Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am wondering if joining AdRev http://cid.adrev.net will cause problems with libraries that are using my music.
If you are distributing your music non-exclusively through several libraries then yes it most definitely will cause a problem.
The thing that AdRev does not tell composers and other music libraries is that the music needs to be exclusive to one entity, one library or publisher.
It is completely against youtube contentID policy to enter non-exclusive music into their database.
You can see for yourself right here on the youtube contentID signup page
https://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup
To qualify for Content ID, you must own or control exclusive online streaming rights for the content you submit in the territories in which you assert rights.This is the part of the agreement that I guess AdRev leaves out of their pitch to composers and music libraries which ends up causing a huge hassle for everyone else.
Would this be a quick way for composers to police their own catalogs?
No. It appears to only show tracks that are being tracked via youtube contentID. For instance popular music that people pull off of CDs, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/ad_supported_music
The best way to monitor your own music is to upload it to your own youtube channel and see if anybody is claiming it.
The process is a bit of a POA in the beginning but once you get used to it and get a process going it is really easy and incredibly helpful in tracking who might be stealing your music.
I am really used to the process at this point.1. Remember to never give out a URL to a video in your test account to anyone, especially AdRev, as they will whitelist your account and then it will become completely useless for testing.
2. I advise creating a separate youtube account just for testing.
3. You only need around 40 or 50 seconds of music to trigger a match. I always do 60 seconds. Just drop your music into 60 seconds of home video you own and upload it.
4. You can keep all the videos private, nobody needs to see or hear them for you to test your music.
5. You do not need to monetize your videos or anything like that. You do not need to be youtube partner. Uploading your music to youtube doesn’t automatically enter you into youtube contentID.
These are all just myths that have been started somehow.6. Many video editors have an option to directly upload to your youtube account. I use iMovie on my Mac.
Just upload your videos with your music privately to your youtube test channel and you will immediately see if someone has stolen your music and is claiming to own the copyright on youtube.
Youtube ContentID is pretty cool in that respect.
What denis said. You do not need a separate program to create a zip archive on a Mac. Right click and choose ‘compress’.
It will open on any platform.One of the issues that Mark P. raised was Google’s algorithm favoring certain sites.
I think Mark is misreading what he is seeing on the first page of a search. AudioMicro is also on the first page of an RFM search.
I wouldn’t hold too much stock in first page google placements and alexis graphs Mark, that will drive you nuts, believe me.Concentrate on your conversion per visitor (at ML it is a very good 3%).
ML has the lowest traffic of all my websites, has never been anywhere near the front page for a ‘royalty free music’ google search and yet still earns the most revenue of all my websites.
As MichaelL stated it is all about customer service and loyalty, word of mouth and repeat visitors.Only 5% of our composers ever have issues with contentID.
Some composers are really good about taking care of the issue right away and others seem to not care at all and just let people steal their music don’t do anything about it.
Not sure why.Is the non-exclusive royalty-free model coming to an end?
No, I don’t think so.
I think you might be exaggerating the situation a little.What you are saying sounds like you personally are frustrated with the work it takes to run a library and that you are considering a change to your business model.
That is understandable.
But to somehow extrapolate that all music libraries are suffering the same problems you are having and that the end is near for all of these libraries is a bit of a stretch.What musical instrument do you play DI?
Not even sure why this discussion keeps going.
Because for some reason DI keeps resurrecting ancient threads? 🙂
Michael Nickolas nails it.
I think DI is confused about real musicians who use loops and tools to enhance what they themselves are creating… like Michael Nickolas has described above.
On the other hand there are the loop based composers that put down a simple and boring hip hop loop that they have purchased, they make no attempt at changing it to make it their own… like adding EQ, breaking it down, adding crashes and swells and other percussion… they just use the stoopid loop straight out of the box throughout the whole track.
Then they add a 3 chord pad that comes from a patch that came with their software, without touching or adjusting it, nothing.
And then add a very midi and soul-less sounding piano (or whatever patch they have easy access to) as the melody.
Then that is it, no song structure either, no dynamics, nothing (where’s that confounded bridge!?)There is a huge glut of this kind of crap on open submission RF sites and people are constantly submitting this type of “music” to the other RF sites that actually review and approve the music they sell.
But the cream will always rise to the top so there are no worries, but you just have to make sure that you are in the actual class of composer the creates music and doesn’t just copy and paste to make a buck.
Quickly knocked up loop based tracks devoid of originality, emotional content or imagination. Music made by people who think that assembling a collection of pre-made loops is composing.
Wow. Nice definition of who you think is beneath you as an artist but what is your definition of a Royalty Free Music Library (as opposed to a royalty free music composer)?
So you are saying you are only dealing with PRO free libraries DI?
“I am still working on some unique and clever music for submission to PRO / MCPS / PRS libraries.”
I’m just confused about everyone’s definition of an “RF Library”.
Since most RF libraries are PRO libraries then the statement that Tim makes doesn’t really make any sense.Can you explain that to me DI? I defer to your judgement on that.
Most libraries are PRO libraries DI.
Even if they advertise themselves as “RF” libraries they are indeed PRO libraries.
I think the terminology that is being accepted on this forum might be very confusing for newcomers. People seem to be combining PRO free and Royalty Free as meaning the same thing.
Royalty Free does not mean that you do not get PRO royalties.
If you, DI, are only working with PRO free libraries at the moment that would mean you are working just with Getty Images or Smartsound, or a couple of others.
Our site is royalty free and PRO free (has been since 1996), we facilitate direct licensing between composers and our clients, but we also send out composer PRO info when requested by the client, which I just did today and do so on a regular basis.I guess you’re assuming the quote you posted means that the person wrote 60 songs and is now set for life? That might be the case but I highly doubt it.
Thanks again for your wonderful input DI. Always a pleasure to read your posts. You put so much thought into them.