Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
YouTube Claimed Ownership of Music I Wrote - What You Should Know About YouTube Content ID
A few years ago, I put up a clip from a movie I made back in 2003, starring the rubber frog who is my avatar and the late Adrienne Shelly. On Sunday, I got an email from YouTube saying that Muserk Sound Recordings had laid claim to the music I wrote for that particular clip. I'm allowed to go to a dispute process, but if I lose three of the disputes, they take me off YouTube forever and delete all my videos. I posted about this in another forum and have learned a lot. Here's YouTube's Video about their policy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=9g2U12SsRns
What I have learned is that there is "Copyright" and then there is "YouTube Copyright Claim."
For the first, I am safe because I copyrighted the music on the video with the US Copyright office. They have a copy of my film in their files.
For the YouTube Copyright Claim," anything goes. Any big company can claim ownership without giving reason. They just have to claim it. They don't have to provide a copy of the music that is infringed. Or talk to me. They can block me from using it or can run advertising on my video.
All I can do is file a dispute and hope for the best.
What I believe may have happened is that I used an Acid loop in my music. And the musician who subscribes to Muserk may have used the same loop.
Or maybe not. Look at this video:
This guy is pretty pissed off so I can't vouch for his advice. But it's worth watching if you make "how-to" videos or review shows that legally make fair use use of copyrighted material.
Common questions about Content ID
What options are available to copyright owners?
Copyright owners can choose different actions to take on material that matches theirs:
- Block a whole video from being viewed
- Monetize the video by running ads against it; in some cases sharing revenue with the uploader
- Track the video’s viewership statistics
- Any of these actions can be country-specific. A video may be monetized in one country, and blocked or tracked in another.
Who can use Content ID?
YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.
YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how to use Content ID. We monitor Content ID use and disputes on an ongoing basis to ensure these guidelines are followed.
Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated.
Comments
And there is Copy Fraud issue which some nefarious companies are misusing. YT does not want to get into who owns the content which is why the system is flawed to some extent.
Thanks for sharing this, @Reid.
It's a true "David vs Goliath" story.
Except in this version Goliath is kicking Dave's ass.
I have also had notices on youtube for using my own music because a publisher I was with was obviously autmatically scraping whole of youtube somehow and did not check that it was the artists channel posting it. Additionally it was not even a monetized video
This is the main reason I don’t make Launchpad videos anymore, nothing wrong with LaunchPad it’s just that about 50% of all the LP Demo Pack Videos got a Contant Claim about 2 months after release because obviously someone had just used a loop pack for their own track then had it Content Protected.
This is wildly annoying and I appealed and won everyone by stating that A, It’s a demo of a pack, B, The Pack is in the Public Domain and free for anyone to use, C, I have written permission from Novation to demo their Packs, C, Your artist ripped of Novations work as their own.
But it still happens, so in the end I just gave up.
Another thing that usually works but is also a bit of a pain.
Every time their is a Content Claim you will see who is making that Claim and the track they are making it for and also the time period in that track they claiming is theirs.
You can download your own content from YouTube, or you may still have the video stored somewhere. Delete the the video from YouTube or make it private, then edit the section that contains the Content Claim, it’s usually not to too long, then reupload.
OK, it’s got an edit, but the bots won’t see it again and better that than someone else base a claim on your work
For fuck’s sake, this is bad. YouTube are vexatious enough with their censorship and in recent times other political crap, but allowing uploaders to be hassled like this.... Yes, before any of the usual clever dicks point it out, I understand that they are applying the law. But all the same.
Looking at what Doug said, I’m now wondering if our entire output, using as it does in whole or part legitimately bought sound packs, could potentially be subject to this kind of nonsense. If a large company backs somone else who had also used a particular sample. Or am I misinterpreting, so early in the AM. Surely, if that could happen easily, all companies selling samples would go out of business, as using them would never be a safe bet?
It makes me feel like deleting the existing videos, uploading something that literally holds two digital fingers up to YouTube, and never going near it again.
@Zen210507 Do you remember a few months ago it happened to me again with one of your tracks, the one I used for the T-Racks Demo?
>
Yeah, but that was just a mix up, a box checked and forgotten. At no point were RTM being challenged for copyright. The company concerned were overzealous in trying to protect us.... from something we wanted you to do. As a result, we moved to BandCamp.
What I’m more concerned about - perhaps wrongly - is if a much bigger act, let’s say Bigknob Rapster, uses a sample we have also used, then claims copyright. Can that happen?
Or, because the original company, in this case Novation, has sold that sample many times on the understanding that it can be used by the buyer in a commercial way, does that mean no one like Bigknob can later claim it?
@Zen210507 No I know it was your track, what I mean is they were actually doing their job properly, I may have ripped you off but the bots caught it, so in some cases it’s a good thing.
It’s such an abusable thing though because anyone can, as we know, just use a load of loops that are commercially available and free to use, make zero adjustments, for instance just load any loop pack from say Launchpad pad, fire off just the top row, Export it and say here’s my new awesome track, it’s fantastic, oh and it’s protected.
That is one of things that happened to me.
I went and listened to the track and it was literally the top line of a pack looping for 5 minutes, with this great big hype from the company telling us all that this artist had poured his soul in creating this amazing ambient chilled piece of brilliance, I shit you guys not, that’s exactly what it said.
I wrote a nice statement to YouTube and the claim was lifted...lol
What I’m not understanding is how anyone can make a claim against someone else, for using samples sold for the purpose of commercial use.
