Hi Rob. Youtube has designed it so that the record company and/or publishing company gets the revenue. I cannot see how it is a question of morals at all.
There's a process that takes place before you "get sued". If someone posts a video of one of my songs on YT without a license/permission, they get sent what's called a take-down notice. Pretty obvious what that is, it's a notice that you've posted copyrighted material and you need to take it down. If you comply, and remove the video, there's no problem and that's where it ends.
If, on the other hand, you don't remove it, and if you were to have a substantial number of infringing videos posted, you start running the risk of getting sued...especially if the copyrights violated are owned by labels or publishers who keep an eye on that sort of thing.
The specific laws regarding take-downs, infringements, etc. vary from country to country. In the U.S., the process I described is what typically takes place. I've sent, or had someone else send, a few take-down notices. There is some of my stuff on YT that, while technically is infringing, I view as harmless and innocent and I don't worry about those. It's only if I see someone profiting from the infringed works that I get proactive about making it stop. Hope this is helpful to the discussion.
*by the way, you can do a search for "youtube takedown notice" and you'll find a page that describes the process.*
David, there is a certain flavor of the CCLI that lets you stream from sites under control of the holder of the site. I recommend your church obtain that CCLI then use Facebook Live streaming.
Hi Joanne. I respectfully disagree, every publisher I've ever written for (Warner Bros, Sony, Universal, etc.) absolutely send take down notices. Also, here's a link to an interesting article on the subject.
Hi Joanne. I respectfully disagree, every publisher I've ever written for (Warner Bros, Sony, Universal, etc.) absolutely send take down notices. Also, here's a link to an interesting article on the subject.
Hi Roger. My experience has been that the publisher seems to do that on instruction from the writer(s) and not across their catalog. What I mean is that the majority of the well-known writers don't do that. Perhaps they can see that it is a win-win situation to allow covers of their material on Youtube?
I am bowing out of this discussion now because I can see what the general opinion is on this forum. If anybody is interested in learning more from me they can pm me.
It all depends on what you're doing. If it's older obscure stuff fine but if it's really big name classic songs it will probably get taken down. Duke Ellington is an example. I had bookmarked several Ellington vids taken from old movies and early TV shows. They would last a month or so then disappear with the window saying it had been taken down. The take downs is the reason I had to start downloading the vids I really liked. Too many of the ones I bookmarked would not be available when I went back to watch them again.
However, this is not true for everything even some very big name artists. Here's a good test for this. On the Best of YouTube forum there is this:
This is a great vid, a good cover version of Come Together by the Beatles. This is as big as it gets, MJ bought the Beatles catalog then I think he sold it to Sony and then McCartney bought it back? This vid was uploaded today. I'm going to track it and see what happens.
I've been wary of posting covers on YT because years ago there were stories of people having their accounts banned after 2 or 3 take down notices even if they took them down. It sounds like that's not the way it works now? I've got some covers I would like to put up there and I agree with Joanne, if this is how it works now then there's no harm because the rights holder still has their full rights respected. They can allow YT to monetize it and they get paid or they decide to have it taken down. As long as the uploader isn't penalized for too many take down orders, I'm fine with it.
BTW, what happened to the OP? Is this another thread where a noob posts a question then disappears and we're talking to ourselves?
So far my experience with covers on YouTube has been benign from management.
I've posted a few cover tunes with some photos. I do credit the writer. I have not monetized my site.
I have posted a few cover songs on Soundcloud and done the same.
For media I plan to sell (a CD for example) I pay the royalties. Hey, If I make money, the guy writing the tune should get paid also.
I would post my covers on a BIAB forum but my read of the bylaws here it is strictly "No Covers". Is that currently true? I would love to get feedback on my work from forum members
I'm still pretty new to all this
biab2024(Mac) Latest Build Mac OS Sequoia 15.0.1 Apple M2 pro 32GB Ram Logic Pro 11
mrgeeze - Post a link to your YT covers on the I heard BIAB on youtube forum NOT the users showcase and you're fine.
As far as this general discussion, I agree with Joanne. If I was new artist/songwriter trying to make it today, I'd want covers on YT. Any free promotion and publicity that I can get paid for in this day and age seems like a good thing to me.
After reading the above, it seems to me that posting covers on Youtube and then Youtube monetizes them for the copyright owner is pretty much equivalent to the old days where if I liked a song, I'd go and buy the sheet music.
In both cases the original copyright owner gains. I suspect that monetizing on Youtube would be a whole heap more beneficial to the original copyright owner than the sale of sheet music.
