[woodsdenis]

As that old music saying goes “Where there’s a hit there’s a writ”

[woodsdenis]

nifty

[woodsdenis]

MichaelL do think they will appeal, is this possible under US law ? With such a large amount of money involved it would seem probable, if they could.

TBH I do find this troubling, there are so many songs out with a similar groove and chord structure (see my 4 chords vid above). Its the nature of pop music, I even thought the Tom Petty/Sam Smith was not right either. How many other songs have that 3 note melody ? and in that case they were in no way a similar style.

[woodsdenis]

Or this one

[woodsdenis]

http://youtu.be/vapt5C3yDeY

What on earth a jury would make of that !!!

Over this side of the pond it was and probably still is different, I was involved in a similar case where someone claimed that a work I had co-composed was similar. A musicologist was borought is and wrote a lengthy tome on the differences and that was it. As it happened one of the co writers was rather famous so I suspect the claim was a fishing expedition more than anything else to see if there would be a settlement out of court. This particular band where very used to spurious claims and the matter was swiftly dealt with.

[woodsdenis]

Welcome, I would go for Crucial primarily because of the Vocal content.

[woodsdenis]

Thanks Jay, should really be a sticky Art.

[woodsdenis]

In the end of the day people can read this thread and decide for themselves whose “advice” to take. It seems to me Dave consistently avoided the primary question about exclusivity of streaming rights which is what all of this hangs on ultimately.

IMHO of course, never take information you find on the internet as gospel, suddenly everyone is a lawyer/doctor/psychologist/tech expert/library owner etc. ( with respect to the people on here who are actually one of the professions mentioned LOL) For the record I am none of these!!!!

Also personal abuse on forums is always the last recourse to a reasonable debate. Content ID has repercussions, find out how they affect you personally.

[woodsdenis]

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what “exclusive streaming rights” means. Since you have suggested that the one person on here that could give us a legal definition on this stop participating in the thread, as they say over here we will “park that one there”. LOL.

The main point here is NE RF companies with the NO CONTENT ID policy are just being selfish and self serving and oppressive to their writers.

I gave them a solution: Just tell your customer how to deal with ADREV and Content ID on every license you sell.

I will let library owners comment on that one ( I am not one ) but as I stated earlier this is not the root cause or a solution to the problem either.

[woodsdenis]

Shifting to “exclusive streaming rights”…Again, this seems to be a gray area. Here is why? Let’s suppose we all decide to write new albums over the next 3 months. There we are with our 10 new tracks all excited to present them to the world. How do we do it? We can sell on I-tunes, Amazon, Spotify etc etc. Promote on Soundcloud, reverbnation, youtube,. Wow….well look at that. just like that there are 6 to 10 places streaming our music. So you see where the entire concept of “exclusive streaming rights” gets all weird and fuzzy?

I really don’t understand this point sorry, YT is not asking for “exclusive streaming rights” that would be crazy. They are asking that you (as a YT Content ID partner) have or administer “exclusive streaming rights”

There are many rights I have as author of musical works and I may assign those rights to third parties in a number of scenarios, record deals, publishing deals etc. If I enter into an agreement with any non ex library I am letting them administer my streaming rights (amongst others) to their clients in return for a fee. Thats a fairly basic agreement between any composer and a non ex library. I still have retention of my copyright. Now because of the non ex nature of that agreement I can enter into multiple deals with non ex libraries letting each one of them administer those streaming rights ( again amongst many others )non exclusively for a fee. This means very simply I do not control or administer the exclusive streaming rights. I have chosen to let xxxx non exclusive libraries do that. This in itself stops me entering in YT Content id OR any other Agency on my behalf doing so.

So assuming that I am correct in my reading of the YT TOS then I could not as an individual, if I had my music in multiple non ex libraries enter my music into YT CID either directly or through AdRev.

It would then make no difference what so ever if all the non ex libraries put a notice along with every transaction explaining how to whitelist, Adrev etc.

If I am wrong in this please explain why. This surely is the crucial clause in the YT TOS in the whole debate.

You are absolutely correct to point out Adrev’s good points lets not disagree or even debate that anymore. Nobody is disputing that and lets not forget Mark Petrie specifically pointed out those tracks he has in CID are not in non ex libs.

The issue being debated here is how AdRev and similar agencies affect non ex library composers.

[woodsdenis]

@Dave

I will ask you a simple question ? The composers that you reference, are they operating their own youtube channel where they use their own music on videos that they upload? In cases like this you could make money from it and there was someone on here a while ago who does exactly that, although with Rumblefish.

I dont operate like that, I just sell through half a dozen RF sites and a few exclusives.. I really don’t believe that there is so much piracy of my music to ….

1. Police it and then proceed to make money from illegal use and clear legal use.
2. More importantly p*** off the Libraries and their customers who expect a “direct licence” that they were promised.

As a side note regarding detection, there is one library I am in that is very proactive in this, and has alerted me a number of times when other libraries have put my tracks in Content id. There is also the YT option. I don’t need Adrev for that.

AdRev and all the others are great at fulfilling record companies and other big content owners needs, nobody is disputing that. In the RF world there are issues with it, its really that simple.

[woodsdenis]

I totally get that AdRev is a perfect match for Record Companies and the like, but why come on to a composers forum and give the company line then. Surely they know by now, even by perusing this thread that Content id can cause problems for us.

[woodsdenis]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for dropping in to explain some things about AdRev.

Many of the composers here have the same music in numerous non-exclusive libraries, some of which are “royalty free” libraries.

Part of the marketing of some of those royalty free libraries is a promise to their customers that the music they purchase will be free from copyright claims on youtube.

How is it possible:

1) for writers in RF libraries, who promote their music a free copyright claims, to collect money through AdRev, without triggering copyright claims?

2) for writers who have music in non-exclusive libraries to comport with the youtube’s Terms of Service, which requires exclusive content?

Your input might help to clear up some concern over theses issues, which is considerable.

Thank you,
_Michael

and a deafening silence from Adrev……………..

[woodsdenis]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/youtube-mcns-attacked-lawsuits-alleged-774389

Another day another lawsuit.

[woodsdenis]

[Author]

Posts