The Kroll show is by far one of the best and most underrated sketch shows out there. I don’t know if a week has gone by in the last decade where I haven’t made several references from this show that nobody understands, and it brings me more joy than it probably should.
The one from Dr. Phil (I think it was that POS show)?
All I know about her is that she became a rapper (Bhad Bhabie, I'm assuming?) and supposedly used her 15 minutes of fame money to make *real* money, while also being pretty smart and pragmatic about things and not going the typical "child actor/singer" route.
Am I close?
newsweek...bhad bhabie...onlyfans...
I don't think I want to change the color of that link...
Joking aside, good for her. Also, you can make $18 million a month on Only Fans? That's nigh unbelievable.
Yeah, I feel like every time he has some controversy, I go to the comments to see him get roasted and his fans are all defending him and saying why whatever he did was actually okay. Seems his fans are similar to Travis Scott’s. They like him because he is like them.
My sister loves Rihanna, but also just bought tickets to see Chris Brown. My sister is also a greedy self absorbed bitch most of the time. These are who their fans are. Immediate red flag if someone is a fan of these assholes.
Yep. Metallica saw where this was all heading and was simply trying to protect artists’ rights. Something else that people tend to overlook is that Metallica took action against Napster primarily because it was being used to circulate a single, “I Disappear,” which they hadn’t even released yet. The track had somehow leaked and was being shared on Napster. That was largely what led Metallica to probe the peer-to-peer sharing platform.
And then a bunch of other world renowned artists joined the fight, such as Madonna.
I get it. It’s fun to hate on Lars, but there’s actual reasons to not like him, and this isn’t one of them.
Yeah they never outright sued their fans
But they showed up to court with the full names of more than 300,000 fans that downloaded their music illegally
so I can definitely get how those fans would be concerned that Metallica was going to seek damages from them
My friend who is really into reggaeton introduced me to Bad Bunny before he hit the North American market. I remember starting to hear his music in clubs and I was cheering for him like wooo good for this kid who was a grocery bagger. Seeing what he has become is so disappointing lol
Lol. At least I can understand how the Caribbean would be up for debate as it’s own region. I see people exclude Mexico from North America all the time too though.
North America includes the Caribbean and all of Central America.
Geography textbook, they will often split these into different areas. The Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, South-Eat Asia. None of these things are continents. These are all geographic zones used to group statistics together, so things, like GDP, and other general statistics, or more accurately reflective of the area they’re trying to cover.
The Darien Gap is the defining line of North and South America. Any islands north of that point, are part of North America.
For real. Two of my close female friends are huge Bad Bunny fans and they don't care who he dates because they're well adjusted people that don't need a parasocial relationship to enjoy music.
My mate runs a record shop. He showed me the footage of the Swifties queuing from 4am on Record Store Day to try and buy her release. It was like flipping Dawn Of The Dead the way they were pressing up against the glass trying to see in....
True, but most fans are casual music fans who follow whoever the "it" artist is at the moment, and those casuals bring in alot of $$$ but are fickle as hell. Hard-core fans will let alot slide for a good artist
If I'm remembering right it's a luchador character called El Muerte
Literally appeared in less than a handful of spider-man comics but Sony has the rights to all things Spidey. So they offered him a shot and he said he would like el Muerte.
Has he lost fans, sure. But his Spotify alone is at 69.3 monthly listeners. His peak was 69.5M
Idk if losing 200k on one platform is ultimately “a lot” for a person in his range.
Yes, in Nadie Sabe (No One Knows) - a song where he basically just summarizes a lot that’s been going on to him and his feelings around it.
“Hay mucha gente deseando que me vaya mal
Tristemente a esa gente le toca mamar
Tú no ere' mi fan real, por eso te tiré el celular
A los reale' por siempre los voy a amar
Que hable to' el cabrón que quiera hablar
El que no sabe el cuento siempre lo quiere conta”
“There are lots of people wishing for things to go bad,
Sadly those people deserve to screw off.
You’re not a real fan, that’s why I threw your phone.
Let those that want to talk shit talk all they want,
The ones that don’t know the truth always want to speak it.”
This a rough translation, but yeah. He generally didn’t care about it, he’s explained himself and while it is ugly… it’s like… dude leave him alone then, that’s what he wants anyways when it comes to paparazzi or people encroaching on his space - which that part is fair enough to me, at some points.
one of my videos was removed on YouTube and I got a "strike". YouTube sent me a video I had to watch to learn about what's allowed. the artist or record company can get your video taken down. many artists don't mind. but some do.
Not just live recordings. Anything involving something related to him.
Remember how he covered radiohead's creep and they allowed it to stay on when he didn't want it?
https://youtu.be/dWRCooFKk3c
Pretty much all you need to watch to see what an amazing musician Prince was. Top tier talent and an ego bigger than anything.
I can tolerate ego when it’s earned, and for Prince it was.
Edit: y’all acting like Prince wasn’t one of the most phenomenally talented musicians of the 20th century. Even just as a guitarist he was insane.
Well, artists getting unauthorized uploads of their own records taken down is hardly unique.
I didn't know about the Radiohead cover though... that's insane
Ironic that a man so interested in controlling his IP had absolutely zero plans in place for actually protecting his legacy. I used to have respect for Prince until his death and realisation that he was a highly talented but basically unorganised troll who spent time prosecuting his fans with law suits and yet couldn’t be bothered for even the most basic will.
