# Music Libraries for Youtubers



## gsilbers (Jan 24, 2020)

There seems to be a lot of these libraries and more every day. Shutterstock, adobe, pond5 etc etc. 

They call them royalty free and cost like $15 per track . 

Many youtubers are starting to get some serious cash with their videos. 

I understand the concept but seems we are shooting ourselves on the shoot. Youtube seems it will get bigger and bigger making more and more money. 

seems to be it would be fair to get some part of the youtube royalty even in those so called royalty free. At $15 per tracks seems its too low for anyone anywhere. or maybe im wrong? 

now it might be considered low quality but in the future it might get better or some say its already good 

https://scottholmesmusic.com/music-for-youtube-what-you-need-to-know/

I guess another place to focus our collective resiources would be to inform poeple and try to get some sort of laws where our IP could never give writers share for streaming in social media type platforms like youtube and facebook. I mean, we did something vs discovery... maybe we could continue helping ourselves. 

Although im a bit if a newbie in this side of the biz. so itll be interesting to readon others comments.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 24, 2020)

music, actually audio in general, is ridiculously important to communications of any kind, except maybe a good book (and then I hear a soundtrack in my head - but I'm weird!)

It has always been the first to go too.

Back in the 1980s an entire industry of people writing music for broadcast commercials disappeared because advertisers stopped thinking in terms of identity and flow. Sometimes it was the agency, but mostly it was the advertisers themselves.

When video conferencing became possible the interest in good (read understandable) audio took a back seat to larger displays. These poor people walk out of a one hour meeting with a headache, and it is only partly the meeting, it is mostly that they had to work to understand the far end.

We are seeing the same thing happening with audio for media - except the bar was much lower to start.

I may be foolish, but I do believe that all these trends will turn around. And the sheer scale of financial opportunities on YouTube suggest it may turn around sooner rather than later. As the clutter increases some folks will want to stand apart.


----------



## Greg (Jan 24, 2020)

Those libraries are already getting squashed by subscription libraries like artlist. Maybe when Artlist launches an ipo and the owners cash out with millions, composers will realize they fucked up?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 24, 2020)

Greg said:


> Those libraries are already getting squashed by subscription libraries like artlist. Maybe when Artlist launches an ipo and the owners cash out with millions, composers will realize they fucked up?




Hmm, maybe im not understanding but it doesnt matter if its a one time song purchase or a subscirption but the music is still royalty free in youtube. menaing the composer doesnt get money from youtube. 
Adobe, shutter stock etc also are subscription based.... 


from Artlist

Is the music royalty-free?



Yes, the music available on Artlist is royalty-free. The Artlist license gives you permission to use the music on any platform and medium. This means that web, film, TV, virtual reality, video games, mobile and even mediums that have yet to be invented are all fair game.



_'If your video is intended for broadcast, don't worry. You are covered. The broadcasting company (TV channel, etc.) may be subject to additional royalties according to its standard local PRO agreement._


----------



## rgames (Jan 24, 2020)

There's a word for this phenomenon: competition. It happens all the time and it's a good thing. Standard of living across the globe has increased dramatically as capitalism has taken over (which is not to say it shouldn't be regulated - it should, but lightly).

That phone in your pocket is a result of Apple and Samsung working to drive their suppliers' prices as low as possible. And the result is that almost everyone can afford a phone. Anyone who treats music as a business should expect nothing less from the music industry.

Therefore, if you want a piece of the YouTube royalties then put that up as your offer. I guarantee you plenty of suppliers made that ultimatum to Apple and Samsung. In a free market they have every right to do so. And Apple and Samsung have every right to accept an offer they deem better.

Personally I think the royalty model is antiquated and out-of-touch with modern times. VFX artists don't get paid every time their lens flare appears on screen. Your plumber doesn't get paid every time you flush your toilet. The pay-up-front model is much more efficient. And that's the point of free market economies: they improve efficiency to reduce the cost of goods and services.

And that's a good thing. Again, take a look at that phone in your pocket.

rgames


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 24, 2020)

YouTube is saturated with music from AudioJungle.


----------



## JEPA (Jan 24, 2020)

rgames said:


> There's a word for this phenomenon: competition. It happens all the time and it's a good thing. Standard of living across the globe has increased dramatically as capitalism has taken over (which is not to say it shouldn't be regulated - it should, but lightly).
> 
> That phone in your pocket is a result of Apple and Samsung working to drive their suppliers' prices as low as possible. And the result is that almost everyone can afford a phone. Anyone who treats music as a business should expect nothing less from the music industry.
> 
> ...



...and here we go again with analogies... I think if it is necessary, we have to go to the beginning and revise the concept of "intellectual property".

E.g. an author writes a book, it is used to make a film, Netflix series, etc. You can't copy it and publish it under your name, or use a part of it claiming it is your creation. You can cite it and use it as citation.
Or paint/copy the "Mona Lisa" exactly and say you have created this painting (obviously you've painted in fact the canvas, but you didn't brought it out of your head).

PROs are based on intellectual property. And I understand your point with the NEW forms of business. We, composers, have to update, but I don't think the way is to give up our rights. Imagine you create a composition for a music library/TV/Movie or whatever. You sell it for $5000 or $50,000 or $500,000. It result that your music is a HIT and the actual owners, Netflix, Universal or AudioJungle are making $10million out of it. What would you say? "Thanks for the $5000, it is a shame that my name doesn't appear any more as the original composer. Actually it is a shame that my Kids are not receiving money as rightfully inheritors if I die. Actually it is a shame that nobody knows me and communicate with me if they like my music. Etc."

I could be wrong, please don't understand me wrong, I am not an expert, but these are my opinions. Yes we should be looking for new business ideas, updating, but I don't know if this is the way, only pay-up-front model as unique way to do business in music and that was all. Please teach me! thanks


----------



## Mike Fox (Jan 24, 2020)

rgames said:


> Your plumber doesn't get paid every time you flush your toilet.


My plumber also doesn't own my toilet.

I think you're confusing the inherent nature of ownership rights with products/services.

By not charging royalties, we are most certainly shooting ourselves in the foot. It's the equivalent of a rental company who never sees their inventory being returned.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 24, 2020)

rgames said:


> There's a word for this phenomenon: competition. It happens all the time and it's a good thing. Standard of living across the globe has increased dramatically as capitalism has taken over (which is not to say it shouldn't be regulated - it should, but lightly).
> 
> That phone in your pocket is a result of Apple and Samsung working to drive their suppliers' prices as low as possible. And the result is that almost everyone can afford a phone. Anyone who treats music as a business should expect nothing less from the music industry.
> 
> ...



to manufacture the phone yes, since they send to china, but doesnt apple and samsung need to pay a ton of patents to other companies ?
each sale of the iPhone means apple pays for IP. which is royalties in a way. 

For example apple has to pay ericsson royalties for its tech on GMS, LTE, etc. 

and you see those billion dollar lawsuit against samsung, qualcomm etc.


----------



## Greg (Jan 24, 2020)

rgames said:


> There's a word for this phenomenon: competition. It happens all the time and it's a good thing. Standard of living across the globe has increased dramatically as capitalism has taken over (which is not to say it shouldn't be regulated - it should, but lightly).
> 
> That phone in your pocket is a result of Apple and Samsung working to drive their suppliers' prices as low as possible. And the result is that almost everyone can afford a phone. Anyone who treats music as a business should expect nothing less from the music industry.
> 
> ...



Aaaaaand that is exactly why we desperately need royalties enforced by law. So the free market doesn't turn our profession into cheap factory labor.


----------



## asherpope (Jan 25, 2020)

I'm assuming rgames has never received any royalties.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 25, 2020)

asherpope said:


> I'm assuming rgames has never received any royalties.


I've made a full time living writing music for over a decade, and not a single penny earned from royalties. Like @Greg is moving to, the work comes from social media, email etc.

Is it the right way? Maybe not. But the time and money invested in writing a piece of music is paid back within hours, not months or years. The tradeoff is that you've just gotta keep writing it.

It's not always a bad thing to give up your rights or future earnings for the sake of an upfront payment. It depends on the market you're working in and how likely a large return will be. Not every bit of music I write is a finely crafted jewel that must be appreciated and nurtured with a long tail ROI.


----------



## Greg (Jan 25, 2020)

Alex Fraser said:


> I've made a full time living writing music for over a decade, and not a single penny earned from royalties. Like @Greg is moving to, the work comes from social media, email etc.
> 
> Is it the right way? Maybe not. But the time and money invested in writing a piece of music is paid back within hours, not months or years. The tradeoff is that you've just gotta keep writing it.
> 
> It's not always a bad thing to give up your rights or future earnings for the sake of an upfront payment. It depends on the market you're working in and how likely a large return will be. Not every bit of music I write is a finely crafted jewel that must be appreciated and nurtured with a long tail ROI.



