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
Hi All,
Just for the record, I wanted to add that we at Media Music Now are in full support of Mark’s & Bjorn’s stance on content ID.
We too have had several content ID issues, refunded numerous customers and lost a few also.
Even though we have made a point of saying we do not want composers who are in content ID agreements some still slip through the net.
We are now actively removing any music from our library that shows up as content ID.
We have no issue with composers who want to work with content ID, that is their choice but equally we have a choice and have chosen not to be part of it. For libraries like ours we believe it to be completely unworkable and damaging to our business and our customers.
Regards
Lee
Media Music Now
Mark I understand your “real world” story, but the reason someone got fired is because of this learning curve about content ID. Once it becomes common knowledge that there are content ID tracks and non-content ID tracks, that sort of thing won’t happen anymore.
It’s just like when you buy a car or High Def T.V. you need to know what to ask about before you buy and when something new hits the scene I think the onus is not only on the customer, but also on the library to really understand everything that’s happening in their business.
So content ID snuck up on you, you got blindsided, well I’ve lost thousands of dollars and jobs because of things I didn’t know about…the point is, soon every professional music buyer will know, just like soon everyone will know that a 120 hertz HD T.V. is better than a 60 hertz one, I learned that the hard way too.
If I was running my own music library I would play both sides of the fence. I would have a little icon on every track displayed so that the prospective buyer will know if it is content ID or not.
You know I recently saw a website that had a webisode series that was very nicely produced, but they didn’t want to put it on youtube, they wanted to drive traffic to their site instead, ONLY their site. Customers like that won’t care if some music is in content ID unless they wanted an exclusive buyout. So If I had a library, I would cater to them if they happened to like a song that also happened to be in content ID, as well as to people that don’t want content ID music.
And I feel the same as Synth who said-
“Royalty-free libraries state that composers can add their music to these libraries on a non-exclusive basis. These libraries do not pay composers a fee to acquire or sell the music. Most of these libraries do not actively promote or
pitch their catalog. So I just do not see how these same libraries can blame composers for placing the same songs in as many libraries as possible.
These libraries have the nerve to blame the composer for this whole ordeal. This just does not make sense. The library got free music to sell and makes half of the money from the sell. But at the same time, these libraries do not understand
advancements in the marketplace and subsequently want to “fire” the composer and eliminate his valuable catalog. I think the owners of royalty-free music libraries need to look in the mirror and evaluate the role that they played in
this YouTube monetization issue.”
and my point-
“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.”
Dhruva, you have the ability rationalize anything. You should consider becoming a defense attorney. 😆
I did, but then I though White House press secretary would be better. I can spin almost anything 🙂
Thought* …where’s the edit feature Art?
Hi Again Barbie,
Ley me play devil’s advocate. Are there no circumstances under which and artist should sell a track for $1.99.
If we’re honest we all do A work, B work, C work and D work.
Why not think like a business, rather than an artist, and have a bargain line? The same company that makes and sells the Lexus makes and sells the Corolla (but under a different brand).
So, why shouldn’t an artist take less than stellar work, and to quote Billy Joel, “put it in the back in the discount rack?” …maybe under another name. That would create an additional revenue stream without tarnishing their main brand, and devaluing their better work.
What if the price point that the average youtube client is willing to pay is $1.99, just like the average Corolla buyer is only willing to pay a certain amount? Is it then not bad business to
charge too much for those tracks?
Food for thought.
Michael
Michael, it’s up to each of you composers to try and sort it all out, and no one should scoff at clever ideas to try and be successful in this highly competitive business.
In the meantime, we hope you’ll bring only your “A Team” tracks to AudioSparx and send those lesser tracks to our competition. 🙂
Okay back to chillin’ out — hey guys, it’s Saturday…
Barbie
It is nice to read varying opinions, but Michael L’s comment stood out a bit to me: “Unfortunately, this is a byproduct, I guess, of competition and desperation.”
