So true. I gave up playing in a live band with own (good) songs because of this. Music is the best but as a musician you have to rely on managers, agencies etc. But unfortunately these 'people' are not in the business because they love music, they only love MONEY.. Sharks everywhere and honest integre musicians are sensitive people so they get eaten. The music business stinks even more than the movie business.
Sven Jansen Your words come as a comfort to me. I was living in Paris, performing. I gave it up after six years- too many sharks, and that’s including the musicians themselves. Back to my wood craft; it’s much more peaceful.
Mr. Knopfler is the legend of all legends. After Dire Straits, he's been working on mesmerizing solo albums till now. No break, just pure genuine renditions about people, life, love, soldiers, and so on..
"Let's call this exactly what it is: a shakedown" - Tony Soprano. Get a job, you dipshit lawyers! I totally got Rick's back on this. He's got every right to be upset.
If I had a child that wanted to be a record company executive I would try to steer them towards a more honest career like, oh Say Whore or drug Dealer.
I was humming "Yesterday " by the Beatles this morning. I'm pretty sure both Alexa and Siri were in ear shot of my voice. Expecting a Cease and Desist email soon.
I firmly believe 85% of the Music Industry now is just the money, and while that is extremely vital to success, they've forgotten what made the industry important. The passing of musical talent, songs, and knowledge has been scrapped for the most part for revenue, it's pathetic.
RC32 I have people telling me that the industry is 20% ACTUALLY MAKING MUSIC and 80% ADVERTISING. I don’t care if that’s how it really is, that’s just ridiculous.
@@bobbywillis1466 It is. Like I said, people now in the bigger businesses favor more money, and that's why they take over of any claim they can "legally" get their hands on via YT or other platforms. This doesn't apply to every corporation, but definitely to the ones that we see everyday.
Which is why I gave up on music five years ago. I knew this is where things were heading, either you get ripped off from them stealing your material, or they claim it was already theirs to begin with. I hope they all go bankrupt and burn eternally in a white hot hell.
There is absolutely NO incentive anymore to be a musician starting out. You'll get screwed over on the internet, playing clubs is a thing of the past to get your start. You basically have to either be a cookie cutter pop/rap star who can easily be controlled through drugs/blackmail/etc, or a legacy act to make any sort of living off of "music" these days. The industry ate itself and will inevitably crash and burn by cutting out the creativity which first bred them success.
I also heard about a case of a music teacher, who made a backing track on RUclips, someone took that track and sold it to an indian artist who sang her lyrics over that track and promoted it as her new song and boom: The teacher, who originally created the backing track received a copyright claim. Copyright law is so fucking broken!
Here's the fucked up part. In Western music there are 15 key centers, three which are enharmonic. Inside each key center there are modes. Inside each mode are a set amount of notes ascending or descending. Only so many variables can be made with a finite amount of notes, chord progressions, whatever...so, there will never be any melody of music that could not be analyzed to be similar with another composition. Unless it's an obvious ripoff like Vanilla Ice's song was, it's damn near impossible to not hear past influences in every genre. Imagine this in rap where most of it is similar in style and arrangement. Lunacy to limit art defined by how many notes on in this case, where a popular scale resembles a famous song.
Had this happen to me as well. Also had my ISP back in 1999 get a letter from a publisher because I had "illegal mp3 files" on my website. Those were my songs. They later tried to claim that because I used certain instruments, they owned the rights to the songs by proxy because the companies were somehow related. Needless to say, nothing came of it because they didn't dare try this in court. But today, they don't have to go throught the court. Honestly what I'd do is get legal counsel and sue their asses. It will be a monetary loss for sure, but I would NOT rely on the youtube processes in any way.
That's probably why he doesn't do it. If anyone remembers The Cure, their keyboardist Roger O'Donnell was hit with a takedown on MySpace for his own song!!!!
Carlin was a comedian but a speaker for the people.... He observed society, pointing out that those that rule , Injecting control via social engineering to control YOU.... ... Many looked in the mirror , many in the audience probably laughed uncomfortably, , with things so ridiculous , just had to laugh.. Thats a rippa , because bizarrely, its probably true thats exactly what Sony would do!
@@cheryllakin3077 Celtic said, RUclips.... Two vastly different delivery mediums. As for a Concert on RUclips?? Who Knows..... Thats just another discussion I imagine.
@@cheryllakin3077 He ranted about it some years ago on his MySpace page. He was so kind and replied to me when I commented on how he explained his recording setup and how it worked. I was so thankful and he was so courteous. Anyway, it was his own "channel" or whatever MySpace called it, but yeah, his own company realized it was him posting his own music. Pretty stupid.
I am an attorney in Texas and I am looking for a way to stop this kind of harassment of RUclipsrs legitimate fair use of copyrighted material. Likely will require class action. That’s the only way I can see to make it worth fighting
Steve please keep the "worth fighting" whine to yourself pal. We hear it enough from you a-holes. BTW..you aren't gonna do a Goddamned thing because you aren't smart enough to realize just how "worth it" it is.
Rick - I'm 100% in agreement with you on this. I have a suggestion: you should get in touch with Joerg Sprave (The Slingshot Channel - 2.5M subscribers) who is in the process of setting up a RUclipsrs' Union in Germany. He has backing from the largest unions in Germany. Word on the street is that YT is scared of this dude. He speaks excellent English and he's funny as hell. He may be interested in expanding the scope of his proposed union on an international basis.
“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.” Hunter S. Thompson
Why I quit. I started playing because I love music. After learning how to play instruments. I wanted others to hear me play. Of course I wanted to be paid for my performances! But that became a big problem and Life Threatening Situations. Many artist dying poor as their records continue to be sold.
I'm sick of the abuse of copyright by big corporations. Copyright law exists to protect people from having their work ripped off without accreditation, to present a clear product to the marketplace without confusion as to who created it or who deserves the revenue from that product. No one is watching a video where a song is clearly presented as an existing work by an artist and a section of its melody used as an example about songwriting, and being confused or misled about the ownership of that copyrighted work. No one could ever think you wrote that song, no one could then listen to the original song and think "Hey, these Beatles guys ripped off Rick!". It's essentially free advertising for the original song. No revenue that would otherwise have gone to the rights' holders has been misappropriated by Rick. Copyright law should not be about conglomerates nickel and diming the world because ten seconds of a song happens to be used as an example.
I don’t see how Ricks use of the song is any different than quoting something in a research paper or any other writing and adding a footnote citing the source.
This is because the music industry is dying a slow and painful death and they are reduced to shaking people down for money. The same four a holes write every pop song now. Every pop song today is nothing more than a dumbed down four chord version of what music used to be. They are attacking the little guy because they don’t have a viable strategy to promote compelling acts to make them real revenue.
Im with danehb89 this is getting way out of hand. what next; oh he put the same G cord in his song. So he is copy writing my song. ok people looks like musicians have to make a union to fight these conglomerights. first ordeal is deal with You-Tube Google. They might be a great corperation that has made a good service at one time. But now it's Corrupt to the fullest by Greedy Make the rules up as they go along, Conglomerights. The only thing is Rick . You got to way your differences and decide if you should even bother giving them royalties at all . Take down the vid . Do another Discription of it . One without using Beatles material. I mean . If they are going to bitch about making money. Then don't give them any. Your knowledge is great. You can find some other way to describe the riff you want describe what you want to describe. Your knowledge is vast. You Show them.
The music industry is hurting because they make a small fraction of what they used to make from album sales through streaming, RUclips, etc. This greatly reduces the profitability of more niche artists and causes them to market music aimed at the lowest common denominator that will stream a song or album over and over and over again.
If it were the artists getting paid by all this, I'd have less of a problem with it too. But it's not the artists, it's the corporations, usually not even the ones that provided the production facilities in the first place, just buying and selling title to works they had nothing to do with making in order to collect a share of the profits they had no part in producing. Nothing but parasites.
well, that's why they bought the rights of the songs - to make money from it. It's their business. And they don't sell records anymore, so they try to get it from the internet. It's vomit-inducing, but it's how it works
The corporations make a lot of that possible though. God knows 99.9% of the artist in the world would starve to death if they had to run their own business. The question isn't about whose getting paid, it's about using the copyrighted material to' '...advance knowledge or progress through the arts,' (taken right from the wikipedia Fair Use Copyright page) or not.
Class action lawsuit against the boughten music establishment, for creating this toxic atmosphere, need to happen by the actual artists, forever being ripped off by this false fraudulent corporate misrepresentation!
@@chrisa3961 the point is, in no way can any of the people making money off the music claim to have *"earned"* it, nor can they claim that laws that allow them (as opposed to the actual creators of the works) to make that money serves to incentivize the creative process or anything like that.
But Rick, why would I go out and buy a record when I can just listen to a 12-second segment of one of the songs in a teaching video? C'mon dude, these gigantic record companies gotta eat.
@@sonikku997 Rick has 1.64 subscribers at the moment. Calculate: 12 secs times 1.64 million gives us 19.2 million seconds or 5.333 hours equivalent to 7.111 long play records (45 minutes each) of copyrighted musik. At ₤10 each there will be 70,000 lbs missing in their pockets and this hurts JPG&R and their companies.
i guess the beatles answer to that question would sadly be: pay for the right to use the songs in order go make money by teaching music with them songs.
@@PaulPaul-vj2vx "... the teacher AUTOMATICALLY surrenders all his profits ..." so basically bring youtube education down to the level of the shtty teacher jobs in public schools. yes, that'd be beautiful. "free education" usually means not having to pay to get educated rather than not getting paid for teaching.
Carl Sagan wanted to put "Here Comes the Sun" on the Golden Record on Voyager to traverse the solar system. EMI said no. Essentially, if aliens want to listen to the Beatles, they are going to have to pay for it.
It is now out of the Solar system completely - it was meant to traverse the Milky Way galaxy, and will be carrying those pieces of our culture when our entire civilization is completely forgotten - too bad The Beatles didn't get "A Ticket to Ride."
Even better, may be LBRY, which is ablockchain based video platform that allows earnings to be paid DIRECTLY to a content to creator by a viewer through a crypto that is exchangable for USD. No Middle Man, no corporations, no policing of content.
That wouldn't work. It's the record companies that file the claims. If youtube (or another platform for that matter) doesn't comply, they sue RUclips. That's why Rick says: RUclips wants to stay out of it. They just comply, rather than go on a multi billion dollar lawsuit road with the record companies. If RUclips was out there to fight these claims, they would do it. But they're in the business of showing videos. You can call it cowardly, but I can understand their standpoint. Losing money over a moral or ethical standpoint is not something a business wants to be known for. Sadly...they'd have the suport of the people, but it's gonna cost them a lot of dollars.
Mike Philippens you are 100% correct that it’s the record company not RUclips. Any platform would have the same happen on it. But you are off on one point - RUclips not wanting to lose money in the fight. They are owned by Google. And Google is worth 1,000 Billion dollars (that’s a trillion but 1,000 billion sounds better!). So spending a couple hundred million on lawsuits is pocket change. They know what the record companies are doing is wrong but they are choosing to let it happen.
@@LAGreg123 Still, they choose not to do anything because they don't want to loose money. I don't mean that their profit goes away, but a lawsuit against the record companies could be a millions of $$$ for lawyers. It's gonna cost them money, so they won't do it. They will only do it, if something would happen to them if they don't. So maybe a world wide action from the content creators. Let's say one day (or longer) upload only videos where your complain about this situation en setup a petition to change this situation. Call the media, get all the big content creators on YT to participate. If there's enough negative publicity, they'll change something. There's enough bad publicity about Google being a monopolist, so in this case that works too.
Not only is this quote wrong, the real quote was about the TV industry, not the music business. It's still true, but stop reposting quotes that are completely wrong. Sincerely, Einstein.
I'm pretty sure being misquoted would piss off Thompson more than a lot of the crap people try to align him with erroneously. What greater disservice to a writer can their be than changing their words?
@@SweetSpotGuitar Yes, You're exactly right but the LA music industry is possessed by money and that's the devil's advocate. Sign your life Mr. Johnson and will make you a Star...
My dad wrote thirteen #1 songs (country). As I showed him You Tube vids by the hundreds of his work and he learned how easy it was to play his music royalty free, he went crazy ! He had no idea ! Of course, he never owned a computer and thought the internet was a passing fad. But, as the years went by and we set up a few channels for him, he realized that these sources were actually keeping his music alive and relevant. Song that were 30 years old were getting views, getting shared, getting learned and played. Then, he felt differently. Now that he's gone, I'm grateful for these sources, because they keep him here through his music. Just a perspective.
Last week I got SIX copyright claims on ... MY OWN MUSIC ... literally. I shared an hour-long Piano album I released two years ago, and shared it on my YT channel. Minutes later, SIX companies claimed copyright on this music. These are all HYMNS from the 1800s 😳 arranged and recorded by me on solo Piano. How in the world can someone claim copyright ON MY OWN MUSIC? Whaat?
Paul Smith I submitted a dispute immediately. Out of the six claims, four were released immediately. The other two are just sitting there with no reply ... I guess those claimants are just salty they can’t reject my dispute and are just going to let the claim expire in 30 days. At least that is my hope ... Thanks 🙋♂️
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I believe you said that the songs were hymns from the 19th century. So they aren’t in fact totally yours. However, if they are that old, they should be in the public domain by now and therefore royalty free. Sorry to hear about your troubles, keep writing it’s important.
Why don't all the large RUclips channels organize and bring a class action suit against RUclips for legitimizing bogus copyright claims? This is becoming a very common complaint, and probably won't change until RUclips suffers a financial consequence. They pick on channels individually, but I'd figure many of the largest RUclips channels would have a collective interest in putting an end to this nonsense. Edit: it's really like some of you haven't watched the video, but are still commenting. No one is complaining about LEGITIMATE copyright claims. The, quite obvious, bogus claims being honored are just leeching money from content creators. The goal would just be to pressure YT to create a better system than rubber stamping every single claim as legitimate.
They should do this! Some RUclipsrs who really care should get together. The only problem is that these 'record labels' have a strong team of lawyers to protect their money. :/ It's all a complete scam smh. It's a shame really. Mans biggest flaw is greed, this right here is a perfect example of this.
