One answer to this madness is to starve the beast: never buy any music or any content from an established company. Torrent everything. It may not work at all, but at least you can tell yourself you're not helping the bastards.
+1 for Soulseek
Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
11–20 of 125 posts
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#12One answer to this madness is to starve the beast: never buy any music or any content from an established company. Torrent everything. It may not work at all, but at least you can tell yourself you're not helping the bastards.
Few people are buying anything in this world where streaming is the norm and the labels make money by cutting deals with the distribution platforms.
The solution for me, in this specific case, would be for Beato to act against YouTube and take his channel elsewhere. He has enough followers to be able to start his own Peertube server, find a few sponsors and keep going forever.
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#13Pirate the music and if you want to support the artist to concerts/gigs and buy merch. These labels are inserted themselves between the fans and the artists w/o any benefit but for themselves.
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#14The most ridiculous part of music copyrights is that the DMCA explicitly encodes statutory damages of at least 750$ up to 30,000$, and up to 150,000$ for willful infringement per work [1].
Yet musical compositions are subject to compulsory mechanical copyright licenses at a fixed rate of 12.4 cents or 2.38 cents per minute, whichever is higher [2] for music covers [3] (i.e. same song, different singer/band or even same singer different time). Meaning you can make a cover without permission as long as you pay the copyright holder at the rates specified in the law.
So we already have cheap compulsory licensing for musical compositions which caps damages at a 1/6,000 to 1/240,000 of the DMCA rates. We should just have compulsory mechanical licensing for recordings as well.
If we really want to get crazy, we could even let copyright holders declare a compulsory licensing rate per work then multiply that by some number to get their intellectual property value and then charge them property tax on that intellectual property. So you can set a high compulsory licensing rate, but then you have to pay more property tax on your income generating property or vice versa. This allows valuable works to be protected to support the artists making them, while allowing less valuable works to be easily usable by whoever wants to.
[1] https://uwf.edu/go/legal-and-consumer-info/digital-millenium...
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#15I read a review by an IPR lawyer long ago who said since music performing rights encouraged artists to record more tunes, in 75 years we'd be drowning in free, and should pay now for the future benefit of growing the size of the free pool in perpetuity.
Not surprisingly the same review recommended extending copyright lifetimes not reducing them. Strange.
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#16Starsky Carr did a filter sweep while reviewing a synthesizer, and with that got his account shutdown because it was auto-copyright strike. He appealed and luckily it was reversed, but I'm sure others with smaller audiences wouldn't be so lucky.
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#17One answer to this madness is to starve the beast: never buy any music or any content from an established company. Torrent everything. It may not work at all, but at least you can tell yourself you're not helping the bastards.
There are many smaller bands that sell their stuff more or less directly, e.g. via bandcamp or directly via small independent record labels. Buy their stuff, it helps them to survive.
But mayor record labels can go die in a ditch.
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#18One answer to this madness is to starve the beast: never buy any music or any content from an established company. Torrent everything. It may not work at all, but at least you can tell yourself you're not helping the bastards.
Few people are buying anything in this world where streaming is the norm and the labels make money by cutting deals with the distribution platforms. The solution for me, in this specific case, would be for Beato to act against YouTube and take his channel elsewhere. He has enough followers to be able to start his own Peertube server, find a few sponsors and keep going forever.
Neither the GP or this comment are viable in the real world.
Businesses/creators need continued distribution, see Nike as an example of what happens when you "take your audience elsewhere to monetize them better/more."
1. People buy the other option (in Nike's case they kept going to footlocker and buying other shoes rather than only buying Nike DTC, in Beato's case they would continue to go to YouTube to discover new guitar content)
2. The business can't get new customers because no one is on the new platform (Nike DTC/Peertube)
It's viable for a split second (covid, "stick it to Youtube cause they suck") then people just go back to living their lives.
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#19I watched Beato's video. I couldn't help thinking that making hundreds of false claims was harassment? Any lawyers around?
Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes
#20The most ridiculous part of music copyrights is that the DMCA explicitly encodes statutory damages of at least 750$ up to 30,000$, and up to 150,000$ for willful infringement per work [1]. Yet musical compositions are subject to compulsory mechanical copyright licenses at a fixed rate of 12.4 cents or 2.38 cents per minute, whichever is higher [2] for music covers [3] (i.e. same song, different singer/band or even sa…
As a former film student I can say from experience that licensing rights can be expensive. And how expensive depends on the usage. E.g. playing a song at a live event is different from using it in television which is different from using it in your youtube video which is different from using it in a film for cinema.
Want to play any popular music in your cinema film? The license can easily cost 25.000 € (for film students that is typically more than the budget).
Smaller labels make better prices tho and sometimes the artist lets you use it for free (if it is their choice to make).