I have to say I disagree with Rick Beato about this one major issue
| hebraic dreams | 08/03/25 | | Metal Up Your Ass | 08/03/25 | | hebraic dreams | 08/03/25 | | ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,. | 08/03/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 3rd, 2025 3:51 AM Author: Metal Up Your Ass
I was thinking something very similar after watching the latest video about this.
It's an imperfect system (one I don't know 100%) but it's entirely under his control whether he gets affected by it.
Now, I do believe that what he does in his videos when breaking down recordings or analyzing musical compositions is totally fair use and no one should be able to prevent him from using the material, monetization or not.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2#49152308) |
 |
Date: August 3rd, 2025 4:20 AM Author: hebraic dreams (hatp)
The only thing he's bitching about is not getting paid for profiting off the work of others. Back in the era before the internet, random music teachers used to publish guitar tabs of famous songs but they had to change them enough that they weren't quite exactly like the riffs in the famous songs. They would say here's a riff that resembles the famous riff to Back in Black or something. They would change it just enough to not get sued.
If you put out a book for sale that had the exact guitar riff to Back in Black why would you be able to sell that for profit? It's the same concept. You would get sued.
It's the same what Beato is doing. Sure, make a video showing exactly how to play a famous song. But the copyright holder gets to submit the content ID claim to YouTube and collect all the money from that video. Rick is 100% wrong here.
I've never heard Anthony Fantano play a clip from a famous song in his review. The only examples of fair use in criticism I can think of is when people do movie reviews and there's a few seconds of a film clip in the middle of the review. But I think there's some really fleshed out law on that. It's limited to a certain number of seconds and the movie is obviously over an hour long.
Rick's point is obviously wrong that it's just criticism. If it were criticism he'd be reviewing the song and giving his opinion. Instead he just goes, this song is awesome. *plays song*. He feels entitled to use the content because he is correct that his videos would not be as impactful and exciting without the use of someone else's copywritten material. He is profiting off the work of others. Fantano just holds up an album cover and gives his opinion. It's much more honorable. Rick is grifting hard. Make whatever video you want but don't complain about demonetization when your popularity depends on the work of others. Copyright law has always been this way he just thinks he's different because he's a big YouTuber. He's being an absurd Boomer booming.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2#49152317) |
Date: August 3rd, 2025 3:58 AM
Author: ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,.
copyrights should expire after 17 years like they used to do.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5757603&forum_id=2#49152309) |
|
|