Hey, your grumpiness is showing.

Hi Rick, I thought you looked quite cool in the thumbnail :( As stated in the video These are not views that I agree with, merely my attempt to answer your question about what business sense does it make for labels to block a video. I thought it was an interesting topic. (To be 100% clear I don't agree with them blocking the videos) I'm sure most artists are more than happy to be featured in your videos but as with most cases, the artists view and the labels view will almost always differ (Unless it's Don Henley) At present this video has generated a total of $53.23. I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant though, as I believe that you and I both have the same view on videos that are protected under fair use. If anything that point is counter acting against that. Once again, This isn't something I agree with, It's just an interesting topic which I think has important points on both sides and should be talked about. If you'd like to have a more in-depth chat I'd love to talk.

Just to give an unrelated example to show how important exposure is. The Australian group Wiggles (which is a very entertainment group for kids) covered a Tame Impala song for a radio. Tame Impala was a band known mainly in Australia so far, but now a lot of parents discovered it on the back of their child's "addiction" to the Wiggles.

double edged sword. the labels only want maximum income at any expense, sadly they usually own the music. Maybe a way to help everyone is to reach out to the artists, have them break down their process and use less clips of the song. we still get the idea and the record labels will have to attack their own artists which devalues the music much more than anything. just food for thought.

Your use of musical IP Rick, is not only educationally formatted within historically relevancy and appreciation, but it's also promoting older/out of rotation artwork to a younger market audience of potential consumers, who otherwise wouldn't have possibly been suggested or independently inclined to go looking back through the catalogs of time for inspiration. It's the obvious flawed laws, of past and present, governing the medium's failed corporate business model as a whole, that's seemingly being exacerbated by KZfaq's unchecked proto-monopoly authoritarian power wielding, that's really what needs addressing, and perhaps Congressionally. Because, in quite literally any other medium, within the contextual parameters of educational critique, technique analysis, historical appreciation, and subjective evaluation of cultural relevancy? This is usually never an issue. Regardless of personal self sustainment aka "tuition". It's as hypothetically absurd as if one day Personal Estates and Publishing houses started closing down schools or pilfering University revenue for simply teaching American literature. In my opinion? There has to be a reevaluation of "educational public domain" governance, and quite possibly, very serious broad reaching corporate anti-trust litigation, because to me? 6 corporations owning all media, and merely 3 holding claims to the musical artform, doesn't exactly jive with the assumed checks & balances inherent of what a free & fairly competitive market model should be within my observational understandings of traditional capitalism. Don't even get me started on the Universal fire topic. My heart sinks every time I think about that one! Cheers Rick, and keep fighting the good fight brother!

That is sick isn’t it?

😂😂😂

A youtube-video on your own channel is never purely educational. You are always trying to grow your channel - and this is profit. If someone educates in a high-school room, they are not expanding their audience by showcasing and deconstructing famous songs. Rick Beato however is doing exactly that... he is USING famous songs in order to promote his OWN product - that is his channel. It is NOT strictly fair use imo AND fair use is NOT a global law. He could be educational if he deconstructed his OWN best songs. The reason Rick Beato gets unblocked is because he bullies labels/artists via shitstorms - from a business point of view it's better for the labels to unblock him. However not everyone is in a position to do that - which means he is breaking the law, because HE can get away with it. He's a rather ruthless character and businessman and his rhetoric is pretty simple and see-through for people who are a) familiar with the law concerning music, b) rhetorically versed. Having a bunch of 14 year olds repeating his sentences, because they don't know any better and like his content does not change how wrong he actually is.

Hahahaha!!

@@akagerhard The overreach is ridiculous and that's the problem. I've had church dinner and picnic videos blocked because faintly in the distance you could hear a Michael Jackson song playing on the PA. As I said in my own comment the songs are irrelevant. I watch Rick because I like Rick. Maybe there should be a reasonable tiered fee ASCAP or BMI license for youtube producers like in a restaurant or pub.

Joe H, Exactly. I’m not a musician and often I’m lost when watching Beato break down songs. Even though a lot goes way over my head, there’s enough in his videos to keep me watching.

Would you watch if he was analyzing his own musical compositions? Maybe but with hit songs it’s a sure thing they really suck people in.

MANY times, I would go have a listen to songs he reviewed just because the brought my attention to them. I like Rick.

I think Rick is a master musician. Who makes me listen to music in a different way. How come it must always come down to money??? If it wasn't for Rick most new listeners wouldn't even hear these songs. Stop sticking up for the big money moguls . Guys like Rick do it for love of music!!!

@@raydurant7879 ?? This is ricks job..he isn't doing it for love he is doing it for money. Just because he loves his job doesn't mean he would do it for nothing (full time, at the risk of starving). Yes, you watch his videos because of him, not the songs...but Rick wouldn't make these videos without those songs ..do you see the problem? If he doesn't want to get copyright strikes then he should remove the ad component..stop using these songs to sell the Beato book. The education component.. analysis of chords and song structure etc, would be just as valuable if he was talking about less well known songs...like my music...but then, my songs are not great and would not make rick as much $$

"Thank you for using my property for free to attract your audience so you can upsell your products and special thanks for devaluing my sync-rights."

@@Music-el7if Ikr, basically all those youtube cover videos out there.

@@Music-el7if thank you for the free advertising of my music, most of which have been stagnant for years, and sending the monetization of your video to me, the owner. Since anyone in the world can copy a cd, download the song for free, or any other means, the 10 sec clip, which is legal and I agreed too it by releasing it to the public and not keeping it in a drawer in my house, is about the only real money I will make off of it in the world now. But.....I should be a billionaire because I made a song once......and I hate the people who might listen to it.

@@Astech31 Thank you for not understanding the value of strongly protected sync-rights and thinking piddly YT payments are more valuable.

@@Astech31 you have nothing at stake in this but your own wish fulfillment.

This is the actual problem. It's kind of done automatically. They don't really care about "fair use". Once the artist or label figures out what is really going on, they unblock Rick Beato. Only once did a take down stay down.

This is a good point. It also shows how “innocent until proven guilty“ doesn’t apply here, apparently. They should look into it before they take your video down. The onus is on them to prove that you are infringing on the copyright.

