zzzonedotnet
I have noticed about a 67% chance of passing the copyright test.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 6:00 pm
groovindj
zzzonedotnet wrote :
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Yes - it's illegal to record and distribute other people's copyrighted material without their consent or the appropriate license.
It's the law, and has been for many decades.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 6:36 pm
the SOUND INSURGENT
zzzonedotnet wrote :
I have noticed about a 67% chance of passing the copyright test.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
I have some mixes up and yes they were flagged.
Sometimes the label will mute the sound,
sometimes they'll monitze the video and make money off you but leave your video up (this is what they usually do to me),
or it can be played in some countries and not in others.
They send you an email anytime your mix is flagged. Just do what the email says and don't worry about.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 6:52 pm
zzzonedotnet
groovindj wrote :
Yes - it's illegal to record and distribute other people's copyrighted material without their consent or the appropriate license.
It's the law, and has been for many decades.
zzzonedotnet wrote :
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Yes - it's illegal to record and distribute other people's copyrighted material without their consent or the appropriate license.
It's the law, and has been for many decades.
YouTube is doing the copyright policing. They check each post and allow it to be viewed based on the copyright license they have for the music.
Your concerns are well noted but moot again.
YouTube compensates the artists OR they block the video.
I'm not clear on why you keep stating the obvious.
The posting DJ makes zilch in terms of compensation. The artist gets paid OR the video is zapped. Where is any of this illegal?
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 7:54 pm
groovindj
zzzonedotnet wrote :
I'm not clear on why you keep stating the obvious.
I'm not clear on why you keep stating the obvious.
Because people keep breaking copyright laws.
I know YouTube tries to deal with all the illegal uploads, but it still stands that people shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You appear to know it's wrong, so why?
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 8:01 pm
zzzonedotnet
groovindj wrote :
Because people keep breaking copyright laws.
I know YouTube tries to deal with all the illegal uploads, but it still stands that people shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You appear to know it's wrong, so why?
zzzonedotnet wrote :
I'm not clear on why you keep stating the obvious.
I'm not clear on why you keep stating the obvious.
Because people keep breaking copyright laws.
I know YouTube tries to deal with all the illegal uploads, but it still stands that people shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You appear to know it's wrong, so why?
I just let YouTube do the filtering. It's simple.
There's a database that YouTube maintains so that you can check your mixes in advance but I tend to select on-the-fly, so it's just easier for YouTube to do the checking.
No one gets ripped-off. I don't get paid for someone else's work. The artist gets compensated. The artist wouldn't get compensated unless I posted the mix
The artist makes MORE money because I chose them for my mix.
I'm still unclear on your concerns.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 8:21 pm
the SOUND INSURGENT
zzzonedotnet wrote :
I just let YouTube do the filtering. It's simple.
There's a database that YouTube maintains so that you can check your mixes in advance but I tend to select on-the-fly, so it's just easier for YouTube to do the checking.
No one gets ripped-off. I don't get paid for someone else's work. The artist gets compensated. The artist wouldn't get compensated unless I posted the mix
The artist makes MORE money because I chose them for my mix.
I'm still unclear on your concerns.
I just let YouTube do the filtering. It's simple.
There's a database that YouTube maintains so that you can check your mixes in advance but I tend to select on-the-fly, so it's just easier for YouTube to do the checking.
No one gets ripped-off. I don't get paid for someone else's work. The artist gets compensated. The artist wouldn't get compensated unless I posted the mix
The artist makes MORE money because I chose them for my mix.
I'm still unclear on your concerns.
Yup that's exactly how I understand it as well. Just keep posting and let YouTube and the Labels tell you what to do after its posted.
They'll either remove your video or they'll make money off it.......... Maybe the laws are different where Groovin is from (shrugs)
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 8:30 pm
klausmogensen
zzzonedotnet wrote :
I have noticed about a 67% chance of passing the copyright test.
You mean you don't get flagged at all 67% of the time when using copyrighted music?
I get flagged 100% of the time!
I do both longer and very short VDJ Youtube videos, and for the short ones that are just "1 take" (labeled "quick n dirty") and usually 1-2 min long, I often use top 40 music in the examples
Even a few seconds of that gets detected, and in 95% of the cases I get a message saying that all add income and so on goes to the copyright owners - which is fine of course - the last 5% simply gets blocked, and I have to try again with at new song. It's the artist/copyright owners that decides if they want any video using their music to get blocked, or if they want the income it generates
For the longer/edited videos I use music that is not copyright protected, so those are fine of course
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 8:43 pm
groovindj
zzzonedotnet wrote :
The artist wouldn't get compensated unless I posted the mix
Your logic is flawed. I was going to say why, but I really can't be bothered. You ought to know why already. Trying to justify the fact that you're illegally recording, modifying and distributing someone elses work, by making claims like that is ridiculous.
You know it's wrong but you do it anyway because you believe you can get away with it. Someone else will deal with it. They'll end up paying for something they didn't do, because you've ignored the law. What's happened to common sense?
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 8:49 pm
zzzonedotnet
groovindj wrote :
Your logic is flawed. I was going to say why, but I really can't be bothered. You ought to know why already. Trying to justify the fact that you're illegally recording, modifying and distributing someone elses work, by making claims like that is ridiculous.
You know it's wrong but you do it anyway because you believe you can get away with it. Someone else will deal with it. They'll end up paying for something they didn't do, because you've ignored the law. What's happened to common sense?
zzzonedotnet wrote :
The artist wouldn't get compensated unless I posted the mix
Your logic is flawed. I was going to say why, but I really can't be bothered. You ought to know why already. Trying to justify the fact that you're illegally recording, modifying and distributing someone elses work, by making claims like that is ridiculous.
You know it's wrong but you do it anyway because you believe you can get away with it. Someone else will deal with it. They'll end up paying for something they didn't do, because you've ignored the law. What's happened to common sense?
I think your beef is with Atomix.
They included the YouTube broadcast feature.
I'm just using it.
The artists get compensated.
Who is "they" you mention above?
YouTube is a music and video service. They exist to distribute copyrighted and noncopyrighted music and to when applicable compensate artists.
I make nothing, except for a bit of fun using the purchased software that supports this forum and this discussion.
Shrug.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 8:55 pm
groovindj
No, my "beef" is with people who ignore the law.
Just because YouTube are the ones who end up having to pay fees, doesn't give you the right to upload copyrighted material. You seem to think it does, which is seriously skewed logic.
If (presumably) you bought the music then you only have the right to listen to it. You DO NOT have the right to do what the hell you want with it. It doesn't belong to you.
You are not allowed to record it, modify it (by mixing it with something else), distribute it, broadcast it...... and it's been this way for longer than either of us have been on this planet.
Do you not understand that? If you do, why do you ignore it?
No they don't. They exist as a video sharing service which was originally supposed to be for the public to share videos they've made. Non copyright material.
Check the Ts&Cs. I'm pretty sure you'll still find the part which says not to upload anything that doesn't belong to you i.e. film clips, TV clips, music - anything that's copyrighted.
Nowadays it's also used by the artists, TV channels and movie industries themselves - but they own the material. YOU DON'T.
Just because YouTube are the ones who end up having to pay fees, doesn't give you the right to upload copyrighted material. You seem to think it does, which is seriously skewed logic.
If (presumably) you bought the music then you only have the right to listen to it. You DO NOT have the right to do what the hell you want with it. It doesn't belong to you.
You are not allowed to record it, modify it (by mixing it with something else), distribute it, broadcast it...... and it's been this way for longer than either of us have been on this planet.
Do you not understand that? If you do, why do you ignore it?
zzzonedotnet wrote :
They exist to distribute copyrighted and noncopyrighted music
They exist to distribute copyrighted and noncopyrighted music
No they don't. They exist as a video sharing service which was originally supposed to be for the public to share videos they've made. Non copyright material.
Check the Ts&Cs. I'm pretty sure you'll still find the part which says not to upload anything that doesn't belong to you i.e. film clips, TV clips, music - anything that's copyrighted.
Nowadays it's also used by the artists, TV channels and movie industries themselves - but they own the material. YOU DON'T.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:01 pm
zzzonedotnet
By this logic the "record" and "broadcast" functions in VDJ are just tools to illegally use content.
