Rick Beato vs UMG: Fighting Copyright Claims Over Music Clips on YouTube (savingcountrymusic.com) 97
In 2017 Rick Beato streamed "Rick's Rant Episode 2" — and just received a copyright claim this month. And days after jazz pianist Chick Corea died in 2021, Beato livestreamed a half-hour video which was mostly commentary, but with several excerpts from Corea's albums (at least one more than three minutes long). He also received a copyright claim for that one this August — just minutes after the claim on his 2017 video.
These videos "are all fair use," Beato argues in a new video, noting it's also affected other popular YouTube channels like The Professor of Rock: Rick Beato: Universal Music Group [UMG] has continued to send emails about copyright content ID claims — and now copyright strikes — on my channel. As a matter of fact, I have three shorts — these are under a minute long — that if they go through in the next four days, I'll have three strikes on my channel! Now if you don't fight these things, those three strikes would actually remove my channel from YouTube.
Five months ago Rick Beato had posted a clip from his interview with singer-songwriter Adam Duritz (founder of The Counting Crows) on YouTube. After 250,000 views, he'd earned a whopping $36.52 — and then Universal Music Group also claimed that video violated their copyright. (In the background the video played Duritz's song as he described how he wrote it.) "So they're gonna take my channel down over less than a hundred bucks — for using a small segment from an interview with him, on a song he sang on," Beato complained on YouTube. "That video is 55 seconds long!"
"You need to play people's music to talk about it," Beato argues. "That is the definition of fair use. These are interviews with the people about their careers." (And the interviews actually help promote the artists for the record labels...) Rick Beato: The next one has me in it — it's an Olivia Rodrigo song — that I played maybe 10 seconds of the song on, and the short is 42 seconds long. Who did it? UMG. The third copyright strike is from a Hans Zimmer short. It's also UMG — it's from the Crimson Tide soundtrack.
Now, what do these things say...? "Your video is scheduled to be removed in four days and your channel will get a copyright strike due to a removal request from a claimant. If you delete your video before then, your channel won't get a copyright strike." [And there's also emails like "After reviewing your dispute, UMG has decided that their copyright claim is still valid..."] I've had probably 4,000 claims, over the last 9 years — from things that are fair use. [When he interviewed producer Rick Rubin, that video got 13 separate copyright claims.]
That's when I hired a lawyer to fight these. [Full-time, Beato says later.] And what he's done is he fought every single claim... We have successfully fought thousands of these now. But it literally costs me so much money to do this. Since we've been fighting these things — and never lost one — they still keep coming in... They're all Universal Music Group. So they obviously have hired some third party company, that are dredging up things, they're looking for things that haven't been claimed in the past — they're taking videos from seven or eight years ago!
Slashdot reader MrBrklyn (Slashdot reader #4,775) writes on the "New York's Linux Scene" site that video bloggers like Beato "have been hounded by copyright pirates like UMG," arguing that new videos of support are a "rebellion gaining traction". (Beato's video drew 1,369,859 views — and attracted 24,605 Comments — along with videos of support from professional musicians like drummer Anthony Edwards, guitarist Justin Hawkins, and bassist Scot Lade, as well as two different professional music attorneys.)
"Since there's rarely humans making any of these decisions and it's automated by bots, they don't understand these claims are against Universal Music's best interests," argues the long-running blog Saving Country Music (first appearing on MySpace in 2008). On YouTube videos, creators can freely filch copyrighted photos and other people's videos virtually free of ramifications. You can take an entire 2 1/2 hour film, impose it over a background, and upload it to YouTube, and usually avoid any problems. But feature a barely audible 8 1/2-second clip of music underneath audio dialogue, and you could have your entire podcast career evaporate overnight... People continue to ask, "Why doesn't Saving Country Music has a podcast?" Because what's the point of having a music podcast when you can't feature music? In fact, after over a decade of refusing to start one, I finally did, music free. What happened? About a dozen episodes in, someone took out a claim, and not only were all the episodes deleted, so was the entire account, even though no music even appeared on any of the episodes. I was given absolutely no recourse to fight whatever false claim had been made...
The music industry continues to so colossal fail the artists and catalogs they represent, and the fans they're supposed to serve with this current system of how podcasts are handled. If everything changes today thanks to the Rick Beato rant, it would still be 15 years too late. But at least it would happen.
