Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

savingcountrymusic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#101

Post by rglover »

strunz wrote: post #100
rglover wrote: post #83

Labels would make a fortune if they just set up an online license request store. Any track in various lengths for various prices. Once you pay, you're granted a license. Could take a few minutes for a podcaster to search a song, buy a license for the right length, and you're done. Have a URL that displays a license and instruct creators to put that at the bottom of their video/audio description. Then, any bots can sc…

That defeats the whole point of this issue. These uses are fair use, they shouldn't have to license anything. You can't teach music without playing it, Youtube is just allowing rights holders to make claims without any evidence or punishment for being wrong.

Fair use is the problem. It's too ambiguous and as a result lawyers can play the games they're playing. My solution is dirt simple, keeps everybody happy, and quits wasting time pretending we're living in 1998.

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#102

Post by neilv »

jalapenos wrote: post #66
neilv wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're partly in this police state mess of legislation and user-hostile technology because of the history of piracy. Piracy isn't going to starve the bastards. Piracy is helping the bastards, by giving them reason or pretext.

[flagged]

I just said how it helps them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#103

Post by motoxpro »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #81
motoxpro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess (a) with what money and (b) with what time. Unless you are Taylor Swift, people wont watch the exact same content on a different platform just becasue you told them to when it exists on the one they like. More importantly (c) why? Instead of building up someone else's business/platform for free (and put yourself in the same position as you already are). This is why people sell a product. Online courses, have…

I think you're underestimating the money and audience that Beato has. It's as close to Taylor Swift as anyone in the space is going to be.

I understand he is big in the niche space. I also am into guitars. But comparing Rick to Taylor is like comparing HackerNews to Facebook. Her money/power/audience is at least 4 orders of magnitude more than what he has.

Which is why her saying "Only listen to my version" works, where as he would not. 5m subs is just too small.

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#104

Post by kelseyfrog »

bigyabai wrote: post #9
rkachowski wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The music in question would be the music of the artist he's interviewing at the time, the absurdity is that you can interview the creator but not show what they've created.

If the creator gave up their copyright then it's not absurd, it's law. This is why it's important for budding artists to keep their masters.

The law is absurd. It has no right to exist and runs counter to the laws of reality.

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#105

Post by happytoexplain »

Borealid wrote: post #78
jalapenos wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Copyright and patents are exactly the same thing. Making "you copied me!" actionable at a court of law, by statute, when before that there was no such legal fiction of "intellectual property" or any other exclusive rights to reproduce a thing.

Copyright and patents are absolutely not the same thing at all. A patent makes it illegal to use a particular idea, by any means. It is a limited-time universal monopoly on a set of specific "claims" (the selected applications of the idea). It has nothing to do with whether someone copied you or not. A copyright is a prohibition on someone copying you, with certain exceptions where they are allowed to do so ("fair us…

>A patent makes it illegal to use a particular idea, by any means. It is a limited-time universal monopoly on a set of specific "claims" (the selected applications of the idea). It has nothing to do with whether someone copied you or not.

Just FYI, as a layman with no opinion on whether they are "the same thing" in this context, this paragraph sounds self-contradictory. It sounds like you're describing copying somebody's idea, and then you say "It has nothing to do with whether someone copied you", so I ended up confused as to your meaning.

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#106

Post by Borealid »

happytoexplain wrote: post #105
Borealid wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright and patents are absolutely not the same thing at all. A patent makes it illegal to use a particular idea, by any means. It is a limited-time universal monopoly on a set of specific "claims" (the selected applications of the idea). It has nothing to do with whether someone copied you or not. A copyright is a prohibition on someone copying you, with certain exceptions where they are allowed to do so ("fair us…

>A patent makes it illegal to use a particular idea, by any means. It is a limited-time universal monopoly on a set of specific "claims" (the selected applications of the idea). It has nothing to do with whether someone copied you or not. Just FYI, as a layman with no opinion on whether they are "the same thing" in this context, this paragraph sounds self-contradictory. It sounds like you're describing copying somebo…

Let's say I come up with the idea of using a fan to blow a balloon into the air. I get a patent with the claim "a device made buoyant in air and propelled by forced wind".

