Youtube guitar lessons under threat?

[Rosewood99]

Very worrisome.

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/are...s-under-threat

[dwasifar]

Copyright law is slanted in favor of big media. When you see things like Lee Sklar getting taken down for playing his own song, or John Fogerty in court having to prove he didn't plagiarize himself, there's something essentially wrong.

It's a truism that nobody makes money in the record business except the record companies. In their heyday, they occupied a default gatekeeper position between the artist and the listener. You want to hear this music? Fine, pay us and we'll bring it to you. Without other options, people complied, and the media companies got big and powerful, exerting control over the artists and the distribution channels.

Because of the internet, they now have a lot less reason to exist. We don't really need the record companies to bring us music anymore. But they still have power and money, so they use it to try to suppress other forms of distribution and maintain their increasingly pointless gatekeeper status.

In principle, copyright exists to serve society as a whole. The idea is to provide creators an opportunity to earn a living on their creations for a while, so they can continue to create for the greater benefit of all. It was not invented to protect a perpetual revenue stream for big media companies at the expense of creators and the public. We should be asking, "How does the greater good benefit when Lee Sklar and McG are forced to take down their own songs?" If there's no good answer to that, then copyright is being abused.

Rant concluded.

[Glennwillow]

Interesting...

I have 26 tutorial videos on my YouTube channel on how to play particular songs. Most of these tutorials have not even had a copyright claim, though some have. I have never received any strikes from YouTube over any infringement violations. If a copyright claim is made, YouTube simply attaches an ad to my video. Any viewer can mouse click on the "X" in the corner of the ad and make it disappear, so it's not a big deal.

So in my experience, this problem is not showing up for me. Not that I am a big player in this business. (I have at this point in time 1827 subscribers to my channel.) I don't even monetize my YouTube channel to make any money from it, because I hate YouTube ads. If someone asks me to make a tutorial, most of the time I will, simply to be helpful and spread the joy of guitar playing.

- Glenn

[Photojeep]

The Fair Use Doctrine of the Copyright Act, mentioned in the article, exists to allow "educational, critical, or even satirical comment" of copyrighted material. It's a very wide gray area that is intended for the simultaneous protection of copyrighted material and education or critical review.

One of the many criteria to determine if ones use is within the Fair Use Doctrine is to determine if using the copyrighted material, in one of the specified uses, will have a detrimental financial effect on the copyright holder. If someone cannot use their own material for educational purposes, clearly within the Fair Use Doctrine, the algorithm is clearly flawed as it violates the Copyright act itself. The copyright owner is the ONLY one who determines how copyrighted material can be "copied" (used.)

If rights managers are abusing this process it has become a legal matter and someone, somewhere, will need to litigate it.

In the meantime, I would encourage people to reach out to YouTube to highlight this problem. YouTube itself is actually held harmless in this issue due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act so they are not at risk themselves but could be if people start going elsewhere to post their videos.

I think this is clearly a misuse of existing law and until someone brings legal action it will only continue.

Best,
PJ

[LakewoodM32Fan]

I realize this is just my opinion, but when someone is showing someone else how to play the song...they’re teaching us how to play it. Which would imho qualify as educational use.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by dwasifar

Lee Sklar getting taken down for playing his own song,

It seems it wasn't his song, though:

"According to McG, Sklar recently put up a song he had recorded and performed with James Taylor and it was taken down by the copyright holders and people representing James Taylor and his music."

A little bit disappointed in JT, I must say.

[VJP5]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

A little bit disappointed in JT, I must say.

He might not even know about it. His label, agent, or attorney could have done that as his appointed representative.

If in fact he did know about it, I would be disappointed as well.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by VJP5

He might not even know about it. His label, agent, or attorney could have done that as his appointed representative.

Some of it even done by "seek and desist" bots. They scan uploaded videos with a Shazam-like music ID algorithm and send out a "this is copyrighted" email within moments of a video being posted. Real lawyers don't even have to get involved.