It's not Google's fault. They got gang-jumped by the entire corporate entertainment industry, and while Alphabet has deep pockets, they weren't willing to roll the dice on losing billions in court. The current system was designed by Google as a way of making themselves bulletproof against the army of lawyers which got sicced on them. The alternative to what they have now was either shutting RUclips down or risking the loss of billions of dollars _and_ shutting RUclips down. Suing Google will do nothing. They're following the path of maximum profit and least risk to themselves. The problem isn't Google, it's late-stage capitalism where people are allowed to "own" sequences of genes or Pepsi blue.
Saul Zaentz was his name, l believe. A co-producer of the Academy award winning movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" along with Michael Douglass. Owned Fantasy Records and signed CCR to one of the worst deals ever for an artist. John Fogarty wrote a series of fantastic, enduring 3-minute songs. But as an inexperienced kid, he didn't realize he'd signed away his publishing rights. One of the most sickening examples of greed and preying upon an artist in an industry rife with them.
As a retired teacher, I was struck by one sentence the moment you finished saying it: “But this is a teaching video.” And by extension it is a learning video as well. I find Sony’s antics just one of a slew of examples by large corporations that continue to contribute to keeping folks in general stupid and ignorant. Keep on truckin’, Rick!
You should start your own band and call them The Beatos. First single: Swedish Furniture: 'I once assembled a chair. But first I must share.... this stuff isn't fair.' I don't really know that this would solve anything actually.
@@philfrank5601 There will always be someone willing to do the work for free. RUclips will just send us there. The template has been made. That's all they care about.
Agree and good points. Question though, if good content creators like Rick and others know this, why do they keep posting videos about how much they hate it? What’s the point of keep saying this?
A few years ago I posted videos of my daughters high school soccer team (using another user/channel), and I would record during the time that the national anthem was being played. After I'd put a few up I started getting copyright notices from RUclips for someone claiming that they owned the copyright to the particular recording of the national anthem that was played in the video. Since I didn't really care about whether the national anthem was heard during the video I just hit the "Mute Song" button, because otherwise the claimant could pop ads up during my videos, which frankly I find incredibly annoying *AND* I didn't want the other team parents thinking I was making money off these high school soccer videos. (You can just imagine how *that* would go... :-) But - it gets better. I decided that I didn't like the "complete money grab", as you described it, Rick - so I changed my habits, and I changed to starting the videos after the national anthem was played. So - no national anthem in the video - but I *still* got copyright notices, complete with start and end times. To make sure I hadn't lost my mind I went to the videos in question and listened to them and verified that there was NO NATIONAL ANTHEM - just me making a bunch of stupid comments about a high school soccer game. So I clicked on the "I'm disputing this claim for another reason" and pointed out that not only did the national anthem not appear during the times claimed in the copyright notice, but that the national anthem DID NOT APPEAR IN THE VIDEO AT ALL. I'm happy to say that after this RUclips finally rejected the copyright claim, and I stopped having copyright claims filed against my vids. But it STILL gets better! When the dust had finally settled and the air had quickly cleared (and extra internet points will be awarded to the first person who can name the artist and song where that line came from :-) I checked with the people in the booth who PLAYED the national anthem tape - and they revealed that the version of the Star Spangled Banner which was played at every home game was recorded BY THE HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND! So *all* of these copyright claims were pure 100% BS!
Remember when Google (owner of RUclips) was first starting out and had in their Code of Conduct the phrase "Don't Be Evil", which was a swipe at other larger companies like Microsoft and IBM, who were supposedly so awful. They were essentially trying to claim the higher ground as though they were a company that "cared" about its customers. Then, when Google got big enough, they dropped that phrase from its Code of Conduct. This pattern happens with every company: 1) Pretend to care about customers, 2) Get big and admit you never cared about customers to begin with.
Solution: publishers should be punished for frivolous claims as vigorously as RUclipsrs for infringement . There should be a three strikes from them, too.
RUclips dosen't want to deal with the lawsuits, the music industry loves to sue, even whe they know they are gonna lose, just to make people waste billons and send a message.
Creators should do a strike and hide their videos for a week, i don't think youtibe wants to lose that money either, that might get them to take proper action and value creators
@@tatomar001 Nah, too risky, the algorithm will just punish them and reward new, smaller creators or those who don't participate, it would be just a shot in the foot if they don't have at least 90% of the creators with 500k+ subs on their side.
Dude. Named your kid “Lennon?” That’s a copyright infringement and you’ll have to forfeit your kid....In fact, my mentioning “Lennon” here (twice) is an infringement and well...we’re just going to have to delete me.
Carrie Fisher talked about signing the rights to her likeness away when she signed onto Star Wars in 1975, and lamented the fact that every time she looked in the mirror, she owed George Lucas some money.
The music "industry" is going to implode if this continues. All we will have left is pre-programmed crap that store bought singers are hired to put vocals on.
Yep. Labels are becoming more and more obsolete and they know it. Pop music hasn't changed much in 25 years, because the big record companies found a formula that makes tons of money, and that is all they care about. Mainstream country music is a good example of what happens when you let label executives take creative control from artists. There are so many incredible musicians making diy music nowadays, and they don't have to have hundreds of thousands of dollars to record an album. And music fans don't need radio stations to introduce them to these artists. Instead of having a few handfuls of superstars with multi-million dollar record contracts, I'd like to see more of these diy artists be able to make a living wage from their music.
I've received what must be hundreds of copyright claims on a my channel when I do album reviews and analysis videos. I've disputed every single one of them via fair use. Yes, some of them get rejected (mostly from Universal and Sony) so then I appeal them, all of them. Finally yes, some of them get rejected then as well (mostly by Sony) and I have gotten copyright strikes. I then submit a counter-notification (basically, "Remove the claim, or take me to court"). I have gotten every single claim and strike removed from my channel. I have even gotten my channel taken down but then later I got reinstated by not letting up on my disputes. I know I'm a smaller channel, but you can fight them. These are all scare tactics as they do not expect most RUclipsrs to actually fight these (let alone have knowledge on IP and copyright law) and they certainly don't want to waste the time and money to actually pursue these in court. You hit the nail on the head when you said "RUclipsrs are scared," but somebody's gotta fight this fight. Hell, even Anthony Fantano never plays the music that he's talking about on his channel. Hell, I might be the only one fighting this fight, but somebody has to fight it. Sorry for the long comment but this something I deal with daily on my channel so your rant resonated with me. P. S. I've gotten claimed for Beatles tunes multiple times and have successfully fought them all off. I believe they were "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da," "Something," and "Hey Jude."
I’m glad you have been successful in fighting every claim. It kind of sounds like you need to file a cease and desist claim against them to get them to stop harassing you.
@@vaporman442 I feel like that'd be a hard thing to pull off. Having basically the entirety of the music publishing world being legally forced back off on copyright claims on one specific person seems like it could easily be abused from a neutral standpoint. I'd prefer a more open line of communication between music RUclipsrs and the publishers if anything.
This is why I never cover anything within copyright - far too much faff and basically no financial upside. You weren't even covering, just using it to teach. I feel bad for you, Rick.
And hilariously covers are one of the best ways to discover new music. They're like a free advertisement. Apparently the big music corporations don't want that - pretty strange to say the least.
@@tiihtu2507 yep, this is the real irony in the situation. I can't count the number of times I've watched one of Rick's videos, and then got straight on line and paid for music from an artist I'd forgotten about for a few years. The labels are actually cutting their own hands off when they keep infringeing people all the time for playing 8 bars from a song they 'own'.
Side note: The Hendrix Estate has done more to keep Jimi Hendrix dead and buried and diminish his legacy than any copyright-infrigning fandom could ever hope to do.
Not only is this complete BS, it’s massively ignorant on the part of the publishing company. You inspire me (a non musician) daily to go back and listen and purchase music by bands. Hell, I just watched the freakin history of Faith No More?!! You’re teaching generations of people to love and appreciate the creation of music and creativity in general. This model has to fall, the way our economy has to. You’ll be left standing because you do such good work. 👊🏾
Lmao agree, Game Freak was so lazy with SWSD, they're just selling because they have brand and because it's the first game on switch. I hope temtem or other competitor manages to move the tide so this people realize they're not doing great.
@@Vintagestep They should take notes from the Animal Crossing devs! Have you seen how much the game has evolved with New Horizons? It looks great for the fans of the series.
@@qislegit.donttrustthemedia6232 I talked with people and my partner about this. botw was a huge effort even if the story was extremely lame, but they made huge improvements in art and game direction, so kudos to them. AC team that is also Splatoon team did amazing these years, Splatoon 1 was amazing, Splatoon 2 fell a bit into the trap of making maps more open and the game feels less strategic, but they got a more complete experience with more varied music, more scenarios and modes, and the DLC was REALLY GOOD. Mario Odyssey wasn't as innovative but the game is really really polished, I haven't played Fire Emblem, but they seem to have gotten to their roots before the DS era while keeping things from the DS era and people seems pretty happy about it, AC just looks amazing... And yet you have the best-selling IP, pokemon, being so so lazy with a half-assed game, poorly animations on combat and cut scenes, a really lame script.. heck the only thing keeping it alive is how people are exploiting the raids to farm shinies and flex them with their friends, competitive in the top places is stagnant too. and yet I bought it, my partner, too, a lot of people because we wanted to share that first experience on switch, and yeah the saving grace to this is the community behind the game, otherwise, I would have dropped it with a really really bitter taste.
Just bought your PDF bundle. Also grabbed a shirt to support and to wear when I open my channel, kinda like bands do to rep other bands. Keep up your incredible work, and always feel free to vent, Rick, you’re more than fair about everything and yet you’re being bullied on one side and neglected on the other.
Paul Davids had a similar situation. I think RUclips should establish a Teacher/Educator Channel sub classification where these frivolous claims are made much more difficult to make.
Of course, the record labels had no problem stealing the music from black blues artists (I think Robert Johnson got a total of $75) and having the rock titans record the music. That's what they do, that's who they are. Before I watched this video, I said to myself, knowing it was the mixolydian video you were going to talk about, "That's a perfect and precise example of Fair Use." You're 100% right and your anger and rant is completely justified.
Yeah, they were always honest and truthful with white blues artists! Record labels royally screwed over all artists, didn't matter what their race was, if they were ugly or gorgeous, it turns out that no matter how big they are, or how many hits they produce, the record labels will screw you if you don't wise up to their antics.
I feel like RUclips could edit the revenue sharing so that claimants only get revenue based on the portion of the video they can claim. In this case, 25 seconds of music should only net them 2% of the revenue for the Mixolydian mode video. RUclips wouldn't be circumventing their copyrights either, they still would get credit for their copyright, but only as it applies to the amount that can be claimed. It seems like that would be a simple first step that could be done fairly quickly. If these publishers only get small portions of revenue, they might stop claiming since it wouldn't be financially worth their time. That or a class action lawsuit, which most RUclipsrs seem to either not be serious enough or too scared to try it.
@@JeffJefferyUK Maybe not, but this has gotten out of hand. For people like Rick who are educating people its not right for them to put so much effort into videos to only have a majority of the revenue go to someone else for simply using a short excerpt.
If RUclips didn't have these policies in place to placate the rights owners, then RUclips itself would be out of business and tied up in court cases. They set up this policy with the rights holders, so that copyright material could be consumed on RUclips. The end result would be that instead of What Makes This Song Great getting demonitised, you just wouldn't have it at all.
They shouldn't get anything if you play less than 30 seconds of a song. It's that simple. To teach music how do you show someone what to do. They'll try and claim copyright on a drum pattern next. Ridiculous.
The only reason I come to “your” channel and enjoy “your” videos is because of you. Because of your style, knowledge, enthusiasm and how you produce your content. I don’t come to hear the Beatles. Whether you use the Beatles as an example or some other artist or song is irrelevant. If the mixolydian scale video was presented by a robot nobody would watch it, simply because people don’t come for that. They watch for you. You are the content. You create the value. Not the Beatles. It’s exactly as you said Rick - it’s a money grab. A fairer money grab would be to reverse the percentages. Eg 67% to you and 33% to the rights holder, because their music is only supplemental to the content you create. The internet is just the Wild West and big corporates just have the best horses, guns and judges in their pockets. I hope you stick around Rick.
Agree, except for the percentages - he shouldn't have to pay a dime for fair use. They should be pleased that someone of his caliber and following played a portion of the song because perhaps people will go out and download the song to hear it in its entirety :-)
Good point, personally I would like to see Rick seeking out and helping promote cool underground bands as that is where the future is at. Bands like Hello Echo, 16 Frames, SeaBear, Soft Pipes, Boy and Bear, The War on Drugs, Jason Lyle, Steve Kilbey, Mental Pictures, Brock Tyler, Still Corners, The Spectacular Fantastic, Adventure Galley, The Elected, just to name a few.... Screw the major labels as they constantly rip everyone off, including the artists themselves. Signing a record deal is like signing a Faustian bargain. It removes ones soul and makes one a creature of the slave system.
@@christopherharrison2405 i agree with your comment but Beato has to admit that al his content is about bands that have well made it and dont need him to promote them. Most ppl click on his videos and discover him thanks to the fack his talking about ppl we already know and whose creations we want to know. He is super talented and I enjoy and recomend his channel but he also always uses big name bands to grab your attention. regards
I’ve had two copyright claims so far. One was on a bluegrass jam track that I created that was in the key of G and 120 bpm. I immediately got a claim, I expect from a bot, That was claiming copyright infringement from two completely different songs one from the 60s and one from the 50s. I had just created this jam track which had no melody just two strumming guitars, an upright bass sample and drums. I did dispute it. And 30 days later I won and they re-monetized the video. The second copyright infringement was on a live stream I did a couple months ago. It was three hours long and for two minutes of it I played a song on RUclips that I wrote with Justin Bieber that had been leaked and we were talking about it on my livestream. In that case I was glad that the record company insisted on taking it down because that means that they are still protecting that song which may mean that it may come out at sometime. I chose the option to cut out that two minute segment. RUclips made it very easy for me to do that.
