Rick Beato Gets Blocked For A Reason

[@RickBeato]

Despite the clickbait title (which I have done many of :) and sinister thumbnail, there are multiple reasons that videos get blocked but only one reason that they get put back up: I draw attention to the blocks. Out out my 101 What Makes This Song Great episodes only one has been permanently blocked. If the artists or labels wanted the videos to stay down they wouldn’t be reinstated. It is fair use. Artists like Tool not only did not demonetize the two breakdowns I did but actively shared them on their social media. In fact, many of the artists have supplied the tracks to begin with. Peter Frampton was even in my last video on Do You Feel Like We Do. By the way, who’s making the money from this video? Not me :)

[@MegaHajvan]

Hey, your grumpiness is showing.

[@KDH]

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.

[@rkk578]

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.

[@lichkrieg4898]

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.

[@EasyHeat]

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 KZbin'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!

[@DeanHorak]

I’ve had videos tagged for copyright infringement, which were my own performances of classical compositions of Chopin, Beethoven and Joplin - all dead for 100 years or more and and in the public domain. After review, the copyright infringement was removed, but it seems to me that automatically tagging a video for copyright infringement redirects the ad revenue to these publishers, and they receive a lot of ad funds from folks that don’t notice or care that their videos have gotten tagged. The solution is to put a cost on making a copyright claim so that these publishers have a reason to go through the effort to verify the infringement before claiming it.

[@socasack]

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.

[@guitarista67]

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.

[@BCl137]

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

[@DeanHorak]

@@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 .

[@BCl137]

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

[@dwc1964]

One thing I learned from Rick Beato's discussion of his Senate testimony: Don Henley tosses and turns every night, troubled by the thought that somewhere, somebody is listening to The Eagles, and he isn't getting paid for it.

[@willyvlyminck201]

That is sick isn’t it?

[@cheneyrobert]

😂😂😂

[@akagerhard]

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.

[@coltranius]

Hahahaha!!

[@djtommykeys]

@@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.

[@rhllnm]

Prohibiting Rick's use of parts of songs is like prohibiting English professors from handing out printed examples of writing by famous authors. No one is not buying a novel because they can get two paragraphs for free from their English teacher. No one is not buying a CD because they can hear a section of a song on Rick's channel.

[@Alanvids]

Perfect response

[@bjorn_moren]

I don't think you get the point of the video. If the printed material that the English professors were handing out had a note at the bottom saying "private tutoring $9.90/hr", then you'd have the equivalent of what Rick is doing.

[@tomasom4497]

@@bjorn_moren So what. And people think boomers are petty whiners, lol.

[@closer02001]

@@bjorn_moren Makes no sense. Said english professor is getting paid to teach the class, university is getting paid to offer the class, etc.

[@mtae5]

No one would know who Rick is if he just played songs on his channel and never said a word. People only watch for what he himself adds to it. The breakdowns, his playing, etc. I'd honestly never go listen to a tool song, because I don't really care. But I'll watch the what makes this song great and actually get an appreciation for tool. He adds ALL the value.

[@qwipperty]

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.

[@jwandhistools]

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

[@mikerandle9489]

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

[@WookieWarriorz]

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.

[@mtae5]

@@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.

[@rwj1313]

Your argument is solid, so no flames from me. I am 61 years old and have watched the music industry change drastically since Napster came into being. I see your point but I think Rick's argument of exposing old music to a younger crowd is the more compelling argument.

[@jimbosc]

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.

[@MrOuija-rr8kq]

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.

[@akagerhard]

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.

[@atomiccritter6492]

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

[@rwj1313]

@@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.

[@Renwa82]

I would argue that people watch Rick Beato's videos because of the energetic and charismatic way in which he breaks down the songs. He makes them so damned interesting where as a lot of these details that he points out might be lost on your average listener of that song otherwise. I know that it's because of Rick that I watch the videos. It's not the songs.

[@andonedave]

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.

[@Swybryd-Nation]

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.

[@daleyoung87]

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

[@raydurant7879]

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!!!

[@julesbrunton1728]

@@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 $$

[@LordStraightBanana]

I often go away and listen to the song again after watching Rick’s (quite masterful, to be fair) dissection of it. Many times, it’s like hearing it with fresh ears, hearing parts is never noticed before. I expect I’m not alone either. The point of this being, that’s extra revenue via streaming.

[@alecmullaney7957]

An extra 3cents if their lucky

[@DekritGampamole]

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.

[@shanemiller6982]

True true.

[@gramursowanfaborden5820]

it's worth pointing out, Rick has consistently said he wants the labels (and youtube) to have the money made from the advertising, he just wants them to stop taking the videos down. to be fair use, it only needs to be transformative. nobody goes to Rick's videos to listen to the whole, uninterrupted song, and Rick never does that. the value he adds is in what new material he brings, and he does not subtract from the value of the original work. the reason the labels keep taking the videos down is a perfect storm of KZbin's shoddy system and the labels' own flawed and outdated understanding of how that system works.

[@luckylicks3497]

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

[@gramursowanfaborden5820]

@@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.

[@luckylicks3497]

@@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 KZbin 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.

[@robertcumbie2815]

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

[@gramursowanfaborden5820]

@@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.

[@docwill184]

Truly Insane. Guys like Rick bring old hits back to popular consciousness introducing them to new generations. He should be getting thanks & royalties ,.

[@Music-el7if]

"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."

[@daidiary4748]

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

[@Astech31]

@@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.

[@Music-el7if]

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

[@RichardFWDavis-yr2km]

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

[@LeviClay]

You're pretty spot on here man, the only thing I disagree with is when you said that "it doesn't mean the money has left the industry, it's just moved somewhere else". If record sales are down, it doesn't make sync suddenly generate more money. The music consumer spends a fraction of what they did 20 years ago on music. And sure, while publishing is still lucrative (it's shocking how little people know about the live aspect. PRS make their members good money!!), that money on the masters side is getting absolutely hammered. I also don't think the labels and publishers are blocking Rick for that reason. I genuinely think it's automated. But I could absolutely see why they might do it for the reasons you talk about here if they sat down and thought about it.

[@LeviClay]

@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 KZbin 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 KZbin” and see what reaction you get.

