New copyright directive just approved in EU!


#21

CID isn’t accurate it all:

  • it only registers tracks which are minimum 30 sec long
  • it doesn’t register percussive tracks, remixes, ambient, tracks with 3rd party loops, etc.
  • it’s very inaccurate
  • it’s very vague
  • it used to be a chain between Youtube and PRO by tracking music and sending data to PRO just to allow them collecting PRO royalties. In fact it works horribly inefficient, I haven’t seen any Youtube PRO royalties so far.
  • (edit: this point has been removed due to lack of information and unclear AdRev instructions)

So in my opinion existing CID should be totally annihilated and exchanged with a really working system. IMHO current Google CID is a temporary dummy system which was made to 1. delay works on a more efficient CID 2. make a step ahead of EU institutions by saying “we already have CID” 3. cool down authors, PROs and goverments demands 4. earn a lot of money during that delay.


#22

I’ve read your making this claim several times, I wonder where you got that from. It doesn’t reflect what I’ve experienced. I’ve been earning from videos that would be of no interest to US viewers.


#23

Google is already on top of this by curating its own Audio Library and contacting creators directly.


#24

This could open up a huge new market for subscription services so maybe envato w/ elements was anticipating this very law, and focusing elements on all the new low budget content creators that’ll most likely come to stock libraries.

I still think elements is FAR too cheap and there needs to be a cap on the amount of downloads per month, but this law just opened up a potential huge new target market for it.

It’d be amazing if these new customers came to the AJ marketplace in mass too though. We’ll see how this plays out I guess. Very interesting development either way.


#25

Yeah, not good for Envato. But even if they advise EU contributors to use their library, they still need to check that there is no other music in it.


#26

This is what AdRev wrote me in the mail conversation few months ago:

PROs collect revenue generated from all non US views, whereas AdRev can only collect US views for publishing sync.

It seems to me that they collect money only for the US views. My biggest AdRev earnings are from US videos (maybe it’s a coincidence). Please, correct me if I’m wrong or if it’s about other rights. I would love to be mistaken because it sounds ridiculous.


#27

I made a couple hundred bucks from Korean videos that had no subtitles, and whose content could only be appealing locally. I’m pretty sure this money did not come from lost US viewers who just happened to stumble upon those videos.

Not sure what they mean by “publishing sync” in this context. Adrev is collecting ad revenues whereas PRO collect royalties, why would they compare the two in terms of US and non-US views? Maybe they’re talking about something else.

In my experience, they are very good at giving unsatisfactory half-assed answers that raise even more questions.


#28

@PurpleFog yeah. So I will edit my previous post adding a question mark.


#29

I guess you mean the “Pub - Standard” earnings?

Like @PurpleFog, I have the majority of my CID earnings coming from videos in Arabic and various Asian languages without subtitles. Over $10k by now. They don’t only collect ad revenue from US views, that doesn’t seem reasonable.

The publishing sync part, maybe so! Right now, many PROs only collect royalties from YouTube/Spotify if the total number of plays from ONE country is over a certain number. But this is different from the general ad revenue.


#30

Oh, so “Pub- Standard” stands for publishing? Like an idiot, I thought it stood for publicity (because of the shared meaning with “ad” in French).

I’m confused then. How is AdRev also collecting publishing sync royalties?


#31

@Flumen - ok I’ve removed that point due to lack of information.

And I repeat @PurpleFog question:


#32

Hello there…

so it seems this Article 13 is making a lot of noise…

EDIT: I was wrong, this has nothing to do with Article 13!

my god… say Goodbye to people teaching music online… this is sooo… oh well, I don’t have the words…


Paul Davids had also a video about the subject, but for some reason it has been deleted…

This is getting ridiculous…


#33

Article 13 is years away from coming into effect, so this has nothing to do with it.


#34

I saw this one too, I’m not entirely sure what is the problem here, but I think it’s about grumpy old school music publishers that does not understand how Youtube works and therefore decides to block videos that actually advertise for their music catalogue.

As for article 13 I’m still positive that this will be for the greater good when it’s implemented. But who exactly knows what is going to happen, it’s hard to predict how it all plays out :thinking:


#35

Ah, thanks for the clarification, this is what I thought, but one video (that has been deleted since!) was mentionning a direct link.

Ok, so these are different stories.
But still… then… what is going on?


#36

I don’t really know. But is there really something going on now?

Copyright issues have always existed, and are not even bound to the Internet. Back in the days, I used to buy guitar magazines which always featured licks and riffs à la my favorite bands, they almost never had the actual exact tabs, because of copyrights. Why would it be different for Youtube?

Copyright strikes have also existed for years on Youtube. Is there a surge of those these days? I don’t know. If there is indeed a surge, there could be many explanations. Maybe a new player (publisher, lawyer, majors, what have you) being overly aggressive, who knows.

I can also hear some exaggeration in this rant. If someone is giving you a strike (not a copyright notice) for a Dsus4, then this is an obvious abuse, and of course you can dispute it.

There’s a lot of mass hysteria around the infamous Article 13, fueled by europhobia, Youtube’s active lobbying, sheepish meme mentality, and sheer ignorance.

There is room for things to go sour, I’m not dismissing that. But, we’ll have to wait for how it will be implemented and more importantly how the platforms will react, before we can see it as good or bad… or something more complex and gray.

But let’s not get it twisted. Article 13 is meant to protect creative authors against big platforms such as Youtube, which have been feasting on those creative assets for years, cheating us authors of billions of dollars. It’s not a gift from the corrupted European elite to some greedy multimillionaire lawyers or publishers to hit the righteous little Youtubers with.