I don’t think that composers who are pursuing internet royalty income via YouTube and other social media sites is a sign of desperation. Rather, it is more like trying to find additional streams of revenue for their catalogues, some of which are extremely extensive. With videos being uploaded on the web almost at the speed of light, artists are trying to strengthen their name recognition through exposure to millions of listeners which, if a track goes viral on an extremely popular video, those quarterly checks can definitely be a nice morale booster.
And remember, those deals you enter into today to garner extra earnings will continue going to your heirs for years to come if you kick the bucket. (Can’t believe I said that – LOL, but it’s true…)
And yes, at AudioSparx we believe both our artists and clients are better served by our decision to enter only “exclusive” tracks into the Content ID programs.
Hope everyone has a great weekend.
Cheers,
Barbie
@Barbie
Hope you are well. I certainly dont have any issues with content id per se IF it is done with exclusive tracks and I get a fair license fee for my music. My interpretation of the desperation is
1. Licensing tracks for really low ball fees, 1.99 was mentioned.
2. And then hoping to make some money on the deal by the track having 50k views to make 30 bucks.
If some that works for some composers fair enough, not judging.
Hi Barbie,
Let me clarify, because we are the same page. By “desperation” I am referring to artists who feel that they need to put EVERY track EVERYWHERE. And, are willing to do so for $1.99.
I’m sure that under those circumstances you would not say that they are just “trying to find additional streams of revenue for their catalogues, some of which are extremely extensive.”
AudioSparx policy on selling tracks for $1.99 is pretty clear.
I have NO PROBLEM with content ID programs as another revenue stream. But, believe 100% , as does AudioSparx, that material in a content ID program must be exclusive.
I know that you try to get artists to go exclusively with AudioSparx, so I am am sure that you understand what I am speaking of when I refer to the every track everywhere syndrome.
Not only is this a problem with content ID, but, as you have previously expressed, it can devalue a catalog in the long run.
When I do put tracks into a content ID program it will be on exclusive basis. At the same time, if I put tracks into a royalty free library that promises no content ID issues to it’s customers, I will abide by and respect their their policy. It’s that simple.
Cheers,
Michael
Thanks Denis and Michael,
I think we are all on the same page here. And I see artists rethinking the value of spreading their tracks on 20 to 30 or more competing websites, cutting back on the number so they can concentrate on working with those that sell their music best.
Many things will be developing in the future, and each composer should carefully review any deal before they jump in.
Barbie
At the end of the day, I feel deeply saddened for composers. They do all of the work, get half of the reward, and all of the blame.
Royalty-free libraries state that composers can add their music to these libraries on a non-exclusive basis. These libraries do not pay composers a fee to acquire or sell the music. Most of these libraries do not actively promote or pitch their catalog. So I just do not see how these same libraries can blame composers for placing the same songs in as many libraries as possible.
These libraries have the nerve to blame the composer for this whole ordeal. This just does not make sense. The library got free music to sell and makes half of the money from the sell. But at the same time, these libraries do not understand advancements in the marketplace and subsequently want to “fire” the composer and eliminate his valuable catalog. I think the owners of royalty-free music libraries need to look in the mirror and evaluate the role that they played in this YouTube monetization issue.
We at Shockwave-Sound.com support Mark Lewis’ position on this. We have taken the position that the music we sell on our site should not be in any YouTube “Content ID” setup. It is our opinion that if you sell royalty-free music for $30-100 per track like we do, you need to give the customer the freedom to use that track in YouTube without getting copyright notices from YouTube, and without having advertising placed on the video, with the money for that advertising going to somebody else.
Some other royalty-free music websites have gone the other way and are embracing “Content ID”, and that is of course their choice. They sell a royalty-free music track to the client which, in my opinion, turns out not to be royalty-free after all, and the customer will, for example, not be able to monetize his own YouTube video.
