Lmao imagine being so humorless that not only do you not understand certain types of humor, but you actively seek and destroy humor elsewhere that you don't understand. ^src

Snapshots:

1. Youtube has a library of royalty fr... - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

Are you writing fiction now?

I don't even hate women, and I'm sure as hell not an incel. You seem to have just fabricated that bit. I've literally said like 20 times on here the "I hate women" bit is ironic.

-Pizzashill

Outlines:

1. This Post - Outline

^{I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues}

Name a more BASED company than YouTube

Reddit

Twitter

Gillette

The Root

lol no shit. Any music you don’t obtain the rights to will eventually be bought and your content will be removed.

CC licenses aren't revokable, retard. If you get something under CC you're allowed to use it under the license you got it under, otherwise Kevin McCloud would have as much control over YT as huge music companies.

Shut the fuck up you wannabe social influencer faggot.

Royalty free music isn’t free use. It just means the artist is unsigned. You should still request to purchase the music you sample from them. Because they still own that music and can sell it even if they never get signed to a label. If your music is only needed for a school project then keep using it unpaid for. But if you’re depending on using it for your gay ass YT intro then you should request to purchase it.

Notice how the retard strikes back in fear after realising he's wrong.

Do any reading whatsoever on CC. Not all royalty-free music is released under the same license, some is genuinely totally free, some require credit, some might have some other terms. This really isn't hard to understand, but it might be difficult for you to read with your head up your ass. You can't change licenses after the fact, otherwise the spergs who wanted to ban ICE from using their open source software would have won. You can't just bait with a CC license then pull the rug out from underneath the people who use it, that isn't how this works.

Request to purchase it? What the fuck do you mean? That's paying royalties, retard. Follow the terms of whatever license people release under and you are fine unless there's sampling drama like this.

Fuck me you're dumb.

I know this shit and I’m not going to waste my time going through the details of it for you. You can purchase royalty free music from artists. It’s done all the time for garbage ass video intros. You can license as well but again it isn’t free. Pay for what you use and you won’t risk getting your stupid YT videos from being demonetized.

Oh good, you know all this already, then you'll know what CC.org is and realise that it completely contradicts what you're saying if you can see through the haze of delusion.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license

You're just wrong dude. It's OK to be wrong. If you purchase royalty free music you're either a chump or like to support artists. If royalty-free actually worked like it does in your retarded brain, nobody would use Linux, nobody would use free music, and CC would be meaningless as a concept. Fortunately in the real world, people realise that would be fucking stupid.

Once you release music under a CC license (or any license), it's under that license for the people who download and use it. You can choose a different one after the fact, and sure then you can make people pay for it then, but the people who got it while it was under the license you originally chose get to keep it under that license. This really shouldn't be hard to understand but maybe I'm expecting too much for someone who spends their life posting on arr Drama.

Bitch I'm talking about music and music only here. I don't care about your stupid operating system example. Royalty Free only means the artist doesn't collect royalties when their music is played. That's all it means. You should either buy or license music so as to avoid potential demonetization if the artist sells their music. You don't end up owing money if it eventually falls under BMG but you will no longer receive revenue streams (demonetization) because you didn't license it.

If I buy an artist's masters and I find out that you're using music I own without paying me royalties for it then I would place a copyright claim on you or send a cease and desist based on how it's being used.

Pay artists for using their work or pay the consequences.

It's all copyright law at the end of the day you chimp. The broad strokes are more or less the same. Whether it's a song or software, it's easiest if you use CC to release it for free because the licenses are well written and protect the creator and the user as much as the creator wants. It would be the same with books, parents, or pictures of your tiny dick. You could write your own license that says you reserve the right to charge royalties, but that would make it not royalty free.

Since you're such a fucking genius who obviously knows more than CC's lawyers, get in touch with Kevin McCloud. You'll be a millionaire overnight if you retroactively change the license on all of his music. I thought you were pretending to be retarded but now I'm not so sure. People who release their stuff for free do so because they want it out for free, and they either get paid in donations or reputation. It's the same as open source programmers. To use a metaphor that you might have a chance of understanding, it's like jannies except they actually make something worthwhile that people like.

No one is saying you can get fees retroactively you failure at life. You don’t need to be a lawyer in order to understand the basics of music clearances. There are literally YT videos on this subject and yes I see the irony.

Any music you don’t obtain the rights to will eventually be bought and your content will be removed.

This involves changing the license. Try and keep up.

You’re refusing to understand simple concepts. I’m done with this conversation. Go make your vape review videos.

😂😂 You would have looked so much better if you just admitted you were wrong.

I already explained what happens to previously used works and currently used works in an earlier comment.

But it was wrong you fucking idiot.

Put it in plain English: how is it possible for someone who uses royalty free music that is fairly sampled, otherwise kosher, and released under a very free licence like CC-BY in a YouTube video for example, to have that video - in your own words - removed because the rights were bought by some third party?

(hint: it's not possible, and if it happened the rights "purchaser" would easily lose the case)

The funniest part is even if you did your cucked buying of a royalty-free song you would still have the same problem as the person in the article. Even if it was a non-free song it would have the same problem. I'm concerned for you, this shouldn't be this hard to understand. Did you learn about copyright law from react YouTubers or something?

Royalty Free doesn't mean it's under Creative Commons for free use.

Holy shit you said something that's correct for once. Shame that the song in the article was released under CC.

This is what I've been saying the entire time. It's not my fault you scored a 0 on the reading comprehension of your SATs. And I never mentioned anything about the article so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Your first fucking reply to this thread about this article is warning about the dangers of not licensing music when CC is a license. How the fuck am I the one lacking reading comprehension when in my first reply I'm explicitly talking about CC, like the one in the article?

"Not all royalty-free music is under the same license, some might have other terms"

I mentioned non-CC licensing in my 2nd reply as an aside, but I figured in a thread about an article we'd be talking about the fucking article. But I'm the one lacking reading comprehension, champ.

Here's where I explained that Royalty Free music doesn't mean it's "free use" / Fair Use.

My initial response was to the title and no I didn't read some shit about YouTube retards crying that their freebies were taken from them. "Content Creators" are failed entertainers who never made it to Hollywood.

Oh so you aren't quite as retarded as I thought, just incapable of reading a 200 word article, and then made a reply which with the context of the article makes you look like a retard. It was a CC song that allegedly sampled something else without permission, the creator was reasonable to think he was in the right.

Kinda disappointing tbh I liked the shit flinging.

Good stuff. I’ve got cookies to bake and a guest bathroom to clean before guests come over.

Yeah, I'm on the way back to my folks' for Christmas so it was good fun something to keep me busy on the train. Hope you have a nice night, RIAA glowie.

Please keep Hodor going, maybe he'll delete his account again 🤭

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/drama] Dramatards try their hand at copyright law

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

How to ruin YouTube, copyright strikes and kid friendly, repeat

Reminder that the #1 desired career path for pre-teens in the US is "YouTuber"

Dear god

They did grow up watching letsplayers and rich zoomers making shit vlogs