Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You should keep in mind that PROs, at least BMI and ASCAP, are non-profit. They are there to help you, you are not paying them for their service of tracking every single use of your music on the planet.
I’m sure there is federal or state law that makes it “illegal” not to turn in cue sheets
I’m pretty sure there isn’t but I could be totally wrong. I’ve never heard of anyone going to jail because they did not turn in a cue sheet or turned one in that was filled out incorrectly. The jails would be filled with nerdy little network interns that have no idea what they did wrong.
what stops unscrupulous people from uploading music to Content ID and trying to steal the Youtube royalties this way
From my experience absolutely nothing stops them. It appears that anyone can upload anything with no vetting whatsoever. But try and get your music removed when someone uploads your music without your consent or permission and you have to prove to youtube that you own your own music.
it’s not like the first channel gets to monetize but not the subsequent ones right?
Exactly. If your music is not in youtube contentID then videos containing your music can be monetized separately on different youtube channels with no problems.
If your music is in contentID then you would have to monitor their activity and allow them to monetize their videos.The only thing that can happen in rare cases is that youtube may request to see a license for the music that a video creator is using in their video. But that still has nothing to do youtube contentID and fingerprinting. That is usually just a case of an over-zealous employee working at youtube needing to see proper documentation for the use of copyrighted material.
Another enlightened comment from DI.
Exactly how does ‘this suck’ in your opinion?1. And customers will likely go for cheaper options, but that’s been discussed to death around here. I’m sure you have evidence to the contrary.
What cheaper options? You mean other websites that composers distribute through? I have no control over that.
We don’t have $1.00 personal license fees like some of these sites.
We don’t do blanket licenses or subscriptions like other libraries.
We don’t enter our composer’s catalogs into the youtube contentID system without their permission and then earn revenue without paying the composer.We sell our composer’s music for exactly the price they set. That’s it.
2. That’s great, but one of your sites specifically points out under the header that the music is “absolutely royalty free with No PROs, No cue sheets, no hassles”.
Yes, all of our sites say that. But when the client asks for PRO info we of course provide it if it is available.
But you are correct, in the end we are and have always have been, for the last 18 years, a PRO free library that negotiates direct licensing between the composer and the client. That is what we have always done and it happens to be a pretty good business model and is the reason we have so many sales.
If our composers thought they were being taken advantage of I think they would simply leave our library.I’ve noticed that you are kind of aggressive with me and my posts.
Did I do or not do something to p**s you off Dude?Hi The Dude
1. Our composers set their own prices.
2. We do ask for composer PRO info on signup (if they have any) for broadcast clients that request it.
I think if you asked any composer that actually works with us (and is not simply anonymously conjecturing on a forum) they would say we are a pretty good company that looks out for the composers we represent.Makes sense to me.
That´s not really saying much DI 🙂
http://www.Musicloops.com might be the library that yzzman1 is referring to.
Every composer who joins Musicloops automatically gets their own personal music licensing site. They can change the colors, upload their own logo, create their own list of genres plus lots of other customizations.
Any sales generated from a composer’s personal ML site automatically earns them 70% of the sale as opposed to the usual 50/50 split from sales on the main site.
We still take care of all the backend, payments, customer service, etc but if the composer provides the client then we pay them accordingly.Another plus to having an ML account is automatic inclusion in http://www.MusicaLibreDeDerechos.net where composers earn 60% of each sale for letting us be their exclusive representative in Spain. The whole system is automatic and your songs/descriptions/keywords are automatically translated into Spanish and price converted to Euros.
Sales from this site show up automatically in your ML account admin.I’m still working on an installable software package to help composers who want to start their own music library
http://musiclicensingsoftware.com/
The initial package will be free to download and use and will have all the features of the ML personal site plus a few more.I think you know why yadggu my friend.
Hi Desire Inspires, or yadggu, or whatever troll name you’re currently using, do you even know what public domain is? Why would you get so enraged about the only law that exists that actually protects composer’s rights to be paid fairly for what they create?
Instead of just saying “explain your diverse viewpoints” blah blah blah, why not explain what the hell you are talking about?From our composers? No, never.
From random composers? quite often.It seems like a lot of things don’t make sense to you Desire Inspires.
The OP, the person posing this question, told you that they had contacted the library to ask them if they could get out of the contract. The library said no.
You went on to give the great advice of telling him to ask the library if he could get out of the contract. And you did it in a very snarky way.
“Moral: ASK!”Get it?
But ok….