The issue is that recordings of these old composers are still under copyright, so the automatic system will flag it as a copyright infringement of the recording, not the composition

@@BCl137 But whose recording? My recordings are, much to my chagrin, far inferior to Rubenstein or Horowitz or Argerich, so right out of the box they're making bogus assumptions as to whose recordings they're flagging. Surely one company doesn't own all recordings of Chopin's works - they damn sure don't own mine .

@@DeanHorak basically anyone’s recording that is published - I’ve always won on appeal once it gets manually checked

Exactly. I can watch these songs on hundreds of different clips all over youtube. I go to Rick's channel to learn a bit more about the songs I already like.

Yep. The deep dives are what interests me. It's incredibly fascinating, because of Rick.

I agree with MTAE. Rick provides an awesome outlet to musicians teachers beginners or just folks interested in the story of how they favorite band out a tune together

shit weird take on tool, i know people hate some of their fans and get a bad taste but theyre still the goats in their own field.

@@WookieWarriorz I don't hate them, they just somehow passed me by so I'm not very familiar with them. I need to actually listen to them, I may love it.

As much as I love Rick- this is a valid point.

@@AndyDrudy I'm not sure it is. A textbook can include copyrighted material and is protected by fair use. They are usually sold by a for-profit company and often include a section in the back advertising other textbooks sold by that for-profit company. While this argument may be used if his fair-use case was argued in court, the publishers aren't putting that much thought or effort into each video. The youtube copyright system does not incentive rights holders to respect fair use. Fighting a complaint results in the decision being put back in the hands of that same rights holder with the only recourse after that being a lawsuit. While much of what KZfaqrs call "fair use" is blatantly not, Rick's musical analysis & generally not playing more of a song than he needs to illustrate his points makes his work seem to hold up to the standards of fair use. Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk.

@@bloomt17 Regardless, saying he doesn't make money from the videos would hold water if he didn't constantly monetise the channel and the traffic those videos generate via courses, merch etc.

@@bloomt17its extremely rare for a textbook to include copyrighted material. They don't get an instant OK to do it just because it's a textbook. For example, if textbooks could include copyrighted material with no problem, I would just make a textbook company that reprints other textbooks in their entirety while adding 1 page of introduction.

100% Best breakdown....if not for Rick's ad at the end.....it would be Fair Use but as soon as you use it directly to advertise yourself......

In short, the paid flagger hecklers at their ivory towers are incompetent fools. The end

@@luckylicks3497 not quite, if it were that simple, that's what i'd have written. KDH makes a good point about Rick plugging his book and stuff, but he is doing so in his own video, and he isn't "using" the unlicensed content in the same way as music licensing normally works, which would be as part of a production. he's basically reviewing the songs in the same way someone reviews a movie or some fast food, you don't need to pay for a license to own and review the item, only to obtain the item itself via legal means.

@@gramursowanfaborden5820 I've been following Rick for a long time. What the Guitologist did first time around was an eye opener for many listeners, telling Rick to own them or quit yapping. Everyone agrees on the fact that there is incompetency just about everywhere in the industry. Not to mention the failure of Gibson. That's not the point. The point is why Rick keeps on ranting when he knows how the system works. Since when has wanting to get paid for doing your a job become a bad thing? Musicians are so easily kicked around, that's why the ranting should rather be something constructive. Yet they continue on demonetizing him. Are you getting it yet? If it's like this for him, it'll be like this for everyone - is the message. This means it's easy to keep the potential competition discouraged from moving forward. Rick could do something about it, but there's an illusion of him making it so impossible for anyone to make any money because of the hundreds of paid KZfaq flaggers over at their high risers, who are also getting paid to cancel the culture. Lay off the autotune, he says - to the people who are being paid to control society by keeping the masses under mind control through repetition. Rick hasn't really opened the can of worms yet, so nobody really knows if it's true or not, that if he wasn't trying to sell his own gear he wouldn't be making any money at all. It might be better for him to just get a following and make money like he is at this point, because "if something cannot go on forever, it will stop". As for the time being, it's not about the money as much as the system trying to destroy humanity, replacing it with machines. That's why it's crucial for those who have the power to do something about it not to live in denial as to what's actually going on around us.

I agree with you. However, imagine if someone stole your car. That's how the labels see it, and how they always will.

@@luckylicks3497 Rick thinks he will get through to them because he knows some of them, he knows they aren't stupid, and he thinks they can understand like he does - however, whether they can or not is, as you say, not really the point, he's too good natured to realise that, maybe.

I agree - I think this more about crappy blocking policies/processes on YT than publishing companies actively looking to go after Rick Beato. But there does need to be a better way to review notifications/strikes for music in videos - who pays for it is the thing that will hold it up indefinitely. Your argument Rick's videos somehow reduce the potential advertising fee is interesting - I just don't think it actually holds water. The incredibly low revenues tied to streaming is the root issue - it means no money can be spent to sort out a process to handle this effectively between YT and the music publisher because it is not worth throwing dimes at pennies.

The only point he is making is what he believes is going on. He’s not saying he believes this. Yes younger people should learn what makes these songs great but the industry is a complex moving machine.

that's no "argument". It's breaking the law and the only reason he get's unblocked is because he puts social pressure upon the labels, which makes it economically unviable to follow the law for them. Every unpopular person would never get unblocked for doing the same thing. Only people with a certain following COULD do that.. which makes what he does even more unfair, than just breaking the law - because few can get away with it - thus not everybody is equal in this scenario. Let's say someone stole money from the superrich to give it to all the poor people. Effectively I am all for it, but stealing is against the law, so inherently I am against it. But it's even worse than stealing money to give it to the poor, because HE profits from it HIMSELF. He is growing his channel massively. There is plenty of old great music that ISN'T that popular.. he purposefully uses popular music to increase his audience - that's his business model. "Exposing the youth to old music" is not a compelling argument at all, it's an excuse an adult like yourself should see through.

exposing old music to a younger crowd is the more compelling argument. ---- I dont think it is or certainly not at any significant level. You would need to prove that Ricks channel is actually being veiwed by the younger crowd and that they have not heard these songs before. My opinion is that Ricks channel is frequented by the older classic rock fan in the main. The nature of the videos are unlikely to draw any significant amount of people in. I think its a fair assumption that most people have already heard the songs hes analysing and just want to hear his opinion/breakdown of it

@@atomiccritter6492 Well, I disagree. I see comments all the time from younger music fans freaking out over how good these "older" bands are. Read through the comments sometime. His first What Makes This Song Great? for Ep. 1 Blink -182 has 1,259,100 views. Rick's What Makes This Song Great? Ep.104 Pink Floyd has 927,263 views. What Makes This Song Great? Ep.105 SEAL 396,104 views. His video from 2 days ago, June 23, 2021, The Most COMPLEX Pop Song of All Time already has 945,789 views. Those are significant numbers.