Instead, they write, "Music labels have been leaving major opportunities to promote their catalogs and performers on the table with their punitive copyright claims that make it impossible to feature music on music podcasts and other platforms...
"You aren't screwing podcasters. You're screwing artists who could be using podcasts to help promote their music. "
These videos "are all fair use," Beato argues in a new video, noting it's also affected other popular YouTube channels like The Professor of Rock: Rick Beato: Universal Music Group [UMG] has continued to send emails about copyright content ID claims — and now copyright strikes — on my channel. As a matter of fact, I have three shorts — these are under a minute long — that if they go through in the next four days, I'll have three strikes on my channel! Now if you don't fight these things, those three strikes would actually remove my channel from YouTube.
Five months ago Rick Beato had posted a clip from his interview with singer-songwriter Adam Duritz (founder of The Counting Crows) on YouTube. After 250,000 views, he'd earned a whopping $36.52 — and then Universal Music Group also claimed that video violated their copyright. (In the background the video played Duritz's song as he described how he wrote it.) "So they're gonna take my channel down over less than a hundred bucks — for using a small segment from an interview with him, on a song he sang on," Beato complained on YouTube. "That video is 55 seconds long!"
"You need to play people's music to talk about it," Beato argues. "That is the definition of fair use. These are interviews with the people about their careers." (And the interviews actually help promote the artists for the record labels...) Rick Beato: The next one has me in it — it's an Olivia Rodrigo song — that I played maybe 10 seconds of the song on, and the short is 42 seconds long. Who did it? UMG. The third copyright strike is from a Hans Zimmer short. It's also UMG — it's from the Crimson Tide soundtrack.
Now, what do these things say...? "Your video is scheduled to be removed in four days and your channel will get a copyright strike due to a removal request from a claimant. If you delete your video before then, your channel won't get a copyright strike." [And there's also emails like "After reviewing your dispute, UMG has decided that their copyright claim is still valid..."] I've had probably 4,000 claims, over the last 9 years — from things that are fair use. [When he interviewed producer Rick Rubin, that video got 13 separate copyright claims.]
That's when I hired a lawyer to fight these. [Full-time, Beato says later.] And what he's done is he fought every single claim... We have successfully fought thousands of these now. But it literally costs me so much money to do this. Since we've been fighting these things — and never lost one — they still keep coming in... They're all Universal Music Group. So they obviously have hired some third party company, that are dredging up things, they're looking for things that haven't been claimed in the past — they're taking videos from seven or eight years ago!
Slashdot reader MrBrklyn (Slashdot reader #4,775) writes on the "New York's Linux Scene" site that video bloggers like Beato "have been hounded by copyright pirates like UMG," arguing that new videos of support are a "rebellion gaining traction". (Beato's video drew 1,369,859 views — and attracted 24,605 Comments — along with videos of support from professional musicians like drummer Anthony Edwards, guitarist Justin Hawkins, and bassist Scot Lade, as well as two different professional music attorneys.)
"Since there's rarely humans making any of these decisions and it's automated by bots, they don't understand these claims are against Universal Music's best interests," argues the long-running blog Saving Country Music (first appearing on MySpace in 2008). On YouTube videos, creators can freely filch copyrighted photos and other people's videos virtually free of ramifications. You can take an entire 2 1/2 hour film, impose it over a background, and upload it to YouTube, and usually avoid any problems. But feature a barely audible 8 1/2-second clip of music underneath audio dialogue, and you could have your entire podcast career evaporate overnight... People continue to ask, "Why doesn't Saving Country Music has a podcast?" Because what's the point of having a music podcast when you can't feature music? In fact, after over a decade of refusing to start one, I finally did, music free. What happened? About a dozen episodes in, someone took out a claim, and not only were all the episodes deleted, so was the entire account, even though no music even appeared on any of the episodes. I was given absolutely no recourse to fight whatever false claim had been made...
The music industry continues to so colossal fail the artists and catalogs they represent, and the fans they're supposed to serve with this current system of how podcasts are handled. If everything changes today thanks to the Rick Beato rant, it would still be 15 years too late. But at least it would happen.
Instead, they write, "Music labels have been leaving major opportunities to promote their catalogs and performers on the table with their punitive copyright claims that make it impossible to feature music on music podcasts and other platforms...