Wow, both of those examples are so fascinating. The first is clearly an example of how mindlessly done some of these strikes are when they are automated by bots. And the second is interesting because it's an example of how this system is actually useful and serves a purpose when it's implemented correctly, and not just to fleece creators of money unjustly. I really hope that your song is released someday! 🙏
@@michaelwerbick Yeah, I don't think UMG bothered to make the connection. But because a two minute song was a small fraction of a three hour livestream (I know I talk too much) I had RUclips cut it out (super easy) rather than get a strike against me. I did one cut on the new Bieber record, ETA.
I really appreciate you coming forward to talk about those issues. The thisrt for money in the world is getting even more ridiculous and you can see that on youtube in the constant ads and copyright claims. We need more influencial youtubers adressing those topics and we desperatly need another independent video platform
Imagine sitting in an office all day long, watching RUclips videos, searching for small seconds of copyright infringements and calling this your job. And I thought my life was sad.
@@mondegreen9709 Well you fell for Obama...which proved you would pretty much accept anything if it was propagandised correctly...and you still haven't realised.
I constantly dispute claims, for teaching reasons. Sometimes I win, often I lose. I never got a strike, though. So I wonder what the criteria for a strike are.
Hey Sandra, I subscribe to your channel. Your a fabulous teacher.if they ever kick you off. I'm going with you. This all seems pretty unfair. If I can't play songs I'm familiar with, then why own any instruments? If they patent a G or C chord we're all doomed. lol . Best of luck.
@@musicjunkie2k Well, you CAN play them... as long as you don't publicly exhibit the performance. And you could always write and perform your own original tunes.
@@Salsuero Apparently not. Merely having the knowledge of how to play them might constitute some sort of breech? Is playing for your family "public"? Is playing at the park or beach for your own pleasure "public" ? What about church music? What about the copyright on "Happy Birthday" Do you remember that one? I do. So? Idk. Very troubling as a lifelong/ song writing musician. I'm Rick's age. Sorry to be a downer.
@@musicjunkie2k It depends on the location and whether or not others are in attendance at said location. Will your family rat you out? I doubt you'll be in trouble. Did you record it? If you never show it to anyone, you're fine. A public performance requires a fee to be paid. Sometimes the location itself has covered performer fees. Often times, not. DJ's are supposed to pay to perform... sometimes the club has it covered on their behalf. But if not, the DJ is technically supposed to pay fees to perform. But if he's just practicing in his bedroom... he's fine.
@@Salsuero Then why play an instrument at all ? Why whistle a tune? Why hum? Why utter any noises that might be copyrighted? Why have free speech at all? Is it really free ? I don't know about you but, I'm going to break the law and, play and sing. Maybe utter copyrighted words. Maybe even play a "wait for it" Beatles song. "Heaven forbid" . Lol. Just kidding. I'm going to play as I always have. And if the " song police" come I'll deal with it. Life is good👍
Fair use needs to be protected. I'm sure a lot of artists probably don't know the extent to which online educators get hit with these bogus claims. I'm sorry you had to go through this. Keep up the good fight Rick. There has to be a middle ground.
Someone clarify this for me: are the hundreds of movie analysis RUclips channels who teach film-making using multiple and lengthy examples from Kubrick, Spielberg, etc. also getting hounded and issued copyright strikes, or does the movie industry understand “fair use” much better than the music industry?
I figure RUclips's parent company (among others) has about 99.99% of all recorded music in a database, analyzed and indexed six ways to Sunday, and they algorithmically generate these claims so _they_ can't (reasonably) be sued for hosting copyrighted material. In fact, I bet it takes a substantial chunk of the "processing" time for each upload. They can't do that for video data... yet.
Rick, one way around this but it would be a major pain in the ass for the viewer would be when you get to the part of the video where the example is, ask the viewer to pause your video, open up another tab for RUclips and then play the song. When done, the viewer would go back to the original tab and unpause. I thought the old rule was 30 seconds or less of a song and you didn't have to pay. Radio stations play segments of that length. Maybe now the labels are making everyone pay regardless.
There's a life hack on how to still monetize your own videos... It goes like this. Use your own song in the video, for instance in an outro. The song must be uploaded via a distributor, and your channel shouldn't be whitelisted with it. And so when your video goes out, your distributor sees that someone has used your song (remember, your channel isn't whitelisted with the distributor) and claims it. Then Sony intern comes and claims the Beatles song. But guess what? RUclips will divide money equally between all the claimers! And now Sony will only steal 50% of what they would have stolen otherwise. Profit! P.S.: Yes, legal situation is THAT cryptic, that you have to copyright claim your own videos to retain profit...
And yet RUclips pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to channels that have the most idiotic content. We learn from your channel and many others instead of being spoon fed mindless junk. It’s evident that those in power want a future filled with unquestioning, unintelligent non-individuals ...
"We the sheeple" .. They want us to work all day pay taxes on earned income that we physically work for and to buy things and be consumers and also pay a tax on everything we buy. We are getting taxed at both ends everthing we earn and everything we buy...its savage
RUclips is an advertising platform. Period. Content is irrelevant. The only thing that they care about is that you click on videos and get exposed to adds.
The reason they're doing this is because of desperation. Musicians are now becoming independant and working amongst one another and can make their own money from streams and RUclips. Good riddance to these labels.
I would love to see a big law firm take on all these cases together in a massive class action lawsuit on behalf of RUclipsrs. Because it's CLEARLY a violation of fair use law. The case is there. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you have a case or not if Sony is the only one with high-powered attorneys. Also, RUclips themselves seems to have no interest in catering to anyone but the record companies. They could easily deny invalid claims such as these, but then they'd end up in court. It's easier for them simply to steal from RUclipsrs who have little legal recourse.
This isn't new, and I'm a bit surprised a class action against major publishers and record companies hasn't happened yet. IANAL, and I'm foreign, but it seems to me legal recourse is the US way of fixing the system.
RUclips catches my covers right after I upload, before I even make it available. They even caught my version of Holy Holy Holy, a hymn written 150 plus years ago. It's public domain, but a publisher is claiming copyright for it. I did protest it, but I haven't heard back.
@@Thadnill no one, but the topic of the video and the comment thread here is that big companies abuse RUclipss systems for copyright. They know that they can arms race any of their false claims out of court just because they have the money and resources available to them. It's straight up bullying the poor out of their lunch money.
There are a number of shady companies that only operate to claim copyright of public domain music and go after people. There was a big stink raised a few years ago after someone was sued over uploading their performance of a Bach piece. It has also been happening with public domain books that people have digitized and made available on the internet. I forget the author, but his works were now in the public domain and one of these companies claimed the copyright on his library of work as a “publisher.”
I've made guitar lessons for years and things seem to be better in the copyright area than ever! Years ago I would get actual copyright strikes, but in the last couple years I at worst occasionally have to share revenue but never have to take anything down or get strikes.
"So, what do you do for a living?" - "Well I watch hours of RUclips videos looking for 14 seconds of a copyrighted tune, and then harassing the RUclipsr" Christ, If that was MY job, I'd contemplate taking a bridge.
James Slick “Well, we wouldn’t do that. We’re too rich. But did I hear you say something about taking a bridge? It just so happens I’m in the bridge sales business. Would you care to take a look at our catalog? You could make all your money back in tolls within a year!”
Or, lobby politicians across the board to legally redefine what is fair use of content and what isn't. That might be cheaper and possibly more effective.
We need MORE lawyers... otherwise they can do this without repercussions. My favorite joke. Genie grants you 3 wishes, your first wish is to get rid of all lawyers... 2nd wish.... You have no more wishes You said I have 3 Sue me...
Can you write a letter to Paul McCarty’s management team and see if Paul would support you with this mis-use of the copyright law. He claims to be supportive of music education. Your case is black and white and he may be able to get behind you on this. Besides he and the rest of the people that collect payment for copyright use of Beatles songs needs their music used for educational reasons to help secure their catalogs future worth. Thank you Rick for being an active teacher in Music Education. God speed.
@Aaron Winton I was thinking exactly the same thing regarding Paul McCartney. Unless I'm (sadly) mistaken, I would think Sir Paul would be supportive of what Rick is doing from an educational standpoint, first and foremost. (But yes, even a bit from a legacy of the Beatles standpoint as well.) I think at this stage McCartney'd encourage something that cultivates the appreciation of music in general, which in turn inspires current and future generations of listeners and the artists who will be creating music. IMO, Rick Beato's channel does this on a very high level. Its presentation is professional and Rick is way beyond merely knowledgeable. And as a teacher, his enthusiasm for his subject is both undeniable and contagious. What more could a student ask for? Sir Paul, what do you think?
How to fix the entertainment industry: 1) Copyrights only last 20 years. 2) Musicians should sell their recordings for cheap, but they should charge to play live, just like they did 100 years ago.
Musicians do sell their "recordings" for cheap. They get pennies for every record sold. The record label keeps most of the money. They are loan sharks, fronting the money for records to be made and non-stop tours, then when they make millions of dollars because their artist is working their butt off, they keep most of the money because the artist "owes" them.
Using copyrighted material without authorization should only be considered infringement when: 1) The way the intellectual property is used has the quality to be a substitute for buying/streaming a copy from the original artist (e.g. Full song/album upload on RUclips; unauthorized cover of the full song) OR 2) it is used in an non-educational context AND contributes significantly to the work it has been used in (e.g. When it's used as a soundtrack.).
It is sad that the record company lawyers know that they are wrong regarding fair use, but they keep doing the wrong thing because they know they can get away with it.
There are no record company attorneys going through RUclips videos. They are mostly most likely contractors with no legal education at all going through every video and indiscriminately making copyright infringement complaints.
I have had this happen to me on a video that was clearly in compliance with fair use doctrine. The first time RUclips came to my defense and denied the takedown request and even offered me 100000 dollars in legal defense if the clamant decided to litigate. The second time they just took my video down and gave me a strike. In my opinion, youtube is no longer complying with U.S. law regarding fair use due to the fear they have of being sued by large corporate interest that own copyrights to most media. Its time for RUclipsrs to unit and file a class action lawsuit against youtube.
I would strongly doubt RUclips is in violation of any law regarding copyright strikes. Fair use gives us the right to use copyrighted work (in small chunks) for educational purposes-but it doesn’t guarantee us the right to post that material to RUclips. This concept is similar to the idea that the first amendment gives me the right to say what I want, but it doesn’t stop my employer from firing me for executing that right. The people to go after are the ones filing the claims.
There is no law that says youtube is obligated to provide a platform. The only thing that comes close would be public access tv, if that's even a thing any more.
Or as a "Wizard of Id" comic strip put it: The King says: "Remember the Golden Rule!" Peasant #1 asks: "What's the Golden Rule?" Peasant #2 replies: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."
Rick, That was the most eloquent rant I've ever heard man, especially for such a touchy subject for musicians, songwriters, and music lovers in general I would imagine...Don't know for sure because I'm in the musician category, but I think anyone with a true love of music would be sickened by the hypocrisy of greed in contrast to what most Rock & Pop music has always represented...I appreciate you speaking up for us, and I agree completely with everything point you so clearly made. Oh, and I'm sure the irony of the topic (greed) against the backdrop of songs like "Can't Buy Me Love" "All We Need is Love" isn't lost on you, it certainly isn't lost on me. Well, take care, keep doing what you're doing Brother, I'm a big fan, I watch your videos or listen to them daily. Sincerely, Russ
Rick, you are amazing. I was in a fairly successful (locally, I mean), tight little rock band in my youth (high school and first two years of college) and then I caved to pressure from my parents and went off to a big university and became a pharmacist. I always looked longingly at musicians, especially at live shows. Every once in a while when I'd jam out with my pals people would tell us that we "get down". I shrugged and felt a longing and a regret. Well, I stumbled upon your content awhile ago and you've given me cause to pick up my bass and start practicing every night (instead of drinking, lol). At 50 I certainly don't aspire to rock stardom but I will say this : my whole life has come alive because music is back in it. My wife even said, " I have my husband back". Music is life, and I was dead without it. Since I started playing again I've gotten back in shape (lost 35 pounds) and even joined the Army reserves. Thank you, buddy. Thank you. Never stop making content because of the corporate hawks. You really are doing a divine service, here.
And then it hit me. THIS is the reason I had to learn “twinkle, twinkle little star” and “When the saints go marching in” in music class at school, because had we learned to play any other song we would’ve had our lunch money shaken down by Sony.
Funny thing - schools do have to pay for their music, even when that music is in the public domain. Unless! They write out the public domain song and publish the sheet music themselves. But you can't copy somebody else's printing, and sheet music publishers will deliberately include errors in the printing so that they know when somebody else has copied *their* version of the public domain song. Which then allows them to sue the person who copied it. So, even if it's in the public domain, you have to find a printing of it that's in the public domain to work from so you don't get sued by a publisher. And they can be fierce about that stuff because it's so easy for new competition to come along.
@@15thirty yes but then youtube will not be free anymore, either for the creators or for the viewers. youtube is constantly loosing money and can only stay afloat with googles money
It'll be even worse when Google takes over the world. It won't be long and everyone is happily contributing to doom's day. This is the society we deserve, I'm afraid. Money, money, money, ....
That's nothing. In California, Google and Facebook were going to be taxed for its employees using the roads. They turned it around and got a measure to pass that would increase everyone who uses the bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area by $3 over a span of a few years. Thanks!
It's not the music that gets owned. It's the rights to use or the right to claim it as one's own composition. What usually happens is that there's between 50 and 100 years grace after the death of the copyright holder (note that word!) after which the tune reverts to the public domain for copyright purposes.
@@DavidAndrewsPEC I would agree thats a better definition, but "owning your message like a plot of land" it's still a false precedent that I see more people profiting from exploiting how the system works then what the systems does. That's why I say I think music is something we discover and not create. Even if you want the bragging rights to the refining process, then you get something that starts looking like the crooked stuff going on with other industries (big pharma for example.) Music is like medicine, and sure the doctor should be compensated. But in this case the doctor gets next to none of the money, and the metaphorical hospital only has electricity for 1 department.... Managment. In theory? I agree with copyright laws. I just disagree it works in practice. Too many cracks that give power to the wrong people. And thats just bad for everyone. It harbors more monopolistic behavior then creative ,which becomes economically bad for an industry that's main product is creativity and inspiration (which is essentially the act of 'copying' you're experience and make it your own. The 'music' we experience doesn't even come from the speakers it comes from within. How can you charge me for something I made? Just seems silly to me in the way there really is a better way to 'dance this dance' and 'slice the pie'. And if it's going to work? It has to be not based off illusions and hallucinations.
