Log In
Register
8.29pm
5 November 2011
Offline
Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong
The following people thank Little Piggy Dragonguy for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
8.34pm
14 February 2016
Offline
Little Piggy Dragonguy said
Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong
I am you as you are you as you are you and you are all together.
9.40pm
1 November 2013
Offline
Some laws are not good which ones is a discussion for another thread
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Little Piggy Dragonguy
9.53pm
19 May 2016
Offline Apple can’t legally block The Beatles from YouTube because of fair use.
4.44am
28 February 2016
Offline sgtpepper63 said
Apple can’t legally block The Beatles from YouTube because of fair use.
Prince seemed to of done a good job of blocking anything Prince related while he was alive
The following people thank Bullion for this post:
The Hippie Chick5.34am
1 November 2013
Offline Putting the Beatles song up as is is not fair use. If you were parodying the song or reviewing the song by including little bits of it that is fair use.
6.20am
17 January 2016
Offline 
Starr Shine? said
Putting the Beatles song up as is is not fair use. If you were parodying the song or reviewing the song by including little bits of it that is fair use.
Correct. By the law, if you are putting one of the promo films up on You Tube ripped right off the DVD / Blu Ray, you are essentially broadcasting it. Parodies and rewrites or little snatches in something is fair use.
Prince is a good example, he was also very strict on You Tube. So much so, I don’t know if you remember the lady who put a video of her kid up and there was a Prince song playing in the background? That got pulled and started a big thing iirc. I don’t know what is going to happen now that he’s gone… I saw some things up already right after his death in fact. But he always had complete and utter control of his musical output and work, as far as even owning all of the masters.
The following people thank The Hippie Chick for this post:
Starr Shine?“She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.” - J.D. Salinger
7.30am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Fair use guidelines state that you can use 10% of a work. So, if a Beatles song is 3 minutes long, you could post 30 seconds of it. Star Shine? perhaps you used 30 seconds or less in your recent “hidden”video so you were within the guidelines.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
7.54am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline There is an even bigger problem with the “fair use” argument than anyone has so far noticed. “Fair use” is an American legal doctrine that doesn’t apply elsewhere. Even if an American posted a video claiming “fair use”, virtually everywhere else YouTube allowed that video to be seen would involve copyright infringement.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
The Hippie Chick"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.56am
1 November 2013
Offline Ahhh Girl said
Fair use guidelines state that you can use 10% of a work. So, if a Beatles song is 3 minutes long, you could post 30 seconds of it. Star Shine? perhaps you used 30 seconds or less in your recent “hidden”video so you were within the guidelines.
Didn’t use any in that one. It was in my old ones. I guess that is true though it’s kinda strange how the Lyric one isn’t muted since the whole thing is Beatles music. I don’t use Beatles music on new YouTube videos anymore. I quite like my account.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Beatlebug7.58am
1 November 2013
Offline Ron Nasty said
There is an even bigger problem with the “fair use” argument than anyone has so far noticed. “Fair use” is an American legal doctrine that doesn’t apply elsewhere. Even if an American posted a video claiming “fair use”, virtually everywhere else YouTube allowed that video to be seen would involve copyright infringement.
They have country blocks, like a few of my videos are blocked in Germany and nowhere else.
9.23am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline I watched the hidden video once. I need to go back and revisit it.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Starr Shine?Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
1.49pm
19 May 2016
Offline I think that it should be legal for non profit use. If I post Fixing A Hole on YouTube, I wouldn’t be making a profit, whereas if I Counterfeited copies of The Beatles In Mono vinyl box set and sold them for half the price, I would be making a big profit and would be giving Apple a good reason to do something about it. Also, Is it Paul and Ringo who disagree with putting these songs on YouTube or is it someone else.
2.14pm
1 November 2013
Offline You probably could do for non profit use. You just need to fork over a bunch of money.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Bongo2.31pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline @sgtpepper63 said
I think that it should be legal for non profit use. If I post Fixing A Hole on YouTube, I wouldn’t be making a profit, whereas if I Counterfeited copies of The Beatles In Mono vinyl box set and sold them for half the price, I would be making a big profit and would be giving Apple a good reason to do something about it. Also, Is it Paul and Ringo who disagree with putting these songs on YouTube or is it someone else.
I’m sorry but I think that is total billhooks!
Give me one good reason why Paul and Ringo, Olivia and Yoko, Universal, should give up their earnings on “their” (obviously applies more to some than other) earnings of copyrighted material?
Giving something away for free I would think would have a far bigger impact on their potential sales than offering it at half price. In fact, I think offering it for free would dent the pirate version more than the official version, because given those people are going to choose between free or official.
That isn’t to say I’m not sometimes naughty, but as much as possible I want to pay the artist for their work.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
3.40pm
19 May 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
I’m sorry but I think that is total billhooks!
Give me one good reason why Paul and Ringo, Olivia and Yoko, Universal, should give up their earnings on “their” (obviously applies more to some than other) earnings of copyrighted material?
Giving something away for free I would think would have a far bigger impact on their potential sales than offering it at half price. In fact, I think offering it for free would dent the pirate version more than the official version, because given those people are going to choose between free or official.
That isn’t to say I’m not sometimes naughty, but as much as possible I want to pay the artist for their work.
1. Easy, because John and George can’t profit off of them because they are dead.
2. Like I said, the pirate would have so much money, he could light cigarettes with $20 bills, whereas the man giving it away would make more money standing behind a bush for 20 hours a day waiting for people to drop pennies.
3. Alright, Here’s a shopping list for you from thebeatles.com:
The Beatles In Stereo vinyl box set ($450)
The Beatles Love vinyl ($40)
And for a bonus, why not you try to track down Anthology on vinyl, costs about $50 a piece ($150)
Total cost to listen to most of The Beatles songs ($640), not including tracks like Carnival Of Light or anything in mono.
4.10pm
1 November 2013
Offline Don’t do vinyl then. If it is price, than stream it since it is cheaper.
Money goes to John and Georges family.
4.57pm
17 January 2016
Offline John and George’s ESTATES can profit. That would be their wives (Yoko, Olivia) / family.
“She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.” - J.D. Salinger
7.00pm
19 May 2016
Offline Starr Shine? said
Don’t do vinyl then. If it is price, than stream it since it is cheaper.Money goes to John and Georges family.
I was joking about the vinyl thing. I’ve seen people selling their old Beatles records for as cheap as $.25. My collection of Beatles records was bought by my mother for about $200 in total all when it first came out (she had a lot of albums). As for the money thing, I know it goes to their family, it still can’t go to them though.
6.37pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline It doesn’t matter who the money goes to, how much money they have, whether they are alive or dead, or the cost of downloads to us, the music currently belongs to Apple so it’s their decision in how to promote it online and in stores. Why should we be able to listen to the music for free or at a much cheaper cost? I download bootlegs etc but would prefer to see the artists get paid.
I do feel less guilty towards Apple as I (or family on my behalf) have paid thousand(s) of pounds for the music over the years but I would still choose to go and buy the product when/if they released them – tho there are exceptions to the rule, and that will make me a hypocrite no doubt but i’m not being held to ransom.
You can currently stream the Beatles for free with Spotify.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Necko, The Hippie Chick, Zig, Bongo"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
