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.
Copyright abusers on YouTube
Funny, I have about 100 subscribers on YouTube but with the recent piano video I already came on the radar of a copyright leech. They are seriously trying to claim Gymnopedié No. 1 by Erik Satie, played by myself in the video. The man is dead since almost 100 years now, he died in 1925.
The Orchard music, and from what I see when googling them, that's basically their business model, or a part of it. The people claiming away stuff because of Splice samples that are supposed to be royalty free? That's those guys.
I refuted the claim of course, but since THEY are in in charge of that, they are going to stand by their fraudulent claim. I mean it's not that my channel is making any money, but that's a case of principle.
Actually I EXPECTED this video to be claimed, because you can hear Simply Piano in the background, but you know the thing they claimed is a fraud.
The fun thing also is, when you are refuting the claim, YouTube informs you that YOUR account might be banned. Unbelievable how broken this is.
What's your experience? Ever had any troubles when uploading copyright free music?
Comments
That’s terrible - twitter might be a good place to bitch about this btw, i imagine you would get a lot of eyeballs there and a lot of comments on this sort of thing. Shame the buggers
Yea not with my follower base
, I'm bitching around on Twitter already, let's see if the company responds, though I doubt it. They are probably facing backlash everyday, since it seems that's pretty much what they do, so I'm going to assume they are used to it. Most likely they are going to claim the video for 30 days, the max amount YouTube allows them and then back off. Really shows how broken the YouTube system is.
Funny enough we used to hire a copyright lawer sometimes because my wife is a photographer. I had a quick call and asked if their claim might have any base and he basically said no chance.
Just reading this infuriates me.
How exactly do these devil leaches gain anything from reporting you?. The things people do for money, it’s disgusting.
I guess these miserable assholes have some crawler audio spider thing going through videos, where some algorithm detects similarities. I recently did a cover of a song by the band Low, link. It would have funny if they sued me when the composer himself, the guy from Low, retweeted it and appreciated the homage. It’s all about bloody context.
Soulless algorithms that lack context and understanding working for master money. Bad times. You have my full sympathy.
I imagine Gavinski was also thinking about Youtube? Getting some traction from others with a similar experience on there might help.
I've only had one (so far...) but it was very perplexing. My YT channel wasn't monetised at the time and still isn't.
About 5 years ago, I uploaded a version of Silent Night by Franz Xaver Gruber (1818).
I don't mind admitting, I was rather proud of the arrangement which featured 11 (eleven!) Animoog parts. I even did a nice festive flickering candle video to go with it. I spent quite a lot of time on the whole thing. For the few days it was up, the video got a lot of love and I think it even turned some people on to Animoog too. Until...
Boom. Takedown notice. Like gone. No warning, with a vague note what to do if you disputed the claim. I later tracked down a version (totally different to mine) recorded a few years earlier that featured Animoog playing the top two melody parts and figured that's maybe where the claim came from as they had similar names - mine was called "Silent (Animoog) Night".
I just shrugged it off as I was fairly new to uploading YT content back then and the few more experienced YouTubers I asked about disputing the claim, basically said... yeah... GLWT.
.
One of the first videos I put up last year as me playing an untitled piece by Schumann on the piano. It was one I did for an exam in 1987. That has a copyright claim on it even though the piece is relatively unknown. I've uploaded a couple of Beethoven pieces which are much more well known without any issue. The claim was for the whole piece of music as well!
My interest was piqued as to whom the copyright allegedly belonged to, but I could get any useful information from YT about it which was really annoying. Again I'm not monetised so it doesn't impact my channel but I thought it was concerning as the whole thing seemed so opaque.
I’m not surprised that Copyright claims have been made.
We forget that many of those pieces belong to publishing companies.
Remember the melody for ,’Happy Birthday’, is copyrighted and owned
by a publishing company, the same can be said for many of the classics.
In the old days, copyright agreements entailed giving them the right to
own the pieces for the lifetime of the creators plus fifty years.
This also gave publishing companies the right to renew said contracts
and as the original creators would’ve passed away by the end of the
agreement and with no one to contest this ,’right’, publishing companies
can renew the contracts without challenge.