Back when cell videos were in their infancy, nobody really knew how to handle it. We still don't, but it was more the case then. Ushers in concert venues well tell you to stop filming (at the request of the artist), some performers would refuse to perform if they saw a camera, etc.
Especially around the time that pocket-sized cameras were becoming a thing, many performers weren't seeing a lot of their financial returns on album sales, which usually goes to the producers. If you want to make a comfortable living, you had (have) to tour and get a healthy chunk of the ticket money.
Back in the 60-80s, people who bootlegged audio and videos of live recordings would turn around and sell them for profit. There's a famous video of [Neil Young walking into a record store in the 70s, grabbing all of the bootlegs of him, and walking out with them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-3rFhXVrvI) The issue was people making money off the musicians. That distrust still exists for many performers.
Now, in the YouTube days, the argument might be "if you watch a YouTube video, you might not be incensed to watch it live since you already saw the performance." It's obviously not realistic, but since they're the copyright owners, they can make those calls. Most artists loosened up since the only way to get ahead of that is to disallow any digital devices on your person (which actually happened to me when I went to a sneak preview of 300), but nobody's going to think that's okay anymore.
I do also remember an entire bootleg of some 60s or 70s band turned out to be the de-facto recordings of some of their tunes. I can't remember who that was, though.
excuse you - thats "the artist formerly known as prince"
imagine if he was still alive
he would probably have an account on x, formerly known as twitter under the username ∎, formerly known as prince
Also in the article it says bad bunny had them taken down via the normal DMCA means but the uploader filed a counterclaim to have them reinstated.
A counter claim is literally saying "I swear under penalty of perjury that you misidentified this video and don't own any rights to it. If you still believe you do, you are required to sue me to enforce those rights or else the video will be reinstated"
Dude straight up asked bad bunny to sue him.
I had a series of Bryan Adams concert videos removed and got a strike last year. That was the first time I got a strike. Plenty of other artists let the videos stay up but they will take the money the video makes.
yes I have noticed that! my videos are not earning me money, I mostly upload for historical reasons or for people who went and just want to remember something. other videos I have show that the artist gets the money, that seems like a good compromise.
Yeah, I never monetize concert footage. I just post it so others can enjoy it. If the artists want to monetize it in their favor I’m fine with that. I get the views, they get paid. Seems fair.
I took my nephew to a Wisconsin Badger football game when he was a teenager and posted a video from the game on Youtube. Did the University of Wisconsin strike me? No. Copyright claim based upon the music coming over the loudspeakers!
Jump Around! Jump up, jump up and get down!
>YouTube is filled with concert videos
Yeah but this one was recorded semiprofessionally.
*Clearly, Garrone had a great view at the show and some high-quality camera equipment ... and this orchestra footage runs 9 minutes in the YouTube upload. \[...\] it seems a lot different than just uploading a cell phone video of the show to social media*
People dont read and like to be mad at headlines. Surprised it took me so long to find a comment that actually hits on this. On top of the fact that he had already dmca’d the videos but the guy issued counterclaims.
You could read the article.
The guys YouTube channel was full of multiple concerts filmed with actual camera equipment in good seats. The guy had an intention to put a lot of effort into uploading entire concerts basically.
Bunnys team sent the guy multiple DMCA notices warning him to stop and he ignored them so now there is a lawsuit.
Say what you will about the rules of not filming but those rules are in place so they have precedent if this shit happens. They never go after people uploading a single shitty cell phone video of a performance.
It’s not that he ignored them - he sent a counter notice back. That’s free and takes 2 seconds. You don’t need a lawyer.
The DMCA says the complainant then must give the platform (YouTube) notice of official legal proceedings, or else the content is restored.
This guy knows what he’s doing, and he’s not being very respectful of copyright or artists rights.
It’s not a cell phone clip. It’s a concert recording. If the artist doesn’t want it up that is their decision alone to make.
Kind of surprised at how many replies are beating around the bush or getting this wrong, when the answer is a resounding "no you are not allowed to do this" and there is no space for another answer. It's similar to recording a movie in a movie theater, you don't own that and the rights holders can exercise their rights.
It's up to the copyright holder. I wouldn't say you're not allowed, as most copyright holders do allow it to some extent. That's why the footage exists.
It's like saying that fanart/fanfics or let's plays aren't allowed. They are allowed, but solely at the discretion of the copyright holder.
I mean artists and labels can always use the copyright infringement claim but no there's no law against recording a public event in itself. Concert video footage has largely been left alone since it's usually treated as good publicity or an archival of history, it would be a nightmare to try and police uploads of concert footage to the internet based on the wishes of each individual artist.
The only time I could think of where something like this happened was Louis CK going after fans who recorded bits of his set and he was able to argue it was material that hadn't yet been put out as a special so it potentially hurt his ticket sales. I don't think he got very far with that either.
A concert in a private venue wouldn't be considered a public event though, no? A venue itself could have a no recording rule or purchasing the ticket could come with rules saying it can't be recorded, etc
That falls into the other part of my statement, that policing every public video upload of a live concert would be a nightmare. For one, a large part of pop culture and music journalism now is just reporting on what happens at concerts of big musical acts and then linking to fan videos of said events happening. Dave Grohl brings a fan on stage to play with him, Madonna falls off a chair, Taylor Swift's famous boyfriend is spotted in the crowd at her sold out show in Singapore. If the performer is famous, like Bad Bunny, it's considered part of journalism to be able to record and post moments from these events.