"You aren't screwing podcasters. You're screwing artists who could be using podcasts to help promote their music. "
Record companies are... (Score:4, Informative)
...dinosaurs that need to die
Google is the dinosaur (Score:4)
YouTube routinely removes legal content because it was flagged by someone. This goes far beyond DMCA responses. Google is actively eroding content on the internet. That is convenient for their business model of indexing new stuff to serve up to mobile users with the attention span of goldfish on Pervitin.
As the article states, the problem here is that these big labels use third-party companies for copyright enforcement, and those companies are using AI to find near-matches to copyrighted material. Having dealt with some of these in the past, it seems their model is to file tens of thousands of DMCAs, resulting in a lot of work for other people to respond. Anyone who does not respond has his stuff deleted, so these companies can claim a victory and show that to their employers, who are very concerned with the metrics.
Re: Google is the dinosaur (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA was written by the Music and Movie Industry and brought with their lobbying money. So there a fat chance since the public is apathetic.
Re: (Score:1)
that's all this guy is about. playing other people's music and doing commentary on them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that's all this guy is about. playing other people's music and doing commentary on them.
How is that different from your math teacher. All he does is discuss other peoples math thearums and does commentary on them.
It is also true about peer reviews of medical studies, and every other field.
Do you realize how stupid this sounds?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You really could have taken a whopping two minutes to read the entire story. You might learn something in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Hé could have spent less and have read the summary, which also talks about a music free podcast that got claimed.
god you are retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
You saw that this MUSIC PRODUCER is doing interviews with MUSICIANS and PRODUCERS about the specific song snippets he is playing? How the fuck is the interviewee, let alone the audience, going to know what the fuck the interviewer is talking about if they can't hear a snippet of the music? Unless it's a question the interviewee has been asked a million times, he needs to hear what the question is about.
Second, this is as clear a case of "fair use" as ever existed, he's not just doing review and commentary, he's asking THE LITERAL MUSICIAN WHO MADE IT about the music. It's only increasing the value of the music by effectively advertising the recording. You know, in the same way that when Matt Damon appears on a late night talk show to talk about his movie it is done for the specific purpose of making people interested in seeing the movie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It's not difficult (for law abiding citizens).
Duh! Ever hear of "fair use"? It's actually legal. All these copyright strikes have been reversed because they are without merit, however he has to pay a lawyer full-time to reply to them all.
Re: god you are retarded (Score:2)
"There is no "crime" here, you actual retard."
Hey, guy's from Boston, so he's "retaaaaaded".
Re:Don't use the music (Score:4, Informative)
They literally are the world's biggest music conglomerate and own roughly 1/3 of the global music recording copyrights. Sony and Warner own huge chunks, as well, but Universal goes after content creators trying to bully them into signing over their content rights, even though it is fair use (and they've ALWAYS lost in the courts). What's interesting to me is, they've also gone after the original artist singing the song, which is totally not their right as all. Lyrics are published via BMI or ASCAP or some similar agency and anyone can interpret them, as long as done in a place with a license to perform them.
So my point is, the creators would have to give up at least 1/3 of their global content, and it is probably closer to 50-60% of US content. Break this bitch up, Congress.
Re:Don't use the music (Score:5, Informative)
They literally are the world's biggest music conglomerate and own roughly 1/3 of the global music recording copyrights. Sony and Warner own huge chunks, as well, but Universal goes after content creators trying to bully them into signing over their content rights, even though it is fair use (and they've ALWAYS lost in the courts).
Meanwhile, Sony and Warner-Chappell constantly file false music match claims against orchestras performing public domain music, claiming that the recordings are theirs.
So UMG might be the worst offender, but none of the major record companies are innocent of using false or questionable copyright claims in a manner that the law never intended.
The only thing that's going to stop it is a class action lawyer filing a multi-billion-dollar class action on behalf of tens of thousands of content creators, naming a terrifying number of codefendants, and taking it all the way to SCOTUS.
Re:Don't use the music (Score:4, Funny)
My favorite so far was a copyright claim against a video that had a bird singing (an actual wild bird). Apparently they thought the BIRD was violating their copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite so far was a copyright claim against a video that had a bird singing (an actual wild bird). Apparently they thought the BIRD was violating their copyright.
My favorite was a roughly thirty-second section of near absolute silence with someone walking up to the lectern during a church service. Apparently, one of those companies (I forget which) thought that nothing was violating their copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, that is the only ACTUAL theft taking place in the whole copyright war. Unlike the music fan sailing under the Jolly Roger, the labels actually deprive the copyright holders of something when they file false claims.