[@LeviClay]

@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.

[@LeviClay]

@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.

[@Bluesbreaker-uf8ti]

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.

[@valebliz]

@@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.

[@NikoFrederiko.]

I appreciate how you speak somewhat softly and don't assault my ears/speakers

[@WeaselFace]

This might be one of the best possible points I've seen someone make about this. So many people don't see how this could potentially be (and often already is) advertising. But if people thought of the extremes a bit more I think it would be a little clearer. If I reviewed a queen song and just happened to be surrounded by Doritos advertising in every conceivable location on screen, while drinking mountain dew between hot takes...is that still a review or blatant advertising under the guise of review? Advertisers pay big bucks for subtle advertising. Think a popular crime drama where everyone just happens to drive an Audi...

[@cjpreach]

BOTH men have a point here. Rick does a great job of re-energizing interest in great songs, and KDH is trying to answer the question of "WHY do publishers limit the use of their properties?" Admittedly, KDH does not hold the same opinion as the publishers. My POV? If I own a song, I want EVERY KZbinr in the world to highlight my work, and draw attention to it! Love Rick's videos, and KDH was fair in his analysis, IMO. G'Day, Mates!

[@martincaz7772]

This comment I agree with 100% 👍

[@michael1]

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.

[@chrismakey866]

Amazing breakdown and guess as to the situation. Hilarious to see people legitimately upset that you would attempt to explain something. Even as you appear to generally take the side of Rick. Subbed

[@metalboy5150]

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.

[@joseislanio8910]

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

[@DOLfirst]

I look at Rick's videos about other artist's music to be more like advertisements for those songs..drawing attention. He never plays an entire song but his educational music theory regarding them draws the listener in and adds to the essence of the song. For example, someone who is not necessarily into heavy metal, grunge, hard rock, might otherwise take a second listen or possibly make a purchase because of what Rick adds.

[@DamianKeyes]

Seeing Rik in one your videos defo got me as I’m a huge fan. One thing I would disagree with is the phrase ‘The music industry is broken’ leading us to believe the music industry was once fixed. Artists and bands have been ripped off for decade on decade and I would suggest that while the industry is evolving to keep up with technology changes and consumption habits it is not broken just different to what it used to be. While there are many negatives for artists there are also now many positives for new and existing artists to take control, build and monetise in a way that many before them couldn’t. Just a thought.

[@unclerumple9287]

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

[@johnbonner5284]

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,☺

[@carl_anderson9315]

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.

[@BillLaBrie]

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

[@ADaviDTR]

I will say first that the fact that something is legal doesn't automatically make it moral. That being said, I think most artists receive scraps from their labels, so I doubt they very much care whether someone uses their song in their youtube video, especially in the way that Rick does. It's usually the labels that not only hound youtube videos, but end up fighting among themselves over perceived (and sometimes actual) plagiarism; often times artists aren't even involved at all in said disputes. I have no issues with Rick doing what he does and getting money from it - my issues are against the patently unfair conditions labels subject most of their artists to, just like you rightly pointed out in your video about Big Hit.

[@CorbCorbin]

Don Henley personally cares.

[@SocialAutism]

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

[@onlyeyeno]

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

[@Scott__C]

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

[@eycpiq]

There are so many people here reacting negatively to your “argument” when you’re explicitly just advancing a theory about why the publishers are doing what they’re doing. Anyway I just wanted to say I understood that-it helped that you said so *many* times-and appreciated your perspective. Cheers!

[@Alpha_7227]

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

[@stevejon381]

Personally, I see Beato as a force for good. His insight into how music has been created comes from the heart and his genuine enthusiasm for the music. Although often the artist never had the musical knowledge to think in that way and often went with what sounded good to their ear, Rick can explain the theory behind why the song/composition works. Combine this with his analysis behind the production skills and values, has to me meant that I've found a new respect for music that I've been indifferent to in the past. The fact that he has many endorsee musicians for his videos (e.g. Steve Lukather, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, amongst many others) is an good indication that his motives are in the right place. I see this video as an exercise in attempting to promote your channel, hanging on the coat tails of his output and the fact that so many of his videos are demonetised, as he explains requires other sources of revenue in order to sustain his work on his channel. so hence the product/merchandising plugs. I've read some comments here about that he's an 'idiot', but I would say that these remarks are disingenuous and might come from a place of envy. Many of these critics could only dream of possessing a scintilla of his knowledge, his skill and musical prowess on the guitar and piano. It's so easy to criticise and snipe at people who've put in tons of effort to make their content, and I would love to see the offerings that his critics can put out for us to witness as evidence of their credibility. My guess is that they won't be many takers.

[@elgatofelix8917]

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.

[@stevejon381]

@@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.

[@elgatofelix8917]

@@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*

[@elgatofelix8917]

@@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?

[@FoamySlobbers]

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

[@liamoconnell2831]

Fair analysis I reckon. highlights the inadequacy of old world laws in the digital age.

[@nocturnal101ravenous6]

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.

[@Lavaman3682]

POLITICIANS: THIS is how you have a disagreement. But, as a lifelong musician I love Rick's videos. As an attorney, I always smile when non-lawyers try to discuss legal issues :-) Rick needs to keep doing what he is doing, but KDH puts out some nuanced arguments.

[@markwilding3828]

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

[@BassByTheBay]

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 KZbinr 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.

[@fgoindarkg]

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

[@TheGuitarHistorian]

Holy crap dude, this is a PERFECT explanation to this problem. I’ve been struggling to explain to my viewers why I don’t use copyrighted material in my videos, even though I have no sponsorship or other stuff I’m “pushing,” besides subbing to my channel. I’m going to start linking to this video as well as my own about this subject because it goes into the legal and money parts of this problem on the publisher’s side way better than mine. Nice work.

[@skateup2291]

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.

[@sprontos]

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.

[@johanrojassoderman5590]

That was a lot less aggressive and more educational than I thought it'd be given the title. Reasonable and viable arguments as well, good job.

[@metalboy5150]

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.

[@IridiumZero]

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

[@lanewisdom6330]

Rick is right though, no matter how those record labels view it it's not like they aren't getting anything out of Rick looking back on their old music. It's certainly better, in the record labels view, for him to have made those videos rather than not.

