Thought I would revive this conversation. One of our readers e-mailed me and mentioned that YouTube no longer pulls videos for copyright infringement if music a client purchased elsewhere, is used on a YouTube video but YouTube has the rights to the same music via a 3rd party deal. In this case our reader has a deal with Rumblefish and states that the video producer will simply get a letter stating that Rumblefish has the rights to the music and that would be the end of it.
Anyone else know about this? Has YouTube changed their position? I was under the impression that YouTube was pulling videos for copyright infringement if the music conflicted with their third party deals.
Here’s a link to the previous thread and it’s worth reading the comments. GoDigital Thread
[Update 01-18-2012]
This was recently posted by Lee from Audiosparx and seems to answer the exclusivity question. Until Rumblefish or YouTube specifically answers some of these questions we will all be a bit in the dark.
Lee said:
YouTube’s stated requirement is that only holders of exclusive content can submit such content to their Content ID program.
By requiring exclusive content, this avoids the scenarios where Rumblefish earns money from music licenses sold by other libraries, and gives an affected client a clear path of who to communicate with if they receive an email notification that their video may have content that is owned or licensed by XYZ (e.g. the company they licensed the music track from).
In other words, YouTube is saying that the Library XYZ must be the ONLY licensing source for a track if they are submitting that track to YouTube’s Content ID program, not that the track is available for license at multiple libraries and Library XYZ happens to be the only library submitting the track to YouTube’s Content ID program.
——————–
[Update 08-12-2013]
FYI – The following companies are known to be involved with the YouTube Content ID Program:
AudioMicro
AudioSocket
AudioSparx “Internet royalties” program
CDBaby “Sync licensing” program
Crucial Music
Fine Tune Music
GoDigital & Social Media Holdings
IODA: Independent Online Distribution Alliance
Kontor New Media
Magnatune
Music Beyond
Music for Productions
The Orchard
The Music Bed
Rumblefish
SourceAudio
Content Identification Application
Thank you for your interest in using Content Identification!
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. Visit the Help Center for more information about copyrights.
This is on youtubes page for signup. What does “exclusive online streaming rights” mean? Is that a loop hole?
Hi ecua,
Technically the copyright owner hold’s the “exclusive online streaming” rights to a given work.
Once you place that work into multiple non-exclusive situations you’ve muddied the waters. No non-exclusive library holds an exclusive online streaming right to your music, UNLESS you grant them exclusivity in that track.
Dhruva’s argument is that Rumblefish (although it is a library) is acting more or less as a PRO (like ASCAP) with respect to its content ID program. The argument is not without validity in that in non-exclusive situations the composer always remains the exclusive owner of the work.
There is a difference between sync fees and backend royalties, as the Rumblefish FAQ explains.
Here’s the problem: some royalty free libraries expressly represent to their customers that once you buy a track, that’s it. It’s yours to use forever, no strings, no future responsibilities, no worries. When a track from one of those libraries shows up on youtube and it’s been put into a content ID program, they get a copyright notice. EVEN IF, it does not mean anything, or cost the end user anything more, that is not what they were promised by the library that sold them the track. It causes confusion and concern for the end user.
My opinion is that if you sign up with a library that makes a no-strings, no-worries representation to its customers, you abide by those terms. If you don’t like those terms, then don’t put your music there. It’s that simple.
Dhruva compares the Rumblefish program to ASCAP. Yes and No. ASCAP does not provide content to broadcasters. I think that everyone would be more comfortable if an entity collecting and distributing content ID royalties was a third party that does not provide content too.
It’ll all work out in time. But like I said in another post, if you want to sell tracks at $1.99 a pop, that’s your call.
Thanks Michael. I’m just trying to make heads or tails out of all this. Like you I have no problem with content id, I have some tracks in it through Audiosparx(exclusive of course) and that is the only way I would do it.
I agree it will all work out, I guess it is only a matter of time before ascap, bmi ,soundexchange or a similar entity enter into the social media game.
Hi euca,
Yes, it’s only a matter of time before larger interests start to sort things out. I know from attending the PMA meeting, that the major exclusive libraries are looking at this.
Don’t forget, it’s not just home videos of someone’s flatulent grand dad doing a cannonball into a kiddie pool that air on the internet. Most network television shows can be seen now on sites like hulu.
So, all this talk about youtube and social media is kind of like the tail wagging the dog. Unfortunately, when rate courts start looking at this, the prices being established at the bottom of the food chain for internet plays are going to have a negative effect at the top.
You won’t get the same amount of money for the same cue in the same show that is shown on the internet versus broadcast television or cable. While making more money from selling $1.99 tracks seems attractive in the short run, it is very bad in the long run.
The only thing that I do know is that I should be spending more time writing than debating the pennies involved content ID.
Cheers,
Michael
[Deleted by moderator]
Enough Dhruva. Name calling will not be tolerated! To that end I have deleted your comment. Any further comments will also be deleted unless you can keep it civil. Right or wrong there is no excuse for juvenile behavior.
Thanks Art,
I will not comment or reply to Dhruva’s comment. I have never spoken like that to anyone on this forum and never will, It doesn’t help your case or point at all.
Quite simply I am asking someone from Rumblefish or their allies on this board to respond to Lee Audiosparx post which I think was conveniently ignored yesterday.
This quoted from the end
“Accordingly, unless Rumblefish has some sweetheart deal that permits them to submit non-exclusive content, Rumblefish is seriously breaching the terms of YouTube’s stated requirements for their Content ID program.”
Nobody has answered this or responded in any way, This a statement from a well known and respected library, not me personally. It should be taken very seriously.
Respond to Lee in the same way you did to me, if you are so sure you are right. Somehow I dont think you will.
I will now bow out of this thread
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Frankly, I found the whole discussion a bit misleading. It sounds like Rumblefish has some sort of official link to youtube.
Youtube, as we all know, is owned by Google. Google bought RightsFlow to manage youtube royalty issues.
OK…because Dhruva challenged us to go to the Rumblefish FAQ section on youtube to see for ourselves, I did.
Here’s one of the first things it says:
“If you’ve received a notice from YouTube stating Rumblefish owns the content in your video, this FAQ is for you. It will explain what the notice is and why received it. Before we get to the longer list of questions, here are the most common ones:”
The most obvious difference between the above statement and Dhruva’s representation are the words “Rumblefish owns.” Rumblefish OWNS clearly cannot refer to non-exclusive content from other libraries. The terms are mutually exclusive.
Next it says:
“The YouTube content ID system asserts claims on music content represented by Rumblefsh that you have likely included in your video.”
This is where Dhruva and I part company. My belief is that the company that “represents” a given track is the one that SOLD it. Dhruva does not.
Finally, Rumblfish provides the following disclaimer:
“The FAQ does not reflect the opinions of YouTube, Google, it’s subsidiaries or affiliates and has been created entirely by and is property of Rumblefsh in an effort to help answer questions for YouTube users who receive Content ID claims from YouTube for music content represented by Rumblefsh on behalf of its content providers, including record labels, music publishers, artists, writers and estates”
Again Rumblefish refers to ITS content providers. There is nothing in this langue that includes OTHER libraries content providers.
Unless there is some other page on the Rumblefish website about their content ID program, there is nothing here that solicits content from other libraries or addresses it.
However, my interpretation of the word OWNS, (this is what lawyers do) is that it implies exclusivity. Moreover, based on the disclaimer, I think the relationship between youtube and Rumblefish has been overstated in this thread.
I see nothing in the FAQ that supports Dhruva’s interpretation, but maybe it’s somewhere else.
The FAQ does provide a good explanation of why content ID is not an extra burden on the end user.
I am still of the opinion that the best way to participate in content ID is with exclusive material. Whether one chooses to do that at $1.99 per track or $35 per track is up to the individual.
You’re right Art, I’m too heavy handed at debating, especially right before going to bed. I have to learn to be more diplomatic. And although I know a thing or two about this subject, there’s plenty I learn from all these contributors on other subjects which I am completely ignorant about. And for that I’m very grateful. And while I didn’t like seeing a great company like Rumblefish being besmirched based on hearsay, I will apologize for not keeping a civil tone and letting my New York-ness out.
Apology accepted.
Thanks, ’cause sometimes my social skills suck. And if you, woodsdenis are ever in Santa Monica, reply to this and I’ll buy you a beer.
’cause sometimes my social skills suck.”
No worries Dhruva. It’s an occupational hazard that comes from sitting alone in a dark room all
day playing with machines! 😆
Cheers,
Michael
Ha, I hope that’s mostly the reason, besides the fact I was kinda born a jerk. Brewski for you too 🙂
Dhruva
I’ll take you up on that. Peace.
Cool 🙂
310-927-9058…that’s probably easier than logging in to MLR when you’re in town 🙂 cheers
Lee Audiosparx posted this yesterday
I also posted a link to YouTube own content id page which says exactly the same thing.
Dhruva you called me and others ignorant and hysterical for pointing this out.
Dhruva respond to this please without sidetracking. This totally contradicts your position.
Lee said
“Michael L and Denis are right on point. YouTube’s stated requirement is that only holders of exclusive content can submit such content to their Content ID program.
By requiring exclusive content, this avoids the scenarios where Rumblefish earns money from music licenses sold by other libraries, and gives an affected client a clear path of who to communicate with if they receive an email notification that their video may have content that is owned or licensed by XYZ (e.g. the company they licensed the music track from).
In other words, YouTube is saying that the Library XYZ must be the ONLY licensing source for a track if they are submitting that track to YouTube’s Content ID program, not that the track is available for license at multiple libraries and Library XYZ happens to be the only library submitting the track to YouTube’s Content ID program.
Accordingly, unless Rumblefish has some sweetheart deal that permits them to submit non-exclusive content, Rumblefish is seriously breaching the terms of YouTube’s stated requirements for their Content ID program.”
Are you really suggesting here that Audiosparx are hysterical and ignorant too.
Simple answer please.
I’ve heard a lot about Rumblefish and the content ID program, but I don’t think anyone has discussed the “Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society” – a mysterious company that doesnt seem to exist, that basically claims copyright randomly on videos on youtube. If you search youtube you can see a lot of people ranting about them.
I uploaded a few of my tracks to youtube to see if I got anything flagged – one was from Rumblefish (I had some tracks with Crucial and they put them into the youtube ID system as Rumblefish are their partners). I got that solved pretty quick – Rumblefish were quick to remove them from the system.
However, I now have a track (very popular track of mine) which is showing up as being claimed to by the “Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society”. So…you want to know what unethical?
Unethical is a company that provides no real name or identifying details, that lays claim to your music (ilegally) and which could potentially put you out of business as a composer – think about it….if you only have your music with a group of non-exclusives that won’t accept anyone with tracks in the content ID system, you could lose your income that you’ve been building up for years, literally in a day. This scares me…a lot!
I’ve contacted youtube to dispute the claim – the real pain in the ass now though is that I’m going to have to upload all of my tracks to youtube to see what else has been claimed by this society.
There is also a loophole in this – if you don’t like another composer, all you need to do is download a few tracks from his website, join Rumblefish content ID with them, and they’ll be banned from all the websites they sell their music on. This whole thing is scary to be honest – not sure if anyone else has even thought about this yet?
This has become such a hot topic I have re-titled it and put it on the main menu. It would be nice to have Rumblefish come on and state their position on this.
Dhruva, if Paul Anthony is as open and eager as you suggest maybe you can convince him to come here and set the record straight.
I know Paul would conference call with other with other library owners and would talk to people that actually want to participate in content ID. Rumblefish sets the record straight everyday for artists and others that care to email them. I don’t know if anyone from there wants to come here and debate 4 guys on MLR that don’t want to even participate in content ID. They have thousands of people to deal with and are busy as hell. This really is just an educational issue and I’m contributing here because I get something out of being here.
But I will address one thing that Michael said though-
“…taking money for another library’s content. That is what is unethical.”
That’s a misunderstanding of the nature of this business.
First, when someone buys music from a non exclusive library, they buy the right to sync the music to images, they are not buying the right to monetize on youtube (which is only one venue out there). Youtube is a totally separate entity from a music Library, and Content ID is in a different realm from sync licensing. Social media is an ever expanding realm. Rumblefish provides a service to collect for composers from the social media world. Is it fair that somebody buys my song from a library for 20 bucks then can put it on as many youtube videos as they want and blast that song all over the internet on as many social networking platforms that exist and even more that will exist in the future in perpetuity? As well as block me from having my song monetize because they paid 20 bucks for it? No that’s not fair. That’s why content ID exists, and if composers don’t want to participate, and get their fair share, they don’t have to. And if someone wants to monetize a youtube video (and youtube is only one venue out of many) then they can find a composer/library that is not in content ID, or they can make their own music.
Second, a library that sells a track does not have the right to tell youtube to take that track out of their content ID system because they don’t like Rumblefish collecting royalties for composers. That would be like telling ASCAP to stop collecting royalties on a video with music that ended up on broadcast T.V.
Granted, ASCAP collects 11.3% for itself and Rumblefish collects 50% But Rumblefish should collect 50% because they are business that is proactive about getting artists deals and they really earn their keep.
Hopefully this will click in the brains of some peeps reading this thread.
Yeah Dhruva. I get what you’re saying. Rumblefish is acting like a quasi-PRO, collecting money for internet plays. I never missed that point.
I’m not against content ID programs at all. Maybe someday I’ll develop a line for that market. But when, and if, I do, it will be done on an exclusive basis, to avoid conflicts with, and problems for, any other libraries that I might be in, until better system is in place.
Yeah, it is the wild west and I’m interested to see when it all settles in and stabilizes how content ID effects a musician’s ability to garner sales in other areas. As well as what niche there is for youtube users that want to monetize contentedly. I wish them well. I personally, have not encountered any problems or conflicts whatsoever from all the libraries I’m in.
The only issue I had with this is when I got accepted to Shockwave and right after Bjorn did a test video on youtube to see if I was in content ID. And he had to inform me about his reluctance to to have content ID tracks. That was the first and only time I had it come up. I’ve been accepted to other libraries since, and none of them seem to care. But I told Rumblefish about Shockwave and Paul quickly got in touch with Bjorn to talk about it. But basically libraries like that are at an empasse with Rumblefish at the moment.
However, I have to stick with content ID because I see the most money from there. It’s always growing and it certainly isn’t effecting T.V. placements for me, unless Shockwave would have got me some…that’s a huge “IF”. This kind of thing only effects a tiny fraction of internet marketeers.
Also, a lot of the people that use my music on their videos are using my songs to push a product or business and get free advertising on youtube, not necessarily monetize on youtube. The only thing I really wish youtube would change is for them to put those little rectangle ads below the actual video instead of on top of the lower portion of the frame. I don’t think that’s very nice. I don’t want somebody to have that ad block a portion of their video just because they decided to use my song, that’s the main thing that gives me angst.
Dhruva,
I would really like it if Rumblefish did come on here to set the record straight. I know you feel it would only be a debate with 3 or 4 people but I think there are many, many other MLR members who are watching and reading this topic and would like to hear from Rumblefish, me included.
I have no problem with content id but I am also very confused over the whole matter.
In the fall I had a song placed through Jingle Punks for a Gap kids back to school web promo, it was put on youtube along with other sites. What would have happened if that song would have been in the content id through Rumblefish?
I may be wrong, but I have a feeling it would have raised some red flags with the ad agency that did the promo. This to me seems to be where everything gets muddy.
What would happen is Gap would get their commercial viewed just like they wanted and you would get a little extra money. Gap used your music to enhance their commercial and sell clothes, and probably not to make fractions of a penny every time their vid is watched.
Anyway, I don’t know what record needs to be set straight. I’ve explained everything pretty much, and their FAQ explain a bunch, but again if you have questions, just email them.
Also videos can be de-monetized and the monetization can be switched over, so for instance, if Gap called Rumblefish and asked them to un-claim the video, perhaps they would, if they had good reason to.
There is another very important point I want to make clear to everybody reading this thread.
I see there’s a lot of confusion about the exclusivity issue regarding libraries that place music in Content ID.
What I’m about to write will clear all that up -BUT FIRST- I want to point out that when people say things like —
“…Rumblefish or any other non exclusive library CANNOT use your music for this program. They would be breaking their contract with both Youtube and the Composer. Its as simple as that.”
Or “…It makes me very uneasy that Rumblefish can do this under a non-exclusive contract.”
Or “I would suggest that Youtube should be informed of this immediately.”
Those kind of statements are baseless, unfounded hysterics. It’s just plain ignorance. But I understand the confusion because this is a fast evolving, new part of the music licensing biz.
Rumblefish has regular meetings with Youtube, and Youtube’s top lawyers know completely, 100% what kind of business model Rumblefish has.
Rumblefish is a top notch, aboveboard organization that is pioneering the way into this brand new, business paradigm involving content ID. The CEO is a successful composer himself and the folks at Rumblefish care deeply about helping musicians get the best out of this business. I know, because they’ve had my back for years before I even had one placement.
Now let me explain what the deal is with the exclusivity issue…
The internet sync business (like youtube’s content ID program) is following in the footsteps of regular digital distribution.
Meaning, if you want to sell your music on iTunes, EMusic, Rhapsody, whatever, you can only have one distributor that puts your music with those services. So you have to pick either CDBaby, or Catapult, or IODA, etc. You can’t be with all of them because…which one is gonna collect your money? You have to pick one. IN THE SAME WAY, when you decide you want to make money through Content ID, you have to pick only one library that is going to place you in youtube’s program. In my case, I have Rumblefish for that. They rep my music on youtube. But I’m free to be non-exclusive with all the other types of licensing deals out there.
Rumblefish is totally committed to the non-exclusive model. But youtube has to know which entity to pay for each song, so it is they who insist on one rep per artist. It’s as simple as that.
When you sign with Rumblefish, the only exclusive thing about them is the internet sync part, because there’s just no other way in the world to do it. And it’s optional, you don’t have to participate in content ID. If you don’t wanna make money doing that, that’s up to you. That just means more of the market will go to guys like me, so be my guest 🙂 If you’re good enough, you could probably be with Rumblefish without the internet thing and be totally non-exclusive, but they are experts in this aspect of the biz and I definitely take advantage of their expertise.
Now, there are other libraries that do Content ID, for instance Audisparx, Lee and Barb over there are great people. One difference though, between Audiosparx and Rumblefish, is that (from what I understand) in order to be in content ID through Audiosparx, they want you to be totally exclusive with everything else, for whatever reason. But Rumblefish actually is the opposite, they encourage you to enjoy non-exclusivity with everything else. I dont know what the Modus Operendi is for other libraries that do this. All I know is that Rumblefish has an excellent grasp and vision on this fast evolving internet sync business.
But I’m with Audiosparx (without the internet option) and Rumblefish, and a bunch of other libraries, so no problemo.
I hope that clears that up.
Thanks DhruvaAliman for your input. Your explanation on exclusivity (as it pertains to YouTube’s Content ID program) makes perfect sense to me.
Hi Dhruva
Seeing as you are selectively quoting me and accusing me of baseless ignorance and hysteriaI I suggest you re read my post. My assumption about exclusivity was based on Lee ( Audiosparx ) statement that YouTube require exclusivity. Not exclusive reperesenation for content ID BUT exclusive representation for the music involved, which is why they ( Audiosparx ) insist on this. This is my reading of his statement, it seems pretty clear to me.
In this regard both Rumblefish and Audiosparx’s positions contradict each other. One is correct, your assumption is that Rumblefish’s position is the valid one. It is not ignorance and hysteria when someone makes a point based on a statement from a reliable honest and ethical source (Audioparx in this case) perhaps you may want to rethink they way you present your points.
I certainly don’t have the YouTube contract Id TOS in front of me. Do you have a link or a direct quote from it to back up all your assertions..
I am not saying you are wrong or right but when an opposing point is made from a reliable source which contradicts what you say I would take note. I notice nobody from Rumblefish has come on here to answer the questions put.
I have no axe to gring here as I do not have any interest in this program but I do have the right to comment on issues.
Well just as you were “absolutely stunned by this thread” I guess I was also a bit stunned to see people jump to the conclusion that one library must be dishonest (“breaking contracts”) just because a couple of other honest guys said something contradictory. Nothing personal though.
Hi Dhruva
Tx nothing personal, I will try and make a one sentence point that can be addressed to get to the bottom of this, as it is important.
IF my reading of the Audiosparx position re exclusivity is correct, then yours and Rumblefish’s position CANNOT be correct.
Capitalisation for emphasis not shouting. I think you must agree with that summary of the issue here., there doesn’t seem to be a grey area on that one and I await with eager ears for an answer from all interested parties, especially Rumblefish as they have not chimed in yet.
Well my friend, the beauty part is you don’t have to wait for Rumblefish to chime in, you can just email them like it says at the bottom of their FAQ-
http://www.rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php
They eagerly await your questions 🙂
This is a public forum in which a few library owners have expressed their opinions, and points of view on this matter. I have no intention of relaying Rumblefish ‘s answers to any questions I might have second hand, I think they can do that for themselves if athey are interested in getting involved . That is their choice. I am a composer not a library owner and have no vested interest in this, apart from getting information regarding something of great interst and concern to many.
Either way you seem to have an interest in promoting this companies views, which cool and acceptable BTW. To clear this issue it would be nice to hear directly and unambiguously from them directly.
I think you would agree that would clear this up once and for all.
Who should not use Content ID?
This program is designed for exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by the user community. If no one is uploading content you own, you don’t need this program. For content owners with only occasional content management needs, or who seek a simpler solution, YouTube’s other copyright tools may be more appropriate.
How does Content ID work?
Rights holders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only or video) of content they own, metadata describing that content, and policies on what they want YouTube to do when we find a match.
http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
This is pasted directly from Youtube own page on content id. They use the words “exclusive rights ” and “of content they own” when describing content. . Both of these would cause me great concern as they certainly don’t seem to be part of a non exclusive deal with a library.
Even if you can legally fudge the “exclusive rights ” part how can a non exclusive library own your music.
More turf for the fire as they say over here.
Denis, I have also been included as making statements that are “baseless, unfounded hysterics”. And don’t forget “plain ignorance”. 🙂
I started this “firestorm” with, what I believed to be a simple question. I assumed it would be an equally simple answer. Oh how wrong I was!
I will stick to my original “ignorant” statement that this all makes me feel very uneasy. It seems that the composer is the only one who must hold up his/her end of the deal in contracts today! Non-exclusives claiming exclusive rights , Exclusives putting tracks in non-exclusives, etc.
I know if I were to submit a song to AudioSparx and mark it “exclusive”, and then submit the same track to Rumblefish, I would be in a world of trouble! At the very least banned from the libraries!
I am hoping that the Libraries will start to police themselves. And if they would be nice enough to hash it out here on the MLR, I would be able to make a more informed decision on who I trust with my music. 🙂
Let the cream rise!
Dhruva, you have nothing else to prove. I think you need to leave the issue alone. I myself believe you because you are an active participant in the program. Most of the people that disgaree with you are not participants. That automatically disqualifies their opinion to me. It just seems that people want to argue for the sake of arguing.
I am glad that you came on here to clear the issue up and provide firsthand knowledge on the subject of Youtube monetization. If composers are skeptical, they should not participate. But I do not think it is right at all for people to be angry with you. You told the truth and you have the hands-on knowledge to back up your case. That is all that matters to me. Thanks for the info. I have contacted Rumblefish via Friendly Music to start adding my songs to the catalog.
Thanks Synth, my thoughts exactly, good luck and let me know what happens with your submission.
Actually whats happening here is a lot of composers/libraries are calling out the legitimacy of this practice and you are stating your opinion as if its fact, without taking into consideration some of the very good points a number of people have just made.
Just because Rumblefish are doing it, doesn’t mean its legal. I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, but this is a discussion – not an “I’m right, you’re wrong” competition. I for one, have been interested to hear both sides of the argument, and although its not something I would ever be interested in joining (as you are making your music worth a lot less to potential buyers if they know the hassle they’ll be getting themselves into), I think it would be interesting if the libraries in question joined in here.
“Just because Rumblefish are doing it, doesn’t mean its legal” – Emmett
Or ethical – which is more concern.
What would be unethical is to tell millions of youtubers that they can’t use music to put on their videos because a tiny fraction of youtubers want to monetize their videos without having to spend a little time finding music that is not in content ID.
What would be unethical is to tell Youtube they can’t provide this service to their users.
What would be unethical is to tell companies like Audiosparx, Rumblefish and all the rest that they can’t partner with youtube in this endeavor.
What would be unethical is to tell youtube how to do business with Rumblefish or to tell Rumblefish how to do business with composers or buyers.
What the hell is unethical?
No one is forcing libraries to be in Content ID.
No one is forcing buyers to only buy Content ID songs.
No one is forcing musicians to participate in Content ID.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything they don’t want to do.
If music buyers want to monetize their youtube vids they can go to Shockwave or PIR, that’s great.
Problem solved. At least for the non-hysterical.
