Mark Lewis

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 238 total)
  • Author
  • Mark Lewis

    you create a piece of music, it takes anywhere from 2 hours to 2 days = 50%
    I market and sell that piece of music to my paying customers for the next 5 to 10 years = 50%

    seems fair to me.

    I’ve also created free software so that composers with the naive notion that music libraries are nothing but glorified hosting services can simply create their own music library and try it for themselves. No startup costs involved. Just install and go for it.

    Quite often I put our composers in direct contact with our clients who need custom work where a composer is hired to create a specific piece of music for a project… you know, like how composers used to do it in the old days.
    I take 15% for that service. The composer gets 85%.
    This situation would be comparable to your Etsy or Ebay or Uber analogy because you are getting paid to do actual work for that client.

    Digital copies of royalty free music that you sell over and over again for years and years is a different thing entirely.

    in reply to: What were your first libraries? #24950
    Mark Lewis

    I started one of the first online music libraries at selling collections of royalty free music but I also joined some of the first online libraries around. Productiontrax was probably the first one I signed up with uploading our own music.
    But there was another one called that I joined (now RIP)
    I really liked how the library worked and looked but there were a lot of things that were missing from a composer standpoint. So I took all of that and my experiences with productiontrax and created
    Musicloops is basically everything I personally wanted in a music library from a composer point of view as well as a customer experience.

    in reply to: Youtube Content ID & Monetization #24644
    Mark Lewis

    Has anyone any idea how this could possibly work?

    The library would simply turn off the monetization on the videos for the customers who paid a fee and leave it on for those who don’t.

    You should ask them directly though if you are thinking of purchasing from them.

    in reply to: Youtube Content ID & Monetization #24607
    Mark Lewis

    I know, it is completely bizarre and unworkable. But it is their policy apparently.

    Below are direct quotes from the companies (pulled from digital music news)…

    Here’s what Tunecore said:

    “You cannot submit tracks to YouTube for revenue collection that?-Contain any audio library samples, sound effects, or production loops (such as GarageBand loops)?-Contain any third party content that you do not have exclusively licensed (such as samples you do not have exclusively licensed)”

    And CD Baby has similar rules:?“As far as YouTube goes you would have to monetize the content on your own as we can not monetize this type of content [i.e. legitimate and cleared but non-exclusive samples] as it is often disputed or removed”

    And yes, the CD Baby policy is especially weird as they did allow Music Theft guy to upload complete songs that were not his.

    My point though is that Youtube has obviously ramped up the rules for CID partners regarding generating thousands of false copyright claims on innocent videos.

    in reply to: Youtube Content ID & Monetization #24604
    Mark Lewis

    Perhaps they know it’s coming.

    I think there might be some truth to that.

    CID is not going away ever. And if anything it’s a tidal wave that can not be stopped.

    Of course it is not going away, CID is a great thing, it is an amazing innovation that protects music on a huge platform.
    It is the abuse of this innovation that is slowly going away.

    I also think the tidal wave that was mentioned has probably already happened a few years ago and the water is now receding. CID middlemen are using much more caution before accepting just anyone with a tune they produced in Garageband.

    In fact these CID companies like Tunecore, Audiam and CD Baby are creating policies where they no longer accept music created with non-exclusive sample libraries including companies like Kontakt and BFD and of course software like Garageband.
    They cannot represent this type of music simply because they are prone to triggering false copyright claims on youtube and with too many strikes against the claiming account they end up in jeopardy of losing their CID partnership.

    I think this has a lot to do with why my daily hassle of false copyright claims on our clients youtube videos has essentially gone to zero.
    Youtube is finally making these CID middlemen accountable and they are acting more responsibly.

    Here’s hoping it continues.

    in reply to: Youtube Content ID & Monetization #24599
    Mark Lewis

    No matter how vigilant you are about not getting your non-exclusive tracks placed in Content ID, someone will mistakenly (or deliberately) try it at some point.

