UPDATE: A new video has been posted regarding more recent events with Brad Taste In Music and also a follow-up to the video you are watching now! Here's a link if you would like to watch. If not, thank you very much for stopping by anyways 🙏🙏🙏🙏 ruclips.net/video/TyWg-mrEuUQ/видео.html
Brad played entire songs uninterrupted during his stream it is a massive violation of copyright law. Dude can talk all he wants about not getting the monetization from the stream itself, but he makes money in both donations, and gets donation requests for songs. I'd be pretty peeved if I was an artist putting real work into content creation while some dude making the lowest effort content possible is making a career off the back of my work. If you want to make a channel off music make actual content like Fantano's album reviews or Todd in the Shadows videos. Even his videos don't constitute fair use. Even entire songs in his youtube videos will have minutes of him doing basically nothing but doing goofy dances on his chair or whatever. If you look back on the biggest fair use case in YT history the H3H3 one, the judge made it fairly clear where that line likely is, and Brad certainly wouldn't qualify. I can't watch a movie on a livestream, and comment after every scene with a few lines and have it count as transformative. I have nothing against the dude, but it's the reality of it. Labels only come after it when it is flagrant which in this case it was. His normal videos are typically overlooked but def not fair use.
Hmm. That’s a valid perspective but I’m a viewer and I have to say that I don’t think that people are watching his streams instead of listening to the actual album. Even if he’s “not doing anything”, people are tuning in for a specific experience that’s not piracy. In this case, he’s basically the host of a request radio show. I understand that radio shows get permission to play the music obviously
Figured I would jump in, Music reaction is a very fine line because a lot of it really is active listening and you sometimes have to listen to the whole thing to get the full scope and to gather your opinions and takes. I do think you have to at least pause somewhat frequently to maintain fair use but that also makes the listening experience for the content creator and the viewer difficult. From what I have seen from Brad's reactions, he does do pauses and when there is a song played almost in its entirety, there is usually a explanation or short review to follow. And a lot of other reactors follow this as well (NFR Podcast in particular with their patreon only streams, a lot of it is the song playing through, having some thoughts and seeing what chat thinks of the song after it is done). I still think the streams getting copyrighted is a fair compromise, however, I think taking down the stream entirely and threatening to suspend a channel is a boundary push imo.
@@snowchild9837 We are in a climate where many actual content creators, including some of the musicians he reacts to are struggling to make ends meet, meanwhile Brad was flexing somewhat recently about making 300k last year through his streams. Obviously Billie doesn't need the money, nor does UMG, but there is a very obvious parasitic element of react content where oftentimes big youtube reactors reap the benefits of others hard work. He will sometimes make more money in a single stream than some of these artists will make from the entire project he is reacting to. The reality is that even his normal videos do not fall under fair use. In a case of fair use you are supposed to use only an amount of copyrighted material that is absolutely necessary to prove a point. Rights holders have in general been pretty lenient on react content because there can be a certain benefit in marketing when it comes to react content, but they only decided to jump in when Brad was grossly overstepping the line by playing a track without even adding meaningful commentary.
I totally get and understand your perspective. Different genre of content but I know people like Hasan Piker or XQC will sometimes just leave a RUclips video playing while they just go and get food while they get donations from their viewers. So I definitely see your perspective on that. When it comes to the amount of donations I can't really blame Brad for the amount that his viewers give him because that is to their discretion, and I have personally seen Brad be very grateful for donations and the abilities that it has given him, like being able to have his wife quit her job to help with his content as an example. Streaming services have a major issue with paying artists what they are owed and I think that is more of a Spotify/streaming issue as a whole and I fully agree that artists should be compensated a lot more for their craft and work. There hasn't been a big strike issue in awhile since this current matter so I think how this plays out will definitely set a precedent going forward. I wish there was a more detailed way to pinpoint what is fair use in the scenario of music but it really varies case by case. As I said in my video, I hope out of all of this there's a resolution made and we either get some policy changes or maybe some clarity on these certain situations. I do really appreciate the dialogue though you make some very fair and good points.
UPDATE: A new video has been posted regarding more recent events with Brad Taste In Music and also a follow-up to the video you are watching now!
