Blocked videos on YouTube lately?

JoKeR III said:
It's very simple; pay the copyright fee if you want to use someone else's copyrighted music.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the vids? They get blocked for the flimsiest of reasons. Rick Beato has this great series about what makes certain songs great. From some bands he can't even use excerpts. He can't even play parts of songs himself, they immediately get blocked. He has to play them wrong in order for the youtube algorithm to give its agreement. Rick is passionate about music and wants to share what makes those songs great. He's not even making money of it because youtube already demonetizes those vids. Which makes it a double whammy of and demonetizing and blocking. And its bad for the artists themselves because it means less people will be exposed to their music.

And it really is the artists who are behind this. The old rock and jazz dinosaurs who jealously guard their 'copyright'. And then wonder why only other old farts are still interested in their music. Rappers and pop artists don't block. They know how free exposure through youtube works. It's the old dinosaurs who act like its Napster all over again.
 
JoKeR III said:
It's very simple; pay the copyright fee if you want to use someone else's copyrighted music.
Click to expand...

Problem is that it is not very simple. I've actually tried to do that.

In every case you'll have to obtain sync rights from all rights owners. They can be hard to track down and there is no standard fee - everything is up to a negotiation and a separate contract.

In that way it is very different from releasing a cover of a song through an aggregator like Soundrop or Distrokid. There you can obtain a standard license very easy for releasing the cover on the streaming services.

But that license does not include the (sync) rights to make a music video of the same cover.

There really should be a system in place for this when you think of how often this problem occur.
 
It doesn't matter how "flimsy" the reason is. Again, if you want to use copyrighted material, pay the copyright fee. Making money off of other people's work is why they exist. If you're unable to obtain the copyright or are denied the copyright, don't play the material.

Just because they're suddenly being enforced "rigorously" doesn't mean the laws have changed, just their enforcement.

I agree, especially with how long YouTube has been around, that there should be a blanket copyright one could purchase that would allow the use of material in an instructional video. Until then, this is the way things are and as Pete pointed out, there are ways around it if your primary goal really is to help others.
 
There are two schools when it comes to copy right. There is the 'You are using my material, pay up or shut up' vs. 'there is no such thing as bad publicity, only free publicity'. And just like every illegal download does not always equal one lost sale, every clip of your material that people put on youtube does not equal people stealing your copyright.

Like I said, it's the old rock dinosaurs which are the ones who are doing the blocking. The record labels don't give one rat's ass, because that's just legacy catalog material to them, that's not where the money is for them. And the rappers and pop artists know that people sharing their material online is good for them in the long run, as it builds their fan base. I've noticed that they even say their own names in their own songs. So if somebody hears their song somewhere they know who the artist is.

Rock music is dying and the old rock dinosaurs blocking others from even using a clip of their music to tell others how awesome it is is not helping to revive rock. Nor their own careers for that matter.
 
Muad'zin said:
There are two schools when it comes to copy right. There is the 'You are using my material, pay up or shut up' vs. 'there is no such thing as bad publicity, only free publicity'. And just like every illegal download does not always equal one lost sale, every clip of your material that people put on youtube does not equal people stealing your copyright.

Like I said, it's the old rock dinosaurs which are the ones who are doing the blocking. The record labels don't give one rat's ass, because that's just legacy catalog material to them, that's not where the money is for them. And the rappers and pop artists know that people sharing their material online is good for them in the long run, as it builds their fan base. I've noticed that they even say their own names in their own songs. So if somebody hears their song somewhere they know who the artist is.

Rock music is dying and the old rock dinosaurs blocking others from even using a clip of their music to tell others how awesome it is is not helping to revive rock. Nor their own careers for that matter.
Click to expand...

You seem to mistaken in a lot of your statements.

Most bands and artists (and for this debate composers, songwriters et all) use publishing companies for managing their publishing rights. That goes for most "old rock dinosaurs" , rappers and pop artists too.

For many songs the publishing rights are split between the record label, song writers, producers and maybe many more. Some have publishing companies - some do it themselves.

