JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum CD Baby & Rumblefish Partnership...

Caution...

http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=149220

Rumblefish is known for rock-bottom pricing in music licensing ( as little as $1.99 a song). Also, there are music libraries that won't deal with you if you have music signed with Rumblefish.

John

Wow, I thought this would be a major concern to songwriters using CD Baby.

Just wondering if having songs on CD Baby automatically places your track in Rumblefish's catalog? Maybe Brian can shed some light on this newly formed partnership.

John

Hi John,

according to the article:
"Starting December 15th, CD Baby artists can sign up at no extra charge to become part of the Rumblefish catalog"

so it only applies if we decide to opt in - rather than automatic.

at the moment I don't know that much about rumblefish. which music libraries don't like them? and why?

That's good Doug if there's an opt-in/ opt-out.

Many music libraries dislike them because they downgrade the value of music. For instance; one piano track of mine recently was licensed for $700. If I had this same track with Rumblefish it would have went for pennies. Imagine if the client found out he/she could have licensed it for $1.99 after paying $700.

With non-exclusive, retitling libraries there is always a diversity of pricing, but not so extreme. Not to mention Rumblefish is a royalty-free model.

I just thought this was worth mentioning, especially for musicians that already have music in other libraries.

Best, John

Yes, I have signed up for one that does not like Rumblefish, but I forget which one.

Hey John,
thanks for the heads up. I still have lots to learn.

So do I Doug.

Best, John

They offer to handle sign ups for just about any and everyone on the net. I have no input on who they choose and frankly, it wouldn't matter. If their own member base is asking for it, they should offer it as an option for them. I don't think 90% of the optional sign ups are worthwhile, but many people want to use them. I try to warn people off using outright scam artists and often people will ignore the warning, use them and then come back crying to me for my help to save them somehow. Bottom line is you do what you can, but people want what they want sometimes no matter how bad the deal is. I walked away from a major label record deal in my 20's because I felt it was a rip off and totally one sided. I felt bad about it for many years because it broke up my partnership with my vocalist and songwriting partner and killed his lifelong dream to sign a deal. (Fortunately he was able to sign his deal years later and start his project including some of our co-writes just before he was tragically murdered by the 9-11 terrorists in NYC). Should I have taken what I saw as a really really bad deal and been on a major label? I didn't think so, but I bet 98% of every musician I have ever met would have taken that deal happily. And I was never offered another one, (certainly in part because my group was finished and I never pursued one again, it was my friend who'd done all the legwork on the offer in the first place). All that to say that I could offer my opinion, if given the facts, but I can't force anyone to agree or change their behavior outside the wall of JPF.

In general, most people would happily give their music away to anyone who would put it in a movie or in a commercial on TV or radio etc. For most, especially non professionals, that's an even bigger dream and life accomplishment than the money they might earn. After all, if you want money, do something else in life with a guaranteed paycheck each week for the work you've done for them. That will provide money. For most it's not the money they want, it's the approval and attention and accomplishment of someone important accepting and putting their music out there for the masses. Would I give my music away? No. But most would happily do so and many out there would happily PAY ridiculous sums of money to scam artists just so they will tell them what they desperately want to hear so they can feel validated and share that with their friends and family who don't know any better.

Does anyone disagree?

Brian

Question: Would you take $1 dollar and have your song prominently used in the biggest film of all time, locked in there for all to hear throughout history and with your name prominently displayed as the writer and/or artist OR would you decline, knowing you didn't "sell out" but also will never have that opportunity again?

Sure, some might say "no way, I wouldn't give my song away like that!!!! those people make plenty on their movies and should pay me" but that's only because they don't have the actual offer in front of them. It's a tough question. I know how I answered before (under different circumstances, but certainly it was a big thing to turn down) but if offered that above deal today, I might well let them have it, even with all I know and all I preach. That's just being honest. Food for thought.

Brian

Same thing with books... amateur and semi-pro writers will pay scam 'publishers' to have their books and poetry printed.

I also passed on a rip-off deal years ago and have the same question than Brian: should I have taken it? Several of my friends did and actually some of them had their music sell good numbers although they did not make money. But their career developed and now they make their own deals and have a following while I am still barely known... I guess each one have to face the question... good luck!

I've refused to give songs to singers royalty free while others gave them inferiour songs free and they recorded them and actually sold the CDs.To me it is wrong for singers to make money off the talents of writers without paying for the use of those talents. But there are many writers that are just desperate enough to see their names on a CD, to give them some boasting rights, that they will do it.Artist know this so they take advantage and make that extra profit. I've also turned down artist that want the publishing rights to the songs they record. Now if they were a big name artist,I might consider it, but not a small indie artist.

"In general, most people would happily give their music away to anyone who would put it in a movie or in a commercial on TV or radio etc. For most, especially non professionals, that's an even bigger dream and life accomplishment than the money they might earn" - Brian

Yes, I agree Brian. However, there are many music libraries today that share licensing 50/50 that would be a better road to take than the Rumblefish Road.

As long as people understand their deal, it's fine with me - though it erks me a bit knowing Rumblefish (not the hardworking creators of the product) is getting rich from this. But then, that's free enterprise.

John

I had a meeting a couple of days ago with a major publisher. Aside discussion about what I've accomplished and what I might be able to bring to the table in doing a deal with them, there was discussion about libraries that do re-titles.

They're looking to the day, which is getting closer, when audio DNA fingerprinting will help remove a lot of the doubling, tripling, or rather multiple sources of the same audio. I agreed with them. They asked if I was doing such deals - to which I responded: No. They also stated that they will not do deals with anyone that has music that can't be exclusive.

Obviously this has been debated here before - so no need to reexamine it.

In answer to a question posed by Brian, it's hard to say a movie will be a bonafide hit prior to release. I've had songs in movies where I was able to get licenses and they promised it would be a hit, blah blah blah. I've been hired to sing for movies and games with the same promise. No one knows when a project will be a hit. Thus why give away the baby with the bathwater.

One last example, I have a song that is perfect for a summer action blockbuster. I've even gotten it into the hands of the music supervisor on a huge summer movie a couple of years ago. Know what the response was? "Love the song. However we're only going with a known artist on the soundtrack." There was no offer to use the song, despite loving it. There was no question of - we'll use it if you'll let us have it without a fee. It was flat out - you're not famous, we're not going to consider it.

Oddly enough, shortly after said movie's release I had lunch with another person who is a friend in a major music company. His question was: Have you seen the [title left out] movie? I responded with yes. His next statement said it all: Their choice for the song over the ending credits was stupid, they should have had your song. Not that the song they chose is a bad song. It's a brilliant long time hard rock hit from the 70's. But it wasn't the right song, just one by a famous band.

The big trick is doing something so well, they can't ignore it. Sometimes they'll still ignore it. There's no getting around that.

As for me, I won't be opting in to CD Baby's new venture. It's not a financially sound idea.

I don't disagree with anything Jody said. (And we've been on the same side of the renaming libraries (horrible idea whose time is thankfully coming to an end soon enough thanks only to technology). I also don't want ANYONE to think I was endorsing or dissing Rumblefish. I actually know nothing about it and withhold judgement until I do, but my example gave specific criteria. It was meant to evoke a definitive, non grey area answer. Are you someone who would NEVER sell out, no matter what, and NEVER give your music away, no matter what, including if it was in the most famous movie ever made. OR, would you weigh the level of sell out depending on how good the offer was FOR YOU? Most people would answer yes to that, (save maybe someone who knows they'll never have that or any similar offer so no big deal to take the "artistic high road") but condemn others who sold out for less than they would. My point is most people would sell out for ANY film including the worst ever made, just to have that tiny sliver of immortality and music street cred which will only mean something to themselves and their family and friends who don't know better.

I am still impressed when I hear JPF members music in a film, even if it is terrible. I am very happy for them and find it a rare bit of success in a desperate "business" that allows the #1 song of 2011 to be what it was this year (see other post on General Message Board for details where I moved it from the Industry board to get more eyeballs and comments on it). I think we've reached a time where 99.9% of the talent out there should focus solely on reaching their artistic potential and then taking the lottery odds that it might catch on commercially at just the right moment. About 0.1% can just write anything the market demands without any concern about artistic respect. They only measure respect by dollars made AND they ALSO have the talent to give the masses what they will actually pay for. Artistic merit means nothing to the mass commercial market anyone more than Fancy Chef Credentials mean anything to McDonalds who just want to sell the most hamburgers.

I'll check out Rumblefish after the holidays and see what's up with it.

Brian

"And we've been on the same side of the renaming libraries (horrible idea whose time is thankfully coming to an end soon enough thanks only to technology" - Brian

Yes Brian, the major networks are becoming more reluctant to use non-exclusive music, but with almost a thousand cable/satellite channels in the USA and 15,000 channels World-wide (that can't afford the exclusive price), non-exclusive libraries are far from coming to an end - though I didn't really want to start this debate up again.

BTW, Rumblefish is non-exclusive with 4 million tracks and 250,000 artists in their catalog at present time. Talk about getting lost in the shuffle.

Bottomline... I much prefer the exclusive library model. But the non-exclusive model has its merits as well. There are plenty of clients for both. Having said that... I'd much prefer a dead-end non-exclusive library to a dead-end exclusive library. At least with the former one can peddle his wares elsewhere.

BTW, my objective in posting this was just to make people with CD Baby aware of the their partnership with Rumblefish.

One other thought... digital fingerprinting only affects PRO royalties. PRO royalties aren't much of a windfall for the majority composers anyway. Maybe the wave of the future for the non-exclusives will be the royalty-free model (by-passing the PRO's completely).

John

Thanks for the "heads-up" John. I saw your post several days ago and just didn't have time to respond. I hope CDBaby knows what they are doing with this deal. Rumblefish is still not well regarded by many.

You're welcome Dave. JPF does a good job informing people of possible pitfalls in the music industry. Though Rumblefish may be an option for some. I do believe Rumblefish has a 1 year reversion clause. I don't know how easy it will be to have songs removed from their catalog though.

John

John, what is coming to an end is simply renaming song titles. It won't actually hurt non exclusives, it may actually SAVE them and allow for even more ironically because then through audio means, a hidden audio track (inaudible to humans for example) could be used by companies to imprint their claim on a track. Now it depends on if the artists will allow it as well as if the industry will accept what technology will offer, which is always a big question mark. But hiding a song by changing the name and by doing so possible hiding income due to artists and writers, may be coming to an end. It should at the least, weed out the bad actors.

So, to all who know FACTS about Rumblefish, can you guys fill me in on exactly what the beef is? Paying too little isn't good enough if it's a voluntary thing. Are they misleading people or doing someone dishonest or sleazy? After all, we all know there is no significant (i.e. enough to consistently make a financial difference in all those people's lives) commercial market for 250K artists doing ANYTHING and that is a sad reality. Many people already use Creative Commons and GIVE IT ALL AWAY FOREVER to "non commercial" uses, which is a slippery slope, and that continues to be a viable and desired option for many. So tell me why you have a negative view of Rumblefish in specifics. And give me some first hand info, not generic "well "they" say it's bad" without naming specific "they's" so we can verify the problems. I will be happy to use that as a starting point to investigate those concerns.

Also, are you folks SURE this is something more or different than the wide array of OPT IN "partnerships" they have with nearly everyone else in the business?

Brian

By the way, after reading that Press Release, it sounds like a great optional opportunity to me. Seriously, I can't find the problem?

Also, I challenge anyone in the world to better CD Baby's PROVEN return on investment of $800 dollars on average back for a $35 dollar fee to the 250,000 artists on their site? It may be the greatest ROI in the history of artistic and commercial combination. Find me anything ever better for any type of artist?

Brian

Brian, non-exclusive and retitling as far as I can see are synonymous. How else can one non-exclusive music library differentiate a track against the identical track another non-exclusive library has without altering the title?

BTW, every non-exclusive library I know keeps the original title and just adds their prefix or suffix to it, e.g., “Romance” becomes “RomanceEJ”. One exception is Pump Audio. They use numbers.

