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

51–60 of 125 posts

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

#51

Post by hnlmorg »

rglullis wrote: post #41
hnlmorg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not being defeatist. I’m literally just pointing out the reality of consumer trends. There is oodles of research into this topic. It isn’t something I’ve just made up. It’s why analytics exist to explore website user journeys and then promoting the most important calls to action in prominent places. It’s why physical store fronts put the doors at the front of the shop rather than on the side (side note: a friend…

You are confusing "optimal" with "feasible" and you are ignoring the fact it can be more profitable to serve a niche (people with a minimum of ethical standards) than to be just yet-another participant in the commodity marketplace.

That already happens. Content creators have merchandise, patron exclusives, fan clubs and so on and so forth.

The problem isn’t that other revenue streams don’t exist. It’s that they’re still dependent on the whims of YouTube to get their brand out.

And unfortunately, these other revenue streams are only more profitable than YouTube for the smallest percentage of video content creators (baring those who specialise in adult content, but that’s a whole other domain of content creation ;) ).

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

#52

Post by gentooflux »

stevage wrote: post #45
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…

And clothing designer...there is no copyright, suck it up.

They get a certain amount of mileage out of trademark, though not the same level of protection to be sure

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

#53

Post by falcor84 »

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…

> With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours.

That is patently false for music - a songwriter's claim today that they never heard a slightly similar hook from 40 years ago generally doesn't hold in court.

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

#54

Post by amelius »

falcor84 wrote: post #53
Borealid wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours. That is patently false for music - a songwriter's claim today that they never heard a slightly similar hook from 40 years ago generally doesn't hold in court.

I think they mean that they can for instance use the song non-professionally.

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

#55

Post by jalapenos »

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…

Classic case of how democracy isn't, in practice, majority rule.

If you put this demented situation to a vote, it'd lose 9-to-1.

Frankly the whole concept of copyright is absolutely stupid though, the equivalent of escalating schoolyard "stop copying me!" to actionable at a court of law. But since when did something being absolutely frothing at the mouth retarded stop it being an entrenched part of the world we live in.

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

#56

Post by rglullis »

bonoboTP wrote: post #43
rglullis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://grayjay.app/ solves this quite well.

YouTube already was built on the "distributed" premise. That You can "broadcast yourself" as the slogan says, you use the platform to make your own presence, users can subscribe to you specifically and the platform merely connects the audience and the video makers. No longer are you beholden to the old ways of cable TV producer filters and gatekeepers. You just find and manage your own audience and the platform gets…

GrayJay is just a client for the different platforms, like a regular web browser. They can't put themselves between and the consumer.

> YouTube already was built on the "distributed" premise.

What a load of BS.

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

#57

Post by bonoboTP »

rglullis wrote: post #56
bonoboTP wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube already was built on the "distributed" premise. That You can "broadcast yourself" as the slogan says, you use the platform to make your own presence, users can subscribe to you specifically and the platform merely connects the audience and the video makers. No longer are you beholden to the old ways of cable TV producer filters and gatekeepers. You just find and manage your own audience and the platform gets…

GrayJay is just a client for the different platforms, like a regular web browser. They can't put themselves between and the consumer. > YouTube already was built on the "distributed" premise. What a load of BS.

> They can't put themselves between and the consumer.

Of course they can. If they smell money and sell, they can change it to whatever they want. It's just a client for now.

It's like arguing for Skype back then based on tech aspects. It's P2P! Yes, P2P until it wasn't.

Youtube wasnt distribute in tech, but was in marketing and if you were there around 2007-10, you remember it was much less social-media-ified and felt more direct and raw. Subscribe and get notified. Just a platform.

The only way to avoid that same path is by remaining obscure and small.

I guess every new generation of tech enthusiasts has to get burned to get sufficiently disillusioned.

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

#58

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

rglullis wrote: post #12
bambax wrote: post #10

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.

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.

What does Youtube have to do with it? This appears to be a story about Universal Music Group. Stop featuring their artists, and tell anyone on that label to move to a different label if they want to be featured on the channel.

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

#59

Post by jalapenos »

bonoboTP wrote: post #40
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…

Copyright and patents are very different things. Lumping them under the disingenuous umbrella term "IP" only serves to muddle the waters and create FUD. They are not property rights. It's best to criticize each precisely and surgically. Know the terms, know the rules, the exceptions, etc. Know the history, know the original purpose of these laws. That kind of broader knowledge in broader society is what can help. The…

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.

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

#60

Post by jalapenos »

stevage wrote: post #45
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…

And clothing designer...there is no copyright, suck it up.

Indeed. Good example where value comes from. It's all the same crap, but since you've seen My Crap worn by Anne Hathaway a couple of times in ads at the airport, I can charge 10x price.
Post reply on HN