[@eddieavakian]

You did a convincing job explaining how publishers have the right to shut down the video, but not so much as to why it’s in their interest to do so. I don’t see a “Jeep” commerical educating people on a song in their 30 seconds of air time to avoid having to pay for the licensing of it. I honestly think that these videos are blocked because not a lot of thought went into it. I could be wrong but in most cases I think it’s that simple.

[@HollowGolem]

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.

[@eddieavakian]

@@HollowGolem that makes sense.

[@akagerhard]

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.

[@eddieavakian]

@@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

[@ghostnote-6]

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

[@GregGallagher]

KDH, always comin at you with the hot takes haha. For real though, your vids are always thought provoking, good stuff man.

[@Leoofthesun]

I agree. he think’s his points through

[@GregGallagher]

@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

[@bohunkdeluxe2430]

I'd say it's an excellent guess KDH. I think you're 100% spot on. Publishing carries the heaviest weight in the music business, always has....

[@RonayKarcsika]

Yepp, I agree with you. KDH, you deserve a lot more subscribers!

[@johnmiller9219]

cross marketing cannot be done without consent, that appears what's going on

[@balkannomad3372]

I'm 100% behind Rick. He doesn't just introduce people to good music. He has a way of validating WHY I love a particular song. He adds new layers and dimensions when it comes to the appreciation of a song.. AND he appeals to the inner geek in me that studied music and theory back in college. He brings up songs I had even forgotten about. It's like listening to someone talk about WHY the wine that you prefer is so great.. and I LOVE it. I get excited when one of his "why this song is great" picks just happens to be one of my favorites. To be fair, he does break down some songs that don't move the earth for me, but still gave me a deeper appreciation and yes, a desire to listen to the ENTIRE track. This IS the point, right? My take on blocking and muting: I've also had some of my own videos muted: We're talking walking past a bar in Sarajevo playing live music during the film festival (My video was about the festival, not the song) A group of ballroom dancers in Hvar dancing to a famous waltz (muted) some live concerts in Osijek (ok, I get it) and even walking down a rural road in Bosnia.. with music playing in the background by a neighbor. I mean.. WHO would consider these videos as a substitute for the real thing? Isn't this why I have Shazam! on my iphone? Let's talk about creative ways that musicians are promoting themselves.. Tool IS a great example. They also don't allow people to record at their concerts.. and y'know what? I agree. It ruins the experience of a concert. I fondly remember seeing Tool back around 2010 and nobody was holding a damn phone.. we were too busy enjoying the experience. But if Tool, and Seal, and Joni don't have a problem, and see his videos as an opportunity.. why can't this become a win for everyone? Now just show me where I can buy something. Because I WILL. THIS is the problem that I think Tool does a great job in solving: How to create a unique or limited edition product. Would I buy their next CD? Hell yes.. if shipping to Bosnia were not so damn expensive! (Send me a care package: Tool CD's, and T-shirts, peppermint candy, and good coffee beans!) Would I pay big bucks to see them live in Amsterdam? I would. Ok, enough said. I back up Rick 100%. His videos are one of the reasons WHY I may be likely to put a song on my playlist or make a purchase, and I'm sure there are others who would do the same for their own reasons.

[@Fausto_4841]

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

[@benburnett8109]

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

[@Fausto_4841]

​@@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*

[@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342]

Lost me when you said he introz folks to good music. The screamo butt rock guitar grifter apparently knows good music, says you lol.

[@genesis191960]

Rick's videos have directed me to artists I have not heard of, I then listen to the artist on Spotify. Does this not help the artist?!

[@mmestari]

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

[@purplepurple8179]

@@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.

[@Plisko1]

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?

[@luisnunes2010]

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

[@CamRebires]

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

[@brianpavilanis8384]

EXTREMELY informative and delivered in an objective and respectful way with regards to Beato:-) Well done.

[@teeguerazo]

I love Rick's work and legacy. No one has done it before with as much pedagogy, knowledge and taste, and he gives (for free) a much deeper understanding of several generations of musical geniuses, geniuses that are still among us. His videos will be watched and studied long after he's gone: that's how important his contribution to musical education is. Rick, keep on rockin'!

[@MrChopsticktech]

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 KZbin 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.

[@teeguerazo]

@@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.

[@edorourke9223]

Creating videos reacting to or analyzing Rick Beato videos, using his name and image, is becoming a cottage industry.

[@Samsgarden]

After Lars Ulrich deconstruction videos

[@troykapix5077]

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

[@manny75586]

Background: I went to school for music in undergrad, and went to law school to practice copyright/entertainment law and have been practicing for about 10 years now. You are right on a lot but also wrong on some. Fair Use claims aren't predicated on whether you make money off of the underlying copyrighted material or not. Famously, the Beastie Boys were sued for using an uncleared sample on "Sure Shot". They won that suit because the use was de minimis. There are a litany of other examples. The court would also weigh if the purpose of the video was advertisement or if it is ancillary. The ads for Beato book are seemingly ancillary. The real issue is that most large music publishers collaborated with Google to create an algorithm that can scan every video uploaded for particular copyrighted material. When there is a hit, the publisher is notified and an automatic DMCA claim is made (which is a potential issue because fraudulent DMCA claims are a no no). People who have claims against them can dispute it. The publisher then has to weigh how likely or not the use is going to fall under a fair use, de minimis, transformative et. al. claim standard. The issue they face, if they press the claim and sue, they can potentially lose any potential revenue from the song 8n that video. It's pretty common for pretrial compromises to be reached. More often than not they will offer to simply collect the ad revenue and allow the video to remain up. Now, they are technically not entitled to that money if it is in fact an excepted use. This brings me to the most misunderstood part of fair use discussions on KZbin: fair use is a defense. It has to be asserted and determined by a court. Fair Use is an explicit admission that "yes I appropriated your copyright, but it falls under an exception." If the court agrees, the publisher gets zero dollars. Telling KZbin the thing is fair use is meaningless to them. They have a safe harbor in the laws and avoid liability if they take it down upon request. They only care if the party who claims to have been wronged says it's OK and they no longer seek to claim it. Ultimately the law needs to be changed. The internet has changed so much that copyright laws from the late 90s are no longer sufficient. I think a compulsory license scheme for digital video shorts should be devised so all parties receive compensation easily. I do also wish a reaction channel with some means or a class of them would sue the publishers as it would likely result in, at minimum, a common law view on what it acceptable fair use.