I’m sure there are going to be changes in the non-exclusive sector. Some will become exclusive (already have), some royalty-free, some will form partnerships with other non-exclusives, etc.

Personally, when I notice a non-exclusive selling my music well, I start treating them as an exclusive and won’t sign the tracks I have with them with anyone else. Exclusive is best as long as the exclusive company is aggressively working your music. Isn’t as good as non-exclusive when they forget you exist.

I have no beef with CD Baby at all, or for that matter even Rumblefish, as long as musicians know what they're getting into. Some of these opt-in / opt-out options can be a bit deceiving. I have no idea how CD Baby is presenting this option.

Best, John

CD Baby have made some bad deals in the past which they have dropped now, one PayPlay.fm. They(PP.fm) had posted some of my CDs on their site to sell for $3.33, less than what I have to pay CD Baby for selling my CDs, they hold back $4.00 per sale. Who is going to buy my CD from CD Baby if they can get it for one third of the price from PPfm. Even since CD Baby broke off their deal with PPfm, PPfm was showing my CDs for sale for download, which I get nothing for. CD Baby, which I like and still use, should make sure those they deal with are not under cutting them and the artist.

By the way, they charge $39.00 now to list the CD for sale.

Everett,

Since day 1 with CD Baby, how much money have you had? On average, 250,000 artists have each made $800 dollars. (For most of that time, it cost 35 dollars, but more recently they upped it. Over that same time period, the US dollar has lost over 20% of it's value and Canada has significantly risen against the dollar, so for you, the actual price has fallen right since you now have a far better exchange rate). My point is that if you are average on CD Baby sales wise, you've made 800 dollars on a 35 dollar investment. (For those who have spent 39, it's likely with new deals that even more money will be made in the future per new sign up from the date they raised the price). Name me another business that is musician related who has returned, on average, 23 times the initial investment in income? In fact, find me any that have had, over 250,000 customers, ANY positive return on investment at all, let alone nearly 23 times!!!!!

I think I will put my full faith in CD Baby. Is it possible some of the incredibly wide range of partnerships are less beneficial than others? Sure. That's why a serious minded professional will investigate each opportunity to see if it is good for them. If you sell great numbers through traditional channels and are making an actual living off your music, as opposed to being a hobbyist at the other end of the commercial spectrum, then you can afford to be VERY picky. But if you are selling nothing to speak of then for that person, even giving their music away may seem an attractive option to say get your music used in a small film or as incidental music on a TV show. I know people who would happily give away all their music for the chance to have it used in a film. In fact, I know people who would happily pay thousands (or far more) to do it. We try to talk them out of it, but some do it anyway. Some pay money without any promise (or success) in having their music used for anything. We try to talk them out of that as well. There are many many many mainstream entities that people happily pay money for that my experience and that of the experts I know say is a total waste, but many many many people pay them anyway. CD Baby is not such an operation. They are simply the best investment in music history. Period. And their offerings are wide enough so that the least talented to the most talented have many side options they may opt into in hopes that someone on the planet other than their family and friends will ever hear their music.

I have a history of calling out problems with anyone, including CDBaby, including when my good friend Derek Sivers still ran it. I am not seeing any problem with offering an optional pathway to working with that company. It doesn't mean I endorse Rumblefish, as I don't have time to be an expert on all the possibilities that exist on CD Baby. But that is your job at least in part. Not all options make sense for everyone. What is great for one, may be useless for someone else. Now, if a company turns out to be dishonest and they are brought to CD Baby's attention, THEN I would expect them to check out the complaint and explain their position. I am not seeing anything obvious here. Are any of you?

Creative commons asks you to give away your music and once done, you can't go back. I would never tell someone to do it and have begged people not to in the past. But many use them and are happy they did. To each their own. I would have a different concern if there was money involved, but I am not aware of CD Baby charging you more money to use those optional companies. Are any of you? And does Rumblefish charge you money? I am not aware of that. If they ARE charging you 1000's of dollars, then let us know.