@@JohnSheppardEwTube What I gave was the definition of copyright. The same thing applies to textual product. This is under the umbrella of intellectual property, not real property (in the sense of tangible things that one could own). Regarding the pharmaceutical industry, companies don't hold copyright in medicinal substances: they hold 'letters patent' - a clear 'letter' (as a 'to whom it may concern', setting out the details of the patented work, from a govetning party) in which the holder's right to take financial advantage of their work, be it an idea or a physical object such as a medicine for something. There is a difference: copyright extends beyond the death of the copyright holder, whereas the letters patent allow a finite period of time to exploit that work for profit, after which the patent must lapse and the requirement to buy licence to use the work disappears. If music is just 'discovered', then what is the point of bothering to compose music? Anybody could just 'discover' it. What about the hard work put into composition by those whose job is to compose? Because 'discovery' would mean the right of a composer to use that combination of notes as their own composition (and to earn money from having done that work!) disappears ... and being a composer becomes essentially voluntary work. Fuck that. The problem here is not copyright as a legal concept. The problem is that RUclips has failed to - prior to enabling monetisation - bring in a system that allows people like Rick here to make fair use of copyrighted material whilst protecting the right of copyright holders to profit from the work used. It is not impossible: Distrokid has managed to develop a system in which a cover version allows the artist to profit from that recording and the copyright holder to get the royalty due - and this lasts for about a year, which is plenty of time for both parties to profit from their work. Where I can kind-of agree is that the system is problematic. Publishers should not hold the copyright outright: the publishing agreement should be a renewable licence issued by the author/composer of a work to the publisher, who should act on behalf of the licensor (as a licensee) in providing printed/printable media containing the work and collecting royalties on the licensor's behalf (taking only a fee) rather than paying the author/composer a royalty and pocketing the fucking rest ... which is a fucking disgrace, as far as I'm concerned. The pharmaceutical industry is nowhere near as predatory as is the music industry. The music industry has been shafting authors/composers and artists since its earliest days. The pharmaceutical industry - which does not operate in a way undeserving of criticism - for its greater part tries to produce beneficial products whilst trying to make a profit. Publishers and labels are now feeling the effects of a democratisation of music and its technology. Studios are adapting, offering additional services such as online mix/master services. The publisher and labels are not. They have just become more predatory.
I’ve been doing this series of Top 10 Underrated Guitarists lists - which only uses maybe 30-40 seconds of actual clips, usually broken down in two clips of 2 songs. And then I add commentary. I get hit all the time. Now I submix the clips and upload before even making the videos to see which ones pass and that I can use. I’m celebrating these people and they keep getting in my way. Very frustrating!
One - not great - way around it is to add the notes in a program like MuseScore and play the music that way. That MIDI-output should not get picked up by the algorithm. The 8-bit Music Theory channel does this and got around Nintendo copyright-claiming that way. Nintendo is notorious for its aggressive copyright-claim abuse (gameplay-footage for example). Of course it doesn't stop jackasses from Sony/... to manually copyright-claim. Worth an attempt? (Of course you shouldn't use the video in that case)
Don’t they realize that RUclipsrs are actually introducing their music to a younger generation? Even the ones who react to old music are getting them a new audience, thus more sales.
Sales? Do you realise young people hardly know they can BUY music? And even if they do know, they won't because they have so many ways to listen for free or very little money. And given how pricey the tickets to a concert of the surviving Beatles are, they won't go see them play live either. Or do you seriously think a horde of 13 .y.o. will rush to buy the whole catalogue and we'll have a new Beatles mania? ;) Awareness and appreciation of an artist is one thing, profiting from it, it's a whole other game. They are grabbing whatever they can as long as they can, and we would too. There is no long-term vision these days, given the future doesn't look bright at all.
@@DarkSideofSynth I still buy music (I'm not young) and music channels on RUclips are a great way for me to get exposed to artists I may not know very well. I use one streaming service but I like to have a physical or digital copy of music so I'm not reliant on an internet connection. So even if less young people are buying to own, RUclipsrs are helping to drive sales.
@@DarkSideofSynth unchecked corporate power at its finest. remember when the labels took the artists to court to stop the artists from approving the sampling of the music the artists made? same labels, same bullshit.
Unfortunately, we'd all have to hit them where it matters: stop consuming music and attending concerts of bands tied to those publishers, while at the same time, shifting our consumption to bands who don't create this problem one way or another... yeah, right... I'll be over here not holding my breath on this one...
So we should all become hipsters? Cuz if we all shift to the small local bands, they won't stay small or local for long! Nah, man that won't do! Lawmakers and jurisdiction would have to put their foot down and make sure that fair use will be granted in the digital world and that unrightful copyright claims like this are punished as theft! But I don't see either of that gonna happen anytime soon...
@@LRM12o8 Nah. Not shifting because of their success, size, or geography. More about having their degree of dickishness inform us of when we should stop supporting them. Still hard to do it right, sure...
Google/RUclips bends over backwards to serve the wealthy and the powerful--the brutal Chinese Communist Party, for example--but they couldn't care less about the people like you and me who make RUclips popular and wealthy.
Cancel19 Fogerty wrote Run Through The Jungle but Fantasy owned the library and rights. They sued him for stealing that song for The Old Man Down The Road. Ultimately John won. I think John counter sued and they had to pay for his legal fees.
@@djray369 Thanks Ray. Amazing how these record companies think they own you like a slave. The two songs to me sound completely different however they both are Fogertyish cuz for pete's sake it's John's voice. No wonder Prince changed his name to a symbol to fight these greedy companies.
You're entirely justified in your anger. There's an old saying about having a handful of sand and what happens when you squeeze more tightly. The entire media industry is a poster child for that saying.
And then your comment too ... for mentioning of mentioning of .... Let's just say: This ... is taken down for mentioning ... What a ... of ... . seriously .... should back off. Fix comment please, copyright is watching ... sorry ... is watching .
There was a guy in Long Island who started the original muzak corporation because he couldn't play popular tunes in the elevator He went and hired the same musicians they made a water down replica of the kind of music he was trying to give the elevator patron.
You should have entitled the video "What makes this rant great episode#1". Keep up the videos coming. Your channel is by far the most and packed with knowledge and information when it comes to music.
"The music business is something that's completely and utterly separate from music." - Mark Knopfler
Frank Zappa -
"S_trict_LY_ Commercial" !!
So true. I gave up playing in a live band with own (good) songs because of this. Music is the best but as a musician you have to rely on managers, agencies etc. But unfortunately these 'people' are not in the business because they love music, they only love MONEY.. Sharks everywhere and honest integre musicians are sensitive people so they get eaten. The music business stinks even more than the movie business.
@@svenjansen2134 Good comment, Sven. I found it exactly the same... We count time, they count the "green".
Sven Jansen Your words come as a comfort to me. I was living in Paris, performing. I gave it up after six years- too many sharks, and that’s including the musicians themselves. Back to my wood craft; it’s much more peaceful.
Mr. Knopfler is the legend of all legends.
After Dire Straits, he's been working on mesmerizing solo albums till now. No break, just pure genuine renditions about people, life, love, soldiers, and so on..
dont appologise for ranting about something that deserves a good rant
Baron Bayne and more ranting would not be bad.
@@anamericanentrepreneur Agree
Those people are ridiculous... yet in control
The apology is to seem humble about it all. Not mean.
Publishers: "Lennon, huh? Yeah, we're gonna need 66% of your kid."
No kidding....lol!!!
@@ConglomerationCat 33% kidding
they are the taxman, yeah yeah they're the taxman
Im glad he didnt name his kid yoko.
HAHA so true
This is why people pirate music. They see the music industry as a bunch of thieves as well.
"Let's call this exactly what it is: a shakedown" - Tony Soprano.
Get a job, you dipshit lawyers! I totally got Rick's back on this. He's got every right to be upset.
If I had a child that wanted to be a record company executive I would try to steer them towards a more honest career like, oh Say Whore or drug Dealer.
@Luke For educational purposes with no profit ? Come on and get real ! Might as well pay royalties every time you quote someone .
Joseph Bohan That’s coming.
Luke The song was not used m8. Plus, music as an industry needs to either die or be reformed, it’s enough of a mockery of music as it is.
Sorry, Rick - "Beato" is just too similar to "Beatles". We're gonna need you to remove a letter or make that section of your name silent.
The name "Rick" needs to be removed, the name Rick is copyrighted to Rick James.
Blæse Métan and Rick Astley
😯😆
Mmm K ....Mmmmmm K also gonna need ya to go ahead and come into work this Sunday..
Rick o
I was humming "Yesterday " by the Beatles this morning. I'm pretty sure both Alexa and Siri were in ear shot of my voice. Expecting a Cease and Desist email soon.
Lmao
@alan wake it would probably still happen if they had windows open and their neighbours Alexa picked it up
You have monitoring devices in your house? You deserve everything you get...
We're heading that direction man..seriously..
If you made a fortune out of that humming, you need to pay them a cut. This is how IP works.
I firmly believe 85% of the Music Industry now is just the money, and while that is extremely vital to success, they've forgotten what made the industry important. The passing of musical talent, songs, and knowledge has been scrapped for the most part for revenue, it's pathetic.
RC32 I have people telling me that the industry is 20% ACTUALLY MAKING MUSIC and 80% ADVERTISING. I don’t care if that’s how it really is, that’s just ridiculous.
...it has ALWAYS been about money. You think EMI is on the map because of their altruistic desire to further art and culture?
@@bobbywillis1466 It is. Like I said, people now in the bigger businesses favor more money, and that's why they take over of any claim they can "legally" get their hands on via YT or other platforms. This doesn't apply to every corporation, but definitely to the ones that we see everyday.
I suspect 85% is an undestatement. But who am I to prove it? This is not the world I had wished to live in.
Popular music today is utter garbage. And that’s not just “being old” or whatever. It truly is god awful
I saw an artist post about a copyright claim he received on HIS OWN SONG!
Which is why I gave up on music five years ago. I knew this is where things were heading, either you get ripped off from them stealing your material, or they claim it was already theirs to begin with. I hope they all go bankrupt and burn eternally in a white hot hell.
There is absolutely NO incentive anymore to be a musician starting out. You'll get screwed over on the internet, playing clubs is a thing of the past to get your start. You basically have to either be a cookie cutter pop/rap star who can easily be controlled through drugs/blackmail/etc, or a legacy act to make any sort of living off of "music" these days. The industry ate itself and will inevitably crash and burn by cutting out the creativity which first bred them success.
I also heard about a case of a music teacher, who made a backing track on RUclips, someone took that track and sold it to an indian artist who sang her lyrics over that track and promoted it as her new song and boom:
The teacher, who originally created the backing track received a copyright claim.
Copyright law is so fucking broken!
Here's the fucked up part. In Western music there are 15 key centers, three which are enharmonic. Inside each key center there are modes. Inside each mode are a set amount of notes ascending or descending. Only so many variables can be made with a finite amount of notes, chord progressions, whatever...so, there will never be any melody of music that could not be analyzed to be similar with another composition. Unless it's an obvious ripoff like Vanilla Ice's song was, it's damn near impossible to not hear past influences in every genre. Imagine this in rap where most of it is similar in style and arrangement. Lunacy to limit art defined by how many notes on in this case, where a popular scale resembles a famous song.
Had this happen to me as well. Also had my ISP back in 1999 get a letter from a publisher because I had "illegal mp3 files" on my website. Those were my songs. They later tried to claim that because I used certain instruments, they owned the rights to the songs by proxy because the companies were somehow related. Needless to say, nothing came of it because they didn't dare try this in court.
But today, they don't have to go throught the court.
Honestly what I'd do is get legal counsel and sue their asses. It will be a monetary loss for sure, but I would NOT rely on the youtube processes in any way.
Sony would probably content strike even if Paul McCartney was singing one of his own songs from the Beatles on youtube.
That's probably why he doesn't do it. If anyone remembers The Cure, their keyboardist Roger O'Donnell was hit with a takedown on MySpace for his own song!!!!
Carlin was a comedian but a speaker for the people.... He observed society, pointing out that those that rule , Injecting control via social engineering to control YOU.... ...
Many looked in the mirror , many in the audience probably laughed uncomfortably, , with things so ridiculous , just had to laugh..
Thats a rippa , because bizarrely, its probably true thats exactly what Sony would do!
@@robertchanrussell2010 wow, that's messed up
@@cheryllakin3077
Celtic said, RUclips....
Two vastly different delivery mediums.
As for a Concert on RUclips??
Who Knows.....
Thats just another discussion I imagine.
@@cheryllakin3077 He ranted about it some years ago on his MySpace page. He was so kind and replied to me when I commented on how he explained his recording setup and how it worked. I was so thankful and he was so courteous.
Anyway, it was his own "channel" or whatever MySpace called it, but yeah, his own company realized it was him posting his own music. Pretty stupid.
I am an attorney in Texas and I am looking for a way to stop this kind of harassment of RUclipsrs legitimate fair use of copyrighted material. Likely will require class action. That’s the only way I can see to make it worth fighting
go for it!
Good luck in this dantesque endeavor.
sign me up
Please, do it! This needs to stop. We can't work like this.
Steve please keep the "worth fighting" whine to yourself pal. We hear it enough from you a-holes. BTW..you aren't gonna do a Goddamned thing because you aren't smart enough to realize just how "worth it" it is.
Rick - I'm 100% in agreement with you on this. I have a suggestion: you should get in touch with Joerg Sprave (The Slingshot Channel - 2.5M subscribers) who is in the process of setting up a RUclipsrs' Union in Germany. He has backing from the largest unions in Germany. Word on the street is that YT is scared of this dude. He speaks excellent English and he's funny as hell. He may be interested in expanding the scope of his proposed union on an international basis.
Someone needs to set up both a RUclips and a Spotify style streaming service that is a permanent collective, and not a for-profit entity.
yep definitely you should check him out and join his union
@@foto21 Check out a service called Nebula. It's very similar to what you're proposing.
anyone who has a way to help this happen, help this happen!
He needs to check out Joerg's features!
“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.” Hunter S. Thompson
How true...
Too true
Why I quit.
I started playing because I love music.
After learning how to play instruments. I wanted others to hear me play.
Of course I wanted to be paid for my performances! But that became a big problem and Life Threatening Situations.
Many artist dying poor as their records continue to be sold.
I'm sick of the abuse of copyright by big corporations. Copyright law exists to protect people from having their work ripped off without accreditation, to present a clear product to the marketplace without confusion as to who created it or who deserves the revenue from that product. No one is watching a video where a song is clearly presented as an existing work by an artist and a section of its melody used as an example about songwriting, and being confused or misled about the ownership of that copyrighted work. No one could ever think you wrote that song, no one could then listen to the original song and think "Hey, these Beatles guys ripped off Rick!". It's essentially free advertising for the original song. No revenue that would otherwise have gone to the rights' holders has been misappropriated by Rick. Copyright law should not be about conglomerates nickel and diming the world because ten seconds of a song happens to be used as an example.
I don’t see how Ricks use of the song is any different than quoting something in a research paper or any other writing and adding a footnote citing the source.
Everything you said is true... but still, RUclips doesn't really care, and at this rate, they probably never will.... sigh.. :(
This is because the music industry is dying a slow and painful death and they are reduced to shaking people down for money. The same four a holes write every pop song now. Every pop song today is nothing more than a dumbed down four chord version of what music used to be. They are attacking the little guy because they don’t have a viable strategy to promote compelling acts to make them real revenue.
Im with danehb89 this is getting way out of hand. what next; oh he put the same G cord in his song. So he is copy writing my song. ok people looks like musicians have to make a union to fight these conglomerights. first ordeal is deal with You-Tube Google. They might be a great corperation that has made a good service at one time. But now it's Corrupt to the fullest by Greedy Make the rules up as they go along, Conglomerights. The only thing is Rick . You got to way your differences and decide if you should even bother giving them royalties at all . Take down the vid . Do another Discription of it . One without using Beatles material. I mean . If they are going to bitch about making money. Then don't give them any. Your knowledge is great. You can find some other way to describe the riff you want describe what you want to describe. Your knowledge is vast. You Show them.
The music industry is hurting because they make a small fraction of what they used to make from album sales through streaming, RUclips, etc. This greatly reduces the profitability of more niche artists and causes them to market music aimed at the lowest common denominator that will stream a song or album over and over and over again.
"Some rob you with a six gun and some with a fountain pen." --Woody Guthrie
Some with a Keyboard
Underrated!
You owe Sony money for this comment
@CogitoErgoCogitoSum A six-gun is a revolver with six chambers.
@@therocknrollmillennial535 "I'm a devil on the run. A six-gun lover. A candle in the wind." - Jon Bon Jovi (Young Guns)
If it were the artists getting paid by all this, I'd have less of a problem with it too. But it's not the artists, it's the corporations, usually not even the ones that provided the production facilities in the first place, just buying and selling title to works they had nothing to do with making in order to collect a share of the profits they had no part in producing. Nothing but parasites.
well, that's why they bought the rights of the songs - to make money from it. It's their business. And they don't sell records anymore, so they try to get it from the internet. It's vomit-inducing, but it's how it works
The corporations make a lot of that possible though. God knows 99.9% of the artist in the world would starve to death if they had to run their own business. The question isn't about whose getting paid, it's about using the copyrighted material to' '...advance knowledge or progress through the arts,' (taken right from the wikipedia Fair Use Copyright page) or not.
Class action lawsuit against the boughten music establishment, for creating this toxic atmosphere, need to happen by the actual artists, forever being ripped off by this false fraudulent corporate misrepresentation!
The artists did get compensated. When they sold their rights to the record labels.
@@chrisa3961 the point is, in no way can any of the people making money off the music claim to have *"earned"* it, nor can they claim that laws that allow them (as opposed to the actual creators of the works) to make that money serves to incentivize the creative process or anything like that.
But Rick, why would I go out and buy a record when I can just listen to a 12-second segment of one of the songs in a teaching video? C'mon dude, these gigantic record companies gotta eat.
A 12 second segment of ONE track, played by a different person. Essentially just chords. Companies think they can own chords. No thanks.
I like your sense of irony.
😂
But what if it's the *best* 12 seconds of the song and it sounds better played on a calliope than the original?
@@sonikku997 Rick has 1.64 subscribers at the moment. Calculate: 12 secs times 1.64 million gives us 19.2 million seconds or 5.333 hours equivalent to 7.111 long play records (45 minutes each) of copyrighted musik. At ₤10 each there will be 70,000 lbs missing in their pockets and this hurts JPG&R and their companies.
"How do you teach music without examples?"
How indeed.
i guess the beatles answer to that question would sadly be: pay for the right to use the songs in order go make money by teaching music with them songs.
🦉 Older music like Mozart is public domain.
@@PaulPaul-vj2vx Have you read anything at all about how copyright is supposed to work? Does the phrase "fair use" ring a bell for you?
On skillshare, lol
@@PaulPaul-vj2vx "... the teacher AUTOMATICALLY surrenders all his profits ..." so basically bring youtube education down to the level of the shtty teacher jobs in public schools. yes, that'd be beautiful. "free education" usually means not having to pay to get educated rather than not getting paid for teaching.
Carl Sagan wanted to put "Here Comes the Sun" on the Golden Record on Voyager to traverse the solar system. EMI said no. Essentially, if aliens want to listen to the Beatles, they are going to have to pay for it.
It is now out of the Solar system completely - it was meant to traverse the Milky Way galaxy, and will be carrying those pieces of our culture when our entire civilization is completely forgotten - too bad The Beatles didn't get "A Ticket to Ride."
@@berretta9mm17 Very nice!
Hey if aliens are going to listen to the beatles then they MUST pay EMI FIRST... hopefully in US Dollars... if they even know what $$$ is!
Should have done it anyway. What fuckin damages could they have sued for?
That's honestly infuriating.
When the love of money is higher than the love of the music.... That's the real day the music died.
Keep up the great work.
The O'JAYS!
It was back in the seventies
Hear hear!
Sony destroyed Michael Jackson when he started calling them out as evil
@@annother3350 GEORGE Michael too by the looks! He was owned 100% for LIFE by Sony! Poor bastard!
Sounds like it's time for a RUclips alternative
People are heading over to BitChute.
Even better, may be LBRY, which is ablockchain based video platform that allows earnings to be paid DIRECTLY to a content to creator by a viewer through a crypto that is exchangable for USD. No Middle Man, no corporations, no policing of content.
That wouldn't work. It's the record companies that file the claims. If youtube (or another platform for that matter) doesn't comply, they sue RUclips. That's why Rick says: RUclips wants to stay out of it. They just comply, rather than go on a multi billion dollar lawsuit road with the record companies. If RUclips was out there to fight these claims, they would do it. But they're in the business of showing videos. You can call it cowardly, but I can understand their standpoint. Losing money over a moral or ethical standpoint is not something a business wants to be known for. Sadly...they'd have the suport of the people, but it's gonna cost them a lot of dollars.
Mike Philippens you are 100% correct that it’s the record company not RUclips. Any platform would have the same happen on it. But you are off on one point - RUclips not wanting to lose money in the fight. They are owned by Google. And Google is worth 1,000 Billion dollars (that’s a trillion but 1,000 billion sounds better!). So spending a couple hundred million on lawsuits is pocket change. They know what the record companies are doing is wrong but they are choosing to let it happen.
@@LAGreg123 Still, they choose not to do anything because they don't want to loose money. I don't mean that their profit goes away, but a lawsuit against the record companies could be a millions of $$$ for lawyers. It's gonna cost them money, so they won't do it. They will only do it, if something would happen to them if they don't.
So maybe a world wide action from the content creators. Let's say one day (or longer) upload only videos where your complain about this situation en setup a petition to change this situation. Call the media, get all the big content creators on YT to participate. If there's enough negative publicity, they'll change something. There's enough bad publicity about Google being a monopolist, so in this case that works too.
Rick you strummed a Dm7 chord followed by an open E tone in one of your vids..... I forget which one, but I'm gonna need a cut. Rant on!
Sooby Yeah I just happened to strum that very same the other day. Send money please
@@johnfrei9057 Oh so you're the guy. I've been looking for you. Cease and desist!
I clearly wrote that lick.. I will see you all in court. And don't even think about doing an Am7 to G.. I wrote that as well.
All chords and variations of C G A F B and E are my property, as I'm using them all the time.
You can keep the D.
@@Obssy I'm known as the keeper of the D
"The music industry is a long plastic hallway where pimps and thieves roam free, there's also a bad side."
-Hunter Thompson
Yeah, Satan gonna get you, gonna get you...
"long plastic hallway" ~= "dark desert highway" ("Hotel California" was not about some Satanic church, but about the LA music industry)
Not only is this quote wrong, the real quote was about the TV industry, not the music business. It's still true, but stop reposting quotes that are completely wrong. Sincerely, Einstein.
I'm pretty sure being misquoted would piss off Thompson more than a lot of the crap people try to align him with erroneously. What greater disservice to a writer can their be than changing their words?
@@SweetSpotGuitar Yes, You're exactly right but the LA music industry is possessed by money and that's the devil's advocate. Sign your life Mr. Johnson and will make you a Star...
You are also speaking for that person with 100 followers who gets screwed but when they scream no one hears, for that thank you Rick.
Hear, hear!
My dad wrote thirteen #1 songs (country). As I showed him You Tube vids by the hundreds of his work and he learned how easy it was to play his music royalty free, he went crazy ! He had no idea ! Of course, he never owned a computer and thought the internet was a passing fad. But, as the years went by and we set up a few channels for him, he realized that these sources were actually keeping his music alive and relevant. Song that were 30 years old were getting views, getting shared, getting learned and played. Then, he felt differently. Now that he's gone, I'm grateful for these sources, because they keep him here through his music. Just a perspective.
Last week I got SIX copyright claims on ... MY OWN MUSIC ... literally. I shared an hour-long Piano album I released two years ago, and shared it on my YT channel. Minutes later, SIX companies claimed copyright on this music. These are all HYMNS from the 1800s 😳 arranged and recorded by me on solo Piano. How in the world can someone claim copyright ON MY OWN MUSIC? Whaat?
Florentin Tise are you fighting it? Sorry to hear that.
Paul Smith I submitted a dispute immediately. Out of the six claims, four were released immediately. The other two are just sitting there with no reply ... I guess those claimants are just salty they can’t reject my dispute and are just going to let the claim expire in 30 days. At least that is my hope ... Thanks 🙋♂️
I saw that video you put out...it's getting crazy stupid when you can't even play *your* *own* music!!
Jack the Rabbit Hi Jack 🙋♂️ Good to see you in here. I have no idea how this is allowed 😳
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I believe you said that the songs were hymns from the 19th century. So they aren’t in fact totally yours. However, if they are that old, they should be in the public domain by now and therefore royalty free. Sorry to hear about your troubles, keep writing it’s important.
We need an alternative to RUclips. A monopoly is never a good thing.
Dave B LBRY, it’s going to be the one.
There is an alternative, go outside.
Yes! Competition is a good thing.
BITCHUTE has been around for ages.
@@sirgerbilmacintosh9101 going outside is typically far less valuable than good youtube content...come on now
Why don't all the large RUclips channels organize and bring a class action suit against RUclips for legitimizing bogus copyright claims? This is becoming a very common complaint, and probably won't change until RUclips suffers a financial consequence. They pick on channels individually, but I'd figure many of the largest RUclips channels would have a collective interest in putting an end to this nonsense.
Edit: it's really like some of you haven't watched the video, but are still commenting. No one is complaining about LEGITIMATE copyright claims. The, quite obvious, bogus claims being honored are just leeching money from content creators. The goal would just be to pressure YT to create a better system than rubber stamping every single claim as legitimate.
That would be a great idea if you all want to get a $0.50 check in the mail. Cuz that's how class action lawsuits go.
Rexx Seven it’s not the monetary gain but rather the monetary loss to YT
They should do this! Some RUclipsrs who really care should get together. The only problem is that these 'record labels' have a strong team of lawyers to protect their money. :/ It's all a complete scam smh. It's a shame really. Mans biggest flaw is greed, this right here is a perfect example of this.
@@REXXSEVEN Sometimes the goal of a class action lawsuit is to change the way blood sucking parasites do business, not to get money.
It's not Google's fault. They got gang-jumped by the entire corporate entertainment industry, and while Alphabet has deep pockets, they weren't willing to roll the dice on losing billions in court. The current system was designed by Google as a way of making themselves bulletproof against the army of lawyers which got sicced on them. The alternative to what they have now was either shutting RUclips down or risking the loss of billions of dollars _and_ shutting RUclips down.
Suing Google will do nothing. They're following the path of maximum profit and least risk to themselves. The problem isn't Google, it's late-stage capitalism where people are allowed to "own" sequences of genes or Pepsi blue.
One of the best court cases was the guy who owns CCR songs to John Fogerty to court saying he sounded to much like CCR.
Saul Zaentz was his name, l believe. A co-producer of the Academy award winning movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" along with Michael Douglass. Owned Fantasy Records and signed CCR to one of the worst deals ever for an artist. John Fogarty wrote a series of fantastic, enduring 3-minute songs. But as an inexperienced kid, he didn't realize he'd signed away his publishing rights. One of the most sickening examples of greed and preying upon an artist in an industry rife with them.
@@josedopwell9645 Badfinger.
As a retired teacher, I was struck by one sentence the moment you finished saying it: “But this is a teaching video.” And by extension it is a learning video as well. I find Sony’s antics just one of a slew of examples by large corporations that continue to contribute to keeping folks in general stupid and ignorant. Keep on truckin’, Rick!
You should start your own band and call them The Beatos. First single: Swedish Furniture: 'I once assembled a chair. But first I must share.... this stuff isn't fair.'
I don't really know that this would solve anything actually.
But would be fun AF.
The fab 4 owes Norway some money....
The Vintage Apollos Hmmm... The Beatoffs? Sell the courtroom reenactment as a pay per view.
What a great ikea though.
The beatos...lmao
Doesn’t matter how much people yell...
