I’m Jeff Price. And This Is My New Company, Audiam

The following comes from Jeff Price and Peter Wells, both co-founders of TuneCore and now… Audiam.

  • Save

  • Save
The music industry has changed since we launched TuneCore in 2006. Last decade, the rise of iTunes let us overturn the old music distribution model. This decade, YouTube has created an unprecedented opportunity for artists to generate new revenue from a second income stream and engage with fans in a way never seen before.

Everything is in place for another revolution (evolution?)

Imagine a world where music fans can legally — and for free —create videos containing music they love, upload these videos to YouTube, have YouTube license the music the videos were made and then have advertisers pay the artists and copyright holders for the use.

Even a single song by one artist can be used by hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of fans. Each video is its own creation with its own potential to become a “hit,” from lyric videos to “unofficial” music videos to music in the background as the wedding party dances. Each work of art has the potential to become popular, and with each view, money can be generated and the artist can be promoted

This world already exists.

It’s time to democratize and change the music industry again, this time with YouTube.

For the old music industry, the world used to be a simple place. The label decided which artists to let in, signed them to contracts, took their copyrights, made 12″ pieces of vinyl or 5″ pieces of plastic and shipped them on trucks to stores.  Music was promoted on MTV, commercial radio and print magazines. Consumer choice was limited to what the labels thought was good. If the consumers liked the song, they went to a physical store to buy the vinyl or plastic, take it home and stick it on a turntable or in a CD player and listen to it.

And that was the end of it.

Boy did technology screw that system up.

Artists no longer need labels to record, market and distribute, and consumers began to not just listen to music and use it in ways they never had before. They reviewed it on their own blogs and offered free downloads or streams of songs. They created their own mashups. They shared it with the world via BitTorrent and Napster, and then made videos and uploaded them to YouTube.

This pissed off the old industry. Consumers were not supposed to use the music, they were only supposed to listen to it. Instead or understanding that they had a team of hundreds of millions of people willing to market, promote and generate more money for the labels for free, they started suing them. Brilliant strategy.

If harnessed, they could have marketed artists and created a new SECOND income stream when fans USED the music. But the majors, instead of finding a way for everyone to win, tried to shove the genie back in the bottle.

The number one place on the planet where music is used is YouTube.

It currently has over 25 billion views each month of videos with music in them – and this number is rising.  Over 95 percent of these videos were made from scratch and uploaded by the music fan.  YouTube has over a billion unique visitors a month and generated an estimated $3.6 billion in ad revenue in 2012. Current estimates project YouTube earning over $20 billion in ad revenue over the next 7 years.

Shut it down?  Are you nuts?  You could not shut it down if you wanted to. Monetize it.

YouTube can be a friction-free environment that can make money, promote artists and let hundreds of millions of consumers willingly and joyfully build the eco-system without being sued, and it’s the very system the labels have been trying to shut down.

Wrong move. Embrace it.

Here how it works:

1) Let’s say you take a video of your three fingers wiggling. You would own the copyright to that video, and no other entity on the planet could use it without your permission.

2) When you upload the video to YouTube, you are giving them permission to let others watch it on their system. If you want, you can become a YouTube “Partner,” which allows YouTube to place ads in or on your video. When advertisers pay YouTube for the ad, YouTube takes about 45 percent of the money and pays you the other 55 percent. That’s the basics of YouTube and how it generates money on ads.

3) Things get a bit more complicated when music is involved.

4) Take the same video of the three fingers wiggling and now add the song “I Will Always Love You” to it.  Instead of just one copyright (for the video of the fingers), there are now three copyrights in the video: one for the video of the fingers wiggling, one for Arista Records (as they hired Whitney Houston to sing the song and own the recording of it) and one for Dolly Parton (as she wrote the lyrics and melody to the song).

To keep things simple, lets just say Dolly owns all her own copyrights.  In order for YouTube to make ad money off this video, it needs the OK from:

1) The person that made the video

2) Arista Records

3) Dolly Parton

If even one of these three refuses to give YouTube a license, then no one (including YouTube) can make any ad money off of the views.  YouTube can even be notified by any one of these three copyright holders to have YouTube take the video down.

However, if all three of them agree to give YouTube the appropriate license to use their copyright, then ads can appear around the video and all three of them get to share in YouTube ad money.

Arista Records has a choice: it can notify YouTube to take down videos that have their recording in it (only to have them pop back up again tomorrow), or it can enter into a direct licensing agreement with YouTube.  When it enters into this deal, it can then tell YouTube what recordings it controls, find videos on YouTube that have the recordings in them and authorize YouTube to sell ads into those fan-made videos.  Further, the label can send YouTube a copy of its recording of the song, and YouTube will digitally “fingerprint” the song and begin an automated search through all of its billions of videos (past, present and future) looking for digital matches.

When Arista enters this deal with YouTube, they’re given a user name and password to a special YouTube website called “Content Management System” (CMS).  Once logged in, Arista can see a list of all the videos YouTube found that has Artista music in them.

Arista now has three choices. It can:

1) Track the videos (this lets the videos continue to exist on YouTube, so long as Arista can see the data YouTube’s analytics provide);

2) Take down the videos;

3) Authorize YouTube to sell ads on or in the videos.

In other words, Arista can click a button and make money off all the existing videos the fans made. Or not click the button and make no money.

Click the button.

Until recently, the major labels resisted YouTube. But the tide has finally turned, and they have reluctantly, begrudgingly started to click the right button. The problem is, most artists do not have access to a system that allows them to make money off the use of their music in YouTube.

Enter Audiam.

We’ve got the contracts with YouTube, we’ve got the access to CMS, we’ve got the infrastructure to deliver “fingerprints” and retrieve the money artists earn. And we’re putting that power into the hands of independent artists.

  • Save

As of today, YouTube is no longer the realm of the major labels—any artist almost anywhere in the world (coming to the US very soon) can use YouTube to make money and promote themselves.

At Audiam.com they can create a free account, enter basic information about the music (title, artist), upload the .mp3, .mp4 or .wav file (also free) and click the button and we’ll take it from there.

Audiam will “fingerprint” it, deliver the fingerprint to YouTube, get them to start searching their vast hoard of content for any matches and identify those videos that use the music. When we find a match, we tell YouTube to “monetize” it (put ads on it).

Maybe the video already has ads on it? No problem, Audiam stakes the claim for the artist and starts collecting the revenue they deserve. We charge a 25 percent administration fee and the rest goes to the artist.

When YouTube gets paid, the artist gets paid.

The music business has come to YouTube, and Audiam is going to democratize it. It’s sort of a habit we’ve fallen into.”

Jeff Price, Peter Wells

Founders Audiam


115 Responses

  1. Visitor

    Awesome piece Jeff. The part in the beggining about the evil music industry reminds me of this weird video I saw recently:

    (Pythagoras Vs. The Record Company (Feedbands Official Record Store Day Release)

  2. rikki

    Sounds like every other scam …i get 30 of these job offers on CL each week just from posting my resume……intern for us, earn what you are worth, the sky is the limit, use our studios and bring you own clients to us……….and lastly… when we get paid you get paid…..

    • YouTube CMS Partner

      Let me explain this in full so everyone know the facts!

      1. This is a very simple Multi-channel network for YouTube, which allows this startup to have a network and add and manage music. The startup has no technology at all.. and this is a simple play and frankly not a real startup with a future. Other MCN partners (Maker Studios, Machinima, etc) offer this service and much much more already and have done for years!

      2. On the startups site it claims YouTube doesnt track audio via ISRC code, which I know for a fact it does! ISRC codes are vital in YouTube as are ISWC codes!