The law is pretty specific about that in Austria (and the US also as far as I know), the copyright expires 75 years after the death of the composer. Erik Satie died 1925 in Paris, in France the copyright expires 70 years after his death, so that would have been 1995.
From that point on it's public domain, there is no way around that. The families of some pretty famous people have learnt that the hard way, the heirs of Richard Wagner for example.
What you can still own is the copyright to a performance or recording, but I'm playing the piece myself in the video. So if anything they are commiting a copyright violation, because I own the copyright to my own recording of this.
Thanks for the update.
Then the persons who are reporting copyright claims in these
instances are definitely abusing the laws as these contracts tend
to be territorial as well as global from what I remember.
Not cool.
Contact Rick Beato. He has figured out how to beat the takedown system on YouTube.
@NeuM : his technique: have important high-profile musicians with millions of followers tweeting on your behalf.
I somehow doubt that this trick will work for me
Make some counter-claims against them.
Ruin their fun, too.
Happily, Happy Birthday to You is now in the public domain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/business/media/details-of-happy-birthday-copyright-settlement-revealed.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Happily? Ech. I hate that song.
Property is theft according to Proudhon ... true on so many levels when you think about it.
The last few months has seen a score or more of great musicians selling their life's works to Sony, Disney and a handful of others. Musical properties now.
What does "owning" a piece of music - a tune or a fragment - actually mean? Inherited or lately purchased wealth built on others' music or words - trusts and lawyers - are usually at the heart of these grasping claims. Artists, Writers and composers are usually more generous, less self-centred. Paganini was an exception.
Very different to copyright on the written word this music business. There's a very cheap and simple sort of insurance wordsmiths can employ to protect and prove their claim if needed ... before you publish, post yourself a sealed copy and never open it. Just sits there, signed, sealed, dated and witnessed by the post office. Not sure if anything similar could apply to music - I suspect it wouldn't help.
But it is a very different problem with music ... feels much more like theft. But it's also more subtle, more complex and more common ... a common property? Is that what popular music really is?
Even Beatles get pinged. What are tribute bands if not walking copyright infringements? Royalties don't really cover the underlying break and enter.
But also it's a bit like owning air. A whistling tax? When is a cover a steal? When does a musical influence end? How many chords or notes must line up? Similar to a reasonable person? Or the tastes of a bewigged judge? The greater the property the more protection is on offer. Copyright is a very murky legal construction.
But once you go near copyright lawyers you are doomed ... deep murk - a bottomless pit into which you pour money. Needs serious sums to be even worth defending or prosecuting.
As long as lawyers get paid either way, we will always have this kind of behavior. $4.6 million banked by the lawyers involved in setting Happy Birthday free. And that's only on the "winning" side.
Lololololol
Thank God for that and yeah I really don’t like that melody.
I much prefer Stevie Wonder’s version.
Well, at least one doesn't have to put up with the self-composed alternatives to get around copyright restrictions during those obnoxious wait staff happy-birthday singings at restaurants so much any more.
Oh my gosh.
I remember gigs like that, smh.
Grim, especially when you have to paste a smile on to please and audience.
I can laugh about it now. 😏
>
Make a burner account and claim them right back. > @wim said:
Transpose it into Phrygian and give it some nice harmony and it improves.
Transpose it into Phrygian and give it some nice jazz harmony and it sounds a lot better.
Good suggestion.
I'll remember to tell the band next time we play,
pick a key, any key as long as it's Phrygian. 😁
You are right ! Within 2 days of a rant video he got one of his videos reinstated
I thought I'm 'grumpy' at times but I'm nothing compared to this dude....
(It's on topic regarding copyright 'abuse').
Yup same video , gets his stuff reinstated in 2 days
The power of people, power of YouTube ,power of views, power of grump ..: I guess 😁
Well at least it's not for a filter sweep. Sucks anyways.
Are synth pad presets also getting reported?
Could be if it's a song that uses those sounds that is copyrighted...
(Ie. a song starts with a classic pad-sound from a synth and then another review video uses that pad with same chords and boom!).