You could say that there is absolutely no reason at all for a customer to even spend money on such a music track, because the customer may as well just take music from a pop CD, or rip music from a famous movie soundtrack CD by Hans Zimmer. The result is exactly the same. They put the music in their video; they receive a copyright notice from YouTube (because the music was recognized as belonging to so-and-so company) and advertising is put on the video, with part of the advertising money going to the company that is claiming ownership. This is exactly what happens if you just take music from a famous band or movie soundtrack from a famous composer and put that in your video. And the same thing happens with stock music that is in Content ID. So then you may ask yourself why any customer would want to pay $30, $50 or $80 to use your music at all, when they could rip Hans Zimmer music *for free* and use it in their video with exactly the same result.
It is my opinion that if a customer has chosen to do the right thing and PAY for a license to use your music, he really shouldn’t get the same problems as somebody who just ripped music from a famous / soundtrack CD.
Anyway. The biggest problem with Content ID comes up when you as a composer have your music sold via several stock music sites, and one of those sites practice Content ID. The problem then is that even if the customer has bought your track from Shockwave-Sound.com and used the track in a video, the video creator gets a message saying that the music belongs to – for example – Rumblefish. So now it looks to the customer like Shockwave-Sound.com are selling music that is owned by (some company). It makes us look bad. And now this other company starts to earn money on the customer who bought the music at Shockwave-Sound.com. This is totally unacceptable to us. We spend a lot of time, effort and money to get our customers to our site. When we get a customer to buy something from our site, we don’t want a competing company to make money on that, and we don’t want our customer to be told that this music belongs to that other company.
For this reason, we will not work with any composer who has his music in any Content ID setup. If any of our customers start to receive Content ID / copyright warnings about your music, we will immediately stop selling your music. We had to do this to one of our composers about a week ago, and it’s not pleasant but we have to do it. If the music is subsequently removed from Content ID, we will start selling it again.
Company A sending your to music Company B which then in turn puts the music in Content ID? Without even asking the composers first?? Wow. That’s a three-step sub-sub-licensing setup which seems very odd for a YouTube program that it says right there on the page, is ONLY for original, exclusive content owners. You may want to ask yourself what’s left for you if Company B are going to collect $0.001 for the use of your music in video, then share a small portion of this to Company A, then Company A are going to take that money they get from Company B and share a small portion of that with you. Who’s getting rich on that? Not you.
In a very recent move, CD Baby now offers musicians an offer to send their music to Content ID via one of the companies discussed in this thread. I know a lot of you guys have your music out for sale via CDBaby.com (myself included) so I wanted to make you aware of this new move by CD Baby so that you can consider their new offer carefully before you sign up with it. You can find this option at CDBaby if you log in as a composer, click on “View/Edit” one of your albums, and you can see the option under “Sync Licensing”. Anything other than “None” in this field will cause your music to be monetized by the Content ID company, then CDBaby, then you. And it will cause our customers to start getting “owned by so-and-so company” messages about your music. Which will force us to refund the customer’s money, withdraw your royalties for any sales that caused our customers these problems, and stop selling your music.
I know several other sites/companies take the same position as ourselves on this matter. Not just myself and Mark Lewis at PiR and MusicLoops.com but others too. So – unless you are ready to fully embrace the Content ID way, then be careful with your music and where it goes. Read the small print. And if somebody just takes your music, sends it to another company, and it somehow ends up in Content ID without you even knowing about it, well, then I guess you have the right to be very angry.
I’m going to jump into the fire here. So be it.
I completely support Mark and Bjorn.
My father was an industrial/corporate film maker. If he
lost his job because the composer of a library track in one of his projects parasitically tried
to squeeze a few more pennies out of it for themselves, particularly after he made an effort
to avoid, just that occurrence. I’d be furious.
Unfortunately, this is the byproduct, I guess, of competition and desperation.
+1 MichaelL
I 100% support Bjorn and Marks position
I also think that the Audiosparx system of making your tracks exclusive to them, as the only way to do this without collateral damage. The Youtube TOS seem pretty clear to me.
I also applaud Crucial for withdrawing all their tracks from Rumblefish and then making it an opt in requirement going forward.
One of the great resources of this site is to share and pool knowledge and opinion. This thread in itself has been heated at times. Its important to discuss these things and then let the individual composers make up their own minds on the merits, or lack of in this.