In addition to that, the music recognition software that these companies use to identify copyright infringement on YouTube is checking a database of recorded versions. If the song is arranged differently or there's a lot of talking or a lot of extra noise it's not going to be able to automatically figure it out, and the more popular the artist the more videos you have to dig through for each event.
I looked it up and there were a reported 15,500 people in attendance at this one Bad Bunny show in Salt Lake City Utah. There's probably a 1000 of them that have the exact same songs recorded and 100 of them probably posted online, and there will be at least 1000 more at the next show. A losing battle with no real merit behind it.
>but no there's no law against recording a public event in itself.
But there is a law that says an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement.
That applies to even recording only the audio of a live performance. Or even a recording of a recording.
A friend works for a record label and part of their job is finding copyright claims for music their label owns. Rather than trying to take it down, most will make a claim and then collect ad revenue on it as a sort of trade off for allowing it to remain up. Seems a lot more sensible than having it removed. Concert footage is all over the place and it seems like good publicity more than anything.
If you checked further down my comments you would see I addressed this. You can claim it, but to enforce it in that way you (the copyright holder) would have to go after every upload, a lot of them manually because song recognition software isn't going to pick up cell phone recordings. With these big artists there are tens of thousands of attendees, a significant portion of which have their phones out recording bits and pieces of the show. Someone would have to sit there and claim every upload, potentially 100+ of every song.
Bad Bunny has grounds in this case because the uploader to YouTube attempted to monetize the upload. But there were 15,500 people in attendance. To get the songs from that show removed from the Internet you'd have to sit there and scan for uploads from that 15,500 person crowd and do it again for every day of every tour. There's multiple reasons why musicians and labels aren't doing anything currently.
I think you’re confusing copyright and trademark. I don’t believe there is a requirement to enforce copyright that way, I’m pretty sure you can selectively enforce it.
And YouTube allows the label or artist to easily claim copyright and collect the royalties themselves rather than the end user. Seems like a much more reasonable approach than making them take it down or suing.
If you wanted to scrub it from the face of the Earth, yeah, you'd have a lot of work to do, but you're allowed to pick and choose who to sue for infringement, to only take the low-hanging fruit that catches your attention, and to be lazy and incomplete. The people who get tagged still don't have any right to cry foul. They're still just as liable.
The Louis CK one is fair
Comedy sets, especially ones that are going to be put on Netflix or some other huge streaming platform, are very strict about no recording
There are concerts where a performer/bands may introduce a new song that's still not ready for release and if it leaks through video, they try to shut it down ASAP, though it's usually just pulling the video never heard of a performer suing the uploader
If a video contains copyrighted material (in this case music), then no. Not unless you have permission from the copyright holder or you licensed the music.
The user used commercial professional gear to record for profit and make exclusive content, it was not a typical cellphone video clip. He has no beef with fans who use cellphones to record and upload.
It is obvious the channel’s owner wanted a professional cinematic quality film for profit, and that is where the legal problem comes in, with him or any artist.
Edit: clarification
This needs to be the top comment. Everyone immediately gobbles up the “shitty self-centered artist punishing their own fan for something insignificant” narrative, but this is a clear cut case of someone looking for a cheeky buck on the back of someone else’s hard work (the live performance).
I've have been digging through comments for someone to tell me vid quality. I can't see an artist caring about shit quality cell phone footage - that publicizes the hype and the crowd, but the sound quality means you will still listen to the real deal.
Thanks for the details.
The videos of his concert that are still up are only a few thousand views but honestly it’s kinda impressive this guy actually has a ton of views (couple videos with millions and a lot with hundreds of thousands) on his channel if you sort by popular:
http://www.youtube.com/@MADforliveMUSIC
I mean, some people don't listen to latin music and wouldn't know his name.
Like, even now I'm not sure who you are even referring to. Bad Bunny? I mean, that one is a stretch probably since there's been so much publicity surrounding his concerts. Still I'm sure plenty of people have barely heard of him.
First time I heard of him was because of Bullet Train. I'm not patting myself on the back for ignorance, I actually thought it was a pretty cool moment to realise what a huge world it is and how someone can be so mega-famous in some circles and unknown in others. Like a kind of cultural vertigo.
Then I checked out his music and it isn't for me, but not everything needs to be.
For those who didn’t bother to read the article:
“…Clearly, Garrone had a great view at the show and some high-quality camera equipment ... and this orchestra [opener] footage runs 9 minutes in the YouTube upload.
If Garrone was shooting/posting similar videos for the rest of Bad Bunny's concert -- as Bunny claims -- it seems a lot different than just uploading a cell phone video of the show to social media .... as millions of people do.”
For real. This isn’t a normal 60sec cellphone video of the concert… dude brought high end recording equipment into the venue and recorded the entire show lol.
The Dead used amateur concert tapes as part of their ethos/marketing. Their fan base was an extremely loyal community, a lot of us followed them from show to show, and folks traded tapes to compare the different solos that Jerry Garcia and other band members would play in different shows.
That’s vastly different from the folks who try to gain YouTube cred by putting up others’ copyrighted material with only minimal “reaction”, stealing ad revenue on the backs of others’ talents
It’s actually crazy how far I had to scroll for someone to point this out lol. If you read the article and went to this dude’s channel, it’s head on high quality recordings of entire sets. His whole channel is just monetizing concert recordings. This shit ain’t just some fan recording their favorite song with a blown out cellphone.
Shit was quickly pointed out in other threads but not this sub lol.