And there is a lot of money in this. I know of one composer who's been paid at least around $6000 just for his part of the sync rights to a song used in one episode of "So You Think You Can Dance".

So record labels do give a rat's ass - cause this is "easy money" cause the product is already made and they just need to collect their money.
 
If you watch Rick Beato snd Paul Davids they explain that instructional guitar lesson videos are taken down under the flimsiest of excuses. They are just giving people free guitar lessons in many cases. Under the law doing things for educational lessons should be fine.
 
Google/Youtube straddles the fence between a business, a utility, and a government in its own right. As such, they are supplanting courts as the arbiters of "fair use". Their solution is capricious, easily abused, and has very little to do with fair copyright enforcement. If I could be a fly on the wall at Google corporate offices, I'll bet I'd find that the decisions they have taken are entirely about steering the type of video uploaded by content creators in the direction they prefer. They couldn't care less about copyright.
 
Daveis said:
They are just giving people free guitar lessons in many cases.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they are not free lessons are they? they are getting money off the monetization.

It makes sense, it's just that it's been overlooked for so long that it's become the norm, now it's getting yanked, and the gravy train is ending for some making a living off it, the butthurt ensues.
 
As far as I understand it, there is something called "fair use", which includes critique and educational purposes. What Paul Davis, Rick Beato, Adam Neely etc are doing falls under these categories. Yet, the labels put claims on their videos. The YouTube creators can appeal via a form on YouTube that their usage of songs IS fair use, but guess who makes the decision on their appeal? The very same label that put out the claim in the first place. Not YouTube, not some third party doing review of the claims.

It's just so corrupt and ridiculous. The labels (and I say labels and not the artist, because I believe in most cases, it's the labels and not the artists themselves that chose to go down this route), are just greedy, taking advantage of the system and think they are above the law. And YouTube are also to blame for not having themselves or even better, some third party making the reviews of at least the appeals from their content creators.

The music industry is just shady and shooting themselves in the foot here. Seriously, fuck them. Freaking asshats.
 
hippietim said:
News flash: large multi-national corporations are powerful.
Click to expand...

Powerful multi-nats can be a problem....some more than others. That's not what I had in mind when I posted though.

Google is in a unique position because they approach having a monopoly on how people access and exchange information. Feel free to shrug, but it scares the daylights out of me.
 
dpeterson said:
Yeah but they are not free lessons are they? they are getting money off the monetization.

It makes sense, it's just that it's been overlooked for so long that it's become the norm, now it's getting yanked, and the gravy train is ending for some making a living off it, the butthurt ensues.
Click to expand...

A lot of the videos getting blocked are free lessons. It's completely uncalled for. So many people get into music so they can learn how to play their favorite songs. Tons of free videos are on YouTube that show how to play a song on guitar or other instruments. This should not be blocked. It is killing progress for beginners. Eventually they'll learn enough to make their own music but they start out playing their favorite songs IF they can find out how to do so.
 
LeviathanKiller said:
A lot of the videos getting blocked are free lessons. It's completely uncalled for. So many people get into music so they can learn how to play their favorite songs. Tons of free videos are on YouTube that show how to play a song on guitar or other instruments. This should not be blocked. It is killing progress for beginners. Eventually they'll learn enough to make their own music but they start out playing their favorite songs IF they can find out how to do so.
Click to expand...
It may be free to the user but the person creating the video is making money through YouTube. As Pete Thorn pointed out, if you don't monetize the account, there usually isn't an issue.
 
ElectricPhase said:
Powerful multi-nats can be a problem....some more than others. That's not what I had in mind when I posted though.

Google is in a unique position because they approach having a monopoly on how people access and exchange information. Feel free to shrug, but it scares the daylights out of me.
Click to expand...

Google steers you to content. Google via Youtube is a huge content provider. So yeah, I get your concern and I share it. But, is that scarier than any of the large pharmaceutical companies? Or CNN/Fox/etc.? Amazon? Facebook? Shell? BP? Monsanto?

Heck, I work for a large multi-national corporation that has been smacked down hard for some bad practices in the past.

Basically, most of them scare the daylights out of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom