# This Is NOT Legal (video about new Youtube copyright policies)



## Pier (Jul 19, 2022)




----------



## ka00 (Jul 19, 2022)

Lawyer up!


----------



## Pier (Jul 19, 2022)

ka00 said:


> Lawyer up!


She explains why this is useless. Youtube doesn't tell you exactly who is making the copyright claims. Google has no one to talk to either. And lawyers are expensive.


----------



## LatinXCombo (Jul 19, 2022)

Do you think Google wants a million people making a bunch of videos independently with 5,000 views each, making a little bit of cash as a side hustle that they can walk away from?

Or would they rather have 5,000 people making videos with a million views each, whose livelihoods are dependent completely on the platform?


----------



## Pier (Jul 19, 2022)

LatinXCombo said:


> Do you think Google wants a million people making a bunch of videos independently with 5,000 views each, making a little bit of cash as a side hustle that they can walk away from?
> 
> Or would they rather have 5,000 people making videos with a million views each, whose livelihoods are dependent completely on the platform?


I doubt Google cares. Youtube optimizes for ad revenue and user engagement.

Even Rick Beato with 3M subscribers and 460M views has been complaining about music copyright claims for years. Now with visual claims it's only going to get worse.


----------



## ka00 (Jul 19, 2022)

Pier said:


> She explains why this is useless. Youtube doesn't tell you exactly who is making the copyright claims. Google has no one to talk to either. And lawyers are expensive.


Because I watched the entire video, I was kidding with that response.


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 19, 2022)

Yup, Google/YouTube don't really care. All of the rights-protection mechanisms in place on YouTube are solely designed to prevent YouTube itself from getting sued. If I were YouTube, I'd probably do something similar. Several years back, before YouTube had any such protections in place, they were being threatened with massive legal actions from all the big media companies. So to protect themselves, they put things like Content ID in place, so rights owners could have recourse and go directly after the people actually posting copyrighted content. YouTube itself has no dog in this hunt.

If, as this woman points out, we're in for a free-for-all by copyright trolls, then one of the possible outcomes is that it will have a chilling effect on content creators and the number of postings on YouTube could diminish. That might hurt YouTube in the long run and allow other sites that don't have such restrictions (like Nebula) start to gain traction.

But ultimately, what we need to remember is that having a video flagged for copyright violation on YouTube does not constitute a legal action. It simply restricts the video from being shown or monetized on YouTube. There are no laywers or lawsuits involved, unless the content creator decides to lawyer up and try to fight it, which is rarely worth the effort.

YouTube is after all, a free service, and they can choose to run it however they wish. There are no guarantees of service for content creators - we're just lucky to have a platform on which to showcase our content that reaches such an incredibly vast audience. It's unprecedented in the history of man.


----------



## Pier (Jul 19, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> YouTube is after all, a free service


Is it though?

Youtube generated almost $30B with a B of revenue in 2021. It would be hard to do that with a free service.

All Youtube users are feeding Google with data in one way or another. Searches, trends, tracking, etc. Websites with Youtube embeds (such as VIC) feed Google with data too.

Content creators upload for free but this is not the end of the story. Creators only get a share for monetized content, but Youtube always profits from content being uploaded to the platform. The house always wins.

Even for viewers it's not really a free service. Most viewers either watch ads or pay Youtube premium. Some users have ad blockers on desktop but Youtube revenue keeps growing so it must mean this is not really a big issue.

You know what they say, either you're the customer or you're the product.


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 19, 2022)

Pier said:


> Is it though?
> 
> Youtube generated almost $30B with a B of revenue in 2021. It would be hard to do that with a free service.


I can't fault YouTube for wanting to make money. They have employees to pay, servers to keep up, business relationships to maintain, and hopefully some profits to be earned. It's the way of all businesses.

I personally have never paid a single penny to YouTube. Yes, they get to collect some usage stats from me, but at the same time, the ad and tracking blockers on my browser enable me to completely avoid any YouTube ads and minimize the amount of information YouTube can extract from me.

I don't monetize my videos, so for people who do, I can understand how some of YouTube's actions are a threat to their income stream, and that's unfortunate. But at the same time, there are a significant number of people out there who've earned decent incomes from YouTube, or their exposure on YouTube has led to other paying opportunities.

I myself have made money through YouTube indirectly - by creating and uploading/hosting videos for others as a side business, and also thru the exposure of my music that led to paying gigs. I definitely get annoyed with some of YouTube's policies and ways of doing things, but at the end of the day, I've gotten a lot of benefits from it, so I can't complain too loudly


----------



## Pier (Jul 19, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> I can't fault YouTube for wanting to make money. They have employees to pay, servers to keep up, business relationships to maintain, and hopefully some profits to be earned. It's the way of all businesses.


Certainly 

I'm not anti Youtube at all and I hope I didn't appear as such.

In fact I pay the premium subscription so that creators can get their share and I don't have to watch ads. I want people that make good Youtube videos to keep making that and even make a living if possible.

I think blocking ads on services one uses regularly (like Youtube or here on VIC) is not a very ethical thing to do.

That doesn't mean these copyright infringement issues don't bother me.


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 19, 2022)

Pier said:


> I think blocking ads on services one uses regularly (like Youtube or here on VIC) is not a very ethical thing to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean these copyright infringement issues don't bother me.


I don't view blocking ads as an ethical issue. YouTube, and other ad-dependent services, and users of such services, are fully aware that ads can and will be blocked. It's not like anyone's being duped or deceived. It's the cost of doing "business" on the internet.

If it's any consolation, when I watch YouTube on TV or mobile devices, which is about 50-70% of the time, I get the full onslaught of ads 

In terms of the copyright stuff, the most unfortunate aspect IMHO, is the imbalance of power that favors copyright claimants. I've been able to challenge such claims and prevail in the past - it's not difficult to do - but that was many years ago and I don't know if YouTube's made that process more opaque now. But I understand why YouTube wants to appease the copyright claimants.


----------



## timprebble (Jul 19, 2022)

Apart from anything else, it is a useful reminder that 'making a living' via a corporate owned platform means you do not own your relationship with your supporters - you are renting it and it can be terminated any time. Best do something about that, if thats you....


----------



## Sophus (Jul 20, 2022)

Copyright claiming is easy because YouTube wants to make it easy for the right holders and they are some of the biggest customers of YouTube. The viewer and content creators are not the customers but the companies that buy ad placements.

So, the trick is, to claim your own videos if somebody else claims it. The more claims you put on your own video, the bigger the split of the revenue gets.

There are channels out there which place three or four short jingles in their videos. If somebody makes a false copyright claim on this video, they just claim the four jingles and then still get 80% of the revenue. You just need to be careful not to claim everything right from the start, or else you could risk a copyright strike.

You can also claim every other video that uses your jingles. This also means you can get around the subscriber and watch-time threshold if you create a new channel. If you claim the first uploaded video you will get the revenue straight away.


----------



## zigzag (Jul 20, 2022)

Pier said:


> She explains why this is useless. Youtube doesn't tell you exactly who is making the copyright claims. Google has no one to talk to either. And lawyers are expensive.


Maybe multiple content creators could join forces for a lawsuit?

Seems like Google offers the service in bad faith to content creators since they provide from very little to no details why they are terminating the agreed upon payments and no real way to dispute. Or Google is simply falsely advertising their service.


----------



## Pier (Jul 20, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> I don't view blocking ads as an ethical issue. YouTube, and other ad-dependent services, and users of such services, are fully aware that ads can and will be blocked. It's not like anyone's being duped or deceived. It's the cost of doing "business" on the internet.


"People will steal your products, it's the cost of doing business"

Yeah, not a great argument.

And my main concern is not Youtube but the little guys. The creators, Mike who's running VIC, etc.



zigzag said:


> Maybe multiple content creators could join forces for a lawsuit?


Hopefully but going against Google and/or these big copyright troll companies might get expensive.


----------



## Pier (Jul 20, 2022)

timprebble said:


> Apart from anything else, it is a useful reminder that 'making a living' via a corporate owned platform means you do not own your relationship with your supporters - you are renting it and it can be terminated any time. Best do something about that, if thats you....


Yep.

I'm a developer and was an Apple fanboi years ago. Back in the day I wanted to develop apps for iOS. Until... I completely changed my perspective on how Apple runs it.

Apple takes a cut of everything you sell on iOS. Apple is not offering a service to you, they are allowing you to become a partner with them and they have complete power in this relationship. Not only they can kick you out whenever they deem it appropriate, but they have complete control over anything you write for iOS.

Say you spend 1 year working on a mobile app for iOS and then Apple decides they don't want it on their app store. This means Apple has complete control over the money you invested into writing iOS exclusive code because of course iOS code cannot run anywhere else.

This is pretty shocking if you think about it. And it's not a hypothetical scenario either, this has happened countless times.

Thankfully the EU is very close to passing legislation that is trying to change this. This just happened today:









DMA: Council gives final approval to new rules for fair competition online


The Council approves new rules for a fair and competitive digital sector through the Digital Markets Act.




www.consilium.europa.eu





We'll see how it goes.


----------



## vancomposer (Jul 20, 2022)

Oh man, so I can get a copyright claim soon because I filmed the Queen Mary in my last vlog? At least that's how I understand it. 😳



Pier said:


> Certainly
> 
> I'm not anti Youtube at all and I hope I didn't appear as such.
> 
> ...


I use YT Premium as well after they offered me one of these 3 months trials and realized I am paying 10$ for Spotify anyways and for 12$ YT Music and add free videos on all devices turned out to be a much better deal. I also felt bad to watch videos of good content creators with an ad blocker on my computer but for F*** sake I couldn't stand the commercials at all.