The vast majority of content id music on YouTube is owned exclusively by the
Big record labels. Fact. They adhere to the guidelines I posted in this thread from
Youtubes own website. There is no issue with that at all. YouTube can legally do
business with them.
The issue here is quite simply that Rumblefish MAY not
adhere to those rules. IF that is the case it certainly would be unethical and
possibly illegal. Until someone from Rumblefish can explain the obvious
contradictions between their stance and that of Audiosparx and indeed YouTubes own
Rules, then everything is conjecture, including everything written by Dhruva, unless you
are actually representing the company here.
“What the hell is unethical?”
Rumblefish collecting royalties for music that was sold through AudioSparx, MusicLoops, Shockwave, or any other library than Rumblefish (which is not partnered with Rumblefish).
That is taking money for another library’s content / sale. That is what is unethical.
And the situation exists because we, the composers, are afraid we’ll miss out on a few dollars if we don’t put ALL of our music into as many libraries as possible.
The ethical thing to do, especially for all those “tens of millions” of youtube customers that you are so concerned about, is to NOT place your tracks in every library.
Set aside tracks for youtube and put them where ever you want, EXCLUSIVELY. That way nobody loses: not the library that sold the track and not the customer who bought the track. The party making the sacrifice is the party that SHOULD make the sacrifice, in this instance– the composer.
The only bar between doing content ID ethically and not ethically is composers who refuse to set aside exclusive tracks for that purpose, thereby cheating the library that actually sells the track out out of royalties, or by causing problems between the library that actually sells the track and its customers.
I said that I was going to remove myself from this thread because it doesn’t apply to me
But….Dhruva you have clearly stated the fatal flaw with the “wanting it all” syndrome.
“Meaning, if you want to sell your music on iTunes, EMusic, Rhapsody, whatever, you can only have one distributor that puts your music with those services. So you have to pick either CDBaby, or Catapult, or IODA, etc. You can’t be with all of them because…which one is gonna collect your money? You have to pick one. IN THE SAME WAY, when you decide you want to make money through Content ID, you have to pick only one library that is going to place you in youtube’s program.”
Yes you MUST pick “only one library” to place you into youtube’s program. BUT, and this is the BIG BUT, you cannot prevent the customers of OTHER libraries from using your music on youtube. Which means that no matter where the user buys the music, AudioSparx, MusicLoops, Shockwave, etc., Rumblefish is going to collect the youtube royalties, which will justifiably p**s off the library from which the music was actually purchased.
Next, that puts other libraries in the position of needing to tell their customers that they can’t use your music on youtube, which will then eliminate an entire class of buyer for that library. AND, when those customers receive the youtube copyright notice they will be calling the original library for an explanation.
Under those circumstances, IMO, it is completely reasonable for a library to drop a writer, and/or specific content, that is in a content ID program.
“But Rumblefish actually is the opposite, they encourage you to enjoy non-exclusivity with everything else. ” Of course, they get paid by youtube no matter which library the music comes from. Is that fair? They are not a PRO or Soundexchange.
The problem here is that you want to collect from youtube AND still play the non-exclusive game. What you are suggesting is analogous to signing a deal with CDbaby and then going out and cutting side deals with itunes, Amazon, and IODA anyway.
Usually it is libraries that get accused of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. But, this is an example of writers trying to game the system for a few more pennies.
I’m not saying that writers should not participate in a content ID program. But, IMO the solution is to reserve exclusive content FOR THAT LIBRARY for that purpose.
Michael
Michael L and Denis are right on point. YouTube’s stated requirement is that only holders of exclusive content can submit such content to their Content ID program.
By requiring exclusive content, this avoids the scenarios where Rumblefish earns money from music licenses sold by other libraries, and gives an affected client a clear path of who to communicate with if they receive an email notification that their video may have content that is owned or licensed by XYZ (e.g. the company they licensed the music track from).
In other words, YouTube is saying that the Library XYZ must be the ONLY licensing source for a track if they are submitting that track to YouTube’s Content ID program, not that the track is available for license at multiple libraries and Library XYZ happens to be the only library submitting the track to YouTube’s Content ID program.
Accordingly, unless Rumblefish has some sweetheart deal that permits them to submit non-exclusive content, Rumblefish is seriously breaching the terms of YouTube’s stated requirements for their Content ID program.
Thanks for the clarification Lee
This a really important statement for anybody considering using any content id system, and especially Rumblefish’s unique stance on it. Be very careful. Your music is a very important and hopefully valuable asset. Art, Lee”s comments should nearly be a sticky as this topic will surely come up again.
I have read the Rumblefish FAQ. It sounds like they have lots of upset customers asking some tough questions about their videos getting tagged.
If those customers purchased their music from Musicloops.com or Shockwave-Sound.com they would not have any of the problems listed in the Rumblefish FAQ.
1. There would be no ads placed on their videos.
2. They would receive no copyright infringement notices
3. They would be able to monetize their videos.
4. They would not have to go through a dispute process.
In the end it’s up to the composer to make his decision where he wants to place his music. I am just trying to elucidate the other side of the story a bit so they might make informed decisions.
And Dhruva, why not sign up for the Youtube ContentID yourself and get rid of the middleman and earn all of the adshare revenue?
http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
That’s a great question Mark, a few reasons I prefer to give 50% to Rumblefish are-
1. By being with them I get my songs on a hell of a lot more videos then If I was just making all the videos myself. So I actually make more money by being with them, on top of whatever extraneous deals they got going besides youtube.
2. Also, every once in a while I notice that ads disappeared from a vid and is not monetizing, so I call the guys at Rumblefish and they can fix it by calling their youtube contact right away…I don’t think as a lone tiny fish I could get that kind of service from youtube that fast, if ever.
3. Also, an adsense account can be sabotaged and google will ban you from adsense for life, even if you didn’t do anything wrong, so many individuals have had that happen to them but that won’t happen with rumblefish, because they are not an individual they are a bigger business partner with youtube.
4. Rumblefish has the ability to audit youtube’s books to make sure things are on the up & up…I don’t think individual youtube partners can do that.
5. Also, I really like them, they are fun to work with, they are busy as hell but they still get back to me and hash things out…it’s like being a part of a team, and Paul really takes time to explain things to me, I like being a partner with them.
Audiosparx also are really nice people, Barb and Lee, I think they also have the same deal with youtube but I told them they can’t rep my stuff on the internet but cause rumblefish already does a lot of it.
I totally understand your point about people wanting to monetize their vids on youtube but there is so many other reasons people license music and places they put their projects.
Maybe you do have a good niche market for people that are really concerned with monetizing their videos on youtube, though 🙂
I think I want to start making money from my music through YouTube. How do I get started?
You can start by submitting to Rumblefish. I would start with them because of all the music libraries, they may have the best relationship with youtube because they work with them on tech issues, I don’t know if other libraries do that.
Don’t ask what tech issues, I’m not at liberty to say.
But they have a symbiotic relationship.
Audiosparx also does content ID but you have to be exclusive with them. Rumblefish however, is completely non-exclusive.
Thanks Dhruva. I think I am going to work with Rumblefish for the YouTube monetization program. They seem to have the best system and best relationship with YouTube. I like the fact that Rumblefish is non-exclusive. I do not think it is beneficial for me as a composer to have to have my tracks exclusively signed to a library for this program.
I was reluctant to try the whole YouTube monetization program because I heard bad things about copyright infringement, artists getting paid pennies for usage, etc. But this recent conversation has given me the courage to give it a shot. It may be too risky for others but I think I could really benefit from this!
Sure thing Synth, and it’s true we do get pennies per usage, actually fractions of a penny, but you get a hella lot of usage! Like I said my checks are getting only bigger, not smaller, hundreds of dollars every quarter. You’ll see a big boost in the dough when you get your music not only in content ID but in audioswap when that reopens and I think only a few libraries can get you in there. But also you can make your own vids for instance check out this compilation of vids I put together with my own music http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL637BD36B27BB4835&feature=plcp
especially check out my latest “Dare to get Air”
Hi Synth Player. AudioSparx can help you if you are willing to license your music tracks with us exclusively (we require exclusive music to participate in this program). To get started, please visit http://www.audiosparx.com/alliance and proceed from there. Thanks! Lee@AudioSparx.com
Hi Lee-
I didn’t know this was your current policy.
You’re saying that any composer opting into your adshare program has to be exclusive to you?
That is really good to know and I will change our submission requirement guidelines on our website if that is the case.
Regards,
Mark
Hello Mark, I’m sure you also want to hear directly from Lee but yes what he
says is true. The only music they allow into that program needs to be
exclusive. But with audiosparx you can be both.
I have 90 tracks with them but ony 8 are exclusive, so only those 8
can be part of the adshare program, the rest are non exclusive and
are not included in the program.
Hi Mark – Yes we absolutely require exclusivity for any tracks that an artist wants to have participate in our Internet Royalties program. This was not originally the case when we started this program several years ago, but when YouTube began requiring exclusivity, we modified our requirement to also require exclusivity since YouTube is the most important component of our Internet Royalties program.
A few more notes to consider:
Various dictionaries define “royalty” as “A share of the product or profit reserved by the grantor …”, or alternately “A share paid to a writer or composer out of the proceeds resulting from the sale or performance of his or her work.”. Hence we consider earnings from this program to be a de facto performance royalty that is based around the number of times a video is viewed. It functions in exactly the same way that performance royalties are earned via Performance Royalty Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, PRS, etc.) wherein the more a TV commercial or show is viewed, the more royalty earnings increase.
When client’s videos get “tagged” and they receive an email similar to the following:
Dear xxxx,
Your video, xxxx, may have content that is owned or
licensed by AudioSparx (or Rumblefish, or whoever).
No action is required on your part; however, if you are
interested in learning how this affects your video,
please visit the Content ID Matches section of your
account for more information.
Sincerely,
– The YouTube Team
The YouTube notification is definitely not an accusation or insinuation of copyright infringement. We find that in these situations, approximately 2% of our clients actually contact us to have us remove the monetization for their video so that they can monetize their own video. The other 98% of clients don’t seem to care and we are able to monetize their videos for the benefit of our composers that are participating if the client has chosen a music track that is in fact participating in our Internet Royalties program.
Our most successful artists participating in this program are earning royalties in the range of $500 to $1000/year for individual tracks. But most earn considerably less per track.
Best regards,
Lee@AudioSparx.com
Thanks Lee, our musicloops.com composer submission FAQ has now been updated to reflect this…
http://www.musicloops.com/faq.php#9
I absolutely stunned by this thread, both Mark (PIR) and Lee (Audiosparx) have stated that Youtube requires exclusivity to be a part of the program. I have absolutely no reason to doubt either of them as they are both extremely successful and honest libraries. This means that Rumblefish or any other non exclusive library CANNOT use your music for this program. They would be breaking their contract with both Youtube and the Composer. Its as simple as that.
I would suggest that Youtube should be informed of this immediately.
From a record companies perspective this is obvious, as any record deal normally gives them control over your masters Exclusively to do with whatever they want, in any format, anywhere in the known Universe. (Ever seen one of these!!!!)
Any way I digress
Any other debate about wether its worth it or not is completely secondary to this. I personally do not have any tracks in this program but if I discovered that a non exclusive library I was in, was trying to represent my tracks to a third party(Youtube in this case) as exclusive. I would dispatch a lawyers letter immediately and regard any agreement with that library as void. Audiosparx solution is the only way to deal with this, that is for the composer to opt for whatever tracks you want, to be exclusive to them. There is no grey area in this surely, you cant be both?
Surely its as simple as that?
I cannot agree with you more Denis! It makes me very uneasy that Rumblefish can do this under a non-exclusive contract. Yet, it is very hard for me to believe that Youtube/Google would not have checked this out before signing any agreement with a Library, Publisher, or record company! Besides car accidents, the Music Industry is probably the largest “hotbed” of lawsuits out there! 🙂
Agreed META, that old saying “Where there’s a hit, there’s a writ”
Why doesn’t somebody contact Google/Youtube and inform them.
+1 Denis. I do not participate in any of these programs, as well.
What I said, and have said:
“IF I wanted to monetize via youtube, I would:
1) put some tracks into “content ID” libraries exclusively, or,
2) I would establish my own youtube channel for music that I sell to consumers via CDBaby, iTunes, etc.
With respect to other libraries, I would put completely different tracks into (a few) royalty free libraries, with the full knowledge and understanding that they DO NOT monetize via youtube. [ i.e., use Content ID, etc]
Those are the choices as I see it, with the least potential for trouble.”
More or less on the same page.