Okay, if what is done with a load of samples mixed together is then copied by someone else, I can see and would agree with copyright infringement. Because it’s not just the top line of a pack, to use your example.
But can somone try to claim ownership of a commercially sold sample or samples, once used in a new way? If this is so, then RTM must ‘own’ a few dozen of Novations samples.
Which would be ludicrous. Where would this end. It would mean that no song not made entirely from scratch would ever belong to anyone! If what we buy is not ours to use, then we should all get our money back.
All we claim copyright to is the whole song in that form. If someone else uses the same sample as us, providing it is not in the exact same mix, they have every right to do so. Or do they? My head is in a blender.
Out of interest, are either of you PRS members?
https://prsformusic.com
>
Not yet. Never really thought about it, as our stuf is not performed live. Does that matter?
If I understand this correct. People buy (copyrightfree) sample packs. Some buyers claim the samples of that pack as their own and the next step is that they start anyone else that uses those sample attacking.
But if you register your songs though, let’s say, distrokid and your samples are from Blocs/Launchpad free copyright packs it shouldn’t be a problem.
In fact the only limitation of thse free packs is sell samples alone (reselling) so claiming about reselling goes against the license itself and those claims should be denied.
The original copyright is from @AmpifyxNovation and you should list it in your distrokid process. If youtube can deal with it then that’s another nail in the coffin for those giants (Fb, Alphabet...) but at the same time a problem to @AmpifyxNovation for sure.
>
Okay, thanks for that. Is this an expensive process?
Expansive?
The things is if you and me sample Chic and both pay for royalties we can’t sue one each other. In fact only Chic could sue us but as we payed royalties...
Makes sense?
Youtube should revise their “copyright” algo or add manual copyright license for users and put some monkeys working on them
>
Expensive, to register songs?
>
Not these monkeys.
lol expensive/expansive
Sorry for that, mate!
Well I’m still studying options but ATM I’m finishing some tracks with Blocs/Launchpad packs content and I will register them with Cdbaby ASAP.
https://es.members.cdbaby.com/cd-baby-cost.aspx
It’s ok for albums (mine will be instrumental HipHop/Dub pack) but if you are more on single releases then look into distrokid ftw. 90/70€ seems legit and being it a experiment it’s peanuts if goes well and not s much if goes wrong. In addition it will be my first own release so that will set a personal milestone.
I found useful info in this topic
https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/25175/anyone-got-their-music-on-spotify
Also I want to point that these companies usually have agreements with youtube friendlymusic database (where youtubers could get music for their videos) and other services like spotify, apple music...
In that topic there is a chart to check the best option for you.
Okay, that’s very helpful. Thanks for the post.
Ugh - what an awful situation. Best of luck to @Reid
In the thread I started on the VI:Control Forum about this, the point was made that you can't even use a synth preset or you may get tagged by the algorithm.
Let's say you have a swirling filter sweep from a synth prest, that plays alone for a while. To a computer, that's going to sound the same as another composer who used the same preset. Just like a loop.
Now the people on that forum, are pros who do TV, movies, games, and ads, so they have to be very careful. But they say they always change the patch a bit, which is not hard to do.
On the other hand, one guy just said create your music the way you want to--and then fight.
If I ever reached the place in my life where I was making money from my music, I would sign up with a company like Muserk.
One single drum hit?
It could be possible but absurd at the same time... you could’t sing twice the same song for being sued by yourself. In preset terms when I bought an instrument it’s mental to care about modifying presets to avoid censhorship (which is it related to another copyright owner claims). If you have your homework done it should be straightforward and I bet this problem is due nobody done theirs properly. Since the license in novation apps is clear and just designed to avoid “sample” property (which relies on them) and let users apply copyright into “composition” even it’s just glued loops.
https://ampifymusic.com/soundpacks
Looking deeper into tv material..
http://support.loopmasters.com/knowledgebase/articles/242283-how-can-i-use-the-samples
So if the Alphabet algorythm is wrong maybe these monkeys should call Zuck and learn one from each other
I always wonder when I write a melody, whether it's truly original or whether it was inspired by something I heard years ago. How can you know? That has always concerned me. Think of "My Sweet Lord." I don't think George Harrison was trying to slip one by.
But in this brave new world, I can write a melody today that truly is original. But if 10 years from now somebody else writes something similar--or steals it--but registers it with a big company, then I'm infringing.
With copyright, you get to prove when you wrote it. You sent it to the copyright office and they had it on a certain date. But now it's just a computer algorithm picking up on similarities, and comparing it to stuff that huge companies own. And the biggest company wins, and the little guy loses.
You can fight. But you can lose. And if you lose too often, you get kicked off YouTube.
I think more people need to know about this.
Quick sidebar: Lennon definitely thought was doing just that. Per Playboy, in 1980:
"He must have known, you know. He's smarter than that ... He could have changed a couple of bars in that song and nobody could ever have touched him, but he just let it go and paid the price. Maybe he thought God would just sort of let him off."
Well if go deep on this then I recommend...
http://www.nfb.ca/film/rip_a_remix_manifesto/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RiP!:_A_Remix_Manifesto
Can i reply?
It wasn’t that a reply?
it’s bots and algorithms. I’ve had a gazillion copyright strikes on songs I produced because of loops. It’s total BS. And the big music corps have all the power. I can recall getting up to a dozen claims on one song (ridiculous). There’s not much you can do as youtube is run by google (alphabet inc) who removed their slogon ‘don’t be evil” so they could be evil.
They will crush real content and punish true artists.... pure evil
I tried to reply on another thread and it was held for moderation.