I am spending so much more time on YT now then ever before, well you could argue if that's always a good thing but beside the legal issues it can be such a valuable resource. If I could only pick two websites for the rest of my life it would be Wikipedia + YouTube. 😁


----------



## Pier (Jul 20, 2022)

vancomposer said:


> I am spending so much more time on YT now then ever before


I'm pretty sure I spend more time on Youtube than Netflix these days.

It's little chunks of 10-15 mins but I'm sure that must add up at the end of the month 😬


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 20, 2022)

Im a little more worried about distrokid not letting poeple upload tracks that have loops/sample libraries for youtube content ID. 











_This album does NOT contain beats, loops, sound effects, or other audio that I downloaded from sample libraries or other public sources. This includes sounds that are available for free from GarageBand, Ableton, Logic, Fruity Loops, etc_

Like WTF.. they only want pop singer song writer one guitar acoustic music in youtube?


----------



## Pier (Jul 20, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Im a little more worried about distrokid not letting poeple upload tracks that have loops/sample libraries for youtube content ID.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder how deep this goes?

Is the ID triggered with a loop or only with a kick drum sample?


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 20, 2022)

Pier said:


> I wonder how deep this goes?
> 
> Is the ID triggered with a loop or only with a kick drum sample?


It’s triggered by the transient of the kick drum sample!


----------



## Denkii (Jul 20, 2022)

Pier said:


> I think blocking ads on services one uses regularly (like Youtube or here on VIC) is not a very ethical thing to do.


Display ads are being paid for by the advertiser on a cost per click basis almost exclusively. Generally speaking you have to be a very bad advertiser to agree to paying for impressions only (and it's super rare anyway).

So technically it's more unethical not to block them and clicking them by accident.


----------



## HarmonKard (Jul 20, 2022)

Can someone please in a coherent sentence or two explain what that woman is on about? I don't know if I am developing ADD  but I cant sit there and listen to someone who doesn't speak well, and who takes forever to make their point. One I can deal with; not both.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 20, 2022)

Pier said:


> I wonder how deep this goes?
> 
> Is the ID triggered with a loop or only with a kick drum sample?


This is from the ezdrummer forums:

_I just noticed that YouTube does indeed declare music you’ve made with EZdrummer can not be monetized on their channel. When I submitted my most recent single using TuneCore distribution, TuneCore specifically tells you during the submission application that any music created using pre-recorded samples can not be monetized on YouTube. I have three singles that are all me on the guitars and bass, and a hired keyboardist, and I saw on my TuneCore dashboard that they have been declared ineligible for monetization on YouTube. I used EzDrummer2 as a compositional tool and arranged the parts in to songs quite uniquely. I used the verses for verse parts and chorus parts for chorus and son on, but I sequenced everything to my own liking. There are no other samples on my songs and they are not in violation of using other peoples melodies.

Singles: 1) Epiphanies of Grandeur by Dave West

2) Bazaar Shopping by Dave West

3) Majestic 12 by Dave West

This is a rather large problem. Even Deven Townsend used EZdrummer to create professional recordings. I used the product as intended, and apparently, YouTube does not honor your granted permissions of use. What am I to do? I can’t afford to record a drummer in a studio; that’s why I use EZDrummer. YouTube and TuneCore both need someone from your company to correct this, as it directly will limit purchase of EZDrummer if people become alert to this. It is exactly the same situation as the fellow using Distrokid is having. We are your dedicated customers, please lobby for us so we have the ability to use your products in creating unique and original music.

Thank You.

Dave Wesolowski dba Dave West_


It might be hard to confirm its specifically due to the loop he used or something else.


----------



## ka00 (Jul 20, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> Can someone please in a coherent sentence or two explain what that woman is on about? I don't know if I am developing ADD  but I cant sit there and listen to someone who doesn't speak well, and who takes forever to make their point. One I can deal with; not both.


She’s saying YouTube is set up in a way that it screws over small time creators in copyright and monetization disputes (even if you are legally in the right). It’s too big and faceless to fight, and too ubiquitous/important to leave.


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 20, 2022)

Pier said:


> I think blocking ads on services one uses regularly (like Youtube or here on VIC) is not a very ethical thing to do.


I’m not blocking ads - but I’m blocking trackers, which I find a very unethical technology to use.

Ads without trackers are fine by me.

Unfortunately most conversations about blocking don’t distinguish between advertising and tracking.


----------



## Denkii (Jul 20, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> Unfortunately most conversations about blocking don’t distinguish between advertising and tracking.


I don't think that would be even necessary in 99.9% of the cases. They go hand in hand.

If you run ads, you want to track conversions at least. It you want to do it elegantly, you do it via webtracking so you can build retargeting lists right away. Already you need both.

Personally I don't believe that blocking anything is ethically questionable.

Fun fact: there are marketplaces that let you run ads that specifically only get placed in browsers that run AdBlock extensions. Typically run by the companies who develop these extensions.
Now that's spicy on a different level if you ask me 
And if you believe that these companies don't track your behavior just like a webtracking service would, you're wrong.
If you don't want that your behavior can be used by anyone, don't be online. Full stop.


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 20, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> This is from the ezdrummer forums:
> 
> _I just noticed that YouTube does indeed declare music you’ve made with EZdrummer can not be monetized on their channel. When I submitted my most recent single using TuneCore distribution, TuneCore specifically tells you during the submission application that any music created using pre-recorded samples can not be monetized on YouTube. I have three singles that are all me on the guitars and bass, and a hired keyboardist, and I saw on my TuneCore dashboard that they have been declared ineligible for monetization on YouTube. I used EzDrummer2 as a compositional tool and arranged the parts in to songs quite uniquely. I used the verses for verse parts and chorus parts for chorus and son on, but I sequenced everything to my own liking. There are no other samples on my songs and they are not in violation of using other peoples melodies.
> 
> ...


I know of one group of people who would applaud a ban on using sampled instruments and loops. Namely, studio musicians, who've seen their opportunities for income dwindle away during the past 20 years.

The last time I worked in the studio with all live musicians was in 2000. I've missed being around incredibly talented musicians and the resulting creative intermingling of musical ideas, but I must admit, I don't miss the time, effort, and cost it took to produce quality recordings back then.

But maybe it's high time for a correction. Maybe the pendulum needs to swing back in the other direction a little bit...


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 20, 2022)

Denkii said:


> I don't think that would be even necessary in 99.9% of the cases. They go hand in hand.


and that’s the problem. The intermingling can technically be busted. The old web had it separated. But the differentiation has to start with conversations.



Denkii said:


> If you run ads, you want to track conversions at least. It you want to do it elegantly, you do it via webtracking so you can build retargeting lists right away. Already you need both.


of course, as seller/advertiser, I loooove tracking (I’ve worked on that side of the fence in the past) - but as customer I despise it - and act accordingly with the technology means at my disposal.

It’s nothing more and nothing less than diverging interests between sellers and buyers. Sellers can choose to behave with varying degrees of customer friendliness or customer hostility. And so can buyers. 

Side note: Invoking ethics tends to give me the shivers, since it‘s often an attempt to establish an unassailable high ground in a conversation, effectively disallowing more nuanced and contextual conversation.


----------



## Denkii (Jul 20, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> of course, as seller/advertiser, I loooove tracking (I’ve worked on that side of the fence in the past) - but as customer I despise it - and act accordingly with the technology means at my disposal.


I feel this and agree.



Nico5 said:


> Side note: Invoking ethics is often gives me the shivers, since it‘s often an attempt to establish an unassailable high ground in a conversation, effectively disallowing more nuanced and contextual conversation.


Sorry if that was the impression i gave. I didn't mean to. I tried avoiding that by specifying that that's how I see it personally. I only used that word because it got dropped earlier and I picked it up again.


----------



## YaniDee (Jul 20, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> TuneCore specifically tells you during the submission application that any music created using pre-recorded samples can not be monetized on YouTube.


Well, that'll will wipe out all the hip-hop and "epic" music videos on YTube, no? Could be a boon for acoustic drummers and taiko players..


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 20, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> I know of one group of people who would applaud a ban on using sampled instruments and loops. Namely, studio musicians, who've seen their opportunities for income dwindle away during the past 20 years.
> 
> …
> 
> But maybe it's high time for a correction. Maybe the pendulum needs to swing back in the other direction a little bit...


while there’s much to love about your point, it might also be interesting to take the thought experiment about job killing technology a little further:

synths
tape machines
radio
pianos
pipe organs
lutes and other polyphonic instruments

also:
computers
tabulation machines
printing presses
…
…
…
plows
wheels


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 20, 2022)

Denkii said:


> Sorry if that was the impression i gave. I didn't mean to. I tried avoiding that by specifying that that's how I see it personally. I only used that word because it got dropped earlier and I picked it up again.


Actually I need to apologize, since that paragraph was actually my reaction to the same original post you reacted to - not your post.


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 20, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> while there’s much to love about your point, it might also be interesting to take the thought experiment about job killing technology a little further:
> 
> synths
> tape machines
> ...


Yup, there's always a tradeoff with new technology, as with any change. I love using sampled instruments and all that goes with it - the musical opportunities and creative freedom I've experienced as a result, were once only wishful thinking for me. I can easily say music technology has changed my life for the better.

But the important ingredient I really miss, that technology hasn't been able to provide, is the collaborative creative energy that comes with playing with live musicians. My wife is a jazz singer, and when I watch how the musicians in her band interact and trade musical ideas on the fly, it's a whole other kind of musical experience.

I'm not a jazz player, and don't have those kind of chops, but way way way back in my youth when I was thrashing around on my electric guitar, my garage band friends (actual people, not an Apple DAW  ) and I would freeform jam at night with all the lights out. The noise we made was pure trash, but it wasn't about that. There were some truly transcendent moments when we'd all suddenly be in sync, finding our way in the darkness with only the sounds of our instruments guiding us. Those moments felt otherworldly and exhilirating, and afterwards, we'd all be giddy with excitement at what just happened.

