There's a catch 22 with channel trailers. Twitch prompts you to have a trailer, but can only use video stored on Twitch - and uploads & VOD storage is blocked for DJs. In other words DJs cannot use channel trailers because there's no way to store a trailer.
I stream on twitch. Have done for 5 years. It all depends on what the rest of the program looks like? Taking half my money is fine if they help to double my money with discovery etc. I don’t live of twitch but at the same time I invest a lot more effort into twitch than I really should if you look at the rewards, so I just hope they put the effort in to support DJs.
I feel this as well. A lot of time & and hard work put into my channel. It doesn't feel fair off the bat, but hopefully they can clarify and hopefully better discoverability.
They arent taking 50% though. Its not 50/50 revenue split like the rumour going around (and this video also says... sigh..); its Twitch paying half of the royalties. This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50. Repeating myself for the people in the back row... hope it helps!
It could work if they implement a flat monthly fee for the smaller audience streaming DJs and then if the channel grows a major viewership and monetization an percentage fee is added as well
What about if DJs who are also producers, want to do producer sets only playing their own music? Especially if they're just getting started and their music is unreleased, so nobody else owns the rights to it. I think they should gain the full benefits as it's their own work
In their FAQ Twitch says you need to make a separate channel that is not designated as a DJ channel if you want to do this. You would only be able to play your own music, and no commercially licensed music, on that channel.
people should be able to buy music on beatport, beatsource etc. with a license fee built in for djs.. even if a track would cost 25% or a dollar more or whatever... most people go to these websites to get music for their sets.. make it more expensive but make it legal
50% is highway robbery a broadcast license usually runs between 3 and 500 a year for an individual This is going to gut the DJ's that do this for a living.
50% of an as-yet unspecified amount - we accidentally misled you there due to misunderstanding the PR (which was to be honest unclear in the first place).
@@digitaldjtips the amount should be disclosed, what's to stop them from just having djs pay the whole bill? It all seems very dodgy, eebethr fact that they're going taper the cost just says to me thry know it's bad
@@scratchgonzo Exactly. They haven't been transparent and that leads to us imagining the worst. They are the venue and should shoulder 100% of the costs, not pass it off on the hardworking DJ's who already make so little.
I am vinyl only DJ and the fact that i already purchased the music and being double dipped charged again is BS. I have yet to upload to twitch, even though I don’t make money on YT or Rmble, no one should be double paying. I should be able to make money online for arranging and mixing other artists vinyl tracks if i already bought the physical copies no different than making a couple hundred bucks at a club/small venue. Just a thought…
@DJ_24K well i have yet to use twitch once so i dont know you but i believe you for sure! I have a massive 100k collection of classic trance/techno/house vinyl from 92-07. Only one vinyl in my collection past 07 lol. But i refuse to pay more than i already have. Plus vinyl purchases now vs when they released 20-30+ yrs ago are for the most part alot more money. Trust me when i say I greatly understand how much BS that is esp for vinyl DJs. VINYL4LIFE 🐉☁️
I have to disagree, as someone who came up on vinyl and made the switch to digital in 2004. Like or not, any public performance of this music where you get paid means you have to pay royalties. This has been the way the world has worked even before streaming. Venues would be paying these fees, especially if they're pulling in large crowds. I think it's fair if you're not monetizing, that you can do it all with no payment, but if you're trying to make money off other people's music, then you have to share. Just because you paid money for a vinyl or MP3, it legally only means you paid for a copy for you to enjoy on your own, not to publicly play to others who didn't pay for that song. We can get as mad as we want and scapegoat big tech or big labels, but in the long run if artists are not making anything off their work, then they'll likely quit, and then DJs will complain how there's no good music anymore. The interesting challenge of the future would be if a label used AI to fully generate a tune and put it out, then others figure out prompts to generate that tune on their own. Can they still claim copyright? Many things are showing that AI-created stuff won't be easily copyrighted. Regardless, there will never be a 100% free and unregulated space for DJs to play music and make money off their DJ performances. There will never be some site/service where you livestream, record, upload, make money, and not have to pay a fee or give up some of that monetization.
@@AlexMoschopoulos i just mentioned that i have back yard block parties that i get 100% of the money, i do not use digital format, i use vinyl and already paid for the music. Not only that, when i get around to producing my own music they will also be on vinyl. But when i DJ online i do not make money, am not monitized. If not monetized and being charged again for vinyl i bought already is double dipping, thats what im referring to.
@@djLovelyTime when at the clubs/bars i get paid cash, i assume that the royalties are paid by the venue and gets taken off the top of the artists playing the gig. Considering i only get paid a couple hundred bucks everytime its not major. Hosting my own back yard block parties with cookouts and kegs, i get 100% of the cash every time.
I feel the same way I’ve always felt. It’s free exposure for their songs. I’ve never thought a person with x amount of followers should get to stream live vs a newer channel. At that point, the platform is crushing (for lack of a better word) a smaller channel because the smaller channel at that moment doesn’t have the exposure of a channel of say, Jazzy Jeff level. The Jazzy Jeff channels will already get the benefits for having a huge name like that and will benefit from it. It seems like things like RUclips and Twitch have gotten too big and it’s crazy difficult to bring our passion to many people if we don’t already have a large following to start with. Now, I’ll admit, I am biased because I don’t have a large fan base but unless I have tons of cleavage showing it seems like too much of an up hill battle to keep going. I’m sure the replies to this will be do better etc. but if we can’t even get started, what’s the point? I’ll still record videos for family and friends and the record companies will get nothing.
I'm all for the artists who created the music getting more of the revenue... BUT it looks like this is just going to make Twitch and the record labels more money... I may be wrong but the artists normally get shafted...
I am not a DJ (mad respect for the work put in), but i am a mod for a house music DJ who has his own record labels and works on tracks he likes to feature before it is released while we livestream. We stream on Twitch. I'm not too sure anymore about this news. We are exploring other options such as Kick and back to Mixcloud (we tried it back a few years back and wish they improved livestream options and features). My question is if known DJ'S like Morales and Vega, Jazzy Jeff who stream on Twitch and say on their channels they are working on a track that is still in progress, how does it work for them? First it was twitch stories, then it was check out smaller channels catagory, but with this, you have to be affiliates, and discoverability is very scarce for smaller channels. They are disabling VODs, clips, and highlights. How is this going to work? We cannot even promote other links while streaming and encourage only Twitch audience to like and follow. This is from a mods perspective, i feel for those smaller channels who have worked hard to build a community to only have all these rules. I know i am not an expert, but i do not want someone's channel taken down because of certain caveats. It is a very mixed feeling as well from other independent DJ/artists I have spoken to.
Interesting points. I kinda see this as a "top of funnel" to lead into our other platforms, but you're saying you can't link within the chat? Can you monetise through subscriptions etc? Hopefully this evolves to where it can work for both DJ's and Labels as it's a lot of work from the DJ's end.
@@OOTOPOPUP for Twitch you have to have a certain amount of subs in order to be affiliate, or partner. I believe it is 50 or maybe now 60. The bits, cheers, and subs is how you get "paid", I know some DJ's put their venmo, cash app, or paypal as lower thirds or in their about section to receive tips. when I mean by link in chat, Twitch had posted something a while back to those who multi stream are not allowed to say or post other streaming links in their chat or say it. I think they just want everyone to not direct others to other streaming apps, like Kick, or Mixcloud. the links can be put in the bio, but not said live on the stream. I wrote to Mixcloud suggesting to improve their chat features and did the same with RUclips because as a Mod, that is important for the channel. This past week (Aug 8th) , we looked at the DJ category and the smaller streamers were hard to find, We can only see how it goes, but I know several who will not opt in to this and play it by ear. Those that uploaded their streams to VOD's will probably redirect it to RUclips and figure out a creative way to say it live.
I've covered this on my channel. Since most Twitch DJs build viewership, leaving only to start from scratch on another platform would not be wise. I plan on doing a followup once I know more and actually using the DJ program on Twitch but leaving the platform is not an option.
No. It's the punters you are playing TO that haven't paid anything and the recording artists want something from them, Amazon will take some of their donations from Twich and give it to the recording artists.
@@wavespeech1973exactly - the music you buy is for personal use only. You don’t have the right to play it in a commercial or public space without obtaining the necessary licences and paying the appropriate parties (songwriters, publishers, record labels, etc.)
I stream on Twich. Just a small channel, this does not sound good to me. I've recently started djing the odd stream on KICK. But starting over is tough.
I DJ at clubs. The clubs (as the venue) pay the licence fees so DJ's can play the tunes. In this case Twitch is the "venue" so they should be paying those fees as well. After all, they profit from us immensely.
Personally I’m super excited about this. I think the growth potential could be game changing, once we’re no longer in that weird “grey area” as you put it. This could mean that DJs will finally be recognized at the awards show, be allowed to host panels at Twitchcon, etc. I sympathize with those worried about losing revenue. However, this could lead to us pulling in more revenue than we could’ve imagined in the future.
Record labels (major and minor/indie, but mostly major) still believe music has the same worth for people as in the time of physical carriers (Vinyl, Cassette, CD etc). It doesnt. And that is why this will fail miserably. On one side you have Twitch here saying; this has potential. On the other side the record labels are screaming: GIVE ME MONEY! I never once met an artist that wasnt thankful of playing his/her music. Mixcloud = Failed Hearthis = Failing Every initiative that teams up with Major record labels WILL fail. The only alternative is YT. Forced ads for money for the major labels. The labels, not the artist. If you meet one, just ask how many revenue they recieve from streaming (YT, Spotify etc) and how much revenue they have from label related income. You will be hearing "Im not quitting my dayjob soon" a lot. Everywhere you look the major record labels try to get as much money out of it as they can. Fair play. But just don't be disappointed that they will become obsolete in the (near) future.
Mate, of course people are only making x amount for their music on Spotify etc. If I pay 10 euro a month and listen to 1000 songs (which I do) - the maximum amount Spotify can pay the artists is 1 cent per song. And that’s not taking into consideration the corporate elements of the company - they have to pay people’s salaries and everything else. So if a song gets played 1,000,000 times, the maximum amount they can make off this is 1,000 euro. Then split this 50/50 between songwriting and recording. The further split this for the multiple songwriters on each song. Then take into consideration that they can’t even give 1,000 euro for this because Spotify also run a company. So you’re talking maybe €500. Then split that all up and for a song that gets 1,000,000 streams a songwriter might only make €100. If you look at the old model - 1,000,000 records sold was most likely close to €10,000,000. Split this equally between everyone and your most likely looking at around €1,000,000 each. It’s the nature of the business. The alternative is that people download all their music for free and the artists and songwriters get nothing.