[@MoneyGrip70]

We love Rick. He has changed lives! Nobody should block anyone

[@tomasdecamino8522]

He is also getting traffic to his channel, and that is of value as well.

[@literalghost929]

yep huge value!

[@hammill444]

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.

[@DMSProduktions]

CAN you say 'CLICK BATE'? ;oP

[@tomasdecamino8522]

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

[@hammill444]

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

[@kbnikto6056]

Rick is just awesome. From his WMTSG series I’ve learned many things. Two most notable are how to better listen to music and surprisingly, how good of musicians many of the classic rock groups really were. I now enjoy my favorites in a whole new way. His musical talent does make me want to turn my guitars into kindling though…..lol. Thanks Rick!

[@OttoByOgraffey]

'What Makes This Song Great'. In case somebody doesn't know what the letters he's using, are for.

[@fgoindarkg]

Don't feel bad. Beato doesn't make any good music with his "talent" anyway. But you might, so stick with it.

[@bachtube11]

You make a good point: "Ricks advertising for his own products at the end of his "educational video", makes it to an "advertising video", beside the fact that it is most of the time educational." Rick Beato blends out in his mind, that he is advertising. He is not advertising for 3rd party and has no commercial brakes from a 3rd party company, and he gets nothing from loyality revenues, and he doesnt mind, if his video(s) gets demonetized. That makes him tell, he is not making any money of that video, and therefore it is educational only. But he totally blends out, that his advertising for his own products is "advertising". So he does not make money with advertising for others, but he makes money with his own products, and he uses his "educational" video to advertise for his products on the end of the video. He does not see "the plank in his own eye"! And it is oviously not a "mistake" that he does advertise on the end of the video for his products, it is obviously, that he wants to make money from selling that products. There is no problem, its not immoral to make a educational video, and do some advertising on the end. Viewers would see short advetising on the end fair, and agree. Thats a fair advertising for his products. But "Fair advertising" is not "NO advertising". A educational video, containig any (short) advertising is not a "sole educational video" any more. Only a exclusively educational video is allowed to make "fair use" of copyright protected content. He neglects the fact, that his video is NOT exclusively educational, when he makes some advertising for some short time in it. If his video is "demonetized" by youtube he gets no mony from youtube or 3rd party advertising, but the "demonetized" video can still help him make money from his products, which he is promoting in the video. My conclusion: "Yes, Rick Beato Gets Blocked For A Reason"

[@kellyc2425]

Using your logic, this video should be blocked. The labels/rights owners aren't losing a SINGLE DIME from Rick's videos, and actually probably profit from increased sales from his exposure. It's free advertisement for THEM.

[@JoryKorvid]

Tiny brain

[@sergheirench7666]

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

[@philfrank5601]

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.

[@Lantertronics]

@@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.

[@Plisko1]

@@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?

[@57stratkat]

Personally, I am in total agreement with Rick. I love his video's. He's an experienced record producer who actually contributes INTELLIGENT discussion to the topics of song writing and production techniques. The notion that his motivation is cashing in on his course is rubbish. He clearly has a love for music and his excitement is contagious. Does anyone think he's getting rich off these videos? The irony is that the record industry has been in the business of screwing working musicians for 60+ years.

[@BarrySmithviolin]

100+ years... Tin Pan Alley 😉

[@markoer]

You missed the point.

[@RocknRollkat]

My comment from a similar post.... "Beato is full of himself. ....and he doesn't swing. Knowing music isn't PLAYING music. ....and I'm being generous." Bill P.

[@robbduggan6151]

YOU sir are SO RIGHT. Thanks

[@wallyosmond9204]

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...

[@christianwillassen]

I was writing: “Omg KDH. Is this your idea of creating content? ...” but I will have to contact a friend in Ancient Greece before I continue that path. I have a few thought experiments though: 1. Doesn’t KZbin get their share of the advertising in Rick’s “what makes this song great”? 2. If you were a music teacher teaching a student a copyrighted song, then are you allowed to a) charge for the teaching b) sell the student a book you wrote? Interesting subject btw, thanks. Revised 3min after posting: I just wish Rick would play slightly longer clips from the songs, it’s a bit embarrassing with friends visiting and all my free songs are 15-30 seconds long.

[@dtu1686]

@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 .

[@MrChopsticktech]

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

[@christianwillassen]

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

[@buffalobraves9]

You are right about him selling stuff at the end. I never thought of it that way but I have to admit, you're correct. If he didn't sell his stuff they probably would just leave him alone.

[@craigpurdie3528]

Regardless of Rick's promotion at the end of his vids, he provides tremendous value that transcends the almighty dollar. EDUCATION (KNOWLEDGE) is PRICELESS.

[@mollybell5779]

I have learned so much from Rick. I find his channel extremely educational. He has also educated me on the existence of some bands which I was previously unaware of. Thank you for your point of view, but I am with Rick on this one.

[@amj.composer]

I second what you said!

[@mishikay_music8997]

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?"

[@pmvoice88]

Here is the problem. (1)The 'demonetization' happens the instant it is uploaded to KZbin. (2)There is no way the algorithm to determine if you're selling products at the end of a video. (3) There is no way for the algorithms to know if a video is educational.

[@davidpotvin4983]

No, but I don't believe the algorithm takes the videos down, but rather flags them for someone (human) to look it over and decide whether or not it stays or gets taken down… 🤔

[@15thirty]

It's an interesting theory, but is upended by Fair Use, which you mention early on. Due to Fair Use, if Rick wanted to start a television program to discuss the elements of popular music, he could buy the air time, sell as much ad time as he wants, sell his merch as much as he wants, basically do the exact same show, and the labels can't touch him. Broadcast time is valuable, for the most part, and a creator that generates revenue is worth protecting. (The FCC and the courts have gone over and over these issues.) The reason these takedowns occur in the wild west of KZbin is because KZbin absolutely REFUSES to lift a finger to defend the creators.

[@hammill444]

Define "creator".

[@adamscott1142]

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 KZbin. 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.

