Audiobus: Use your music apps together.
What is Audiobus? — Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.
Download on the App StoreAudiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.
Comments
Had to reread this last part out loud in a southern gentleman accent.
Well there are a few things wrong here. First of all it's not YouTube ripping us off, it's copyright leeches. Those are companies that claim videos despite not having the proper copyright. I actually kind of disagree with Rick Beato here, if a company actually owns the copyright to a song they have the right to defend it. A song isn't two notes though or the sound of a pad. So if he plays a song in his video that is outside of fair use and they claim it, that's their right.
Secondly, YouTube is not above the law. They are a company, but they can't make the rules as they want, the rules have to comply with local law. So if they provide their service in Austria (as they offically do), they have to comply with Austrian law.
As it stands right now, they are protecting criminals, because of the way they made the rules. The company that claimed my video with Erik Satie is stealing from me (in priciciple, because I don't make any money with that channel), because legally I own the copyright to this video. YouTube is making this theft possible because they allow fake claims on videos and instantly transfer the money to the scammer for 30 days.
Actually if you think about it, since this is most likely a company built to specifically do this type of theft, YouTube is protecting a form of organized crime. This might sound harsh but this is EXACTLY the wording the music industry uses to describe copyright issues, so I feel I can use that, too if it's me that is getting stolen from.
If a situation like that arises, you can't just say "don't use the service", the government has to step up and act. But of course they won't, because they basically just do what big coporations tell them to do.
YouTube automatically places copyright claims on majority of videos when they are uploaded using their ContentID system and if it detects copyrighted content, monetization is passed on to the copyright holder. They also have a Checks system. For videos that slip through the cracks (ContentID), copyright holders can manually claim copyright/revenue on the video or even give a strike. Even if a video is not claimed, it may get claimed after months, years or more!
YouTube has all the data of how much portion of a video has copyrighted audio (sensed by their ContentID system or mandatorily identified by the copyright holder while placing the claim) but they give 100% of the video’s monetization to the copyright holder. they also distribute monetization among multiple copyright holders properly but don’t distribute it likewise to creators. If the video is 600 seconds and uses only 60 seconds of copyrighted audio inside it (10%), YouTube should give only 5% of the revenue to the copyright holder because video is 50% and audio is 50% and you own the video of that 10% length which comes to 5% of revenue for copyright holder but they get 100%. Somebody should initiate a class action for this - there is a solid and valid case.
When a copyright is disputed, all ad revenue is placed on hold and not distributed to anybody until the dispute is resolved. It is not paid to the scammer for the 30-day period.
Some statements made by YouTube saying that “YT does not decide copyrights and fair use, the court decides” in their fair use videos are incorrect and downright DUMB - they are deciding copyrights and incorrect fair use with their CRAPPY ContentID system and placing a copyright claim right when you upload a video - even when the video is 110% fair use - not the court (unless we dispute and take it to court).
I don't know but I've seen a bunch of filter sweeps in videos getting flagged. The same person more than a few times. It's getting ridiculous.
Only once. for a cover of Everlong where I did everything.
Woody’s take on the subject in 2022:
GreedTube?!?!? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And by all means, keep your Dicksney+ subscription going.
I think that has been shown to be a myth, and it’s only useful if you can afford to spend the money on taking someone to court, and you might still lose. Bottom line is: don’t do this; go through the proper copyright registration process.
Just what is a proper registration process in the Uk ? There is PRS but they only register titles, author and publisher.
In the UK I don’t know, but I would assume there is a documented process somewhere. I know copyright is per country or region for books, but don’t know who manages the process on each country.
I’m not a lawyer, but I used to be a librarian and this sort of thing cropped up a lot. As far as I know, you don’t need to register anything for copyright in the UK (I don’t think there’s a mechanism, even). You automatically own your own copyright unless you assign certain rights to a publisher or similar. And you never lose your right to be credited as an author.
In the US, I believe there is a registration process involved (at least for written material).
NB: don’t take my word for it, if you really want to know you should ask someone with a clue and up to date info.
A quick search shows that this seems correct for US and UK. I do know that the mail it to yourself method is considered legally dubious for copyright in the US, but maybe the UK courts are more on the side of rightful ownership rather than whoever has the most expensive lawyer.
I wouldn’t bet on it (the UK courts bit of the above).
I do remember reading somewhere back in the 80s that mailing yourself a cassette of your finished song might help in case of a dispute, so this advice was around then (in the UK).
It just gives you a datestamp, so you can prove you had the created content earlier than anyone else.
Hey guys!
I had a couple clients here in the US who were relying on the mail yourself a copy of the song to solve a rights case, and they were basically laughed out of court by the judge. He said the only thing it proved was that they knew how to affix a stamp to a letter
We have entered a war zone with the MMA, this is a concern for everyone including developers., with out using the transparency and accountability act you will be labeled a conspiracy theorist or accused of spreading misinformation.
The MMA allows major labels, publishers to claim your music based on titles of the songs alone, this means they can say the title of your song belongs to Boys Goerge, you need to contact your digital distributor such as tunecore audiam etc to solve this but they won't and in fact its because the MMA keeps your money in a un regulated bank and you u lose it if its unclaimed every 3 months! the only way to get this info is via the FOIA, who by the way will share it after the statute of limitations past and unlike regulated banks which return any money you had even up to 50 years this MMA fraudulent bank does not...so they play into a loophole.
Example, I know someone who posted dozens of YouTube videos showing of crafts DYI stuff, they added their own Muzak soundtracks for fun, for some reason one of them, which was nice, suddenly got claimed by Sony Publishing., no copyright claim was presented, it simply claimed the track-song was part of Sony Publishing.
The individual contacted Sony who told them they will get back but never did, , ever!, they also contacted YouTube via the studio claims and found out Audiam had been the one who claimed the actual song as a label, then the individual informed me that they had joined audiam and indeed posted the songs,
Audiam told the individual that if they see audiam listed on any YouTube video it will say label, problem is audiam who is supposed to go after sony then told the individual he did not add publishing rights to this track, only sound, which is not true, he added EVERYTHING, composition and recording., why not this one single track out of 112 he thought...
I later discovered that AUDIAM made a cut with the sony publishing group, behind this individual's back, they then told him that Sony confused the title with an artists they have, (typical errors never fixed) and advised this person to contact YouTube about it...how ever YouTube returned the report that ADIAM was the source to of linked Sony publishing, not sony nor YouTube...and its used on tv commercials which estimate up to $30k in advance for mechanicals.
When any of these digital distributors or publishers see money they screw the artists, you should see who are the share holders of these companies, cause most of them are major artists trying to keep above the crowd, they back these services up to keep competition out fo site and like many threatened even when an opening act steals the show.
I have read a number of complaints about every single one of these services, from distrokid, tunecore, cdbaby audiam songtrust etc etc, as soon as $5-10K happens there is a decision which an artists to make between accepting some of their money or getting the same sum of money via court, attorneys fees etc, there was another individual who's attorney figured it out, he was told that the digital service basically screwed him and calculate this legal costs, he was advised to take whatever money he can and demand the full rights back!
I looked at agreements (constantly been modified) by these services, Audiam states a number of loopholes in their advantage, their terms of services also indicate that they can refuse to release your music for up to one year from you notifying them or ban you altogether at any time.
Its out of hand, all digital services are sharks and copyright fraudsters instead of doing what they claim, which is protect the artists.