I Finally Claimed FAIR USE on a Video ...REJECTED! (Rant)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- For the first time I claimed fair use for last week's live stream demonstrating a Led Zeppelin chord progression. It was rejected- here’s the story.
🇺🇸 MEMORIAL DAY EXTENDED SALE:
60% OFF The Beato Book Bundle - Coupon Code: RB531
⇢ Get It Here: rickbeato.com/
40% OFF The Ear Training Program. Coupon Code: RB531
⇢ Get It Here: beatoeartraini...
BEATO EAR TRAINING → beatoeartraini...
THE BEATO CLUB → bit.ly/322AGO1
BUY THE BEATO BOOK HERE → bit.ly/2UsvaTD
MY HELIX PRESETS →flatfiv.co/pro...
KEMPER PROFILES → bit.ly/34mF3EY
SUBSCRIBE HERE → bit.ly/2eEs9gX
--------------------------------------
My Links to Follow:
RUclips - / rickbeato
Follow my Instagram - / rickbeato1
------------------------------
Special Thanks to My Supporters:
Catherine Sundvall
Clark Griswold
Ryan Twigg
LAWRENCE WANG
Martin Small
Kevin Wu
Robert Zapolis
Jeremy Kreamer
Sean Munding
Nat Linville
Bobby Alcott
Peter Glen
Robert Marqusee
James Hurster
John Nieradka
Grey Tarkenton
Joe Armstrong
Brian Smith
Robert Hickerty
comboy
Peter DeVault
Phil Mingin
Tal Harber
Rick Taylor
Bill Miller
Gabriel Karaffa
Brett Bottomley
Frederick Humphrey
Nathan Hanna
Stephen Dahl
Scott McCroskey
Dave Ling
Rick Walker
Jason Lowman
Jake Stringer
steven crawford
Piush Dahal
Jim Sanger
Brian Lawson
Eddie Khoriaty
Vinny Piana
J.I. Abbot
Kyle Dandurand
Michael Krugman
Vinicius Almeida
Lars Nielsen
Kyle Duvall
Alex Zuzin
tom gilberts
Paul Noonan
Scott Thompson
Kaeordic Industries LLC
Duane Blake
Kai Ellis
Zack Kirkorian
Joe Ansaldi
Pzz
Marc Alan
Rob Kline
Calvin Wells
David Trapani
Will Elrics
Debbie Valle
JP Rosato
Orion Letizi
Mike Voloshen
Peter Pillitteri
Jeremy Hickerson
Travis Ahrenholtz
Update: The copyright claim has been dropped. Thank you all for the support! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Nice! Pleased for you... Small wins. Keep fighting
A small but important win for the YT community. Keep up the good fight Rick!
Looks like a little push back can pay off . Congrats Rick !! 👍🏼
Love your channel!
You make the difference Rick ! Keep on fighting!
NIce!
The problem is that there is no consequence for them making a wrong claim.
That's basically it! They're judge AND jury...
Shame on RUclips for that. It's their lacky system which got that going.
Making a false dmca claim is a federal crime as far as I know. I think if people threatened to take it to court, it would change things.
@@robertschulz6558 You should see Tom Scott’s video on this. It’s either this or a DMCA
@@crescendo5594 the laws are so wide and open ended and the companies have such good legal teams that it’s almost never worth it
The accuser is also the judge, how convenient.
That's it, exactly.
Part of the problem here is that Rick, who I have nothing but respect for, has yet to fully realize the true nature of the entity he is dealing with in Google/RUclips. America has allowed the big tech companies to morph into hostile oligarchies which are so rich and so powerful within their own sphere of influence that they can essentially just ignore the DCMA and flout the law with no consequences whatsoever.
Let's just say it like it is: The law does not apply in Google/RUclips land. Instead, the tech oligarchs have created what amounts to independent fiefdoms where they have complete and unfettered control and can craft every rule to their own benefit with no regard whatsoever to established legal norms such as "fair use" doctrines or any of that. Pichai, Zuckerberg, Cook, and Dorsey rule their little fantasy kingdoms with an iron fist, and they're perfectly willing to ban, censor, or completely disappear their most effective critics. The politicians are either already beholden to big tech for campaign money and social media support, or else the politicians want to pander to them in hopes of scoring a lucrative lobbying position after they leave office. Either way, the only people in a position to challenge this nonsense are already deeply compromised and generally act as big tech's enablers. And the mainstream media long ago abandoned its role as watchdog, so don't look for any help there.
I get where Rick is coming from and he's right. However, when Rick choose this as his new career field and RUclips as his teaching medium of choice, he effectively hitched his wagon to big tech. For better or worse, Rick's revenue path is directly tied to the whims of the very people putting the jackboot to his head, which sharply limits his ability to speak out against it. Rick goes to some lengths to carefully the lay blame at the feet of the music publishing houses while excusing RUclips/Google, but the fact is it's RUclips/Google which has put in place the framework which created this despicable environment in the first place. This whole "strike" system is nothing more than a cleverly designed method to perpetuate intellectual theft on a societal scale, not to mention undermining the free exchange of knowledge and ideas.
The sad part is, this situation is so out of control that it's now hard to see any sort of solution which actually has a prayer of being implemented. Big tech is above the law, and the only reason Rick has even a slight chance of fighting back against this kind of draconian overreach is because he has some connections in the music industry which he can appeal to behind the scenes. The rest of us little people have little alternative but to simply do as we're told and say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?"
@@donaldmaddox4531 as a Dutch citizen, I fully agree!
The problem is that you keep say who’s the artist is in the music you present, just say this is an example for the teachings of a progression of music and make a Personal list of all of Warner Chappell music and avoid it that Way is what happened to you again other than that keep up the great teachings and work your present
That is how the world works. Jesus made a way out though by dying for your sins
Aggggrrrrrr The agony of the pain why OK I understand
It's basically criminal what they do claiming copyright on simply a chord progression like they're doing on your video.
Not to mention extremely ironic considering they won a case against Spirit for exactly the same thing...
@@EddieG1888 It's rather ironic getting lawyered for ripping a zep tune that was ripped in the 1st place. Entire websites are devoted to documenting their piracy.
