February 13, 2015 at 10:35 am #20040JayGuest
Dave, you may be on to something regarding libraries having something in their checkout process requesting the YouTube channel info where this song will be streamed. Then the libraries can white flag all client’s channels clearing legitimate licensees from getting flagged.
If this becomes the norm, then this could potentially fix the issue of clients getting their videos flagged. This would only be able to work if the music is entered into the Content ID (CID) system by the library since if you have entered the music yourself into CID, then it wouldn’t work. You are saying that composers should all enter their music into the CID system themselves, but the libraries can’t white flag legitimate usages of your tracks (sold by them) if you have registered your tracks in the CID system.
The main issue I’m seeing is for Non-Exclusive libraries doing CID, if libraries have their client’s provide the youtube channel info for whitelisting when checking out, this will only solve the problem for the client’s of that non exclusive library. It seems that other Non Ex libraries who license that same music to clients who stream that music on other youtube channels will get claims causing the mess I referred to earlier. So I can see how exclusive libraries can make this work, I’m still not understanding how non exclusive libraries have been able to make CID work with exclusive CID opt ins? Reputable Non Exclusive companies like Audiosocket I’m sure understand this all, so how do they make it work?February 13, 2015 at 11:05 am #20041DaveGuest
I am not suggesting “opt in” to allowing any non exclusive catalog to enter your music into Content ID. NEVER let any catalog get between you and your YT advertising revenue. ADREV takes 20%, much different than the 50/50 splits on most music licensing sites. Upload your NE content to ADREV yourself. Don’t you guys see why some of the biggest players in the business are using the ADREV service?
Art, you know me…I have spoken directly with guys benefiting substantially from ADREV. Of course you have to have a track on a video that gets millions of views. A lot of luck is involved here, but I still like knowing that I can login to ADREV and see all the YT videos that are using my music. This is a good thing.
DI, I can not have an intelligent discussion with you. Do more research or better yet test the ADREV thing out with one track. Sorry, but I come from an opinion that we have an opportunity to police licenses sold for YT usages through ADREV. As I stated before, I was very much against and distrusting of the entire scheme and service until I tested the waters and uploaded a tune to ADREV. It’s fascinating finding out:
1. Who is uploading your music on YT.
2. How many views is it getting.
3. How many videos are using that track on YT.
4. Of course it’s fun collecting some money.
The uploading to ADREV is not nearly as painful as it is on some sites in terms of meta data entries.
Also, I have not come at this full force, I have been a gradualist and very picky and choosey about what I put into YT’s Content ID, but so far so good. More info and data will be coming in soon.February 13, 2015 at 11:20 am #20042DaveGuest
Here is a perfect example guys:
I have no idea who licensed my tune? where it was found? nothing. I never licensed my tune to these folks. Who did? Where is my money? I don’t sell this song on RF sites and I know for a fact no one ever bought it.
Now I know something! Someone got my song from someone. Or they just ripped it off of soundcloud. I know, big deal, 119 views, but better question: What gives these folks the right to use my song? Who gave them the rights to use my song? Where did they get access to my song?
ADREV finds this stuff out for us!
You see…this is a perfect example of how people think they can just use a tune whenever they want on YT. Yes it’s time to advocate for change.
ART please eliminate the link to the song after 1 hour. You guys in the discussion today can check it out, but then please remove the link to this tune/ video.February 13, 2015 at 11:27 am #20043
2. How many views is it getting.
3. How many videos are using that track on YT.
4. Of course it’s fun collecting some money.
So you use the service to monitor usage of your music, not to make money. You seem to be truly concerned with illegal usage of your music. That is argument is understandable. Your argument about making money is not understandable.February 13, 2015 at 11:37 am #20044DaveGuest
And another one:
I don’t make this tune available for license anywhere. I did have it on Soundcloud for a bit. I now know that the liklihood is that this uploader decided to use my song because they heard it on Soundcloud. What gives people the right to just use our tunes as they wish?
Why does: http://peppermayo.com.au/ get to use my track to promote their business?
DI, I am making money. And do not ask how much because it’s none of your business. I have no idea how much I can earn. But if people think they can just use my intellectual property freely, I’ll gladly pocket the Advertising revenue in exchange for their misunderstanding of what music licensing is.February 13, 2015 at 12:01 pm #20045JayGuest
Dave, I agree with you that we as composers should have the right to monetize on ilegitimite uses of our music, but if you enter your music into the CID service yourself you are de-legitimizing ALL YouTube streams of your music including all the legitimate library licenses giving them no way to white flag legimate licenses of your music. So if you are making more on the adrev royalties of people stealing your music that are getting 100 plays than libraries are paying you in sync fees, then choose content ID over libraries. The only way for content ID to work is to be administered by the licensors so they can control what is legitimate.February 13, 2015 at 12:02 pm #20046woodsdenisParticipant
To qualify for Content ID, you must own or control exclusive online streaming rights for the content you submit in the territories in which you assert rights. Visit the Help Center for more information about copyrights.
Just to clarify the situation regarding exclusivity, In the YT TOS above it simply says “control exclusive online streaming rights”, surely this is not the same as ownership. Online streaming rights are what you hand over to a library to sell licenses on your behalf. Therefore if you have any tracks in an RF library you do not have control of them, hence you as an individual cannot join. (MichaelL come in on this!!!)
I think Adrev and others purposely blur the line on this, but they all have to play by YT rules in the end.
Also can we stop linking copyright infringement with Adrev, nobody here sanctions the illegal use of music, Adrev is short for Advertising revenue, they are there to make money.It seems using Adrev for the sole purposes of copyright infringement is like the proverbial cracking a nut with a mallet.
The only people I have seen making substantial money from this are composers you play the system and create their own channels to which they put on their own music, not chasing down inconsequential wedding videos (as annoying and wrong as this might be )
What Mark Petrie said at the start of this thread remans true
A successful YouTuber is going to want to monetize the video, so you wouldn’t get any AdRev money.February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm #20048
You seem to be truly concerned with illegal usage of your music.
I think DI hit the nail on the head. In both cases you’re saying that you never sold or licensed your music to these users. You think it might have been ripped from Soundcloud. (one reason I don’t use soundcloud)
Ad Rev and Content ID are not take down services. They won’t prevent theft to any greater degree than locks prevent people from breaking into houses or cars.
Your music has been stolen…pure and simple. So why the diatribe against RF libraries? Because you think the thieves bought it from an RF library where somebody else is selling it illegally?
This is a global business. Just as there are places in this world where they “extend” milk with plastic and hamburger with horse meat, there libraries in countries with no regard for IP rights that I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. No one is going to effectively deal with that, because they don’t play by our rules. They don’t and won’t care.
Ad rev isn’t going to do anything when it comes to dealing with criminals. Your REAL enemy is youtube. It has created an environment that motivates this kind of behavior, because people think they can make a few pennies.
Going after criminals who have stolen your music, and suggesting a course of action that will negatively affect people legitimately doing business are two different things.February 13, 2015 at 12:36 pm #20050
Therefore if you have any tracks in an RF library you do not have control of them, hence you as an individual cannot join. (MichaelL come in on this!!!)
If you have any tracks in any library, RF or not, you no longer exclusively control the on-line streaming rights to that music.
I would just crash their next wedding and hog the shrimp appetizers.
What gives people the right to just use our tunes as they wish?
Nothing. They broke the law.
You must be a different Dave than the one I was thinking of. He does have his music in RF libraries…under another name.February 13, 2015 at 12:44 pm #20053
Dave, are you going to sue Peppermayo?February 13, 2015 at 12:48 pm #20054Art MunsonKeymaster
Dave, if this is the course you want to follow then go for it but I doubt you are going to convince many composers here that this is a wise choice.February 13, 2015 at 12:51 pm #20056DaveGuest
Where is the “diatribe” (biter attack) against RF libraries?
You folks are completely clueless as to the number of RF writers who are in Content ID. Thousands are. And the problem is educating the buyers about how to eliminate a claim. I am trying to offer a solution that is easy on all.
I brought this to P5’s CEO’s attention and he wrote back saying they are in talks with ADREV. Why are they talking? Because everyone is Content ID’ing their music and I am sure hundreds of customers are getting notices. Solution? tell legit RF buyers how to avoid the YT copyright claim and explain it on the license itself. Make a statement loud and clear: “Many composers selling their music here also have their music registered into YT’s Content ID advertising revenue program, if you intend on uploading this song on YOUTUBE and do NOT want an advertisement on it nor a copyright claim on your video, please e-mail your proof of music license to ADREV along with your YT video and they will “whitelist” your video”….
or something along those lines. Sorry, but the entire world needs to be educated on what a music license is, and what it allows you to do with it. I simply do not care if customers need to jump through one final 3 minute hurdle to use the track on YOUTUBE when they legitimately license our track. Did you hear what I said before about my disgruntled customer? They wrote and complained, I said click here, send the license and the claim will be cleared. I even offered to do it for him. He UNDERSTOOOD, and sympathized with the amount of theft and illegal use of music that goes on out there. I have not heard from him so I am sure he accomplished his task and can use the video without further aggravation.
This discussion is going nowhere.
Art, Please remove the YOUTUBE links now if possible.February 13, 2015 at 1:15 pm #20057
I simply do not care if customers need to jump through one final 3 minute hurdle to use the track on YOUTUBE when they legitimately license our track.
You don’t care about convenience for the customer?
That is sad on so many levels. Why bother to sell music if the customer’s needs come after your needs? I have never heard of a successful and sustainable business that put the customers’ needs and preferences last.
That is dangerous rhetoric and would immediately make me run away from any composer or library that stated such a thing!February 13, 2015 at 1:26 pm #20058woodsdenisParticipant
Dave, everyone here is concerned about theft but most of us don’t think that content id is the right way to go about it.
You said that you were talking with the CEO of P5 and that he was talking with AdRev. For P5 to submit to Content ID they need to control the exclusive streaming rights. Being an RF site I would guess 99% of composers are on multiple non ex libraries and would not qualify. How is that a benefit to P5 or any other Non ex library ?
AS does operate a scheme but you must be exclusive to them.
I am curios as you seem to have a different definition of “exclusive streaming rights” than most of us here. Perhaps you could explain as I don’t really understand .
To qualify for Content ID, you must own or control exclusive online streaming rights for the content you submit in the territories in which you assert rights. Visit the Help Center for more information about copyrightsFebruary 13, 2015 at 1:37 pm #20059
It might be a wise choice in the future, but not now. Obviously, no one can afford to keep their head in the sand.
But one thing that you have to remember is that we’re not only talking about wedding videos, etc.
There’s more at stake than just copyright violation notices. Some clients do not want ads on their videos. What if a business, say Coke, licenses a song for an online video, and then Pepsi puts pop-up ads all over it? Business clients, like that, need to a way to insure ad-free videos.