      3. Rumblefish has offered this service for years with a licensing system attached!

      4. It takes an expert to understand the MCN CMS backend of YouTube, in which a high end techie is required. Not a music exec.

      5. This startup could be offered to USA artists if this was a full product. USA artists require ISWC codes, which means they need to signed up to the Harry Fox Agency. Thats why this startup isnt available to USA artists.

      6. YouTube will never allow artists directly to manage their own music. The CMS system is very complex and requires professional companies to manage this. In the same way as Aggregators are used to get music on iTunes.


      Other companies have either 1. already offered this for years! or 2. offer this but many other services (eg. better ad sales, promotional tools and more).


      This startup is a fail and will not get any real meaningful numbers. Jeff.. you should have just got a job with another large startup already within the MCN industry.

      • Jeff Price

        And here we go again… the uneducated haters show up and provide incomplete information

        Sadly, this person has a lot of wrong information in their posting.

        I dont just write about it, I actually do the things I write about.


        • Visitor

          “uneducated haters”

          I don’t think people hate you. I personally believe that your work so far (i.e. TuneCore) has been incredibly valuable to artists.

          But we don’t want to fork over 25% of our income unless we’re absolutely frigging sure it’s worth it.

          And you seem to have some difficulties explaining why your service would be helpful.

          Let’s say I upload a video to YouTube and it gets 10M hits, while fans & haters upload 10 parodies that get 1M hits. That ratio is pretty realistic, imo.

          Now, why would I want to pay you 25% of my income from my 10M streams in order to monetize 1M unauthorized parodies?

          • Jeff Price

            The challange is, YouTube is confusing.
            There are a lot of things being posted here which are just dead wrong
            To answer you specifcially, you would not be paying Audiam for the 10 million hits on your own videos – you can do this yourself, you dont need us to do that. And I agree with your whole heartedly. It would make no sense for Audima to take that money.
            But Audiam does get you the other money from the 1 million views.

            If someone is covering one of your songs on YouTube, we will get your paid.
            If someone is using your recording in their video on YouTube, we will get you paid.

            If you need to raise money for projects, you can now use YouTube like Kickstarter. Simply tell your fans to use your music in their YouTube videos. When they do, and the videos are watched, you’ll earn money.

            In addition, there are a lot of additional features coming shortly.


      • Paulina

        I have a question which one works better for you, and which one gives you more as percentage?

        thank you

  3. Jeff Price

    Ok, I cant help myself – I have to correct you

    A multi-channel network is very very different than being able to do claims.

    One is monetizing your own videos (anyone can do that), the other is finding videos on YouTube that are NOT yours that have either your master and/or composition in them, autorizing YouTube to place ads in them and then getting the money

    A multi channel network cannot do this. Nor can you do this as a youTube partner.

    Second, no, YouTube does NOT track with ISRCs. You can submit a recording to YouTube with no ISRC. YouTube assigns each recording its own unique number and tracks off the fingerprint.

    No, Rumblefish has not offered a service like this.

    No, you dont need ISWC codes to use the service. You dont even need to be affiliated with a performing rights organization – these are the entities that issue the ISWC numbers.

    I understand this stuff is confusing, its important to get the facts

    Im not trying to “take you on”, Im honestly trying to help you.

    Im here to work for the arist. This stuff is confusing and you have wrong information

    Stay tuned for the US launch, coming soon…


    • YouTube CMS Partner

      Jeff… im not sure you really understand how everything within YouTube works!

      MCN are able to do claims! Especially if there is a record label component. Additionally, we can sign directly licensing deals with the major labels, so the Content ID doesnt have to apply if we dont want.

      Monetizing videos as you mentioned.. yes this can be done by anyone. Im sure anyone could understand this if they read the basic help section from YouTube.

      With YouTube you have an option to track via unique code (which you can make up) or it can track via ISRC. Do I need to add a screenshot for you to understand?

      Rumblefish has partnered with CDBaby to offer the same service for over a year now. http://members.cdbaby.com/license-your-music.aspx . You might want to read the EARN MONEY ON YOUTUBE section .. Jeff!

      For a composition to be licensed on YouTube for the USA, the track needs to claimed 100% by a publishing organisation. This then allows YouTube to monetize the videos in the USA.

      You really need to understand the business you are getting in to .. and from these conversations .. it shows that you dont.

      • Visitor

        Based on that link, it sure looks like CD Baby / Rumblefish offers the same service. Jeff – I’d love to hear your explanation about how Audiam is different, if you do have an explanation.

      • Jeff Price

        MCNs can only do claims on the audio visual, not on just the audio and not only for the composition (i.e you CANNOT use the audio in a video as the source file for audio claims).

        In addition, the royalty rate that a MCN gets on YouTube for the master and composition is different than the royalty on a claim contract

        For example, the royalty rate for the composition on a cover is higher via a direct licensing deal than via a MCN deal

        In regards to CD Baby – let me get this straight. You think an artist signing up for CD Baby to then pass on rights to Rumblefish – putting two layers between the artist and their money – from a company that does not have the rights to the master AND composition (although the Rumblefish/CD Baby agreement does try to just take them) is better than a deal with Audiam?

        I dont.

        Further, you are aware that via the CD Baby/Rumblefish deal an artists own videos are being claimed therby changing the video from premiumn content to UGC content and lowering the money an artist makes.

        We dont do that either.

        In regards to publishing, as I have stated numerous times, a video on YouTube can only be monetized if BOTH the master and composition are cleared. So it looks like we might both agree on that

        However, you are not correct that the composition needs to be 100% claimed by a publishing organization

        First of all, Im not sure why you restricted this to the US – that makes no sense

        Second, all you need to control is the administrative right to the composition, not 100% of it

        For example, there could be three publishing companies that own one song – one could own 20%, the other could own 45% and the third could own 35%.

        The one that owns the 20% could control the administrative right to the composition and clear it for YouTube.

        This would not apply just to the US, but for the world

        However, unless the right of Public performance is also cleared, the video still cannot be monetized

        And as you may be aware, PROs in some parts of the world have not done deals with YouTube just yet (for exmple, GEMA in Germany).

        Therefore, if you are a member of GEMA, any views in German cannot be monetized

        Im glad I could help clear this up for you. Dont hesitate to contact me directly if I can provide more info


  4. Chris

    “The problem is, most artists do not have access to a system that allows them to make money off the use of their music in YouTube” and if they licensed it to a label they still wont.It sounds interesting but let’s not think it’s for anything other than DIY Artists

    • Jeff Price

      well that’s not true. YouTube is a lot of specialized work. Its a maze of nuances that go far beyond what I wrote.

      The new music industry is about serving the artist, getting them more money, more quickly with more transparency and building the systems to do so

      As an example, i did it with TuneCore and the service ended up getting used by every major label on the planet.

      Create something of value, do it better and serve the customer.


      • Chris

        Jeff,If an artist has licensed their recording to a label they are not allowed to directly claim the money from YouTube – the Label is. Again it looks like a great service for a DIY artist but if an artist is signed then it can’t be applicable for them.Wish you the best of luck with it

        • Jeff Price

          what you write is correct. If an artist has signed their rights away for the recoring to a label, than the label can use Audiam for the recording, not the artists

          HOWEVER, if the artist also wrote the song, and is not in a publishing deal, then Audiam can get the artist money

          If someone is covering one of your song on YouTube, we will get you paid


          If someone is using ANY recording of your song on YouTube, we will get your paid

          For example, a fan creates a lyric video on YouTube with the recording owned by the label.