Working in the box with virtual instruments simply can't provide anything close to those kinds of musical experiences. When you have talented studio musicians collaborating to create a recording, it's their talent and energy that makes the music come alive and sound truly great. It has nothing to do with sampled legatos, keyswitched articulations, round robins, etc...

So I guess my long winded narrative (sorry) is simply saying that music or any type of creative art, is usually less about the task and more about the human spirit behind it. We're not losing much by replacing manual labor with printing presses and plows, but we do lose something when we take live musicians out of the musical equation.

But as I said, it's a tradeoff...


----------



## vancomposer (Jul 20, 2022)

ka00 said:


> She’s saying YouTube is set up in a way that it screws over small time creators in copyright and monetization disputes (even if you are legally in the right). It’s too big and faceless to fight, and too ubiquitous/important to leave.


AND that people can claim copyright on VIDEO material now of something as public domain as the Washington monument and because they filmed that 15 years ago. And the moment you get the infringement your video gets demonetized and then you need to go after the ones that claim it with little to no chance of success, even if their claims are bogus.

Correct me please if I got that wrong.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Jul 20, 2022)

I hope there's indeed a "web 3.0" incoming or something like that. Or these corps will consume eveyrthing(if the haven't already). Decentralized web and web services is the only way forward.

God, I miss early web. It was an amazing period, absolute anarchy 😈


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 20, 2022)

vancomposer said:


> AND that people can claim copyright on VIDEO material now of something as public domain as the Washington monument and because they filmed that 15 years ago. And the moment you get the infringement your video gets demonetized and then you need to go after the the ones that claim it with little to no chance of success, even if their claims are bogus.
> 
> Correct me please if I got that wrong.


So I watched the video, but don't really understand what exactly changed at YouTube.

A few years back, I posted a pair of music videos that got copyright claims made against them specifically for the visual content. They contained some stock animated backgrounds that I legitimately licensed from a vendor, but someone (not the license vendor) claimed infringement. All I had to do was click the Dispute button, write a message explaining that I had licensed the artwork from Digital Juice, and bam!, a week later the copyright claims were gone.

Has something about this process changed on YouTube?


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 20, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> We're not losing much by replacing manual labor with printing presses and plows, but we do lose something when we take live musicians out of the musical equation.


That is beautifully put and I wholeheartedly agree. 

The high moments of joy when playing with other musicians can't really be replicated when working alone in the studio. 

However, I do also remember that it was rare to keep the same group of individuals at the persistently high joy level. So many things from boredom to differing musical goals to mismatched personalities always showed up sooner or later and eventually the balance between joy and stress started to shift. 

So my solo studio life doesn't have those very high moments of joy. But it also doesn't have those low moments of stress.

p.s. I'm also not overlooking the amazingly good things having come out of (and still appearing on) YouTube on a daily basis. But at the same time there's some overreaching digital dystopia nonsense happening as exemplified in the video featured in the original post of this thread.

The optimist in me shares your hope, that some unintended positive pendulum swings will come out of this. Maybe not the same as it was before, but maybe a new version of something reclaiming some of the humanity we seem to be loosing. And before anyone gets any ideas: Cryptobro's, NFTs and Metaverses are NOT the answer I'm looking for!


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 20, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> So many things from boredom to differing musical goals to mismatched personalities always showed up sooner or later and eventually the balance between joy and stress started to shift.


As horribly unpleasant as that can be, sometimes friction can actually help fuel creativity. 

A few years ago I met one of the assistant recording engineers for the Police's Synchronicity album. He told me the band would get into violently heated arguments over the music EVERY DAY, and it always ended with someone storming out of the studio. Of course, the Police were well known for their constant in-fighting, but the resulting music was incredible.

I experienced my own version of that when I was in a band where the drummer and I constantly battled over musical direction, arrangements, writing, you name it. But in the end result was always greater than anything either of us could've done individually.

But I agree, I'm prefectly happy to leave those contentious experiences in the past. Nowadays, I frequently collaborate with my wife on composing projects, and there have been a few moments when things have gotten a little.... how shall I say.... prickly  But we get through it, and the music is better for it.


----------



## Pier (Jul 21, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> As horribly unpleasant as that can be, sometimes friction can actually help fuel creativity.
> 
> A few years ago I met one of the assistant recording engineers for the Police's Synchronicity album. He told me the band would get into violently heated arguments over the music EVERY DAY, and it always ended with someone storming out of the studio. Of course, the Police were well known for their constant in-fighting, but the resulting music was incredible.
> 
> ...


This is an interesting phenomenon which I've also noticed in other activities as well, not only music.

I guess fundamentally what results in better music when working with others is we're forced to verbalize and analyze our personal perceptions of music and our intentions. There's no way around communicating why something works or not.

When working alone, it's all very much non verbal, at least for me. But it's so easy to fall into our own personal biases. I'm never sure if something works or not. I do stuff and in the moment I typically think is absolute shit and when I listen to it a week or a month later I'm like "huh it's not that bad".


----------



## Sophus (Jul 21, 2022)

Pier said:


> Apple takes a cut of everything you sell on iOS. Apple is not offering a service to you, they are allowing you to become a partner with them and they have complete power in this relationship.


They will also give you free access to their development tools and store bandwidth. In the past good development tools were very expensive. This changed a lot over the past decade and a half. But in return you are paying after the release of your iOS content. 


gsilbers said:


> Im a little more worried about distrokid not letting poeple upload tracks that have loops/sample libraries for youtube content ID.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I already suggested, create some kind of jingle, like a 30 second long outro song or some kind of intro theme, without using samples. Then register this jingle in Content ID. Be sure it is long enough, I believe you need more than 20 seconds.

Upload your sample based music to YouTube like usual, add your intro and outro to the video. If someone now claims your video based on a used royalty free sample used in your music and their music dispute the claim. If the claim isn't lifted then claim your intro and outro by yourself and still get 2/3 of the revenue.


----------



## Pier (Jul 21, 2022)

Sophus said:


> They will also give you free access to their development tools and store bandwidth.


No they don't.

You still have to pay $100 every year to be able to use most of their developer services (access to betas, distributing signed apps, uploading to the app store, use test flight, etc).

Also, you pay a premium over the hardware which goes into paying for the "free" software.

Edit:

And BTW Apple has something like 30M registered developers. If you do the math and assuming even only 50% pay the $100 year fee (since there are team accounts) that's like $1.5B yearly with a B.

For comparison, $1.5B is almost 3 times the revenue of a huge corp like Cloudflare.


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 21, 2022)

Pier said:


> NekujaK said:
> 
> 
> > As horribly unpleasant as that can be, sometimes friction can actually help fuel creativity.
> ...


Maybe I need to start arguing out loud with myself in my studio for enhanced creativity!

me1: 
me2:


----------



## Pier (Jul 21, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> Maybe I need to start arguing out loud with myself in my studio for enhanced creativity!
> 
> me1:
> me2:


Well... knowing you are (were?) in tech you must know about rubber duck debugging, right? 😂














Rubber duck debugging - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 21, 2022)

I'm waiting patiently for the day that a person with a boatload of money gets ticked off and decides to file a lawsuit, or many different creators come together and begin a class action.


----------



## Denkii (Jul 21, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> I'm waiting patiently for the day that a person with a boatload of money gets ticked off and decides to file a lawsuit, or many different creators come together and begin a class action.


I am waiting for the same thing but actually for someone to go out and enforce EU software license reselling laws on sample devs. I want someone to settle the score that, despite what some sample library devs will try to tell you, sample libraries are software products first and foremost, not just licenses for simple recordings.
I'll be here with my popcorn.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 21, 2022)

Denkii said:


> I am waiting for the same thing but actually for someone to go out and enforce EU software license reselling laws on sample devs. I want someone to settle the score that, despite what some sample library devs will try to tell you, sample libraries are software products first and foremost, not just licenses for simple recordings.
> I'll be here with my popcorn.


Many sample libraries have extremely anti-consumer policies, but that is a contentious topic here and I don't dive into it much lol


----------



## Denkii (Jul 21, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> Many sample libraries have extremely anti-consumer policies, but that is a contentious topic here and I don't dive into it much lol


If the software doesn't matter, I'm sure everyone has no problem with opening up their samplers or Kontakt libraries eh?
They are just mere platforms to play simple recordings, right? No biggie.
Let's not call them library developers. Let's call them wav file recorders.


----------



## flampton (Jul 21, 2022)

Pier said:


> "People will steal your products, it's the cost of doing business"
> 
> Yeah, not a great argument.
> 
> ...


All those times I fast forwarded through the ads, damn I'm going to the bad place  

Now seriously this was a wildly inappropriate response to someone who uses ad blockers. At least where I come from calling people a thief is pretty inflammatory. Now me I don't use adblockers but lets talk ethics.

There has never been a moral requirement to consume ads and there will never be a moral requirement to consume ads. The reason being is that an advertisement is a pitch for your wallet. It wants something from you, and it is the right of every human not to have to listen to the (CONSTANT) begging and pleading. And what many don't realize is like Pier they have fooled you into believing in this contract. That you actually owe the people who want your money. 

Now lets reduce the above inflammatory stealing argument to the absurd because that will clearly show why consuming advertising is and never will be a moral requirement.

The argument above states that blocking (skipping) ads is stealing and that if you do you're a thief. This however doesn't link because consuming advertising generates 0 dollars or euros or whatever your place believes is real. And thus we must ask where does the money come from, the root? Well it originates from the wallets of the people purchasing the advertisers product. The moral question that follows then is to avoid being a thief what do you need to purchase? And the ethics clearly suggest you should purchase everything advertised to on your favorite channel(s) that you can afford, even if you don't need it. This is because if you don't buy the products advertised to you you are stealing from them as they paid for the ad AND the entertainment. Thus you are stealing from every company that has ever advertised to you on your favorite tv, youtube, radio, or any other channel as they paid for what you enjoyed and thus YOU OWE THEM. 

tldr I watched a awesome Seinfeld rerun and thus I need to buy these Oscar Meyer Hotdogs even though I'm a vegan. They were advertised twice during the episode so they really paid in, and thus I need to help them out.