Brian

John,

You can add a digital fingerprint to a track without altering the sound and which can be picked up through technology I have seen demonstrated. That will remove the need for renaming and would allow once again for people to use multiple sources. But short of that, renaming allows for people to steal your credits and income and I have seen it happen already with scam companies. Are some honest? Sure. But it doesn't solve the problem of a non fingerprinted track being picked up and not know who they hell owns the rights. I have always been pro non-exclusive, but technology right now is such that it is now a problem and everyone I personally know and respect in the industry is telling me that it's a big problem and most companies are shutting their doors to non-exclusive.

But do what you want. As long as people go into their decision with the truth (which you seem unwilling to accept) they can make your decision and pay the price for it in the long run.

Brian

I like and still use CD Baby, all I pointed out was that maybe they were scamed by that particular site. Maybe they checked them out the best they could at the time, and to their credit they no longer list them as a option. I guess they may not beable to stop them from selling now, because they are in a foreigh country(I believe). I have done well on some CDs posted with CD Baby and don't regret posting with them. As far as increased prices, well that happens to most business if expences rise.

"But do what you want. As long as people go into their decision with the truth (which you seem unwilling to accept) they can make your decision and pay the price for it in the long run" - Brian

Brian,

“Truth” can be a very flexible concept. It can be twisted in many directions. It can also be divided into sections known as half-truths. “Truth” can also be form-fitted to meet hidden agendas. Politicians are well-known to use all of these variations simultaneously.

“Most companies are shutting their doors to non-exclusive” – I’d label this one “flexible truth” with a dab of half-truth, and a pinch of wishful thinking. Some companies are, but most are not. The Major Networks are the ones in the “reluctant to use” stage (though not "refuse to use" stage yet) – Disney ABC being the most outspoken on the subject. I believe the last time I checked my channel changer it went up in the hundreds of stations. Between cable and satellite the number reaches a thousand in the USA alone.

As far as music libraries go, there are far more non-exclusive libraries than exclusive ones. I only know of two non-exclusive libraries changing to exclusive – and one of them is keeping their non-exclusive catalog and just creating a new exclusive catalog.

There’s a large market for non-exclusive music. Their business is flourishing. I would be foolish to ignore these opportunities. I would also be foolish if I ignored the exclusive opportunities. Today an artist, composer, songwriter has to also be a good businessman. Good businessmen don’t let market opportunities pass them by. None of them.

I’m not some young whippersnapper still wet behind the ears. I know first hand what’s going on in the music library business. I handle all my business dealings objectively. I probably know the music library business better than you Brian.

If the non-exclusive libraries figure out a way to bypass the retitling, I'd be delighted. Yes, one title per track would be the ideal. My suggestion... since the average non-exclusive agreement compensates the composer with 50% of the licensing and 100% of the writers PRO royalty, maybe a fair compromise would be 25% of the licensing to the writer and 100% of both the writers share and publishers share of the PRO royalty. That way there would be no conflict with titles since the library would be out of the PRO royalty business. I'm sure this agreement could be fine-tuned or other ideas could solve the retitling dilemma better.

Whatever way this drama plays out, I'm not about to lose opportunities over a stupid retitling issue. I'll continue to use non-exclusive and exclusive libraries to my best advantage.

Now, the subject of this thread I started has to do with alerting people of the Rumblerfish / CD Baby partnership. I haven't the faintest idea why you and Jody felt the need to turn it into a retitling issue. But then I'm also amazed at how my Christian thread turn into a political discussion.

John

John, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not turn it into a retitling issue. I merely mentioned it was part of a conversation I had with an exclusive publisher recently and what they said. I even stated there's no reason to reexamine it. So leave me out, please.

John, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not turn it into a retitling issue. I merely mentioned it was part of a conversation I had with an exclusive publisher recently and what they said. I even stated there's no reason to reexamine it. So leave me out, please.

"I had a meeting a couple of days ago with a major publisher. Aside discussion about what I've accomplished and what I might be able to bring to the table in doing a deal with them, there was discussion about libraries that do re-titles.

They're looking to the day, which is getting closer, when audio DNA fingerprinting will help remove a lot of the doubling, tripling, or rather multiple sources of the same audio. I agreed with them. They asked if I was doing such deals - to which I responded: No. They also stated that they will not do deals with anyone that has music that can't be exclusive.