          If you wrote the song, through Audiam, we can authorize that video to have ads on it and make you money


  5. yuuughhhh

    a) wonderfully summarizing the state of YouTube’s monetization policies
    b) providing an elegant, clean solution to get people paid
    c) reminding us how sad and broken the copyright regime is in this country,
    I am unconvinced there’s a real purpose for Audiam. Because YouTube has probably already thought of this plan – and to appease majors, make them happy, and earn that 45% of ad revenue – is probably putting this plan into motion.
    Audiam’s only value proposition, it seems, is its fingerprinting. But remember,
    Audiam’s going against a multibillion dollar outfit who is putting a lot of chips on its property, YouTube, to become an even bigger search engine than Google itself. Those chips are probably, likely, (most certainly i guess?) being invested in the best tech to perfect the fingerprinting.
    Bottom line for majors: 25% administration fee? No thanks. Let’s wait for Youtube to offer this to us real soon.
    Bottom line for Audiam: if your tech is so hot, just sell to YouTube now. Don’t get all client services about it

    • Jeff Price

      I can assure you, you are going to be waiting a long long long long long time…

      its not going to happen for a variety of reasons

      Thats why we built the service


  6. Chaz

    This isn’t a tech play at all. Fingerprinting technology is widespread—Audiam assuredly isn’t using proprietary fingerprinting technology, they’re just licening it from elsewhere. The company is purely providing a service. That is, it’s a middleman.

    • Jeff Robinson


  7. Chaz

    Here’s the problem with this model: YouTube should make the direct licensing option available to any copyright owner that uploads content to the site. It would be extremely easy for YouTube to do. Instead, this model introduces another middleman that adds nothing beyond what YouTube can and should be doing itself. With this initiative, YouTube now has even less of an incentive to open up its direct licensing system to music creators–why should it do that, it makes the same amount off of your music but has offloaded a chunk of work to this new company at no cost to YouTube (but at a sizable cost to the creator). If you work with these guys you are essentially enabling YouTube not to have to deal directly with music creators, and I fear simultaneously creating yet another entrenched and superfluous middleman in the music industry.

    • Jeff Price

      You’re right, it would be ideal if YouTube would do direct licensing for claims with 10,000,000 artists around the world

      But it doesnt for a lot of reasons that have to do with the ability to claim videos (and a host of other reasons)

      So, a service is need to provide a solution

      And that service should do more than earn its fee by being a middleman, it MUST provide true value. If it doesn’t, then at some point it becomes irrelevant

      This is day one of Audiam, not day 1,000. The company MUST serve the artist, add features, add value and more

      Which is what we wil be doing and what the artists will get as the new features roll out…

      In the meantime, you’re not hurting us by not getting your money, you’re hurting yourself


  8. James

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but doesn’t Youtube’s own Content ID offer all this already? Is Audiam just Content ID for DIY artists? (I wasn’t aware that Content ID wasn’t available for everyone.)

    • Visitor

      No, you’re not missing a thing.

      Mr. Price is…

  9. bmurnane

    Interesting music business model de jour? Locking up the long-tail with a 25% cut of a $2 CPM?

  10. CurbCollegeNews

    Possibly the most important #musicbiz news you’ll read today

  11. GGG

    “If you want, you can become a YouTube “Partner,” which allows YouTube to place ads in or on your video.”

    Don’t you have to be asked to be a partner? Unless things changed you can’t be a partner until you get a certain number of view, right? So all Audiam is doing is getting in the pocket of as many indie/DIY artists as possible in the hope some of them will go viral to whatever extent. Or what am I missing here? I guess the service of hunting down videos with your copyright could be worth some money, but won’t most of these videos fall below the ad share threshold?

    • Jeff Price

      No, you dont need to ask to be a partner, anyone can monetize their own videos now.

      What you cant do is make money when other people use your music on YouTube, with Audiam, you can.

      As you can tell by the comments here, there is a LOT of confusion, misinformation etc about YouTube. I intend to get the right information out

      How are artists supposed to make choiches if they dont have the right facts

      Lots more info to come…


  12. dhenn

    Another nightmare for artists to deal with. I’m a one person artist/label/have to do everything myself. What happens when people use my music in a way that is completely unacceptable/offensive to me as the creator of the music?! Like I have time to sit around policing this crap. Thanks for nothing, Jeff Price.

    • GGG

      Pretty sure that’s what Audiem’s service is…pointing out every video to you. Nobody knows what you find offensive except you, so you’d have to decide that regardless. It looks like they’d make the discoveries for you, though.

      • jeff p

        You do realize that right this second people may already be using your music in ways you do not want.

        With Audiam, you will know who they are on YouTube and can actually get them taken down

        Without Audiam, what exactly will you do to stop that use?

        You’re doing nothing now..


        • james

          > With Audiam, you will know who they are on YouTube and can actually get them taken down

          That’s good to know. Your promo text only talks about ’embracing’ Youtube, but since you propose to stand up for the independent artist, you must realize that many are independent on principle and wish to boycott parasitic corporate behemoths. Google profits from piracy, lobbies against artists’ rights, maintains an Orwellian attitude to privacy, and practises massive international tax avoidance. An artist can choose not to sign for a major label, or not to shop at a particular supermarket, so it’s galling to be told we should embrace this particular parasite.

          • Jeff Price

            could not agree more. Artist have the right to say no.

  13. Darius

    Bravo guys, i’ve been waiting for a comprehensive platform to help with YT, theres rumblefish and a couple of others that have way too many strings attached (ie you must go thru Cd baby etc) – TuneCore has come along and kicked ass and now this – CHEERS!

  14. Visitor

    “most artists do not have access to a system that allows them to make money off the use of their music in YouTube”


    All artist have access to that system. They just have to own the exclusive rights to their videos (Mr. Price will be of no assistance if they don’t) and live in a country where they can become YouTube partners.

    Here’s how it works:



    • Visitor 2

      To be clear, the CMS Tutorial slideshow you’re linking to addresses a system that is not available to “standard” YouTube partners. The CMS you’re linking to is only available to MCNs, Aggregators, Record Labels, etc. A very limited number of companies and large content creators have access to cms.youtube.com.

      What is available to standard YouTube partners is a more basic “back end”, featuring limited claiming abilities through the Video Manager, and Analytics. It is true that standard YouTube partners can claim and monetize their content, but they are limited in the type of metadata they are allowed to attach to their assets, which dramatically affects discovery and monetization rates.

      • Visitor

        “they are limited in the type of metadata they are allowed to attach to their assets, which dramatically affects discovery and monetization rates”

        Not as dramatically as paying 25% of your entire income per video to Audiam.

        And that’s the problem: You’re granting the company the right to monetize your own legitimate version as well as unauthorized copies.

        This means you’re going to pay Audiam 25% — even if nobody uploads any unauthorized versions.


        • Visitor

          It’s a fair point you’d make. A flat 25% regardless of the performance of the 3rd party content is a little dodgy.

          I would point out however that Aggregators on YouTube generally command significantly higher CPMs (We’re talking $5-$10 vs $.25-$1.00) than do single-partners, and some even have direct ad-sales teams to sell against your content, boosting revenue even higher. Given things are done right, and the channel’s CPM is boosted in such a way, it’s not unreasonable for the Aggregator to ask for a share in that.

          Whether or not this is something Audiam is offering remains unclear. Whether or not a 25% flat fee is fair depends on the amount of 3rd party content there is out there to be found.

          • Visitor

            “Aggregators on YouTube generally command significantly higher CPMs (We’re talking $5-$10 vs $.25-$1.00) than do single-partners”

            Thank you, I was not aware of that. This is indeed significant.