This comment I agree with 100% 👍

That's because you don't own any songs of any existing value. Beato spends a lot of time waffling about how he's promoting these artists to his "2 million followers" but whilst this self cock sucking exercise is amusing it misses the stunning fact that having 2 million followers hasn't achieved much in terms of financial success compared with the bands he fantasies that he's helping. Has it? Popularity without reward is useless. In fact it's probably worse than useless, it's a negative thing. Like being infamous. Especially if you're already world famous and rich. There's no point sucking your own cock about how many youtube followers you have if you still have to post a video every day begging people to buy a music theory book full of guitar chord diagrams that, as KDH's review pointed out, can't even be used to wipe your butt because it's a PDF. And that's why Beato's supposed "promotion" is worth nothing to anyone. Except you cjpreach because your song is worth nothing to begin with. Which, ironically means Beato has no interest in it - he only wants music that is already world famous because he knows it will generate clicks - at the same time as deluding himself that he's doing the band the favour. But you still hold the fantasy that 1. Write a song no one is interested in 2. Beato plays the song 3 ??? 4 profit. Is some kind of music business model. Or something. It doesn't work like that. That's why his promotion is not really worth anything. Just as his recordings of artists in a studio weren't worth anything to the guys who paid him to make them. They used fancy compressors and equipment but the people on those recordings are now flipping burgers or working as chartered accountants.

Start with a 15 minute video for your time and see where it goes from there. You sound like you're quite capable.

Uh hum.

Hi there. Just curious but in your opinion is he right about it not being 100% fair use if you throw in ads about stuff? That seemed legit tbh

@@riverstone5994 To reply to this question accurately I would have to be right 100%. There's essentially 2 entities here. KZfaq and the top music groups of the world. Of which there are about 3. These entities lawyers are constantly calling each other all the while avoiding a public lawsuit. With billions of dollars they have to play with, I could be "right" today and wrong tomorrow.

@Michael Palmisano... I agree with you a ZILLION% on all points! 👍🏼👍🏼 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

An extra 3cents if their lucky

There are people in the business who still retain the old mindset of how the music industry works. Time's changed, they just don't realise it.

True true.

Who all is getting upset? Most people are supporting Rick, true, but not getting angry with KDH. I think everyone here can see that (ridiculous clickbait title aside) he's generally okay with Rick Beato.

​@@metalboy5150there's a lot of people under his (Beato's) comment doing just that

He's just explaining the situation, I personally learnt alot. It's why the music industry is so crap

@golfboy1989 did you watch Kelan’s video? It doesn’t matter if Rick’s video makes the label or publisher a bit of money (and it is a BIT), the purpose of these videos isn’t to sell you a song. You’re not told to go and buy the song. You’re told to go and buy a book, or an app. There’s no doubt that Rick makes more off his what makes this song great series than the artists the songs are about do. And you can see why. He’s a great educator, and he’s selling an educational product. If Nike wanted to use one of these songs to sell sneakers they’d have to pay for it. It doesn’t matter if they’re “introducing a new generation to the music and you get KZfaq ad revenue”. Kelan’s question is, how is this any different? Make a video called “what makes this book great where you just read the Beato book on KZfaq” and see what reaction you get.

@golfboy1989 no, as stated in my comment, I think it’s an automated thing or being done by someone not really putting much thought into it. They’re not paid to make decisions, they’re paid to do as they’re told. But I do think that if someone at labels and publishers thought about it, they might decide that’s a reason they don’t want to help out. They could just as easily say “sure, while you aren’t selling books in these videos specifically, you use these videos to grow your channel and then sell books to them on all the others”, and again, I could see why they’d argue that.

@golfboy1989 not at all. Something can happen accidentally but still end up being something that would have been decided. If you accidentally kill a fly that doesn’t mean you no longer have an argument to have chosen to kill the fly after thinking about it. There literally is no argument to be made here. Copyright owners have the right to have their work used however they see fit. And they don’t owe you an explanation. It could be that they don’t like the colour of your shirt. Trying to argue that all you’re doing is trying to promote old songs while also repeatedly trying to mobilise your audience against the owners of said songs is an interesting position to take.

Absolutely, I remember in the 90's when I was a kid, some adults would have thousands of CD's, I probably had a hundred myself. Now you have access to almost everything you could want for $10 a month, a lot of money has absolutely left the industry.

@@LeviClay “copyright owners have a right to use their content as they see fit and don’t owe you an explanation” legally true, but it isn’t really something that pushes mankind forward is it? IMO this is the last thing labels and artists should aim to to take care of their money.

Define "creator".

The situation you describe where Rick Beato has a TV show and can play any music he likes isn't a like with like comparison with KZfaq. Here in the UK at least the broadcasters pay a blanket license which allows them to broadcast any music they like. If Rick had a TV show it's the broadcasters license which protects the programme from any label or publisher interference. That license gives the label a cut and means broadcasters don't have to negotiate for each song played on TV or radio. Fair use doesn't come into the TV scenario you describe.

@@adamscott1142 If he were to simply PLAY it, correct. Same here. If he were to analyze it, different story. News and information programming has greater leeway. That's where fair use comes into play. (I have a small local magazine format program. I can do what Rick does. I just don't know .1% of what he does, so, I do something else.)