I've been a live stream on twitch for a while now. Started with a game known as Twitch Sings, which was essentially karaoke. The community was huge. But that got shut down when the record labels pulled their licensing for the game. They even went so far as to delete everyone's vods. It was pretty devastating all around. It would be nice if the record companies would play ball with streamers. Up to this point they have been demanding network television style broadcast fees for streamers. Obviously very very few people can afford that. The reality is if there was some sort of streaming service or subscription pool for streamers to use, I think they would pay for it. as long as the fees were affordable of course.
There are some interesting points here: Twitch WILL be coming after copyrighted content very aggressively now that an agreement with the record labels is in place. Twitch will not allow channels to stay unmonetized, saying that if their affiliate program is offered to you, you are expected to join or be removed from the DJ program - opening you back up to their copyright strikes.
@@mystixa From their FAQ: "DJs who haven’t yet qualified for Twitch monetization programs will not be impacted financially. Twitch is covering the costs associated with non-monetizing DJs. As you grow and are offered access to the Twitch Affiliate Program you will be expected to join the program if you wish to continue DJ streaming." Pay attention to that last bit - you will be expected to join the [affiliate] program if you want to continue DJ streaming. This means that channels WILL be monetized if they wish to continue being covered by the program, otherwise you will be copyright struck.
@@AlphablueOfficial I guess they will even close the channel. You will get an email with a reminder that you have to file your affiliate and if you don't react your channel gets closed.
NO ONE is talking about the restrictions that will go into effect with this change. Read the fine print people. No more clips, no more VODs because in Twitch's own words: 'VODs, Clips and Highlights involve different rights than live streams.' Read this again. It also means if you're playing Music Videos on your stream now, you WILL get taken down by Twitch. The REAL kicker is "Do Not Play Pre-Release Music." At one time, a very long time ago, Club DJs and DJs as a whole were the 'first play/first heard' avenue for the masses. But the Industry (Record Labels) did away with us. Now they're doing it again with Twitch. You can ONLY play what THEY have pre-approved as a release. Otherwise you (again) risk being muted, and up to termination of your account. Any ZipDJ users in here? Do your homework. White Labels and Bootlegs are NOT approved. Finally, but most importantly -the artists are the LAST to get paid once their work has been signed over to a label. (Why do you think so many have left the industry?) It's the GREEDY industry execs who are first in line to receive the cash.
This will be part of the negotiations with the record companies. What remains to be seen is how it actually plays out in reality. VODs have always been an issue on Twitch, which we stated in the piece. Currently, you risk being muted for everything of course.
@@aaronwebb1847 I think if you play stuff outside of it you should be fine. It’s just at your own risk. But it has always bin at our own risk. How can twitch flag songs it doesn’t know
Years ago I used to buy records 3 of each , to spin and one for back up , then they tried to tax me for playing them at a club so I stopped buying albums altogether .enough is enough!
Paying for the song on Beatport should grant you a licence to play the song on twitch. As it stands, we'd pay for the file, then pay again for the stream, then potentially pay again again if we want people to catch the replay...
No it shouldn’t. It’s only a few quid for a track on beatport. It’s hardly enough money to grant u a license to make as much money as you can squeeze out of their work.
@@Surgeeon Why else are you paying for it when you can stream it for nothing? Yes, out of wanting to support the artist, but it's still dick all a return for them, particularly when you consider splits. You, the DJ, pay for the file, because you want to be able to mix it. That in itself seems like it would make sense to include a license of some sort because most DJs will broadcast it to other people at some point.
What im more concerned about is the restriction on playing bootlegs or unreleased music, if their system works like youtube then you might get shut down mid stream for playing a blootleg you got off of soundcloud.
Also depending on how the new system they use works you might get flagged for mixing two songs at once. I uploaded a test mix on RUclips and played bridged by a lightwave by deadmau5 and mixed it with another song and it flagged it as an unreleased song. So it will really depends on how strict they are going to make it. Hell I would almost go out of the way as to avoid acapella mixing as to avoid the system false flagging you.
I don't have the answer to that - I don't think Twitch do 100% at the moment either judging on the vagueness in the PR. We'll let you know once it becomes clearer to us!
It's a positive move forward... And creating a second channel for DJ ing shouldn't be a big problem... I just use my existing channel just for DJing anyway, if I use it for gaming it would be a one off.
My twitch channel is affiliated so I am monetised but im small fry ( hardhouse dj) so only make about £100 quid a year from it . I don't do it for the money at all I only affiliated so my followers could get the benifits , emotes etc I play the least amount of adverts I can get away with (3mins at the beginning on my going live screen and then no more at all while I'm djing ). I'm OK with this it just means I loose 50 % of my tiny amount of twitch revenue. If I was getting billed by twitch it would be a differant matter but it's money I never intended to earn and I still get 50% of it so it's fine and now I'm legal
So ya know even with 3min ads at start of your stream, Twitch still runs ads the rest of stream! Its not like you do 3 min and then no ads the rest of stream ✌
Commendable. Just think there are ladies licking mics full time as a daily grind on there. I just want to cut loose, have some fun, and spin some tunes once in a while. I have a day job lol.
They arent taking 50% though. Its not 50/50 revenue split like the rumour going around (and this video also says...); its Twitch paying half of the royalties. This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50. Repeating myself for the people in the back row... hope it helps!
hey bro could you please explain this twitch dj update in details please because i went to try it out on twitch after watching your video and my dj mix got muted in alot of sections that it actually spoiled the mix.
The announcement references access to millions of songs. So we're restricted to Amazon's music catalog? What about music DJ's purchased and own 20 years ago including vinyl? We have to pay to play what we already paid to play?
@DJ_24K Double jeapardy isn't what you think it is. That only means that you can't be taken to criminal court 2x for the exact same time (mostly in the US). It has nothing to do with any civil law or copyright. I agree however that the double-dipping off DJs is not good or necessary.
You don't own the music and the music you bought on a medium is only for your personal use. You have always to pay again when you want to play this music to an audience. That's like this since 100 years.
We already paid by buying the songs and because of us playing people's music, these artists get exposure and the labels should get revenue from agencies like Ascap and BUMA GEMA STEMRA etc. Streaming platforms should make a deal with them. Once again the expenses are being dumped on us for the fact that we help keep an already dying music industry alive. Record labels need to modernize their outdated systems. They need us not the other way round because we can also bootleg and not play their stuff online.
" the labels should get revenue from agencies like Ascap and BUMA GEMA STEMRA etc"" < This is the part Twitch have negotiated in the background, but as you are using the Twitch platform for free, you can hardly expect them to just pay it for you - I guess that would be their argument
@@digitaldjtips although that might ring true, we are still the ones doing the work on there so Twitch can put up ads (which they do and they're unstoppable ones as well) that they make revenue on. So technically, we're not users, we are the product and the workers and also are now being milked. I feel it would make more sense if twitch paid for the license and stuck with their ads system and offer you the choice to pay to get rid of the ads rather than stealing half your revenue that YOU work for to basically promote other artists (which labels benefit from as well).
Thanks for the video, nice to hear your views. But a HUGE thing that needs to be corrected - it's not 50% of the channel revenue. This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50. It would be great if a correction can go out about that - it really is stressing people out, when that's not what Twitch has said. Granted - they ALSO haven't said anything about how much the fees will be. I think having a legal framework to DJ and pay for the music used is great. The 2nd channel is unfortunate but I can see why they did it. I hope their efforts to promote DJing on Twitch are successful!
I originally thought it was 50% of all revenue until it was explained to me, and Twitch did a HORRIBLE job conveying this. A simple example could have made all this frustration significantly less.
@@digitaldjtips Yeah, lets hope! The issue is that theres this rumour going around and people are freaking out their revenue is being cut in half... and that's not happening. So correcting that as many places as possible is important! We want to grow the DJ category not lose people... hoping!
In the UK a licence fee, PRS is about £300 I think, which if you and Amazon pay 50/50 is better than 50% of your donations from the fans IF you're making decent money.
I personally do not stream label music, never faced DCMA, and have no plans to....so it just feels like I'm paying for djs that do and I'm being forced to. It just feels like they are shutting out smaller djs in favor for bigger djs who are not going to really be hurt by revenue cut. Frankly the djs who did endorse this program all have 100k+ followers and one docent even dj on twitch. (Steve Aoki) Honestly I don't feel I should be paying for djs who choose to play commercial music.
You can optionally show ads whch interrupt your stream for 30 seconds or more. People can also pay to subscribe your channel, or they can purcahse Twitch's custom currency called Bits which can be used to send a tip to a streamer, and in most cases Twitch takes a 50% commission.
Today I received my first warning email from Twitch, after playing some restricted tracks yesterday. It was basically a reminder that I shouldn't do it. Nothing more (at this stage anyway).
@digitaldjtips The video here "Its going up to 50% of your revenue" Isn't really what the announcements have indicated. To directly quote Twitch: "To cover the cost of the music used in DJ live-streams, we will set aside a portion of earnings generated by DJ channels to be paid to musicians via music companies that represent them. These costs will vary based on how a channel monetizes. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with the streamer, although initially Twitch will absorb more of the cost." So some revenue will be set aside AND there will be costs AND those costs will be split 50/50. That doesn't seem to logically add up to 'up to 50% of your revenue'. In all we don't know what the tally will be, but there isn't enough info available to really quantifiy it either maximally as was done here, or to minimize it.
Yes spotted this too. Incorrect information and one of the most important elements of this so important to get right. They haven’t specified what percentage they will take in total yet. Good video anyway 🎉
It's better than nothing though this agreement seems to me that the big labels get richer at the expense of everyone else. I've been streaming on twitch every week for 4 years now and 50% of my hard earned, meager payout is now going to be taken away. They don't care how long it took to build my audience, they don't care about the overhead to use music player software and start up costs for a proper studio, they don't care that I already purchased their music. They get theirs. Forget about ours. We're not even at the table. More needs to be done to free the DJ as opposed to penalize us. The Twitch pay structure was already shit. This may kill the community, we will see.
:-) Do you know what an artist gets for streams on Spotify or Apple music etc? We are talking about Cents per stream. I think 50% is a pretty good cut compared to the actually owners' income
3:50 That's not "fully" true about RUclips about the monetize warnings. I just started my new DJ channel on RUclips and I've already learned very quickly from experience. I've shared a couple of my of my sets with songs that are popular. I did get copyright warnings but, it said "no impact" on the video and it showed the record labels name and said "allowed" in my video. If you stick to certain songs it's okay. It takes some experimenting to figure it out. One hint I will mention is there is a lot of copy cat DJs out there playing on RUclips. They seem to be playing the same songs. There is a hint is in those songs that have been chosen. Someone has actually done their homework but, others have copied the homework not really understanding it.