            I know it’s hard to come by, but do you happen to have any documentation?

            “Whether or not a 25% flat fee is fair depends on the amount of 3rd party content there is out there to be found.”

            And the unflattering fact for most artists is that there won’t be much — if any. You have to go pretty viral before the dancing dogs & parrots enter.

            Then again, that doesn’t matter much if the ratio you mentioned holds water.

          • Visitor

            Again, there’s no need to pay anyone for this ‘service’.

            Please the post above yours.

    • Jeff Price

      I know this stuff is cofusing, but you are wrong

      Those are links that have to do with becoming a partner, not doing claims

      Tell you what, how about a gentleman’s bet. Go to YouTube yourself and ask them for a claims agreement for the master (thats one deal) and for the composition (thats the other deal)

      The same deals Sony, Warner etc have

      There are only about 150 publishing entities on the planet that have the composition deal

      Report back to us here what happens


  15. Karen Allen

    APM does this already, mostly for established labels and publishers. Some DIY artists, too, but case by case. So, this is nothing revolutionary, just broadens it out to the average artist.

    The difficult part is the split. Using Jeff’s case, Audiam/APM would need to know how much Arista gets vs. how much Dolly Parton gets, unless they put it all on the sound recording owner to pay the publisher.

  16. david@indigoboom

    Not sure i understand how this is a new thing. We have offered this as part of our standard distribution package for several years. I am sure other digital distributors do this as well. It has actually started to become a meaningful revenue stream for certain artists.

    Here is what we (and, I am sure, others)do:

    Artist uploads track (for distribution)

    Track is fingerprinted by youtube

    Artist recieves share of ad revenues whenever track is used on any video on youtube.

    Nothing new here. Standard procedure really.


    David G


    • jeff price

      Yikes, are you telling me that your company offers distribution of music AND at the same time acquires the exclusive rights to license master recordings for synchronization?

      These are two very different things. YouTube is a synchronization license for the master. iTunes is not.

      I sure hope you are not just taking these synchronization licenses from artists without explaining it to them. You dont distribute music to YouTube…

      In addition, you are only claiming the “master”, not the composition. The composition is a second set of revenue and royalties

      We do both.


  17. Faza (TCM)

    Wow, Jeff, what a swell idea!

    I’ve only been doing this via CD Baby and Rumblefish for what – must be close to a year now.

    Incidentally, for all of you watching at home – the amount of money to be made from YouTube licensing is roughly the same as it was for Spotify a couple of years back: 0.15 cents or so.

    In other words: Jeff Price is at it again. Won’t make you rich, but he will bitch about anyone who’s unimpressed with his revolutionary idea.

    Incidentally, now taking bets as to how long it will last and whether Jeff’ll get the boot like last time.

    • jeff price

      hi faza

      i want to congratulate on the tremendous success you have had in your career and thank you for the helpful and insightful words

      Your knowledge, support and advice have done a signifigtant amount to help artist


      • Faza (TCM)

        And the same to you. Good luck with your new venture. If at first you don’t succeed an’ all that…

  18. Jamestownstory

    Jeff is a god to the music industry. Well played sir.

  19. hippydog

    Didnt seem like a bad idea…

    Then i started to think about it..

    OK.. Youtube gets 45% of the ad revenue.. They have the infrastructure, the huge base of viewers, etc etc.. I cant say that its unfair.. The overhead has to be pretty huge, so I wont quibble about it..

    But.. Audiam..

    hmmm. 25% percent admin fee eh? On the artists portion I assume.. so 25% of 55% is what? 14%? So the artist now gets 41%.. sounds legit.. 😉

    so.. if an artists makes a song and video, and gets say 20,000 views that could be upwards of $100 ad revenue.. $45 goes to google, $41 goes to artists, and $14 goes to Audiam..

    So what exactly is Audiam doing for this money?

    Quote “we’ve got the infrastructure to deliver “fingerprints”

    Audiam will “fingerprint” it, deliver the fingerprint to YouTube, get them to start searching their vast hoard of content for any matches and identify those videos that use the music.”

    heres the the thing, everything I googled sounds like its youtube that does the actual fingerprinting.. So this infrastructure they are talking about is what? them emailing google saying “please add this to fingerprint thingy”?

    seriously? 25% for that?

    • jeff price

      yes Im back. So haters hate away.

      In the meantime, there is some info in the comments that are not correct

      With rare exception, Artists are not able to enter into direct licensing deal with YouTube to find videos that other people have uploaded that have their music in them in an automated way AND authorize YouTube to place ads in them.

      Finding these videos is called “claims”

      This is different than uploading your own video to YouTube with your music in it. One is a video you made and uploaded, the other is a video someone else made and uploaded

      For example, you want to raise money to go on tour. You play a gig and at the end of the night you say “PLEASE, use our music in your YouTube videos so we can raise money for our new album”

      Your fans oblige and upload videos that they create with your music in them

      Audiam will go and find these videos authorize YouTube to place ads in them and get your your money. Without Audiam, the artist could not do this.

      As another example, you can ask your fans to cover songs you’re songs and upload the “cover” videos to YouTube. Without Audiam, you cant find these videos in an automated fashion, tell YouTube to place ads in them and collect money.

      There are another slew of features coming over the next weeks and months including finding the use of your music on the net off of YouTube, finding more videos on YouTube with another fingerprinting technology and a lot lot lot more.

      Psyched to have this live!


  20. danwriter

    During the course of this contentious and confusing thread, exactly how many songs have been written?

  21. Henry Chatfield

    When is the expected US release?

    25% fee does seem steep for the offering but I’ll hold off on judgement until I actually see it in action.

  22. Visitor

    To be clear, am I right in thinking that you won’t actually be ‘fingerprinting’ anything. You’ll be delivering audio files which YouTube will fingerprint?

    • Jeff Price

      at the moment, YouTube Content ID is the only entity fingerprinting the master

      However, stay tuned for an announcement regarding fingerprinting and tracking the use of your music on the entire Internet, not just YouTube.

      My goal is to find anyone on-line using your music and get you paid for that use


      • Visitor

        “stay tuned for an announcement regarding fingerprinting and tracking the use of your music on the entire Internet”

        OK, that would be interesting!

  23. Andy

    Just want to chime in here and give you my two cents.

    I know Jeff. I’ve met him a few times and he’s one of the good guys. Don’t believe everything you hear! Yes, he’s got a big mouth, but he’s been using it for years trying to educate us dumb musicians. I for one have learnt a lot from the information shared by TuneCore over the years and really appreciate what they have done there.

    Back when TuneCore didn’t offer support for Deezer, which is pretty big in France compared to other services, I used a competitive service called Zimbalam to get a few albums onto Deezer as some of our fans had requested we put our music there.

    Zimbalam happened to add a YouTube Content ID service similar to what Audiam is proposing now and I signed up for it.

    In the meantime, some dude uploaded one of our songs to YouTube and the video (which is just a picture of our album cover and the song) has had over 130,000 views.

    I just received a royalty check from Zimbalam for about 30 euros for those 130,000 views. I would not have received a dime if my songs had not been scanned by YouTube Content ID, and as a DIY artist (who is a YouTube Content Partner by the way), I have no way of doing that myself. Or I haven’t been able to figure out how to do it.

    So just 2 days ago, prior to having any knowledge of what Jeff was up to, I asked Tunecore if they were going to offer a similar service, so I didn’t have to pay Zimbalam 35 euros per album to get the remaining albums ID’d by YouTube.

    Their answer was a simple ‘no’.

    Then I saw this post on DMN. Audiam has a customer!

    I uploaded the 2 albums that aren’t being handled by Zimbalam to Audiam last night and I’ll come back in a few months and tell you how it goes.

    The only thig that isn’t clear to me is whether Zimbalam is collecting both the master and songwriter money, or just the master. If Jeff is still reading these comments, or if there’s someone from Zimbalam on here, maybe they could join the conversation and let me know!


    • Jeff Price

      I would doubt Zimbalam is collecting on the publishing side unless you granted them the specifc synch license for the composition

      Its a weird Term to jam into a distribution contract (and if they did, kinda sneaky)

      If you like, email us at support@audiam.com so we can connect directly

      and thanks for giving us a shot… lots more features to come


      • JTV Digital

        Hi Jeff,No Zimbalam do not collect the publishing rights but they do deliver audio fingerprints and pay artists based on the ‘master rights’.So they do 50% of what your service is offering.

        • Jeff Price

          At YouTube, you can’t put an ad on a video unless BOTH the master and composition are cleared

          Which means that Zimbalam is either getting publishing rights from its customers (which would be kind of odd as its a distributor) OR its illegally clearing the content on YouTube

          In both cases, its taking a % of the income from the master and then also taking a % of the income from the publishing

          Are its customers aware of this?


          • JTV Digital

            Since I still have some content out there I can say they pay some ‘royalties’ referred under ‘Video Streaming’ and named ‘YouTube Audio Fingerprint’.

            In theory they only get distribution rights so should only collect and pay based on master rights, not publishing.

  24. Marketing guru

    This is a brilliant idea. Most of you with ignorant comments are too narrow minded to even know its potential. Instead to bit*h at how much Audium will make. Yes maybe labels have been doing this in the past but when any artist has access to this system it will disrupt the current model and allow us to be one step closer to generating more money for our creative works. In order for things to truly work, there must be an Eco system where everyone is making money or else things break down. For some of you guys on here will just have to jump on the band wagon after you see everyone else capitolize, probably like you did tunecore ;). Remember 100% of nothing is nothing. Stop being greedy!

  25. Knob Twiddler


    Some tough-love buddy……

    You’d get a lot more respect if you had ever actually CREATED anything. All you ever do is find ways to insert yourself into other peoples commerce and line to pockets. Spare us the ‘Artist Service’ rap – unless you’re going to be non-profit, you’re in this to make money. There’s nothing wrong with that – except that 1) you’re selling it as if you’re doing everyone a big favor and 2) you choose to prey specifically on ‘indie’ artists who are the most vulnerable to your brand of “I’ll Get You Paid/I’m not Like All The Rest’ hucksterism.

    Two recommendations:

    1) try being honest that you’re out to maker a pile of loot, off the backs of indies and only indies but you’re willing to give them access to a system they’re held out of in the process, which has value.

    2) try not being a repulsive DICK about it in public. Haters will hate, you keep egging them on you moron! It’s no wonder your last company turned around and fired your ass. You’re a walking public relations nightmare. Your partner in Audiam should have his HEAD examined for geting back into bed with you again.

    Now go ahead – tell me I’m wrong……..

  26. Champion

    25% is a ridiculously high rate for being a middleman.


  27. YouTube Partner

    Your “how it works” is off slightly – way oversimplified for the technical expertise you need to monitize in a way that makes more than pennies. The number of warm bodies needed to pull off what you describe will be the overhead that does you in if you aren’t careful.

    Also, you are in no way getting enough metadata from a content owner to claim things without causing more chaos in the CMS world. It’s already a hot mess of bad claims, overlapping assets, etc.

    • Jeff Price

      Dead on about the overlapping claims

      Too many companies claiming rights from artists that they do not control. It needs to stop

      And thats what Im going to work on doing

      Artist deserve their money. Im sick and tired of companies taking advantage of them due to the complexity of copyright

      Its going to stop..


    • Jeff Price

      Dead on about the overlapping claims

      Too many companies claiming rights from artists that they do not control. It needs to stop

      And thats what Im going to work on doing

      Artist deserve their money. Im sick and tired of companies taking advantage of them due to the complexity of copyright

      Just look at the postings here. Most of the comments just contain factual incorrect statements. its not their fault. They were told or led to believe something that is not true

      Its going to stop..

      In addition, there are over 12.5 billion views a month on YouTube of videos with music in them that are not making money. They should be.

      Artists deserve their money.


      • JTV Digital

        This is a real issue.Even big labels claim for content they do not own on YouTube, also because at some point the catalogues are so big, and the right owners for the same piece of content can be so different from one country to another, it becomes impossible to know who owns what.This is adding up to the big mess and confusion with monetizing content on YouTube…JTV Digital | affordable digital music distribution

  28. Steven Corn (BFM)

    I find this to be absolutely incredible. Not only has Rumblefish been doing this for years, so has BFM and many other distributors. There is absolutely nothing new about this and,in fact, 25% is much higher than is usually charged to manage music in Youtube’s CMS.

    One other thing that no one has mentioned is that Youtube already does fingerprinting. There is no need to send them fingerprints. When you upload content to the CMS (as we do), it fingerprints the content. That’s exactly how it monetizes all of the UGC. In fact, I question whether or not YT will even accept a fingerprint from another source or technology. What is the added value? None.

    I think that Jeff is selling vapor here. Anyone who wants to monetize their content fully on YT can already do it through a wide variety of existing options. I find Audiam to be a hollow offering which is why Jeff’s post takes multiple scrolling through obvious retelling of Youtube before you can even get to what his new company does. If Audiam was so incredible, he wouldn’t have “buried the lead.”

    • Jeff Price

      just read what you wrote. What you state is is just not accurate.

      I do understand that you may not have the right information and/or that you have not had access to it.

      Lots of misinformation out there. How in the world are artists supposed to make informed decision if they dont have the right information.

      For example, you mention distributors providing the same service as Audiam. This would mean that a distributor has secured the right of synchronization for the master recording and then licensed this right to YouTube vs. distributing the music onto iTunes

      These are two different rights.

      Next, if the distributor did sneak this rights grant in and take it from their customer, its only for the master, not for the composition. Unless the distributor also got this right from the customer which would be beyond bizzare (and in my mind cross into unethical) the videos cannot be monetized.

      To do “claims” on YouTube for ALL the money, there are two seperate contracts, one for the Master and one for the Composition AND unless BOTH rigths are cleared in YouTube the video cannot be legally monetized

      Which means if your distributor is doing this in YouTube, meaning they find videos in youtube with your music in them and then tell YouTube to put ads on them, they are claiming to YouTube to control BOTH the master for sychronization AND the exclusvie rights to the music publishing for the song.

      Did you authorize either of these things to your “distributor”? If you did, did you do so knowingly?

      If not, they are stealing your copyrights and making money off them

      And since when do distributors get rights to the music publishing?

      Not to mention there are a number of other features Audiam offers that others dont… and they will be fortcoming

      In any event, its worth your time and effort to understand the nuances of the system. If you dont, how will you know when your rights are being taken and your money picked from your pockets?

      But to just post things like you did and spread wrong information harms artists

      As far as “questioning” fingerprints? You do realize you do not need anything to be fingerprinted at YouTube. You just need the rights to the master or composition and then find the videos on YouTube to “claim”.

      How you find them is up to you. Via search, their fingerprinting, your fingerprinting etc.

      But once you find them, you can “claim” them

      You are just dead wrong… it doesnt make me angry at you, it makes me angry at the entities that told you the incorrect info.


    • Jeff Price

      I just realized you work for BFM.

      I surely hope you are being up front with your clients and telling them what rights they are assigning to you for “distribution”

      You take your customers synchronization rights for the master for YouTube? Really? Not cool if they dont know about it

      And how about the publishing. You do know you cant place an ad on a video in YouTube unless the publishing is cleared as well. Do you take your customers publishing rights as well (despite being a distributor) and tell YouTube you represent the composition? Do you even collect the publishing information and songwriter splits from your customers? Aren’t your customers record labels? Do they even know who wrote the songs and what the splits are?

      And then you take a % of both master and publishing income on YouTube?

      And you didn’t know you could do a claim without a fingerprint?

      This is exactly why I started Audiam…If you like, we could help you out.


      • scorn100


        You are so insulting. I sign my full name and company so that everyone knows that’s it me who is leaving a comment. I do not hide behind any anonymity. BTW, you and I have met many times and you say “i just realized that you work for BFM”?? I am proud to say that i am the co-founder and CEO of BFM not an employee.

        Yes, we are fully transparent with our clients. But we don’t claim the publishing rights. We allow our clients to monetize their own channels 100% if they own all the rights to their songs. You are correct in stating that one can only monetize their channels if they own all of the rights in the video. This means that if they are posting a cover, the only way to monetize their own channels has to be thru us. But if they own the publishing, we are totally fine letting them monetize their own channel thru YT’s partner program.

        In other words, our artists can keep 100% of the revenue derived from their own channel if they want to. Not quite the same as your offer.

        However, as you may know but others may not, YT does not permit such partners to monetize UGC content even if they own all the rights into their video. You must go thru a distributor like us (and presumably Audiam) to monetize UGC.

        But you are 100% wrong when you say that you can’t place an ad unless you own the publishing. That’s only true for your own channel. When we submit content to YT’s CMS, it is completely possible for us to claim just the master recording rights on behalf of our clients. If our clients own their own publishing and have not struck a publishing deal with YT, they can authorize us to do so.

        Further, you are entirely wrong about the fingerprint. Of course, I know that YT requires a fingerprint. However, they create one automatically when you load content to their CMS if you are the one sending in the masters (as we have). There is no need to send them a new one and I wonder if they will even accept a fingerprint that they don’t create internally.

        So, I do not need Audiam’s help to accomplish what you claim cannot be done without Audiam. We are doing it very nicely, thank you, as are many other companies.

        Bottom line: Audiam is completely superfluous and anyone who buys your sales pitch must be ignorant about how YT and digital distributors work.

        • Jeff Price

          I understand your anger – TuneCore was a better service than Big Fish and you are concened Peter and I might do it again.

          You have publicly posted false information which does not reflect well on your company.

          As you point out, anyone can monetize their own “channel”. ( You “allow” you customers to do this? So your customers need your permission to monetize their own videos? How gracious of you not to steal their rights and get your “permission” to use what is theirs.)

          Next, in your last posting you “questioned” if an outside fingerprinting technology that found videos on YouTube could be used to monetize your videos. The answer is yes. You manually claim the video by the video ID that you can enter into search in the CMS system.

          So you either made something up in an attempt to discredit a new service or you are not educated in the sector (which is quite scary as this is what you claim to know).

          To make matters worse, you are incorrect when you state user videos with music in them can be monetized without the publishing cleared.

          This is basic copyright law. C’mon, you’re supposed to know this stuff. How can you be in this bussiness and think its OK to use the copyright for the composition without getting the license for it? YouTube doesn’t do it.

          You couldn’t possibly believe this and be in the music business?

          Did you know that YouTube actually has a group of in-house people whose sole job it is is to track down the publisher of a song in a video so they can clear it and place an ad on it? Literally, they have a spreadsheet that has a list of watched videos that they want to put ads on but they cant because the publishing is not cleared so they themselves try to hunt down the publisher so they can put an ad on it.

          I also want to point out something in your posting, you state you take your customers songwriter/publishing rights and then you take a % of this second seperate income stream.

          I thought you were a “distributor”? Since when does a distributor take exclusvie rights to a the music publising. Very not cool.

          Finally, you may limit yourself to finding videos with Content ID, but thats not good enough for me. I want to find more videos, so I have been testing and working with technlogies that fingerprint recordings and find more videos on YouTube than Content ID does.

          Actaully, we have been finding over 60% more videos than content ID and then claiming those videos.

          And we have also found ways to scale descriptive search

          May I suggest instead of being threatened by us, you allow us to hepl you. Audiam can find more videos on YouTube that have musc and/or compositions in them that you control then you can find on your own.

          I understand you want to be in this business and you feel threatened by Peter and I, and that’s fair.

          But please make certain not to provide false information in your postings that hurts artists. Its hard enough for them as it is


          • Label Guy

            Trust me Jeff, unless there is an all you can eat Buffet, no one feels threatend by Peter.

            And you really sound like a Prick on this thread.
            How are those social security cheques? I hope my taxes aren’t paying for your internet access.

    • jag

      There it is. The crux of the issue. Just a youtube montioring service based on Tunesat technology. For all you “haters” – that’s what he has and you don’t.

  29. To be fair...

    @jeffprice said:

    “Which means if your distributor is doing this in YouTube, meaning they find videos in youtube with your music in them and then tell YouTube to put ads on them, they are claiming to YouTube to control BOTH the master for sychronization AND the exclusvie rights to the music publishing for the song.

    Did you authorize either of these things to your “distributor”? If you did, did you do so knowingly?

    If not, they are stealing your copyrights and making money off them”

    But isn’t this exactly what you are asking for at your new company? Both rights. i.e. if you are already distributed, and your distubutor is claiming these revenue streams, then won’t signing up for your service be essentially the same thing (at a cost of 25% of revs)?

    I’m confused when you villify the distributor for doing exactly what you intend to do. Is your beef that the distributors aren’t clear about what they are doing? Or that they charge you more than 25% to do it? Something else? I’m not a hater, just wondering how you explain the fact that you are selling the same thing that your distributor is already doing. You can’t have it both ways. Either your distro company is already doing this for a % (and maybe you will do it for less or for more), or they are not doing it and you will do it for them. Which is it?

    Is your company doing something different than what artists are already getting, or the same thing, but for lower cost? Please clarify Jeff.

    • Jeff Price

      yes, this is excatly what we are doing. And doing it on YouTube.

      We are not saying we are a music distirbutor and then taking music publishing copyrights that may have been snuck into a contract. Nor are we making it confusing by burying something in Terms & Conditions

      This is simple, clear and transparent. The user interface is up front.

      Distribution companies have no place in claiming the rights to synchronization for master recordings and compositions. Distribution companies distribute music onto the shelves of the stores where people buy music. They should NOT also claim additional rights to do other things

      And they are.


  30. JTV Digital

    I’ll let Jeff clarify this.What I’ve understood from the service so far is that it acts both as a ‘normal’ digital distributor (allowing you to collect your royalties or ‘master’ rights) and as a publishing royalties administrator.So you get master + publishing rights all in one place.With all due respect Jeff, I think anyone can achieve the same thing by going through a digital distributor delivering audio fingerprints to YouTube (like we do @www.jtvdigital.com) and using a publishing rights admin like Songtrust (which we also facilitate access to).But let’s wait and see since it’s been announced that Audiam will soon offer additional options and services.

    • Jeff Price

      Not really, there are TWO contracts

      One for the master and one for the composition

      I have seen the list of all the entites in a deal with YouTube for the publishing, and its a very very short list with distributors not on it

      • JTV Digital

        Ok that’s clearer then.

        So you own a publishing deal with YouTube?

        Or as I understand you go through a third party (TuneSat) to collect publishing royalties from YT?

        TuneSat is great for tracking, but given the cost of their service I hope you have a good deal with them!


        JTV Digital| affordable digital music distribution

  31. James

    Hi Jeff,

    Just wanted to confirm one thing, is your agreement with Youtube the same as Content ID?

    So Youtube return 55% of royalties earnt on the platform and then you deduct your 25% share from that?



    • Jeff Price

      Audiam takes a 25% admin fee on any money it collects for you

      If we dont collect it, we take nothing

      For example, you get money via your PRO from YouTube. We dont touch that


      • James

        Blimey Jeff, talk about a round about way of just saying YES.

  32. Kevin Rivers

    I think what Jeff is offering is interesting. As a distributor/aggregator myself (and one who knows about the potential of YouTube so well — Also I do NOT work for Audiam, neither do I work for Tunecore.), I think there is going to be great value here. Now I DO agree that 25% is a little high (may lowering it to 20% or even 15% would be considered fair).

    Now heres why I believe Audiam may work:

    1 – Simplicity: Jeff Price/Peter Wells has a proven record of providing simplicity in their product as has been done with Tunecore (which is what makes Tunecore so great apart from its business model). Like iTunes, not every artists can go directly with YouTube’s Content ID and submit content to them. If I am understanding this correctly, Jeff is offering this service to anyone who wants to be in full control of their synch rights on YouTube.

    While its true (and I agree with others) that this isn’t new. It has been done before with Rumblefish and other distributors. What’s going to set Audiam apart from the rest is the ability to execute its mission using the most simple, easy-to-use user interface for its users.

    2 – User Adoption: Right now everyone is bashing this service in hopes that it’s not going to work (Hey! They did the same with Tunecore when they started in 2006 — I know this because I was apart of the first wave of Tunecore users). However, what Jeff have is people talking about it. My only concern for Price (and I think everyone here will agree) is to clarify Audiam’s true mission. Once they’ve done that, I can assure that these “haters” may have a change of heart.

    3 – The Grand Vision: Now if these posts are really written by “Jeff Price” and that the grand vision is to help content creators monetize content across the internet (beyond YouTube and they can actually pull it off), then this is definitely a service worth keeping watch. The ability to monitor YouTube is one thing (almost anyone is getting in on the action one way or another) but to monitor multiple sites for more revenue? That’s where the challenge really is and that’s where Audiam will be able to “democratized” syncronizing content distribution!

    • Visitor

      “if […] the grand vision is to help content creators monetize content across the internet (beyond YouTube and they can actually pull it off), then this is definitely a service worth keeping watch”

      Indeed — especially, if tracking is combined with anti-theft initiatives.

      Here’s how Audiam can become the biggest hit since Apple: Invent a new way to stop mainstream piracy.

      Nothing else matters today.

      But maybe younger people with new perspectives are needed.

      • knob Twiddler

        Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.

        Jeff is too busy finding ways to make money in the current system to see that light.

    • Jeff Price

      yes its me making these postings

      You kind of hit the nail on the head

      Sadly, the value of Audiam is being muddled a bit due to the confusion about YouTube. There are two types of income, channels and claims. My focus is on the claims as this the money artists typically cannot get.

      I also want to provide options to allow artists to get more of their fans to use their music on YouTube thereby increasing their revenue and profile (again, this is an optional service, but its coming)

      I also want to find uses of the artist music on the entire Internt. Im starting with YouTube and expanding

      Just like with TuneCore, we needed to provide artists information in order for them to understand the value of the service.

      Its very deja vu, Peter and I received the exact same comments and responses in 2006 when we launched TuneCore.

      No matter, the mission remains the same, provide artist access, get them their money and be of value.


  33. ATMP

    I think I have a slight concussion from reading all these comments. I can’t tell if everyone that likes this is friends with Jeff nor if everyone who flames it is sincere or just PO’d.

    From a slightly different perspective… I may be considered a long-time “suit” in this industry but artist advocacy (remember that?) is and always has been my mission.

    Jeff, I think it is admirable to not hide behind a veil of corporate-speak from one that has no clue what they are communicating. Saying that (let’s forget for a moment that you take feedback, however obnoxious, personally IMO), you may wish to consider having someone else explain your new venture. The missive that began all this is way too long, confusing, and for the hundredth time just this week, tells us, the reader, “It’s time to democratize and change the music industry again…” Please accept my apology, but my cynicism meter goes off the chart with these types of claims. I understand the process of YT and many of the others mentioned here but still do not completely understand what exactly Audiam does that will make my life easier and my creativity profitable.

    I tend to believe that you are sincere in your hopes of helping artists, and it would be insane not to make the highest profit possible so you can invest in future development but, dude, a minority on here like you and your past, a majority will not like you even if you develop a cure for cancer, and the rest of us are left saying WTF?


    • Label Guy

      There are so many start up’s launching, so why i ask myself does Jeff get so much stick.

      Then i read his press release and i realise. “we over turned the music industry, now we are poised to do it again”

      Working at a label, seeing how hard colleagues, artists work on breaking their craft, i always wonder why Jeff, who built a CDbaby knock off that put music on iTunes, wants to take credit for the overthrow of the music industry.

      The problem is Jeff, that you are too full of yourself, you aren’t likeable and honestly most of the stuff you come out with is cringeworthy.

      If you could launch your product properly, have some dignity and not try and claim a revolution in every post, people might take you seriously and actually read what your service is about.

  34. Waverly Kelly


    This gentleman has done more for indie artist through TuneCore than anyone besides CDBaby. 300 million dollars paid to artists as of right now through Tunecore. Even though he is not there any longer, it would not have bene possible without his blood, sweat and tears to start the thing.

    I’m gonna follow Jeff to see this new venture take off just like tunecore did. Besides if you weren’t making money from Youtube before and you have the opportunity now, why wouldn’t you take advantage of such. Some people just hate for the sake of hating. I will give up a percentage to get something. As as artist that has been on a label and now is independent I understand that percentages are how the business works.

    Thanks Jeff and keep helping the people who want to be helped, not the people who have nothing better to do but hate on your effrots.

    • Visitor

      “you have the opportunity now [to make money from YouTube]”

      On the contrary:

      Mr. Price will take 25% of the income you already generate from your own YouTube channels in return for 75% of the significantly smaller amounts you may or may not be able to generate from unauthorized channels.

      Everybody can easily monetize their own YouTube channels — and that’s where the majority of the money comes from.

      I appreciate TuneCore as much as you do, but Audiam does not seem to be of value for anybody except Mr. Price in its present version.

      • Jeff Price

        What you state is not correct.

        Anyone can make money on their own videos in YouTube, but artist cannot make money when someone else that is not them uses their music in a YouTube video.

        For example, your fans put your music in their videos. Explain to us how you are able to make money off those videos. You can’t. This is what Audiam does.

        The misinformation on YouTube is stunning, and part of the reason why artists are not getting their money

        One more example, through Audiam you can turn YouTube into Kickstarter. Tell your fans to use your music in their videos. When they do, Audiam gets you paid

        WIthout Audiam, you cannot autorize YouTube to place ads on these fan videos

        Right now, any video on YouTube that has your music in it that is not your own is not making you money. I want it to, and I want to get you that money


        • Visitor

          “What you state is not correct”

          Sure it is.

          Let us take it point by point:

          1) Yes, you will take 25% of the income I already generate from my own YouTube channel in return for 75% of the smaller amounts you may be able to hand over to me from unauthorized channels. That does in fact seem to be the core of your business model.