Re:Don't use the music (Score:5, Informative)
You don't seem to understand the copyright system and fair use. It was set up to give creators a temporary monopoly to reward their work while ensuring that, after a reasonable time, society gains free access to those works. Fair use allows limited uses like commentary, criticism, or analysis (such as breaking down a song’s structure) even before copyright expires.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part in the summary where someone tried that and got struck anyway?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Mostly (Score:3)
Rick is super knowledgeable (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been watching Rick's channel for a few years and enjoy his content. The videos I find interesting is when he takes a multi track recording and plays each individual track and explains what you're hearing and how it was done. Some good examples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
His tour of Abbey Road Studios is also worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for sharing. It's fun to have all these neat aesthetic features pointed out, though I'm not sure how far it actually goes to answer the question, "What makes this song great?" I've wondered what makes musical beauty since I studied harmony and learned the "Bach" rules of chords, but aesthetics resist explanation. (I can follow Bach's rules and not sound good like Bach.)
I love Seal's story of composing the Kissed by a Rose melody mostly as an experiment in trying to use a digital instrument he'd been
Re:Rick is super knowledgeable (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect a lot of the "what makes it great" you'd probably need to be a musician to understand. Rick tends to deep dive on the theory behind songs (His primary 'gimmick' is that he's a music educator who used to be a prominent record studio producer) and I've learned a lot about how artists use various musical techniques and theories to build those songs. Granted amongst my many hats I used to teach music I already knew most of the theory, but its interesting seeing it taken out of its usual pedagogical context of "heres how to do modal improvisation in jazz" or "heres how to do counterpoint when writing baroque style classical" into a pop/rock context to see how popular artists use those techniques.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds fun, especially about counterpoint in a pop/modern context. I followed him, so hopefully youtube will start to put his videos in my feed. Too bad I have no control over the algorithm, so I may see none of his old videos.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to dig deep into his catalogue to find that. Due to all the copyright strikes, he doesnt really do the "what makes this song great" stuff much anyore. But theres *tonnes* of music theory vids in those archives
Counter-sue UMG (Score:3, Interesting)
IMNAL, but how about filing counter-suits for each failed DMCA take-down attempt, citing "tortious interference" or "restraint of trade"?
At the very least, it should be possible to question their adherence to the "good faith" requirement, especially if discovery reveals the degree of automation in their DMCA process.
Hell, having "...successfully fought thousands of these" suggests there's no good faith in the process whatsoever (quelle surprise!).
Or even... (Score:2)
...use the "small claims court" process to recover your legal fees - one claim for each successful defence.
Re: (Score:2)
Also not a lawyer, but have been doing much legal research for other reasons.
In the US, the legal system adheres to "The American Rule" which means each litigant pays for their own lawyers. Obviously extremely unfair when a multi-billion corporation goes against a single non-wealthy person. You'd wish the lawmakers would do something about these insane unfair and unbalanced cases.
However, you can search "American Rule exceptions" and find out reasons you might be able to sue for and recover legal fees.
As wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that is not true. try reading the DMCA and consult a lawyer.
Re: (Score:1)
But its Alphabet/Google/Youtube that's the 'copyright police' and in the past, music labels have had copyright strikes issued against their own agents.
The only solution is to return copyright to 14 years with a single 14 year extension available with a condition: only the original copyright holder can apply for an extension and only if the copyright has not changed hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How are you going to convince anyone to do that after Bob Dillon sells his entire catalogue for billions of dollars to UMG
This is another wrickle in the problem where the law creates even more corporate copyright trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
IMNAL, but how about filing counter-suits for each failed DMCA take-down attempt, citing "tortious interference" or "restraint of trade"?
At the very least, it should be possible to question their adherence to the "good faith" requirement, especially if discovery reveals the degree of automation in their DMCA process.
Hell, having "...successfully fought thousands of these" suggests there's no good faith in the process whatsoever (quelle surprise!).
What really should be happening is, any plaintiff who has made multiple copyright claims (10 or more in the previous 3 years for example) must pay a lien to the court of half the alleged infringement amount that will be returned upon a successful case. In the event of a false case the fee will be forfeited. A fine of double that amount should be added for false claims made by vexatious litigants.
The reason copyright gets used as a cudgel against innocent people is that there are no penalties for abusing
Re: (Score:2)
IMNAL, but how about filing counter-suits for each failed DMCA take-down attempt, citing "tortious interference" or "restraint of trade"?
At the very least, it should be possible to question their adherence to the "good faith" requirement, especially if discovery reveals the degree of automation in their DMCA process.
Hell, having "...successfully fought thousands of these" suggests there's no good faith in the process whatsoever (quelle surprise!).
They are protected from that explicitly under the DMCA
You are the product .. (Score:1)
thtis is why ... (Score:3)
The directors of (UMG) should be in jail for crime against humanity!
And no ... jailing their bots is not a good solution.
If a company commits a crime, the directors* should go to jail.
* "C suite" for Americans.
Re: thtis is why ... (Score:2)
Copyright needs to die... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Without copyrights, music stores will become like Amazon today: full of cheap/crappy clones of current hits, since there will be no laws to curbs the leeches.
the corruption of copyright laws led to this (Score:2)
if copyright law was fair, still for a reasonable period and tied only to the original content creator, none of this would be an issue, the fact is the upper class is not only hoarding all our capital, they are using it to steal our culture from us so they can charge us to use our own creativity
this is exactly what classism looks
Re: (Score:2)
this has nothing to do with classism, unless you are a communist and you see everything, including communist genocides, though that theological lens.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another red baiter. You claim that this “has nothing to do with classism” and suggest that only a communist perspective would interpret events through that lens. This is a misunderstanding of what class analysis actually is. Classism is a framework for examining structural inequalities, patterns of economic privilege, and social hierarchies. It is not inherently tied to communism, and one does not need to endorse any political ideology, let alone extreme historical examples, to recognize how
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another red baiter. You claim that this “has nothing to do with classism” and suggest that only a communist perspective would interpret events through that lens. This is a misunderstanding of what class analysis actually is. Classism is a framework ...blah blah blah blah
Yeah that is not right. And you really are uneducated abut economics and less educated about political theology. Class struggle is at the core of Marxist theory. Try... I don't know... reading it? First read Adam Smith though. The difference between them is that Smith was a scientist ... and Marx was a revolutionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that is not right. And you really are uneducated abut economics and less educated about political theology. Class struggle is at the core of Marxist theory. Try... I don't know... reading it? First read Adam Smith though. The difference between them is that Smith was a scientist ... and Marx was a revolutionary.
You dismiss me with condescension but don’t actually engage with substance. You claim Smith was a scientist and Marx a revolutionary, yet both were theorists who analyzed economic systems within their contexts, Adam Smith did not practice empirical science as we define it today, and Marx’s revolutionary stance does not erase the analytical value of his critique. Besides they lived long ago in far different political and social realities. Furthermore, reducing complex economic and political thoug
Invalid claims are the bane of my life (Score:5, Informative)
I run Facebook and YouTube accounts for a church. We've got a fairly good choir and from time to time share services and/or performances of music.
Our repertoire is almost exclusively more than a century old.
Any time we post a new video we get a copyright claim, without fail, accusing us of plagiarising someone else's recording of whatever the piece happens to be. Then it somehow becomes my job to explain that the video of people singing in a church is not, in fact, lip syncing to a professional recording.
My all time favourite was getting a copyright claim for some chant that, as far as I'm aware, dates from around the ninth century and was therefore (probably) a few years out of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you file counter claims? How did you do that?
I post videos for our local church branch and often get copyright claims, even on music that's actually owned by our church's head office. It's such a broken system. I normally do nothing with these claims since we aren't wanting to monetize our videos in any way, but it galls me that someone else wants to monetize our videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Both Facebook and YouTube have facilities for doing this.
My issue is mainly the administrative headache of having to fill in the forms when the claimants can apparently just do things automatically and at minimal/zero cost.
Personally I think I should be able to bill the music publishers an hourly rate for the time I waste dealing with their spurious claims.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're gonna use it you gotta pay for it. Isn't that what we hear evey time a story about AI using someone else's work?
So which is it? Either you pay if you're using it or you don't. Make up your mind.
