Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If Customers license from other NE sites where there is no possibility to dialogue with the customer who purchased, well then the music licensing site can eliminate that claim for their customer as they are selling the license. This is the way things should be moving forward. Basically, I see it as a “proof of purchase”. Do you want to put up a YT video with a track? Show me the license you purchased for that track. This is good for writers. This will enable writers more control over their intellectual property and give us knowledge about who is doing what with our tracks on YT.
People don’t want to be hassled over a $20 track they purchased from a site. Royalty free licensing is supposed to be hassle free as well. If I spent my money to legally license a song, I should not have to show a proof of purchase to anyone.
This is my view as a consumer: If I am going to be harassed and accused of stealing music, I would not use any music from a RF company. I would just use a song from my iTunes library. Why get my video removed for a library song? Why not just use a Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Bruno Mars, or Beyonce song?
If I purchased a song and got a warning from YouTube, I would assume that the library I bought it from sold me stolen property. I would then ask for a refund. I don’t really care about composers royalties. I buy music from RF sites to not worry about additional payments or copyright claims. I do not want to be educated on licensing or hassled about monetization. I want a hassle-free experience.
But doesn’t the content uploaded to ADREV have to be exclusively owned by the music library? Most RF companies are non-exclusive. They cannot legally participate in this. Only the composer can do so.
It is too much fuss for me. Many of these RF sites are just parking lots for music. There is little money to be earned from selling tracks. Now I have to worry about people buying my music for $20 (of which I only get $10) getting in trouble? That is a horrible system for composers and customers!
I would rather work exclusively with RF companies that review my demos for quality and that actually work to get placements for composers. This other stuff is a bit of nonsense.
A successful YouTuber is going to want to monetize the video, so you wouldn’t get any AdRev money.
So I would need to monetize my own popular videos?
I think the people making $2,000 or more per month from ADREV are creating videos and adding their own music. There are some people that post videos on YouTube and make thousands of dollars every month from having people view the ads on their videos.
So the money isn’t coming from the music. It is coming from having music on videos that get a ton of views. Videos with music that only get a fee hundred views will not any significant money.
So the best goal for someone looking to cash in from ADREV is to add one’s music to videos that get a lot of views. Instead of making my own videos, I could just beg someone already famous on YouTube to use some of my music in their videos and wait for the money to roll in. Just give the music away for free and make all the money from the YouTube royalties. That might be worth a shot.
Interesting……
Dave, are you making $2,000 to $5,000 a month from ADREV?
I am not going to worry about ADREV or similar schemes. I am keeping my music out of sites that participate in ADREV. A lot of libraries participating in this system either do not understand it or are purposely adding music without permission. In either case, the small money earned isn’t worth the hassle.
More and more libraries (especially new ones) won’t pay anything for music.
Especially if they are splitting the license fees with you.
Tell me about it. LMAO!
But that is the current state. Either get some money upfront and give up on licensing fees, or get no money upfront and split licensing fees 50/50. Changing times.
I have no idea how anyone can look themselves in the mirror and feel good about themselves when they deliberately give away hundreds of cues to YOUTUBERS, AND pocket 100% of hundreds of license fees in the $25 to $499 range off the backs of writers.
Unfortunately, this happens a lot more often than you think.
hi, sorry for posting this here, but does anyone know an approximate figure of how much a track would sell if someone wanted exclusivity on it?
Start at $500 per track.
I just wait for the cue sheets to show up with my PRO.
Besides I’m already not too happy that they make composes construct invoices for sales they know they owe for. Seems that should be their job but that’s another conversation.
That doesn’t make sense. Is this company lucrative for you? If not, you should consider pulling your music if at all possible.
All of that hassle for $40? I would decline.
Thanks Dave.
The downfall started before I got in the game.
I find it a bit offensive for people that have been at it for decades to sit on a high horse and look down on younger people for dealing with the cards that have been dealt. Who in their right mind would ask for no upfront money and declining backend fees?
These lecturings are getting old and tiresome. People are pointing fingers and blaming one another for circumstances outside of their control. It gets silly after a while. If older composers have a problem with the industry, they should be inventing the solutions. They should not be sitting back and saying “look what you are settling for”.
What are the solutions?!? Until I hear the solutions, I am not going to take any more words of wisdom too seriously. It just makes one group of people attack another. In the meantime, a small group of people are making money from the whole ordeal.
Continue to tear people down for trying to make living. It must feel good to snicker at others trying to make a way through these rough waters. 🙁