Cheers,
Michael
My thinking exactly Michael,
Here is another point which I think Bjorn alluded to at some point earlier. Last year I posted a video of my daughter (aged 3) on holidays, that had Beyonces “Single Ladies” playing on the radio in the background. I didn’t even occur to me TBH that it would be flagged, anyway I got the Youtube warning as described by Lee. I did nothing, as instructed and the video was not removed. Maybe a grand total of 20 views.
So if there is this huge demand for music for the casual non commercial video like mine, why would I even pay the paltry 1.99 or whatever when I could just use any commercial release !!!
Talking about “Single ladies” there were hundreds of vids of people copying the dance. Maybe Beyonce’s label monetized the vids I dont know and I am sure the up-loaders didn’t care.
The reason when I would care is if it was a commercial venture, or an advertisement for a product or a company. If I then went and licensed music only to get the same response I would be p***ed off. Its a different market completely. In fact it doesn’t matter what the reason is, I have purchased a music license precisely to avoid this kind of thing. That is the nub of Mark and Bjorn’s point, and I would agree with them. Its bad business for everyone, composers too.
The claims and viability for demand for music for the millions of Youtube uploads is bogus for the very reasons I stated earlier, all it is doing is cheapening music down to a ridiculously low level to a market which couldn’t care less, and can really use any music they want to anyway.
I dont as a composer of course agree with this, but as the “Single Ladies ” example shows this is a reality for 99% of Youtube which is made up of personal or tiny views.
Actually one last point on this issue ( too much Diet Coke today !!!) I earn between 7-10 thousand dollars per year for a TV/Radio ad in Ireland (very small country of 4 million) in PRO royalties. This ad is fairly popular and is an Irish based and manufactured product. It is NOT a for high rotation multinational Coke/Ford/Microsoft etc. Just for perspective on scale here.
Surely it makes more sense to try and get placements like this, and join libraries that can facilitate this, rather than hoping to make $700 from a Youtube vid that has a million hits.
Trust me I am not trying to be superior or anything like that, and I am not suggesting its easy, an everyday occurrence or I am better than anyone else, I certainly am not. Just putting things in perspective as I see it.
>1. By being with them I get my songs on a hell of a lot more >videos then If I was just making all the videos myself. So I >actually make more money by being with them, on top of >whatever extraneous deals they got going besides youtube.
This is where I think you have a basic misunderstanding about how the system works. The ContentID system is not looking only for your personal videos that you upload. They look for all uses of your music. If you are distributing music through 20 libraries then the ContentID system will find all uses of your music via all of these libraries, not just the music you upload to your personal youtube site.
You could be earning the full 100% of your adshare revenue and not splitting it with Rumblefish or any of your other adshare partners.
Why not try it?
http://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup
Since you can make multiple claims on the same piece of music it will have no effect on your relationship with rumblefish, you can still distribute through them and you could possibly earn revenue both through your own channel and via rumblefish.
Hey, it’s just a big free-for-all, why not go for it?
Because, besides all the other things I listed that I like about Rumblefish, I actually do get more users of my songs through them because they can put my music in youtube’s audioswap feature, which is not accessible to every tom, dick and harry. When you have your songs in audioswap, so many youtube users that don’t even know what a music library is will pluck your songs from audioswap…right now audioswap has been closed to all new material for a while but will reopen eventually, and I’m pretty sure only trusted music libraries that have vetted the quality of their music will be allowed to get their content in. Rumblefish put 70 songs of mine into audioswap before youtube stopped accepting new material.
As for those twenty libraries, I don’t know how many of them cater to youtube vid makers, take Jingle Punks for instance, I see them getting me placements on cable T.V. in my ASCAP reports but hell if I know if they getting youtube users to buy my music, I haven’t gotten a check from them for that.
However, Rumblefish has a special library called “Friendly Music” that is dedicated to just the youtube user. If I wasn’t with Rumblefish then not only would I not be in audioswap, I wouldn’t be in the Friendly Music platform either, that’s a lot less eyes and ears on my music.
Also, I’m not too sure how much of your catalog you can get into content ID and a solitary musician, if any. The requirements might be more stringent and the customer service is probably horrific. It’s hard for me to imagine that youtube has the man power to deal with the millions of professional, quasi professional, and downright amateur musicians that want their content in there.
Thank you all for the “stimulating” discussion. Admittedly, I don’t have any skin in the youtube game, so I’m bowing out.
But, thanks for the advice Dhruva.
Now, I know where to put my “lamest, stupidest tracks.” 😆
Anytime 🙂 Don’t let them just sit around doing nothin’ for ya. I can’t believe how much use some of my tracks get that sound like poop in my ear.
With all due respect Mark (from PIR), you are completely wrong about a number of things you said and are misleading people on this thread about content ID.
1.You said- “People have to actually click on an ad to generate any revenue, not just view the video.” –That is wrong because they also count impressions not just clicks, see this to understand better- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_per_impression …On youtube a thousand hits equals about a $1.50, a Million hits equals about $1,500 (after youtube takes its cut). Then the split between musician and Rumblefish is 50/50, so the musician is left with over $700 per million hits. I mean think about it, do you really think those advertisers get to flash their ads for free all over the place without having to pay for putting them in your face? They pay more for clicks, but they still have to pay for getting you to see them.
2. You said- “…the notices these customers are getting from Youtube are ‘copyright infringement notices’. No matter how many times these third party companies say “don’t worry about it, it doesn’t mean anything, just leave it as it is” it is still a copyright infringement notice that has direct negative consequences on the customer’s youtube account.” –THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG. They do not have negative consequences against your account. I have 4 youtube accounts with many videos of my own music, but youtube doesn’t know I’m the one that made the music, I get the notices every time I put up a vid, therefore, if you were right about it being bad for my account, I would have been kicked off long ago…actually youtube likes it when customers use these content ID songs because it means they’re making money too. So they definitely don’t want to kick users off that have their vids monetizing.
3. You said- “According to the Youtube ContentID Terms of Service Agreement the individual or company uploading music into the ContentID system has to own the exclusive rights to the music they are uploading.”
–That is also wrong. Rumblefish is completely NON-exclusive. Youtube knows they are, and youtube and Rumblefish work very closely together on technology related issues.
4. You said “If you own the rights to your music you are the only person that can register your music with the Youtube ContentID system. All of these other companies are gaming the system.”
–Rumblefish has over 5 million social soundtracks licensed. You think Rumblefish has tricked youtube into thinking they have exclusive rights millions of times? Of course not.