----------



## Pier (Jul 21, 2022)

flampton said:


> This however doesn't link because consuming advertising generates 0 dollars or euros or whatever your place believes is real.


Jeez I wonder where the $30B of revenue Youtube generated from 2021 comes from. Google must have some magic money printing machine if those don't come from advertisement!

Also, you're completely missing the point. This is not about stealing from Youtube or corporate overlords but stealing from the creators of the content.

Ads suck, and I personally wish there was some other way to pay people for their creative work like micro-transactions or what Coil is trying to achieve. But until that day comes, we have ads.

It's very simple, creators deserve to get paid. You'd think this would be obvious for anyone in this forum but I guess not 😂


----------



## Denkii (Jul 21, 2022)

Pier said:


> This is not about stealing from Youtube or corporate overlords but stealing from the creators of the content.





Spoiler: Hands wrote faster than the brain could think. Ignore this part.



But no one is stealing from them by blocking their ads. In fact quite the opposite.
In fact, if you don't click, you don't cost them (the advertisers) money.
If you click and don't buy, you cost them (the advertisers) money.

Sooo...the only one who you could potentially "steal" money from by blocking ads in 95% of the cases (because yes, there are some plattforms that do offer a cost per impression payment for advertisers but it's rare), is the ad network holders...and that money would come from the advertisers - the very people you want to "save".



Edit: MY BAD! YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BUMPER ADS N SHIT LIKE THAT! I WAS STILL RIDING THE DISPLAY AD BLOCKER TRAIN!

Edit edit:
By that logic though, you're stealing money from "creators" for every ad you don't read in public, because they are paying for that ad on a CPM basis.
Yeah sometimes it's someone trying to sell you a product but it could just as well be a musician teasing a gig (supposed they didn't just put their poster up without permit but actually went through and got the rights for that advertising spot because by your definition they should do that since they would steal someone else's money otherwise).
I am glad to disagree with you if that is how you think the world should be.

The problem is not "mean users who try to prevent having to see ads which leads to poor small people losing money".
The problem is a corporation that is big enough to be able to create an environment in which they rarely can be held accountable to anything.
It should be less of an outcry for more tolerance from YouTube users towards creators but instead an outcry for a fair payment model for creators by YouTube that is not based solemnly on something that the creators don't have power over.
IMHO you are picking the wrong enemy for a reasonable goal.

Edit edit edit: The longer I think of it and try to put it in simpler terms, your arguement boils down to "people deserve to be payed because they exist" and...I disagree.
I don't pay every busker I come across. Sometimes I even choose to actively ignore them and act like they don't exist. I don't believe it makes me a bad person.
They chose that spot to promote their content...and I didn't give a shit which is both of our rights?
And when it comes to YouTube -> Creators -> YouTube users, it's even worse because as much as it feels weird to say it: Access to YouTube (creating & consuming) is not a basic human right. So there might apply some rules that are unfair for a lot of people who are involved on either end.
The difference between users and creators is: it's easy for users to block ads and it's hard for creators to compensate for that "loss" (whether or not they should get compensated for their content is up to debate). That doesn't make anyone a bad person.


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 21, 2022)

Pier said:


> It's very simple, creators deserve to get paid.


I definitely don't believe all content creators should get paid. There, I said it.

Just because someone shoots a video of themselves talking about what clothes they like to wear, or what food they like to eat, or what movies they like or don't like, doesn't automatically mean they deserve to get paid for that nonsense.

The whole YouTube economic model is so out of whack with what it actually takes to earn money in the real world. GenX'ers were raised to think that even if you lose a soccer game you're entitled to a trophy. No, you're not. And you're not entitled to earn money just because you stroke your ego on social media.

Rick Beato has openly stated many times that he doesn't earn a single penny from ads. All of his revenue comes from his Beato book and other merch he sells. He's selling something tangible and worthwhile, and his videos are simply the calling card that lead people there.

Produce something worthwhile that I can decide to purchase like an adult human being, and you'll get paid. But don't barrage me with a bunch of useless ads and expect me to sit there mindlessly enduring the noise just so you can get your .01


----------



## Nico5 (Jul 21, 2022)

Pier said:


> It's very simple, creators deserve to get paid.


Sorry, need to respectfully disagree. In my world it’s not quite that simple. It hardly ever is and I do have to admit being a little allergic to binary simplification, despite having made lots of my living on top of zeroes and one’s. 

Some creators have wasted my time and offended my sensibilites. Ads on those videos don’t get my tolerance and get skipped as soon as possible. And still I never get my time back.

