Home » YouTube Music » GoDigital Media Group

GoDigital Media Group


Recently conversations have been appearing in various threads about GoDigital Media Group. You can find out more about GoDigital here: http://www.godigitalmg.com/adshare.php.

A comment from one reader says it all.

“Crap! just had my musicloops.com account shut down because “xxxxx” submitted my entire catalog to GoDigital without my permission and musicloops customers are complaining about my music! They can’t use my music on Youtube anymore.”
Please e-mail any libraries you work with on their position with GoDigital (or any 3rd party deals) and I will list here.

Libraries with NO GoDigital or 3rd party deals:

300 Monks
MoonLab Music
Vault Audio
Tune Society

Libraries WITH GoDigital or 3rd party deals:

If you know of any please contact me and I will list here.

45 thoughts on “GoDigital Media Group”

  1. Maybe i’m just being a paranoid android but Im a bit worried about my music becoming involved in the GoDigital program without me knowing about it. Can a client who buys your music from a non exclusive library that has no connection with Go Digital or the Ad Share program somehow get your music involved in it? Or can GoDigital approach anyone about any web video that contains music and do some kind of deal with them?

    Forgive me as I am probably quite misinformed as to what they do exactly , but ive been hearing some things I dont like the sound of.

    Im starting to worry about every sale I make incase a client somehow gets my music involved in the GoDigital program.

    • @Hysteria. I dont think this is an issue. A library acts as your agent under the terms agreed in your contract. Practically this means they can license your music to whomever fits that criteria, in certain circumstances it allows them to enter into a GoDigital type arrangement.

      Now, a client who licenses your music from a Library does not have the right to resell or relicense that music, or do anything with it outside the terms of the license they have purchased.
      Only if the library permitted this would they be able to further monetize your track and to do so they would have to have a claim on its copyright.

      MichaelL will surely be able to give a heads up on this.

      The issue with GoDigital seems to be a lack of info on how they operate on this level, it has been very difficult even to ascertain who they represent, as they are very secretive about this.

  2. Hey there, Paul Anthony from Rumblefish here. To set the record straight we do not have a deal in place with GoGigital. For the benefit of our current artist members and artists and labels looking to evaluate our service I’d appreciate it if any mentions of us having a contract with GoDigital were updated so they’re accurate.

    I also think that there is confusion based on the claims system language that YouTube provides when it catches a song in its ContentID system which says specifically:

    “Your video, VIDEO NAME HERE , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities: MUSIC COMPANIES NAME HERE. No action is required on our part. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video.”

    Many YouTube users mistake a licensed use of music – from whatever source – that is included in their video to mean that they own outright the entire video in its derivative form. While they have may have properly licensing the rights to the music for use in their video, they do not of course own that song outright, they own the portions of their video derivative work that they created uniquely and originally.

    It appears that the majority of the frustration when you get down to it is one of the following:

    1 – The misperception that music was used illegally when it was properly licensed.

    2 – That the video uploaded is not 100% owned by the uploaded (indeed it’s likely licensed, not owned outright)

    3 – There are ads running on a video page of a user that is a brand/company promoting their product and many times they are competing products do to how the video is keyworded.

    At Rumblefish we’re experimenting with a technology that enables video uploaders to eaily link back to the rights they’ve legally licensed in order to put anyone on notice out there on the interwebs that they’ve properly licensed music for that specific use. It will also have other dynamic features that I can’t share yet but will in the near future that may shed more light / provide more options for licensing clients / artists.

    It’s important to empower your clients online when they post vids w/your catalogs music b/c they drive the market for more uses and it’s your obligation to help them have a positive experience with your license product. The online music licensing world is as tangled as it’s ever been but the users will speak and it’s all our responsibly to innovate, be open minded and come up with solutions that work for everyone.


    Paul Anthony | Founder & CEO | Rumblefish

      • Art – we no longer actively work with GoDigital but rather have our own program for monetization on YouTube via their Content ID system. Composers can join if they have enough tracks and desire to grant us what I believe you call “semi-exclusivity” and wish to take advantage of the cash flow stream from the “illegal” use of their music within YouTube videos and be paid 50% of the revenue. For videos containing legitimately licensed music, the accounts can be white-listed within minutes. We will post more details when we are accepting new composers to the program. In the meantime, we’d appreciate it if you removed our name from association with GoDigital here as it’s no longer applicable. An interesting tidbit is that every major “exclusive” production music library we are aware of is taking advantage of a program of this sort.

  3. One element that has not been discussed or noted here is that the dataset developed by GoDigital aids social media web publishers like YouTube in reporting and paying the PRO’s. Anyone that publicly performs a song has to pay royalties to the song’s owners, websites are slowly coming around on this. If the website does not know what content is being exhibited on the site they cannot provide an accurate accounting to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. That means they’ll write a check in one lump sum and it will be distributed by market share at the PRO level meaning indies won’t get a dime. So GoDigital is very helpful in this respect because the advertising revenue is completely separate from the PRO royalties which GoDigital does not participate in and will go directly from website to PRO to publishers and writers.

  4. This confirms that AudioSparx was a part of the GoDigital AdShare program very briefly during late 2009. Once our composers and Mark at PIR informed us of the numerous problems it was causing PIR and MusicLoops’ clients, we cancelled the contract and pulled out as quickly as we could.

    Before entering into the program, we provided our composers in a communiqué all the information we had available, and gave everyone the opportunity to “opt out.” It looked like a win-win for our composers, but in reality, the negatives outweighed the positives.

    We’re glad to have the entire event in our rearview mirror, and believe AudioMicro and Rumblefish’s AdShare participation will create the same problem for composers on their sites.

    Creative Director and Artist Liaison

  5. Just got this from RevoStock:

    We currently have no 3rd party providers and if it ever were to occur… you would need to opt into it, eg, your content would never be put into any 3rd party deals without specific consent.

  6. I’m in the same boat as Bobby and emailed GoDigital about the suppression status. If I get answer I’ll post it here. What I don’t understand is this thing happened a while ago with Audiosparx, they took action and had their library ‘cleaned’ One would think that the GoDigital system would recognize tracks previously being surppressed by other Libraries?

  7. Would be interesting to hear directly from someone from Go Digital as to their intentions and what they’re doing to ensure issues like these don’t occur (if anything)

  8. Will all due respect to the composers here, anyone that signs with a non-exclusive or “retitle” library should expect these kinds of problems. Do you think non-exclusive libraries care about what happens to your music? HA!

    • Well, I presume they: a) don’t want to get sued, b) don’t want a lot of their composers to pull their music out and c) would prefer to avoid pissing off competing libraries (who are potential business partners as well as competitors)

      But they still do it anyway!

      I think the key is to be judicious/picky/careful with where we put our music. Identify the most effective libraries and zero in on them. Sure, you need to test the waters with libraries that have glowing reviews, but maybe it’s a good idea to only give them enough music to get a sense of whether or not they’ll make you a decent amount of money. If it seems like they’re a winner, then great, give them everything you’ve got. Pull out your music from low performing libraries (if you can), or at least stop supplying them with music. This stuff is pretty obvious, but it seems some composers just want to scatter their tracks as far and wide as possible.

    • oontz oontz, What in the world is wrong with retitling? If you upload to a library who gets you a deal on a major tv show that they spent their own time and money to get you on and tell you upfront the deal is to split the front and publishing and it is nothing out of pocket to you, how does that make them evil? In my experience the majority of people who bitch about libraries retitling are either completely uninformed as to what retitling is all about or have a secret reason that they try to create doubt. Typically they own or work for a label or non-retitling competitor. It’s always possible that they dealt with a bad actor in the past, but the equivalent is people saying they’re racist because they had a single bad experience. It has nothing to do with the majority and is total propoganda. Keep up your line of BS, but be sure other know you’re either full of it or your not revealing your ulterior motive.

  9. Good call Art. It would be great to hear from Mark PIR exactly why he objects to this. Also if you remember there was the same issue with Audiosparx who subsequently withdrew from Godigital.
    A view from all sides, to the uninformed like me, would really be helpful.

    • Seems clear to me why he objects to it. it’s obviously embarrassing and a potential loss of business when customers get copyright infringement notices for tracks they have paid for.

      I think the real issue is why are non-exclusive libraries signing up with services like GoDigital that essentially target anyone using the same music? Dollar signs making them blind to common sense perhaps? GoDigital is probably great for exclusive libraries, but non-exclusive ones should steer clear!

      • Well, I dont speak for PIR but I think your assumptions are correct. What I dont understand is why any non exclusive library can sign up to Godigital. In this instance Audiomicro did, all of their tracks were water marked, and then when the same track was purchased on Musicloops it triggered a copyright infringement when the Musicloops version was put on Youtube. Not cool at all.

        Why then, if the same track is purchased on Audiosparx, does the same thing not occur, or maybe it does. Is the difference in this scenario that Musicloops doesn’t re-title ? I dont know? This is really what I would be interested in finding out, because this has been a nightmare for the composers caught up in this. I would really like to know the ins and outs of this from a library spokesperson, as they have first hand knowledge and I am just surmising here.

        I would also like to know what libraries are represented by Godigital, this info should be available. And finally, Audiomicro can not claim from this moment on that they are non exclusive, because as recent events have shown they are clearly not.

        Hoping for answers !!!!

        • Hi Denis-
          It doesn’t happen with Audiosparx material anymore because we successfully got them to remove the 15,000 tracks they submitted into the GoDigital database.
          I personally fought that fight with my own money hiring lawyers and having litigators build a potential case. Fortunately it did not come to that and the tracks were removed.

          The weird thing about the whole Audiosparx incident was that the composers I was fighting for were more annoyed with the whole situation than grateful so I decided let the composers fight for the legal status of their own music catalogs from now on.

          The fact that any composer who would sign up with a company that includes a clause like the one below in their TOS is truly mind boggling:

          “2.5 By uploading or otherwise providing a Sound Recording, you grant
          AudioMicro the right to place advertising on AudioMicro.com as well as
          other 3rd party websites alongside, before, after, and within the both
          the Sound Recording itself and end user projects incorporating the
          Sound Recording(s), including placing advertising alongside, before,
          after, or within YouTube videos containing the Sound Recording(s). NO

          For composers who do not care where they distribute their music just as long as they earn a dollar or two somewhere down the line then this is the type of thing that happens.

          We are now becoming very very strict with the composers we accept into our catalog on Musicloops and extremely strict with composer supplying us with music for collections on Partners In Rhyme. We might even have to delete some existing collections of our composers who are entering their catalog into every dodgy library they come across. We are not exclusive but we also do not want to put our business in danger because of the actions of others.

          As an example of how the GoDigital situation harms our business:

          A loyal customer purchases a music track from musicloops.com.
          He is the video producer for the Four Seasons hotel chain.
          He creates a video for his employer using the music and delivers it to the Four Seasons media dept.
          The media dept uploads the video to their Youtube channel and are immediately sent an email saying they have third party content in their video.
          Their video is then plastered with Google Adsense ads for a competing hotel chain.
          They are also not allowed to monetize their own video because of the third party content warning.
          The Four Seasons media dept contacts their video producer and threatens to fire him for using copyrighted material in the video.
          The video producer then contacts me and is furious that he almost lost his job after spending his hard-earned money on our website.
          We lost that customer *forever*.

          A more recent example of a customer complaint because of the GoDigital notice basically threatened us with a lawsuit, no questions asked.

          Partners In Rhyme and Musicloops.com is one of the most pro-composer distribution sites out there but if we do not have happy customers then we make no sales.
          If we start getting threatened with lawsuits because a certain composer wants to try and make a few dollars with a low end library then we will have to delete that composer’s content from our library.

          It is a sad state of affairs when the Youtube ContentID system can be abused in this manner. The system is meant for content owners only, not licensees and sub-licensees with no permission or consent from the content owners.

          I’m really sorry that we have had to take such a hard line in this matter and that we might have to end relationships with composers that we have been sending checks to for years simply because of their relationship with another library.

          Let’s hope everyone involved does the right thing as soon as possible so we can all just get back to business as usual.


          • Hi Mark

            Thanks for all the info and fighting the good fight. Do you know, and more importantly can you say what libraries are with Godigital. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of info about that on their website. If there was a list, then at least composers would be aware of the potential pitfalls in all of this mess.


            • I can only say that at this point we do not accept music submissions from composers who are involved in any way with Audiomicro and/or Rumblefish.

              GoDigital will not reveal who their clients are.
              Some composers I know have no idea how their content ended up in their database and GoDigital will not tell them how it got there.
              It is a pretty scary situation to have your music held hostage like this.

              – Mark

              • Hey Mark,

                You should have composers sign agreements making them liable for any loss of business incurred by this situation. Composers exist to make YOU money, not the other way around. Alot of these same composers will go behind your back anyway, with the excuse that they don’t want their music “sitting on the shelf”

                • This is ridiculous non-sense. GoDigital is new money for the libraries and composers. It’s the best thing to happen to composers since ASCAP. Customers are aware that ads can be placed on their YouTube videos – this is how YouTube makes money – from the Ads. It’s no surprise to them that videos uploaded to YouTube can have ads. After all, YouTube is providing hosting, storage, and massive distribution to them.

                  • Yikes thats a bold statement. What happens though when you piss of your customers – ie. the people the pay your wages?

                    Its all good and fine demanding money from them when they use tracks of yours on youtube, but if they never knew about the fact that they would have to pay, then they’re going to avoid buying from the particular website they bought your music from again.

                    In the end, you’re going to end up shooting yourself in the foot – I don’t want to have any part in this at all.and will be steering well away from it. Its a very dodgy practice, and I’d rather keep my customer’s happy and returning, rather than demanding more money from them.

                    • As I understand it, the revenue comes from the ad placed on the video, not from the video content owner directly. If they are YouTube partners, they are receiving advertising revenues themselves. If not, YouTube is free to put ads on any video page on their site. This is just a payment similar to a PRO payment, except for internet usage, instead of broadcast (film or television) usage.

                      It seems to have originated to benefit the artist/songwriter, but if the contract is directed to whomever placed the music, then that would be like giving up all your publishing rights, including writer’s rights.

                      It does totally ignore the fact that a single piece of music (or a single copyright) can be resold more than once. I’m not sure why it wouldn’t just count the number of uses, rather than discerning who is using the same music and causing conflict on YouTube and other video sharing sites.

                      Gael or one of the lawyers that have commented on retitling??? Help!

                      http://www.godigitalmg.com/adshare.php. Is this a service similar to a PRO that benefits the copyright owner, or a ploy to put more ads on more videos and increase the revenue of library owners. Why wouldn’t this income be split in the same manner that other monies are agreed to in a contract?

                    • The YoutubeContentID system is not a PRO system, it is not some sort of royalty system to earn backend money off of uses of music in Youtube videos.
                      The system was designed to monetize *illegal* uses of music, not legal ones.
                      It is designed for record labels who have music out on CDs. If joe-schmoe at home creates a video of his kid’s birthday party and uses the latest Lady Gaga track as background music then the YoutubeContentID system finds that video and monetizes it for the record label. It is a great system when used for the purpose it was meant to be used for.
                      But again, no matter what these other companies are saying it is not a royalty system or pseudo-PRO system for composers.
                      It puts ads on videos where their would not be ads normally.
                      And it denies the owner of the video of the chance to monetize their own video content. The content that they paid good money to license and use in their video.


          • Thanks Mark, great info!

            I am e-mailing the few libraries I am with making them aware of the situation. If we could all do the same with the respective libraries we work with, and find out their position on this issue, I will list them here as sites that are (or not) “GoDigital” free.

            • Hey Art,

              You can add PrimaryElements.com to the Royalty Free Music licensing services that DOES NOT submit anything to GoDigital, and we’re going to disallow content from composers that have registered their music with GD, or any other licensing service that has.

              Cheers and thanks,


          • I had my attorney review my agreements with all the libraries I submit to and it turns out that any library with non-exclusive sub licensing rights can submit your music to a system like GoDigital. It has absolutely nothing to do with exclusivity. GoDigital is good for composers because it makes you more money for your music.

            • This is completely incorrect. As per the Youtube TOS you have to be the content owner to submit content to the ContentID Match System or you have to have direct permission from the content owner.

              If you think you can make money by squeezing a few more pennies out of the customers who have already paid to license your music then you should go ahead and sign up with these libraries (even though their TOS plainly states says that they will not pay you for taking part in the program).


              • You are INCORRECT….it has nothing to do with YouTube’s TOS and everything to do with who I as a composer grant licensing right to. You are making false claims.

                • Yeah well he also likes to have a go at AudiosparX who in our opinion have the BEST customer service going. Barbie is an absolute diamond. One of the most genuinely helpful people we have ever come across ( You to Lee…lol)
                  To even have AudiosparX and audiomicro in the same rant is insulting and misleading.

                  • You’re right, I did not mean to lump Audiosparx in with this situation and I apologize.
                    They have removed the tracks they submitted and were really great to work with while the problem was occurring.
                    I really appreciate everything that Quinn and Audiosparx did during that time and the cooperation that they showed once they saw what was happening.


  10. Thanks for this Art… good to have it on a central thread.

    Would love to know other peoples experience with the whole situation, it has been a nightmare for me, and also Mark from Music Loops who has had all sorts of problems because of Go Digital. Let me know your thoughts guys. Would be good to get someone from Go digital here as well.

    • Hi Bobby – I make a lot of money through Rumblefish with GoDigital. It’s great new money and the checks keep getting bigger each month.

    • I placed my music with GoDigital directly and they just sent my first check and it was $4,000 for 3 months of play. Totally insane! I highly suggest that everybody put their music into the GoDigital system.

      • Since most of the companies that place their composer’s music into the GoDigital database do not actually pay any share of the GoDigital revenues to the composer I find your statement highly suspect.
        But good luck to any composer that signs up to this “service”, you will of course never be able to work with Partners In Rhyme or any other music library that has been negatively effected by the practices of GoDigital Media.

      • Would you be able to elaborate on how much music that was? It would be impressive if you have a couple hundred tracks. Not so much if you own a library with 1000’s of tracks.

      • God I love these anonymous comments that promote that every artist should immediately get involved…. because after making so much money, I am sure you want lots of challengers taking your opportunities. Can anyone say “planted comments”. Shoot if you made so much, post your website so we can all see how great of an artist you are and thank you for telling us all how to make lots of money.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Forgot Password?

Join Us