Obviously this has been debated here before - so no need to reexamine it" - Jody

No problem Jody, but I didn't place these words in your mouth. Those words activated Brian.

Really, no big deal. After you and Brian brought the subject up, I felt I had to give a broader view of the subject for any onlookers.

Probably would have not responded to it at all if Brian didn't insult my intelligence with this remark: "As long as people go into their decision with the truth (which you seem unwilling to accept)" - meaning me.

Best, John

I see Crucial Music has formed a partnership with Rumblefish as well. So I guess my music with Crucial could also be available through Rumblefish. Which could make me noncompliant with other non-exclusive agreements. Now I have to read through many of my non-exclusive contracts to rectify this if anything needs to be rectified.

Looks like Rumblefish is accumulating as much non-exclusive music as it can (4 million strong so far). Maybe Rumblefish will become the first-stop for clients seeking music. The Walmart of music libraries.

The problem is, it's not only the non-exclusives. I know of at least one exclusive library that is starting to use third parties (kind of a contradiction in terms).

This is interesting: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=3932aaf221e8efce&hl=en

John

My last post on this subject...

Here's another partnership with Rumblefish:

http://www.apmmusic.com/press/rumblefish-partners-with-apm-music-for-consumer-soundtrack-offering

Though I believe at present time this deal is only with YouTube and for personal usage. APM is a large conglomerate of many libraries (including West One Music Group). I guess Rumblefish made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

Ethical? I don't know. Probably is. This whole Rumblefish business is confusing. Does it devalue music. Certainly does. The big winners are Rumblefish and its partners. The losers (financially speaking) are the crumb-fed product creators.

The music library business is becoming more and more complex. An endless intertwining of libraries that are propelling towards one colossal music wholesaler.

Sorry for any feathers I ruffled.

Another bottomline... I compose music because I love the activity. Yes, I'd do it for free. But...

Best, John

While I don't know the specifics of the APM & Rumblefish deal, I can say it's rather odd. But maybe... just maybe Rumblefish cornered the YouTube market. I know from my own attempt to deal with Google on YouTube it's essentially a brick wall. While I highly doubt APM has the same brick wall - it does appear from this PR that it's a YouTube deal.

I happen to know Sharon from APM and a couple of the other folks there. At some point I might be able to ask what the story is with it.

Oddly, APM is heavily exclusive - they don't deal with non-exclusive music.

Yes, I was quite surprised to hear of the connection between APM and Rumblefish. Would be interesting to know the inside story on it Jody.

Best, John

How many placements does RF make? To me that is a key issue. I am one of those who would gladly give away my songs for placement in TV or film. In fact, I am thinking of signing up through CDBaby.

I am a big CDBaby fan.

TFunk

From what I've seen on their website they haven't expanded into very many respectable TV/ film placements. It looks like YouTube and Google are their milking cows.

Yes, I agree Tom, there are different kinds of opportunities. Placements that look good on one's resumé can attract attention from perspective clients and job opportunities.

However, with the massive amount of tracks they have available for licensing, I can only surmise it's difficult getting noticed (unless one has unusual music). There's less competition with unusual music, but then, that also dictates less clients.

Keep in mind, these are non-exclusive deals. So any tracks that get placed can never be used exclusively again. Reversion clauses only cover non-usage of music. So if an opportunity with a Major record company becomes interested in Justice's CD, this could hurt her chances. Maybe a good idea to test the water with one or two songs.

Or... submit your tracks to libraries with better track records and better financial rewards. I'm sure you've been to this website before: http://www.musiclibraryreport.com/

These kind of decisions are always difficult. If only we had a genuine crystal ball.

Whatever you decide, good luck. You've got a lot going for you Justice. Your biggest asset is your father (and of course, your talent).

Best, John

Good points John.