Your website and beats are awesome, so cool that you can make a living that way. Aren't your buyers collecting the royalties though? I bet that a major motivating factor in investing in beats is to make that money back down the line with their albums


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 25, 2020)

Greg said:


> Your website and beats are awesome, so cool that you can make a living that way. Aren't your buyers collecting the royalties though? I bet that a major motivating factor in investing in beats is to make that money back down the line with their albums


Thanks Greg, kind words!

Yes, that’s the attraction for the artists I license material to. But we’re talking about independent iTunes releases, not mega hits so the potential royalty pool is small. 

Actually, the business is more analogous to a sample library or loop library, in that the instrumentals are often remixed, reworked and edited by customers.


----------



## d.healey (Jan 25, 2020)

Mike Fox said:


> My plumber also doesn't own my toilet.


What about the person who designed the toilet? Surely they deserve a cut of the proceeds  or should the plumber pay the royalty rather than the end user...


----------



## Mike Fox (Jan 25, 2020)

d.healey said:


> What about the person who designed the toilet? Surely they deserve a cut of the proceeds  or should the plumber pay the royalty rather than the end user...


This is what happens when you try to analyze dumb analogies.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 25, 2020)

rgames said:


> Personally I think the royalty model is antiquated and out-of-touch with modern times.



I dislike libertarianism as much as every other -ism, but this ^ argument taken on its own is not crazy - which is quite a twist for Richard. 

Economist Dean Baker, who I find really impressive, writes a lot about how government-granted patent monopolies in general are a central part of how our economy is rigged for inequality. He mentions Bill Gates' billions and billions to make his point.

The big fish is prescription drug prices, in which sick people pay to finance drug development. But he says creative endeavors are no different - people should get paid up front at market rates.

I'm skeptical about how that would really work (especially for library music) and even more so about how we'd get from here to a better system. But to non-ideological economists, *rents* are a bad thing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 25, 2020)

This may be a paywall, but:



https://www.patreon.com/posts/technology-and-33451819?utm_medium=post_notification_email&utm_source=post_link&utm_campaign=patron_engagement&token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWRpc19rZXkiOiJpbnN0YW50LWFjY2Vzczo2NjNjYmNiOS1jYmQ3LTRlZTEtYjUwMy1iZjU4MzQzMjU2YjIifQ.SImuANIbjvebG-qKCYbq_XG4_xFX2yE6vVgyYoDIpTw


----------



## Alexandre (Jan 26, 2020)

rgames said:


> There's a word for this phenomenon: competition. It happens all the time and it's a good thing. Standard of living across the globe has increased dramatically as capitalism has taken over (which is not to say it shouldn't be regulated - it should, but lightly).
> 
> That phone in your pocket is a result of Apple and Samsung working to drive their suppliers' prices as low as possible. And the result is that almost everyone can afford a phone. Anyone who treats music as a business should expect nothing less from the music industry.
> 
> ...


It s a good thing when money flows to multinationals creating healthy competition for the masses fighting for crumbs.


----------



## Beluga (Jan 26, 2020)

rgames said:


> There's a word for this phenomenon: competition. It happens all the time and it's a good thing. Standard of living across the globe has increased dramatically as capitalism has taken over (which is not to say it shouldn't be regulated - it should, but lightly).
> 
> That phone in your pocket is a result of Apple and Samsung working to drive their suppliers' prices as low as possible. And the result is that almost everyone can afford a phone.
> 
> ...



Just don't want to let this statement stand without comment: no, capitalism has not increased dramatically the standard of living. For some yes, but not for everyone. Do some research about the exploitation of workers specifically children in a global economy, including the phone in your pocket and the trousers your pocket is in. 

No need to look far: https://www.channelnews.com.au/apple-admits-to-using-child-labour-to-build-iphone-x/


----------



## Daryl (Jan 26, 2020)

There is no doubt that neither the big multinationals want Royalties to disappear, nor the majority of composers. The only argument is about who gets to keep them.


----------



## AceAudioHQ (Mar 3, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> Hmm, maybe im not understanding but it doesnt matter if its a one time song purchase or a subscirption but the music is still royalty free in youtube. menaing the composer doesnt get money from youtube.
> Adobe, shutter stock etc also are subscription based....



Royalty free is misunderstood in many cases, it often means you don’t need to pay the purchase price more than once even if you use the song in multiple products, but the artist will still get performance royalties from youtube, television etc. For example AudioJungle and Pond5 sell P.RO. registered tracks and are royalty free.

There are libraries that have royalty free licenses where you don’t have to pay performance royalties, but they often forbid P.R.O. registered music (and sometimes, P.R.O. registered artists like Epidemic Sound)


----------