@@15thirty Here in the UK fair use for teaching comes with clauses that restrict the audience to a private one consisting only of teachers and students "in a school, university or other educational establishment" and "not done for commercial purposes". KZfaq is not a private audience. Is Rick acting for "commercial purposes" when he tries to sell us a book or an ear training course? Is youtube acting for commercial purposes in having ad-space on videos? There is probably an argument for yes in both cases and that is where fair use becomes questionable. I would be curious to know if the labels regard Rick's videos as "causing the owner to lose revenue". I suspect so as they don't get to negotiate a fee with YT or Rick for having the music appear in what might be interpreted as commercial work, rather they just get the basic PRS payout. In all cases "usually only part of a work may be used". Fair use is a f**king minefield and like most law is a question for argument between legal teams. I think you are probably right when you suggest KZfaq won't lift a finger, I guess because they what their cake and eat it - they'll happily use legislation when it suits them and also duck out of legislation as it applies to old media when it suits them. All of the above also raises questions about the international nature of new media as all my points apply to the UK.

@@adamscott1142 Ah, that's interesting. Here Rick wouldn't be considered 'teaching' but 'commenting'. That reminds me of the issues over guitar tabs in the early years. But ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. All but one (?) of his videos has been restored. (The takedown process, I believe, is automated, so it takes a real person to undo it. And it's a big world.)

Well, the non-lawyers kind of have to, because ain't no lawyers going to explain things if nobody got them on retainer.

Yes, though I'd argue not quite nuanced enough. He basically says that major brands could start making claims of fair use. But as a lawyer, you know the devil is in the details. How can, say, Coke use a song in an ad and claim the song is used for educational purposes? How likely is it that major brands will just start claiming fair use because a music-education KZfaqr evaluates songs and spends a few seconds at the end of his evaluations promoting his educational books? Which major brands are we talking about? I can't think of any major brand big enough to pay 6- or 7-figures for music use rights whose product is music education. And surely those big companions have expensive lawyers who won't advise the company to try to make unjustifiable claims. When someone makes the slippery-slope argument, they need to provide specific, viable examples to be convincing.

If lawyers were always right we wouldn't need courts.

The title was extremely clickbait-y, and really unworthy of someone of this guy's intelligence. Not that it matters, but the title is what kept me from liking the video, as I really have no problem in general with the content, even if I don't entirely agree with it.

Why, as an adult man, are you worried about how "aggressive" a youtube video is

Actually, they are top tier schools like Penn, Harvard, Stanford, M.I.T. and Rice.

@@rayjr62 you want to say those top tier schools teach them how they can blend into a group of kindergarten kids seamlessly? Wow, gj!

@@simonbe If you think the people running all these major labels are a bunch of clowns or kindergarteners, think again.

@@rayjr62 Done. What next? They didn't change a thing yet.

@@rayjr62, I know people who went to these top-tire schools, and yes, they are obnoxious-dummies. The music industry attracts more than its fair share of them. President Clinton graduated from “Yale Law School”. President Trump graduated from “University Of Pennsylvania”. Both Mr.Clinton, and Mr.Trump were impeached while President. They are also very-sleazy-individuals. ‘Par for the (golf)-course’, for graduates from these way-overrated ‘children’s daycare centers’!

A force for good wouldn't engage in extreme censorship the way Beato does. Like a typical boomer Beato hates free speech while pretending to be for it.

@@elgatofelix8917 What you said about someone of his generation it would appear also applies to me and I do take offence at your ill-judged comments made without anything to substantiate it whatsoever. I find no evidence of so called 'extreme censorship' and in fact as you live in a society with the ability to make these comments freely, indicates that you don't really understand what extreme censorship actually means, as in the context of someone living in China, Russia or North Korea might experience on a daily basis for example.

@@stevejon381 ok boomer. I can make these comments freely on *this channel* because *this channel* isn't censoring my comments and blocking my account *like Beato does on his channel*

@@stevejon381 and the reason you're not "finding evidence" is because you can't find comments that have been shadow banned and deleted. Get it genius?

@@elgatofelix8917 I don’t know where you should have freedom except on your own channel. You trolls are everywhere. Literally.

After Lars Ulrich deconstruction videos

The new generation of GTA analizes and copy-paste content done to hell and back. Just instead of game videos it's about music...

you need some crotchety boomer to validate your musical taste? sad.

Just because he validates your "love" does not mean that he does not profit. It is so weird that you need validation from a guy who could give less that 1/150,000th of a penny about you. which is the monetary value of you watching and "liking" his videos. That he is "not" making money from while he sells his ear books and other crap. Your validation from him is more like him raping you. Smile. It won't hurt long. LMFAO

​@@johneeeemarry34 I think Rick would have to be behind Balkan Nomad in order for Rick to transmit his greed AIDS to Balkan, if you get my drift. *rimshot*

Tiny brain

Did you watch the video? Because he explains that exactly thing

You just don't get it. It's not about that. If you remove all the music Rick puts in his videos, he has nothing left. Just because he doesn't broadcast like a radio station, he's somehow exempt from paying for that privilege? He uses OTHER PEOPLE'S MUSIC to shill his book and earn revenue. That isnehat this is about. He can talk all he wants about music, but he shouldn't be able to use the actual tracks withiut paying for it. Simple as that. Why do you think guitar advertisers can't just start playing EVH music to show hiw great their guitats are? Because they'd have to PAY for that. So, you get a riff that sounds "kinda like" Crazy Train, Panama, etc...not the EXACT riff. And that's how these companies produce revenue. If you don't like that, write a letter to your Congressman. Real educational fair use loos like what Ben Eller does: takes a songs, explains how it is played, creates content that EDUCATES his viewers. That's Fair Use applied properly. Rick does that too, but far less rhan his other videos. Which is why he is fighting so hard. He's pretending to be 'free.advertising' for old music but that makes about as much sense as a bar owner who doesn't want to pay a cover band for playing a set because "hey, it's good for you to get out in front of my patrons, good free advertising for your band!" That's what's at stake here.

@@philfrank5601 There seems to be a disconnect here, though, in that except for one instance, ALL of the Rick's videos that were blocked were ultimately unblocked. If the labels actually had a problem with whatever Rick is doing, they wouldn't have unblocked them.

@@cloudconnect Interesting interpretation. This guy is using Rick's name and clips from Rick's videos. Clearly he is getting viewers by using Ricks celebrity and his video clips and putting his face in the thumbnail. But that alone is still fair use because he is providing educational commentary on what Rick's argument is. What if he, then, pitched a book he wrote at the end of this video? To monetize all the new viewers he got by talking about a Rick Beato controversy? Is it still a fair use of Rick's property and likeness? I mean... he is just educating and introducing new people to Rick right?