          2) Yes, everybody can easily monetize their own YouTube channels.

          3) Yes, the majority of money that can be made from YouTube comes from authorized uploads.

          4) No, Audiam does not seem to be of value to anybody, except you, in its present incarnation because 25% of the income from your customer’s own channels will exceed 75% of the income you may be able to get him from unauthorized uploads — unless he happens to be Psy.

          So, come again. Like I said, I truly appreciate your previous initiatives, but this is a work in progress.

          • crickets

            Funny silence.. after all Jeffs’ brewhaha thus far, he can’t answer this simple math problem with his company.

            Audiam: the biggest thing to line Jeff’s pockets since getting fired from his previous job… ALL on the back of you, Indie musician

            DO THE MATH

          • Jeff Price

            I would have answered sooner but I was too busy diving into Scrooge McDuck’s money bins

            That and the Virgin America flight I took from NY to San Fran

            I flew in couch but I heard rumor the plane flies faster in first.


          • Jeff Price

            I understand you are confused.
            You made up the fact that Audiam takes money from the view of your own videos. Thats what others do, not what Audiam does and part of the reason I started the company
            Im tired of other entities taking advantage of artists on YouTube and screwing them. Its one of the reasons I started the company
            Audiam gets you paid when your music is used on YouTube.
            If someone is covering one of your songs on YouTube, we will get your paid.
            If someone is using your recording in their video on YouTube, we will get you paid.
            With rare exception, artists are not able to get a deal with YouTube to monetize these videos.
            This is not the same as your own video.
            There is no up front cost to use the service; you can sign up and upload as many songs as you like.

            We also supply YouTube information allowing it to auto-generate buy links in iTunes, AmazonMP3 and Google Play for the music in the videos. These buy links appear just below the YouTube video.
            If you need to raise money for projects, you can now use YouTube like Kickstarter. Simply tell your fans to use your music in their YouTube videos. When they do, and the videos are watched, you’ll earn money.
            There are a lot of additional features coming shortly.
            I do understand from your posting that you see no value in finding videos on YouTube that have your music in them. Thats your choiche
            For other artists, I will find those videos and make sure they get paid
            Choiche is yours..

          • Visitor

            “You made up the fact that Audiam takes money from the view of your own videos. Thats what others do, not what Audiam does”

            That’s very good news, Jeff. Then I assume it is incorrect when your FAQ says that:

            You’re granting Audiam the right to exclusively represent your recordings (the Master) and lyrics and melody (the Composition) for YouTube for the world for twelve months

            Let us take an example, just to make sure:

            1) I upload a song on my own YouTube channel.

            2) Fans upload 10 unauthorized copies of the song.

            3) I grant you the rights to exclusively represent that song on YouTube.

            4) You take 25% of the income from the 10 unauthorized copies, but not one single cent of what I make from the same video on my own channel — though you don’t say so anywhere in your FAQ, and though you do have the rigths to exclusively represent it.

            Is that correct?

  35. Sure

    So Jeff, you will only commission the infringing user generated videos, and let your clients own video earnings flow thru 100%?

    • Come on Jeff

      Come on Jeff, answer this one and the one about TuneSat.

      • Jeff Price

        I freakin’ LOVE TuneSat.

        If I can do a deal with them to use their tech to find more videos on YouTube using an artists music, then I’ll do a deal with them

        Then we use both youTube’s tech and TuneSat’s tech to find even more videos

        And if I need to build a descriptive search tech to find even more, then that will be built as well

        The solutions are out there, and if they are not, Ill build them

        Make it easy, convienient, transparnet. Serve the artist. Get them more money, more quickly. Get them paid for the use of their music

        YouTube is currently the new frontier. Thats my focus

        If someone is covering one of your songs on YouTube, we will get you paid

        If soneone is using your recording in their video on YouTube, we will get your paid

        We are building features that you can opt into that can get even more people to use your music on YouTube and get you paid more.


    • Jeff Price

      well of course! Thats the whole point!

      The goal here is not to do what many of these other services have been doing to this point in time

      It makes no sense for anyone to insist that the artist give up revenue from views of their own videos on YouTube if the artist can make that money on their own.

      Anyone can become a YouTube partner and make money on their own videos. But what about the billions of views on other videos NOT uploaded by you

      You deserve to get paid for those as well – and thats what Audiam does

      If anyone asks to make money off your own videos, they need to provide a justification, not take the rights because they can or hope they can sneak something by you.

      Transparency, value and service. That’s the new industry

      Serve the artist, dont exploit them.


      • Visitor

        “It makes no sense for anyone to insist that the artist give up revenue from views of their own videos on YouTube if the artist can make that money on their own.”

        It sure doesn’t.

        And again: If you don’t take 25% of the income from the artist’s own YouTube channel, you should say so in your FAQ.

        It makes all the difference.

        • Jeff Price

          You know, we didnt think we needed to state that. It was just one of those things we thought was a “gimmie”

          But You are right. We should state and we will. Adding it to the FAQ

          probably going to add some new language to the hompage as well


          • Content ID

            You should not commission native YT Content ID matches either. Just commission the stuff you discover outside what YT already provides.

          • Jeff Price

            we do that too, but this assumes you have access to Content ID

            99% of the world’s artists do not have access to Content ID nor can they get the agreements neededd to get that access

            If someone is covering one of your songs or using your recording in their video on YouTube, we will get you paid.


          • Visitor

            “Adding it to the FAQ”

            Great, Jeff.

            I have learned the hard way to be cautious if people ask me to grant them the rights to exclusively represent my stuff anywhere.

            But, like I said, this makes all the difference so I’m very interested in your project now.

          • Visitor

            Hm, I still don’t understand this paragraph from your TOS:

            “We will pay you one hundred percent (100%) of all Net Sums (defined below) that we receive in respect of DRA Claims of your Works hereunder, and seventy-five percent (75%) of all Net Sums that we receive in respect of all other uses of your Works (i.e., FROM YOUR CHANNELS, YouTube Claims, YouTube Licensing and Digital Licensing)”

            As far as I can see, it means that you do take 25% of the income from my own channels?

  36. Anonymous

    My Name is Mary Lou Sonmor, I am a former Award Winning, CANADIAN Singer/Songwriter. I would like to know why MY MUSIC that is posted on You Tube, and YOUR COMPANY (Audiam) HAS A COPYRIGHT DISPUTE about MY MUSIC on You Tube?
    I know who you think you are, BUT you have nothing to do with my music. Please dismiss the claims against my material it is all legally registered with copyright agencies throughout North America. Most of it was released World Wide. Some of it is just studio demos, and a couple are just raw demos. I have the original Recording Contracts and Publishing Agreements to prove it.

    Please contact me at e-mail: mlsonmor@yahoo.ca

  37. Tim

    The whole system has screwed up, because of music industry greed. I buy royalty free music with the correct permissions to use with You Tube videos, I upload the video using this music only to be faced with a “Matched Third Party Content” notice. I appeal and the claimant releases their appeal, now the video can be monetized on You Tube. What’s wrong with that. I have spent too much time sorting out, then posting my appeal. Each appeal takes around an hour to dispute, getting the correct written permission and generally making sure the content of the appeal is correct. Now I am getting fed up with this procedure, so I stop uploading to You Tube, now I have no need to buy royalty free music, saving myself £200 – £300 a year. Wow the people of the music industry are unbelievably stupid. GROW UP AND SORT YOUR INDUSTRY OUT. PS I have appealed more than 50 videos now, on every occasion the claims were released.