I don’t watch his whining videos. I do enjoy his breakdowns as it blows me away to see the complexity behind even the most simple music. In fact, the more simple it sounds, the more complex it often is (e.g. The Cure’s “Just Like Heaven”).
The music biz as a whole needs to get out of its own way. Just like it took the exactly the wrong stance over Napster et al, it’s doing the same with the overzealous policing of fair use.
If someone simply takes your song and uses it in their own production then, sure, cease and desist away. But people like Beato who are genuinely critiquing/educating, or those doing movie reviews/breakdowns/reactions but can’t show a clip from the movie because of the music accompanying it, shouldn’t be getting their shit taken down.
Exactly. Beato monetizes his channel, and deciding to monetize on YouTube greatly reduces the ways you are allowed to use copyrighted content without permission.
All true. Some artists like the extra attention and don’t mind if someone is making money by promoting them. Hopefully the increased attention will be beneficial to the artist. Others are so afraid of having their copyrights violated or intellectual property stolen that they refuse any and all unauthorized access of their catalogues. U2 vs Negativland is a prime example of just how far legal teams will go to protect their client’s interests.
This is always the argument Beato and his ilk uses: I’m giving them free publicity, they should be thanking me for getting people to listen to their music. It doesn’t really dawn on him that it’s not about the exposure, it’s about controlling one’s creation.
That one and the one on Chicago’s “Make Me Smile” were the ones I was specifically thinking about, along with the one about Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne”. Not hard to figure how old I am.