Also, chord progressions are not copyrightable. Perhaps they're claiming the arpeggiation is. I wonder who first copyrighted the 12 bar prog. And how much Merle Travis gets from fellow flatpickers. Or maybe the tempo is the issue, in which case it would only be possible to copyright a few hundred works before running out of original beats. Or perhaps zep has copyrighted the concept of infringement.
Finally, I do not consider 'Babe' to be a complex chord progression. Compare to many of Stevie Wonder's rich songs. It derives more from EADGBE tuning than from anyone's creative mind. A chimpanzee could figure it out. Same for D-Dsus-D-Cadd9-G/B-Am-G-howlowcanyougo (which zep has made much use of).
Note that I did not capitalize the name of the band out of fear of legal retaliation.
Blame the DMCA
You could claim mathematics equations as intelectual property because music are mathematical forms of vibrations, someone will copyright the entire universe and we will be forced to pay the bastards
@@hernanugarte8966 Good one
As a recent law school graduate who did a lot of work/research in digital fair use, this is absolutely an instance of slam-dunk fair use (and an abuse of the takedown system by Warner Chappell). All of the statutory fair use factors fall on your side, not to mention the fact that the statute explicitly lists “education” as among the legitimate aims of making fair use of a copyrighted work. I would absolutely look into suing Warner Chappell - I bet you could crowdfund the entire lawsuit and win a (potentially) precedent-setting victory for fair use.
That's what I'd recommend and support. WC is probably depending on people's general ignorance of the law. But the power is on their side until SCOTUS weighs in.
I am a novice in this area but Mr Finch’s points resonate as do yours Rick. I am grateful for your channel and will be buying your book. Keep doing what you do and keep fighting this.
I'd donate to that.
@@fullclipaudio Me too!
Agreed. He should take legal action instead of ranting on this. Perhaps fair use class action suit?
"Wow, no need to buy that Led Zeppelin album, some guy on youtube just played a few chords of one song, that's all I need."
I will not buy any eagle albums now. I had all of them in my wish list on Amazon, and deleted them all. I will never buy a LZ album now too.
@@awboat The thing is it's not the artist's fault. The label decides these things. Don't hate the artist for this.
I think the sarcasm might be lost on some people!
@@awboat Who buys music these days anyway? It's all free online on various platforms accessible pretty much on most modern devices where people listen to music these days.
@@troyhoffman9411 actually, in some cases, like Don Henley, it IS the artist. Metallica is another example. Rick won't touch either in any type of video. It is not worth the copyright strikes/blocks.
“Stealing money from a RUclipsr.”
Completely accurate. This one is the most egregious example I’ve seen.
ha i get copyright claimed for improvising lead guitar and i did see someone hear get hit for a filter sweep . not shocking
They see 2 million subscribers they probably watch the videos for the tiniest thing and can steal the money every time easy for them.
"Stealing Money from a RUclipsr" would make a great song title.
Last year, I got hit with 2 copyright strikes for showing a single frame of leaked footage from the Last of Us Part II. This was after it hit the news. Sony had a shell corp file it and then filed it themselves. The appeal process was ridiculous, and RUclips really has no standards when it comes to this. You can't copyright a chord progression anymore than you can copyright the word "the." RUclips makes it too easy for people to file claims while doing nothing to protect content creators from this kind of blatant abuse of the system.
Yo! Awesome to see you here man 🍻Oh, your last statement is 100% accurate. I think they also fear getting hit with lawsuits if they don't cater to the entities filing the claim. Just my 2 cents.
Love your work man.
I subscribe to you because of that abomination.
Lol, You're a Rick Beato fan? Nice.
Very articulate reasoning. Nice
Rick, this has happened to me before -- and I would DEFINITELY encourage you to go one step further and APPEAL their claim, now that it's been rejected. I have actually talked with Warner Chappell on this subject, and while I don't have a perfect record of winning these battles (I've won about half), I have learned that most claimants don't even see the claim letter you wrote. (And annoyingly, it disappears into the ether, so save yours!) When you got that update, it's just an automatic function to "uphold" their claim. But when you appeal, it forces the publisher to provide a way to get in touch with them and finally opens them up to legal action.
Copying this text and pasting it in my own comment so he has a better chance of seeing it ( I'll credit u)
That would be playing their game. Rick can better play his game and make some noise about this so that they’ll start to understand that not even reading a claim was their wrong!
This is 100% correct. The thing that has him confused is the word “manual” in the first claim.
That just means they used their own software to trigger it and not YTs.
Also with the “manual review” clause added to DMCA they purposely leave that there.
Then the rejection happens automatically and it goes back to you to appeal, then they have 10 days which in at last 70% they simply ignore it.
After 10 days where they don’t file a court case and inform YT the content creator is given the escrow funds and the video put back up.
BUUUT the video is now stale and was pulled and won’t get promotion. YT will also ignore it in the algorithm and it’ll die on its own..
Just keep in mind it also opens the other side (rick's) to litigation as well if the company does decide to sue. The system unfortunately is a total joke and weigh heavily in the favor of these massive corporations.
@@Desopolis The 'business' side of the music business totally sucks. It should be about music. Not about making money from music.
…is why I left the music "Biz" 20 years ago. Hunter Thomson said it best: “The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”
Punished for trying to educate people. Seems to be a sign of the times.
CANCELLED !!!!!!! :)
It’s the American way!
Anything done for educational use, even if paid, should be beyond copyrights. Of course, the teacher's contribution should clearly exceed the cited work, and should not include the exact content as an alternative to buying it directly from the author. I am proud to be a professional in a field - mathematics - in which you cannot patent a theorem. If you want to make money with maths you have to actually work. This should be a basic law in any civilized world. Which we are not.
POWER CORRUPTS.
News at 11.
Kudos Rick for fighting the good fight on this!
Warner Chappell: the same guys who unlawfully claimed they owned the rights to “Happy Birthday to You” and got away with it for years.
J E W S
Warners should be embarrassed by this. This IS theft with no consequence for such stupidity. With you on this Rick.
Man I hate watching videos where Rick is biting his lip at the beginning,always a sign that a video is going to be about something depressing. Chin up Rick,you're fighting the good fight and seriously helping people like me with all of the music theory videos you put out. THANK YOU!
I love his rant videos, always on point with all his arguments.
"Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" is a folk song written by Anne Bredon in the late 1950s. Joan Baez recorded a solo version for her 1962 album Joan Baez in Concert and a variety of musicians subsequently adapted it to a variety of styles, including Led Zeppelin. Several songwriters have been credited on releases over the years, although Bredon usually receives a sole or partial credit on current releases.
Literally everyone visiting this channel knows that.
@@paulrupright4694 I didn't.
@@paulrupright4694 I didn't
@@paulrupright4694 I didn’t.
I went to their Facebook page and explain how ridiculous this all is. Blocking anything that has to do with musical education should be illegal.
@@MrDjTilo What I've never understood is why BIG tech companies (RUclips/Google/Alphabet in this case) pretend to be so scared of the "big" music companies. I don't see many trillion dollar music companies about. I remember Apple always using the "big bad labels" as an excuse for their DRM and catalogue problems etc. in the 00s when they had 100B+ in the bank at the time and were many times the value of even the biggest companies they were blaming. I guess it's all motivation - it's cheaper to spin that kind of story rather than just buy the music industry and big tech just don't care enough to pony up; what Rick does and music in general just isn't valuable enough to them.
It's a shame - I enjoy a lot of Rick's videos and that one was especially interesting.
A channel with over 2 million subs is promoting one of their songs... they should pay YOU for that. You're getting younger people to listen to their songs on Spotify, Apple and Google Music.
Dude, Right?
Exactly. So incredibly stupid and short-sighted. Embarassing.
What’s worse is this wasn’t an algorithmic strike, it was a human inside a greedy faceless corporation. Shame on that person and shame on the corporation!
I doubt it. The whole process was probably just a bunch of bots doing what the corporations told them to do. No one wants to go through all of these disputes manually.
As stated in a comment directly above yours, it IS an automatic response:
Rick, this has happened to me before -- and I would DEFINITELY encourage you to go one step further and APPEAL their claim, now that it's been rejected. I have actually talked with Warner Chappell on this subject, and while I don't have a perfect record of winning these battles (I've won about half), I have learned that most claimants don't even see the claim letter you wrote. (And annoyingly, it disappears into the ether, so save yours!) When you got that update, it's just an automatic function to "uphold" their claim. But when you appeal, it forces the publisher to provide a way to get in touch with them and finally opens them up to legal action.
Clearly a targeted attack in an effort to steal money from hard-working You Tube Educators....This wouldn't happen if Rick had a physical classroom.
You look seriously agitated. As a musicologist, I feel your pain. This is one of the many reasons we need better copyright law (worldwide, not just in the USA). Keep fighting the good fight Rick!
They should be paying Rick. Without him keeping these songs in the public consciousness, they’d fade into obscurity. Rick’s making them money.
And thats what it fucking is! Rick finally should raise his claim for that.
"Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie."
Careful! Your comment could get blocked!!! 😁
Eddie Money is gonna get you!
@@michelleyb.9709 😂
This is like J.K Rowling suing an English teacher for using the letters A B and C in his lectures.
Don't be ridiculous. He would have to put it online and therefore teach a lot more people
Yes, if the English teacher was making money from using those letters in this arrangement: Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal..
@@dagoncrows1425to your point, in terms of a song which has repeating sections the main verse would be equivalent of using a third of a book
Her
@@montdawgs to my knowledge you can't copyright chords sequences
RUclips is 100% at fault too. They need to step up for their content creators. They made the system that let's these clowns do claims. Most of the time it's not even a manual process or a person doing it. It's all computers and algorithms.
I think where RUclips is at fault is that they have the three strikes and you're out policy that doesn't take into account that the system is being taken advantage of by people whose sole "business" is stealing money from those who actually create something.
Yeah, YT is run and policed by utter immoral unprincipled shits.
Somebody needs to make another youtube....
RUclips/Google/Alphabet has been one of the biggest copyright violators of all. Google's lobbying (bribery) to Congress buys them a lot of permission to pirate and enable piracy.
Strike 3 wmg what a hot mess!
It’s a strange court where the plaintiff is also judge and jury.
Trump was going to fix this. That's why "they" had to get him OUT. By any means.
@@TheCyberMantis Uhumm....
@@TheCyberMantis Yeaaaaaah... you do know that Trump had the worst Internet law record in history, right? His administration was working overtime to give media and intellectual property corporations total control over access to the Net, including precisely this sort of thing.
@@TheCyberMantis makes claim, refuses to back it up, gets all in a huff when people don't swallow it whole.
@@SmellyBones too lazy to do any research. Believes what they want to believe. Truth is kryptonite. ( Your soy latte is getting cold. Bye. )
American folk singer Anne Bredon wrote "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You" in 1959. I believe the first actual recording was made by Joan Baez.
Exactly! Zep stole this one too- the irony here is outrageous
@@nolongerthere No, they didn't steal it deliberately. They thought it was a traditional, as Joan Baez did suggest back in 1962. Later both cases were cleared - Anne did get a lot of money in 1990 from Led Zep and the official author mentioning of the Led Zep version changed to "Anne Bredon/Jimmy Page & Robert Plant“.
"Jimmy Page would be embarrassed by this" yep.
I don't think Jimmy Page would be embarrassed by too much, as long as the checks keep coming in.
@@richardm1788 JP doesn't need a percentage of 500 bucks. This is not the kind of checks he gets nowadays.
@@LuizMGRamos but if he gets a few thousand pieces of 500 bucks coming in he can buy himself some more plastic surgery!
Well, not so simple. Page is not exactly the exemplar of ethics in the music field or as a human being.
@@surfwriter8461 that's what I was thinking about your mom. You woke Karen
F'ing wacky world we live in! You are preserving these artists music.............they should be praising you!!
Yes free advertising
@@Ben-cx5fe I don't think they need it..
They do need the advertising, well fresh ears hearing it. There's a new set of youth coming through everyday and music gets lost. Think of any bangers from 1800's,1930's, or many from the 1950's? Time changes and what's not advertised or played regularly gets forgotten. Shame really.
@@ImaJettison they're one of the biggest bands to ever exist. I don't think Rick Beato talking about one of their songs for a few minutes to an audience of classic rock fans will make a huge difference.
They get paid to do this. That's why.
This has reached the Harassment threshold. You have a case. Take them to court. Some body is abusing their position to troll an intelligent individual.
In the "land of lawsuits" that is a rational response that he should consider seriously... After all, his is a business like any other, and fair use is legal.
Lawsuits are extremely expensive. Rick would have to sue the publishing company and there is no expectation of victory. Rick, or anyone else would end up having to pay both sides of the court cost. The last thing anyone wants to do in life is hire a lawyer.
Take them to court.. oh, okay. Lol chill. You make it sound like it’s easy to do.
Start a "go fund me" and file a lawsuit. This is a cut and dried fair use.
@@whyyeseyec the internet, by this point, will probably gladly finance the lawyer. the internet has financed other lawyers in similar cases.
Pachelbel called.
He wants his royalties.
Everyone pay up.
@@Ottophil How is playing a few chords of a progression that is not unique at all - without singing - stealing?
Don't forget all the interest.
And a 2% royalty from every wedding
@@Ottophil - There's a HUGE difference!
A talking head in the corner of the screen nodding occasionally and going "cool" isn't the same as a person dissecting a song and explaining the theory behind why it sounds the way it does.
@@Ottophil
Is a Troll who didn't watch this video.
Rick *specifically* states, on several occasions, he shouldn't receive revenue from the type of video you mention.
I'm still so mad at this whole thing, that I'm commenting again... It's just so infuriating. Everyone of us that watches your channel must be thinking the same thing, and wishing you the best. You are a golden resource for those of musicians and recording engineers! Thank you , thank you, thank you!
Fact checkers say..."Correct!"
"Fact checks can be checked because they're checkable by checkers."
---Albert Einstein
"It is the Will of Landru."
---Albert Einstein
Actually, this is the fault of RUclips.
It makes no legal sense for the publisher to have the final decision on whether or not this is copyright infringement. If they took you to court, a judge or jury would decide if this was fair use. Leaving it up to the claimant is nonsensical.
This process is designed to protect RUclips from lawsuits, which is why I say that they are at fault for this system. It is the only explanation for a system where you leave the final decision to the claimant. Also, a system that punishes the video creator for disputing if the copyright claimant rejects the dispute is another attempt to lessen the number of disputes, without any attempt to determine if the dispute is reasonable.
This is what I think too. It is a no-cost option for RUclips arranged so they do not have the responsibilities of a publisher/broadcaster and can wah their hands of copyright claims.
They should be sued in a class action for something like restraint of trade for every case in which the "copyright holder* is its own judge and jury in assessing infringement.
Isn't it possible to get someone benign to claim copyright over everything you do (say the intro music) so that any other copyright claim does not receive any escrowed earnings?
I mean not really. In a biased sense, sure you could think that because you are thinking from the side of the RUclips creator. But who is RUclips to tell someone on the other end how they have to handle something. It is purely between the two parties, just like Rick says, RUclips should have no bearing on the decisions made. If you were on any other service it would be the EXACT same thing purely because thats how copyright laws work. If you want to blame something, blame the legal system that let copyrighting get to the state that its in.
@@iceman10129 But, this is not copyright as defined by the law and enforced by the courts. If the courts decided each case, then I would have no problem. I agree, this is RUclips staying completely out of the way. Copyright law needs to be reexamined, but it will have nothing to do with what RUclips does in this situation, because what RUclips wants to avoid is courts. By leaving the final decision to the copyright holder, they do that, but the copyright holders ignore "fair use" which is part of the present copyright law. Also, the copyright holders ignoring "fair use" can have real world effects, since RUclips creators can lose their channel because of copyright strikes.
@Bobby Boshay ... they just wash their hands of problems ... it costs them nothing to do it the way they do ... ie it has zero effect on their bottom line whatever happens ... they are 'not in the loop'.
Not a waste of time 100%
So sad to realize that some managers have a right just to click a button to go against the TEACHER!
In my opinion your channel is not just about teaching music, you are developing music industry as well and they should have no right to obstruct the man who is obviously working on their side actually.
Thanks for everything ❤️ I don’t have time or motivation to join beato club now but if you’ll need some extra for some legitation I’ll donate 100% because it is not fair ✌🏻
I like a agree with your comment, but let's not get confused about "rights".
Maybe its time Rick and others like him say "f*** the industry," and instead shine a spotlight on more underground artists, and talented unsigned artists, who work their asses off and would love the exposure. Let's all stop worshiping these big label acts. That's what they want. To hell with them!
@@toddmarshall7573 That doesn't wash. A musician may slave for years without pay to create music. That other people, or worse, corporations, can monetize all that work without paying for it is completely unfair. And the system is weighted against individual creators and in favor of heavy hitters and big corporations.
@@DJ-wx2gz I like the sentiment here in terms of spotlighting lessor known artists. It's definitely an issue when Rick basically spotlights big name acts only, that really don't need the exposure.
Sure Rick and others may state that the younger generation aren't aware of them, that's kinda immaterial as they've already made a fortune off those tracks.
However, Rick's focus is largely 'classic' rock and that's where his passion & knowledge mostly exists.
So, really the problem still exists about fair use, big record companies etc, as much as it would be 'nice' if Rick put his focus elsewhere. Not to mention the bulk of subscribers are into the content.
After all..that's why most are here.
Cheers. 🎸
@@DJ-wx2gz Well said! And thanks for the plug! 😉
The fact that the copyright holder gets to decide if it's fair use or not, instead of an impartial third party, is the problem here.
@@joea9608 I think it's more like a robber deciding that possessions in the home don't belong to the home owner because they own something that is similar
@@joea9608 Yeah, no it's not. Horrible analogy. Fair use by it's very nature involves use of something that belongs to someone else, ergo, the owner is not the one who legally decides what is fair use IF the aggrieved party cares to take it to court.