Other creators have provided value, a healthy laugh, or whatever positive. Those videos' ads get a lot of playing time from me. (Except the 5 minute variety, which is too much in any case unless I have to go to the bathroom anyway )


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Jul 21, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> This is from the ezdrummer forums:
> 
> _I just noticed that YouTube does indeed declare music you’ve made with EZdrummer can not be monetized on their channel. When I submitted my most recent single using TuneCore distribution, TuneCore specifically tells you during the submission application that any music created using pre-recorded samples can not be monetized on YouTube. I have three singles that are all me on the guitars and bass, and a hired keyboardist, and I saw on my TuneCore dashboard that they have been declared ineligible for monetization on YouTube. I used EzDrummer2 as a compositional tool and arranged the parts in to songs quite uniquely. I used the verses for verse parts and chorus parts for chorus and son on, but I sequenced everything to my own liking. There are no other samples on my songs and they are not in violation of using other peoples melodies.
> 
> ...


Seems like the issue there is with Tunecore not wanting to deal with potential copyright strikes on Youtube rather than Youtube itself declaring that music made using samples can't be monetized... same goes for Distrokid. Tons and tons of sampled music is monetized on Youtube. Or did Youtube actually declare that creators without a major label or corporation actively backing them can't monetize if they use samples?...


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 21, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> Seems like the issue there is with Tunecore not wanting to deal with potential copyright strikes on Youtube rather than Youtube itself declaring that music made using samples can't be monetized... same goes for Distrokid. Tons and tons of sampled music is monetized on Youtube. Or did Youtube actually declare that creators without a major label or corporation actively backing them can't monetize if they use samples?...


thats the thing it was hard to understand from the post. was it youtube via tunecore that notice the loop or was it him saying to tunecore he has a loop and tunecore saying nope.


----------



## flampton (Jul 21, 2022)

Pier said:


> Jeez I wonder where the $30B of revenue Youtube generated from 2021 comes from. Google must have some magic money printing machine if those don't come from advertisement!
> 
> Also, you're completely missing the point. This is not about stealing from Youtube or corporate overlords but stealing from the creators of the content.
> 
> ...


Clearly you don't understand logic if you think Youtube's money comes from advertisers. Like these advertisers are just donating their money to Youtube. They are so kind and benevolent to allow you this entertainment. Similar to saying the US Department of Defense gets their money from the US treasury. Sure that is factual, but completely ignores the source of the money. 

And you keep talking about small people. Ask them for their paypal if you're so worried about it. Hey Mike what's your paypal I want you to have my money. They will actually receive 100 percent of it and not ~0 which is what they get for you to pretend you are some moral prince sitting through ads. 

And what a weird thing to say about creators deserving to be paid. In what market is that realistic? Like there is no economic model ever that supports this wildly ridiculous statement. Hey watch me play this kazoo, badly, now please give me money. (not all creators you may say, at which point your statement dissolves into goo.) I also like the ending where I can feel the exasperation, you guys know what I'm talking about crap, like trying to grab people to your side. 

And yet the responses already shows you the rational view which is that most of the people on here understand competition and desire and talent and luck and work and work and work. And so again, no creators don't deserve to be paid as a blanket statement. Some creators deserve what they have received, some creators don't deserve what they have received (e.g. 'famous' youtubers, lol), and some creators deserve a lot more than they have ever received. And that is my viewpoint and so you will have an entirely different list of people who deserve and don't deserve. And that is okay and normal and that is how markets work. 

Bottom line, the moral position is that a person should support the people and companies they like (as directly as possible) and not support people and companies they don't like. Vote with your wallet. Unfortunately it is a quagmire out there so you will be lucky if even 1% of your purchases could be considered moral.


----------



## Grilled Cheese (Jul 21, 2022)

I feel the frustration of the lady in this video, and I know so many other YouTube creators who have torn their hair out over the years because of all the copyright claims they get on their legitimate videos.

*Anecdote:*
About a year ago I busted a few YouTube channels that had uploaded my music to YouTube without permission. Their videos were just a static image combined with my music on loop for an hour.

One channel had amassed 1 million views, and another had amassed 5 million views. All their videos were monetised, so potentially *tens of thousands of dollars in ad revenue* was earned by the uploaders (aka copyright infringers).

I contacted a music industry lawyer and they basically said, “Due to privacy laws, YouTube won’t give us the names of the people who operate these channels, so there’s no way for us to identify them or contact them”. Case closed.

All I could do was initiate a takedown request at YouTube, which fortunately resulted in the videos being taken down. However, all the ad revenue was kept by the infringers, and their channels live on (for now). Even if YouTube were to shut them down, they can just start a new channel and repeat the process.

I only discovered these channels by chance. There could be countless more channels out there doing exactly the same thing.

*Conclusion*
Blatant copyright infringement is a potentially lucrative and safe career option for some people on YouTube. It’s a platform where the Berne Convention has no teeth, where people can repeatedly infringe on the rights of others, for profit, _out in the open_, with legal impunity.


----------