Tom

If you think Justice has any shot at a mainstream successful career NEVER allow her music into non exclusive sources without reversion. And I'd be very cautious about any licensing deals and always have an informed attorney working on her behalf with the rest of her team. ("She does have a team doesn't she?" -Mike Dunbar)

This is simply a too much supply, too little demand world now. I strongly feel it's best to form a relationship with a small but tangibly successful (i.e. REAL success that can be verified, nothing vague) and exclusive company. People with pro sounding stuff will happily (or in many cases stupidly) give away anything for the slightest whiff of attention or bragging rights to their friends. Many would pay to give it away. And it will only get worse and YouTube/Google, who already treat all content as if it is 100% free anyway (and who can stop them really? Not even the majors or networks ever bother trying anymore, they only stop the little guy users, not the big boys). It's currently a world where only mass marketing has a chance to produce serious income and only live talent with extraordinary skills can make a living solely from their music anymore it seems. Most people have always bitched about commercial music.. little did they know that things are even worse when that was killed off to be replaced by big multinationals using whatever stuff they want for free and even giving it away is nearly impossible.

I've always said to make music for yourself.. get better to please yourself and do the best you can do. Once in a while, you'll be so good or interesting or marketable, someone will pay you, but usually they won't. But making music is its own reward. And if you don't believe that, why are you bothering exactly?

Brian

I think this thread over at Music Library Report adds some info to the Rumblefish, GoDigital, Crucial, any Content-ID setup with YouTube (you'll have to click on the "older comments" for all the replies): http://www.musiclibraryreport.com/youtube-music/youtube-music-go-digital-audioswap/

Trying to make sense of it all - though it's still very confusing...

John

I haven't had a chance to speak with APM yet. However, I had a meeting earlier this morning and found out that now all the major networks are ceasing the use of non-exclusive re-title libraries. Reason given, the headaches of legal issues when someone attempts to collect on a song that was properly licensed by another library. It's wasting their time, effort and legal money to respond to these things. I'm betting that this deal you're talking of will be the same end result.

By the same token, this person I met with gave a specific example that she had as a music supervisor. Where she told all three libraries up front (all whom sent the same song for a movie). She CC'd them all, showed them the timestamp of the first responder and said - you now know who I went with because they were first. Do not attempt to sue the network.

I have to imagine that anyone jumping in on stuff like Rumblefish and Digital-ID will meet the same fate - being ousted for many of the reasons as listed by one of the people in those comments of that page.

My husband is a songwriter/musician who's been with CDBaby for over 5 years. At first I was excited to see this new partnership with Rumblefish but I didn't want to jump the gun without doing proper research first.
<p>This is posted on their Sync FAQ:
<p>Q: Am I giving up any important rights by signing this agreement?
<p>A: You aren't "giving up" any rights, as in assigning them entirely to another company. With CD Baby sync licensing you retain ownership of all of your copyrights. However, you are granting nonexclusive rights for synchronization so that you're (sic) music can be used for sync without your direct approval. You are also granting an exclusive license for Rumblefish to manage Content ID controls (and similar controls) on YouTube and other so-called "User-Generated-Content" Networks, as this will allow you to earn additional revenues that may be payable for the use of your content in videos on such networks."

<p>What bothers me is the part about "granting an exclusive license for Rumblefish to manage Content ID controls..."

<p>I'm glad I found this website and forum. Off to do more research on music libraries and licensing opps.

Jo,

That's good work on your part. It doesn't raise any concerns until the line you point out. I wonder if it's not explained properly or if in fact it's clear and there could be long term and perhaps permanent rights given away which would certainly be cause for great alarm.

In general, NEVER sign any rights away to anyone without consulting an attorney. Message boards at best can offer opinions (unless an attorney is answering the question and is backing up their advice with their credentials (our attorney's ALWAYS tell people that they are not the final word and that you should always get your own attorney to answer these questions for you before making final decisions).

At face value, Rumblefish, based on what you pointed out being accurate, would not be one of the optional extra services I would opt into on CD Baby. That's not to say some might still find it okay. Frankly, I would avoid most of the options, not because CD Baby is doing anything wrong, but simply because of my personal view of how best to control your content and rights. I would never sign away exclusive license to anyone to manage content ID controls outside of a specific time frame (with a clear expiration and opt out option) and I'd need something tangible in return for giving up those rights for even a limited time, or at least the approval of my attorney and my advisors.

