Some bands might see the advantage of letting YouTube do it's thing - especially bands that aren't popular. Nonetheless, popular bands might see a drain in revenue by people wanting free music. Nonetheless, a business model could exist where the popular bands might make more from concerts - than by forcing people to buy albums.
Using Music on YouTube as Promotion vs Banning From YouTube
- Thread starter Jason76
- Start date
Smaller bands want reputation. They want fame. They want their name out there so people can find it. They make use of YouTube ads. Copyright restrictions don't matter much for now because they are looking for opportunities to grow and expand. Why do you think they don't produce original song/music but do covers instead? So that people don't steal their work and see their potential instead. The more fame they get, the finally produce an original piece with some form of copyright and make a revenue out of it.
Big bands have nothing to worry about. They already have a big fan base.
Big bands have nothing to worry about. They already have a big fan base.
Well, they can always get a copyright from the get-go. No need to wait. I mean, honestly, I get sick of cover tunes/cover bands.
I do too, I tend to avoid covers mostly. You should check out Kodaline. Their songs are brilliant. Good vibes shizz yo
I just have a friend who used to make YouTube videos playing guitar. I mean, the guy's an excellent guitar player - but the problem is that it's always cover tunes. I want to hear something original that he made.
YES! YES! I agree! I have tons of friends who are so into music, and only 1 guy makes his own music and you know what? He's the one who's actually making real progress. Having gigs here and there, his own fan page, and multiple offers for event hosting. The others who are doing covers .. I do feel bad, but sometimes I just don't open their links because it's the same song that I hear on the radio at any given moment.
Yeah, covers are so boring. Well, maybe not - but I'm more open into something I know is original.
This guy started with covers and now his own music. I can't find a song with a similar theme like this. It's too damn good.
Nobody is going to pay for 1 entire album for just 1 hit song. Let's face it those days of all songs are good are gone. So people have no benefit of buying album. Having hit song on youtube can earn some money provided adblockers are taken care of. I think youtube has to do something about adblocker.
I think creative ways can be made for musicians to make money - but they have to broaden their thinking. It's just not 1989 now - nor even 1995.
In my experience most copyright violations lead to the video having ad revenue going to the musician or original creator, but my main channel has had most ads turned off because of content claims.
I have 12 videos flagged for copyright violations with ads turned off.
I have 10 videos "not suitable for advertisers"
I have 0 copyright strikes.
I have fought a total of 3 copyright violations / content claims with fair use. I've had people say "hey, you used my video" because I used 10 seconds of their video in a compilation. YouTube has sided with me each time & all of those videos are still earning me money because of how fair use works. But the automatic content claims led to 12 still having ads turned off. Luckily they don't have too many views. It's the "not suitable for advertisers" rule that really hit me hard.
All in all, I have about 1.1 million views on videos that had their ads removed about a year ago due to YouTube changes in what they find not suitable. Many of my videos of gamers raging had ads shut off. A few videos with swears in it? Shut off. Sucks.
I think these videos should have kept their ads on & had money go to their original creators.
Most of my videos w/ content claims had a small segment of content that would actually fall under 'fair use' in any court room, but I didn't dispute any of the videos with lower amount of views. It's been the 'not suitable' rule that has screwed me out of about $1,000 - not content claims. That said, the content claims would have brought in a few hundred dollars for Blizzard Entertainment, so I don't know why their default setting is to shut off ads. I'm sure they could make tens or hundreds of thousands if they kept ads on all the videos they flag as copyright violations. I included a segment out of their event BlizzCon when I was discussing the game.
I have 12 videos flagged for copyright violations with ads turned off.
I have 10 videos "not suitable for advertisers"
I have 0 copyright strikes.
I have fought a total of 3 copyright violations / content claims with fair use. I've had people say "hey, you used my video" because I used 10 seconds of their video in a compilation. YouTube has sided with me each time & all of those videos are still earning me money because of how fair use works. But the automatic content claims led to 12 still having ads turned off. Luckily they don't have too many views. It's the "not suitable for advertisers" rule that really hit me hard.
All in all, I have about 1.1 million views on videos that had their ads removed about a year ago due to YouTube changes in what they find not suitable. Many of my videos of gamers raging had ads shut off. A few videos with swears in it? Shut off. Sucks.
I think these videos should have kept their ads on & had money go to their original creators.
Most of my videos w/ content claims had a small segment of content that would actually fall under 'fair use' in any court room, but I didn't dispute any of the videos with lower amount of views. It's been the 'not suitable' rule that has screwed me out of about $1,000 - not content claims. That said, the content claims would have brought in a few hundred dollars for Blizzard Entertainment, so I don't know why their default setting is to shut off ads. I'm sure they could make tens or hundreds of thousands if they kept ads on all the videos they flag as copyright violations. I included a segment out of their event BlizzCon when I was discussing the game.
I don't think people should be sued for doing covers - or lessons (some average guy making a guitar video of some popular song). I mean, is Mick Jagger going to be such a douche to sue someone covering "Wild Horses"? Give me a break! Well, Metallica at one point sued their own fans (for free music downloads)!
Well, with the lessons stuff - I think they have the right. But it's not cool of rock stars to do that. I mean, I suppose they want Guitar World magazine to give them a royalty for transcribing their music.
I can see it going both ways - If the cover is unique, perhaps it falls under fair use... If it's a cover that sounds almost identical to the original, is it really fair use? If I take a musician's piano song & play it on the piano so precisely that it sounds identical, is that a cover or is that a violation? I personally think it could be counted as a violation because it's pretty much the same as just uploading the original. Obviously not all covers sound identical to the original, but I can see why some musicians may be angry
Affiliates
