Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
All video producers would be p****d, but they simply would have to deal with it and work around it.
Sheesh. I would hate to have you for a business partner.
Your ramblings as far as I can tell are not based in logic nor experience. You are not part of AdRev and you are not a music library owner.
You make wild assumptions and have no real concept of how a business actually works.Good luck with your crusade to get every composer on the planet to join contentID. I wish you well.
Any thread where someone has rudely told MichaelL he is not welcome is a thread I am no longer interested in reading.
unsubscribe.My MLR ID is partnersinrhyme
And Dave, you were the one that said we were all “misinformed” on how much you can make with AdRev. I simply requested that you inform us with facts as it sounded like you had them. If you don’t then no big deal.
We are not making grand statements about earnings so I’m not sure why you would need our tax returns.
???Do you realize that my friend, without ADREV, never would have known that his publisher was just going to give away his track for a YT usage for no sync fee?
To be clear, AdRev enabled the people who stole the music to monetize it.
Youtube ContentID enabled your friend to find out about the thieves that were using AdRev to monetize his music without his permission and to then put a stop to it.I think you are misinformed about how AdRev actually works.
Again Dave, you can monitor your music by simply uploading your music to your private YouTube channel. You will immediately see if someone has stolen your music and is claiming to own it via YouTube contentID.
On the other hand uploading your catalog to adrev does not stop people from stealing your music, it simply produces multiple copyright claims that your real customers have to deal with.
I’m just not seeing your leap in logic that uploading to adrev stops people from stealing your music. Those libraries that upload your music to YouTube contentID without your permission or knowledge will still do the same thing. Your friend’s friend who stole his music and uploaded it to YouTube contentID would still be able to do the same thing.
You need to contact the actual people who are stealing your music to get them to stop stealing your music.He would have sold your music under his own name had you placed your music in contentID as well.
Again, placing your music in contentID does not prevent people from stealing your music. That is some kind of contentID myth that some composers are starting.This thread has some comments about policing your catalog with your own youtube channel
Uploading your music to AdRev (or whatever middleman service that does this) would not solve the issue you had on those couple of occasions. You would still have to work out with those people that they cannot claim to own the copyright to your music via contentID. It would be your word against theirs at that point.
Uploading to AdRev does not stop claims via other companies, it only manages your claims.On the other side as a library owner if you had sold 400 licenses of your music to our customers over the years and they were all happily using said music on youtube and then you suddenly joined AdRev and sent them all copyright claims and stopped them from monetizing their videos (this happens automatically with any copyright claim) then I as a library owner would receive 100’s of angry customer complaints and lose a couple hundred valuable customers forever.
As a library owner I also have a lot of work to do and using a bunch of my valuable time to sort out contentID claims for each and every sale plus “educating” customers that some third party will eventually claim the music they just paid for and to contact me so I can work with this third party that has nothing at all to do with my company or my clients and sort it all out for them is a bit ridiculous and really not a very smart move business-wise.
In my opinion it would be best just to upload your music yourself to your own youtube channel to keep track of who might be falsely claiming it. Lots of our composers have done this and it works like a charm.
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.
Nice one DI. Very well put.
Each composer of course should make his own decision in regards to joining contentID. I’m just not sure why some composers feel the need to go on a crusade to get all other composers to join once they have come to their decision.
The library is the one selling the product so they would be liable for any VAT issues for that sale. Just like sales tax in the US the business owner has to pay that, not the composer.
I have experience both the US and in Europe with this but I am very far being an kind of an accountant so you should check with yours to be sure.
But my feeling is that you do not have to worry about VAT on the sales that someone else makes of your products, only sales that you personally make of your product.DI actually touches on something that a lot of people have been talking about. There has to be a better way to keep track of placements and royalties besides the antiquated PROs that we presently have to deal with.
This article is the first idea I have read that is actually inspiring and sounds like it might be able to work if implemented correctly.
Bitcoin style automatic royalty payments.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-rockstars-cryptocurrency-music-industry/I think what DI might be saying is BMI and ASCAP and everything all Suck. There might be a better solution out there worth talking about and supporting.
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.
Awesome.
To be a good tennis player you start by hitting 10,000 tennis balls.Thanks for posting this article DI, very cool.
There are two takeaways I would like to point out that are universal truths when clients and supervisors and library owners are reviewing your tracks.
1. “Rona said when he started writing for libraries what he found was that his most successful tracks were non-ambiguous. The music didn’t change emotion or direction half way through. It was straight down the middle in its mission.”
This doesn’t happen with all composers but some of them have this way of making you listen to 2 minutes of build-up before you ever get to what the music is about. Huge chunky metal guitars popping in at 1:30 after falling asleep listening to soft electronica is really bad.
2. Yesterday I needed something like a New York street scene.” He searched Reggaeton+vocals. About 150 tracks popped up. He listened to about five seconds of most of them, and if he liked it, he scrolled to the middle of the song and listened to another five seconds. He knew exactly what he wanted, so anything slightly off he maybe listened to two seconds of.
This is exactly what I do when reviewing music (and this article confirms that most customers and supervisors do the same).
If you think supervisors and library owners are reviewing your music from beginning to end you’re mistaken. It needs to grab you right up front and let you know what is going to happen with this track. Not that you need a fanfare or anything but don’t be ambiguous about what the track intends to deliver.Doing ML approvals today I just blocked a track that had a hihat count-off in it.
Not just just 1-2-3-4, but 1 – 2 – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4.