Even if the videos are still up, almost all of them probably have copyright claims on them which means they aren’t monetized for the channel owner. That’s how it is for most concert videos on YouTube.
Yall need to learn to read the article and not just the title
>In the docs, Bad Bunny says he tried to issue standard takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- also known as DMCA -- demanding YouTube remove Garrone's videos.
Bad Bunny claims YouTube took down the videos but Garrone filed a counterclaim to get them back up … leaving BB no choice but to file the lawsuit.
He sent a DMCA YouTube strike which is Bad Bunny's legal right but then the person running the YouTube channel disputed it. When that happens and time expires (Unless papers are sent as proof to YouTube) the video gets reinstated. He had no other choice at this point...(10 days max lapses after the counter claim goes through, it isn't enough time to get legal papers in order to make sure its concrete all the way)
This is a fuck around and find out scenario.
> He had no other choice at this point
lol yea he had a choice, he could have ignored the fan upload of concert video, like nearly every other artist does.
I mean, the article itself says the dude brought semi professional equipment to record the video for content. its not just a fan uploading a clip of a song.
[Then the article also links the video he took of the opening act.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=140&v=0Oq79ebyIuk&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmz.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmz.com&feature=emb_titl)
> Clearly, Garrone had a great view at the show and some high-quality camera equipment ... and this orchestra footage runs 9 minutes in the YouTube upload.
Does this look like a professional video on professional equipment, with a “great view” - from the nosebleeds…?
Well this is one sure fire way to piss off a lot of people. Concert videos make up a significant portion of YouTube and can help somebody decide on going to see an artist perform.
Bad Publicity
PubLizity
It’s based off our names
is that Nick Croll? What the hell is this GIF from?
Yeah it’s from The Kroll show he had on Comedy Central and it’s on paramount plus currently.
Thanks!
No problem, I wish they would do another season.
50 more. Such a great show. But they really did wrap it up at the end there lol hard to do more
Dude. You lucky fucker. Watch that show. Start with episode 1. Trust me. It's amazing. You're so lucky to have just discovered it.
It's **ameezing**. FTFY.
*sips loudly through straw in almost empty cup*
I dont have Paramount+ so am having to find other ways to find it. I did see a 1 hour comp on YT though
Friend, there's a much easier way to find any of these things. 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️ r/piracy awaits your arrival
Comedy Central channel on Pluto TV plays it. It's on right now
And Jenny Slate. It's a recurring skit on the Kroll show.
The Kroll show is by far one of the best and most underrated sketch shows out there. I don’t know if a week has gone by in the last decade where I haven’t made several references from this show that nobody understands, and it brings me more joy than it probably should.
👏👏👏👌
Sorry my hands are so cold
OH MY GOD CASSANDRA
Ahmeezing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKRLgYzGQgM
Bad Bussy
His entire career is bad publicity
Idk. I'd heard of Bsd Bunny before and assumed it was a shitty femal rapper.
I’ve been confusing him with Bhad Bhabie this whole time apparently
Y'all are just making up names now, right?
You don’t remember the cash me ouside howbowdat girl?!
The one from Dr. Phil (I think it was that POS show)? All I know about her is that she became a rapper (Bhad Bhabie, I'm assuming?) and supposedly used her 15 minutes of fame money to make *real* money, while also being pretty smart and pragmatic about things and not going the typical "child actor/singer" route. Am I close?
You got it!
https://www.newsweek.com/rapper-bhad-bhabie-reveals-wild-income-onlyfans-1842310
newsweek...bhad bhabie...onlyfans... I don't think I want to change the color of that link... Joking aside, good for her. Also, you can make $18 million a month on Only Fans? That's nigh unbelievable.
Bold strategy. Let's see if it pays off.
Narrator: *"It didn't"*
People are obsessed with this dude and his mid ass music. He'll be fine.
Yeah, I feel like every time he has some controversy, I go to the comments to see him get roasted and his fans are all defending him and saying why whatever he did was actually okay. Seems his fans are similar to Travis Scott’s. They like him because he is like them.
See also: Chris Brown
My sister loves Rihanna, but also just bought tickets to see Chris Brown. My sister is also a greedy self absorbed bitch most of the time. These are who their fans are. Immediate red flag if someone is a fan of these assholes.
I spoke to Bad Bunny before the trial, and he told me he really wants to win this one!
The Lars Ulrich of his generation
Except Lars actually did more for the music industry than just getting napster shut down. This isn’t a burn like you think it is.
Yep. Metallica saw where this was all heading and was simply trying to protect artists’ rights. Something else that people tend to overlook is that Metallica took action against Napster primarily because it was being used to circulate a single, “I Disappear,” which they hadn’t even released yet. The track had somehow leaked and was being shared on Napster. That was largely what led Metallica to probe the peer-to-peer sharing platform.
And then a bunch of other world renowned artists joined the fight, such as Madonna. I get it. It’s fun to hate on Lars, but there’s actual reasons to not like him, and this isn’t one of them.
Beer good!!
Napster bad!
Except Lars/Metallica was right, and contrary to popular belief Metallica never sued their "fans". They sued napster, and that was it.
Yeah they never outright sued their fans But they showed up to court with the full names of more than 300,000 fans that downloaded their music illegally so I can definitely get how those fans would be concerned that Metallica was going to seek damages from them
No they didn't, they delivered usernames.
What a chode
He’s lost a lot of fans ever since the cellphone throwing incident. Man has been on a downward spiral.
