But surely if you use a piece of music and correctly credit it, then it is free advertising?
Normally if you advertise something, it’s with a view to making money out of it. Given the rise and rise of Youtube the logical progression is that you’re advertising with a view to advertising some more, which does no good to the original creator other than bolstering their ego if they’re susceptible to that sort of thing.
The argument re. copyright violation not being theft seems to me correct, but pernickety. Harm is still caused.
I’m writing this on a Linux based computer. I was very upset when my university wouldn’t allow me to give away code under the GPL. Don’t get me wrong – I ‘get’ free stuff. But also the right of the contributor to choose whether or not to give it away.
I’ve just done a quick test and as previously reported Vimeo scans only the first 30 seconds of a movie for copyright music.
Following some experiments, there is no evidence that Vimeo checks for copyrighted performances of any instrumental (no vocals) tracks.
If they did, none of the “old classics” from say the 19th century could be used.
But if they did, they would have to be really accurate in detecting potentially subtle differences between one performance and another, and such accuracy would enable people to beat the system by changing the tempo by say 1%. It’s been reported that Vimeo cannot detect copyright music if the tempo is changed by 5% or more. I’ve never tried this and I wonder if anyone could tell?
Peter wrote:
As regards making the background music legal, if there was a way to pay say €1 for the use of the track on a video, I think most would pay it. But I am sure there isn’t, and even if there was, how would Vimeo or Youtube know you bought it? There would have to be a signed certificate server – the whole lot.
There actually is a way to compensate the IP owners – it is to enable ads as pre-rolls to your video. If the IP owner has correctly claimed their content – which on Youtube is done through finger printing technology called Content ID – they will get 45% of the rev share paid into their AdSense account. If the service is free, just remember you are the product being delivered. Nobody wants to watch ads but how do you think all of this gets paid. Youtube has 5.9Bio$ in annual revenue but as a stand alone company (outside of the wider Alphabet group) is even today not profitable…
This is why I pay $60/year to Vimeo – to prevent them showing ads on my videos. And to get a bit more upload budget, etc.
It’s an interesting Q whether their copyright detection is modified by whether one is paying their sub. I don’t think that’s implemented.
Peter wrote:
the only way I can upload personal (aviation related, etc) stuff to Youtube while maintaining some level of separation from the business is to access Youtube from a browser of a different type from the one which I use for the google login stuff and possibly use a different IP (more hassle, involving a VPN) and never use that browser for anything involving google
@peter I use a single google chrome with 2 google apps accounts (work and personal). As I’m speaking, I have open on different tabs:
Email Work
Email Personal
Drive Work
Drive Personal
Youtube Personal
Calendar (both)
.
Let me know if you want some help. I see the message is old but I’ve been doing this before it was posted (and no special tricks)
Peter wrote:
It’s been reported that Vimeo cannot detect copyright music if the tempo is changed by 5% or more. I’ve never tried this and I wonder if anyone could tell?
This really depends on the quality and the philosophy of the online platform – Youtube, which I know you don’t like, have a very good content protection program. Content ID will detect up to 90% of infringements – that includes videos being displayed mirrored, with changed colours, with a wrap around them etc… With music the IP owner can actual not claim their music in certain markets – it is done through the rights agencies and really depends on the level of meta-data they deliver to the platform. The ones that do a good job will simply not allow you to post anything that contains copyrighted items. The granularity on the “good” platforms is impressive, one can block content (including music) in certain markets, block anything over 3 seconds, 5 minutes, block until a certain date then release, chose monetisation not blocking, share IP rights in several markets etc.. Platforms like Vimeo are just not very good at this, for various reasons. To begin with they simply do not have the scale or reach to be relevant to anyone of significance in the market, so there are no real monetisation programs in place. There are others who are shit by choice – Facebook being one of them, the only possibility (there are ways around this but only for very big content owners at this stage) to get content removed from Facebook is manual claiming – for very instance of that video – which means if it is being shared and posted on someone else timeline – one needs to manually claim that one too. Now Facebook is a very evolved engineering company and fingerprinting technology has been around for quite some time. So why not help content owners in either blocking, monitoring or monetising that content? Money? It’s part of the equation but not really the main reason, if they start behaving like a publisher they become subject to the same laws a publisher is liable too which means they need to take responsibility for the content that is sitting on their platform. Rights protection and monetisation is big business – companies like Rightster (Brave Bison these days) and others run this for the smaller less sophisticated content owners as an auxiliary way of monetisation, the bigger guys like Disney and other big content companies run these programs themselves. Youtube had paid over 1Bio$ back to content owners at the end of last year to give you an idea of the size of the price…
Yes – somebody did tell me about this, @Noe I just have not bothered to set it up. On a similar line, you might enjoy this which remains unresolved.
Many thanks @LFHNflightstudent for the input. I am not going to be putting up copyright videos – why should I? 
But the issue of copyright on performances is a tricky one, because if adhered to strictly for every orchestra performance of some 19th or early 20th century composition, would wipe out an awful lot of background music, especially on flying videos for which a particular sort of music (arguably – always a matter of taste) fits well. Popular “tracks” are popular for a good reason: people like to listen to them. So you won’t find something like e.g. Also Sprach Zarathustra in some free music library. IMHO this business is a mess… as I wrote before, if I could pay say €1 (Paypal) to somebody to be able to use e.g. Bridge over Troubled Water on some video, I would, and so would most people. Currently you can’t because every hosting platform will remove the video within seconds (unless you obfuscate it).
I totally agree….
I prefer engine + ATC.
If you must have music make your own.
Reason 9.0
(No I don’t have shares in that company)