[@15thirty]

@@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.)

[@adamscott1142]

@@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". KZbin 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 KZbin 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.

[@15thirty]

@@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.)

[@scribl5683]

Great video with thoughtful analysis. There are also a lot of really good comments here, but unfortunately, most seem to miss the distinction in the law that's specific for Internet-posted content. Before I get into that, to disclose my own bias: I'm a solid Rick Beato fan and only found this video, because I was intrigued by the title and was curious to hear the other side on Rick's blocked videos. I also spend a lot of time supporting lesser-known authors and artists and small publishers doing their best to monetize their content via the Internet. What I didn't see referenced either in the video or in many of the comments is the controlling law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. This only applies to content posted on the Internet (TV, live lectures, etc. are governed by completely different areas of the law) and in the U.S., but that's a big enough market that it is the main determinant for the KZbin takedowns. Specifically, it requires web sites (or other digital hosting platforms) act on take-down requests from copyright holders. The intent behind the law was to allow for innovation among Internet entrepreneurs (before there were Internet giants) by protecting them from lawsuit as long as they quickly complied with take-down requests from copyright holders. Like our "Communications Decency Act" commonly known as "Section 230" in the news a lot lately for the Twitter/Facebook content policing, the idea was to foster innovation and growth of a vibrant tech industry, which required venture capital and other investment that was (especially at the time when many said investing in the Internet was a crazy risk with no future) easily spooked by fear of lawsuits. As long as the young tech companies followed certain rules, they couldn't be sued or held liable for the the specific forms protected kinds of posted content. In the case of the DMCA in particular, it was also motivated, in part, by the huge peer-to-peer file sharing that destroyed much of the music industry (anyone remember Napster -- get any album you want for free). That inability to enforce existing copyright laws on Internet users devastated both record labels and artists. This showed legislators the need to protect copyright holders from digital abuse in various forms. That this would evolve into some unexpected areas is not surprising. Rick's problem couldn't have really become relevant until it became possible to make a living by posting KZbin videos, which was not something seriously considered in the '90s, nor was the entire notion of edutainment (KZbin was founded in 2005, long after the laws were written). Maybe an equivalent that's easier to see today is how traffic laws of the past century may not apply the same to self-driving cars of the future. If enough people had foreseen this business model, I'm sure the laws would have been constructed differently. There is no way that it was the intent of either political party or any major drafters of the legislation to prevent educational videos with snippets of material that would, under traditional copyright law, be protected by fair use. And that's the core problem: fair use is not clearly covered under DMCA. As a result, much of the discussion here is off point. If Rick did what he did anywhere other than on the Internet, Fair Use would almost certainly protect him. But on the Internet, DMCA law controls, not traditional copyright laws.

[@GraniteStateColin]

Yes, and as much as I'd like to blame KZbin 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 KZbin for their policies.

[@christiansmakingmusic777]

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.

[@scribl5683]

​@@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 KZbin, 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.

[@suzanneemerson9787]

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.

[@christiansmakingmusic777]

@@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.

[@edwardrochester6523]

Spot on explanation regarding Rick's merchandise piggybacking on these great songs.

[@steved2112]

I'm a huge fan of Rick Beato and I think you've made some salient points here.

[@Onyxmoon]

The whole argument of it includes some self promotion I suppose is a fair one, but at the end of the day ANY video containing somebody else's material has some benefit of self promotion for the channel (and therefore a possible money revenue). I expect KDH is reaping some reward from this video and you could argue off the back of Rick Beato, but it's a weak argument. Context is really important.

[@raffiequler7510]

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

[@akagerhard]

...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.

[@tomszabo7350]

@@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.

[@RogerBarraud]

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

[@raffiequler7510]

@@RogerBarraud I am way quler than you.

[@stevenadams1795]

I love Ricks videos. He's passionate, and curious on how music works. Gear wise, song wise etc. He has put many rumors to sleep on how things were done on many classic albums. Keep Rocking Rick!

[@AniJudaism]

I think your points on this are extremely sound. Good job man

[@jacksonooton2396]

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

[@yourbore]

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

[@kitten-whisperer]

@@jacksonooton2396 shaaaat uuuup

[@KevinWale]

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

[@rexduranzelandony]

To sum it up: "Labels may be blocking the videos because they see the videos as Rick's own advertisement using their songs for leverage"

[@AndyDrudy]

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

[@bloomt17]

@@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 KZbinrs 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.

[@deaddoll1361]

@@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.

[@go-away-5555]

@@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.

[@Cougar139tweak]

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......

[@Mojoman57]

You've got your head in the right place, friend. Great video!

[@Swybryd-Nation]

I have to agree with KDH’s reasoning. If any large company wants to use those famous classic hits for ads it costs a fortune cause they really get peoples’ attention. For example if you want to use “Satisfaction” by RS in your soap commercial it would cost literally several million dollars. So why does RB get to use famous tunes for free to sell his wares whereas Target, Walmart, have to cough it up? If RB weren’t selling his own products he’d be protected by fair use.

[@jimsmid8229]

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).

[@clanofhousecats8079]

Huh, this information was interesting to learn

[@KevinWale]

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

[@fredbear3915]

@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.

[@KevinWale]

@@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.

[@TheSoundofU]

Thank you for asking these questions, or making a statement. I worked 22 years in all areas of the music industry & it would be fair to say that during the years of cassettes & CDS the record companies & artists got burnt. Whereas if you take music that is 30-60 years old it seems such a shame that anyone would block Rick's videos for legitimately promoting music to a new generation. His audience is predominantly under 40 and this truly enlightens newcomers to the music scene. Rick isn't making money from those videos, he makes money from his personal products which he actively promotes during these series. I would love to see more revenue sharing for record companies, artists & KZbin video creators. By the sheer volume of videos this is possible. This is not like Spotify where the company gets most of the revenue, and the artists a trickle. Promoting older artists to new audiences gives room for advertising revenue, plus more money being paid to both the record companies, publishers, artists, copyright owners and the KZbin Creators. I applaud Rick Beato for his contribution to the industry. Top Record Company executives are beginning to see how this works. WMG has 1000's of videos taking down in the 2000 decade, and sued KZbin. Ultimately this cost WMG more money due to possible revenue, they have since given permission to 1000's of videos on KZbin. Discussions like yours & Ricks brings this further into the open. Artists don't always understand how this works, but the tide is changing. 👍🎸😎