@Norman Mcarthur "Does this not help the artist?!" Not really, because Spotify scams the artists.

@@mmestari Spotify actually doesn't scam the artist. Everyone who uses it does because they are not willing to pay a fair cost for the music. If everyone who used Spotify was willing to pay 100$ a month. Artists would make their share. That would actually be extremely cheap for what you're getting. 100$ is like 4 albums lol.

When Ford Motor Company uses a song in a commercial and then pays to put that commercial in front of millions of people...does that not help the artist find new audience? Why should people making commercials pay for music when it is sort of a commercial for the music too? You see where this leads? What if Ford makes a video that does nothing but celebrate the song and analyze the song... then puts "Ford loves this song too... drive a Ford today" at the end of the video. Does that seem like fair use?

The labels aren't there to help the artist, they're there to squeeze money out of them. Got it?

@@mmestari So you're saying advertisements don't help the artist?

Not.the.point

“uNiVeRsItY” and “cOlLeGe” is where people go to get a useless degree in “gEnDeR sTuDiEs”...

@@andrearinomato7670 Wow, you can tell you didn't graduate college. Just so you know, it's also where you get your doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Just because being educated makes you realize how ridiculous the conservative views are, doesn't mean they're indoctrinating people. There's a reason "They love the poorly educated. Because any awareness outside of your town let you see how out of step we are with the best ideas in the world - simply because it lets billionaires become bigger billionaires.

I think they have, maybe not because of the t-shirts though.

Only thing is, they have to pay licensing fees the same as Pepsi or Chevrolet if they want to use someone's music in one of their videos.

A lot of the system is automated anyway. Algorithms notice copyrighted material, and can't identify the context to realize that it's covered under fair use, and the creator is the one who ends up having to challenge the automated takedowns.

@@HollowGolem that makes sense.

you don't understand it.. what Rick Beato is doing is against the law. Nobody needs to explain why it's wrong, since it is objectively wrong, because of the law. The law protects property. Copyrighted material is the property of those, who hold the rights to it. Rick Beato is simply ignoring that right in order to grow his channel and make money. Every argument he provides is an excuse to break the law and nothing else.

@@akagerhard here is the definition of the fair use law: you can see how it could apply here. In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.Apr 11, 2017

@@akagerhard You speak so authoritatively that you must be right. That's how it works in KZfaq comments, right?

Rick Beato is nobody. Matt, it's very important to realize that.

...yes, ANY video containing somebody elses work without asking for permission and paying for it is illegal use of copyrighted material, unless the copyright owner explicitly says it's free to use for everyone. That's the law.

@@akagerhard No that is not the law. There is a "fair use" exemption for playing or quoting parts of a work in a "transformative manner" (people don't watch or read it simply as a copy of the original work) the purpose of which could be analysis, criticism, parody, news reporting, education, research, etc.

@@raffiequler7510 And I suppose you think you are somebody?

@@RogerBarraud I am way quler than you.

yep huge value!

Absolutely correct. He likes to pretend He Does it all to help musicians. Nope. He does it to help himself by piggybacking off the work of others, generating clicks and traffic to bolster his channel through which he sells his programs.

CAN you say 'CLICK BATE'? ;oP

@golfboy1989 not all of them are taken down... the Joni Mitchell was taken down after more than 500k views

@golfboy1989 Uh, they get taken down because he uses them to advertise his own products and courses.

Copyright and Patent systems need an entire legal framework rebuild, legally the systems are so outdated and draconian in nature it allows legal firms to abuse the host platform CC platforms to pump money into their coffers that they may not even be entitled to. Problem is the Supreme court system are filled with literally dying ghouls that don't understand anything about the digital modern age, and are so concerned with politics and sides that they often rule in favor of whoever buys their political parties campaigns through PAK funds, take a look at the FCC and the Net neutrality arguments, the entire government looked like uneducated morons with Pai head of the FCC clearly giving false data and lying to get his way with no ramifications, despite full pushback from citizens and even most companies that weren't telecoms.

Nicely said Bob.

@@ChrisFaa Now wouldn't that be ironic if Rick blocked his video.

Great response! Thanks.

Bob, I'm not a lawyer, but deal with copyright legal issues a fair amount. I should also say that I love Rick's videos and hope he keeps winning his fights. In fact, I only found this video, because it referenced Rick, and I was curious to see a counter-Rick point-of-view. In any case, there are material differences between what you describe (in a physical venue) and posting copyrighted content on the Internet. Different laws apply. Internet content is covered by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to make it easy for copyright holders to protect their copyrights against use by others on the Internet. It requires companies like KZfaq to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant and against the party posting the content. That's a good thing to protect the little-known artist or author from having his or her work used without permission. Unfortunately, it also nabs Rick in the process, even though I think most of us would agree that what he's doing is not remotely stealing from the copyright holders. I can't imagine the law would have been written as it was, if Rick had testified during the DMCA drafting debates.

The fact that it’s an Ad is irrelevant? Sad for anyone that took your course… Can you imagine a TV audience of 3 million watching a car commercial with the Beatles playing in the background with a disclaimer for “educational purposes only” at the bottom? I can and so can the lawyers… It’s trying to turn something that’s starkly black and white into something grey, hasn’t worked which is how we know for sure this position is dead wrong, demonstrably in fact… I’m 100% sure that his audience would be 1000 times fewer had he not used copyrighted material to collect subscriptions for his advertising…. So it’s definitely not the educational content, it’s the greatest hits of all time that are leading to the huge audience…. Other channels that use the Beatles have the same huge audience and have NO other real content, but they also aren’t trying to capitalize on it… What books have you written by the way, I’d like to copy them and distribute all of your intellectual property for educational purposes, just need 2 Ad watches per copy and it’s theirs free…

KDH is Jelly of those doing better than him. I'm unsure about his beef with Ed Roman, Malmsteen, Beringer, and Chappman. Especially Chapman because Phillip McKnight, and Rebea are quitting Chapman so I think there is something to it

Don Henley personally cares.

I doubt you'll hear many defend record labels as moral entities.

@David Toriz No offense but I believe You are "kicking down an open door". Best regards

And the other side is making the public more willing to pay artists for their work.

Music biz is def broke. Whether or not it was ever not broken is another discussion.

He follows that, in new style sounds n paterns, good to have him, and he's putting it describeing fairly aggreeable, to me personally! If we play a lil music, then, now or latter, he's speaking my generation anyhoots!!! 😋we had the best cars, clothes, styles and music anyhoots, and so far our generation is still the King😎😉😃!!!! Check out Buddy Rich, 1970, snarlin on dedrums,☺

Thanks for pointing that out. Just because nowadays the monster record companies like Sony and Warner are having trouble making hundreds of millions by sucking the life of young talents doesn’t mean music is “broken”. Today making music is easier than ever. Record labels are losing because young musicians are not making deals with them anymore because don’t want to change their strategy of offering deals were they take the soul of the artist, and instead musicians try to produce their own stuff and to make deals with smaller but more accessible producers.

I look forward to the day when corporate music is created entirely by AI and consumed entirely by NPC’s.

I think you might have misunderstood what he said. He's not talking about companies using protected songs ripped from Rick's videos in the ads for products they're selling. He was saying what's to stop companies from using a song in an ad and then claiming that the ad itself is "educational" and therefore it's fair use. I thought that was a fair point, personally.

@@friedhalloumi Because if the publisher already checks out a video in order to issue the ban, he could already tell that the whole thing is educational, with a small self promo in it? And an ad where someone use a song with absolutely no educational purposes can be checked as well? I mean, come on. Just common sense. Of course, flagging and checking these vids is an absolute waste of time without automatisation, but hey, that's what they're doing now. If they are that adamant on doing it, they might do it properly and fairly.

@@MiklosHajma From their perspective a person is making a vehicle to sell their own products while exploiting the popularity of their copyrighted works to do so. Additionally, KZfaq/Google is further making a profit from the advertising revenue, even if they claim Beato’s share of that revenue it’s a pittance compared to the royalties they would traditionally levy for mechanical rights. I think they have a point, although only in the strictly legal sense, not in the common sense. Tom Scott did a long video covering these issues, and his ultimate thesis applies here-the copyright laws and systems of enforcing them are fundamentally unfit for how modern media is made and consumed.

@Christian Willassen there is some rule or law, which I can't find a reference for but there is something about if a video is played of another persons song for more than 7 or so seconds then copyright fees have to be paid . I got this from a teacher of another language who plays vids of a book she is teaching but stops the vid every seconds then continues for another 7 seconds .

@@dtu1686 I have seen/heard the same thing about the 7 second rule on many KZfaq videos.

@@dtu1686 I think this answer might have been placed under the wrong question? (Edited to hide my poor language skills)

Yeah but his channel is completely different than yours his is built off of copyrighted music. It’s not like he’s using part of a riff and calling it his own. And he doesn’t even care about the money it’s just about the blocks. So I don’t understand where your coming from with this.

Apples and oranges, dude, and I say that as a regular, very grateful consumer of your content. The function of that music is not the same in his as it might be used in yours.

Did you watch the video? He's *not* giving it away *for free*. He is advertising his Beato book, ear training course etc. for free, it doesn't cost him a cent. Viewers watch to see 'What makes a song great' but have his products/merch advertised, and every few months he posts a rant video. I subscribe, and view at least 50 KZfaq Channels from people who play jazz piano, synths/keyboards, guitar, bass, even a few flute players, yet they all just post without complaint, week after week, month after month. Rick is the only one l can think of that acts like the artists/publishers/labels are personally attacking him.

@@MrChopsticktech If you, or anyone else for that matter, watches any of Rick's 'What makes a song...' and is not enriched by his knowledge of music, which he conveys FOR FREE (as any teacher at heart does), then you are an entitled, sterile ingrate, and that's just for starters. Out of mere gratefulness, he has my full support. And on the other hand, I couldn't care a smelly rat's anus about the rest of all of the unknowns you may be subscribed to either.

No one has plagarized and stolen the works of others like this fool!!!!

College professors don't have their courses go viral because they mentioned Eddie Van Halen. The Internet is a unique zone where fair use doctrine has to be tailored to ensure protection of legal rights.

the difference here that KDH points out is (taking you example) A Art History Professor at the end of their lecture doesn't start selling merch to his students, if he didn't he wouldn't be working as a professor much longer also they would have third party companies come in several points through the lecture advertising their products would they.

@@stevepetersmusic9262 My Biochemistry Professor did just that. His book was required reading for the course.

I agree. Not only are Ricks videos entertaining but they are educational

If Rick's Video was on the Ford KZfaq channel and it said "Be sure to drive a Ford" at the end of the video instead of "Buy the Beato Book" would that help clarify what they are trying to stop? Fair use is the non-profit use of the material for educational purposes. Education does not give a pass if you are generating interest in a product like a book. That's what advertising does. This is like Rick saying his channel is more popular than the song so they should thank him. Ford is also popular.

@@Plisko1 it doesn't clarify anything. the videos have ads anyway, and could very well have "be sure to drive a ford" in them. This is why Patrick correctly referenced a straw man. Ever been to a fundraiser where the money to get in goes to the charity, but the venders still take their cut on the drinks? This has nothing to do with how the music is used. I.e. If he played the song in its entirety, and said "Yeah buy my book... isn't this song amazing?" It has no bearing on how the song was used because the traffic to the video itself is generating income that the label would either get, or block the video for. Remember, the label is getting the money by redirecting the ownership of the monetization. But, what if he said at the end "Yeah buy the record, isn't this song great?" Would the label say "Oh, well, he's telling them to buy the record, we'll let him keep the monetization"? LOL No. The bottom line is, the video is incorrect in stating that the book plug is why the labels want the video taken down. It is absolutely 100% incorrect. They probably never even get far enough into the video to know he sells the things. They have an algorithm that looks for their work. When it finds it, they act. They don't watch these videos to find out how it's being used. That's why they keep putting them back up. They find out... ooops it's fair use, better put it back up.

@@Plisko1 Out of all the Rick's videos that have been blocked, only ONE (that I am aware of) has not been unblocked. So what exactly is it that you think "they" are trying to stop? If they were bothered enough by the fact that he plugs his book at the end of video to block it, and THAT is the reason, they wouldn't unblock the video.