There is one thing you did get right, and that is the same thing Bjorn Lynne said from Shockwave Sound, Bjorn is right and makes a good point about people that can’t monetize vids for themselves when they license a song that is in the content ID program, but in the future that situation will get worked out one way or another. And remember, some music supervisor that wants to license your song for a T.V. show or commercial probably doesn’t care or even think about whether that song is in content ID on youtube.
And Art you said- “Thanks Mark, great reply and helps much in the demystification of this very confusing situation! I might just integrate it into the original post.” –Again, all due respect to Mark, I would not integrate any of the aforementioned points that Mark made into the original post because they only mystify this subject more, not less. I’m the demystifyer right now, not to say I can’t be totally ass-backward wrong about something else in the future, but in this case I’m right.
It would behoove everyone, including Mark, to read Rumblefish’s FAQ on this and even contact them with further questions- http://www.rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php
Paul Anthony , the CEO of Rumblefish is eager to help with, and discuss this matter with all affected parties. Paul reached out to Bjorn Lynne from Shockwave to talk about it, he would talk to Mark too.
With “all due respect” Dhruva, here are some numbers from Business Insider:
“Some 53% of YouTube’s videos have fewer than 500 views, says TubeMogul. About 30% have less than 100 views. Meanwhile, just 0.33% have more than 1 million views.”
So…let’s do the math 500 hits = $.75, of which you’d get $37.5, and 100 hits = $.15 of which you’d get 7.5 cents, and only 1/3 of one percent reach that million hit mark that will get you…uh $700.
The return on the average number of hits is far less than you would get from just one sale through PIR or Shockwave. As far as a million hits goes, it’s like buying lottery tickets.
Thanks for the respect Michael 🙂 and what you say sounds all copasetic, except you leave out some important things to remember which are–
In order to get $700 you don’t need any one particular video to reach a million. If you’ve got hundreds, or in time, even thousands of people using your songs on youtube vids then collectively you’ll get way over a million hits, in time. I don’t see any of my songs on vids over a million hits but I’ve already made from content ID way over $700 because a lot of people are using my songs.
Also, this is just passive income, it’s not a replacement for other music libraries. Like I said, I’m in over 20 good libraries, and as of now, far more libraries will take you irregardless of content ID than will reject you because of it. So the way I look at it is, why not have the extra passive income while my stuff is working for me in those other libraries?
If in the future, I get dropped from all those libraries because of it, then I would change what I’m doing, but a lot of libraries are shooting to place on T.V. and film, not youtube vids, so they don’t really care about this.
Also, what’s nice about this is that you may have tracks that never get licensed, ever. Yet you put hard work into them. Well, this content ID thing is a way for you to make money on those tracks by making your own videos as well as putting them in audioswap…let me tell you man, my lamest, stupidest tracks are being taken from audioswap and put on some ridiculous videos all the time.
And it’s not like you have to have your whole catalog in it anyway, you can save your best stuff for more high end or exclusive deals.
All I can say is “wow”. It will definitely take someone smarter than I to get to the bottom of this morass!
” In regards to Michael’s request for library owners to figure out a way to make it so the composers don’t get the ‘short end of the stick’, what exactly would you like us to do? Give our customers the short end of the stick instead? It is never ‘forward thinking’ to p**s off and alienate your customers.”
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your informative answer. I think that you very clearly define the issue. No, I do not think that you should give your customers the “short end of the stick.” In light of your explanation, to say that writers are getting the short end of the stick is a mischaracterization.
To clarify my position: I personally want to avoid the whole youtube issue. To me it’s chasing pennies, which is why I said “it’s not worth it, IMO, when you subtract the potential revenue that you loose from other libraries.”
I do have empathy for struggling writers and the fact that they need to make choices which limit their options but that is in fact what they MUST do….choose what is exclusive, what is not exclusive, what is royalty free, what is not royalty free etc.
If I wanted to monetize via youtube, I would:
1) put some tracks into “content ID” libraries exclusively, or,
2) I would establish my own youtube channel for music that I sell to consumers via CDBaby, iTunes, etc.
With respect to other libraries, I would put completely different tracks into (a few) royalty free libraries, with the full knowledge and understanding that they DO NOT monetize via youtube.
Those are the choices as I see it, with the least potential for trouble. The problem for writers who are not capable of producing a “volume” of material, or who don’t have a large catalog, is that they don’t have enough tracks to make several choices, so they try to put everything everywhere. Instead of having 200 tracks in two libraries, they have 20 tracks in 10 libraries, thinking that it will yield the same result, when in fact the majority of their licenses come from only a few libraries. Sooner or later, IMO, that is not a good idea.
It is not a problem that you created, and I do not mean to suggest that you should change your policy to accommodate it.
Michael
Edit: I said essentially the same thing in my 11/28/11 post from which the “short end of the stick” came:
“1) Only put a portion of their catalog into libraries that don’t wan’t to deal with the youtube issue. And, reserve those tracks for only those libraries”
And that is my preference…divide your catalog to avoid problems all around.
Of course, this discussion does not apply to , or refer to, traditional, exclusive non-retitle libraries.
Hi guys,
There’s one element/side to this whole issue that hasn’t really been discussed, so I thought I’d mention it:
If you have your music with Rumblefish, GoDigital, Crucial, any Content-ID setup, then really, your music is no longer royalty-free at all. There is no longer any reason for customers to license your music for use on YouTube. The customer may as well just rip music from any commercial CD or film. The result is exactly the same. The music is recognized by YouTube as being copyrighted to somebody. An email is automatically sent to the video creator, telling him about the copyright in the music. Advertising is placed on the video, and the video creator is unable to monetize his video himself, seeing as how the advertising space on the video is already taken.
This is exactly what happens if somebody just takes music out of a famous movie or a famous CD and uses that in their YouTube video. And this is now exactly what happens with your music too. For a client, using your music on YouTube has exactly the same effect as using a Justin Timberlake track that they just rip from a CD. So why, now, should anybody want to pay $30-75 to license one of your tracks from a stock music library?
That’s just another thing worth considering here.
We at Shockwave-Sound.com do not work with any Content-ID music and, like Mark at PiR/MusicLoops, we will immediately block from sale any composer found to be in a Content-ID setup. We don’t like to do it, but for us, the first priority is to keep our customers from feeling like they’ve been ripped off.