We actually go into more detail about it here, there was no time to do so in this video www.digitaldjtips.com/3-vital-steps-for-djing-on-youtube-without-copyright-hassle/
@@digitaldjtips Wow! Thanks for the link to your other video. I wish I had that link last week when I started using popular songs. I had to do a lot of homework on my own and that link would have definitely helped me save a lot of work. After doing my homework I had an hour and a half mix that I uploaded and I removed the ones that told me they could not be monetized and my video was unlisted at the time. I redid the mix and replaced the song with a safer song and I got the copyright note but, when I looked at the tracks, all of them said no impact and that each record label was allowing the track to be used. Soon after I hit publish, my video gave me that Blocked warning like you showed in your video at this point ruclips.net/video/z3TxqV8A6uE/видео.htmlsi=UAVv69tYFkByuwyd&t=223 but, I couldn't open anything to see what song caused it and I couldn't unblock it or edit it. I myself can still see and hear the full mix but, anybody I share the link with can't see the video. I think there is a limit of no impact warnings and the number is probably 15 or 20 No Impact warning limit. I tried a 2nd time to upload the same mix and again I got no impact notes in each song and the labels all said allowed and it played for me and I was able to share the unlisted link with friends and it played fror them but, as soon as I published it, it got blocked Worldwide and no e-mail messages were sent to me after it got blocked. The way things get blocked it probably different in every Country. I'm in the U.S. here. I cut my same mix down to 58 minutes and 14 songs and it plays okay now but, it's a new channel and something is not right. Like I shared the links with my two Facebook pages and my Facebook Friends and Twitter and it only shows five views on one video and 7 on the other video and I doubt that view number is wrong. I actually, refreshed my page today and saw my view of 7 views that I watched for two days drop down to six views. The tracks before that gave me the warning that they could not be monetized, I will give everyone the tip here but, not fully blurt out the record label. There is one label that is pretty strict. Note the labels from the tracks that say you can not monetize it and stay away from other artists that are protected by the label. Find the ones that so No Impact and show the labels allowing us to play their track and take note of what record labels they are on and try to find other artists under that same label. Other than that, I have made two Royalty Free hour mixes of Electronic Music that I put up the CC for each song on one because I got it from an external site that I got the Royalty Free Songs from asked us to post the CC for their songs and that was for my 2nd mix. For my 1st Royalty Free Mix that I uploaded, I went through about 900 Electronic tracks from the RUclips Studio and I played an hour of what I liked. Both came out fine on RUclips but, I also played the same songs on Twitch and 3 got muted on each of my two electronic livestream shows with no explanation. It's all experimentation!
In Cyber Security they call this a "Honeypot" Everyone that is attracted to this option and registers. Now they have a list to pursue lost revenues from your gigs, and events. 🤔
How much longer do we have until record labels start demanding a portion of our earnings from any and every gig? Seriously, what is the difference between me doing a set on Twitch or a wedding or a club? I’m “making money off other peoples music” at all 3. At some point the DJ community has to put its foot down.
Clubs and bars ( and gyms , dance schools ) do already pay a licensing fee If your a Wedding DJ you should be paying a public broadcasting license Bigger Wedding venues do have that license covered
@@MrJustjuiced So they charge the venue and not the DJ? Wow, I legitimately did not know that. Like you said though, a lot of smaller venues and backyard weddings definitely aren’t getting these licenses, does that mean we as DJ’s are supposed to pay for them?
@@djhoodedwolfwell i can set my equipment up in my back yard and have a block party, cover charge for the cookout/keg/drinks $10 and i do not have liscence like clubs or bars. Thats direct cash for me and exactly how it should be. I am vinyl only DJ and already paid for the physical records, double dipping is BS.
Well, news that the major labels are broke has been circulating the past week or so. So now this comes out, and confirms those rumors to be true. Great revenue stream for the major labels, hence the 50% cut. THEY NEED MONEY, DJs will get a small cut.
Hmmmm labels aren’t that broke and Dj’s streaming on twitch is not going to be a huge driver honestly. I think it’s really cool there’s some wiggle room for Dj’s. But in general labels will always go for the biggest percentage they can get. I mean they take over 50% of what Spotify makes per stream 😂
@@BenCaesar I guess all the credible channels who spoke on labels going broke are wrong and I should take what Ben says as truth. Labels wouldn’t have opened this up if it wasn’t going to drive their income up a lot. Same as weed in the US, the government only made it legal once they figured out how to make money from it, it’s that simple.
I wonder how a 'DJ' channel works if it's available to be monetized but nobody gives you any money? And are they going to remove and DJ's from 'Music Channel'
We already pay for the music in record pools. So now we're paying twice. If Twitch advertises and it increases our viewers and money then it's good. If Twitch platform doesn't grow then it's bad. Only time will tell.
It's absolutely ludicrous that they they think they can take 75% of our earnings. The money that we need to pay should come out of the 50% they are already taking!
@@digitaldjtips they already take 50% so anything they give to the record labels is coming from the remaining 50% it should be some sort of flat fee for everyone, people are going to be paying out well more than what a performance licence would cost.
I’ve never streamed on Twitch, but I have on Mixcloud. I still have a paid subscription to Mixcloud and live stream when I can. I don’t see a problem paying to stay legal. Artists need to get paid for their work, full disclosure, I produce music myself.
Twitch gatekeepers stopping new artists getting promoted. Double dipping those who already paid for the music they play. It's a rubbish idea & based on bloated labels greed, as if they don't have enough. They will regret doing this.
Double dipping? Nonsense. When you buy music, you're paying for the right to listen to it, not the right to broadcast it. That's a different situation.
Since joining the program, I haven't seen an increase in subs or bits so not sure it's really worth it. I would really like Twitch to be very transparent on what these fees from the licensing costs will be. How is it determined and what factors exactly determine what each channels fees will be? By not being open and providing this information publically, or at least through our dashboard or an email, it's leaving too much to speculation which is causing bad feeling all around. And as I've mentioned before in other comments on this thread, Twitch is the venue in this case, and should shoulder the costs of the licensing fees. They already profit from us by their cut from bits/subs/ads, they should use that profit to pay those fees, just as nightclubs/venues do with in-person DJ gigs.
What about if you use and pay for music streaming services like Beatport or Tidal as effectively you are paying to use their dj subscription with the music already so if they charge you on top, to me its double dipping
@@digitaldjtips Interesting. I had a look at both T&Cs and they say for personal use only. So if twitch wants to charge you, does that automatically mean that you are allowed to do it publicly (on twitch) using said streaming services?
Less likely to stream and watch. There is no way everything played on Twitch in the NON-MAINSTREAM music genres is going to be represented by major labels. We all like deep cuts and not the same old stuff on every channel, which is what Twitch will probably end up being with their approved "catalogue". Also there is no clarity about playing music videos that have been acquired through legal subscriptions, which will affect many.
@@digitaldjtips I understand that... but I doubt they will cover Goth, DarkWave, FuturePop, EBM, SynthPop, ShoeGaze, Deep 80s-90s cuts, bootlegs, remixes and small Indie/emerging artists appropriately for the community on Twitch that is not mainstream, but I hope they prove me wrong
I mean if all you're doing is mixing for like the last 16 bars and letting the whole entire song play before doing that again 50% makes sense. If you're doing a bunch of blending and creating new Sonic soundscapes that have never been heard before then 50% for the record labels is ridiculous.
Been doing this about once a week for nearly eight years on Twitch (more if you count Chew and RUclips before it). Never gathered enough audience to monetize and honestly couldn't care. I still get mutes in the VODs from mostly new crap, yet RUclips and SoundCloud are both able to sort it out...Thankfully this doesn't affect me or my channel right now, but it could get more annoying soon enough...At this point I can understand why I have bigger audiences on other platforms for the replays. lol
of course this was always gonna happen eventually. i see no issue really as radio/tv/film have to pay royalties etc but 50%?? twitch already rakes 50% of bits and subs, so it would be interesting to see what percentage of the 100% they rake now... or would it be 33.% of the rake?
I stream music to entertain a small amount friends, I make no money with twitch.Nor I record anything. Am i safe to play without joining the DJ Program?
When I had my internet radio station, I paid $60 a month to a service that in turn paid ASCAP/BMI for the legal right to stream 24/7, that seemed fair. I had to stop when they raised it to $600 a month, that’s not including the actual streaming service. Believe me, whatever Twitch charge, it will be better fair, it’s not than the deals we were dealt.
I have been streaming on Twitch... I wont monotize that channel. It has not never been my plan. Future will show that what will happen to my channel :D
@@digitaldjtips It will be my next step if they tpuch no monotized accounts.. But our listeners are in twitch. Mixcloud just have to do little better things... Also this can be straight for Mixcloud also. Time will show
Agreed we need to pay royalties, but 50% is too steep. 30% is more reasonable. As far as Mixcloud goes, you get next to nothing for a storage facility. You need 100 subscribers who pay $3/mth to make $660 a year after fees. I would trade off the storage for higher monetisation. Especially as the local scenes are shrinking globally and this is another way to get your mixing seen.
I really hope they allow the DJ to play ANYTHING during live stream and the Twitch DJ Channel will have a BOT that automates the ad revenue directly to the song's artist based on live viewers.
I did stream on twitch but the whole thing about not having a catalog turned me off ,but now, I think I will return and just treat it like a radio show, once it’s gone it’s gone. Obviously I will record the sets through other means and post it somewhere. Really quick, what do you know about radio head and is that another option for djs to be heard build a following etc.? 🤲🏾🙏🏾✌🏾🫵🏾 and the entire ddt team! Also, have you ever discussed EPKs? Your thoughts?🙏🏾🫵🏾again🫡
So explain to me how a DJ like Jazzy Jeff live streams on RUclips 2-3 times a week and doesn’t get taken down. ( yes , there have been a few times during a set it has been stopped but it’s rarely happened and he’s back up in a matter of minutes meanwhile I’ve tried and have been taken down in a half hour!)
