Rap About Nothing: Hip Hop Chat Thread

[lovehateself]

and he a fake vampire

#noguillermo

 

[therealest1]

This is a good point coming from Method Man. I always hated seeing these so-called collaboration songs on YouTube since the artists themselves never legitimately collaborated to record them altogether in a studio. The losers who make these videos aren't being creative at all. They're just splicing together prior content. It's basically leading people on who don't know any better into assuming it's new material from the established artists.

 

[rolaholic]

This is a good point coming from Method Man. I always hated seeing these so-called collaboration songs on YouTube since the artists themselves never legitimately collaborated to record them altogether in a studio. The losers who make these videos aren't being creative at all. They're just splicing together prior content. It's basically leading people on who don't know any better into assuming it's new material from the established artists.

I feel you 100% on the larger point but I can't act like I wasn't bumping stuff like this religiously during the early YouTube era in high school

 

[therealest1]

I feel you 100% on the larger point but I can't act like I wasn't bumping stuff like this religiously during the early YouTube era in high school

Wow. I never knew that song got tainted like that with a bootleg remix. And it's titled so incorrectly. If they're going to plagiarize like that, they could have at least titled it correctly as "The Game ft. 2Pac & Eazy-E".

But thanks for your honesty about that.

You got me reminiscing on the mid-2000s predicated on that song and the timing of YouTube. I believe that period was the early years of YouTube.

 

[2163O1baller90]

 

[2163O1baller90]

 

[Belgium]

This is a good point coming from Method Man. I always hated seeing these so-called collaboration songs on YouTube since the artists themselves never legitimately collaborated to record them altogether in a studio. The losers who make these videos aren't being creative at all. They're just splicing together prior content. It's basically leading people on who don't know any better into assuming it's new material from the established artists.

But you can just file a DMCA claim. Under currently established law, the way such copyright claims work is the "Fair use" standard.
If a video contains copyrighted content but is sufficiently "transformative", then it is considered "fair use" and therefore legal use of copyrighted material.
That's the basis behind 'reaction content' you see all over Youtube. As long as you provide sufficient commentary etc while you're using copyrighted content, it is considered "transformative" and therefore fair use.

This is NOT settled law and the current standard is why no one wants to take Youtube copyright disputes all the way to the US Supreme Court. This fair use standard was established in a previous court case but by a lower court, so it is not fully settled law.

I think there is a potential argument that splicing together copyrighted music could be considered "transformative" if it reached a courtroom but I very much doubt Youtube would side with the uploaders of these spliced videos that not only splice copyrighted music but also copyrighted footage from music videos.

Obviously these terms have a lot of room for interpretation but based on my knowledge specifically relating to Youtube copyright disputes, I think artists (or the label, whoever holds the copyright) would very likely be able to take videos like these down and collect the revenue from it during the period Youtube gives the uploader to dispute the claim.
All Method has to do is file a DMCA claim with Youtube. Then the uploader of this video will be forced to take down the video, remove the claimed parts (for example only Method Man's part) or dispute the claim. There's no shot anyone who uploads these kinds of videos would go to court.

When Kendrick released Not Like Us, he publicly stated he/his label would allow a grace period where they wouldn't file any copyright claims against videos reacting to Not Like Us for a certain period. 3 weeks or something if I recall.
Labels generally do this even without the artist necessarily being involved. Billy Eilish's label for example struck down a video but the copyright strike was dropped when she personally intervened and dropped the claim.

DMCA abuse is a rampant problem on Youtube because Youtube clearly doesn't have enough human manpower to review all these requests. There are countless examples of Youtube approving these DMCA claims that clearly weren't reviewed by an actual human being. Even well known Youtubers with over a million subs fall victim to this.
So some people go around filing false copyright claims that not only take down an innocent person's video but also collects their AdSense revenue.

It's practically guaranteed that Method Man could both take down these videos and collect the AdSense revenue from them. The only issue is that the DMCA claim needs to be filed by the current copyright holder, which I presume is not Method Man himself but his label at the time.

 

[Belgium]

In short, artists just need to get their label or whoever owns the copyright to file DMCA claims against those types of videos. They're virtually guaranteed to win and get the video taken down, along with any AdSense revenue the video made during the time period Youtube grants the uploader to dispute the claim.
To file a DMCA claim, all you need is to fill in a relatively simple form that doesn't even really require the use of a lawyer.

 

[smedroc]

 

[MakeNTGreatAgain]

whats her name?

whats her name

 

[Grine]

 

[therealest1]

 

[rolaholic]

 

[Grine]

Favorite Dolph Verse!

 

[daruma]

 

[a blinkin]

whats her name?

whats her name

@jennaske

Googled “kodak black girl from snot thot”

 

[Arthur Shelby]

 

[All_$tar1997]

 

[rolaholic]

 

[rolaholic]

Man wants to be Smino so bad these days

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

[thekillerj23]

Bron was at them bmf parties in Cancun lmao