, playing after an NBA game. He heard the jingle on his drive back home. That cost the ad agency 10K.

 

[Tone_Terrific]

Rick's point of fair use for learning purposes seems like it should hold up under legal scrutiny.
HOWEVER, he would have had no song to use, and likewise no channel, was he not able to mine previously written and recorded hits of others.

He could very well have written his own melody to demo modes, but it is much easier and relatable to use a pop standard.

If we are going to make or keep music for private financial benefit it has to stop being free.
Make your own music or pay someone to write and perform it for you.
The copyright process seems to be at least a century out of date.
I'm not even sure if it really addresses the use of radio to reach a much larger audience than any live concert ever could, let alone all the recording formats and now digital transmission.
When we want to hear music we really should all saunter down to the pub and sing along with the band.
That's where copyright infractions could be enforced, like if you were using sheet music that you had not purchased from the composer.
There is no real current system that is equitable.

 

[BallisticGuitars]

I laugh when I see 'Tubers rant and rave over something YouTube has done to them, as if they didn't give up all inkling of rights and entitlement related to their content when they created their YouTube account. YouTube, Instagram, etc. are platforms that cost you nothing to join, pay you for your content, and don't give a damn about your feelings. You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have.....

 

[Bluzeboy]

He's got a point and the "law" is on his side regarding fair use for educational purposes,

Not so sure about that.
My limited understanding of “fair use for educational purposes “ is non commercial instruction..
Skating on thin ice as they do realize monies from the instruction presentation.
That said, he got caught and is now whining. Just stop it.

 

[rickcard71]

That is BS. Rick agrees with Rick.

 

[bainmack]

too bad we can't find an alternative to YouTube. That monopoly is going to last for a while

 

[mikebat]

If only there was money left in the music business that they could not be scratching the bottom of the kitchen drawers looking for spare change.

 

[Neverwhere]

too bad we can't find an alternative to YouTube. That monopoly is going to last for a while

If ever, IIRC youtube still operates at a loss (maybe that has changed recently?), perhaps it's kept around in order to exert control over independent media creators and this will pay dividends down the line through connected interests/corps through pushing agendas, controlling narratives and social engineering.

 

[Dasein]

Not so sure about that.
My limited understanding of “fair use for educational purposes “ is non commercial instruction..
Skating on thin ice as they do realize monies from the instruction presentation.
That said, he got caught and is now whining. Just stop it.

Not correct. In fact you could argue that his WMTSG videos are fair use as well....

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.​

Tipping the balance means slam dunk win for fair use -- otherwise fair use is more open to adjudication - but "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" are all valid fair uses in general - the non profit part is an instruction to jurists and adjudicators on where to apply most weight.

 

[GuitarMakerNyc]

He's got a point and the "law" is on his side regarding fair use for educational purposes, but as he basically says it would be a complete waste of time trying to fight it and he'd ultimately probably lose.

How is it fair use? RB makes his living from his channel, it's not a school or a 501c3 corporation. Why should copyright not apply to his model?

 

[Dasein]

How is it fair use? RB makes his living from his channel, it's not a school or a 501c3 corporation. Why should copyright not apply to his model?

because Fair Use does not require it as such - see above.

 

[Tone_Terrific]

The irony that somebody in the music biz is ripping off somebody in the music biz who is benefitting from the music biz provided by others in the music biz seems to be lost.
Monetization is a self-consuming beast.

 

[FiestaRed]

If he plays the melody as a teaching portion of the video, and is making money from subscribers or advertisers with the video -- is that fair use? I guess that's the main issue here?

 

[TheMemoryEstate]

Who’s got a better hair dresser than the big wigs

 

[soundchaser59]

How is it fair use? RB makes his living from his channel, it's not a school or a 501c3 corporation. Why should copyright not apply to his model?

I find that extremely debateable. Rick Beato doesn't need that YouTube channel to pay his bills.

 

[FPFL]

YouTube does not operate at a loss.
They'd have killed it a long time ago if it was a loss.
Google is well known, in tech circles, for killing unprofitable or unsuccessful platforms.
YT is another advertising platform. One that they make money on.

How they report earnings, in what buckets, versus are they actually losing money on it, is another matter. For a long time it was obfuscated in reports so there is understandable confusion as to exactly how much, etc.

All that said, it's not a charity. Don't believe for a second it is.

 

[splatt]

Rick Beato doesn't need that YouTube channel to pay his bills.

not disingenuous questions, here:
1) why not?, and
2) how do you know that?