@@joea9608 actually, it is not like this at all. Anyone can play a song. There are bands out there right now making money by performing covers at local shows. This dude takes nothing from the artists or labels. He assists them. A more apt analogy is this:
You own a widget store. Someone else makes money by talking about how your widgets work on the internet. This person actually helps you by basically providing free advertising. Regardless, you force them to stop making videos about your widgets. They took nothing from you and were actually assisting you for free.
Classic rock music publishers-“ Hey! There’s this guy explaining why this music is great, enduring and introducing it to possibly many new young listeners who will stream this music and increase our revenue! What should we do about it?” Publishers’ management -“KILL IT! KILL IT DEAD!” 🤦♂️
It's not kill it though is it? It's "let's steal his money"
Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either, they should be giving Rick a frikkin award for his work, or some money!
I totally agree that this is outrageous. Warner should be ashamed of themselves.
Naw. They get they're check and feel great knowing they took someone's money because no one is buying they're garbage willingly anymore. Give it ten years and all these labels will be a thing of the past.
The thing is that these people don't even know how to spell shame unless you bully them back. They only respond to power because the s*ck up "upwards" and kick "downwards", whatever it means to them.
@@doknox *their
Those guys are thieves and carrier criminals. People like that have no shame.
Record labels know they’ve been circling the bowl for years, this is obvious desperation to maintain control/relevance.
The major labels in particular are basically the ticks, or intestinal worms, of creativity. They can do or contribute nothing of any value, but rely exclusively on the efforts of others to keep them going. They're worthless and they know it.
On the contrary, if something isn't done soon we're heading for a dystopia where the record labels have more _control/relevance_ than ever - and much worse kind of control than ever. Namely, nobody gets to choose what music to buy anymore, but is locked into streaming services where the labels control what you actually _can listen to_ - and that'll be determined by machine learning algorithms which optimise for maximum average profit, in a way the people at the record company won't even understand themselves anymore.
The funny thing about this is that this is a cover by Led Zeppelin of the Anne Bredon original so WC has nothing to claim as if anything it should’ve been Anne claiming copyright infringement. Imagine Vanilla Ice suing a bass player for playing the bass notes to Under Pressure.
"The point is to come on here and teach people about music." You're the man Rick. Thank you so much for all of your videos. Being able to see these songs through the lens of your professional experience has been a real revelation, and has taken my love of music and knowledge of music theory to the next level. You are a true teacher!
"It's not about the money, it's about sending a message" - Rick Beato
Capiche
You need to go to court. Even if you win $5.00 in small claims, it's worth starting the process to reset the precedent.
There really needs to be a class action, against all the big lables and publishers doing this. It's too costly to sue individually, but if you get them all at once, on everyone's behalf it'll make it worth it.
@@SeinFreak yeah I would believe that several states vs. Warner Publishing would be more effective than just Rick. Rick would have to pay a lot of money in lawyers, just to potentially lose to Warner, and then have to go broke paying back reparations for suing Warner
Yeah, I'm a teacher and simply could not do my job without fair use laws. I'm so sorry this happened to you.
Just stick a Capo on when doing the chord progressions. "No this is not babe im going to leave you, becaus the first chord is now a B minor"... lol
How can ‘The Judge’ also be ‘The Prosecution’?
Farcical and totally impartial.
Because the judge/prosecution was also the rich and powerful lobby group who greased palms in government to have the DMCA law drafted in a way that tilted the whole playing field in their favour. The law needs to be re-levelled, but won't be, for the same deepest pockets vested interest reasons above that it was screwed up in the first place.
Oh, it happens a lot
It’s a disgrace... they are literally killing music.
Maybe that is their point.
I was surprised that Pink Floyd didn’t get blocked… was “I better watch this now”
The only reason I can think of is that Roger Waters owns the rights to The Wall. All of Pink Floyd's other stuff is owned by their label, so maybe thats why.
Exactly what i did. Glad I saw it before it was gone.
It was a amazing video. I consider myself fortunate to see it. I had no idea the song was so complex but I have always felt it.
Same. Watched it as soon as it dropped for fear it would get pulled.
i shared it with my family today- and said that it's important to see the video quickly, for it could be taken down at a moment's notice. Thank you, @Rick. it was a lovely tribute to the song, and perhaps more importantly, to the people who assembled it, with special emphasis on Michael Kaman and Rick Wright.
Love the rant. Great arguments, logically laid out. We’ll back you, keep it going!
In one of your videos you should play “spirit” by Taurus and then when they demonetize you for preforming stairway to heaven you will have proven that they stole that song.
Unless I missed your humor, I assume you meant Taurus by Spirit.
There's no copyright on a chord progression. If there were, EVERY pop "song" today would be in violation.
Big pharm own I-V-vi-IV
Although it’s not Y-Tube making the decision, they should use their attorneys when clearly illegal behavior is being perpetuated against their content providers. To me this is an actual case where they should be protecting against fair use laws being abused.
It is RUclips. It's their system. The publishers are just taking advantage.
Keep fighting Rick! Trust us, we know! :-)
Come ci sei arrivato fin quá Enri ??
Ne sapete a pacchi 😂👍🏼
"Its not RUclips." RUclips went above and beyond what they legally had to and made a system that is primed for abuse by the owners of content or even people who don't own it, so yes, this is very much RUclips. They could change their system to be more reasonable (or as reasonable as the DMCA allows unfortunately), but they don't.
Exactly. RUclips is acting as a middleman for the music owner mafia.
That is exactly right. They built a platform so they collect their share and let everyone else battle it out for the rest, and they are not going to expose themselves to deep pockets so you know who that system is going to favor.
@@squatch545 I find it funny that Napster got sued for allowing pirating of music, yet when Google music shutdown, all my music was transferred directly over to RUclips music. Music that I had purchased myself. Now anyone can hear it, for free, and RUclips can then decide to remove it if they want. Nothing I can do about it
No. You are categorically wrong.
