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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 30th, 2010 @ 3:53am

    Magnatune

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Jun 30th, 2010 @ 4:36am

    Re: Magnatune

    a link may be usefull

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 30th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

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

    Re: ok explain time

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    dude, Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 30th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 30th, 2010 @ 5:03am

    Re:

    Beats Jamendo?

    I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    IronM@sk, Jun 30th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    IronM@sk, Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    johnjac (profile), Jun 30th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 30th, 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".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 30th, 2010 @ 7:07am

    Re: Re: Magnatune

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 30th, 2010 @ 7:09am

    Re: Re: Magnatune

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 30th, 2010 @ 7:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Magnatune

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Jun 30th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Bob, Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 30th, 2010 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: ok explain time

    errr. it's $5 too much *

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    FBI, Aug 2nd, 2010 @ 5:33pm

    wow

    that's kinda crazy right there!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Booker, Aug 2nd, 2010 @ 5:36pm

    what's next?

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    markus, Mar 28th, 2011 @ 3:43am

    licensing

    Interesting information, music to license is rife.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This