Live data from Hacker News

Rick Beato is right to rant about music copyright strikes

savingcountrymusic.com

81–90 of 125 posts

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

#81

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…

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.

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

#82
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stu…

> 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. Not a criticism, just an addendum for anyone interested: In the US, almost every bar/restaurant/venue is an ASCAP licensee, and it is relatively cheap (around $10/year/occupant for all forms of media), so a venue that wants to play…

>Our lowest annual fee is just over $1 per day, less than the price of a cup of coffee.

$1 * 365 is more than the $10 you claimed. 36 seats is a medium sized resteraunt. Also using the song search it has none of the music I listen to so it seems useless.

Edit: I was able to find 1 song. If YouTube could offer such a license I would prefer that since they have a larger catalog of music.

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

#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 scan for the license URL, verify its key as valid, and move on if the license is valid.

Charge affordable prices (e.g., $1 per second) and make it easy to use. This would take very little time at all and even if it's dirty, the catalog data and mp3s should exist for most stuff. Add a "this track can't be licensed" when data is missing and offer a "let me know" signup.

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

#85
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…

I have a friend who is a music supervisor. Navigating the web of rights and relationships necessary to license music is as much art as science. Sometimes it’s as straightforward as you describe (minus the convenient online platform), but from his telling, it more often involves a lot of begging, pleading, and favor trading.

Also, podcasters rarely pay for licensed music. There is a ton of high quality royalty free “sound alikes” these days.

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

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Not a criticism, just an addendum for anyone interested: In the US, almost every bar/restaurant/venue is an ASCAP licensee, and it is relatively cheap (around $10/year/occupant for all forms of media), so a venue that wants to play…

>Our lowest annual fee is just over $1 per day, less than the price of a cup of coffee. $1 * 365 is more than the $10 you claimed. 36 seats is a medium sized resteraunt. Also using the song search it has none of the music I listen to so it seems useless. Edit: I was able to find 1 song. If YouTube could offer such a license I would prefer that since they have a larger catalog of music.

I guess they've upped their pricing a bit, or I made that up, I was going off memory from a podcast I listened to a while back (Planet Money maybe?).

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

#87

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…

I think you want them to be meaningfully different, for whatever reason, but at the end of the day, they both come down to "if I did the thing you already did, and that you laid claim to through some form of artificial statutory fabrication of rights, you can sue me".

Whether that means me exploiting having heard your song by playing your song myself, or exploiting your invention I examined by building it myself, they both come down to: statutory fabrication of fictitious "you can't do because they did already" rights, that at common law could have (rightly) only been achieved through keeping the thing a secret (e.g. still present to this day in say trading algorithms, and in software through the now ubiquitous SaaS model) and contacts (i.e. NDAs) flowing from that.

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

#88
post #71

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.

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

Congrats on proving your own point

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

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Youtube has those policies in place in order to comply with copyright law

A lot of it is just CYA and enforcement theater. YouTube could pretty much have one dedicated account manager for someone with the subscriber count of Beato who would work as a first-line of defense against frivolous/bogus copyright claims.

> I would expect smaller platforms to adopt similar policies as they grow

But then the content creators who take ownership of their social media presence will by definition be a lot closer to those making these types of decisions, and they will be able to say "I don't think I am infringing on anything, if you really disagree you will have to go to court".

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

#90

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…

Also the purpose is important too, to know how to move forward when the tech landscape shifts.

Patents are there to incentivize making it public how inventions work. Inventors would tend to keep their inventions as trade secrets, in fear that someone else will reap all the profits. This would slow the compounding effect of later inventions building upon previous ones. Therefore, patents give exclusivity to the inventor for a set period. In exchange, during this period competitors and others become aware of how the new tech works and hence they can prepare for the time when the patent expires, and then a host of derivative tech can appear. It has been perverted to an absurd parody where the vast majority of patents are not intented for actual use, never get licensed and simply provide cannon fodder and deterrent stockpiles in the lawyer wars between companies. The patents are so broad and vague that legally speaking tech companies are constantly tramping on each other's ground, resulting in a kind of stalemate truce where they agree not to sue, because the other would countersue.

Copyright is there to incentivize creative authorship and its dissemination to the public. By giving exclusive rights, the author can pull a revenue stream, making cultural/artisitic/intellectual creation more viable and hence spurring intellectual and cultural activity in society. The goal is to make authors incentivized to create. Not to drive up the stock prices of mega-publishers and music labels.

Trademarks are there to avoid confusion for buyers as to the identity of a seller or by falsely implying endorsement.

What's common to these is that they are overwhelmingly there to help broader social interests, a common good, in accordance with the enlightenment, somewhat romantic ideals of the optimist zeitgeist of the time when the concepts were defined. They involve restricting individual rights, such as free speech (you can't recite this or that poem in public). That restriction was done reluctantly, to serve higher purposes, like a thriving intellectual exchange and technological progress on a societal scale. It was not about trying to make things as cushy and profitable for huge conglomerates as possible.

Post reply on HN