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

61–70 of 125 posts

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

#61

Post by JdeBP »

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.

Outwith the U.S.A. there is a thing called a design right that applies to that.

In the U.K., the design right took its initial form in 1787 and applied to printed patterns on fabrics; so it has been on point for clothing design for over 230 years. (-:

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

#62

Post by bambax »

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.

> in this world where streaming is the norm

Subscribing to Spotify is feeding the beast. And so is not blocking ads on YT.

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

#63

Post by motoxpro »

rglullis wrote: post #46
motoxpro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming a ~5% conversion rate and usage/payment in perpetuity. Those are just unrealistic assumptions, based on my experience in this space. Everything breaks. - Channel makes no money because sponsors don't pay (as much, it's a power law) for 200k subs (being charitable with your 5%. in reality it would be - Guest don't come because the channel is small and they don't get distribution for their projects - Pl…

I am not saying to completely drop YT. I am saying (a) to run both and keep promoting the alternative and (b) coordinate with other creators to do the same.

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 their own app, tequila, merch, live shows, signature guitars, etc. As a creator, you don't go to another platform; you have to own something. Unless it's a purely moral argument, in which case, I can respect that, but it's not a good business decision.

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

#64

Post by jalapenos »

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.

I'm surprised at the presumption anyone is paying for music downloads. If true - shocking.

Good reminder about democracy though. If you just make it about "I'm in power because I voted who's in power (or maybe I will next time)", once every 4 years with your non-lobbyist tiny say, you're actually anti-democracy. Democracy is, and has always been, long before universal access to the ballot box, reliable and consistent resistance to the cunts at the top.

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

#65

Post by falcor84 »

amelius wrote: post #54
falcor84 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How is that different from a patent then? I don't think anyone would sue you for patent infringement against your hobby project. IP only typically becomes an issue when you want to make some money from your work, and then someone claims that it's actually their work, and thus should be their money.

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

#66

Post by jalapenos »

neilv wrote: post #32
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.

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]

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

#67

Post by rglullis »

motoxpro wrote: post #63
rglullis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying to completely drop YT. I am saying (a) to run both and keep promoting the alternative and (b) coordinate with other creators to do the same.

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…

> with what money

You can run a Peertube instance costs for less than $100/month, distribution included. And that's if you insist on running your own.

> with what time.

People publish to multiple platforms already. Adding another one is the least of the concerns.

> Unless it's a purely moral argument, in which case, I can respect that, but it's not a good business decision.

I for one can only respect someone if their decision puts their principles before their business. That's what "Skin in the Game" is all about. Beato can make all the fuss he wants against BMG, but I have no sympathy for him if his actions only goes as far as his dependency on YouTube/Google allows him to go.

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

#68

Post by rglullis »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #58
rglullis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who gets to "demonitize" the videos? YouTube.

Who gets to process the copyright strike and tell creators they need to remove the content in order to not have consequences? YouTube.

Who gets to close down the channel even before any lawsuit against a copyright allegation is conducted? YouTube.

Beato is fighting BMG because he sees YouTube as the hand that feeds him, but he could get rid of all the BMG annoyances if he was brave enough to own his distribution channel.

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

#69

Post by realusername »

neilv wrote: post #32
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.

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.

For a very long time, piracy was the only way to get media online because the conglomerates refused to sell music and movies online.

We didn't get there because of piracy.

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

#70

Post by rglullis »

bonoboTP wrote: post #57
rglullis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fe…

The code is open source and FOSS. They could try a bait-and-switch and they would see a dozen forks 30 minutes after the announcement.
Post reply on HN