Have you ever been to Mixcloud? What's your take on that site? The logic you keep referring to should apply there also?
I doubt that Atomix or anyone else agrees with that logic.
The times they are a changin', bud.
Have you ever been to Mixcloud? What's your take on that site? The logic you keep referring to should apply there also?
I doubt that Atomix or anyone else agrees with that logic.
The times they are a changin', bud.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:04 pm
locoDog
A law has to be enforceable to work. The current way of the labels deciding to take monetization or block works. First comes innovation the law follows.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:05 pm
groovindj
zzzonedotnet wrote :
By this logic the "record" and "broadcast" functions in VDJ are just tools to illegally use content.
[sigh]
You know, it is possible to obtain licenses that entitle you to broadcast (see any legitimate radio station) or record/modify/distribute music (see companies such as DMC or Mastermix).
You think that because there's a record button, you're entitled to do what you want with other people's property?
Guns exist. Is it therefore OK to shoot people? [smh]
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:13 pm
zzzonedotnet
Mixcloud's existence really defies your entire "logic".
If Mixcloud can exist, so can any other site that hosts similar content and compensates the artists.
Artists get paid at Mixcloud, YouTube, and any similar legal site.
You're not going to convince anyone on THIS site that using VDJ is illegal. Your authoritarian tone doesn't work too well either.
If Mixcloud can exist, so can any other site that hosts similar content and compensates the artists.
Artists get paid at Mixcloud, YouTube, and any similar legal site.
You're not going to convince anyone on THIS site that using VDJ is illegal. Your authoritarian tone doesn't work too well either.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:21 pm
groovindj
Oh for &%$£ sake!
Those sites are having to pay fees to compensate for all the people illegally distributing copyrighted material, because said people don't abide by the laws of the land.
Because the sites do that, does not entitle you to break the law. You should not be uploading that material in the first place.
Those sites are having to pay fees to compensate for all the people illegally distributing copyrighted material, because said people don't abide by the laws of the land.
Because the sites do that, does not entitle you to break the law. You should not be uploading that material in the first place.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:32 pm
locoDog
Youtube is fine with it, the labels are fine with it. Get over it.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:41 pm
groovindj
Oh I do realise that I'm not going to single handedly stop the OP (or any of the other millions who do it). I've uploaded stuff to YouTube and Mixcloud myself in the past - not much, but it's there - so I'm not squeaky clean either.
What got my goat was the OP seemingly innocently wondering why his upload got flagged for copyright, like he doesn't know the reason.
What got my goat was the OP seemingly innocently wondering why his upload got flagged for copyright, like he doesn't know the reason.
geposted Sat 18 May 19 @ 9:55 pm
xylume
Some Artists actually allow their music to be uploaded and made public on YouTube and they'll monetize the views from your video. You just have to visit the Music_Policies in YouTube, copy and paste or type the Artist Name and Song Name in the box and hit enter. Wait for it to load, click on each version to see if it's partially blocked, blocked in some countries or all countries or Viewable which means it's fine with the people responsible for that song.
The next step's to go to YouTube's search box and type the same Artist and Song Name and see if anyone else is using it. If you see 1 or more video using that song that isn't from the original artist then you'll know it's safe. Dance Routine videos are a good indicator for a song that's safe to use.
Avoid big name songs like Taylor Swift, Maroon5 etc. You'll find a pattern eventually of certain artists that really do not want you doing this and YouTube automatically controls what's viewable based on the artist/record label's concern for their art.
Now do this for every song you're going to mix until they're all clear of blocks. Keep your mix short like around 10 min or so and mix out quickly to fit in as many songs as possible.
If one song becomes blocked or muted, load up your DAW's project file and replace the song that was flagged. Render it out and re-upload and delete the previous mix.
Party Breaks, Remixes or Mashups might increase the chances of a song being blocked or muted so use them sparingly.
Some allow their songs for regular videos, but not covers. Please take note of those details in the Music Policies search information.
Before you upload your performance, upload the mix as a test with a visualizer or your Logo, make it Unlisted, wait for it to process and check to see if it passed the test. Wait a few days to a week if you're really concerned in case they change their mind. Make it Public if you don't need a cam view of your mix being performed live.