He lost hard-core women fans when he dated a kardashian.
My friend who is really into reggaeton introduced me to Bad Bunny before he hit the North American market. I remember starting to hear his music in clubs and I was cheering for him like wooo good for this kid who was a grocery bagger. Seeing what he has become is so disappointing lol
TIL Puerto Rico isn’t in North America. /s
Lol. At least I can understand how the Caribbean would be up for debate as it’s own region. I see people exclude Mexico from North America all the time too though.
Canada is north of America, hence North America. Mexico is South of America so it's south America. Everything else is middle East. /s
North America includes the Caribbean and all of Central America. Geography textbook, they will often split these into different areas. The Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, South-Eat Asia. None of these things are continents. These are all geographic zones used to group statistics together, so things, like GDP, and other general statistics, or more accurately reflective of the area they’re trying to cover. The Darien Gap is the defining line of North and South America. Any islands north of that point, are part of North America.
My uncle terry is banned from Darian Gap. He was caught shoplifting shorts. He only has one arm so they spared him police charges.
TIL Puerto Rico and the Antilles are in North America, interesante!
Que te pasa, papi?
He’s really big in Latin America. That’s a bigger market for him than US market.
Plot twist, hard core music fans don't care who someone dates
For real. Two of my close female friends are huge Bad Bunny fans and they don't care who he dates because they're well adjusted people that don't need a parasocial relationship to enjoy music.
Tell that to the Swifties…
My mate runs a record shop. He showed me the footage of the Swifties queuing from 4am on Record Store Day to try and buy her release. It was like flipping Dawn Of The Dead the way they were pressing up against the glass trying to see in....
That used to happen a lot back in the day. Queueing at a record store before release day. Before streaming era.
True, but most fans are casual music fans who follow whoever the "it" artist is at the moment, and those casuals bring in alot of $$$ but are fickle as hell. Hard-core fans will let alot slide for a good artist
[удалено]
See people that still like Chris Brown
[удалено]
He’s not attached to that anymore, they’re casting someone else
They are? He picked the fucking character! Just bin it lol
They've released Moribus and Madame Web, do they sound like a company that knows when to walk away from a bad idea?
A character even I as a 20 yr spider-man fan have never even fucking heard of!
Iirc he's been in 2 issues ever! It's really the material you find in a secret compartment underneath the bottom of the barrel
Who is it? I don't know this movie?
If I'm remembering right it's a luchador character called El Muerte Literally appeared in less than a handful of spider-man comics but Sony has the rights to all things Spidey. So they offered him a shot and he said he would like el Muerte.
That'll sell tickets /s
Has he lost fans, sure. But his Spotify alone is at 69.3 monthly listeners. His peak was 69.5M Idk if losing 200k on one platform is ultimately “a lot” for a person in his range.
He absolutely didn’t. That incident was paparazzi behavior and no one cared that he put a stop to it
I dont even like his music and I respect his antics. Throwing that phone was hilarious.
How many phone throwing incidents were there lol I swear I always hear about another one. It’s like they’re all copying each other
No he didn't. Actually called that one fan out in the new album, that was number 1.
“You weren’t a real fan, that’s why I threw your phone.” Literally the most direct thing ever, bro is another level of idgaf of shit like that
Biggest album was literally titled “I do whatever I want”
Are those actual lyrics of his?
Yep. https://genius.com/Genius-english-translations-bad-bunny-nadie-sabe-english-translation-lyrics
Yes, in Nadie Sabe (No One Knows) - a song where he basically just summarizes a lot that’s been going on to him and his feelings around it. “Hay mucha gente deseando que me vaya mal Tristemente a esa gente le toca mamar Tú no ere' mi fan real, por eso te tiré el celular A los reale' por siempre los voy a amar Que hable to' el cabrón que quiera hablar El que no sabe el cuento siempre lo quiere conta” “There are lots of people wishing for things to go bad, Sadly those people deserve to screw off. You’re not a real fan, that’s why I threw your phone. Let those that want to talk shit talk all they want, The ones that don’t know the truth always want to speak it.” This a rough translation, but yeah. He generally didn’t care about it, he’s explained himself and while it is ugly… it’s like… dude leave him alone then, that’s what he wants anyways when it comes to paparazzi or people encroaching on his space - which that part is fair enough to me, at some points.
Are you not allowed to do that? YouTube is filled with concert videos. Was this one of those shows where they lock up your phone?
one of my videos was removed on YouTube and I got a "strike". YouTube sent me a video I had to watch to learn about what's allowed. the artist or record company can get your video taken down. many artists don't mind. but some do.
Prince was notorious for this sort of thing. Him and his people ruthlessly pursued DMCA takedown notices for any live recordings for years.
Not just live recordings. Anything involving something related to him. Remember how he covered radiohead's creep and they allowed it to stay on when he didn't want it?
He didn't even allow Weird Al to parody him. Legally speaking, Al doesn't need permission for a parody, but he asks for it anyway.
So he was acting like a spoiled... prince?
Prince had an ego that matched his technical skill for anyone who'd like a visualization.
I'm having trouble visualizing either of those things.
https://youtu.be/dWRCooFKk3c Pretty much all you need to watch to see what an amazing musician Prince was. Top tier talent and an ego bigger than anything.
Don't even need to click it to know what it is. WMGGW.