When I consider Joanne Cooper's site with its 21,000,000 views, I'm pretty sure that that's a big enough number for Joanne to be respected as a 'good financial opportunity' for the original owners of the songs that she posts. It's definitely a win-win situation.
Is it really right to steal or violate another persons rights based on whether or not they will sue or punish you for it?
No. It is not right. This is super simple. If you are using someone else's work you should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If you decide to do it anyway without permission and paying you are stealing.
If the music hasn't been properly licensed, how exactly is YouTube supposed to know who to pay? There isn't some gigantic global database at their disposal. That's where this notion goes off-base.
Is it really right to steal or violate another persons rights based on whether or not they will sue or punish you for it?
No. It is not right. This is super simple. If you are using someone else's work you should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If you decide to do it anyway without permission and paying you are stealing.
John's comment struck me as being correct but not at all super simple. I immediately thought of examples where a party's unique, one of a kind creation that is not easy for others to duplicate or replicate be it for cost or uniqueness. I found an example to research and it appears that stealing (if it is stealing) is rampant. Even in an instance I found where the artist secured audio from a legitimate source and paid royalties and gave proper credits, it isn't established the original source did the same to secure permission or paid for the use.
While reading John's comment I thought of the unique, one of a kind, privately owned sound of trains. Railroads are the only mode of transportation where the vehicle and the route are privately owned property. Railroads purchase the land they lay track on, and own and maintain bridges and the equipment at crossings.
So I think the use of a unique, privately owned, one of a kind sound being used in a recording should require permission and payment. In most cases it seems, one simply sets up recording equipment at a crossing and records the sounds of a passing train and crossing equipment, includes it in their record and that's the end of it. A google search turns up thousands of songs with train sound effects.
But in one famous and lucrative example, "Pet Sounds", The Beach Boys purchased a train sound effect from Brad Miller's 1963 release "Mr. D's Machines". The recorded track was "Train #58- The Owl at Edison California". That train was owned and operated by Southern Pacific - the locomotive was an EMD-F7... A locomotive engine today costs up to $6 million. My point is that it costs a lot of money to create the sound of a train at crossing. The Beach Boys had to pay for the use of #58-The Owl recording.
So, do you owe the railway for the use of their train sound if you make a recording of it and use it in your record? Do you need to secure their permission to record their train? Before reading the posts here on this thread, I doubt I'd ever have given a second thought to standing beside a train crossing with a Zoom H4N and capturing the sound effect.
Let’s use BiaB for an example. PGM owns the rights to this software. Let’s say I copy the software and post it on eBay, but I make arrangement for some of the money to go to PGM. Now I don’t ask PGM if that’s okay I’m just do it anyway. Sure they benefit, but that might not be inline with their marketing of profit structure. Maybe they make less on a sale on eBay than from their servers. It that right?
Okay let’s add sauce to the goose. There is a legal outlet for selling BiaB it is called a third party licensing agreement or resale license. (Hence Harry fox agency, BMI, ASCAP, ETC depends on type license is needed) So rather than asking and getting permission, or paying up front for a license, I just take it and post it and let eBay structure or monetize what they think is a fair price to pay PGM.
Sort of like taking the neighbors lawn mower, and leaving $5 on the door step when you return. You didn’t ask permission, and it is not yours to take, no matter what you leave in compensation.
If it was okay to do this companies like PGM or Norton music would include the melodies in their creation of styles. This is exactly why karaoke music is not free. There are license fee to pay for use.
Charlie, that was a fun example, but the train passing by on the track is not copyrighted property, at best it is noise pollution if you live by it. And recording the sound of a train going by can’t be compared to copying a song someone wrote and recorded, and legally filed documents to protect that property. Now if you and I hopped on that train fired the old gal up and went to Albuquerque by way of Cucamonga (obscure bugs bunny reference, hey “what’s up doc”) now that’s illegal, not to mention a really bad idea.
Last edited by Rob Helms; 04/11/2004:40 PM.
Lenovo Win 10 16 gig ram, Mac mini with 16 gig of ram, BiaB 2024, Realband, Reaper, Harrison Mixbus 32c , Melodyne 5 editor, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL, Presonus control app, Komplete 49 key controller.
Apparently Tony interpreted runandwrite's question similar to me which is why I decided to offer my two cents. I thought that rather than continue to operate with two understanding of what the actual question was, it was important to get some feedback on what he meant. In point of fact , only the OP can tell us if his meaning was properly understood or it wasn’t.