@@digitaldjtips Technically speaking, as I mentioned in my previous comment when this was first announced (on your channel), this situation is already the case with Twitch. Twitch has never blocked live streams, only VODs. They have essentially made it legal to stream, which was never really stopped before. Even the record industry couldn’t do much about it because any copyright issues would arise only after the stream ended and was saved as a VOD. This is why platforms like Facebook (and to some extent RUclips) have been blocking live streams in real-time-they want the videos to remain, as their business model is based on videos rather than streaming. They aim to have copyright-clean videos, whereas Twitch hasn’t prioritized this as much. In essence, this new deal changes absolutely nothing from the current state of affairs. I said it before.... this just confirms it...Take Michael Gray as an example-he streams almost every week and never leaves a trace of those streams once they end. The difference now is that it's official, and they're taking half of those big streamers' earnings, as opposed to charging them nothing before. In other words, streamers will now pay more for the same thing.
@@DocFUNKist keep reading: if you don't opt in to this new program: "If channels engage in the following activity without authorization, issue a warning for each first offense and penalties (“music reporting penalties”) for subsequent offenses. Channels that accumulate three music reporting penalties, in addition to the first warning, for any of these categories will be terminated.... * May also result in Twitch ending the live stream engaged in such activity and imposing a 48-hour suspension." That last statement verifies the same technology used by FB and YT will now be a part of Twitch.
@@thatdjtroy Yes it's fine but once signed in, you will end up with what's exactly is available today... (while sharing your earnings)... it's like Tidal... No Stems no more... then PAY MORE... stems again... same principle... just pinch more money
why is the industry not letting us look at copyright licenses like in a database that would end this big issue once in for all.... we need a app or website so we can look up the copyright license holder and get in touch so we wont have silly arguments that have dreaded music for decades, its not the 60s anymore
You don't need to look it up. In the US are three main labels you have to have a contract with. In Germany it is the Gema. I think GB also only have one. So pure theoretically and picky you would need to make a contract in every country of the world because you could have audience all over the world. What Twotch does is only to their favor. The streamer is not covered at all with it
"Do Not Play Pre-Release Music Our program does not allow you to stream pre-release tracks (music that is not yet released to the public on a digital music service or in physical media). If you stream pre-release tracks, your channel may be subject to enforcement and penalties including termination of your stream and suspension of your channel" Do they not understand how the music promotion side of DJ-ing works? Fuck me
Let's take a breath, I too share this frustration. This is something being brought up at the Twitch DJ webinar next week. I think some middle ground on this can be made. But we shall see. To me DJing is an 'underground' culture. Having unreleased pocket tracks is half the fun in it all.
@@houstoner Yea. Well not just '1/2 the fun' but a good percentage of the business as well. There has always been a bit of collecting treasured tracks or using contacts to have access to music just a bit before the puiblic. If all DJs can do is play whats available on digital streaming services and the like it removes 1 more pillar of what it is that keeps the position of DJing a special one. Producers are on the one hand trying to show the unfairness of the likes of Spotify, while pushing Twitch to enshrine corporations like that to be the ultimate arbiter of what can be played and when.
@@wavespeech1973 yea perhaps. No one publicly knows the details on how specific the program is going to be. Is there going to be live monitoring, live song-id, some kind of track submission process, or is it going to be similar to how we do it now which is more freeform. Heres hoping its closer to the latter, as most platforms put it on the copyright holder to hunt down the posts that would need DMCAd & hopefully we can rely on the breadth of their agreements to catch most everything like Mixcloud does.
Our role as DJs is to promote artists' tracks by including them in our sets, thereby increasing their visibility and listenership. However, it is concerning that we may now be required to pay to promote the same music that we have already purchased. This raises questions about the equitable distribution of revenue within the music industry.
i feel the same way + twitch earn alot from the Dj's that stream there! they should pay the fee's not take more from us lol.... Its stupid im gonna say it as it is over the span of 3 years i have spent over 2-3k on twitch subs bits w/e over those 3years i have "Earned" about 1K give or take.... so they are telling me i'd have earned only half of that? xD what a joke :p I Emailed them to leave the affiliate program.
You could say the same when you DJ at a club but the truth is the club has to pay ASCAP or Sony or whoever for those rights since the club is generating revenue from the music played (other ways too). So the same goes for an individual DJ.
I don't know. I think it's fair if the hobbyist who wants to build an audience can play without paying anything, and those who build up a bigger audience and want to monetize now have to share. We can go on an on about how we bought the music, but this is how the music industry has worked forever. However, I'm wondering how it's going to work. Do we have to submit playlists so the actual artists get paid? Or they just take a cut and divvy it up to everyone? I've been thinking about livestreaming, but consistency is still my big problem. I might just try anyway even if it means I'm only going live every few weeks. Just need life to calm down sometimes.
YT was working on something similar, where creators, not specifically djs, could play music and just pay part of the revenue as royalties instead of the whole video being claimed. They wanted to compete with tiktok as it was at the time, but I've not heard about it in ages so the deals must have fell through.
Mostly its a good idea, there is just some confusion over the playing of pre-released music which could get your channel banned ... ie. if I play a bootleg/unofficial remix or an unreleased track
It's great news. Just cut down on the amount of videos I uploaded to RUclips from every week to once a month because it's just too much work for nothing. I'd rather give 50% of $100 than nothing at all... I'm doubling down an focusing on twitch for the next year
as someone who's been preparing to start dj'ing on twitch for months now, this couldn't have come at a better time. but i really feel for those who are making money already streaming dj sets. fucking sucks for them to lose half of their revenue
Try what out? What are you inspired by? Nothing has changed except that Twitch will take a cut of monetized money revenue and pay labels. Who then may or may not kick a couple of pennies over to the artists.
This is such a pro/con thing.... So if you've already bought the music why are you paying again, surely that's why we bought vinyl in the 90's to play. It's getting the same as taxes, buy something then get taxed from every angle to use what you have bought.
@@digitaldjtips Nice way to ignore the fact that most modern DJs subscribe to services that clear them to use tracks streamed for DJ'ing purposes. These services are usually trial bundled with DJ controller software. But just let the labels double dip. It's cool we see you.
What am I missing? I am seeing a LOT of DJs in the comments saying they like this and are "looking forward to it".... Looking forward to what exactly? I didn't see a single thing about this that actually benefits DJs in this announcement. What exactly are you looking forward to? The thing I would have have been looking forward to would have been if this applied to VODS. Then I could stream and host my VODs without muting all in one place. In this deal you are literally just losing money. That's it... That's the only change. It's fine to be glad about the money going to artists (it's not but let's pretend it is). But I'd still like to know what everyone is happy about besides that?
The lack of detail doesn’t garner any confidence or warm & fuzzies. You mention 50% of revenue - is that before or after Amazon takes their cut? You also mentioned licensing for nightclubs - which is paid for by the club owner. DJs aren’t required to carry an RIAA license to play. Amazon already takes a huge chunk of revenue from monetized streamers - which is also going up by $1/month in July. Twitch obviously has no clue how to handle this situation, and are waiting for the blowback in order to course-correct.
I think we were mistaken with the way the revenue is divided up which highlights how unclear all of this is so don’t take my word on it. Definitely doublecheck with twitch if you’re worried about that.
They arent taking 50% though. Its not 50/50 revenue split like the rumour going around (and this video will be updated I think to correct it); its Twitch paying half of the royalties. This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50. Repeating myself for the people in the back row... hope it helps!
There's a catch 22 with channel trailers. Twitch prompts you to have a trailer, but can only use video stored on Twitch - and uploads & VOD storage is blocked for DJs. In other words DJs cannot use channel trailers because there's no way to store a trailer.
I stream on twitch. Have done for 5 years. It all depends on what the rest of the program looks like? Taking half my money is fine if they help to double my money with discovery etc. I don’t live of twitch but at the same time I invest a lot more effort into twitch than I really should if you look at the rewards, so I just hope they put the effort in to support DJs.
You make a good point, and of course only time will tell
I feel this as well. A lot of time & and hard work put into my channel. It doesn't feel fair off the bat, but hopefully they can clarify and hopefully better discoverability.
They arent taking 50% though. Its not 50/50 revenue split like the rumour going around (and this video also says... sigh..); its Twitch paying half of the royalties.
This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50.
Repeating myself for the people in the back row... hope it helps!
It could work if they implement a flat monthly fee for the smaller audience streaming DJs and then if the channel grows a major viewership and monetization an percentage fee is added as well
Yeah, possibly!
With revenue share artists potentially get more money.
Thank you for sharing this news. It is an emotional overload to hear that finally a platform like twitch is allowing to play music. ❤❤❤❤❤
Yes ,many are pleased about this
What about if DJs who are also producers, want to do producer sets only playing their own music? Especially if they're just getting started and their music is unreleased, so nobody else owns the rights to it. I think they should gain the full benefits as it's their own work
In their FAQ Twitch says you need to make a separate channel that is not designated as a DJ channel if you want to do this. You would only be able to play your own music, and no commercially licensed music, on that channel.
@briandemodulated that's fantastic, I'm happy to hear there's a way to do this! Thank you 🙂
Gets a bit murky with samples though
@@djLovelyTimeyeah how do you think they’ll deal with that? If it doesn’t get flagged on twitch as copyright then you should be all good right?
people should be able to buy music on beatport, beatsource etc. with a license fee built in for djs.. even if a track would cost 25% or a dollar more or whatever... most people go to these websites to get music for their sets.. make it more expensive but make it legal
50% is highway robbery a broadcast license usually runs between 3 and 500 a year for an individual This is going to gut the DJ's that do this for a living.
50% of an as-yet unspecified amount - we accidentally misled you there due to misunderstanding the PR (which was to be honest unclear in the first place).
@@digitaldjtips the amount should be disclosed, what's to stop them from just having djs pay the whole bill? It all seems very dodgy, eebethr fact that they're going taper the cost just says to me thry know it's bad
@@scratchgonzo Exactly. They haven't been transparent and that leads to us imagining the worst. They are the venue and should shoulder 100% of the costs, not pass it off on the hardworking DJ's who already make so little.
I am vinyl only DJ and the fact that i already purchased the music and being double dipped charged again is BS. I have yet to upload to twitch, even though I don’t make money on YT or Rmble, no one should be double paying. I should be able to make money online for arranging and mixing other artists vinyl tracks if i already bought the physical copies no different than making a couple hundred bucks at a club/small venue. Just a thought…
@DJ_24K well i have yet to use twitch once so i dont know you but i believe you for sure! I have a massive 100k collection of classic trance/techno/house vinyl from 92-07. Only one vinyl in my collection past 07 lol. But i refuse to pay more than i already have. Plus vinyl purchases now vs when they released 20-30+ yrs ago are for the most part alot more money. Trust me when i say I greatly understand how much BS that is esp for vinyl DJs.
VINYL4LIFE 🐉☁️
And yet you go to DJ in a venue and the venue pays the PRS and doesn't charge you?
You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
I have to disagree, as someone who came up on vinyl and made the switch to digital in 2004.
Like or not, any public performance of this music where you get paid means you have to pay royalties. This has been the way the world has worked even before streaming. Venues would be paying these fees, especially if they're pulling in large crowds.
I think it's fair if you're not monetizing, that you can do it all with no payment, but if you're trying to make money off other people's music, then you have to share. Just because you paid money for a vinyl or MP3, it legally only means you paid for a copy for you to enjoy on your own, not to publicly play to others who didn't pay for that song.
We can get as mad as we want and scapegoat big tech or big labels, but in the long run if artists are not making anything off their work, then they'll likely quit, and then DJs will complain how there's no good music anymore.
The interesting challenge of the future would be if a label used AI to fully generate a tune and put it out, then others figure out prompts to generate that tune on their own. Can they still claim copyright? Many things are showing that AI-created stuff won't be easily copyrighted.
Regardless, there will never be a 100% free and unregulated space for DJs to play music and make money off their DJ performances. There will never be some site/service where you livestream, record, upload, make money, and not have to pay a fee or give up some of that monetization.
@@AlexMoschopoulos i just mentioned that i have back yard block parties that i get 100% of the money, i do not use digital format, i use vinyl and already paid for the music. Not only that, when i get around to producing my own music they will also be on vinyl.
But when i DJ online i do not make money, am not monitized. If not monetized and being charged again for vinyl i bought already is double dipping, thats what im referring to.
@@djLovelyTime when at the clubs/bars i get paid cash, i assume that the royalties are paid by the venue and gets taken off the top of the artists playing the gig. Considering i only get paid a couple hundred bucks everytime its not major. Hosting my own back yard block parties with cookouts and kegs, i get 100% of the cash every time.
I feel the same way I’ve always felt. It’s free exposure for their songs. I’ve never thought a person with x amount of followers should get to stream live vs a newer channel. At that point, the platform is crushing (for lack of a better word) a smaller channel because the smaller channel at that moment doesn’t have the exposure of a channel of say, Jazzy Jeff level. The Jazzy Jeff channels will already get the benefits for having a huge name like that and will benefit from it. It seems like things like RUclips and Twitch have gotten too big and it’s crazy difficult to bring our passion to many people if we don’t already have a large following to start with. Now, I’ll admit, I am biased because I don’t have a large fan base but unless I have tons of cleavage showing it seems like too much of an up hill battle to keep going. I’m sure the replies to this will be do better etc. but if we can’t even get started, what’s the point? I’ll still record videos for family and friends and the record companies will get nothing.
I'm all for the artists who created the music getting more of the revenue... BUT it looks like this is just going to make Twitch and the record labels more money... I may be wrong but the artists normally get shafted...
Sadly often true
I am not a DJ (mad respect for the work put in), but i am a mod for a house music DJ who has his own record labels and works on tracks he likes to feature before it is released while we livestream. We stream on Twitch. I'm not too sure anymore about this news. We are exploring other options such as Kick and back to Mixcloud (we tried it back a few years back and wish they improved livestream options and features). My question is if known DJ'S like Morales and Vega, Jazzy Jeff who stream on Twitch and say on their channels they are working on a track that is still in progress, how does it work for them? First it was twitch stories, then it was check out smaller channels catagory, but with this, you have to be affiliates, and discoverability is very scarce for smaller channels. They are disabling VODs, clips, and highlights. How is this going to work? We cannot even promote other links while streaming and encourage only Twitch audience to like and follow. This is from a mods perspective, i feel for those smaller channels who have worked hard to build a community to only have all these rules. I know i am not an expert, but i do not want someone's channel taken down because of certain caveats. It is a very mixed feeling as well from other independent DJ/artists I have spoken to.
All good questions but we have absolutely no idea until they roll it out. Please come back and share what you discover once they do!
Interesting points. I kinda see this as a "top of funnel" to lead into our other platforms, but you're saying you can't link within the chat? Can you monetise through subscriptions etc? Hopefully this evolves to where it can work for both DJ's and Labels as it's a lot of work from the DJ's end.
@@OOTOPOPUP for Twitch you have to have a certain amount of subs in order to be affiliate, or partner. I believe it is 50 or maybe now 60. The bits, cheers, and subs is how you get "paid", I know some DJ's put their venmo, cash app, or paypal as lower thirds or in their about section to receive tips. when I mean by link in chat, Twitch had posted something a while back to those who multi stream are not allowed to say or post other streaming links in their chat or say it. I think they just want everyone to not direct others to other streaming apps, like Kick, or Mixcloud. the links can be put in the bio, but not said live on the stream. I wrote to Mixcloud suggesting to improve their chat features and did the same with RUclips because as a Mod, that is important for the channel. This past week (Aug 8th) , we looked at the DJ category and the smaller streamers were hard to find, We can only see how it goes, but I know several who will not opt in to this and play it by ear. Those that uploaded their streams to VOD's will probably redirect it to RUclips and figure out a creative way to say it live.
I've covered this on my channel. Since most Twitch DJs build viewership, leaving only to start from scratch on another platform would not be wise. I plan on doing a followup once I know more and actually using the DJ program on Twitch but leaving the platform is not an option.
Agreed, where would you go?
Hmm what happens when a DJ who has already paid for DJ pools, won't that be double charging?
No. It's the punters you are playing TO that haven't paid anything and the recording artists want something from them, Amazon will take some of their donations from Twich and give it to the recording artists.
@@wavespeech1973exactly - the music you buy is for personal use only. You don’t have the right to play it in a commercial or public space without obtaining the necessary licences and paying the appropriate parties (songwriters, publishers, record labels, etc.)
I stream on Twich. Just a small channel, this does not sound good to me. I've recently started djing the odd stream on KICK. But starting over is tough.
Let's wait to see how it pans out
I DJ at clubs. The clubs (as the venue) pay the licence fees so DJ's can play the tunes. In this case Twitch is the "venue" so they should be paying those fees as well. After all, they profit from us immensely.
Personally I’m super excited about this. I think the growth potential could be game changing, once we’re no longer in that weird “grey area” as you put it. This could mean that DJs will finally be recognized at the awards show, be allowed to host panels at Twitchcon, etc. I sympathize with those worried about losing revenue. However, this could lead to us pulling in more revenue than we could’ve imagined in the future.
This is the thing I think people are overlooking, it can be treated with the respect and promotion that it will need to grow now
Record labels (major and minor/indie, but mostly major) still believe music has the same worth for people as in the time of physical carriers (Vinyl, Cassette, CD etc). It doesnt. And that is why this will fail miserably. On one side you have Twitch here saying; this has potential. On the other side the record labels are screaming: GIVE ME MONEY! I never once met an artist that wasnt thankful of playing his/her music.
Mixcloud = Failed
Hearthis = Failing
Every initiative that teams up with Major record labels WILL fail. The only alternative is YT. Forced ads for money for the major labels. The labels, not the artist. If you meet one, just ask how many revenue they recieve from streaming (YT, Spotify etc) and how much revenue they have from label related income. You will be hearing "Im not quitting my dayjob soon" a lot.
Everywhere you look the major record labels try to get as much money out of it as they can. Fair play. But just don't be disappointed that they will become obsolete in the (near) future.
Mate, of course people are only making x amount for their music on Spotify etc.
If I pay 10 euro a month and listen to 1000 songs (which I do) - the maximum amount Spotify can pay the artists is 1 cent per song.
And that’s not taking into consideration the corporate elements of the company - they have to pay people’s salaries and everything else.
So if a song gets played 1,000,000 times, the maximum amount they can make off this is 1,000 euro.
Then split this 50/50 between songwriting and recording.
The further split this for the multiple songwriters on each song.
Then take into consideration that they can’t even give 1,000 euro for this because Spotify also run a company.
So you’re talking maybe €500.
Then split that all up and for a song that gets 1,000,000 streams a songwriter might only make €100.
If you look at the old model - 1,000,000 records sold was most likely close to €10,000,000. Split this equally between everyone and your most likely looking at around €1,000,000 each.
It’s the nature of the business. The alternative is that people download all their music for free and the artists and songwriters get nothing.
I've been a live stream on twitch for a while now. Started with a game known as Twitch Sings, which was essentially karaoke. The community was huge. But that got shut down when the record labels pulled their licensing for the game. They even went so far as to delete everyone's vods. It was pretty devastating all around.
It would be nice if the record companies would play ball with streamers. Up to this point they have been demanding network television style broadcast fees for streamers. Obviously very very few people can afford that. The reality is if there was some sort of streaming service or subscription pool for streamers to use, I think they would pay for it. as long as the fees were affordable of course.
Good points
Entering DJ makes impossible recording VODS anymore. So those who done it only for an icon wonder how do you cancel that?
There are some interesting points here:
Twitch WILL be coming after copyrighted content very aggressively now that an agreement with the record labels is in place.
Twitch will not allow channels to stay unmonetized, saying that if their affiliate program is offered to you, you are expected to join or be removed from the DJ program - opening you back up to their copyright strikes.
I guess you're right there, we will see...
Thats incorrect. They state in the announcement that they will continue to cover the fees for non-monetized channels.
@@mystixa From their FAQ:
"DJs who haven’t yet qualified for Twitch monetization programs will not be impacted financially. Twitch is covering the costs associated with non-monetizing DJs. As you grow and are offered access to the Twitch Affiliate Program you will be expected to join the program if you wish to continue DJ streaming."
Pay attention to that last bit - you will be expected to join the [affiliate] program if you want to continue DJ streaming.
This means that channels WILL be monetized if they wish to continue being covered by the program, otherwise you will be copyright struck.
@@AlphablueOfficial I guess they will even close the channel. You will get an email with a reminder that you have to file your affiliate and if you don't react your channel gets closed.
You know they did this before with the previous incarnate of this program!! And failed miserably
Why should DJs pay? The fact we are supporting the artists and getting their tunes out there should be a privilege for them!?
It is an age-old argument, but at some point, somebody has to pay.
@@digitaldjtips Or we can finally boot the label vultures into the abyss of death that they've been desperately clinging to the edge of for 15 years.
NO ONE is talking about the restrictions that will go into effect with this change. Read the fine print people. No more clips, no more VODs because in Twitch's own words: 'VODs, Clips and Highlights involve different rights than live streams.' Read this again. It also means if you're playing Music Videos on your stream now, you WILL get taken down by Twitch. The REAL kicker is "Do Not Play Pre-Release Music." At one time, a very long time ago, Club DJs and DJs as a whole were the 'first play/first heard' avenue for the masses. But the Industry (Record Labels) did away with us. Now they're doing it again with Twitch. You can ONLY play what THEY have pre-approved as a release. Otherwise you (again) risk being muted, and up to termination of your account. Any ZipDJ users in here? Do your homework. White Labels and Bootlegs are NOT approved. Finally, but most importantly -the artists are the LAST to get paid once their work has been signed over to a label. (Why do you think so many have left the industry?) It's the GREEDY industry execs who are first in line to receive the cash.
This will be part of the negotiations with the record companies. What remains to be seen is how it actually plays out in reality. VODs have always been an issue on Twitch, which we stated in the piece. Currently, you risk being muted for everything of course.
Imagine paying for all the music to still give these companies 50% of your revenue...
imagine being in an underground scene like dnb where a lot of tracks are dubs/bootlegs or small labels which might not be covered by Twitch...
This is my concern. I hope they announce the songs covered soon so I can plan accordingly.
Agreed. I’m planning on starting on Twitch and my main genre is DNB.
@@aaronwebb1847 I think if you play stuff outside of it you should be fine. It’s just at your own risk. But it has always bin at our own risk. How can twitch flag songs it doesn’t know
They Will NOT be
I've been streaming on Twitch for almost 3 years, I'm excited about the possibilites the new program could have for DJs
sounds good, will have to see it in action though
Yes, agreed
Years ago I used to buy records 3 of each , to spin and one for back up , then they tried to tax me for playing them at a club so I stopped buying albums altogether .enough is enough!
Which country was that in?
Paying for the song on Beatport should grant you a licence to play the song on twitch. As it stands, we'd pay for the file, then pay again for the stream, then potentially pay again again if we want people to catch the replay...
No it shouldn’t. It’s only a few quid for a track on beatport. It’s hardly enough money to grant u a license to make as much money as you can squeeze out of their work.
No, that's not how it works anywhere IRL. The DJ or the venue always needs to pay a fee to play music at public events
@@Surgeeon Why else are you paying for it when you can stream it for nothing? Yes, out of wanting to support the artist, but it's still dick all a return for them, particularly when you consider splits. You, the DJ, pay for the file, because you want to be able to mix it. That in itself seems like it would make sense to include a license of some sort because most DJs will broadcast it to other people at some point.
@@djvoid1 stream it for nothing? No mate you can’t. Where can you stream it for nothing?
@@Surgeeon Spotify, RUclips, Soundcloud... Promo is promo
What im more concerned about is the restriction on playing bootlegs or unreleased music, if their system works like youtube then you might get shut down mid stream for playing a blootleg you got off of soundcloud.
YEAH it's gonna be mainstream hits or else
That’s not how buying music works or has ever worked
You were never allowed to grab a bootleg from soundcloud and use it to DJ in public. That has always been illegal 😊
To clarify im talking about bootlegs or remixes that producers make and give away for free downloads, not ripping them from the site.
Also depending on how the new system they use works you might get flagged for mixing two songs at once. I uploaded a test mix on RUclips and played bridged by a lightwave by deadmau5 and mixed it with another song and it flagged it as an unreleased song. So it will really depends on how strict they are going to make it. Hell I would almost go out of the way as to avoid acapella mixing as to avoid the system false flagging you.
What about people who have already paid for liences or are currently paying a subscribtion for certain licences?
I don't have the answer to that - I don't think Twitch do 100% at the moment either judging on the vagueness in the PR. We'll let you know once it becomes clearer to us!
You can play the music you have a license for. Better contact twitch about how to let them know you got the license.
@pili012thehairqueen how did you go about getting your music licenses?
It's a positive move forward... And creating a second channel for DJ ing shouldn't be a big problem... I just use my existing channel just for DJing anyway, if I use it for gaming it would be a one off.
My twitch channel is affiliated so I am monetised but im small fry ( hardhouse dj) so only make about £100 quid a year from it . I don't do it for the money at all I only affiliated so my followers could get the benifits , emotes etc I play the least amount of adverts I can get away with (3mins at the beginning on my going live screen and then no more at all while I'm djing ). I'm OK with this it just means I loose 50 % of my tiny amount of twitch revenue. If I was getting billed by twitch it would be a differant matter but it's money I never intended to earn and I still get 50% of it so it's fine and now I'm legal
Looks like a pragmatic/sensible outlook on it
So ya know even with 3min ads at start of your stream, Twitch still runs ads the rest of stream! Its not like you do 3 min and then no ads the rest of stream ✌
@@MystAfied420 not if you set it up right and only allow manually run ads
Commendable. Just think there are ladies licking mics full time as a daily grind on there. I just want to cut loose, have some fun, and spin some tunes once in a while. I have a day job lol.
They arent taking 50% though. Its not 50/50 revenue split like the rumour going around (and this video also says...); its Twitch paying half of the royalties.
This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50.
Repeating myself for the people in the back row... hope it helps!
hey bro could you please explain this twitch dj update in details please because i went to try it out on twitch after watching your video and my dj mix got muted in alot of sections that it actually spoiled the mix.
It's not been launched yet I don't think
The announcement references access to millions of songs. So we're restricted to Amazon's music catalog?
What about music DJ's purchased and own 20 years ago including vinyl? We have to pay to play what we already paid to play?
Interesting question but possibly, yes
You don't own the music or the exclusive rights though, you purchased the medium on which that copyrighted work can be played or broadcast.
@DJ_24K Double jeapardy isn't what you think it is. That only means that you can't be taken to criminal court 2x for the exact same time (mostly in the US). It has nothing to do with any civil law or copyright. I agree however that the double-dipping off DJs is not good or necessary.
You don't own the music and the music you bought on a medium is only for your personal use. You have always to pay again when you want to play this music to an audience. That's like this since 100 years.
@DJ_24K Because you are not the artist or the label.
IM REGISTERD WITH BMI & ASCAP AND PAY EVERY YEAR SO DO I HAVE TO PAY MORE?
Yes, if you want to use Twitch
We already paid by buying the songs and because of us playing people's music, these artists get exposure and the labels should get revenue from agencies like Ascap and BUMA GEMA STEMRA etc. Streaming platforms should make a deal with them. Once again the expenses are being dumped on us for the fact that we help keep an already dying music industry alive. Record labels need to modernize their outdated systems. They need us not the other way round because we can also bootleg and not play their stuff online.
" the labels should get revenue from agencies like Ascap and BUMA GEMA STEMRA etc"" < This is the part Twitch have negotiated in the background, but as you are using the Twitch platform for free, you can hardly expect them to just pay it for you - I guess that would be their argument
@@digitaldjtips although that might ring true, we are still the ones doing the work on there so Twitch can put up ads (which they do and they're unstoppable ones as well) that they make revenue on. So technically, we're not users, we are the product and the workers and also are now being milked. I feel it would make more sense if twitch paid for the license and stuck with their ads system and offer you the choice to pay to get rid of the ads rather than stealing half your revenue that YOU work for to basically promote other artists (which labels benefit from as well).
Thanks for the video, nice to hear your views. But a HUGE thing that needs to be corrected - it's not 50% of the channel revenue. This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50. It would be great if a correction can go out about that - it really is stressing people out, when that's not what Twitch has said. Granted - they ALSO haven't said anything about how much the fees will be. I think having a legal framework to DJ and pay for the music used is great. The 2nd channel is unfortunate but I can see why they did it. I hope their efforts to promote DJing on Twitch are successful!
Thanks for the clarification although we are still not sure how this will pan out. Anyway people will trust the official Pr over us I would hope
I originally thought it was 50% of all revenue until it was explained to me, and Twitch did a HORRIBLE job conveying this. A simple example could have made all this frustration significantly less.
@@digitaldjtips Yeah, lets hope! The issue is that theres this rumour going around and people are freaking out their revenue is being cut in half... and that's not happening. So correcting that as many places as possible is important! We want to grow the DJ category not lose people... hoping!
In the UK a licence fee, PRS is about £300 I think, which if you and Amazon pay 50/50 is better than 50% of your donations from the fans IF you're making decent money.
@@wavespeech1973 Good benchmark. Is that an individual performer license to perform a catalogue, or the venue blanket license, or something else?
I personally do not stream label music, never faced DCMA, and have no plans to....so it just feels like I'm paying for djs that do and I'm being forced to. It just feels like they are shutting out smaller djs in favor for bigger djs who are not going to really be hurt by revenue cut. Frankly the djs who did endorse this program all have 100k+ followers and one docent even dj on twitch. (Steve Aoki) Honestly I don't feel I should be paying for djs who choose to play commercial music.
Well, it is their business and they are offering you the service so I guess it them that makes the rules
What does monetizing a twitch channel look like? Ads played over the stream?
This will be a brand new, different course, so yes
You can optionally show ads whch interrupt your stream for 30 seconds or more. People can also pay to subscribe your channel, or they can purcahse Twitch's custom currency called Bits which can be used to send a tip to a streamer, and in most cases Twitch takes a 50% commission.
Today I received my first warning email from Twitch, after playing some restricted tracks yesterday. It was basically a reminder that I shouldn't do it. Nothing more (at this stage anyway).
Hmmm, let's see how this develops...
@digitaldjtips
The video here "Its going up to 50% of your revenue" Isn't really what the announcements have indicated. To directly quote Twitch:
"To cover the cost of the music used in DJ live-streams, we will set aside a portion of earnings generated by DJ channels to be paid to musicians via music companies that represent them. These costs will vary based on how a channel monetizes. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with the streamer, although initially Twitch will absorb more of the cost."
So some revenue will be set aside AND there will be costs AND those costs will be split 50/50. That doesn't seem to logically add up to 'up to 50% of your revenue'. In all we don't know what the tally will be, but there isn't enough info available to really quantifiy it either maximally as was done here, or to minimize it.
Thanks very much for the correction - as soon as we get more clarification we’ll update
Yes spotted this too. Incorrect information and one of the most important elements of this so important to get right. They haven’t specified what percentage they will take in total yet. Good video anyway 🎉
It's better than nothing though this agreement seems to me that the big labels get richer at the expense of everyone else. I've been streaming on twitch every week for 4 years now and 50% of my hard earned, meager payout is now going to be taken away. They don't care how long it took to build my audience, they don't care about the overhead to use music player software and start up costs for a proper studio, they don't care that I already purchased their music. They get theirs. Forget about ours. We're not even at the table. More needs to be done to free the DJ as opposed to penalize us. The Twitch pay structure was already shit. This may kill the community, we will see.
:-) Do you know what an artist gets for streams on Spotify or Apple music etc? We are talking about Cents per stream. I think 50% is a pretty good cut compared to the actually owners' income
3:50 That's not "fully" true about RUclips about the monetize warnings. I just started my new DJ channel on RUclips and I've already learned very quickly from experience. I've shared a couple of my of my sets with songs that are popular. I did get copyright warnings but, it said "no impact" on the video and it showed the record labels name and said "allowed" in my video. If you stick to certain songs it's okay. It takes some experimenting to figure it out. One hint I will mention is there is a lot of copy cat DJs out there playing on RUclips. They seem to be playing the same songs. There is a hint is in those songs that have been chosen. Someone has actually done their homework but, others have copied the homework not really understanding it.
We actually go into more detail about it here, there was no time to do so in this video www.digitaldjtips.com/3-vital-steps-for-djing-on-youtube-without-copyright-hassle/
@@digitaldjtips Wow! Thanks for the link to your other video. I wish I had that link last week when I started using popular songs. I had to do a lot of homework on my own and that link would have definitely helped me save a lot of work. After doing my homework I had an hour and a half mix that I uploaded and I removed the ones that told me they could not be monetized and my video was unlisted at the time. I redid the mix and replaced the song with a safer song and I got the copyright note but, when I looked at the tracks, all of them said no impact and that each record label was allowing the track to be used. Soon after I hit publish, my video gave me that Blocked warning like you showed in your video at this point ruclips.net/video/z3TxqV8A6uE/видео.htmlsi=UAVv69tYFkByuwyd&t=223 but, I couldn't open anything to see what song caused it and I couldn't unblock it or edit it. I myself can still see and hear the full mix but, anybody I share the link with can't see the video. I think there is a limit of no impact warnings and the number is probably 15 or 20 No Impact warning limit. I tried a 2nd time to upload the same mix and again I got no impact notes in each song and the labels all said allowed and it played for me and I was able to share the unlisted link with friends and it played fror them but, as soon as I published it, it got blocked Worldwide and no e-mail messages were sent to me after it got blocked. The way things get blocked it probably different in every Country. I'm in the U.S. here. I cut my same mix down to 58 minutes and 14 songs and it plays okay now but, it's a new channel and something is not right. Like I shared the links with my two Facebook pages and my Facebook Friends and Twitter and it only shows five views on one video and 7 on the other video and I doubt that view number is wrong. I actually, refreshed my page today and saw my view of 7 views that I watched for two days drop down to six views.
The tracks before that gave me the warning that they could not be monetized, I will give everyone the tip here but, not fully blurt out the record label. There is one label that is pretty strict. Note the labels from the tracks that say you can not monetize it and stay away from other artists that are protected by the label. Find the ones that so No Impact and show the labels allowing us to play their track and take note of what record labels they are on and try to find other artists under that same label.
Other than that, I have made two Royalty Free hour mixes of Electronic Music that I put up the CC for each song on one because I got it from an external site that I got the Royalty Free Songs from asked us to post the CC for their songs and that was for my 2nd mix. For my 1st Royalty Free Mix that I uploaded, I went through about 900 Electronic tracks from the RUclips Studio and I played an hour of what I liked. Both came out fine on RUclips but, I also played the same songs on Twitch and 3 got muted on each of my two electronic livestream shows with no explanation.
It's all experimentation!
In Cyber Security they call this a "Honeypot" Everyone that is attracted to this option and registers. Now they have a list to pursue lost revenues from your gigs, and events. 🤔
Not sure what you’re saying
How much longer do we have until record labels start demanding a portion of our earnings from any and every gig? Seriously, what is the difference between me doing a set on Twitch or a wedding or a club? I’m “making money off other peoples music” at all 3. At some point the DJ community has to put its foot down.
Clubs and bars ( and gyms , dance schools ) do already pay a licensing fee
If your a Wedding DJ you should be paying a public broadcasting license
Bigger Wedding venues do have that license covered
@@MrJustjuiced So they charge the venue and not the DJ? Wow, I legitimately did not know that. Like you said though, a lot of smaller venues and backyard weddings definitely aren’t getting these licenses, does that mean we as DJ’s are supposed to pay for them?
It is the duty of the venue, not the DJ (in most countries)
@@djhoodedwolfwell i can set my equipment up in my back yard and have a block party, cover charge for the cookout/keg/drinks $10 and i do not have liscence like clubs or bars. Thats direct cash for me and exactly how it should be. I am vinyl only DJ and already paid for the physical records, double dipping is BS.
@@digitaldjtips So in this case, Twitch is the “venue”, they’re just passing the cost of the license along to the DJ’s in the form of revenue sharing?
Well, news that the major labels are broke has been circulating the past week or so.
So now this comes out, and confirms those rumors to be true. Great revenue stream for the major labels, hence the 50% cut.
THEY NEED MONEY, DJs will get a small cut.
Hmmmm labels aren’t that broke and Dj’s streaming on twitch is not going to be a huge driver honestly. I think it’s really cool there’s some wiggle room for Dj’s. But in general labels will always go for the biggest percentage they can get. I mean they take over 50% of what Spotify makes per stream 😂
@@BenCaesar I guess all the credible channels who spoke on labels going broke are wrong and I should take what Ben says as truth.
Labels wouldn’t have opened this up if it wasn’t going to drive their income up a lot.
Same as weed in the US, the government only made it legal once they figured out how to make money from it, it’s that simple.
I wonder how a 'DJ' channel works if it's available to be monetized but nobody gives you any money?
And are they going to remove and DJ's from 'Music Channel'
No
I’m looking forward to this
We already pay for the music in record pools. So now we're paying twice. If Twitch advertises and it increases our viewers and money then it's good. If Twitch platform doesn't grow then it's bad. Only time will tell.
There's a difference between buying music and public performance of that music.
It's absolutely ludicrous that they they think they can take 75% of our earnings. The money that we need to pay should come out of the 50% they are already taking!
It won’t be that much
@@digitaldjtips they already take 50% so anything they give to the record labels is coming from the remaining 50% it should be some sort of flat fee for everyone, people are going to be paying out well more than what a performance licence would cost.
It doesn't look like they are it looks like they need to pay licencing and youre paying 50% of the licence fee, Amazon will pay the rest.
I’ve never streamed on Twitch, but I have on Mixcloud. I still have a paid subscription to Mixcloud and live stream when I can. I don’t see a problem paying to stay legal. Artists need to get paid for their work, full disclosure, I produce music myself.
Agreed!
Twitch gatekeepers stopping new artists getting promoted. Double dipping those who already paid for the music they play. It's a rubbish idea & based on bloated labels greed, as if they don't have enough. They will regret doing this.
Let’s see…. They had to do something
Double dipping? Nonsense. When you buy music, you're paying for the right to listen to it, not the right to broadcast it. That's a different situation.
Since joining the program, I haven't seen an increase in subs or bits so not sure it's really worth it. I would really like Twitch to be very transparent on what these fees from the licensing costs will be. How is it determined and what factors exactly determine what each channels fees will be? By not being open and providing this information publically, or at least through our dashboard or an email, it's leaving too much to speculation which is causing bad feeling all around. And as I've mentioned before in other comments on this thread, Twitch is the venue in this case, and should shoulder the costs of the licensing fees. They already profit from us by their cut from bits/subs/ads, they should use that profit to pay those fees, just as nightclubs/venues do with in-person DJ gigs.
All fair points, but as they said, the status quo was unsustainable so this wasn't optional... in theory, anyway.
What about if you use and pay for music streaming services like Beatport or Tidal as effectively you are paying to use their dj subscription with the music already so if they charge you on top, to me its double dipping
There is a difference between personal and public performance
@@digitaldjtips Interesting. I had a look at both T&Cs and they say for personal use only. So if twitch wants to charge you, does that automatically mean that you are allowed to do it publicly (on twitch) using said streaming services?
Less likely to stream and watch. There is no way everything played on Twitch in the NON-MAINSTREAM music genres is going to be represented by major labels. We all like deep cuts and not the same old stuff on every channel, which is what Twitch will probably end up being with their approved "catalogue". Also there is no clarity about playing music videos that have been acquired through legal subscriptions, which will affect many.
It’s not just the majors FYI
@@digitaldjtips I understand that... but I doubt they will cover Goth, DarkWave, FuturePop, EBM, SynthPop, ShoeGaze, Deep 80s-90s cuts, bootlegs, remixes and small Indie/emerging artists appropriately for the community on Twitch that is not mainstream, but I hope they prove me wrong
I mean if all you're doing is mixing for like the last 16 bars and letting the whole entire song play before doing that again 50% makes sense. If you're doing a bunch of blending and creating new Sonic soundscapes that have never been heard before then 50% for the record labels is ridiculous.
Good point and it's always been a grey area, but ultimately, if you're not doing anything out of the ordinary nobody will watch anyway I guess?
Been doing this about once a week for nearly eight years on Twitch (more if you count Chew and RUclips before it). Never gathered enough audience to monetize and honestly couldn't care. I still get mutes in the VODs from mostly new crap, yet RUclips and SoundCloud are both able to sort it out...Thankfully this doesn't affect me or my channel right now, but it could get more annoying soon enough...At this point I can understand why I have bigger audiences on other platforms for the replays. lol
Ah Chew, great app but surely the worst named streaming service ever?
of course this was always gonna happen eventually. i see no issue really as radio/tv/film have to pay royalties etc but 50%?? twitch already rakes 50% of bits and subs, so it would be interesting to see what percentage of the 100% they rake now... or would it be 33.% of the rake?
Yeah not sure at this point
I stream music to entertain a small amount friends, I make no money with twitch.Nor I record anything. Am i safe to play without joining the DJ Program?
At the moment, I’d say yes
When I had my internet radio station, I paid $60 a month to a service that in turn paid ASCAP/BMI for the legal right to stream 24/7, that seemed fair. I had to stop when they raised it to $600 a month, that’s not including the actual streaming service. Believe me, whatever Twitch charge, it will be better fair, it’s not than the deals we were dealt.
Let's see!
QUESTION : can radio stations tap into this as well?
It's a good question, because that is exactly what happened on Mixcloud when they made a similar option available. We will see!
I have been streaming on Twitch... I wont monotize that channel. It has not never been my plan. Future will show that what will happen to my channel :D
Could try Mixcloud...
@@digitaldjtips It will be my next step if they tpuch no monotized accounts.. But our listeners are in twitch. Mixcloud just have to do little better things...
Also this can be straight for Mixcloud also. Time will show
Agreed we need to pay royalties, but 50% is too steep. 30% is more reasonable. As far as Mixcloud goes, you get next to nothing for a storage facility. You need 100 subscribers who pay $3/mth to make $660 a year after fees. I would trade off the storage for higher monetisation. Especially as the local scenes are shrinking globally and this is another way to get your mixing seen.
