Music Licensing Firm Offers Cheap Licenses For YouTube Videos
from the but,-um,-what-about-free? dept
The New York Times is reporting that music licensing firm Rumblefish is trying to help people making YouTube videos avoid takedowns or the dreaded YouTube ContentID “silencing” by offering music that can be licensed for YouTube videos at $1.99 per song (for non-commercial purposes only). While it’s at least somewhat good to see music licensing firms recognizing that this market isn’t going to buy hugely expensive licenses, and trying to adjust to handle this new market, it sort of ignores the fact that there are still a ton of Creative Commons and similarly licensed (or public domain) music out there that they can use. Since the Rumblefish catalog in this offer doesn’t include any major label music or “big name” artists, it seems like those who might be interested in such a thing could probably find just as good, if not better, Creative Commons-licensed music. On top of that, this is the same Rumblefish who caused some problems last year when it claimed licensing rights over some public domain music, pissing off a bunch of YouTube users.
Filed Under: licensing, music, youtube
Companies: rumblefish
Comments on “Music Licensing Firm Offers Cheap Licenses For YouTube Videos”
Magnatune
Plenty of Magnatune music that you can use for free on Youtube.
Re: Magnatune
a link may be usefull
Re: Re: Magnatune
Magnatune on wikipedia
Magnatune Site
Re: Re: Magnatune
You should also check out this link at the Creative Commons – Legal music for Videos
Re: Re: Re: Magnatune
Sorry The above link goes to a techdirt pagehere is the correct link at the Creative Commons – Legal music for Videos
ok explain time
is that the price i have to pay to listen or the price that they have to pay to allow everyone to listen to it.
if its what i have to pay then its $1.89 too much
Re: ok explain time
It’s -$2 too much. They have to pay me to sample their music.
Re: Re: ok explain time
errr. it’s $5 too much *
Re: ok explain time
“or the price that they have to pay to allow everyone to listen to it.”
This one.
I, too, agree the amount of money is too much. Any amount is too much.
What should be done, instead, is those using music in their videos be required to acknowledge the performer, song writer, and the song title.
Content is the ad for the product. If people like the song, then the required acknowledgment has potential to increase sales in other venues if people put the value in the song to want to own a copy of it.
This “license” is nothing more than another attempt at paying far too many people who didn’t write or perform the song to begin with. Insulting, to say the least.
Re: Re: ok explain time
What should be done, instead, is those using music in their videos be required to acknowledge the performer, song writer, and the song title.
Which is exactly the conditions that Magnatune ask for.
http://magnatune.com/
License info here
http://magnatune.com/info/cc_licensed
Re: Re: Re: ok explain time
One could argue the $180/yr susbscription fee Magnatune charges to access all these no-name artists is also fairly cost prohibitive. Either way you are still paying for the privelidge.
Re: Re: Re:2 ok explain time
You don’t need to subscribe (or pay anything at all) to get access to the MP3s. You can buy individual albums in high quality on a “name your own price” basis – or pay the subscription for an “all you can eat” high quality option.
Plus you can officially share any purchased album with 3 friends.
Plus they have a “No DRM ever” pledge
Plus – they won’t pursue you even if you share more than the official 3x – they say ” we just hope you will feel bad about it”.
Re: Re: Re:3 ok explain time
“You don’t need to subscribe”
Yes, you do. Just checked out the site. The second I tried accessing a download, it asks me to be a member.
For $180/year, I’ll pass.
In addition, my opinion doesn’t give a damn about copyright or CC restrictions.
One of these days, artists will realize the only control they have is how to make money. Once in the public domain, they have no control no matter what the hell they think.
Re: Re: Re:4 ok explain time
The download button is for the top quality file that you do have to pay for.
However if you look further down the page for the place where it says:
“Play all tracks as an m3u audio stream (or xspf, ogg, mp3 file” Right click on “mp3” and then “save link” and it will let you download the (lower quality) file for free.
While I think it’s still too expensive for the general population to use in Youtube videos, it has the potential to be a useful service. If it has a great search engine and is easy to use, it beats most of the other options.
Re: Re:
Beats Jamendo?
I don’t think so.
How exactly is this going to stop the recording industry police from issuing DMCA takedown notices on your videos?
What differentiates two videos using the same copyrighted song (which you’ve already bought mind you), where one has obtained this (ridiculously expensive) license from Rumblefish and the other hasn’t?
Hasn't Youtube already made deals with some Record Lables
I thought YouTube was using their identification software to allow labels to find their music on youtube videos and take a cut of the ad revenue and itunes/amazon sells?
http://goo.gl/sl35
and with YouTube editor you can add songs for free
http://www.youtube.com/editor
Re: Hasn't Youtube already made deals with some Record Lables
Youtube got a lot less appealing since they started to ask for cellphone numbers for identification.
RIPOFF
RIPOFF screw them. Oops am I offensive? Ohhhhh nnnnnnnooooooo
Don’t use other peoples music. You can find hundreds of indie bands that don’t believe in this bullshit, use their music. Don’t pay the thieves.
The potential scam
Will or has Rumblefish offered this “opportunity” to u-tube posters to original content that would not even be subject to takedown notices?
Take so time
Post on the most watched UTube videos info about CC and copyleft music, get the word out.
Take action to put these asshats out of work.
wow
that’s kinda crazy right there!
what's next?
what does this mean for the future of music licensing??
licensing
Interesting information, music to license is rife.
Search Engine for RFM
Thanks for this interesting article!
Just a note: Meanwhile there is a search engine for royalty free music out there: http://audiobello.com
All the best
Rainer