Rick said it himself: RUclips doesn’t care. They’re in the pockets of these companies, and they won’t change.
RUclips is bigger than most of these companies--they are all in RUclips's pockets (i.e., Google's)
There's a good reason Google took out the "Don't be evil" part of their mission statement.
@@philfrank5601 RUclips is an extremely powerful corporation that has the resources to make this better but they just don't care.
@@philfrank5601 There will always be someone willing to do the work for free. RUclips will just send us there. The template has been made. That's all they care about.
Agree and good points. Question though, if good content creators like Rick and others know this, why do they keep posting videos about how much they hate it? What’s the point of keep saying this?
A few years ago I posted videos of my daughters high school soccer team (using another user/channel), and I would record during the time that the national anthem was being played. After I'd put a few up I started getting copyright notices from RUclips for someone claiming that they owned the copyright to the particular recording of the national anthem that was played in the video. Since I didn't really care about whether the national anthem was heard during the video I just hit the "Mute Song" button, because otherwise the claimant could pop ads up during my videos, which frankly I find incredibly annoying *AND* I didn't want the other team parents thinking I was making money off these high school soccer videos. (You can just imagine how *that* would go... :-)
But - it gets better. I decided that I didn't like the "complete money grab", as you described it, Rick - so I changed my habits, and I changed to starting the videos after the national anthem was played. So - no national anthem in the video - but I *still* got copyright notices, complete with start and end times. To make sure I hadn't lost my mind I went to the videos in question and listened to them and verified that there was NO NATIONAL ANTHEM - just me making a bunch of stupid comments about a high school soccer game. So I clicked on the "I'm disputing this claim for another reason" and pointed out that not only did the national anthem not appear during the times claimed in the copyright notice, but that the national anthem DID NOT APPEAR IN THE VIDEO AT ALL. I'm happy to say that after this RUclips finally rejected the copyright claim, and I stopped having copyright claims filed against my vids.
But it STILL gets better! When the dust had finally settled and the air had quickly cleared (and extra internet points will be awarded to the first person who can name the artist and song where that line came from :-) I checked with the people in the booth who PLAYED the national anthem tape - and they revealed that the version of the Star Spangled Banner which was played at every home game was recorded BY THE HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND! So *all* of these copyright claims were pure 100% BS!
Remember when Google (owner of RUclips) was first starting out and had in their Code of Conduct the phrase "Don't Be Evil", which was a swipe at other larger companies like Microsoft and IBM, who were supposedly so awful.
They were essentially trying to claim the higher ground as though they were a company that "cared" about its customers.
Then, when Google got big enough, they dropped that phrase from its Code of Conduct.
This pattern happens with every company: 1) Pretend to care about customers, 2) Get big and admit you never cared about customers to begin with.
Solution: publishers should be punished for frivolous claims as vigorously as RUclipsrs for infringement . There should be a three strikes from them, too.
RUclips dosen't want to deal with the lawsuits, the music industry loves to sue, even whe they know they are gonna lose, just to make people waste billons and send a message.
Better solution: seek out and support local and independent musicians. Forget the soulless music industry that rips off real creators.
Meat for lawyers.
Creators should do a strike and hide their videos for a week, i don't think youtibe wants to lose that money either, that might get them to take proper action and value creators
@@tatomar001 Nah, too risky, the algorithm will just punish them and reward new, smaller creators or those who don't participate, it would be just a shot in the foot if they don't have at least 90% of the creators with 500k+ subs on their side.
Dude. Named your kid “Lennon?” That’s a copyright infringement and you’ll have to forfeit your kid....In fact, my mentioning “Lennon” here (twice) is an infringement and well...we’re just going to have to delete me.
they will claim 66% of the money he'll ever make
you must hand over your child to EMI by 5pm
they only get 66% of him.
Carrie Fisher talked about signing the rights to her likeness away when she signed onto Star Wars in 1975, and lamented the fact that every time she looked in the mirror, she owed George Lucas some money.
Pretty much 😂 damn it’s unfortunate how funny and true it is.
The music "industry" is going to implode if this continues. All we will have left is pre-programmed crap that store bought singers are hired to put vocals on.
Yep. Labels are becoming more and more obsolete and they know it. Pop music hasn't changed much in 25 years, because the big record companies found a formula that makes tons of money, and that is all they care about. Mainstream country music is a good example of what happens when you let label executives take creative control from artists. There are so many incredible musicians making diy music nowadays, and they don't have to have hundreds of thousands of dollars to record an album. And music fans don't need radio stations to introduce them to these artists. Instead of having a few handfuls of superstars with multi-million dollar record contracts, I'd like to see more of these diy artists be able to make a living wage from their music.
it already imploded years ago.
U already have exactly that
I've received what must be hundreds of copyright claims on a my channel when I do album reviews and analysis videos. I've disputed every single one of them via fair use. Yes, some of them get rejected (mostly from Universal and Sony) so then I appeal them, all of them. Finally yes, some of them get rejected then as well (mostly by Sony) and I have gotten copyright strikes. I then submit a counter-notification (basically, "Remove the claim, or take me to court"). I have gotten every single claim and strike removed from my channel. I have even gotten my channel taken down but then later I got reinstated by not letting up on my disputes. I know I'm a smaller channel, but you can fight them. These are all scare tactics as they do not expect most RUclipsrs to actually fight these (let alone have knowledge on IP and copyright law) and they certainly don't want to waste the time and money to actually pursue these in court. You hit the nail on the head when you said "RUclipsrs are scared," but somebody's gotta fight this fight. Hell, even Anthony Fantano never plays the music that he's talking about on his channel. Hell, I might be the only one fighting this fight, but somebody has to fight it.
Sorry for the long comment but this something I deal with daily on my channel so your rant resonated with me.
P. S. I've gotten claimed for Beatles tunes multiple times and have successfully fought them all off. I believe they were "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da," "Something," and "Hey Jude."
I’m glad you have been successful in fighting every claim. It kind of sounds like you need to file a cease and desist claim against them to get them to stop harassing you.
@@vaporman442 I feel like that'd be a hard thing to pull off. Having basically the entirety of the music publishing world being legally forced back off on copyright claims on one specific person seems like it could easily be abused from a neutral standpoint. I'd prefer a more open line of communication between music RUclipsrs and the publishers if anything.
I hope many RUclipsrs see this comment and start fighting back.........:)
@@Ma.Mama.is.a.StreetDogg That was the whole idea of making it in the first place.
@@pappyman179 good word, thanks.
This is why I never cover anything within copyright - far too much faff and basically no financial upside. You weren't even covering, just using it to teach. I feel bad for you, Rick.
And hilariously covers are one of the best ways to discover new music. They're like a free advertisement. Apparently the big music corporations don't want that - pretty strange to say the least.
Rick isn't making money off of anything, just teaching. Seems like RUclips is nothing but a rip off.
@@tiihtu2507 yep, this is the real irony in the situation. I can't count the number of times I've watched one of Rick's videos, and then got straight on line and paid for music from an artist I'd forgotten about for a few years. The labels are actually cutting their own hands off when they keep infringeing people all the time for playing 8 bars from a song they 'own'.
Side note: The Hendrix Estate has done more to keep Jimi Hendrix dead and buried and diminish his legacy than any copyright-infrigning fandom could ever hope to do.
Preach!
Hendrix, Eagles, Garth Brooks.....the big 3 douchebags of copyright claiming
@Rufus T Firefly she admittedly never even met her too jesus
@@nedim_guitar If you put anything from Jimi on your channel or anywhere your playing music, its a wrap.
@@nedim_guitar you can't even find little wing on youtube which is one of his best songs imo, just ridiculous
Not only is this complete BS, it’s massively ignorant on the part of the publishing company. You inspire me (a non musician) daily to go back and listen and purchase music by bands. Hell, I just watched the freakin history of Faith No More?!! You’re teaching generations of people to love and appreciate the creation of music and creativity in general. This model has to fall, the way our economy has to. You’ll be left standing because you do such good work. 👊🏾
The music industry equivalent of patent trolls. The supply of lawyers has exceeded the demand.
There's only one thing that makes me more angry than Disney Star Wars, Pokemon Sword and Shield, and the Houston Astros.
This.
OMG Pokemon is dead
Lmao agree, Game Freak was so lazy with SWSD, they're just selling because they have brand and because it's the first game on switch. I hope temtem or other competitor manages to move the tide so this people realize they're not doing great.
@@Vintagestep
They should take notes from the Animal Crossing devs! Have you seen how much the game has evolved with New Horizons? It looks great for the fans of the series.
@@qislegit.donttrustthemedia6232 I talked with people and my partner about this. botw was a huge effort even if the story was extremely lame, but they made huge improvements in art and game direction, so kudos to them. AC team that is also Splatoon team did amazing these years, Splatoon 1 was amazing, Splatoon 2 fell a bit into the trap of making maps more open and the game feels less strategic, but they got a more complete experience with more varied music, more scenarios and modes, and the DLC was REALLY GOOD. Mario Odyssey wasn't as innovative but the game is really really polished, I haven't played Fire Emblem, but they seem to have gotten to their roots before the DS era while keeping things from the DS era and people seems pretty happy about it, AC just looks amazing... And yet you have the best-selling IP, pokemon, being so so lazy with a half-assed game, poorly animations on combat and cut scenes, a really lame script.. heck the only thing keeping it alive is how people are exploiting the raids to farm shinies and flex them with their friends, competitive in the top places is stagnant too. and yet I bought it, my partner, too, a lot of people because we wanted to share that first experience on switch, and yeah the saving grace to this is the community behind the game, otherwise, I would have dropped it with a really really bitter taste.
And Terminator... :|
I can’t wait to buy all words that exist and monetize speaking.
Don’t the Beatles have a song called taxman?
just be happy I don't take it all! (Taxman)
Harry Brown Yes, they do.
Go even further. Buy all the 1 and 0's and sue everyone who uses the internet.
@@Orlor That's really beginning to stick in my mind more and more...
Yeah, 0's and 1's can't be expensive. They're pretty low numbers, right?!
Just bought your PDF bundle. Also grabbed a shirt to support and to wear when I open my channel, kinda like bands do to rep other bands. Keep up your incredible work, and always feel free to vent, Rick, you’re more than fair about everything and yet you’re being bullied on one side and neglected on the other.
Surprised the aren’t trying to collect royalties on your son now.
They are getting enough from Liam Gallagher.
😂😂😂
Saw his leg!!! Saw off his leg!!! Just kidding.
Don't give them any new ideas.
so far!
Paul Davids had a similar situation. I think RUclips should establish a Teacher/Educator Channel sub classification where these frivolous claims are made much more difficult to make.
They used to have it. It was called youtube for schools. But even there you can receive a copyright claim.
That would make way too much sense.
Of course, the record labels had no problem stealing the music from black blues artists (I think Robert Johnson got a total of $75) and having the rock titans record the music. That's what they do, that's who they are. Before I watched this video, I said to myself, knowing it was the mixolydian video you were going to talk about, "That's a perfect and precise example of Fair Use." You're 100% right and your anger and rant is completely justified.
@Doss Koont
And who might that "little Danish twat" be?
Yeah, they were always honest and truthful with white blues artists! Record labels royally screwed over all artists, didn't matter what their race was, if they were ugly or gorgeous, it turns out that no matter how big they are, or how many hits they produce, the record labels will screw you if you don't wise up to their antics.
@@dadduorp I think that would be Lars Ulrich from Metallica.
I agree with you 100%. Enough is enough!!! I've learned more watching Rick's videos that I have in 50 years of playing music.
@@shanewalton8888 Don't bet on it. Money is their king.
Remember the good ol days when RUclips had no ads and all this BS? Greed greed greed they started with one commercial per video and they got greedy
I feel like RUclips could edit the revenue sharing so that claimants only get revenue based on the portion of the video they can claim.
In this case, 25 seconds of music should only net them 2% of the revenue for the Mixolydian mode video. RUclips wouldn't be circumventing their copyrights either, they still would get credit for their copyright, but only as it applies to the amount that can be claimed.
It seems like that would be a simple first step that could be done fairly quickly. If these publishers only get small portions of revenue, they might stop claiming since it wouldn't be financially worth their time. That or a class action lawsuit, which most RUclipsrs seem to either not be serious enough or too scared to try it.
I don't think that's how copyright law works.
@@JeffJefferyUK Maybe not, but this has gotten out of hand. For people like Rick who are educating people its not right for them to put so much effort into videos to only have a majority of the revenue go to someone else for simply using a short excerpt.
Exactly he's not just listening to their songs.
If RUclips didn't have these policies in place to placate the rights owners, then RUclips itself would be out of business and tied up in court cases. They set up this policy with the rights holders, so that copyright material could be consumed on RUclips. The end result would be that instead of What Makes This Song Great getting demonitised, you just wouldn't have it at all.
They shouldn't get anything if you play less than 30 seconds of a song. It's that simple. To teach music how do you show someone what to do. They'll try and claim copyright on a drum pattern next. Ridiculous.
The only reason I come to “your” channel and enjoy “your” videos is because of you. Because of your style, knowledge, enthusiasm and how you produce your content. I don’t come to hear the Beatles. Whether you use the Beatles as an example or some other artist or song is irrelevant. If the mixolydian scale video was presented by a robot nobody would watch it, simply because people don’t come for that. They watch for you. You are the content. You create the value. Not the Beatles. It’s exactly as you said Rick - it’s a money grab. A fairer money grab would be to reverse the percentages. Eg 67% to you and 33% to the rights holder, because their music is only supplemental to the content you create. The internet is just the Wild West and big corporates just have the best horses, guns and judges in their pockets. I hope you stick around Rick.
Agree, except for the percentages - he shouldn't have to pay a dime for fair use. They should be pleased that someone of his caliber and following played a portion of the song because perhaps people will go out and download the song to hear it in its entirety :-)
Good point, personally I would like to see Rick seeking out and helping promote cool underground bands as that is where the future is at. Bands like Hello Echo, 16 Frames, SeaBear, Soft Pipes, Boy and Bear, The War on Drugs, Jason Lyle, Steve Kilbey, Mental Pictures, Brock Tyler, Still Corners, The Spectacular Fantastic, Adventure Galley, The Elected, just to name a few.... Screw the major labels as they constantly rip everyone off, including the artists themselves. Signing a record deal is like signing a Faustian bargain. It removes ones soul and makes one a creature of the slave system.
Brian Matthews Big business is too powerful in our present day. They abuse this power, i.e., Amazon, Apple, etc
An American Entrepreneur
Relentless greed will out... 👍🏻
@@christopherharrison2405 i agree with your comment but Beato has to admit that al his content is about bands that have well made it and dont need him to promote them. Most ppl click on his videos and discover him thanks to the fack his talking about ppl we already know and whose creations we want to know. He is super talented and I enjoy and recomend his channel but he also always uses big name bands to grab your attention. regards
I’ve had two copyright claims so far. One was on a bluegrass jam track that I created that was in the key of G and 120 bpm. I immediately got a claim, I expect from a bot, That was claiming copyright infringement from two completely different songs one from the 60s and one from the 50s. I had just created this jam track which had no melody just two strumming guitars, an upright bass sample and drums. I did dispute it. And 30 days later I won and they re-monetized the video. The second copyright infringement was on a live stream I did a couple months ago. It was three hours long and for two minutes of it I played a song on RUclips that I wrote with Justin Bieber that had been leaked and we were talking about it on my livestream. In that case I was glad that the record company insisted on taking it down because that means that they are still protecting that song which may mean that it may come out at sometime. I chose the option to cut out that two minute segment. RUclips made it very easy for me to do that.
Wow, both of those examples are so fascinating. The first is clearly an example of how mindlessly done some of these strikes are when they are automated by bots. And the second is interesting because it's an example of how this system is actually useful and serves a purpose when it's implemented correctly, and not just to fleece creators of money unjustly. I really hope that your song is released someday! 🙏
if you were the co creator of the song.... do you not have right to use it?
@@michaelwerbick no. He doesn't own the song
@@dvt1393 I did get one on the new record. ETA. Had five in the running. Haha. Crazy.
@@michaelwerbick Yeah, I don't think UMG bothered to make the connection. But because a two minute song was a small fraction of a three hour livestream (I know I talk too much) I had RUclips cut it out (super easy) rather than get a strike against me. I did one cut on the new Bieber record, ETA.
I really appreciate you coming forward to talk about those issues. The thisrt for money in the world is getting even more ridiculous and you can see that on youtube in the constant ads and copyright claims. We need more influencial youtubers adressing those topics and we desperatly need another independent video platform
Imagine sitting in an office all day long, watching RUclips videos, searching for small seconds of copyright infringements and calling this your job.
And I thought my life was sad.
You're right Bro 😢
It's completely automated as far as I know.
wabbit didn’t you watch the video?
Teaching, Learning, Common sense, Logic, Intellect, Education, Skill and etc. are words that are officially lost in US
It's getting GLOBAL extremly fast!
I can agree my friend.
How did we ever get from Obama to "Oh, bummer"?
@@mondegreen9709 Well you fell for Obama...which proved you would pretty much accept anything if it was propagandised correctly...and you still haven't realised.
I constantly dispute claims, for teaching reasons. Sometimes I win, often I lose. I never got a strike, though. So I wonder what the criteria for a strike are.
Hey Sandra, I subscribe to your channel. Your a fabulous teacher.if they ever kick you off. I'm going with you. This all seems pretty unfair. If I can't play songs I'm familiar with, then why own any instruments? If they patent a G or C chord we're all doomed. lol . Best of luck.
@@musicjunkie2k Well, you CAN play them... as long as you don't publicly exhibit the performance. And you could always write and perform your own original tunes.
@@Salsuero Apparently not. Merely having the knowledge of how to play them might constitute some sort of breech? Is playing for your family "public"? Is playing at the park or beach for your own pleasure "public" ? What about church music? What about the copyright on "Happy Birthday" Do you remember that one? I do. So? Idk. Very troubling as a lifelong/ song writing musician. I'm Rick's age. Sorry to be a downer.
@@musicjunkie2k It depends on the location and whether or not others are in attendance at said location. Will your family rat you out? I doubt you'll be in trouble. Did you record it? If you never show it to anyone, you're fine. A public performance requires a fee to be paid. Sometimes the location itself has covered performer fees. Often times, not. DJ's are supposed to pay to perform... sometimes the club has it covered on their behalf. But if not, the DJ is technically supposed to pay fees to perform. But if he's just practicing in his bedroom... he's fine.
@@Salsuero Then why play an instrument at all ? Why whistle a tune? Why hum? Why utter any noises that might be copyrighted? Why have free speech at all? Is it really free ? I don't know about you but, I'm going to break the law and, play and sing. Maybe utter copyrighted words. Maybe even play a "wait for it" Beatles song. "Heaven forbid" . Lol. Just kidding. I'm going to play as I always have. And if the " song police" come I'll deal with it.
Life is good👍
Never mind the fact that someone might be influenced to listen to that Beatles song because of your video! You might have to charge them commission 🤬
Fair use needs to be protected. I'm sure a lot of artists probably don't know the extent to which online educators get hit with these bogus claims. I'm sorry you had to go through this. Keep up the good fight Rick. There has to be a middle ground.
Someone clarify this for me: are the hundreds of movie analysis RUclips channels who teach film-making using multiple and lengthy examples from Kubrick, Spielberg, etc. also getting hounded and issued copyright strikes, or does the movie industry understand “fair use” much better than the music industry?
The movie industry is way cooler about fair use.
@@RickBeato Unless it's Disney.
I figure RUclips's parent company (among others) has about 99.99% of all recorded music in a database, analyzed and indexed six ways to Sunday, and they algorithmically generate these claims so _they_ can't (reasonably) be sued for hosting copyrighted material. In fact, I bet it takes a substantial chunk of the "processing" time for each upload.
They can't do that for video data... yet.
Fair use has a posse! Please keep up the great educational use, Rick! Awesome work!
I would guess this is mostly because the movie industry is still making some money the "conventional" way. But the music industry is not.
The 405 dislikes for this video. Are the turds employed to find infringements.
@@1pcfred it is good work if you're a piece of crap who can't do an honest job. 🤣
Instant karma's gonna get them, but they'll probably make me pay for using that lyric.
Ya think?!!
Sony employees
A turd is more wholesome than a sh**stain. Dont insult the turd.
Rick, one way around this but it would be a major pain in the ass for the viewer would be when you get to the part of the video where the example is, ask the viewer to pause your video, open up another tab for RUclips and then play the song. When done, the viewer would go back to the original tab and unpause. I thought the old rule was 30 seconds or less of a song and you didn't have to pay. Radio stations play segments of that length. Maybe now the labels are making everyone pay regardless.
There's a life hack on how to still monetize your own videos... It goes like this. Use your own song in the video, for instance in an outro. The song must be uploaded via a distributor, and your channel shouldn't be whitelisted with it. And so when your video goes out, your distributor sees that someone has used your song (remember, your channel isn't whitelisted with the distributor) and claims it. Then Sony intern comes and claims the Beatles song. But guess what? RUclips will divide money equally between all the claimers! And now Sony will only steal 50% of what they would have stolen otherwise. Profit!
P.S.: Yes, legal situation is THAT cryptic, that you have to copyright claim your own videos to retain profit...
Alexey Filippenko : Then make up 2 or 3 more accounts, and have those accounts also file claims. Sony then gets even less.
For prosperity's sake, one of the guides on this hack is YMFAH's "How to Break RUclips"
Make sure you copywriter your song or google and Sony will steal it lmao. Sony is cheap af
Great advice, I will keep this in mind
You guys should look into Jim Sterlings video on Copyright deadlock. Brilliant stuff.
And yet RUclips pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to channels that have the most idiotic content. We learn from your channel and many others instead of being spoon fed mindless junk. It’s evident that those in power want a future filled with unquestioning, unintelligent non-individuals ...
Spot-on
A future?? Sounds more like the present.
George Morrow dude so true 👊🏼💥
"We the sheeple" .. They want us to work all day pay taxes on earned income that we physically work for and to buy things and be consumers and also pay a tax on everything we buy. We are getting taxed at both ends everthing we earn and everything we buy...its savage
RUclips is an advertising platform. Period. Content is irrelevant. The only thing that they care about is that you click on videos and get exposed to adds.
The fact that Rick said "bogus" and not "bullshit" is a testament to his great restraint.
My thoughts exactly! I was waiting/hoping for him to drop the hammer. He deserves the release
Yes, I could feel that almost escaping....
I was fully expecting the warranted and accurate "BS".
@@williamhurstcampaign6386 yep. It felt natural in the moment. I guess Big Scam is also another form of BS...
The reason they're doing this is because of desperation. Musicians are now becoming independant and working amongst one another and can make their own money from streams and RUclips. Good riddance to these labels.
I would love to see a big law firm take on all these cases together in a massive class action lawsuit on behalf of RUclipsrs. Because it's CLEARLY a violation of fair use law. The case is there. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you have a case or not if Sony is the only one with high-powered attorneys.
Also, RUclips themselves seems to have no interest in catering to anyone but the record companies. They could easily deny invalid claims such as these, but then they'd end up in court. It's easier for them simply to steal from RUclipsrs who have little legal recourse.
and they are allowed to put ads on ur original content and make money off of ur content
This isn't new, and I'm a bit surprised a class action against major publishers and record companies hasn't happened yet. IANAL, and I'm foreign, but it seems to me legal recourse is the US way of fixing the system.
RUclips catches my covers right after I upload, before I even make it available. They even caught my version of Holy Holy Holy, a hymn written 150 plus years ago. It's public domain, but a publisher is claiming copyright for it. I did protest it, but I haven't heard back.
That's just messed up. I have the same problem all the time. Sorry, man.
@@lars1588 I've just come to expect it. They're not my songs anyways.
@@chieh1980 Lol who could possibly have copyright on a beethoven song?
@@Thadnill no one, but the topic of the video and the comment thread here is that big companies abuse RUclipss systems for copyright. They know that they can arms race any of their false claims out of court just because they have the money and resources available to them. It's straight up bullying the poor out of their lunch money.
There are a number of shady companies that only operate to claim copyright of public domain music and go after people. There was a big stink raised a few years ago after someone was sued over uploading their performance of a Bach piece. It has also been happening with public domain books that people have digitized and made available on the internet.
I forget the author, but his works were now in the public domain and one of these companies claimed the copyright on his library of work as a “publisher.”
This is called a Legit Rant!
That's TRUE. it even says it in the video title lol...
Elementary, dear Holmes! (No infringement because Doyle never used that!)
I've made guitar lessons for years and things seem to be better in the copyright area than ever! Years ago I would get actual copyright strikes, but in the last couple years I at worst occasionally have to share revenue but never have to take anything down or get strikes.
"So, what do you do for a living?" - "Well I watch hours of RUclips videos looking for 14 seconds of a copyrighted tune, and then harassing the RUclipsr" Christ, If that was MY job, I'd contemplate taking a bridge.
James Slick “Well, we wouldn’t do that. We’re too rich. But did I hear you say something about taking a bridge? It just so happens I’m in the bridge sales business. Would you care to take a look at our catalog? You could make all your money back in tolls within a year!”
@@wellesradio LOL, I live in Pittsburgh and we have over 400 bridges and they are FREE for the "taking"🤣 (Pisses off River Resuce though.)
It's just the beginning...
Imagine no possessions.
I wonder if you can.
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.
We're gonna need 66% of that post...
Bernard you have copyright infringement strike 1...
Could the 'irony totally lost on corporofascists' who control the Lennon cannon be any thicker
But not today....
keep on imagining...
“Fair Use” gets “Unfair Punishment”. This gets me so angry!!
Good juxtaposition parallel
sounds like youtubers should pool together and file a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the music publishers, false claims are a crime
This seems like a legit good idea
Or, lobby politicians across the board to legally redefine what is fair use of content and what isn't. That might be cheaper and possibly more effective.
"these days, the people in control of music are those furthest away from the creative process".
I played "Day Tripper" and "Yesterday" just yesterday. Oh boy, I'm guilty too. The world needs a lot more musicians and a lot less lawyers.
We need MORE lawyers... otherwise they can do this without repercussions.
My favorite joke. Genie grants you 3 wishes, your first wish is to get rid of all lawyers...
2nd wish....
You have no more wishes
You said I have 3
Sue me...
Dont say "0h boy"
That'll cost you because it was from "A Day In the Life ".
I read the news today oh boy about a lucky man.....
Well said. Exactly right!
If we got rid of all the lawyers, who'd play in all our blues bands?
Can you write a letter to Paul McCarty’s management team and see if Paul would support you with this mis-use of the copyright law. He claims to be supportive of music education. Your case is black and white and he may be able to get behind you on this. Besides he and the rest of the people that collect payment for copyright use of Beatles songs needs their music used for educational reasons to help secure their catalogs future worth.
Thank you Rick for being an active teacher in Music Education. God speed.
@Aaron Winton I was thinking exactly the same thing regarding Paul McCartney. Unless I'm (sadly) mistaken, I would think Sir Paul would be supportive of what Rick is doing from an educational standpoint, first and foremost. (But yes, even a bit from a legacy of the Beatles standpoint as well.) I think at this stage McCartney'd encourage something that cultivates the appreciation of music in general, which in turn inspires current and future generations of listeners and the artists who will be creating music. IMO, Rick Beato's channel does this on a very high level. Its presentation is professional and Rick is way beyond merely knowledgeable. And as a teacher, his enthusiasm for his subject is both undeniable and contagious. What more could a student ask for? Sir Paul, what do you think?
Absolutely. Give it a shot, Rick. What you do is fully educational.
Sony is the sole owner of the work in question.
I am afraid Paul has already been assimilated.
McCartney is a great songwriter but I doubt he gives a damn. He is part of the pack.
How to fix the entertainment industry:
1) Copyrights only last 20 years.
2) Musicians should sell their recordings for cheap, but they should charge to play live, just like they did 100 years ago.
Musicians do sell their "recordings" for cheap. They get pennies for every record sold. The record label keeps most of the money. They are loan sharks, fronting the money for records to be made and non-stop tours, then when they make millions of dollars because their artist is working their butt off, they keep most of the money because the artist "owes" them.
Using copyrighted material without authorization should only be considered infringement when:
1) The way the intellectual property is used has the quality to be a substitute for buying/streaming a copy from the original artist (e.g. Full song/album upload on RUclips; unauthorized cover of the full song)
OR
2) it is used in an non-educational context AND contributes significantly to the work it has been used in (e.g. When it's used as a soundtrack.).
Oh you used a B flat? Copyright claim.
yeah but ya only get a forth of the money, ya get it , ah nevermind
"I named my son after John Lennon..."
*receives copyright violation email from RUclips*
Busted!
You said “John Lennon”..Violation coming your way. Oh wait I did too..See you in RUclips jail..
Rob hahahahaha
Kris Bailey Copyright violation for a name?
Ono!
It is sad that the record company lawyers know that they are wrong regarding fair use, but they keep doing the wrong thing because they know they can get away with it.
Isn't your description suits lawyers in general?
There are no record company attorneys going through RUclips videos. They are mostly most likely contractors with no legal education at all going through every video and indiscriminately making copyright infringement complaints.
That's modern day society in a nutshell
The music “industry” is very far removed from music itself.
I have had this happen to me on a video that was clearly in compliance with fair use doctrine. The first time RUclips came to my defense and denied the takedown request and even offered me 100000 dollars in legal defense if the clamant decided to litigate. The second time they just took my video down and gave me a strike. In my opinion, youtube is no longer complying with U.S. law regarding fair use due to the fear they have of being sued by large corporate interest that own copyrights to most media. Its time for RUclipsrs to unit and file a class action lawsuit against youtube.
Already been done in Europe. Nothing resolved yet.
Yes!
I would strongly doubt RUclips is in violation of any law regarding copyright strikes. Fair use gives us the right to use copyrighted work (in small chunks) for educational purposes-but it doesn’t guarantee us the right to post that material to RUclips. This concept is similar to the idea that the first amendment gives me the right to say what I want, but it doesn’t stop my employer from firing me for executing that right. The people to go after are the ones filing the claims.
There is no law that says youtube is obligated to provide a platform. The only thing that comes close would be public access tv, if that's even a thing any more.
Don't apologize for being angry... It's just another Golden Rule: Those with the gold rule. sad...
Or as a "Wizard of Id" comic strip put it:
The King says: "Remember the Golden Rule!"
Peasant #1 asks: "What's the Golden Rule?"
Peasant #2 replies: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."
It's a sad day when teachers can't use others music to teach a band's/musician's genius without the record company wanting their pound of flesh 🤬
Rick, That was the most eloquent rant I've ever heard man, especially for such a touchy subject for musicians, songwriters, and music lovers in general I would imagine...Don't know for sure because I'm in the musician category, but I think anyone with a true love of music would be sickened by the hypocrisy of greed in contrast to what most Rock & Pop music has always represented...I appreciate you speaking up for us, and I agree completely with everything point you so clearly made. Oh, and I'm sure the irony of the topic (greed) against the backdrop of songs like "Can't Buy Me Love" "All We Need is Love" isn't lost on you, it certainly isn't lost on me. Well, take care, keep doing what you're doing Brother, I'm a big fan, I watch your videos or listen to them daily. Sincerely, Russ
Rick, you are amazing. I was in a fairly successful (locally, I mean), tight little rock band in my youth (high school and first two years of college) and then I caved to pressure from my parents and went off to a big university and became a pharmacist. I always looked longingly at musicians, especially at live shows. Every once in a while when I'd jam out with my pals people would tell us that we "get down". I shrugged and felt a longing and a regret. Well, I stumbled upon your content awhile ago and you've given me cause to pick up my bass and start practicing every night (instead of drinking, lol). At 50 I certainly don't aspire to rock stardom but I will say this : my whole life has come alive because music is back in it. My wife even said, " I have my husband back". Music is life, and I was dead without it. Since I started playing again I've gotten back in shape (lost 35 pounds) and even joined the Army reserves. Thank you, buddy. Thank you. Never stop making content because of the corporate hawks. You really are doing a divine service, here.
And then it hit me. THIS is the reason I had to learn “twinkle, twinkle little star” and “When the saints go marching in” in music class at school, because had we learned to play any other song we would’ve had our lunch money shaken down by Sony.
Funny thing - schools do have to pay for their music, even when that music is in the public domain.
Unless! They write out the public domain song and publish the sheet music themselves. But you can't copy somebody else's printing, and sheet music publishers will deliberately include errors in the printing so that they know when somebody else has copied *their* version of the public domain song. Which then allows them to sue the person who copied it.
So, even if it's in the public domain, you have to find a printing of it that's in the public domain to work from so you don't get sued by a publisher.
And they can be fierce about that stuff because it's so easy for new competition to come along.
It was a sad day when Google took over RUclips.
Alphabet needs to be broken up. Pronto.
RUclips would already be gone if Google didn’t buy it
@@15thirty yes but then youtube will not be free anymore, either for the creators or for the viewers. youtube is constantly loosing money and can only stay afloat with googles money
It'll be even worse when Google takes over the world. It won't be long and everyone is happily contributing to doom's day. This is the society we deserve, I'm afraid. Money, money, money, ....
That's nothing. In California, Google and Facebook were going to be taxed for its employees using the roads. They turned it around and got a measure to pass that would increase everyone who uses the bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area by $3 over a span of a few years. Thanks!
"Music isn't created, it's discovered."-mozart
When are we going to learn we don't own the music?
Wow. That's an amazing quote 💯
so you're saying that Rick shouldn't own his videos?
bad form I say old chap
It's not the music that gets owned. It's the rights to use or the right to claim it as one's own composition. What usually happens is that there's between 50 and 100 years grace after the death of the copyright holder (note that word!) after which the tune reverts to the public domain for copyright purposes.
@@DavidAndrewsPEC I would agree thats a better definition, but "owning your message like a plot of land" it's still a false precedent that I see more people profiting from exploiting how the system works then what the systems does.
That's why I say I think music is something we discover and not create. Even if you want the bragging rights to the refining process, then you get something that starts looking like the crooked stuff going on with other industries (big pharma for example.)
Music is like medicine, and sure the doctor should be compensated. But in this case the doctor gets next to none of the money, and the metaphorical hospital only has electricity for 1 department.... Managment.
In theory? I agree with copyright laws. I just disagree it works in practice. Too many cracks that give power to the wrong people. And thats just bad for everyone. It harbors more monopolistic behavior then creative ,which becomes economically bad for an industry that's main product is creativity and inspiration (which is essentially the act of 'copying' you're experience and make it your own. The 'music' we experience doesn't even come from the speakers it comes from within. How can you charge me for something I made? Just seems silly to me in the way there really is a better way to 'dance this dance' and 'slice the pie'. And if it's going to work? It has to be not based off illusions and hallucinations.
@@JohnSheppardEwTube
What I gave was the definition of copyright. The same thing applies to textual product. This is under the umbrella of intellectual property, not real property (in the sense of tangible things that one could own).
Regarding the pharmaceutical industry, companies don't hold copyright in medicinal substances: they hold 'letters patent' - a clear 'letter' (as a 'to whom it may concern', setting out the details of the patented work, from a govetning party) in which the holder's right to take financial advantage of their work, be it an idea or a physical object such as a medicine for something. There is a difference: copyright extends beyond the death of the copyright holder, whereas the letters patent allow a finite period of time to exploit that work for profit, after which the patent must lapse and the requirement to buy licence to use the work disappears.
If music is just 'discovered', then what is the point of bothering to compose music? Anybody could just 'discover' it. What about the hard work put into composition by those whose job is to compose? Because 'discovery' would mean the right of a composer to use that combination of notes as their own composition (and to earn money from having done that work!) disappears ... and being a composer becomes essentially voluntary work. Fuck that.
The problem here is not copyright as a legal concept. The problem is that RUclips has failed to - prior to enabling monetisation - bring in a system that allows people like Rick here to make fair use of copyrighted material whilst protecting the right of copyright holders to profit from the work used. It is not impossible: Distrokid has managed to develop a system in which a cover version allows the artist to profit from that recording and the copyright holder to get the royalty due - and this lasts for about a year, which is plenty of time for both parties to profit from their work.
Where I can kind-of agree is that the system is problematic. Publishers should not hold the copyright outright: the publishing agreement should be a renewable licence issued by the author/composer of a work to the publisher, who should act on behalf of the licensor (as a licensee) in providing printed/printable media containing the work and collecting royalties on the licensor's behalf (taking only a fee) rather than paying the author/composer a royalty and pocketing the fucking rest ... which is a fucking disgrace, as far as I'm concerned.
The pharmaceutical industry is nowhere near as predatory as is the music industry. The music industry has been shafting authors/composers and artists since its earliest days. The pharmaceutical industry - which does not operate in a way undeserving of criticism - for its greater part tries to produce beneficial products whilst trying to make a profit.
Publishers and labels are now feeling the effects of a democratisation of music and its technology. Studios are adapting, offering additional services such as online mix/master services. The publisher and labels are not. They have just become more predatory.
This is how You Tube is burying themselves and their monopoly.
They are just too big to care. Or too big to fail.
(Echoes of Enron.)
yesterday i literally had to get thru like eight 15 second to one minute ads on a 10 minute video. can’t wait to use another platform
You mean Google, right ? Google owns everything.
I’ve been doing this series of Top 10 Underrated Guitarists lists - which only uses maybe 30-40 seconds of actual clips, usually broken down in two clips of 2 songs. And then I add commentary. I get hit all the time. Now I submix the clips and upload before even making the videos to see which ones pass and that I can use. I’m celebrating these people and they keep getting in my way. Very frustrating!
I think were all underrated guitarists so Thanks
@@richiebricker thanks for what??????
One - not great - way around it is to add the notes in a program like MuseScore and play the music that way. That MIDI-output should not get picked up by the algorithm. The 8-bit Music Theory channel does this and got around Nintendo copyright-claiming that way. Nintendo is notorious for its aggressive copyright-claim abuse (gameplay-footage for example). Of course it doesn't stop jackasses from Sony/... to manually copyright-claim. Worth an attempt? (Of course you shouldn't use the video in that case)
Don’t they realize that RUclipsrs are actually introducing their music to a younger generation? Even the ones who react to old music are getting them a new audience, thus more sales.
Sales? Do you realise young people hardly know they can BUY music? And even if they do know, they won't because they have so many ways to listen for free or very little money. And given how pricey the tickets to a concert of the surviving Beatles are, they won't go see them play live either. Or do you seriously think a horde of 13 .y.o. will rush to buy the whole catalogue and we'll have a new Beatles mania? ;) Awareness and appreciation of an artist is one thing, profiting from it, it's a whole other game.
They are grabbing whatever they can as long as they can, and we would too. There is no long-term vision these days, given the future doesn't look bright at all.
@@DarkSideofSynth party like it's 1999
@@DarkSideofSynth I still buy music (I'm not young) and music channels on RUclips are a great way for me to get exposed to artists I may not know very well. I use one streaming service but I like to have a physical or digital copy of music so I'm not reliant on an internet connection. So even if less young people are buying to own, RUclipsrs are helping to drive sales.
Yeah, they don't follow logic
@@DarkSideofSynth unchecked corporate power at its finest. remember when the labels took the artists to court to stop the artists from approving the sampling of the music the artists made? same labels, same bullshit.
Unfortunately, we'd all have to hit them where it matters: stop consuming music and attending concerts of bands tied to those publishers, while at the same time, shifting our consumption to bands who don't create this problem one way or another... yeah, right... I'll be over here not holding my breath on this one...
So we should all become hipsters?
Cuz if we all shift to the small local bands, they won't stay small or local for long!
Nah, man that won't do! Lawmakers and jurisdiction would have to put their foot down and make sure that fair use will be granted in the digital world and that unrightful copyright claims like this are punished as theft!
But I don't see either of that gonna happen anytime soon...
@@LRM12o8 Nah. Not shifting because of their success, size, or geography. More about having their degree of dickishness inform us of when we should stop supporting them. Still hard to do it right, sure...
Man: (just playing his guitar)
SONY: we are gonna need our cut.
RUclips: pay the millionaires or be disappeared ok
Google/RUclips bends over backwards to serve the wealthy and the powerful--the brutal Chinese Communist Party, for example--but they couldn't care less about the people like you and me who make RUclips popular and wealthy.
@@FRN2013 Chinese? WTF? YT is BANNED in China! Look a bit CLOSER to home!
@@FRN2013 😂😂😂😂
DMS, of course it is. But of course the Chinese are obsessed with world opinion about them.
@@FRN2013 True! IF China was so great, WHY do so many come here to live?
Remember when Fantasy Records sued John Fogerty for sounding like John Fogerty?
No way!? That's ridiculous.
Cancel19 Fogerty wrote Run Through The Jungle but Fantasy owned the library and rights. They sued him for stealing that song for The Old Man Down The Road. Ultimately John won. I think John counter sued and they had to pay for his legal fees.
@@djray369 Thanks Ray. Amazing how these record companies think they own you like a slave. The two songs to me sound completely different however they both are Fogertyish cuz for pete's sake it's John's voice. No wonder Prince changed his name to a symbol to fight these greedy companies.
You're entirely justified in your anger. There's an old saying about having a handful of sand and what happens when you squeeze more tightly. The entire media industry is a poster child for that saying.
Here's something that will make them go nuts: Upload a dozen Rutles songs every day. It'll drive them mad....
No, they'd just take his channel down for life.
Ouch!
disclaimer: this video is taken down for mentioning the beatles.
what a bunch of babies. seriously sony should back off.
And then your comment too ... for mentioning of mentioning of ....
Let's just say: This ... is taken down for mentioning ...
What a ... of ... . seriously .... should back off.
Fix comment please, copyright is watching ... sorry ... is watching .
There was a guy in Long Island who started the original muzak corporation because he couldn't play popular tunes in the elevator He went and hired the same musicians they made a water down replica of the kind of music he was trying to give the elevator patron.
Wow, that copyright sharing claim is ridiculous
Not gonna lie. Angry Rick gets me fired up.
Ivory Tower he’s such a chill dude it’s cool to see him get after it for a bit.
You should have entitled the video "What makes this rant great episode#1". Keep up the videos coming. Your channel is by far the most and packed with knowledge and information when it comes to music.