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.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: licensing, music, youtube
Companies: rumblefish


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2010 @ 3:53am

    Magnatune

    Plenty of Magnatune music that you can use for free on Youtube.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, 30 Jun 2010 @ 4:38am

    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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2010 @ 4:40am

      Re: ok explain time

      It's -$2 too much. They have to pay me to sample their music.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      R. Miles (profile), 30 Jun 2010 @ 4:58am

      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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 30 Jun 2010 @ 5:02am

        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

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          IronM@sk, 30 Jun 2010 @ 5:33am

          Re: Re: Re: ok explain time

          Which is exactly the conditions that Magnatune ask for.
          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.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 30 Jun 2010 @ 7:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 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".

            link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              R. Miles (profile), 30 Jun 2010 @ 9:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 30 Jun 2010 @ 11:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dude, 30 Jun 2010 @ 4:50am

    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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    IronM@sk, 30 Jun 2010 @ 5:15am

    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?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    johnjac (profile), 30 Jun 2010 @ 5:50am

    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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2010 @ 6:17am

      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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2010 @ 7:08am

    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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Steve R. (profile), 30 Jun 2010 @ 7:52am

    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?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bob, 30 Jun 2010 @ 8:01am

    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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FBI, 2 Aug 2010 @ 5:33pm

    wow

    that's kinda crazy right there!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Booker, 2 Aug 2010 @ 5:36pm

    what's next?

    what does this mean for the future of music licensing??

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    markus, 28 Mar 2011 @ 3:43am

    licensing

    Interesting information, music to license is rife.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rainer, 23 May 2016 @ 5:20am

    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

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.