Someone else comes up with the idea of blowing a dust bunny into the air with their breath.

Their idea, which has nothing at all to do with my idea and is certainly not a copy, infringes my claim because what they are doing matches what I've claimed as the core idea in my patent. They didn't "copy" me, for two reasons:

1. Their idea was had independently of mine, with its own creativity 2. Their idea is fundamentally not the same as mine, but because my enumerated claim is sufficiently broad to cover their concept too, it's still infringement

With a copyright, their additional creativity would have made their work not infringe. With a copyright, you can't claim anything broader than the work you actually produced.

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#107

Post by BobaFloutist »

Borealid wrote: post #35
rsp1984 wrote: post #23

It gets even crazier when compared to other IP law: Engineer makes an invention: Write 30-Page patent application. Multi-year patenting process with USPTO, pay 1000s of $ if DIY, 10x that if using an IP law firm. Multiply by 4x if going international. With luck, patent gets issued 3 years later. It protects you for 25 years, but only if you have deep pockets for an IP lawsuit in case someone does copy you -- and with…

I think it's worth mentioning that with a patent, nobody else is allowed to use the patented idea. This holds even if they have never heard of you before, and were entirely unaware your patent (or your version of the patented concept) existed. You are granted a monopoly. With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours. Someone unaware of your wor…

Also, patents are for frankly more important things. It's a much bigger deal if life-saving medicine or a more efficient car are locked out for 100 years than Winnie the Pooh wearing pants.

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#109

Post by tzs »

Veserv wrote: post #14

The 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…

> The 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

That's not from the DMCA. Those statutory damages were there long before the DMCA. (Also, they can be reduced to $200 in the case of innocent infringement). The DMCA did add some new statutory damages for violations of the new rights DMCA added to US copyright law, such as circumventing protection.

> 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.

There are two things not quite correct here. First, the money you pay the copyright owner under a compulsory license is not damages. It is royalties.

Second, it is not capped. Those are per copy. Statutory damages are per work.

If I take that $0.124 compulsory license and my cover of your song sells 5 million copies I'm going to owe you 5 million x $0.124 = $620 000. I suppose as a practical matter it is capped because there are only so many people and most aren't going to by more than one song. The best selling song so far is Bing Cosby's version of Irvine Berlin's "White Christmas" with 50 million sold, so $6 200 000 if that had been under a mechanical license at today's rates.

For statutory damages the number of copies involved only matters in so far as the court might take it into account in deciding where along that $200 - $150 000 range the award should fall.

If I made and sold for example 10 000 unauthorized copies of your work and you found out about 5 000 of them and sued me, asking for statutory damages and won, and then later you found out about that other 5 000 and wanted damages for those to you would be out of luck. The statutory damages award from your first suit covers all my infringement of that work up to the time of that suit.

Re: Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

#110

Post by bonoboTP »

Borealid wrote: post #106
happytoexplain wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A patent makes it illegal to use a particular idea, by any means. It is a limited-time universal monopoly on a set of specific "claims" (the selected applications of the idea). It has nothing to do with whether someone copied you or not. Just FYI, as a layman with no opinion on whether they are "the same thing" in this context, this paragraph sounds self-contradictory. It sounds like you're describing copying somebo…

Let's say I come up with the idea of using a fan to blow a balloon into the air. I get a patent with the claim "a device made buoyant in air and propelled by forced wind". Someone else comes up with the idea of blowing a dust bunny into the air with their breath. Their idea, which has nothing at all to do with my idea and is certainly not a copy, infringes my claim because what they are doing matches what I've claime…

> With a copyright, their additional creativity would have made their work not infringe.

But not generally. You can't sell a new Hogwarts-based book with Harry Potter characters. This is both due to copyright and trademarks. But already copyright blocks derivative works even if there's additional creativity with a new plot.

Post reply on HN