From the Copyright Act of 1976
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any part
Re: (Score:2)
Boosting the anonymous post that was also a reply to this. Fair Use is defined as a matter of our right to reference a section of a work for commentary purposes. In general the excerpt length is 20 seconds, but there can be exceptions for longer. While the interviews tend to go longer, his "top 10s" are all less than 20 seconds in excerpts and even they still get DMCA claims. Those are the ones he wins the most, but it is getting ridiculously costly to have to keep fighting them.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no limitation to the amount of a copyrighted work can be used for fair use. Not 20 seconds, not a minute, not 10 minutes. If it fair use, then it's use is unrestricted for the amount needed to be useful for the fair use being employed.
ALSO, fair use is grounded constitutionally in the 1 and 4th amendments of the constitution ... so there is that. Statutes can not limit fair use under the law. There is the problem of the Bern convention, which is a treating that legal theory, supersedes law. It
Intellectual property does not belong to humanity (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
With regard to copyright, that is right.
They can actually pursue criminal charges on Rick and Company.
Public Land vs Private Property (Score:4, Interesting)
Fair use is a defence in court against a copyright infringement lawsuit.
But Youtube is not a court of law. Youtube is like private property that content creators and consumers have an implicit invite to use. Youtube has only those restrictions required by things like non-discrimination law, so far as what Youtube permits. If Youtube says it won't host some kind of video, what right do you have to insist that they do? If Youtube says it will take down your channel, what right do you have to insist that they don't?
Thus, fair use is not a defence against copyright claims on Youtube. Youtube needs to do the least necessary in law to avoid getting sued, but it is up to Youtube what policy it adopts with copyright content. Something may be fair use in the sense of a copyright infringement lawsuit, but Youtube is not legally required to permit such use on Youtube.
I am not a lawyer, but this is how I read it.
It's like a pub being able to bar a customer for whatever reason (except possibly racial or sexual discrimination). If you annoy the management of a pub, they don't have to obtain a court order to prevent you returning: they simply withdraw your invitation, and once that is done, you are trespassing and they can treat you as a trespasser.
This is the problem with the increasing creep of private ownership, whether land or utilities or social media. Such things are, subject to an restrictions in law, entirely controlled by company board and policy. There is no democratic representation on the board of a company. They do whatever they think will bring them profit, and avoid whatever they think will cause them losses. And everybody else has virtually no say in the matter. Even worse, large private corporations can afford to make large donations/bribes to politicians to bend the laws in their favour, and the rest of us can't afford to donate a dime.
Antitrust (Score:2)
Then perhaps the proper venue for this could be antitrust court. Start by investigating how YouTube managed to secure and maintain a monopoly on recommendation of user-generated videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use is a defence in court against a copyright infringement lawsuit?
That is WRONG. It is a civil right. That is not just a false claim but it is a libel against the public designed to destroy their civil rights.
COPYRIGHT is a limited grant of privileged for the purposes of industry and business. It would help if you would actually READ the Constitution, and then it would help if you would comprehend it.
Low quality decision makers (Score:1)
If I had to guess who approves those takedowns, it would be a low-pay individual in a 3rd world country who may not even speak English. They are there to put a stamp on the takedown as a box ticking exercise. They probably also earn commissions on the number of takedowns so they are incentivised to ban everyone and anyone for anything.
The devil is in the details, no? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I recall, one could legally use up to 30 seconds of a song clip inside of another "work".
The standard for what is fair use [copyright.gov] is what is necessary for purpose, and also what the purpose is. Sampling even a second of another work purely for profit can be infringing. Including another work in its entirety can be valid fair use if it is somehow necessary for the purpose of critique. Intent is always relevant. Nature of use is always relevant to fair use. The big problem with fair use is that there is not a simple and clear standard, and it's up to the court system to determine what is or isn't it. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, this has generally been the standard (or lack thereof) over that same period.
Rick Is Kinder Than I Am (Score:2)
This misses the point of the fudemental problem (Score:3)
This misses the point of the fundamental legal problem. Beato is just one user case that is a problem for most software, technological development, and free expression.
The problem is that Fair Use has been undermined by laws like the DMCA. The recording industry had no problem telling the public that all recording devices should be illegal, as well, as the VCR, the general computer, sound cards, digital scanners, and now AI. They have demanded shutting down derivative works, creativity, education, all forms of communication tools, and so on... under the pretense that recording is a crime and fair use is a legal defense.