@@Lantertronics I don't think it is personal against Rick. It is a routine blocking when certain triggers are found. When it is investigated most of them probably realize it is not something to fight over... especially when Rick does a rant video and sends pitchforks and torches after them. It is a PR decision at that point. However, they are still within their rights to keep it blocked if they choose...but not necessarily good business for many reasons including the ones Rick gives. I think it is a totally fair trade if Rick gives them the commercials...but it is still up to the publisher..

@@kimhoffmannandersen5477 but the argument is that its retarded they fully take down the video. Rick isnt arguing that hes loosing money. But the fact that leaving it up while the company diverts money made into their own pocket makes more sense. Hes more irritated at the silencing of the conversation than the monetization of it. It would be like talking about a band with friends in a coffee shop and halfway through a record label goon tackles you before finishing explaining why you should buy the album.

@Michael Sprague the idea is taking something a person doesnt know and using it as a example doesnt sink in as easily. Its far easier and simpler to use established music. How many lesson planners and teachers use music known? Should record labels go to every music store in the area and silence teachers because they arent using their own material? Should all music stores pay royalties in the event a song is played in their store by a customer or instructor?

@Michael Sprague so Paul Davis, Ben Eller, Signal Studios, Justin Guitar, etc. Must be horrible teachers since they use popular music as recognizable examples of music. I suppose we never need to discuss previous works in order to learn. By that standard then whats the point of any music? If it never inspires anything and all learning uses only original concepts and never looks back. Why should a child learn twinkle twinkle or do re mi. Its pointless by your sense just make some random notes and go from there. Why take a song someone can hum from memory and explain how its chord progressions work. Why explain the modulation from Bm to Am during the intro solo to Fade to Black when you can just write something original. Your right man fuck old music its pointless, even listening to it is a waste when you can just make your own.

@@kimhoffmannandersen5477 we just wont agree on this. It used to be billion dollar television companies recognizing popularity for a band and creating documentaries and shows based around the same style and topics Rick makes. Most of those metrics and choices on what to cover came from "we can sell this many coke ads" everyone was fine with that. When someone on youtube does the same thing all while not monetizing it for the sake of keeping the conversation of our classics and education of the evolution of music. Well hes not in the pocket of main stream media so that man is wrong. Its just sad to see people parrot the arguements that the record companies make. The same companies that for countless decades screwed over and stripped alot of the musicians we love of their money and creative freedom. Not all of them for sure. But its funny to see people side with the ones who are greedy husks without realizing it.

Agreed.

don't learn it, it was incorrect information. he has no clue what he's talking about.

@Kevin Wale: Bit Harsh!.. Actually, it wasn't "information" to be "learned"... it was just a considered opinion. And you don't have to agree with it, but at least respect it for what it is. An opinion. I found KDH's video to be an interesting watch, of a young man attempting to guess the motives of others. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong. Just considering his points is healthy, reasoned, debate. Personally, I came away from it more enlightened than before I watched it. And yes Im also a Beato fan.

@@fredbear3915 It does matter. He has people in these comments all up in arms about how dumb Rick Beato is for thinking this or that, and he has people in complete misunderstanding of the entire issue. He did NO good here at all.

KZfaq is the worst paying major music streaming company by a considerable margin.

@@alexjenner1108 Really?? Worse than Spotify or Pandora?

I avoid reaction channels/videos like that like the plague. I probably saw like 2-3 of them and wondered "why do people watch this?"

I don't blame the reaction channel. I blame the people that watch reaction channels. Who are these idiots?

Correct. You can also lose the right to defend your copyright if you don't take action against it.

I posted this on another well educated comment:- As several have pointed out Rick himself admitted that his channel blew up when he started talking about and sharing the Guitar Hero Mulitracks on KZfaq. If he's going to play with fire then he should expect these take downs every now and then, but also as others are pointing out the rant videos, like the death of famous musicians provide the highest views and make the most revenue. We just have to get past the idea that he's some kind of modern day Robin Hood, he's literally making a fortune out of this and that is ok, but pretending he's standing up for our rights is ridiculous. His Senate hearing solution was a have a few hand picked people cleared to to do whatever they want, it wasn't a serious change in the law, just a self serving solution.

You guys are confusing trademark with copyright. Trademarks do die if not defended. That does not happen to copyrights. The actual controlling legislation here is mostly a US issue: the DMCA. That is very specific to Internet posted content on a site where the copyright is held by a third party.

Yes, and as much as I'd like to blame KZfaq for taking down the videos in a kneejerk fashion as soon as there's the first sign of a complaint, as you point out, DMCA doesn't really give them any choice in the matter. I think I've heard Rick also say that he doesn't blame KZfaq for their policies.

Do you also think that there is a difference between classroom fair use and how fair use should be defined on mass media? The Internet is the ultimate mass media platform, capable of reaching billions. Should I be able to generate clicks using the public image of a celebrity and use it to sell my own merchandise? Even if I claim some educational or parody rights, does it not still have the effect of a celebrity endorsement? Parody is usually also considered fair use, but the same issue haunts those steps as well. Who wants to see a parody of my mailman, but a parody of Sean Connery is much more interesting.