[@alexjenner1108]

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

[@michaelmishaw]

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

[@RobertWGreaves]

There is a huge difference between using a song in an educational video which IS a violation of copyright and educating people about a song and using the song in order to educate, after which one then offers additional educational materials for sale. The fact that there are adds attached is irrelevant. As a college professor (now retired) I got paid for educating. The model for making money as an educator is not the issue and does not change the educational value. My sound engineering students could even make the claim that my college classroom is an advertisement of my skills as a recording studio operator. I have had students come back years later and record in my studio or even send friends to my studio. Would that nullify the educational nature of my teaching position? Your argument is an argument perhaps for an amendment to the copyright law and might even have meaningful merit, but it is NOT the law currently. The question of fair use applies only to the moment where the use occurs. And it is not even arguable, as I see it, that what Beato does in no way injures the copyright holders, not do his advertisements haver nothing to do with an educational purpose. What if I were to accept an invitation to speak at a college to offer a lecture open to the public on the genius of the Beatles in the studio that charged an admission fee to the community? Would it be wrong for the college to pay me an honorarium to lecture? Would anyone attend who has no idea who I am but was attracted to the lecture because of their love of the Beatles? Would my lecture in any manner injure the Beatles? And this is absurd but I must ask. Could Rick Beato have your video blocked, or monetize this video because as it is, I have no clue who you are but was seduced to watch this because I know who Rick is, and I know about his rants, and now if you are monetized, you just made money off his name and educational efforts! You have an interesting argument but I would hate it if a court of law were to buy into it. I would much prefer the law be updated legislatively to clarify limits of fair use.

[@ChrisFaa]

Nicely said Bob.

[@Alpha_7227]

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

[@glenster1111]

Great response! Thanks.

[@GraniteStateColin]

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 KZbin 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.

[@robertw1871]

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…

[@UnknownIdaho]

Very good explanation, thank you. Just like mailing a package ‘library rate’ at the post office- magazines don’t get the library discount because they have advertising, just like Beato’s videos advertise his products. I like Beato’s videos but yes, his rants get a little old, he knows he is selling HIS products using other peoples music, but he likes to make a little noise too…

[@NominalTopic]

If they could charge you every time you got a song stuck in your head, they would!

[@junomoon9945]

Good video, I like Kdh much better when he stays neutral and just lays out the facts, ricks videos are great, damn record companies really are shady, big deal he throws in a plug for his merch, who cares, if that's really the reason they block his videos, wow, that's really stupid, you would think record companies would have bigger problems to worry about than Rick's videos, still gotta side with Rick over the record companies Kdh great video!!!

[@MiklosHajma]

You'd be right if Rick was just playing some cover versions of the song, even partly, but he's taking only some chord progressions, melodies, dissected tracks to talk about the theory behind it. Anyone who's watching those videos can't rip the audio track from it and use it against the original song for whatever reason. Following the same logic, graphic artist should be banned from youtube when they create a fan art for some well known characters. It's totally ridiculous. Rick's videos are promoting those songs _without_ actually playing them. There are tons of other, non youtube examples how greedy music industry players are. If you ever wondered why there are no Metallica, Guns n' Roses songs in Rocksmith, where they would even be profiting after song DLC sales, that's why. They are stubborn dinosaurs saying this being 40+ myself.

[@friedhalloumi]

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.

[@MiklosHajma]

@@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.

[@silverXnoise]

@@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, KZbin/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.

[@hankhank5370]

Dude, the people you should be looking at are all of those music reaction channels. These channels play entire songs. Sure many if them stop several times to make comments but not all of them. Almost all of them have patreon accounts and most of them sell merchandise. The ones that really get to me are the ones that will feature any song for the sum of $25.00 or some other fixed amount. I know that they are not paying the copy write owners and artists any royalties at all. I would love to see legal action taken against these people. Rick Beato and others like him should be placed in a whole different class of content creators or presenters. He is infinitely more knowledgeable and qualified to present musical content than most people on KZbin. Channels like his should e classified as educational and exempt from record label temper tantrums their punitive actions. That is all that I have to say. Right or wrong, this is just the way I feel about this subject.

[@EzyoMusic]

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?"

[@TheDwightMamba]

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

[@negotiableaffections]

they sat around the campfire banging on rocks and twanging on twangy things; they yelled, they sang and everyone was happy - then money was invented. I'm currently negotiating the purchase the rights to; 'having fun'...

[@peterrebhahn1113]

KDH offers an intelligent and well-reasoned take on the issue but, in doing so, he refrains from dumping on Rick Beato or making it in any way a personal issue, which is more than I can say for some of the commentators here, including (at least) one that should be deleted. Not a good look, guys. Throwing stones is easy, creating something of value (a KZbin channel with over a million subscribers and an industry reputation) is hard.

[@BossDM-2]

Yeah, but it isn't as though he's discovered the earth is round either. He simply clarifies some already well-understood current happenings of the music business. It does nothing to explain why it is not stupid to block Rick's content. Nothing. He says why the videos may be blocked, but does not make a case for the blocking them.

[@kierenmoore3236]

That’s not WHY the labels do it; but that’s what ENABLES the labels to do it … … …

[@Angus576]

You have a good point and maybe right

[@kirkweber826]

It would be truly ironic if one day we learn that Beato is doing more to popularize songs than the publishers are!

[@12ealDealOfficial]

A totally fair and accurate assessment. Can't understand why it would be disliked. And I learned something!

[@tonyz7189]

Rick is the best. I’ll watch all his vids. I respect your Explanation.

[@TheVonzink]

I Agree with Rick on this stuff. It’s fair use. He should be able to critique and review these songs same as all the you tubers movie reviewers.

[@Dewydidit]

He can, but plugging his product at the end is the violation of fair use. I love Beato and the series, like lots of folks love pot, yet it's still illegal. Loving Rick's work is a separate issue from "is it legal". He clearly uses too much of the song to get the money from the vid, then puts his ad on the end to make money off the vid. Don't smoke pot, then complain it should be legal after you get busted.