Hey Rob, thanks for commenting. And yes, I posted an oddball example just for fun and not serious debate. However, when you state, "the train passing by on the track is not copyrighted property, at best it is noise pollution if you live by it. And recording the sound of a train going by can’t be compared to copying a song someone wrote and recorded, and legally filed documents to protect that property.", apparently music legal council in California disagreed with your theory, as did The Beach Boys and their production staff and I'm sure Mr. Brad Miller would take issue. Your theory doesn't explain why The Beach Boys chose to pay license and copyright fees for noise pollution they had the means, time and talent to get it themselves for free. It's indisputable "that" particular train I referenced passing by on the track "is" copyrighted property with legally filed documents to protect that property.
Think about it. If my neighbor's lawnmower makes a unique, one of a kind funny noise (noise Pollution)but I like the sound so I go borrow his mower without permission to make a HQ recording of the mower noise and use that in a record I make, copyright the song (with the mower sound effect included), isn't the mower sound the same as the train sound in "Pet Sounds"? Isn't the mower sound effect now copyrighted? Haven't I met John's criteria that "If you are using someone else's work you should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If you decide to do it anyway without permission and paying you are stealing."?
What can be argued that remains murky is the 'work' which is intellectual property rather than the physical mower. The sound source belongs to another but with the mower and with the train, someone else has seen the intellect and art of the source sound. It's my contention If I'm using someone else's intellectual property I should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If I decide to do it anyway without permission and paying, I'm stealing. Just because I see value in someone else's property that they don't see doesn't give me permission to use that intellectual property without just compensation to the rightful owner.
I gotcha Charlie. It want the train per se but the sound effect of the train on the album that mister Davis recorded and licensed that was paid for to use.
Hey I’ll bring your mower back tomorrow!
Lenovo Win 10 16 gig ram, Mac mini with 16 gig of ram, BiaB 2024, Realband, Reaper, Harrison Mixbus 32c , Melodyne 5 editor, Presonus Audiobox 1818VSL, Presonus control app, Komplete 49 key controller.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows® Today!
If you’ve already purchased Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®, great news—a new update is now available! This update introduces a handy new feature: a vertical cursor in the Tracks window that shows the current location across all tracks, and more.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Boot Camp: The AI Lyrics Generator
With Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows®, we've introduced an exciting new feature: the AI Lyrics Generator! In this video, Tobin guides you step-by-step on how to make the most of this new tool.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Boot Camp: The AI Lyrics Generator video.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using VST3 Plugins
Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows® now includes support for VST3 plugins, bringing even more creative possibilities to your music production. Join Simon as he guides you through the process in this easy-to-follow demonstration!
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using VST3 Plugins
Video: Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Windows: Using The BB Stem Splitter!
In this video, Tobin provides a crash course on using the new BB Stem Splitter feature included in Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows®. During this process he also uses the Audio Chord Wizard (ACW) and the new Equalize Tempo feature.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using the BB Stem Splitter
Check out the forum post for some optional Tips & Tricks!
Congrats to Misha (Rustyspoon)…downloaded/installed a full Audiophile 2025!
Breaking News!
We’re thrilled to announce that Rustyspoon has made PG history as the very first person to successfully complete the download and install of the full Band-in-a-Box 2025 Windows Audiophile Edition (with FLAC files)—a whopping 610GB of data!
A big shoutout to Rustyspoon for stepping up to be our test "elf!"
With the launch of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows, we're adding new videos to our YouTube channel. We'll also share them here once they are published so you can easily find all the Band-in-a-Box® 2025 and new Add-on videos in one place!
Whether it's a summary of the new features, demonstrations of the 202 new RealTracks, new XPro Styles PAK 8, or Xtra Styles PAKs 18, information on the 2025 49-PAK, or detailed tutorials for other Band-in-a-Box® 2025 features, we have you covered!
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows is here, packed with major new features and an incredible collection of available new content! This includes 202 RealTracks (in Sets 449-467), plus 20 bonus Unreleased RealTracks in the 2025 49-PAK. There are new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 4, two new sets of “RealDrums Stems,” XPro Styles PAK 8, Xtra Styles PAK 19, and more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 with savings of up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special—available until December 31, 2024! Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all the purchase options available.
2025 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
We've packed our Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK with some incredible Add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is automatically included with most Band-in-a-Box® for Windows 2025 packages, but for even more Add-ons (including 20 Unreleased RealTracks!) upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for only $49. You can see the full lists of items in each package, and listen to demos here.
If you have any questions, feel free to connect with us directly—we’re here to help!
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Norton Music
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean