- This topic has 11 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Apparently YT is changing the rules for content id, how, if anything does this affect us. The link is about someone with a channel obviously, but does it have any impact down the line for those who are not in it, preferably in a positive way !!
I say that people either sign the deal or post their music somewhere else. Google doesn’t care about music or anything else.
That company is only out to make money. Negotiations, protests, legislation, etc. will do nothing. Technology moves faster then the law does. People either have to move forward or leave Google all together.
I still do not understand the purpose of Content ID. But I don’t participate in it. I just let these things wash over me. Too much info out there.
@DI What it does is fairly simple, it monetises your music on videos on your own channel and other YT uses by placing ads on them.
It sounds much more complicated to me.
All I hear about are people getting infringement notices from having music in their videos. If I bought music from a site and got an infringement notice, I would probably never buy music from that site again.
And the amount of money that most people are making seems very low. Why monetize my music if people that buy it legally are getting infringement notices and I am making a few pennies every thousand plays? Forget that.
In a way, I say just sign the agreement if I am already participating. If I didn’t agree to the new terms, I would have to take all of my music off of YouTube and start over. But if I never was a part of it, I would not get started now.
All of this nonsense over songs? The only ones making significant money seems to be Google. Amazing how my fans get in trouble and I get pennies while Google makes extra millions on top of the billions they already make.
Oh well, adapt or die!
Hi Denis-
I’ve heard of the this new contract and the harsh terms.
This only has to do with music “artists” that have a music partner youtube channel. These are for artists who put out albums and are popular and promoting themselves via youtube with a special type of channel.
That would exclude probably 99% of the people reading MLR.For example, the google execs said one work around was…
“In other words if I wanted to upload my own videos to youtube i would have to create a new account so my own music could be treated not like a partner account but like 3rd party videos”
Most people on this forum would have the latter type account.
In other words I do not think this new contract effects production music composers very much if at all.-Mark
To Desire Inspires the content ID YOUTUBE royalty opportunity is something to be taken very seriously as I have heard about some RF writers making more in that arena then they do with actual RF sales! And I am sorry, but I am now of the opinion that every RF site owner must educate THEIR buyers that content ID is here to stay and only going to get bigger. In other words, all RF music buyers better learn how to send a notice over to ADREV to clear their license and enable use of the music on their YOUTUBE video. This will simply become another step buyers will have to take as part of the ultra low prices out there! Composers also upload to ADREV and Content ID because this is a way we can police how our music is being used on YOUTUBE. Eventually ADREV chases down (Scans the entire YOUTUBE Universe) every youtube video using one’s music track…and composers are saying that there are thousands if not millions of illegal uses going on out there on YOUTUBE.
To Desire Inspires the content ID YOUTUBE royalty opportunity is something to be taken very seriously as I have heard about some RF writers making more in that arena then they do with actual RF sales!
I have heard completely different. Do you have any links to articles showing a comparison between Content ID royalties and royalty-free royalties? I cannot take anything seriously without evidence.
All I hear about is low payments and people getting in trouble. A few people making a lot of money is not enough to convince me that the Content ID scheme is lucrative for the average composer.
And I am sorry, but I am now of the opinion that every RF site owner must educate THEIR buyers that content ID is here to stay and only going to get bigger
Good grief. What a load of sh*t.
And I am sorry, but I am now of the opinion that every RF site owner must educate THEIR buyers that content ID is here to stay and only going to get bigger
Good grief. What a load of sh*t.
That made my morning. Some just can’t resist taking a swipe at the RF Model.
The recent change in BMI’s royalty calculation scheme has strengthened my commitment to the RF model as a long-term investment.
Every time I sell an RF license I net 15 to 20 times what the average PRO backend payment is for a background instrumental cue!
…..and perhaps 10,000 times what a youtube view pays.
Exactly Denis.
The thing about “DAVE” (almost an anagram for ADREV) is that he has very strong opinions but apparently is not a composer himself or he would have posted his own experience and numbers regarding the matter.
He also only mentions ADREV as a monetizing source when there are many of them out there, Rumblefish, AdshareMG, CDBaby, Audiam, IODA and many others.
Why does “DAVE” only single out ADREV?And if you are a production composer with “millions of illegal uses” on youtube then you are not protecting your music catalog very well and you should probably use one of these monetizing services because your catalog is basically worthless in the music licensing industry.
One thing I do agree with is that every music library out there should embrace ADREV and CONTENTID because in the end ML will be the sole place that customers can go to where they don’t have to be harassed by third parties trying monetize their videos and they do not have to be “TAUGHT” a lesson in how to use the music that they just paid good money for.
Thanks “DAVE”, keep up the good fight.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.