3 ms·

How is that relevant? They were only paid for the audio license. Tabs are a separate copyright.

croes 6y ago
Because it sounded like he made profit of the works of others, but it's the other way around. They made profit of his work.
- fergbrain 6y ago
  Not quite, they were paid a licensing fee for the audio that he used. They were not paid for the tabs/sheet music, because that would require a _separate_ license. For example, when Taylor Swift plays her song "My Tears Ricochet" there's essentially two things that separately copyrighted: 1) The musical notes and words in that particular order, and 2) the performance itself (e.g. Taylor Swift performing it). [1] Using the performance itself is what YouTube typically has a licensing arrangement for. If you weren't on YouTube, you'd need to license it separately through ASCAP and pay them directly. Also, when you do license it you don't have carte blanche rights to do whatever you want with it, the license will come with limitations on where you can use it ("sync rights"[1]), both technology-wise (e.g. TV, radio, internet, mobile, etc) and sometimes even geographically (e.g. North America, Europe, USA/Canada, etc). In order to perform the work yourself in public, you actually need different permissions called performing rights [2]. These licenses will typically allow you to perform the work using a musical instrument and/or your voice. You'll often pay different amounts if you charge for your performance or not, if the performance is professional versus amateur. Also, you're not typically allowed to reproduce the sheet music or lyrics physically, either for sale or to give away. I suspect you'd also pay more for imprinting the words on a screen (e.g. sing-a-long style). All this complicated licensing is not part of the copyright law itself, it's separate is really more about contract law. Copyright law allows the copyright owner to assign rights, the owners have elected to assign them in a way designed to extract the most amount of profit from their asset. I'm not saying I like the way the copyright system works (I don't), but that's how the law is written. Also, I'm not a lawyer...just someone passionately upset about copyright and patent law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_rights [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights
- marcinzm 6y ago
  No, they made a profit of their work which he used via indirect license. He then also used other works (tabs) which he did not pay for. He in turn made money from Youtube monetization and patreon.
  - croes 6y ago
    Yes, but the TLDR sounded like, only he made money and the publishers got nothing.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      The TLDR said absolutely nothing about money for anyone involved. It didn't even imply it for any party involved. In fact it didn't even mention the music but only tabs.
      - croes 6y ago
        Tabs imply copyright violation implies someone is making money especially if it's on youtube.
projektfu 6y ago
Indeed, it should be going through ASCAP alone, and BMI shouldn’t be getting a cut.

Because it sounded like he made profit of the works of others, but it's the other way around. They made profit of his work.

fergbrain 6y ago
Not quite, they were paid a licensing fee for the audio that he used. They were not paid for the tabs/sheet music, because that would require a _separate_ license. For example, when Taylor Swift plays her song "My Tears Ricochet" there's essentially two things that separately copyrighted: 1) The musical notes and words in that particular order, and 2) the performance itself (e.g. Taylor Swift performing it). [1] Using the performance itself is what YouTube typically has a licensing arrangement for. If you weren't on YouTube, you'd need to license it separately through ASCAP and pay them directly. Also, when you do license it you don't have carte blanche rights to do whatever you want with it, the license will come with limitations on where you can use it ("sync rights"[1]), both technology-wise (e.g. TV, radio, internet, mobile, etc) and sometimes even geographically (e.g. North America, Europe, USA/Canada, etc). In order to perform the work yourself in public, you actually need different permissions called performing rights [2]. These licenses will typically allow you to perform the work using a musical instrument and/or your voice. You'll often pay different amounts if you charge for your performance or not, if the performance is professional versus amateur. Also, you're not typically allowed to reproduce the sheet music or lyrics physically, either for sale or to give away. I suspect you'd also pay more for imprinting the words on a screen (e.g. sing-a-long style). All this complicated licensing is not part of the copyright law itself, it's separate is really more about contract law. Copyright law allows the copyright owner to assign rights, the owners have elected to assign them in a way designed to extract the most amount of profit from their asset. I'm not saying I like the way the copyright system works (I don't), but that's how the law is written. Also, I'm not a lawyer...just someone passionately upset about copyright and patent law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_rights [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights
marcinzm 6y ago
No, they made a profit of their work which he used via indirect license. He then also used other works (tabs) which he did not pay for. He in turn made money from Youtube monetization and patreon.
- croes 6y ago
  Yes, but the TLDR sounded like, only he made money and the publishers got nothing.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    The TLDR said absolutely nothing about money for anyone involved. It didn't even imply it for any party involved. In fact it didn't even mention the music but only tabs.
    - croes 6y ago
      Tabs imply copyright violation implies someone is making money especially if it's on youtube.

projektfu 6y ago

Indeed, it should be going through ASCAP alone, and BMI shouldn’t be getting a cut.