Fair Use is you right. You can't have a handful of companies locking down all communication, discussion and technological development of the 20th and 21st century. Copyright is supposed to be a LIMITED grant of privileged to profit from works of art, not a tool to prevent discussion, and impede new invention and scientific discovery. The problem here isn't YouTube. The problem is the law and how it is practiced. It needs to change and change now.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, the U.S had it right before joining the Berne Convention, and allowing corporate lobbying to expand the duration of copyright. Short durations benefit everyone. Thery give creatorsd an incentive to keep creating (or to find unique qays to use their own works once the rights expire), give the public domain continuous, and consistent updates/increases in size, and allow more elements (not just whole works, but sma
Designed for Abuse (Score:3)
The copyright claim system is literally designed to enable abuse because it doesn't include penalties for false claims, and the victims of such have to go to court for relief.
False copyright claims should be subject to review, and someone who makes too high a percentage of false claims should lose their right to make those claims for a period based on the percentage. Fraud is supposed to be illegal, and making false claims that affect competitors (e.g. for eyeballs on social media) is obviously fraud as there is a material benefit, however slight. It also has a chilling effect on free speech, so it should be treated as an attack on constitutional rights.
Solution (Score:2)
STOP POSTING TO YOUTUBE.
This is Slashdot. People who will not host their own content (or pay someone to do so for them) are not worthy of our sympathy.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah not posting to youtube would solve nothing. The copyright trolls would still target creators and educators
Erm .. who ? (Score:1)
Who is Rick Beato ?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you couldn't glean enough from the summary to understand the context? And you don't want to put "Rick beato" into your favorite search engine? A few keystrokes less, I might add, than posting the question here...
So why are you tasking the community here with your education?
I see posts like this about things like acronyms. But this was a full name, and an unusual one at that. You can self serve on this one.
screwed process (Score:1)
This process is completely flawed. How come the studio that are supposed to promote their artists can be so stupid to strike their promotions. And even strike a podcast with no music....And it is even worse than that as I have seen some youtubers complain they had authorization to use a music then the artist later sell their music to one of the big one and they are being removed their oldest videos which were perfectly legal....
I worked for DivX... (Score:2)
Nearly got canned for defending them on slashdot during the quiet period pre-IPO.
DivX's Stage6 *could* have put us 10 years ahead of where we are now media-wise with regard to revenue share, remix culture, and media company profits for streaming even... if the asshats at companies like UMG, and in particular UMG itself, could have worked with technology instead of losing their paranoid, backwards minds over it.
Fuck UMG.
Re: (Score:2)
==>All capitalism is crony capitalism.
Capitalism is a science, not a theology. Communism is a theology that strips us of our individuality and kills masses of people in its genocide.
Just thought you should know.
Re: I worked for DivX... (Score:2)
You're entitled to be as wrong as you like
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking deeper on it, you might be a prime example of how captialism is indeed a cult. Thanks for the sermon buddy, but you proved the opposite of your point. Capitalism in practice is always a matter of power and favoritism, and a key attribute is pretending it's an equalizer while making systemic inequality worse. The numbers, and history, back this up in every conceivable way. Pretending communism is just theology while capitalism is "science" is disingenuous, arguing in bad faith, and fucking laughable
Fair Use is a right (Score:2)
The problem is that Fair Use has been undermined by laws like the DMCA. The recording industry had no problem telling the public that all recording devices should be illegal, as well, as the VCR, the general computer, sound cards, digital scanners, and now AI. They have demanded shutting down derivative works, creativity, education, all forms of communication tools, and so on... under the pretense that recording is a crime and fair use is a legal defense.
Fair Use is you right. You can't have a handful of co
UMG doesn't represent artists (Score:2)
Interviewee in the article said:
"You aren't screwing podcasters. You're screwing artists who could be using podcasts to help promote their music.
Yes. And?
UMG doesn't give a shit about artists. They screw over artists in every other aspect of their business, don't be surprised they're screwing them over in this too.
The only time UMG even pretends to care about artists is when they go to Congress asking for another copyright term extension or some bs like the DMCA. And even then, the artists they use to front
UMG routinely claims my public domain recordings (Score:2)
Their inept bots routinely claim my recordings of public domain works, usually fraudulently matching it to some poor bastard that recorded the work under a UMG label. Often though, the bot doesn't even correctly identify the work. These works are P.U.B.L.I.C. fucking D.O.M.A.I.N. These are willfully ignorant bastards running horrifically incompetent bots just out there being copyright trolls on material that is not even eligible for copyright.