    I am finding for the last two years that there have been almost no issues with our library and youtube contentID. The only issues we’ve had are from composers who wanted to join AdRev and they pulled their music to do so.
    But then came back with new non-AdRev music and opened new accounts.

    Thanks to the vigilance of our composers we’ve got a really clean catalog that causes no grief to our customers and our customers really appreciate it.
    And I really appreciate it!

    In previous years I was battling false claims on a daily basis, a real nightmare.

    I think youtube has also finally stepped up a bit and made it mandatory that people uploading content actually need to prove they have the exclusive rights to upload that content. They also threaten to close contentID partner accounts that result in too many false claim complaints.

    yay progress!

    in reply to: Youtube Content ID & Monetization #24596
    Mark Lewis

    what is worse, you putting tracks in content ID, or someone else putting tracks in content ID for you?

    Just to be clear, putting your tracks into ContentID does not prevent others from stealing your music or multiple parties entering your tracks into contentID without your permission.
    I have seen up to 5 false claims from different companies on the same music track including the one from the original composer.

    I think all music buyers are aware of it, increasingly adapting to it, and getting videos white listed in advance

    In my experience this not at all the case.

    The process is painless.

    Except for the client who does not understand all of this and is not aware that he might be able to go to AdRev to request the false claim removed.
    The majority of customers simply assume that the library is selling music illegally when their youtube channel gets flagged for copyright infringement.

    There are also many contentID middlemen other than AdRev who do not have a system in place to contest false claims.

    in reply to: Licensing direct from your own website??? #24498
    Mark Lewis

    Hats off to you sir!

    Thanks Happy Ears.
    My programmer and I will be putting more work into the software this year and hopefully add more features and make it easier to install.

    in reply to: Licensing direct from your own website??? #24495
    Mark Lewis

    You can email my programmer directly at guru4vedi [at] gmail [dot] com.
    Can’t really tell but from what you posted sounds like you might need to change the permissions on some of your directories.

    in reply to: Licensing direct from your own website??? #24412
    Mark Lewis

    Hi Mojorising
    You could give our free php script a try to cover what you want to do…


    in reply to: Libraries for Singer Songwriters #24156
    Mark Lewis
    Participant and are now open to and actively seeking more vocal music, particularly in the singer/songwriter genre.
    We are seeking more of this type of music to add to our in-store music service at .
    You can contact me directly at[AT] regarding this.

    The RFMR site has been in development for 2 years and is sending its first payments this month to composers who have music integrated into the radio stations.

    in reply to: Critique and Suggestions Welcome | Highly Appreciated #23653
    Mark Lewis

    The drums on all of your tracks sound overly compressed to where they no longer sound real. The kick drum is very hard to hear and the cymbals turn into a huge wash. On some tracks the drums seem to pulse with compression.

    Compare your Hendrixy

    to one of Art Munson’s latest uploads to our site–5010912/

    In Art’s mix you hear that every instrument has a clearly defined space, eq-wise and stereo field-wise. You can distinctly hear every instrument without any of them overpowering the track.
    In yours the bottom end sounds muddy and kind of digitally distorted. The bass line is indistinguishable from the rhythm guitar or the kick drum.
    At the same time the high end is brittle sounding.

    I would suggest finding some mixes that you can try to emulate and do an A/B with your tracks until you get them in the same ballpark.

    in reply to: Youtube ID system #23566
    Mark Lewis

    if I upload them to Youtube do they automatically get enter into the ID content system thingy?

    No, that is not how youtube contentID works.
    To be entered into the CID database you need to actively enter your music into it via a third party company.

    in reply to: mp3 format for libraries #23487
    Mark Lewis

    I suppose every library is different but we generally prefer…
    16 bit
    joint stereo
    Variable bit rate is better for playback with html5 preview players.

    in reply to: Wasted time?? #23388
    Mark Lewis

    ask for a “kill fee”. If not for this time then for the next.
    A kill fee is a pretty standard thing to ask for when working in a situation where a client may change their creative direction.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 238 total)

Forgot Password?

Join Us