Congrats Matt and thanks very much for all your contributions!
Very slow here as well. Looks like that’s across the board. Hopefully things will pick up once the new week begins.
Guys they may lock this thread if things keep escalating, just sayin’.
If they are embedding customer information into each audio file (like a lot of software companies are doing these days), then that’s like a digital receipt. The only question is how they would automate that as people can upload a video anywhere, so presumably the same checks would still be needed i.e. someone would need to certify they are the real purchaser. Whoooah, mind-bending dude….
Lol. Yes embedding inaudible information into each audio file does look like how the technology works, but it looks like they’ll be embedding the license information, not just customer info. So if someone buys a one time use license for a file, once that embedded audio file is uploaded to Youtube or some other medium, it is then detected and marked as “used” within the system. Then if someone does rip that file, the system shows it as an already used license and the con is caught.
This License ID seems brilliant and I think is the future. Just sent a quick message over to audiosocket and got an email back immediately…
“Thank you for the outreach and the encouragement. Unfortunately, LicenseID is not yet launched outside of Audiosocket, but we are certainly working on that. It will probably be later in 2015 when any individual can use LID. Our first integrations are being done with catalogs so we can really work out the kinks at scale and then build this for anyone to use. We too believe LicenseID or similar is long overdue for our industry!”
I’d say Envato would be smart to jump on the opportunity of possibly being one of the first libraries outside of Audiosocket to try and integrate this into their system. Seems like a real game changer to me!
because you can’t have it both ways. it is totally your right to use adrev, and i may even join team adrev soon, too. but you can’t use a service that is passing on an obligation to the customer, is making you extra money, and then say it’s unfair that they need to know about it.
That’s it, 100%. If you have Content ID’d tracks then the buyers need to know.
Of course not everyone will make that much but with 100 tracks that have been around for 2 years or so it is completely realistic. Not fantasy numbers at all.
And prestashopthemes, I’m not arguing from a state of oblivion in regards to AdRev’s earning potential. I had 5 tracks with them for a few months, and they let me know how much I was earning. But I will say that I have just about 100 items here, and have been here about 3 years, and will say that I would’ve been no where close to earning 10k a month through AdRev. If I averaged out what all my tracks would have earned, and it was about 5% of that for me. So yes although big numbers are possible on AdRev such as what Alumo has done with some great Youtube marketing, I don’t want authors coming away with the impression that they’re losing out on the opportunity of their lives by not using AdRev.
Just thinking aloud here but how about when uploading tracks we have to fill out file attributes such as track length etc. How about a check box to signify AdRev enabled. Just a thought.
Yes, exactly what I was thinking.
One problem though:
The authors who will claim to be AdRev free can change their mind at any point and videos with their music will be claimed retroactively. When these authors start realizing that people earn $10,000 a month from these ads they will start to rethink if it’s really worth having AdRev free music earning them $500 a month…The buyers of the previously “AdRev free” music have now maybe lost their licenses and are even more annoyed.
Don’t think your number ratios are realistic, but yes that is a problem. Tracks would need to be restricted from changing “No” to “Yes” as Content ID’d once uploaded.
The problem I see here is that customers will tend to purchase unprotected music then to save a little bit of time even.
If they do then that is their right. They get to choose what they purchase based on actual knowledge of what they’re buying. That’s the idea, it’s really just fair business practice.
When it all comes down to it, I think the best way forward for everyone is education and choice for our buyers. Educate them on what Content ID is and how it works, and then give them the clear option to choose music with or without Content ID.
What many authors are doing now by posting short explanations to their item and profile pages is a great first step. But I think what’s necessary is for some kind of “Content ID Yes/No” to be implemented to each item page, and then some announcement/help article to be written to educate buyers about the Content ID implementation. For buyers, the responsibility would be on them to select which tracks fit their needs, while still giving them the freedom to choose. For authors, Content ID is made more seemless and less time consuming as less work is needed in educating their customers.
Would love to hear thoughts from everyone on both sides of the fence as to if you think this is a viable solution.
That’s not what it says. The APPLICANT (you, the composer) must have exclusive rights to the music. “music or video that was licensed, but without exclusivity” – This means that a video/end product creator can only use ContentID on a creative work that includes assets he/she did not create if they are licensed exclusively. It’s from the buyer’s standpoint in this case.
You may be correct prestashopthemes, it’s possible I misunderstood this. Yet I wonder why Art-of-Sound had his AdRev account terminated as requested by Youtube. Even still, the second reason I posted is plenty reason for me to stay away from AdRev.
I’ve changed my views on AdRev, I had originally uploaded 5 tracks to give it a trial run. I thought it was looking like a fair way to protect our music, but over the past couple of weeks I’ve changed my position for 2 reasons. Here’s what swayed me…
1. A couple of weeks ago Art-of-Sound posted that Youtube had contacted AdRev saying that his account was to be terminated due to Youtube’s Content ID policy stating that non-exclusively licensed music (meaning licensed to multiple buyers) does not qualify for Content ID ((https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311402?hl=en). Matt (AlumoAudio) was able to get in contact with AdRev and get some clarification on their position. They said that Youtube was really focusing on the Creative Commons licenses given away for free, and not so much royalty free music. I spoke with them on the phone as well, and they told me pretty much the same thing. My concern with this is that AdRev may simply be seeking to fly under the radar with royalty free music as it’s a likely big revenue generator for them. Youtube’s terms do state that music licensed without exclusivity is an example of music that does not qualify for Content ID. Just for me, if there’s more than a hint that royalty-free music is not allowed under Youtube’s terms, I don’t want in.
2. Koster’s post here shows us a real life example of how AdRev is affecting the other side. And it doesn’t sound pleasant. The fact that video producers are sending their finished products to corporate companies, then to have the company get hit with ads only to make the video producer look fishy and dishonest, is simply unacceptable! It’s a horror story in my opinion. Koster came here looking for music that was free and clear from back-end complications, only to have his reputation compromised because he had faith in the Audiojungle brand. Not good at all. Stuff like this can only happen more if we don’t find a viable solution soon. The idea of Youtube eventually working with us to verify license codes upon uploading I think is a great one, but obviously can’t happen immediately. In the meantime, I believe I as an author need to deliver what buyers expect to receive from me. Free and clear tracks without backend complications. Sure we all say, 24 hours is nothing and buyers can have it cleared in no time, but there’s more to it than that. Koster’s situation is a great example, not to mention the fact that most buyers aren’t expecting a copyright notice, and will inevitably feel duped when it hits them! All this ties in to their faith and trust in the Audiojungle name and it’s authors. I really don’t think we want to be creating negative experiences for our buyers, not matter how ‘easy’ we see the license clearing process from our end of the table.
When it comes down to it with the current system as it is, it looks like somebody is going to have to take a hit. Either it’s us composers (through some illegal uses and unclaimed revenue), or our buyers (through hassle, potential client embarrassment, and negative experiences of getting hit with copyright notices unexpectedly). I’m convinced that I the seller should be the one to take the hit, not my customer. Things may change in the future for the better for us composers with better license integration with Youtube and Vimeo, but I can’t justify making our buyers experience worse over something that simply isn’t their problem. It’s just not right, in my opinion. It took me a little while to arrive here, but this is where I’ve landed. I no longer have any AJ tracks linked with AdRev.