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

71–80 of 125 posts

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

#71

Post by bavell »

jalapenos wrote: post #59
bonoboTP wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You basically replied to GP's eloquent and nuanced post with, "nah bro trust me, purple is actually blue!"

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

#72

Post by AstralStorm »

JdeBP wrote: post #29
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.

Given that xe has "a great lawyer", the logical choice for M. Beato is to move to Nebula, if anywhere. That said, xyr lawyer is getting this rejected on fair use grounds again and again. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLHU0ZUbXX8&t=123s The beef is less with YouTube and far more with Universal Music Group. After all, it's not as if YouTube has upheld the copyright claims. The proper outcome is for Universal Music…

The only way to do that would be to sue them with a big badass class lawsuit.

This one is doable.

And then a tort for wasting everyone's time and ruining the media.

Not seeing how that one would come to pass though.

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

#73

Post by AstralStorm »

rglullis wrote: post #68
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

YouTube could be subjected to a class action in theory not in practice, because the terms of the site are so loose you can get ejected with no recourse and lose wages, while indemnifying them.

UMG however has not any relationship with the author so they actually can be sued. If they hate their subcontractor YouTube for it, that's their problem.

They're the legal entity on behalf of which blocking is done, after all.

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

#74

Post by AstralStorm »

userbinator wrote: post #38

Of course there's the other big elephant in the room: AI music. Not being copyrightable, I've already seen a few YouTubers use it to avoid copyright strikes.

Until it accidentally hits filters, and then how can you prove the AI did it and did not incidentally plagiarize some original piece?

It's the opposite of a solution.

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

#75

Post by AstralStorm »

bonoboTP wrote: post #47
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with that if you're a new artist looking at a deal. The label will just say "No" and move on. Artists need exceptional leverage to negotiate a licensing deal instead of a buy out with a reversion option. Most new artists don't have that. While HN is stuck on its usual obsession with copyright, the reality is the entire ecosystem is bad. Labels and distributors have the best of all possible worlds. They used…

Why can't an artist or band just make songs and upload them to the platforms directly? And do live shows. What extra does a label give? As you said, they used to invest in artist development and were indispensable for producing the physical media at scale and distributing it to physical record stores everywhere, including internationally. Today all this is much simpler to manage.

You can. You will not be seen unless a label or some big name promotes you.

Radio? Forget about it. Big concerts next to big agents? Nope.

Thing is, breaking through or even is ever harder.

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

#76

Post by Borealid »

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.

The burden of proof of infringement is on the plaintiff in either case.

If you have an obscure patent nobody has ever heard of, you can win the suit by showing that the defendant had the same idea you did - you don't need to show their work derives from yours.

If you have an obscure song nobody has ever heard (or even an unpublished one!) you are going to have a difficult time proving infringement for a similar riff.

Perhaps you're most familiar with litigation around very famous songs, like the Under Pressure / Ice Ice famous case? In those cultural-saturation cases the court may make the assumption that the later party could have been exposed to the work of the earlier one, but that is not the case universally.

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

#78

Post by Borealid »

jalapenos wrote: post #59
bonoboTP wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 use" or "fair dealing"). Copyrights also, in the USA, bring certain protections against people attempting to use a work in a way you did not intend even where they are not duplicating it.

A trademark is a prohibition on someone causing confusion by copying something you use to identify yourself, or by using/referencing it (without copying) in a context you don't wish.

A trade secret is a criminal prohibition on someone intentionally causing another to divulge certain information that you contractually banned them from divulging.

A security classification is a ban on certain ideas/information being shared with parties that a government agency did not wish them shared with, or used in certain contexts. This is not a protection available to individuals, only to governments.

A license is an intentional weakening of one or more of the above types of protection, potentially with attached civil penalties in the event the bounds of the license are exceeded. It can thus, when accepted, limit behaviour beyond what would normally be allowed by one of the IP types above.

All six of these IP types protect against Person B doing something that is in some way related to an activity Person A did earlier, but they are really quite different in what they cover and how. I don't agree at all they're the same thing.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

rglullis wrote: post #67
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…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

rglullis wrote: post #68
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Youtube has those policies in place in order to comply with copyright law, yes? In the long run, I would expect smaller platforms to adopt similar policies as they grow, in order to achieve compliance with copyright law.
Post reply on HN