​@@christiansmakingmusic777, "should" is tough, because I think you're asking what I think the law should say, rather than what it does say. Also, I am not a lawyer. I deal with licensing issues regularly for web use and so have some familiarity with this specific area of the law, but I'm not personally a lawyer. Parody is pretty clearly safe. Saturday Night Live is a good example on TV. They obviously parody some big names and their right to do so has always been sustained. "Funny or Die" often does parodies on the web, but I suspect they avoid directly using copyrighted content. Keep in mind trademarks and "likenesses" (acting or dressing like someone famous) are VERY different from copyrights, which specifically refer to certain kinds of written material. For other cases, I think the reason that "legal" is not necessarily the same as what "should be" is because it can be really hard to gauge fairness. Reasonable people will often reach very different conclusions, even when neither of them has a dog in the fight. To the extent I have a bias, it's in favor of small copyright holders, because we support self-publishing authors. With that in mind, I would personally support a law that said something like "If the use is predominantly educational and if the content creator is not adversely affected by the use of their content, then it should be protected under the fair use portions of copyright law." That would clearly cover the excellent work Rick does. I think the reason the law doesn't say that for the Internet is that it leaves open a wide door for subjective judgement and, keep in mind, the reason for the DMCA law was to keep Internet companies (like KZfaq, in the relevant case with Rick) out of court, so anything subjective would work contrary to that goal. Good law can be written vaguely like that, but then it takes several court cases to establish and clarify common law precedent (at least in the US), which is different from legislated codified law. Common law is what comes out of court cases (e.g., if a court ruled that Beato's use was protected, then others could do the same thing and point to that ruling as common law justification, where at first lawsuits would seek to point out the differences and why the Beato precedent should not apply in their case. Some of those would win. Some would lose. After enough of those cases, the legal landscape would start to settle and become fairly clear. Court fights would die down (companies don't generally sue each other unless they believe they have a good chance at winning, and for that same reason they don't generally take actions that they don't believe will hold up in court). Legislatures can also chose to prevent this law-by-court-ruling with clear code (written law) that leaves less room for interpretation. Courts can only fill in gaps in the law, they can't create it (again, in the US). As noted above, the entire point of the DMCA legislators was to keep the fledgling Internet companies out of court and reduce the risk of lawsuit so that big investment dollars would feel safe flowing into them (nothing spooks investment in a private company like fear of a lawsuit). So they did not want to leave much room for interpretation by courts. They wanted to provide a clear: "as long as you do X, you can't be sued." Note that common law vs. codified law is different in other countries. I'm only speaking to the US law here. In countries that emerged from the British Common Law system, like the US, courts are obligated to follow precedent of other courts' rulings (except for rulings by lower courts) unless they can establish material differences in the cases for why the precedent should not apply in the new case. I believe in many countries, courts are free to rule anew on each case based on that judge's reading of the law.

Thank you for your enlightening comments. Really interesting. As I was reading, I was wondering how PBS could show music documentaries that include performances, and then ask for monetary pledges and reward those who sign up with merchandise. They are clearly airing those programs to raise money. Does PBS own the documentaries? Or does it have to do with PBS being a non-profit? Or is it because PBS is TV? I watch their content through my ISP, but I cannot access it through the local PBS website without being a paid member with a member ID. Just curious how that works.

@@suzanneemerson9787 There is probably a licensing deal that has to do with PBS being a charity, I would guess. But again I am no lawyer. Austin City Limits is a show that comes to mind. Copyright holders must be either expressly donating interests or getting paid.

Tom Scott has a neat (and extensive!) video about it; the long and short of it, as I understand it, is that a non-trivial amount of content on KZfaq, by its very existence, is a copyright violation, according to the text of existing copyright law. So, rather than deal with negotiating with copyright entities what constitutes fair use as a broader whole, identifying who’s _actually_ violating copyright, and the larger legality of KZfaq itself, the site instead offered to empower copyright holders to flag/strike violations as they see fit and wash their hands of the matter entirely. KZfaq not requiring copyright strikers to identify _why_ they are flagging content is part of these concessions. I summarize way too much, I do suggest watching Tom’s video on the subject, I found it very informative!

Because you agreed to YT's TOS. They can delete and block whatever and whoever they choose for whatever reason.

I’m a super small artist who just uses a distributor, but I’m my end we have the option to just click the option to use KZfaq’s content ID system or not

Because Its arbitrary.

there is no speculation. it is absolutely known why.. that's why they get put back up. there is an algorithm. this guy's selling books hypothesis is just a load of crap

Sin does not separate you from god he forgives his children.

@@jacksonooton2396 the fuck does this have to do with anything...

@@jacksonooton2396 shaaaat uuuup

you think they're sound. I know they're not. It doesn't take a lot of research to debunk his hypothesis.

I agree. he think’s his points through

@Samí Warrior not gonna lie, I had to google who that was, but the comparison holds up. I became a subscriber after his Audit on Chapman. I’ve stayed for his interesting takes on situations like this one. He has a uniquely European view on things

100+ years... Tin Pan Alley 😉

You missed the point.

I feel the same way! I commented on a few of his videos, and many of his fans simply parrot would Rick has said many times before. They simply cannot post a comment/reply without parroting Rick's opinions and/or issues.

Same here!

I second what you said!

huh there is no disagreement between rick and this guy, he is just pointing out the answer to the question rick asked which was "Why are labels taking down his videos?"

How does an eductaional video become an ad when you put a thing saying check out my shop at the end of it? Show me where he's right in fair use laws that he didn't even bother reading...

I've purchased more music over the last 1.5 yrs than the previous 20., thanks to reviewer / instructor channels. Big Bad Music, Inc. wants that 1970's money again, just ... nope.

Same with Fleetwood Mac with Rumours after they climbed to the top of the billboard due to Tiktok after that album released decades ago.

copyright owners could always and will always have the option to demonetize Rick's videos. so if they decide to take them down, its neither about 'their money' nor Ricks ad revenue.

Did you not listen?

Perhaps Rick should have a site where his wares could be promoted, separate from his educational videos. I like Rick’s channel, but this guy may have a point.

Being honest here, dissecting Pink Floyd, Boston, Rage Against the Machine songs etc. is the reason we click on Rick Beato's videos. The videos aren't promoting the songs, they don't need it.. it's the other way around mostly

@@Karl_Squell thats your perspective but for a whole lot of people who don’t know certain acts his Educational videos help highlight and promote them.

@@dotarsojat7725 The thing is that if the labels actually had a problem with Rick talking about his book at the end of his videos, they wouldn't have *unblocked* all the videos they blocked. So for whatever reason the labels, publishers, whatever are blocking the videos to begin with, it's NOT the "why" that KDH is suggesting.

I agree. It's as simple as that....I like Rick, but stop with the ads for your merch every video. Not to mention that just "the argument videos" with a big artists name gives him opportunity to sell his products. He never puts a link to where the original material can be purchased ( at least I think he doesn't).

It can be an issue if there is a suit and damages are to be decided, but overall, copyright isn't like trademarks, that do need to be zealously defended (Xerox, Kleenex, etc.)

@@Lantertronics How about Xanax, lol. I worked in a pharmacy and found out that the trade names for drugs (including Xanax) aren't always held by the manufacturer. There are groups who trademark names and license them to the drug companies.

Dia duit

@@omteria8726 Dia is muire duit, conas atá tú?

Tiocfaidh ar la!

@@fianna582 Táim go maith, go raibh maith agat

The Guitologist is starting to resemble a homeless person. Not sure why