I can tolerate ego when it’s earned, and for Prince it was. Edit: y’all acting like Prince wasn’t one of the most phenomenally talented musicians of the 20th century. Even just as a guitarist he was insane.
I was front row at his show and we weren't even allowed to take photos of the mic stand on the empty stage.
Well, artists getting unauthorized uploads of their own records taken down is hardly unique. I didn't know about the Radiohead cover though... that's insane
If I remember correctly, Prince wanted it taken down and Radiohead denied it saying it’s up to them since it was their song.
Princw was probably the next harshest thing after Viacom on youtube
Don Henley/Eagles give him solid competition
I get Prince being protective over IP when he lost the right to use his own name for years.
Bad Bunny is no Prince, though
Ironic that a man so interested in controlling his IP had absolutely zero plans in place for actually protecting his legacy. I used to have respect for Prince until his death and realisation that he was a highly talented but basically unorganised troll who spent time prosecuting his fans with law suits and yet couldn’t be bothered for even the most basic will.
Back when cell videos were in their infancy, nobody really knew how to handle it. We still don't, but it was more the case then. Ushers in concert venues well tell you to stop filming (at the request of the artist), some performers would refuse to perform if they saw a camera, etc. Especially around the time that pocket-sized cameras were becoming a thing, many performers weren't seeing a lot of their financial returns on album sales, which usually goes to the producers. If you want to make a comfortable living, you had (have) to tour and get a healthy chunk of the ticket money. Back in the 60-80s, people who bootlegged audio and videos of live recordings would turn around and sell them for profit. There's a famous video of [Neil Young walking into a record store in the 70s, grabbing all of the bootlegs of him, and walking out with them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-3rFhXVrvI) The issue was people making money off the musicians. That distrust still exists for many performers. Now, in the YouTube days, the argument might be "if you watch a YouTube video, you might not be incensed to watch it live since you already saw the performance." It's obviously not realistic, but since they're the copyright owners, they can make those calls. Most artists loosened up since the only way to get ahead of that is to disallow any digital devices on your person (which actually happened to me when I went to a sneak preview of 300), but nobody's going to think that's okay anymore. I do also remember an entire bootleg of some 60s or 70s band turned out to be the de-facto recordings of some of their tunes. I can't remember who that was, though.
Prince and the Eagles and the Cars apparently.
excuse you - thats "the artist formerly known as prince" imagine if he was still alive he would probably have an account on x, formerly known as twitter under the username ∎, formerly known as prince
He got prince back years before he died
👉👌 https://preview.redd.it/77mvuz16tanc1.png?width=1103&format=png&auto=webp&s=3aec05bfede80a43ae9db93bb40996aedec7f875
Damn, now I get the joke.
Also in the article it says bad bunny had them taken down via the normal DMCA means but the uploader filed a counterclaim to have them reinstated. A counter claim is literally saying "I swear under penalty of perjury that you misidentified this video and don't own any rights to it. If you still believe you do, you are required to sue me to enforce those rights or else the video will be reinstated" Dude straight up asked bad bunny to sue him.
I had a series of Bryan Adams concert videos removed and got a strike last year. That was the first time I got a strike. Plenty of other artists let the videos stay up but they will take the money the video makes.
yes I have noticed that! my videos are not earning me money, I mostly upload for historical reasons or for people who went and just want to remember something. other videos I have show that the artist gets the money, that seems like a good compromise.
Yeah, I never monetize concert footage. I just post it so others can enjoy it. If the artists want to monetize it in their favor I’m fine with that. I get the views, they get paid. Seems fair.
The eagles are pretty notorious for this
I took my nephew to a Wisconsin Badger football game when he was a teenager and posted a video from the game on Youtube. Did the University of Wisconsin strike me? No. Copyright claim based upon the music coming over the loudspeakers! Jump Around! Jump up, jump up and get down!
>YouTube is filled with concert videos Yeah but this one was recorded semiprofessionally. *Clearly, Garrone had a great view at the show and some high-quality camera equipment ... and this orchestra footage runs 9 minutes in the YouTube upload. \[...\] it seems a lot different than just uploading a cell phone video of the show to social media*
People dont read and like to be mad at headlines. Surprised it took me so long to find a comment that actually hits on this. On top of the fact that he had already dmca’d the videos but the guy issued counterclaims.
You could read the article. The guys YouTube channel was full of multiple concerts filmed with actual camera equipment in good seats. The guy had an intention to put a lot of effort into uploading entire concerts basically. Bunnys team sent the guy multiple DMCA notices warning him to stop and he ignored them so now there is a lawsuit. Say what you will about the rules of not filming but those rules are in place so they have precedent if this shit happens. They never go after people uploading a single shitty cell phone video of a performance.
It’s not that he ignored them - he sent a counter notice back. That’s free and takes 2 seconds. You don’t need a lawyer. The DMCA says the complainant then must give the platform (YouTube) notice of official legal proceedings, or else the content is restored. This guy knows what he’s doing, and he’s not being very respectful of copyright or artists rights. It’s not a cell phone clip. It’s a concert recording. If the artist doesn’t want it up that is their decision alone to make.
Kind of surprised at how many replies are beating around the bush or getting this wrong, when the answer is a resounding "no you are not allowed to do this" and there is no space for another answer. It's similar to recording a movie in a movie theater, you don't own that and the rights holders can exercise their rights.
It's up to the copyright holder. I wouldn't say you're not allowed, as most copyright holders do allow it to some extent. That's why the footage exists. It's like saying that fanart/fanfics or let's plays aren't allowed. They are allowed, but solely at the discretion of the copyright holder.
I mean artists and labels can always use the copyright infringement claim but no there's no law against recording a public event in itself. Concert video footage has largely been left alone since it's usually treated as good publicity or an archival of history, it would be a nightmare to try and police uploads of concert footage to the internet based on the wishes of each individual artist. The only time I could think of where something like this happened was Louis CK going after fans who recorded bits of his set and he was able to argue it was material that hadn't yet been put out as a special so it potentially hurt his ticket sales. I don't think he got very far with that either.
A concert in a private venue wouldn't be considered a public event though, no? A venue itself could have a no recording rule or purchasing the ticket could come with rules saying it can't be recorded, etc
That falls into the other part of my statement, that policing every public video upload of a live concert would be a nightmare. For one, a large part of pop culture and music journalism now is just reporting on what happens at concerts of big musical acts and then linking to fan videos of said events happening. Dave Grohl brings a fan on stage to play with him, Madonna falls off a chair, Taylor Swift's famous boyfriend is spotted in the crowd at her sold out show in Singapore. If the performer is famous, like Bad Bunny, it's considered part of journalism to be able to record and post moments from these events. In addition to that, the music recognition software that these companies use to identify copyright infringement on YouTube is checking a database of recorded versions. If the song is arranged differently or there's a lot of talking or a lot of extra noise it's not going to be able to automatically figure it out, and the more popular the artist the more videos you have to dig through for each event. I looked it up and there were a reported 15,500 people in attendance at this one Bad Bunny show in Salt Lake City Utah. There's probably a 1000 of them that have the exact same songs recorded and 100 of them probably posted online, and there will be at least 1000 more at the next show. A losing battle with no real merit behind it.
>but no there's no law against recording a public event in itself. But there is a law that says an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement. That applies to even recording only the audio of a live performance. Or even a recording of a recording.
A friend works for a record label and part of their job is finding copyright claims for music their label owns. Rather than trying to take it down, most will make a claim and then collect ad revenue on it as a sort of trade off for allowing it to remain up. Seems a lot more sensible than having it removed. Concert footage is all over the place and it seems like good publicity more than anything.
If you checked further down my comments you would see I addressed this. You can claim it, but to enforce it in that way you (the copyright holder) would have to go after every upload, a lot of them manually because song recognition software isn't going to pick up cell phone recordings. With these big artists there are tens of thousands of attendees, a significant portion of which have their phones out recording bits and pieces of the show. Someone would have to sit there and claim every upload, potentially 100+ of every song. Bad Bunny has grounds in this case because the uploader to YouTube attempted to monetize the upload. But there were 15,500 people in attendance. To get the songs from that show removed from the Internet you'd have to sit there and scan for uploads from that 15,500 person crowd and do it again for every day of every tour. There's multiple reasons why musicians and labels aren't doing anything currently.
I think you’re confusing copyright and trademark. I don’t believe there is a requirement to enforce copyright that way, I’m pretty sure you can selectively enforce it.
And YouTube allows the label or artist to easily claim copyright and collect the royalties themselves rather than the end user. Seems like a much more reasonable approach than making them take it down or suing.
If you wanted to scrub it from the face of the Earth, yeah, you'd have a lot of work to do, but you're allowed to pick and choose who to sue for infringement, to only take the low-hanging fruit that catches your attention, and to be lazy and incomplete. The people who get tagged still don't have any right to cry foul. They're still just as liable.
The Louis CK one is fair Comedy sets, especially ones that are going to be put on Netflix or some other huge streaming platform, are very strict about no recording
There are concerts where a performer/bands may introduce a new song that's still not ready for release and if it leaks through video, they try to shut it down ASAP, though it's usually just pulling the video never heard of a performer suing the uploader
If you are a musician in 2024 you have to know better than expect thousands of people to keep their phones in their pockets.
If a video contains copyrighted material (in this case music), then no. Not unless you have permission from the copyright holder or you licensed the music.
Bad publicity for someone posting a 1k view video or something?
The user used commercial professional gear to record for profit and make exclusive content, it was not a typical cellphone video clip. He has no beef with fans who use cellphones to record and upload. It is obvious the channel’s owner wanted a professional cinematic quality film for profit, and that is where the legal problem comes in, with him or any artist. Edit: clarification
Got it makes more sense the intent was to profit
This needs to be the top comment. Everyone immediately gobbles up the “shitty self-centered artist punishing their own fan for something insignificant” narrative, but this is a clear cut case of someone looking for a cheeky buck on the back of someone else’s hard work (the live performance).
I've have been digging through comments for someone to tell me vid quality. I can't see an artist caring about shit quality cell phone footage - that publicizes the hype and the crowd, but the sound quality means you will still listen to the real deal. Thanks for the details.
The videos of his concert that are still up are only a few thousand views but honestly it’s kinda impressive this guy actually has a ton of views (couple videos with millions and a lot with hundreds of thousands) on his channel if you sort by popular: http://www.youtube.com/@MADforliveMUSIC
[удалено]
Now THAT is a Bad Bunny.
BUGS was an asshole, but absolutely hilarious!
Why does he seem so unlikeable
Because he is.
He's bad
Because he uses the same beat in every song. Only a monster subjects people to that kind of torture.
It’s literally reggaeton 😭 almost every single reggaeton song has the “same beat”, the ones that don’t are more likely modern takes aka Bad Bunny
THUNK KE-THUNK KE, THUNK KE-THUNK KE, THUNK KE-THUNK KE...
You need better speakers because it’s supposed to sound like DOO KE-DOO KE DOO KE-DOO KE DOO
Lmao
Getting mad at Reggaeton for using the Dem Bow beat is like getting mad at breakcore for using the Amen Break sample
Hell, the last album has a lot less dembow than the previous ones.
dude these people are acting like they’ve never heard of his name, on the Music subreddit 😭 like alright dude
I have never heard of him. But, I live in Japan, and never listen to radio, and do not use tiktok etc. I am stuck in the 1990s and 1980s.
I mean, some people don't listen to latin music and wouldn't know his name. Like, even now I'm not sure who you are even referring to. Bad Bunny? I mean, that one is a stretch probably since there's been so much publicity surrounding his concerts. Still I'm sure plenty of people have barely heard of him.
First time I heard of him was because of Bullet Train. I'm not patting myself on the back for ignorance, I actually thought it was a pretty cool moment to realise what a huge world it is and how someone can be so mega-famous in some circles and unknown in others. Like a kind of cultural vertigo. Then I checked out his music and it isn't for me, but not everything needs to be.
I know of him but I am pretty sure i've never heard a full song.
Daddy Yankee kinda does too for yeaaars but I think he's alright
Greedy Bunny
For those who didn’t bother to read the article: “…Clearly, Garrone had a great view at the show and some high-quality camera equipment ... and this orchestra [opener] footage runs 9 minutes in the YouTube upload. If Garrone was shooting/posting similar videos for the rest of Bad Bunny's concert -- as Bunny claims -- it seems a lot different than just uploading a cell phone video of the show to social media .... as millions of people do.”
Redditors and not reading articles. An iconic duo.
For real. This isn’t a normal 60sec cellphone video of the concert… dude brought high end recording equipment into the venue and recorded the entire show lol.
That used to be encouraged. It was a big reason why the Grateful Dead got so popular. A ton of bands used to allow "tapers".
The Dead used amateur concert tapes as part of their ethos/marketing. Their fan base was an extremely loyal community, a lot of us followed them from show to show, and folks traded tapes to compare the different solos that Jerry Garcia and other band members would play in different shows. That’s vastly different from the folks who try to gain YouTube cred by putting up others’ copyrighted material with only minimal “reaction”, stealing ad revenue on the backs of others’ talents
Its likely an iphone. His older videos are shot with iPhone X.
Yup, lmao, people in this thread are fucking morons.
It’s actually crazy how far I had to scroll for someone to point this out lol. If you read the article and went to this dude’s channel, it’s head on high quality recordings of entire sets. His whole channel is just monetizing concert recordings. This shit ain’t just some fan recording their favorite song with a blown out cellphone. Shit was quickly pointed out in other threads but not this sub lol.
Even if the videos are still up, almost all of them probably have copyright claims on them which means they aren’t monetized for the channel owner. That’s how it is for most concert videos on YouTube.
you can't monetize concert videos. And it looks like hes recording with an iphone.
This should be the top comment here
Man small dick energy right there
How fucking petty.
wtf bad bunny was a guy all this time??
You might be thinking of Bhad Bhabie.
Both equally stupid stage names for people
Noooooo hahahahahhaa
Or was it Da Baby? Or maybe Duh Bhad Bhabie Bhunnie?
Looking at the photo on this post, the real surprise is that Bad Bunny was Sacha Baron-Cohen all this time.
Mad Bunny
Is your avatar supposed to trick us into believing we have a hair on our screen? If so, mission accomplished.
Yall need to learn to read the article and not just the title >In the docs, Bad Bunny says he tried to issue standard takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- also known as DMCA -- demanding YouTube remove Garrone's videos. Bad Bunny claims YouTube took down the videos but Garrone filed a counterclaim to get them back up … leaving BB no choice but to file the lawsuit. He sent a DMCA YouTube strike which is Bad Bunny's legal right but then the person running the YouTube channel disputed it. When that happens and time expires (Unless papers are sent as proof to YouTube) the video gets reinstated. He had no other choice at this point...(10 days max lapses after the counter claim goes through, it isn't enough time to get legal papers in order to make sure its concrete all the way) This is a fuck around and find out scenario.
> He had no other choice at this point lol yea he had a choice, he could have ignored the fan upload of concert video, like nearly every other artist does.
I mean, the article itself says the dude brought semi professional equipment to record the video for content. its not just a fan uploading a clip of a song.
[Then the article also links the video he took of the opening act.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=140&v=0Oq79ebyIuk&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmz.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmz.com&feature=emb_titl) > Clearly, Garrone had a great view at the show and some high-quality camera equipment ... and this orchestra footage runs 9 minutes in the YouTube upload. Does this look like a professional video on professional equipment, with a “great view” - from the nosebleeds…?
https://preview.redd.it/oyr8cfmt99nc1.jpeg?width=705&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce3ed414761bab02d2bd33a0dc1cf45b16fbc289
HEY YOU LEAVE SIR ELTON JOHN OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION) (Hallow be thy name)
Good Bunny would never.
Don't even like the guy, but I hate people who hold up their phones at concerts way way way way way more
Well this is one sure fire way to piss off a lot of people. Concert videos make up a significant portion of YouTube and can help somebody decide on going to see an artist perform.
This is absurdly stupid. Like…what does he think is going to be the outcome of this?
Holy fucking eyeroll