This will undoubtably continue !!!!
Bjorn – Thanks for the information regarding the “Sync Licensing” option on the CD baby site.
Ok, here’s the thing.
Dhruvu has the right promote his very creative view of how the ContentID system works. Rumblefish and Crucial Music have the right to promote their offerings in whatever light they want to, be it true or not. But I have a lot of first hand experience with this issue and the effects it has in real life. It has been an issue in my business life for over 2 years now and I am not just being stubborn or short-sighted. I feel very strongly about this issue for a reason.
In November of 2009 GoDigital signed up for the YoutubeContentID system and asked another popular royalty free music licensing company to place all of their composer’s music catalogs into their system and the company went for it, not knowing the possible ramifications, the ramifications were not explained to them, I don’t think GoDigital even really knew what they were doing. But the ramifications came quick and fast with a flood of customer complaints about videos getting tagged with copyright notices and loyal customers actually questioning if we had the right to distribute the music we were licensing. This was happening not only to us but many other royalty free music libraries, even the popular one that originally submitted all of this music to GoDigital was receiving complaints.
Then one complaint came in that changed everything for me. A video producer working for the Four Seasons hotel chain licensed a piece of music from us. He had licensed many tracks from us before this and was a completely happy and loyal customer. He incorporated this latest track he licensed from us into a Four Seasons hotel promotional video meant to be placed on the company’s Youtube channel. He delivered the video and was paid. When the Four Seasons Hotel uploaded the video to their channel they were immediately hit with a ‘content owned by third party’ notice. The video started displaying ads for a competing hotel chain on the Four Seasons Hotel Youtube channel. The Four Seasons people were furious that they somehow ended up promoting their competition on their own Youtube video channel.
They contacted their video producer (our client) and fired him. He then contacted me with an email that just devastated me. The reason he lost his job was because he trusted our company to provide him with legal music. I hired a lawyer that same day to contact GoDigital and get this issue resolved. In the end the only way to resolve the issue was to no longer distribute music for composers who were involved in the Youtube ContentID system. I’m not trying to be an a**hole here. But the fact that somebody lost their job because of something that they bought from my company is something I will never forget and I will work as hard as possible to make sure it never have happens again.
Please keep this story in mind as you read all of the creative descriptions of how the Youtube ContentID system is just a royalty system like BMI and ASCAP. The people telling these stories most likely have no direct connection with what actually happens in the real world, or don’t care as long as they are squeezing every penny they can out of all possible revenue streams.
-Mark
Partners In Rhyme Inc
Tanvi wrote:
“Since there are no take downs issued by Rumblefish, music can be licensed from any other libraries and used by the video partner without worries.”
I’m sorry but there actually are other worries,
1. Our customers have purchased a license from us so that they don’t get a banner ad placed on top of their video.
2. Our customers have purchased a license from us so that they can monetize their own video creations.
When a third party company starts monetizing the music we license to our customers, and places ads on our customer’s videos, and stops our customers from being able to monetize their own videos then we can no longer distribute that composer’s music catalog. Our customers license music from us specifically so that these things will not happen to their video.
“microsynch/content id”
This is not an actual thing, it is a phrase you are making up. No matter how much you try to convince yourselves that the contentID system is a synch/royalty scheme like ACAP or BMI, it is not. It is revenue from ads being placed on the videos of people who do not want these ads placed on their videos and have actually paid not to have ads placed on their videos. The ContentID system is for record companies, popular artists and exclusive rights owners, not non-exclusive royalty-free music licensing companies.
-Mark
You raise an excellent point about -specifically- royalty free libraries, but my question is what is the ratio between those that are licensing music to actually monetize on youtube and those who don’t care about monetizing on youtube and are licensing royalty free music for a variety of other uses or reasons. I know that’s hard to pin down, but we will soon see the ratio becoming very clearer, and as I said before, there is definitely a niche market for completely non-content ID royalty free music.