The DMCA legislation (largely drafted by the labels in their own favour) exempts RUclips and every other platform from any responsibility for copyright as long as they don't involve themselves in the dispute between the rights holder and the content creator, and just do exactly what the rights holder instructs them to do. If RUclips mediated in the reasonable way you're suggesting rather than blindly doing whatever the labels insist, they'd be liable to prosecution themselves for not adhering to DMCA law.
@@PaulCooksStuff So RUclips washes their hands of the matter to protect their own behinds, and hangs legitimate content creators out to dry. I don't think you were doing so, but Rick repeatedly tries to absolve RUclips when this crops up and it drives me nuts.
Thank you, Rick, for defending the principle of "Fair Use." You're right. When you are using nothing but the chord progressions to demonstrate complexity in order to educate listeners, you have the right to play the chords. The publishers are plucking the low-hanging fruit because they can... if no one stands up to them, they'll continue to do it. Thank you for taking the time, for being vocal in your protest of these unfair, outrageous excesses. Maybe if enough people started to do it, they'd start to pay attention.
Interestingly, "fair use" does not apply because as such, chord progressions are not copyrightable. "Fair use" is an exception from copyright that is granted for educational and other important purposes - in some regions. But let me repeat, copyright simply does not apply to chord progressions, they are not a protected intellectual property. By claiming "fair use" he's only undermining his rights to use the chord progression for any purpose.
@@SianaGearz What's the alternative to using it and making money then???
@@mikespearwood3914 I don't understand what you mean by this? Alternative to what?
Warner Publishing claims that their copyrighted intellectual property is used in the video. He should be able to claim that the parts he is using from Warner songs - chord progression and song name - are not subject to copyright and Warner have no claim on them. Chord progressions are essentially fundamentally public domain.
Whether RUclips allows to make such a counterstatement, is another issue entirely.
But by saying that this is "fair use" you in fact agree with Warner that this is their copyrighted content that you're using, when in fact it's not copyrightable.
And yes, if you find a song whose chord progression you happen to like, you can just take it and use it for your song, and you can use it commercially, legally no problem. Though potentially detection algorithms currently in place can still trip up.
@@SianaGearz You're saying there's no legal right for the publishers to claim the ad revenue off chord progressions. There needs to be a lawsuit against publishers for all these frivolous ad revenue claims that are denying youtubers their legal right to monetisation then.
@@mikespearwood3914 Yes.
Reminds me of Zappa's advice to young musicians: "Keep the publishing rights".
Publishers are such ugly weazels ...
And Kanye West took like 2 decades to realize that advice
Rick's videos give me a much greater appreciation for songs I would have not normally considered. I've found myself listening to some of them over and over again.
Fun story: I made a video once where we just said the words to "Havana" by Camila Cabello. No chords, no melody... totally monotone. 90% of the song is "Ooh na na" so the joke was how many songwriters that took. It got almost 5 million views. They claimed the entire video. Fun stuff.
@@morbidmanmusic Although Rick's case is different... @Titanic Sinclair didn't say he "Used" the words... He "SAID" the words (no sampling), which also makes it a ridiculous reason for claiming his video.
@@brunobailly7013 the text of the lyrics is copyright and can be classed as poetry if performed as a spoken word piece. if you perform someone else s copyright they are entitled to a royalty. liam gallagher has to pay noel for the rights to sing songs on his tour that he recorded with oasis - who wouldnt have wanted to be a fly on the wall at that meeting
@@plasticpaddy5278 I didn't know that. I knew that "spoken word" was actually a category of recordings... But not that song lyrics could be considered on their own as poetry (even though they're not meant to at all ! And I believe that even Bob Dylan doesn't consider his songs to be spoken and not sung 🙄).
I understand the majority of your comment except that ending metaphor about flies on the wall and a meeting... I'm not sure what "meeting" you're referring to.
@@brunobailly7013 "A fly on the wall" means he would have liked to be in the room when Liam Gallagher learned he had to pay his despised brother royalty rights to play Oasis songs. Liam's rant must have been epic!
That sounds like a creative use of their dumb lyrics. They should have to surrender their property rights to you!
Fight, you're in a position to. Even if you lose the first time out. And RUclips is doing this to you, they are acting as a publisher not a platform.
It's not even their song. They 100% stole the entire thing from Joan Baez. It's not a debate. It's not a matter of they were inspired by. It's not a matter of they borrowed some. They 100% ripped off the entire song. The chords, the melody, the lyrics, every single part of it was written by someone else that they didn't credit.
Which was kind of par for the course for Page and Plant.
Except that RUclips isn't instigating the blocks, the publishing companies are.
@@UnderDog1911 RUclips is putting up the block at the request of the 'publishing company' and without due process. They obviously side against their content creators by far the majority of the time. It's a corrupt system that needs to be torn down.
RUclips has just chosen the 'they asked us to do it' approach, and they created the system to put up the block, manage the monetization, etc... So they built the stick and gave it to the person that wants to hit you, then when they hit you with it. RUclips says, 'well they say they have a right to hit you'. You say, but they don't. RUclips says, well they say they do and we're going to help them.
RUclips has some liability here I think.
@@ZelosPhotizo nope. The labels lawyers largely drafted DMCA law. The platforms are required to do what the labels insist. They have almost no scope for independent judgement (bar some minor wriggle room on the specific details of how many takedowns leads to a strike, and how many strikes is expulsion).
RUclips didn't choose or draft the DMCA system, the government (lobbied by the labels) did. Yes, it's absolutely not a level playing field. By design of the labels. Not by design by the platforms. It needs to be reformed, but it won't be, because it suits the labels just fine, and to some degree the platforms are pretty happy with the status quo too - as long as they do whatever the label insists, the law exempts them from prosecution. The platforms don't want to intervene in your dispute - it puts them at risk.