Thanks for sharing Jo. Let us know what else you find out.

Brian

That's so you only get paid once per use - other agencies demand similar things (Last FM for example) - you can opt out at any time though, so it's exclusive but not perpetual.

Dan

I think we will not opt-in to this CD Baby service, for the time being. I'm leaning towards joining taxi...at least that way WE can choose which opps to submit to. I'm still researching to see which, if any, music libraries would be suitable. We joined pumpaudio a few years ago (before I knew much about sync licensing and before Getty bought them)and had a couple small hits. I want more but I want more control, too!

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/woodshedm
http://www.myspace.com/openrangetorchsongs
http://www.myspace.com/woodshedmercymusic

From Bjorn Lynne at Shockwave-Sound.com:

"I wanted to make you aware of this new move by CD Baby so that you can consider their new offer carefully before you sign up with it. You can find this option at CDBaby if you log in as a composer, click on “View/Edit” one of your albums, and you can see the option under “Sync Licensing”. Anything other than “None” in this field will cause your music to be monetized by the Content ID company, then CDBaby, then you. And it will cause our customers to start getting “owned by so-and-so company” messages about your music. Which will force us to refund the customer’s money, withdraw your royalties for any sales that caused our customers these problems, and stop selling your music"

You can read the entire post here: http://www.musiclibraryreport.com/youtube-music/youtube-content-id-program/#comment-17745

The opt-out doesn't sound as obvious as some seem to think. Don't know for sure since I'm not with CD Baby. I recommend reading this post (and the rest of the thread) - I'm starting to get a handle on it. Though still a bit confusing.

Bottom-line: some publishers will drop you like a hot potato if use Content ID.

John

It think it is ok. I will do RF thing. CDBaby continues to be a great thing for Justice.

Tom

I just read http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid. To me, it means that a songwriter can do him/herself what the Rumblefish CDBaby opt-in is offering to do. Am I correct in interpeting that if you opt-in to RF's sync and give them "exclusive rights to manage content ID control" on youtube, RF will get a cut of any money generated on youtube first plus your songs will be branded with their ID until you opt-out? If that's the case, I definitely would rather maintain control of the music.

That's how I read it Jo.

Best, John

Thank you, John. There is so much to learn about licensing and the industry!

I am much more interested in getting a song heard that the money that digital/internet pays. I look at the way that Youtube has acted as the launch pad for teen artists. Justin Bieber was created because of his videos. He has never received much radio airplay. Rihanna now has 2 billion youtube views. The income generated or not generated is irrelevant. The money comes from elsewhere.

It is a new world. You can hold on tight to your songs and no one will hear them. You can let them loose and have at least a chance that people will hear them.

If you really want to keep absolute control of your songs, lock them up in a safe - you will will the battle and lose the war.

TFunk

Tom, I totally understand the wish to be heard vs. making money. I was just pondering why would an artist want RF to do what he/she can do him/herself (post songs to youtube), that's all. I cannot speak for every artist; the CD Baby/RF sync program may be perfect for some of them.

A few years ago, we did submit some of his songs to pumpaudio and a couple were used (one on a cable show, one in a company project). And I agree, the income generated was not worth as much as the exposure. I happened to catch the re-broadcast of an episode, and it was a thrill to hear it on TV.

I'm not totally against the whole CDB/RF sync opt-in but I am reserving judgment until I do more research and read user reviews.

Because I deal with music libraries that will drop you if you're dealing with Rumblefish, my choice is an easy one. It can get rather complicated in the ever-changing music library arena. Some of the libraries like Crucial, I was never aware that they use Rumblefish as a third party. With a third party clause in contracts, one never knows the complications that can arise.

Also, from my understanding, once you're signed with Rumblefish, your songs must stay exclusive with them (pertaining to YouTube). YouTube royalties will only be paid to one publisher. Thus, if you have the same content on YouTube with another publisher (or yourself), the client with the YouTube video will get an infringement of copyright notice. Which makes the client very angry.

This Rumblefish/Content ID issue is something I just want to stay away from. At least until it gets all straightened-out.

Best, John