As a matter of fact, that title could be right on the front page of your site if it isn’t already- “Non-content ID royalty free music”. And it will be up to the composer based on the market how much of his catalog goes into a library like yours as opposed to how much goes into content ID distributors. Nevertheless, an outfit like Rumblefish still will be collecting royalties in the content ID realm just as ASCAP collects in the broadcast realm.
The similarities are clear…
Big production companies sync music to their shows and put them on T.V. stations that gets the money from ads
Small time producers sync music to their videos and put them on Youtube that gets the money from ads
T.V. stations pay ASCAP BMI etc
Youtube pays Rumblefish Audiosparx etc.
The only difference between Rumblefish and ASCAP is that Rumblefish is more proactive in getting musicians deals and takes a bigger cut for it.
And yeah Mark you’re right some people don’t like to even see ads on the videos but people don’t like to see commercials when they’re watching T.V. at least on youtube the continuity of the show is not being broken up by ad segments. We’ve gotten so used to that it seems totally natural. But if T.V. was brand new and the internet came first I think people would be pretty teed off that ads actually stopped the show you were watching right in the middle…ads are just a fact of life.
And I’m sure T.V. show producers don’t want ads on their shows but the stations say they have to have them.
As for people who want to pay to not have ads…that’s where you come in.
In the future it will be interesting to see how much music in content ID actually will come from royalty free libraries.
“The only difference between Rumblefish and ASCAP is that Rumblefish is more proactive in getting musicians deals and takes a bigger cut for it.”
Why do you keep saying that?
ASCAP and BMI don’t get deals for writers. That’s NOT what they do. They are strictly performing rights organizations that exist to collect royalties from certain media and live performances. They can’t even collect from all media because they are not AUTHORIZED to do so.
Rumblefish is a LIBRARY. It IS NOT a PRO. Not even apples and oranges. We’re talking apples and potatoes.
I know the difference Michael. Instead of saying Rumblefish is “more” proactive I should have just said they are proactive, unlike ASCAP. And that’s the difference, ASCAP is just a collector and Rumblefish is a collector and go getter.
Hey MichaelL, I wanna mention something about what you said regarding Rumblefish- “…if you want to sell tracks at $1.99 a pop, that’s your call.”
The interesting thing about that is…
It’s not just $1.99 (or perhaps a buck after Rumblefish takes their cut) but in that deal, you are also getting Guaranteed Monetization. Now, there’s no way to know in the life of that video if it’s gonna get 500 hits or 5000,000. But lets say in a year or so it gets 50,000, that means after Rumblefish gets their cut, you get around 30 bucks. So that’s 31 bucks just for giving a license for a youtube vid, nothing else.
Now, compare that scenario with the following…
Jingle Punks got 30 seconds of my song on a cable T.V. show Amazing Wedding Cakes! I got no up front money, and my ASCAP royalty was $17. So I’m actually making more off youtube videos than I am off of these types of cable T.V. shows.
Another example is the production company Bunnim Murray. They pay nothing to composers up front. They just say you’ll get your PRO royalties, so I went with that and they put my stuff on Keeping UP with the Kardashians… I’ll probably see more dough from that than Amazing Wedding Cakes, but you’re still getting more up front money from Rumblefish than Bunnim Murray.
See what I’m saying?
On top of that, if you have your stuff on iTunes, there’s a sales link below the video for people to buy your track. That’s good exposure. People give their music out for free to be played on radio and podcasts. Some people even pay for radio exposure in they hope that will help with iTunes sales and business in general. Well on youtube through content ID you actually are getting paid on top of getting exposure.
I have no idea how many composers on here sell on iTunes, but people love production music, just to listen to if it’s good, so selling on iTunes and all that digi distro is smart I think.
Hey all,
I recently e-mailed Tanvi and Dan at Crucial Music regarding the YouTube Content ID Program as they have a partnership with Rumblefish. Tanvi replied to my e-mail with the following. She also informed me they are in the process of removing all Crucial songs from the YouTube Content ID program and implementing an option to “opt-in” to the Content ID Program going forward. I have to thank Tanvi for being so pro-active on this subject.