[@joetspaulding]

Couldn't agree more. Why should Chevy pay to use a Led Zeppelin song to sell their car when Rick can use the song for free to sell his stuff? and he understands this 100% but pretends not too.

[@satchrules101]

Great point bro!

[@alecmullaney7957]

He might just be emotional enough that he forgot in the hay of the moment

[@cyclesgoff9768]

But the obvious narcissism possibly clouds the judgement.

[@sethcoma]

fairuse. everything Rick does is transformative. he promotes music knowledge,.

[@nodairyclefairy265]

Totally different situations. He is not simply playing the song with video under it, he is examining all the parts of the songs, playing and stopping the song frequently to comment on it and plays the different tracks isolated... etc etc. It's ignorant to say that what Rick is doing is the same as a car commercial. People are coming to Rick's videos to watch him teach or at least explain things, the other is a company buying a song to play uninterrupted because song is popular. Should clips of movies be taken down from movie reviews? Should news footage shown to be commented on be taken out of videos? No.

[@landonbailey]

I think you're on to something here. Whenever he has said he doesn't make money, I've always thought, ya you brought people to your video/channel, and you will make money, just not directly.

[@SpotWorksLNC]

I am a fan of Rick and now a subscriber of you. Well said! I know you are simply adding another perspective as to why Rick is blocked... and the promotion of his products makes a valid point. But Rick's main message that it "makes no sense to block promotion of a song from 1976" is still a puzzle to me as well and very short sighted. True, promotion of the song to make a few hundred dollars on Rick's demonetized video, as well as minuscule increased streams on platforms, may be deemed peanuts to record companies and publishers. However, they are missing out on the potential for a major 'value increase' due to a resurgence of a song in pop culture (not only millions of streams, but more radio play and a higher value placed on the song for movies and ads. Basically, keeping the song alive! Bohemian Rhapsody didn't become the massive hit it is today until Wayne's World put it in a movie. Today, it's the internet that does that, mainly KZbin! When the TwinsthenewTrend reacted to Phil Collins In The Air Tonight, it saw a big resurgence going to #1 on streaming charts, but also more radio play, perhaps more licensing. Regardless, it keeps the fuel in the engine of an old song. Some of these record companies are doing on KZbin what they did back when streaming was taking over in the early 2000's. They refused to join the movement and become a part of it as best they could on their terms. If they had, they would have a bigger piece of the pie. Instead. they fought it with all they had and lost, which allowed iTunes do what they wanted to do and the rest is history.

[@eahannan]

Makes a whole lotta cents. Thank you !

[@adrianlee3497]

And dollars right? 🙄🙄

[@HeathenwoodOfficial]

You are a tough iconoclast KDH. I honestly didn't see this video coming XD

[@KevinWale]

he wishes. this video is weak

[@leonkruger6964]

@RickBeato ! keep up the good work and keep on promoting great musicians all over the world to inspire tomorrow's musicians. Absolutely support you and your show. Greetings from South Africa

[@thebreakfastmenu]

Glad it's not just me with these opinions. And judging by the like to dislike ratio, looks like I'm actually quite far from the only one. Thankfully.

[@MrChopsticktech]

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.

[@patrickryan7199]

This argument is a canard, a “straw man.” Intentional or not, the way you portray Rick’s promoting his book and ear training course is deceptive, almost like photoshopping an image sheerly for the shock factor. Rick only mentions these products at the end of his videos, briefly, at the very end, when viewership is already falling off. And in 100 out of 101 cases, every video Rick has ever had blocked has been unblocked, because his videos are in fact “fair use”, they are, in fact, educational. As Rick stated in his comment, if labels or publishers wanted a taken down video to stay down, it would stay down. It seems you are making a sensationalist and deceptively opportunistic argument here, suggesting a “loop hole”, or that the labels don’t get all the ad revenue, that Rick’s videos are made under “the guise of education.” As an educator, I find this claim particularly egregious, as if commercially successful music is off the table when it comes to education and analysis. Only about 1/8th of Rick’s videos involve a song analysis of commercial music, and even then, it is his educational content which drives the views, as well as the thanks and praises he receives from artists across the spectrum.

[@Musicman_stingray_5_player]

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

[@Plisko1]

If Rick's Video was on the Ford KZbin 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.

[@KevinWale]

@@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.

[@Lantertronics]

@@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.

[@Plisko1]

@@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..

[@simonbe]

There is a nice German word: "Kindergarten". That's the place record labels train their employees at.

[@rayjr62]

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

[@simonbe]

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

[@rayjr62]

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

[@simonbe]

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

[@christopherpearman3422]

@@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’!

[@brentstwocents]

Your argument of "what would stop an advertiser from using these songs to promote a product under the guise of education" misses the point as far as Rick Beato's videos are concerned. He is educating about the actual song. No different than an art history professor using a slide show of impressionist painters in a lecture. How could Snickers or Budweiser use a song without licensing in their ads and try to pass it off as educational? If I make an educational video about podcasting that doesn't give me the right to use a Van Halen song as background music, but taking a clip from Joe Rogan as an example of a popular podcast would be fair use.

[@christiansmakingmusic777]

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.

[@stevepetersmusic9262]

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.

[@kaiblake2437]

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

[@theHAL9000]

Having immensely enjoyed Beato's video series myself it has occurred to me that it operates in a gray area in terms of intellectual property. Beato does benefit by video views and so the musical content does bring to him financial benefit. At the same time the videos do have a classroom vibe about them from a music appreciation standpoint. The publishers are likely on solid legal ground in their heavy-handed approach, but in the case of Beato's videos, why would they want to be heavy handed. Beato is highlighting chosen pieces to a multitude of fresh ears and is basically providing valuable free advertising.

[@kc117mx]

I have studied Shakespeare and Tolstoy, and have listened and studied Beethoven, Back, and Chopin, among others. The number of books that I read in school is astounding, and the number of books I have borrowed is substantial. These are tools that are used to both improve my understanding of culture, and enhance my ability to learn and appreciate the works of others. They never got paid for my consumption of their material, and neither have any of the authors of the books that I checked out at the library or bought second-hand. The internet is still a relatively new media, and unfortunately these people have chosen to fight the sharing of information rather than try to use that sharing for profit. Many have succeeded in that aspect, but too many continue to hoard their IP and milk it for every penny that they can get. Rick Beato's product is teaching the willing to understand why we as a culture tend to treasure these songs, often for decades. Embracing his message is in the best interest of those who block him. Those who fight him are essentially stealing from themselves. In response to why he is being blocked, it is because they want to control the masses. The more they try to control us the more we push back.