@@PaulCooksStuff This ^^
Playing chords from a song isn't "fair use" because courts have held that chord sequences are not copyrightable, and thus reproducing a song's chord sequence doesn't constitute *any* use of copyrightable material from the song. As such, WC filed a claim for material that you own and they do not. I don't know what mechanisms existed to dispute such a claim, but would suggest that you go on record as disputing their ownership of any material, and stating that you will regard a failure to release their revenue claim as an act of copyright infringement by them against you. I'm not sure exactly what statutory damages you would be entitled to if you sue them, but If you register your video and notify them of such registration, any continued infringement should subject them to rather substantial liability.
Many "fair use" claims are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow a wide range of conduct that is abusive but not patently abusive. If, however, WC is claiming revenue from a video that doesn't actually contain any of their copyrightable material, I think that puts them on the wrong side of a much clearer line.
I would guess it would be under fair use as he named the song.. it’s contextual.
I heard Dan Fogerty got sued by a record company who owned CCR's music for sounding too much like himself (CCR's lead vocalist)
Yep, you are correct, a chord progression can not be copyrighted by itself.....
@@Rdghufbhfdzc John Fogerty, but yes he got sued for sounding too much like himself haha
@@alexandra4334 I’ll argue all of Rick’s videos are instructional. I watch them purely for their educational value. Like all teachers, Rick uses techniques to keep his lessons from being boring. I’ve never felt his videos were ads for lessons. I’ve never paid anything to watch his content. This video is certainly instructional. He is educating us on RUclips’s ridiculous (his word) demonetization process. RUclips’s ridiculous (my word) application of demonetization process is tantamount to demonetizing videos because spoken words in a certain order were used in a partial sentence in copyrighted books.
Just watched through 90% of this video then scrolled down to see that the claim has been dropped. So happy for you, could almost touch the emotion in this rant. Keep on teaching in a free world.
record labels don’t care about rights, they’re just greedy.
Sure, but Rick is hawking his merch in every video. He wouldn't be hollering if he wasn't losing money, that's why he didn't play the song in this video so it wouldn't get demonetized.
@@Cr8z13 Doesn't make the record label's actions any less wrong though, does it?
And very, very shortsighted.
Just goes to show you how desperate the music industry has become. Dying industry.
Rick, let's face facts, the world is now completely broken, utterly on your side, complete outrage....get in touch with Page, good grief, you are educating people, where is the struggle to be creative.....stick it to the man!
How odd that the company that claims the “violation” gets to decide the outcome of the dispute? I really don’t get it. A lot of people watch you Rick and learn a lot about music. It seems to me a fair number of listeners that watch will go out and buy the songs or the band’s work. You are in many ways a great advertisement for these groups. You probably make them more money. They should be supporting you not blocking. Dumb bureaucrats.
Who would decide the outcome if not the offended party?
@@OdaKa Oh I don't know... maybe sombebody with no skin in the game?
@@zwerker oh like an impartial third-party
@@zwerker The problem is that arbitration isn't free. Who would pay for it?
@@troyhoffman9411 Both parties, proportionally, according to the capacity of earnings. Those big companies of course bearing the greater liability.
Rick: start making video pairs: first has the music clips/content that gets disputed, the second you reference the first “listen to 1:25 to 3:00, then come back for my thoughts.”
Video 1 is t monetized, but you’re content is.
Brilliant idea. He really could cut out the section and drop 2nd video and a link to see the clip. and the main video stays monetized. fantastic! Let's hope he does.
They didn't invent music. Music goes back several centuries. You have a right to play any combination of notes in anyway or fashion. You're a lecturer and instructor and have every right to instruct.
Several (many) millennia ... since a dog barked and a human copied it ... since someone beat a stone on a tree stump.
We don't have rights. We are slaves on a big ol' plantation. Your so-called rights can be taken away at any time, without justification. Thugs rule us, and they decide if and when we are allowed to exercise "our rights".
This channel is just way too intelligent… If you would smash a guitar, yell the word 'poop', and hit yourself in the face with a hammer RUclips would monetize the hell out of it.
Damn, you are absolutely correct, in fact, rightous! Thank you for making complete sense!
pay attention more, it's NOT RUclips denying him, "don't shoot the messenger". It's Warnell Chappell as he CLEARLY STATED.
Except those of us who grew up under Ozzie Osbourne and a few other crazy rockers in the 70's know full well them nuts will want the money from such a video because they think they have the rights to being the fool they are and were. Like they invented being stupid or such.
@@brianmi40 I think you are both correct.
@@miguelhidalgo9372 Righteous.
Anyone else just hate to see Rick upset? Gonna say it right here. This is my favorite RUclips channel. I’ve learned more about music theory and production from these videos than anything else in my 30 years writing and playing. Thank you RB, you ROCK brother!
Well...I hope in the future, those stupid rich big head company won't demonetize a video just because they play a Mixolydian scale.
I just don't get why these "legacy brands" and their handlers don't understand that everything you do for them is ACTUALLY promoting them. Myopia at its finest!
Because its not about promoting those old bands. It's because record companies don't have enough monetary control over those old catalogues.
The idea that chord progressions per se can be copyrighted is daft. Who owns the Lydian mode? Keep up the good work, Rick.
Good on you for winning this one. The truly outrageous part is that the labels get to police themselves. "No, we've decided we're right" shouldn't be allowed in a just society.
Without an independent arbitrator the use of the word "fair" is a joke. As Rick says, screw them. Their loss, I hope.
It's like a fox getting to decide if it was okay to eat the farmer's chicken.
This is why I was glad to see the music publishing industry tank like it did after the digital revolution, though those greedy SOBs have just been replaced with a new crop of digitally greedy SOBs.
How the hell is the entity that's accusing you the one who decides if you're guilty? This system is incredibly ridiculous.
Unfortunately until someone takes the publishers to court, their outrageous and ridiculous behavior will continue.
Funny. There's a lot of us struggling musicians out there who wouldn't want anything else than to get used as an example on Rick's channel.
Yeah, that would be the dream. Imagine having your song in a What Makes This Song Great episode
Dude. Seriously. One day I'll have a song on his channel. What makes this song great. And he can use it to all avenues he wants...
@@christophermiller1595 Put it in writing first!
Rick - Offer this case to a copyright attorney, tbey have knowingly violated the fair use provivions of the DMCA and have thus violated a differdnt provision of the DMCA opening them up to damages and punitive damages. That will make them stop this.
Indeed, at the very least a ‘copyright strike’ would no longer be of relevance.
There's a few right here on RUclips 🤷 Leonard French @ Lawful Masses is one. I think he needs to cover this.
"That will make them stop this."
No it won't. New laws will, laws specifically designed to make false DMCA claims economically detrimental.
“I’m gonna play it again. No, I’m not gonna play it because…screw them!”. Well said!
So Warner Chapel Publishing is, in affect, claiming sole rights to a chord progression. So then I guess Muddy Waters has sole rights to I-IV-V blues progression?
Ask Warner to see their ownership of a chord prrogression.
I thought you couldn't copyright a chord progression on the grounds that there are only so many chord progressions available...
You want to know a crazy thing, Warner Chappel probably wouldn't even have dinged Rick if he hadn't named the song. Had Rick said something like, "and there's this crazy chord progression in a song by a popular 70s band," it probably would have been just fine. I don't know. I could be wrong.
You shouldn’t have to do this, it’s clearly fair use, but I think the only way to beat this is if you join together with other music education RUclipsrs and collectively sue RUclips and the publishers for the money because I’m certain any judge would say this obviously fair use and could court order RUclips to just reject claims that are obviously fair use. That way if the publishers *still* want to claim it’s not fair use, they’d have to take you to court and it’d no longer be profitable to do it. As well as this, it would publicly demystify the cosy little process YT and the publishers have going on. I think a lot of people would like to contribute to a legal fund on your behalf.
There should be an independent group to decide these claims. This is unjust and unfair.
So let me get this straight... Company "A" can make a copyright claim and company "A" also gets to decide if their claim is valid. Seems legit.
Seriously. It's now time for everyone to take these companies to court. They will never listen to anything except very serious legal action.
These publishers are just hastening their artists slide into obscurity.
They are also hastening the 'revolution' that will bring about a bankrupt recording industry. They are making clear every day that they care more about abusing privelidge than protecting assets, and that means their protection privileges are inevitably going to be revoked, and mass bankruptcy will be their own fault.
Rick, would you consider making a Patreon account? I and many others would happily support you that way!
He has had one for a long time, I believe
Does the patreon account allow him to speak freely and use whatever music he wants? That would be good.
@@graemeogle4492 it doesn’t look like Rick has a Patreon acct. but he has probably had the Beato Club for longer that Patreon has been around.
I think Rick is more pissed about the ethics of it all rather than the actual dollars
Sadly, your money will end up at Warner...😭
How can the people filing the dispute judge what is fair use? It should be an independent panel or something -- like WTF?
I wish artists would get together and collectively tell the publishers and labels to stop this. You’re right that it’s embarrassing for the artists.
It's a feedback system. Pushing back on it is how you bring it into balance. So thank you, Rick, for putting yourself into a position where you can push back and maybe contribute to a correction in the system. I love music, and I love the rants, because they're about protecting the longevity of the music. I learn so much from your content! 👍
it's so important to bring these things to light. Toooo many people don't reveal and make these things public. Thank you Rick for showing this to everyone.
That's kinda rich considering how much "Borrowing" Led Zeppelin did during their career. And you didn't even play the original track from the recording. The Idiocracy is in full effect.
I was gonna write something similar to this - but your verbiage is much classier than what I wrote.
They didn't write the song.
The whole system is ridiculous. I had two videos taken down from Facebook and Instagram of original songs I had recorded which were challenged by both Warner and Sony. Both of them accepted the challenge and the videos were reinstated. Weird thing was the videos had been up for over 18 months and out the blue these claims came in. Makes me think somewhere one of their artists has written a song that sounds like mine and so they’ve now challenged me because mine sounds like theirs - when I should probably be challenging them (trouble is I have no idea what my song is supposed to sound like)
Most people don't understand that "playing the chords" isn't actually playing the song.
@@michelleyb.9709 You mean the bozos they hired to enforce copyrights against youtube videos? I wouldn't be so sure.
More creators need to confront RUclips about this. This is bs
We all support you, Rick. It's insane what they can get away with. I bought your book recently, really enjoying it.
What needs to happen is RUclipsrs need to come together and pressure the platform to provide some level of protection for the uploaders from false claims/strikes against their videos. Google/RUclips has no incentive to change their systems currently, because they get their cut no matter how the remaining earned funds are distributed. Maybe a RUclips strike is warranted, possibly some level of unionization so that there is an entity in place to protect the uploader.
The worst part of all this, which you mentioned, is that the monetary amounts earned in monetization is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. To RUclips, it's a lot - a million pennies is a significant sum - but to the receivers of the remaining distributed finds, it's typically not even enough to report on taxes.
Would be interesting to see how Warner Chappell would deal with this going to court. I would love to hear their reasoning on how this is not fair use.
@@MrDjTilo There is no "coming together". His case is an individual case with individual facts. If he chooses to fight it he will almost certainly win. It's probably just not worth his time or money to do so.
Warner Chappell is a revenue making company relying totally on their back-catalogue, in that they no longer spend money on searching for and developing new artists. To W/C, new artists are more or less a simple waste of time. Most of the best work of previous W/C staff has been done. This is how W/C aimed to conduct itself in the market since the late 90s because they can no longer sell albums.
Maybe Warner needs to be boycotted for this nonsensical abuse on their part.
You are right. This music is transcribed everywhere and you are clearly teaching... unbelievably broken.
Sorry this happens to you you are a great teacher and a unconscionable behavior by these .... corporate... your a great teacher and nothing these people can do will ever change that...
F*cking angers me so much that these music publishers are trolling RUclips looking for nickels & dimes on vids ..it’s like looking down the backs of your friends sofa/couch for loose change that fell out of pockets .
These great bands from the past need RUclips, need creators to highlight the brilliant music of these bands. It helps the bands in the long run as a viewer will go out and buy the albums which put cash in the pockets of the writers & publishers.
Or, at the very least, make people search and play the songs on RUclips, which would also make them money. Not much money, but assumingly more than Rick would have made by highlighting the chords of the song.