Here is Tanvi’s reply:
———————
Hi Art
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this controversial topic. You may post this reply in its entirety on your site.
It seems anytime there’s a new technology implemented, which opens up a new opportunity for earning revenue, controversy and kinks abound.
Crucial Music thru its classical catalog Point Classics has had a relationship with Rumblefish for many years. Our agreement has resulted in thousands of dollars every quarter of microsynch licenses and youtube ad rev share $ for our classical music. The microsynch market of music use on video and social networking sites is continuing to grow, and there is an opportunity for artists to make substantial revenue. As a synch representation company, it’s our duty to seek out all new avenues of synch licensing for our artists and to be able to make them as much money as possible. Having seen what Rumblefish had done for us on our classical catalog it only made sense for us to provide the content in our Crucial catalog for microsynch licenses thru their API partners, friendlymusic.com and ad rev share thru content id on YouTube.
In July 2011 we struck a deal with Rumblefish, and immediately informed all of our artists. We have the right in our artist contracts to be able to make distribution deals as we see fit, and remit 50% of the income received by us to the artist. If the artist already had material with Rumblefish, then we would not deliver those tracks. Due to many factors, our content has not made it into all the platforms that Rumblefish offers, but we believe that once the material is active across all platforms, we’ll be generating thousands of dollars for our artists.
However, there’s misinformation floating around on the internet. When a video partner uploads a video and a song is detected that is represented by Rumblefish thru their relationship with Crucial, a simple notice is sent to the partner, that the music has been identified as claimed by Rumblefish, their video will be monetized, and nothing else needs to be done by the video partner. The video is NOT taken down and accounts are NOT blocked. YouTube offers content id partners three courses of action: Monetize, Track or Take Down. I cannot speak to what happens if music is claimed by the artist themselves, Go Digital or any other content ID collection companies.
Since there are no take downs issued by Rumblefish, music can be licensed from any other libraries and used by the video partner without worries. All Rumblefish is doing is monetizing that use for our artists, by taking part in YouTube’s ad rev share program. The problem that has arisen is that royalty free companies have decided that content id/ad rev share is bad for their business and it may be depending on how it affects them. However, most royalty free companies are not really royalty free. Most still require cue sheets because they don’t offer performance buyouts. The royalty free part of it is “buy once, use multiple times”. Content ID is not going away, and I imagine that more video sites like Vimeo et al will incorporate it (if they haven’t already). It’s going to grow, and the royalty free libraries, if they want to keep composers, are going to have to allow for that, and inform their buyers that the music use is covered under a royalty free license (however they interpret that), but that ad rev share may be applicable once the video is posted on YouTube. Dropping composers will reduce the pool for royalty free libraries. It is the composer/artist choice to be part of whatever service they want to be in; but they should make informed decisions, and not be bullied into a decision that could cost them substantial revenue as the microsynch/content id market grows.
The language YouTube displays on their Content ID page, about who can and can’t take advantage of Content ID is very vague. Rumblefish has sorted out with YouTube what is required of them to be able to collect on behalf of their artists and includes that language in their contracts. Crucial is in the process of implementing an opt-in procedure for its artists.
A majority of the industry is not even aware of Content ID, and I wasn’t before my relationship with Rumblefish. It’s a complicated concept, and I am still learning more and more everyday on how it works and the results. Mistakes will be made anytime a new technology and concept is introduced. But it’s worth working thru the mistakes so that all partners benefit. At Crucial we believe in artist rights and being able for to make as much revenue as possible for them.
Thank you
Tanvi
Thank you Art for contacting Crucial Music and thank you Tanvi for your comments and perspective on this topic.
[Edited for clarity] Just got a quick reply from Rumblefish. They are monitoring this discussion and pulled the one song I requested to be removed from their system.
“pulled the one song I had in their system”
Uh oh. By your request, or are they angry with you and your “little website”? 🙂
Nope, not at all. On the contrary they are more than happy to have an open and honest discussion as well as honoring composer’s requests.