Here's a link if you would like to watch. If not, thank you very much for stopping by anyways 🙏🙏🙏🙏
ruclips.net/video/TyWg-mrEuUQ/видео.html
Thanks for speaking out. I feel very bad for and scared for him. Copyright laws really need to be revised for the digital age we're in now.
I hope he gets the help he needs
Brad played entire songs uninterrupted during his stream it is a massive violation of copyright law. Dude can talk all he wants about not getting the monetization from the stream itself, but he makes money in both donations, and gets donation requests for songs. I'd be pretty peeved if I was an artist putting real work into content creation while some dude making the lowest effort content possible is making a career off the back of my work. If you want to make a channel off music make actual content like Fantano's album reviews or Todd in the Shadows videos. Even his videos don't constitute fair use. Even entire songs in his youtube videos will have minutes of him doing basically nothing but doing goofy dances on his chair or whatever. If you look back on the biggest fair use case in YT history the H3H3 one, the judge made it fairly clear where that line likely is, and Brad certainly wouldn't qualify. I can't watch a movie on a livestream, and comment after every scene with a few lines and have it count as transformative.
I have nothing against the dude, but it's the reality of it. Labels only come after it when it is flagrant which in this case it was. His normal videos are typically overlooked but def not fair use.
Yea I feel like he was walking on thin ice with this approach to his videos, especially with nothing to fall back on.
Hmm. That’s a valid perspective but I’m a viewer and I have to say that I don’t think that people are watching his streams instead of listening to the actual album. Even if he’s “not doing anything”, people are tuning in for a specific experience that’s not piracy. In this case, he’s basically the host of a request radio show. I understand that radio shows get permission to play the music obviously
Figured I would jump in,
Music reaction is a very fine line because a lot of it really is active listening and you sometimes have to listen to the whole thing to get the full scope and to gather your opinions and takes. I do think you have to at least pause somewhat frequently to maintain fair use but that also makes the listening experience for the content creator and the viewer difficult.
From what I have seen from Brad's reactions, he does do pauses and when there is a song played almost in its entirety, there is usually a explanation or short review to follow. And a lot of other reactors follow this as well (NFR Podcast in particular with their patreon only streams, a lot of it is the song playing through, having some thoughts and seeing what chat thinks of the song after it is done).
I still think the streams getting copyrighted is a fair compromise, however, I think taking down the stream entirely and threatening to suspend a channel is a boundary push imo.
@@snowchild9837 We are in a climate where many actual content creators, including some of the musicians he reacts to are struggling to make ends meet, meanwhile Brad was flexing somewhat recently about making 300k last year through his streams. Obviously Billie doesn't need the money, nor does UMG, but there is a very obvious parasitic element of react content where oftentimes big youtube reactors reap the benefits of others hard work. He will sometimes make more money in a single stream than some of these artists will make from the entire project he is reacting to.
The reality is that even his normal videos do not fall under fair use. In a case of fair use you are supposed to use only an amount of copyrighted material that is absolutely necessary to prove a point. Rights holders have in general been pretty lenient on react content because there can be a certain benefit in marketing when it comes to react content, but they only decided to jump in when Brad was grossly overstepping the line by playing a track without even adding meaningful commentary.
I totally get and understand your perspective. Different genre of content but I know people like Hasan Piker or XQC will sometimes just leave a RUclips video playing while they just go and get food while they get donations from their viewers. So I definitely see your perspective on that.
When it comes to the amount of donations I can't really blame Brad for the amount that his viewers give him because that is to their discretion, and I have personally seen Brad be very grateful for donations and the abilities that it has given him, like being able to have his wife quit her job to help with his content as an example.
Streaming services have a major issue with paying artists what they are owed and I think that is more of a Spotify/streaming issue as a whole and I fully agree that artists should be compensated a lot more for their craft and work.
There hasn't been a big strike issue in awhile since this current matter so I think how this plays out will definitely set a precedent going forward. I wish there was a more detailed way to pinpoint what is fair use in the scenario of music but it really varies case by case. As I said in my video, I hope out of all of this there's a resolution made and we either get some policy changes or maybe some clarity on these certain situations.
I do really appreciate the dialogue though you make some very fair and good points.
brad taste in music is a cancer to the music content sphere
You must be a Ronnie Radke fan.
who
somebody rides ronnie