- This topic has 28 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by soph.
- August 8, 2013 at 8:44 am #11546
@Lupo, unless the stats have changed, about 30% of YT videos get 99% of the views. About half the videos get less than 500 views, and many get less than 100 views.
At about $.012 per view, the vast majority of people will make very little money, even if everyone on the planet is watching YT.
Probably a great tool for promoting your band. Not so much, right now, if you write production music.
BTW..RF is not a new business model. I produced over 20 RF collections in the 1980’s. It’s been around a long time.
From a legal perspective, the only thing that will change copyright law, as we know it (in the US), will be legislation or litigation. How do you envision YT changing copyright law? We’ll have to accomodate piracy becuase so many people are doing it? I don’t see SCOTUS or the US Congress going down tha road.
_MichaelAugust 8, 2013 at 8:48 am #11549Mark LewisParticipant
Now my take on contentID is a different matter altogether.
My gut feeling is that is something that could be crucial to redefine copyright as we know it.
I think you need to do some more research on what the youtube contentID system actually is.
Good luck.August 8, 2013 at 8:51 am #11551
What Mark said.August 8, 2013 at 9:03 am #11553LupoGuest
Sometimes I wonder if I have entirely forgotten how to communicate in english…August 8, 2013 at 9:57 am #11556
Sometimes I wonder if I have entirely forgotten how to communicate in english…
I don’t think that you’ve forgotten how to communicate. I, for one, need to remind myself that this is an international forum, and that language differences may give rise to different interpretations and meanings of the same subject.
MichaelAugust 8, 2013 at 9:24 pm #11568DPGuest
When people misrepresent themselves as industry professionals, and they’ve downloaded thousands of your cues after access has been granted to them (not to ever hear from them again), Content ID begins to sound appealing.
Given this, why go with Audium when you can go direct with YouTube? I’m guessing exclusive rights holders who aren’t tech/media savvy opt to give a % to a company that will handle it all.
Talk amongst yourselves…August 9, 2013 at 5:52 am #11571
@DP…very few of us would not want to participate in content ID, but are between a rock and a hard place.
I am the exclusive rights holder of my music, not any library through which I market my music. In theory, I should be able to participate in content ID.
The issue, if you’ve read this thread and all of the others, is that content ID creates problems for royalty free libraries and their customers, e.g. competitor’s ads placed on their videos and copyright violation notices etc. If you figure out how to work around that, we’ll all be on the bandwagon.
Until then, writers’ options are to 1) not participate in content ID, or
2) to market through one RF library exclsuively.
Most writers don’t have “thousands of cues.” Until internet royalties become substantial, option 2 is not viable for those with small or modest RF catalogs, who rely on income from numerous libraries.
If non-content-ID writers are interested in policing their catalogs, perhaps tunesat, or Audible Magic are options. At least then, they could detect the kind of theft/infringement that you describe.
_MichaelAugust 9, 2013 at 7:39 pm #11593DPGuest
@Michael, points well taken and as a writer I can certainly appreciate those concerns. HOWEVER, if someone steals my wind machine, rest assured I’m raising the sails.October 24, 2013 at 12:57 pm #13223sophGuest
Can anyone tell me who adshare Mg acts on behalf of?
I’m getting some false claims on some tracks.