OR
You can upload your DJ performance video with the same mix with your cam view of you're hands and mixer as you're performing the mix and delete the test file. Each Artist/Label can run Ads on your video and they'll receive monetization for views that didn't have an AdBlocker.
You'll receive an email saying the following:
A copyright owner using Content ID claimed some material in your video.
This is not a copyright strike. This claim does not affect your account status.
There are either ads running on your video, with the revenue going to the copyright owner, or the copyright owner is receiving stats about your video’s views.
That's the basics on what to do. It's not illegal if they choose to allow you to do so. You'll just have to verify and research each song thoroughly. Eventually, you'll have 1 or more mix that stays public and you'll gain experience on knowing which songs to avoid.
Some Artists don't mind making money off your video and it's acceptable without a penalty. YouTube has you protected and it's a win/win situation for you and them.
I have a feeling more and more DJs are going to be able to have their mixes live on YouTube in the future. A lot has changed in the last 5 years as far as monetization's concerned, but it's ultimately up to each Artist and Label to determine what's fair for use, where and how.
The next step's to go to YouTube's search box and type the same Artist and Song Name and see if anyone else is using it. If you see 1 or more video using that song that isn't from the original artist then you'll know it's safe. Dance Routine videos are a good indicator for a song that's safe to use.
Avoid big name songs like Taylor Swift, Maroon5 etc. You'll find a pattern eventually of certain artists that really do not want you doing this and YouTube automatically controls what's viewable based on the artist/record label's concern for their art.
Now do this for every song you're going to mix until they're all clear of blocks. Keep your mix short like around 10 min or so and mix out quickly to fit in as many songs as possible.
If one song becomes blocked or muted, load up your DAW's project file and replace the song that was flagged. Render it out and re-upload and delete the previous mix.
Party Breaks, Remixes or Mashups might increase the chances of a song being blocked or muted so use them sparingly.
Some allow their songs for regular videos, but not covers. Please take note of those details in the Music Policies search information.
Before you upload your performance, upload the mix as a test with a visualizer or your Logo, make it Unlisted, wait for it to process and check to see if it passed the test. Wait a few days to a week if you're really concerned in case they change their mind. Make it Public if you don't need a cam view of your mix being performed live.
OR
You can upload your DJ performance video with the same mix with your cam view of you're hands and mixer as you're performing the mix and delete the test file. Each Artist/Label can run Ads on your video and they'll receive monetization for views that didn't have an AdBlocker.
You'll receive an email saying the following:
A copyright owner using Content ID claimed some material in your video.
This is not a copyright strike. This claim does not affect your account status.
There are either ads running on your video, with the revenue going to the copyright owner, or the copyright owner is receiving stats about your video’s views.
That's the basics on what to do. It's not illegal if they choose to allow you to do so. You'll just have to verify and research each song thoroughly. Eventually, you'll have 1 or more mix that stays public and you'll gain experience on knowing which songs to avoid.
Some Artists don't mind making money off your video and it's acceptable without a penalty. YouTube has you protected and it's a win/win situation for you and them.
I have a feeling more and more DJs are going to be able to have their mixes live on YouTube in the future. A lot has changed in the last 5 years as far as monetization's concerned, but it's ultimately up to each Artist and Label to determine what's fair for use, where and how.
geposted Sun 19 May 19 @ 12:36 am
groovindj
Oh no...
Just because an artist or label has uploaded their track to YouTube does not mean it's then OK for you to do the same!
If Ed Sheeran or his label uploads his new track, there's no copyright issue because it's been uploaded by the copyright owner. However, if you upload that same track, there is an issue - because you are not the copyright owner.
Why is that so hard to understand for some folks?
Just because an artist or label has uploaded their track to YouTube does not mean it's then OK for you to do the same!
If Ed Sheeran or his label uploads his new track, there's no copyright issue because it's been uploaded by the copyright owner. However, if you upload that same track, there is an issue - because you are not the copyright owner.
Why is that so hard to understand for some folks?
geposted Sun 19 May 19 @ 8:38 am
