- This topic has 30 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Just discovered another Content ID company this evening: ‘RouteNote’.
Seems like they automatically add your music to Content ID if you sell music through them.
Right Mark. I have been having issues with RouteNote lately as well.
This is what I have been sent from AdRev themselves regarding RouteNote“As far as Routenote goes, they seem to allow music into their system that was stolen or illegally obtained. In order to have them remove their “ownership” from your music, feel free to reach out to them at…”
As you can see it is a really difficult situation to deal with because AdRev, for some reason, sides with the people that have uploaded the music illegally and then they leave it to the composer to deal with the repercussions on their own.
I am wondering if AdRev can start being sent DMCA takedown notices. I find that if you threaten a company with a DMCA request they start taking things more seriously and actually respond to emails.
My stock response to a lot of these unresponsive companies goes like this…
“Can you please tell me your process of submitting a DMCA request to your company? My lawyer tells me this is the first step we have to take before we can proceed with further legal action”.I am wondering if AdRev can start being sent DMCA takedown notices. I find that if you threaten a company with a DMCA request they start taking things more seriously and actually respond to emails.
That’s what I did to help Bjorn. Does AdRev actually host? You can certainly send DMCA notices to RouteNote. Perhaps the more often that happens, the sooner they’ll reconsider turning a blind eye to infringing music.
Check this link for DMCA for info on what the DMCA is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
AdRev has the audio. At least the audio was sent to them to enter into the contentID system. And AdRev is the only entity that can delete it from the system (if they are the ones making the claim). I think a DMCA request would be appropriate in that instance (composers need to remember that none of this is based on title or composer name or anything like that, it is only waveform matching).
It seems weird that they, AdRev, AdshareMG, can just do this with impunity. There has to be some recourse on the composer/copyright holder’s end so they can fight against people who steal their music or companies that upload their music without their permission.
Right now the copyright holder is guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around. That really sucks.
DMCA makes it a bit more even but you have to get a lawyer to do it in many cases.DMCA makes it a bit more even but you have to get a lawyer to do it in many cases.
I knew that there had to be an upside to being a composer AND a lawyer!
By the way Mark, maybe there’s an analogy between AdRev and Napster, in that Napster tried to claim that it wasn’t responsible for its members behavior. That argument didn’t work.
However, in the case of Napster, you had major labels and the RIAA as plaintiffs. I don’t know if there’s a powerful enough block of potential plaintiff’s to change AdRev’s policies, but diligent policing of one’s catalog and complaints to AdRev might help.
You have to be careful with DCMA’s there are repercussions if used in appropriately. You may be responsible for the other party’s legal fees.
There’s something I’m still not understanding:
How can an exclusive library be using content ID –IF– a large number of their sales are for tracks which are used on customers’ youtube videos?
That would mean that every single customer who buys a track from said library and puts it on a youtube video will get a claim against them and then have to either take the video down or accept advertising on their video. In the case of product advert videos, in fact basically any client video, ads are totally unacceptable if the customer has purchased a license to use the track on their youtube video.
So how does the exclusive library handle this?
How can an exclusive library be using content ID -IF- a large number of their sales are for tracks which are used on customers’ youtube videos?
They can do it precisely because they are exclusive. That is what the Youtube Terms of Service requires, that the music be exclusive. The library’s customer won’t get hit with a copyright notice because they have a legitimate license to use the music. The customer can’t get the music from any other source, who could possibly file a copyright claim.
The problem arises when the same music is in multiple libraries. For example a customer buys a cue from ML and the composer also has his music in RFSH, and RFSH put it into THEIR ContentID program with YT.
Then when the ML customer posts their video on YT, with the music that the licensed legitimately from ML, they get hit with a RFSH copyright notice, because RFSH is claiming it as theirs.There is no confusion when the cue is exclusive because you are licensing from the copyright holder, either the library, or the composer through the library.
SO…if you want to do content ID, just put your cues into one library, that participates in content ID, and opt in.
I see what you mean but there is still a big gap in my understanding.
On a practical level (please correct this I assume it must be wrong):
Customer buys license from exclusive library for use of a track. Customer puts track on youtube video and uploads to youtube. Customer gets claim against them. Customer gets angry, contacts exclusive library. Exclusive library has to manually send Adrev an email saying please whitelist this youtube channel’s URL. Is that really how it works?
If so, that is completely unfeasible for a library selling lots of licenses.
If so, that is completely unfeasible for a library selling lots of licenses.
For a big exclusive company like APM’s partners, Killer Tracks, MegaTrax etc, this is no big deal because:
a) the majority of their clients are high end broadcasters and a dozen or so whitelistings of major blue chip accounts (networks, film studios etc) cover a ton of potential flags. They don’t focus their business on the millions of small time YT producers out there.
b) they have a big workforce, and can afford someone to cover this full timeIt’s the smaller exclusive (or even non-exclusive) libraries I wonder about – the ones that are nowhere near as big, primarily market to low budget producers and yet still register all their music with AdRev. It’s probably a major PITA for these types of companies to have to release / whitelist each of their YT clients.
Thanks for the info Mark.
I can definitely see how for big exclusives e.g. KPM it’s easy to handle, but yes, those smaller exclusives who aim more at the hobbyist… for them content ID seems right now like something they can’t use.
It would work for them if they had a way of say, having the customer put their youtube channel in at the time of purchase which the library could then auto-whitelist on Adrev. But that doesn’t seem to exist..
Found one of my YouTube videos blocked today…
THE YOUTUBE NOTICE:
“This video contains content from AdShare MG for a Third Party, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.”The YouTube site says AdRev is making the claim. What-the-hell is wrong with this company? They make absolutely no effort to verify copyright claims.
I wrote the music, recorded it in my studio, AND registered it with the Library of Congress. This easy to verify before making false claims of copyright infringement.
This company is begging for a Class Action Suit.
OR…
Is this just a way to force us to join AdRev? Hmmm…Wow. Five minutes after I contested the claim with YouTube, the video was up & running again.
It’s gotta be an automated response from YouTube. They must be getting tons of complaints.
@ENW1
see my response here
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.