[@skeletonmodel]

Rick Beato uses it to promote himself and make money. He's not Robin Hood. If you play the music you studied live, you also have to pay the artist for that. I'm sure the artists are very happy they helped you grow, but you still need to pay for the books or music, just like you pay for a piece of bread the baker made. The Library paid for those copies. The printer paid for it. I'm not fighting him or stealing from myself. I don't like watching the guy, gives me a schmuckrock vibe.. If I was a musician which guitar hero stems he used to promote himself, I would not want that. Let me choose someone cooler. I agree that it would've been better to find a way to share it. But let it be shared by the people who own it. Not some guy. You appreciate what he shares, maybe others don't value it. It's an opinion. Just like if some dictator would use it for his presidential campaign. They don't own it, artist doesn't want to be associated with it, so too bad. go make some stuff yourself.

[@seancostello7608]

What’s disturbing is that we have to speculate about this. Why aren’t labels or publishers required to show and communicate the basis on which they block?

[@BirdmanDeuce26]

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 KZbin, 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 KZbin 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. KZbin 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!

[@disco4535]

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

[@ryanshinermusic]

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 KZbin’s content ID system or not

[@mlnem2k]

Because Its arbitrary.

[@KevinWale]

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

[@DSilvergun]

I thought it was Rick Beat-O.

[@lawrenceredmacher4382]

rick beato talking about what makes a song great: says what keys/chords the song uses, never says a single thing that makes them great

[@thatsameenergy]

Im pretty indifferent towards Rick. His videos are cool when he breaks down famous songs. I just don't see what he is doing is wrong. I dont even see him selling courses or products as wrong. You have an experienced producer/ song writer (whatever it is he does. I dont know his history) break down hits in detail on why they are such good songs. He explains what makes them hits, which is valuable info for up and coming song writers. Him demonstrating his ability to explain everything from chord progressions to pitch to time signatures and everything in between shows consumers he probably isn't selling them snake oil with his courses. And younger audiences get exposed to classic hits instead of the new manufactured pop songs shoved down their throats. Everybody kind of wins here.

[@mariomorati4896]

Ditto.

[@jamielailey4594]

This. I've never watched his videos and thought of them as adverts. He's a ridiculously talented musician, producer and arranger, and gives valuable content for free. There is a lot of useless shit on the Internet. Rick is a diamond.

[@valebliz]

This is KDH most successful series of video. I’d say it’s self explanatory.

[@BossDM-2]

Absolutely.

[@thatsameenergy]

@@valebliz while I enjoy his content, this series of videos is often shadowed by his disdain for and bias against content creators selling a product in their videos or advertising their products. Its like he believes everybody should be juat creating content out of the goodness of their hearts and shouldn't attempt to make some money in the process. If youre really good at something, you shouldn't just do it for free. This video is based off of him having a publishing deal, while not having the full spectrum of deals that are music industry involved. He may or may not be correct in his assumption here and I disagree with his opinion. What Rick is doing benefits all parties involved, so Warner blocking his videos is ridiculous and he may even still have a fair use defense, even if at the end of the video he is advertising his products, especially since we know these labels pick and choose their favorite content creators. It's bogus.

[@Ventoux10]

I must have bought (!) at least twenty songs off iTunes after I heard them on Rick’s channel. Let’s not forget that potential revenue stream from his 2.5M subscribers. Accept the education vs advert differential and appreciated my education on this matter!

[@glenster1111]

Same here!

[@ChrisFaa]

You have a point… well… up to a point!!! I watch Beato primarily for education and.. Beato!, not the particular song in question. Also there’s the entertainment angle. People like Beato, Neely and Glen Fricker (to name a few) are really entertaining. I don’t think the majors deserve a cent from these guys, especially after their participation in the raping of the music industry.

[@glenster1111]

Spot on!!!!

[@Cautionary_Tale_Harris]

To piggyback on what you're saying, Rick's put out several videos analyzing songs I already know and don't necessarily enjoy. But I still watch them. Sometimes I find a new respect for the artists.

[@christianhansen3292]

nah he sucks! gets boring quickly

[@EJH-jn6mo]

Your attempt at rationalization of record companies blocking Ricks videos still makes zero sense from a business perspective. He’s promoting these peoples music, which for milllions of people would be lost on them.

[@tonycracolice4465]

Did you not listen?

[@dotarsojat7725]

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.

[@Karl_Squell]

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

[@EJH-jn6mo]

@@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.

[@Lantertronics]

@@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.

[@joetspaulding]

I don't know the details but from what I understand there is also the issue that if you don't enforce your copyright you can lose it

[@Lantertronics]

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.)

[@MrChopsticktech]

@@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.

[@RadicalRadical3]

I don't want my music to end up on videos of things such as weapons or hunting or political. I also don't want someone using my music to get views and sell their products at the end. Rick doesn't do this all for just fun and when he complains its irritating and I unsubscribed a long time ago.

[@BigFiveJack]

I think you've presented a very realistic answer to the repeatedly asked question by R.B.

[@pmoO0]

I'm not an expert at all, but I want to say the following. Even if Rick Beato does not monetize the videos, KZbin can and will still place Ads on them. That means that based on the views, somebody gets money. If you own the rights to a piece of art that brought these views to the platform, I believe you are obligated to defend these rights. You cannot just sit back and say "That's fine", because then people can claim that you as the rights owner did not act in their interest. So, even if you do not want to look like Pure Evil, you might HAVE TO defend these publishing rights, because otherwise people who MIGHT have gotten revenue can take action against you. I might be completely wrong.

[@citizensnips2348]

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

[@timbrown7652]

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 KZbin. 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.

[@GraniteStateColin]

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.

[@MaxPower-js1sk]

Good point. I’d never thought about Rick making money off his book and courses as being an issue.

[@davidtomkins4242]

Fair point, well made