Fair points
the loosers will be DJ´s like me, playing Techno, Melodic and Tranceclassixs. Which techno track is signed on a Major Label in 2024 🤨
Let’s see how it works in practice
In the end its good but the stipulations could’ve been more realistic labels being money hungry once again
maybe...
I really hope they allow the DJ to play ANYTHING during live stream and the Twitch DJ Channel will have a BOT that automates the ad revenue directly to the song's artist based on live viewers.
Well, they do now, and NONE of it is properly licensed! SO maybe they will...
I did stream on twitch but the whole thing about not having a catalog turned me off ,but now, I think I will return and just treat it like a radio show, once it’s gone it’s gone. Obviously I will record the sets through other means and post it somewhere. Really quick, what do you know about radio head and is that another option for djs to be heard build a following etc.? 🤲🏾🙏🏾✌🏾🫵🏾 and the entire ddt team! Also, have you ever discussed EPKs? Your thoughts?🙏🏾🫵🏾again🫡
We know nothing of that service!
@@digitaldjtips I’m sorry, Radio Head is a band StationHead is what I meant 🤦🏾♂
i bet actual artists will get 0.000000000000000001% as in spotify for example.
got nowhere on twitch so i went to kick.Right away i got more interest .Not much but more that twitch
Thanks for sharing
So explain to me how a DJ like Jazzy Jeff live streams on RUclips 2-3 times a week and doesn’t get taken down. ( yes , there have been a few times during a set it has been stopped but it’s rarely happened and he’s back up in a matter of minutes meanwhile I’ve tried and have been taken down in a half hour!)
He doesn’t leave them up for long
I have been doing live streaming on twitch since january and to me that feature will not impact my sets. That's good! 😊
That's awesome!
Again, it's still unclear (even after reading their announcement). Would it be possible to leave the entire stream on the platform after streaming?
No, this covers live streaming only
@@digitaldjtips Technically speaking, as I mentioned in my previous comment when this was first announced (on your channel), this situation is already the case with Twitch. Twitch has never blocked live streams, only VODs. They have essentially made it legal to stream, which was never really stopped before. Even the record industry couldn’t do much about it because any copyright issues would arise only after the stream ended and was saved as a VOD. This is why platforms like Facebook (and to some extent RUclips) have been blocking live streams in real-time-they want the videos to remain, as their business model is based on videos rather than streaming. They aim to have copyright-clean videos, whereas Twitch hasn’t prioritized this as much. In essence, this new deal changes absolutely nothing from the current state of affairs. I said it before.... this just confirms it...Take Michael Gray as an example-he streams almost every week and never leaves a trace of those streams once they end. The difference now is that it's official, and they're taking half of those big streamers' earnings, as opposed to charging them nothing before. In other words, streamers will now pay more for the same thing.
@@DocFUNKist keep reading: if you don't opt in to this new program: "If channels engage in the following activity without authorization, issue a warning for each first offense and penalties (“music reporting penalties”) for subsequent offenses. Channels that accumulate three music reporting penalties, in addition to the first warning, for any of these categories will be terminated.... * May also result in Twitch ending the live stream engaged in such activity and imposing a 48-hour suspension."
That last statement verifies the same technology used by FB and YT will now be a part of Twitch.
@@thatdjtroy Yes it's fine but once signed in, you will end up with what's exactly is available today... (while sharing your earnings)... it's like Tidal... No Stems no more... then PAY MORE... stems again... same principle... just pinch more money
Stop buying music and make your own, and play it the artist and companies will then stop being greedy!
so cool 🙌
It's a step in the right direction I think.
Probably, yeah
great move I think
I need info on how to get started with twitch Livestream
We are working on it
great news but the up to 50 percent thing might be a little to much
Maybe, it's being phased in, presumably to see how it affects things
why is the industry not letting us look at copyright licenses like in a database that would end this big issue once in for all.... we need a app or website so we can look up the copyright license holder and get in touch so we wont have silly arguments that have dreaded music for decades, its not the 60s anymore
You don't need to look it up. In the US are three main labels you have to have a contract with. In Germany it is the Gema. I think GB also only have one. So pure theoretically and picky you would need to make a contract in every country of the world because you could have audience all over the world. What Twotch does is only to their favor. The streamer is not covered at all with it
"Do Not Play Pre-Release Music
Our program does not allow you to stream pre-release tracks (music that is not yet released to the public on a digital music service or in physical media). If you stream pre-release tracks, your channel may be subject to enforcement and penalties including termination of your stream and suspension of your channel"
Do they not understand how the music promotion side of DJ-ing works? Fuck me
Let's take a breath, I too share this frustration. This is something being brought up at the Twitch DJ webinar next week. I think some middle ground on this can be made. But we shall see. To me DJing is an 'underground' culture. Having unreleased pocket tracks is half the fun in it all.
@@houstoner Yea. Well not just '1/2 the fun' but a good percentage of the business as well. There has always been a bit of collecting treasured tracks or using contacts to have access to music just a bit before the puiblic. If all DJs can do is play whats available on digital streaming services and the like it removes 1 more pillar of what it is that keeps the position of DJing a special one. Producers are on the one hand trying to show the unfairness of the likes of Spotify, while pushing Twitch to enshrine corporations like that to be the ultimate arbiter of what can be played and when.
We agree with you on this, needs to be a blind eye turned here for sure
White labels, perhaps you can just hide the track details from your stream.
@@wavespeech1973 yea perhaps. No one publicly knows the details on how specific the program is going to be. Is there going to be live monitoring, live song-id, some kind of track submission process, or is it going to be similar to how we do it now which is more freeform. Heres hoping its closer to the latter, as most platforms put it on the copyright holder to hunt down the posts that would need DMCAd & hopefully we can rely on the breadth of their agreements to catch most everything like Mixcloud does.
Our role as DJs is to promote artists' tracks by including them in our sets, thereby increasing their visibility and listenership. However, it is concerning that we may now be required to pay to promote the same music that we have already purchased. This raises questions about the equitable distribution of revenue within the music industry.
i feel the same way + twitch earn alot from the Dj's that stream there! they should pay the fee's not take more from us lol.... Its stupid
im gonna say it as it is over the span of 3 years i have spent over 2-3k on twitch subs bits w/e
over those 3years i have "Earned" about 1K give or take....
so they are telling me i'd have earned only half of that? xD what a joke :p
I Emailed them to leave the affiliate program.
You could say the same when you DJ at a club but the truth is the club has to pay ASCAP or Sony or whoever for those rights since the club is generating revenue from the music played (other ways too). So the same goes for an individual DJ.
You don’t have to use Twitch
@@digitaldjtips I'm aware of that. Thanks.
I don't know. I think it's fair if the hobbyist who wants to build an audience can play without paying anything, and those who build up a bigger audience and want to monetize now have to share. We can go on an on about how we bought the music, but this is how the music industry has worked forever.
However, I'm wondering how it's going to work. Do we have to submit playlists so the actual artists get paid? Or they just take a cut and divvy it up to everyone?
I've been thinking about livestreaming, but consistency is still my big problem. I might just try anyway even if it means I'm only going live every few weeks. Just need life to calm down sometimes.
Audio fingerprinting for sure
I don't like all the rules but it's a start. At least now it's no longer (like you said) a gray area.
Yup, although they've introduced clarity and uncertainty...
If I go and stream ,or play I will only use my own beats! If I pay for something I own it now !
If facebook brings this feature i will take it
YT should and could do the same! more money for them AND the artist(s) and streamer hopefully.
Probably not worth the effort for them
YT was working on something similar, where creators, not specifically djs, could play music and just pay part of the revenue as royalties instead of the whole video being claimed. They wanted to compete with tiktok as it was at the time, but I've not heard about it in ages so the deals must have fell through.
Mostly its a good idea, there is just some confusion over the playing of pre-released music which could get your channel banned ... ie. if I play a bootleg/unofficial remix or an unreleased track
Yes, but it remains to be seen how this pans out in reality.
Hell yeah!
For sure you have to pay for the music. In radio we do that forever. Abd yes radio is also the vehicle to Succes for many artists.
It's great news. Just cut down on the amount of videos I uploaded to RUclips from every week to once a month because it's just too much work for nothing. I'd rather give 50% of $100 than nothing at all... I'm doubling down an focusing on twitch for the next year
...and the good news is it looks like it won't be quite that much
As for me, I’m inspired to try it out
We suspect you're not alone here!
as someone who's been preparing to start dj'ing on twitch for months now, this couldn't have come at a better time. but i really feel for those who are making money already streaming dj sets. fucking sucks for them to lose half of their revenue
Try what out? What are you inspired by? Nothing has changed except that Twitch will take a cut of monetized money revenue and pay labels. Who then may or may not kick a couple of pennies over to the artists.
Every dj should stream on bigo live
This is such a pro/con thing.... So if you've already bought the music why are you paying again, surely that's why we bought vinyl in the 90's to play. It's getting the same as taxes, buy something then get taxed from every angle to use what you have bought.
You only ever buy music for personal not public use it’s always been in the T&Cs even on vinyl
@@digitaldjtips maybe in the legal world, but the real world is a very different story...
@@digitaldjtips Nice way to ignore the fact that most modern DJs subscribe to services that clear them to use tracks streamed for DJ'ing purposes. These services are usually trial bundled with DJ controller software. But just let the labels double dip. It's cool we see you.
you forgets kick
MagdaHalina is the best stream imo
Very likely to do it
What am I missing? I am seeing a LOT of DJs in the comments saying they like this and are "looking forward to it".... Looking forward to what exactly? I didn't see a single thing about this that actually benefits DJs in this announcement. What exactly are you looking forward to?
The thing I would have have been looking forward to would have been if this applied to VODS. Then I could stream and host my VODs without muting all in one place. In this deal you are literally just losing money. That's it... That's the only change. It's fine to be glad about the money going to artists (it's not but let's pretend it is). But I'd still like to know what everyone is happy about besides that?
We agree, VOD would have made this more useful
I want start to stream on twitch because, im gettin a kid and I have to be more @Home sooo...yeah
Good reason!
New word unlocked: "Minnow"
Finally.... No more problem with copywritten files and stream getting shutdown!
That was already the case. No one was getting shut down on twitch.
@@IamDJADM there was a risk . It was never safe!
The lack of detail doesn’t garner any confidence or warm & fuzzies. You mention 50% of revenue - is that before or after Amazon takes their cut? You also mentioned licensing for nightclubs - which is paid for by the club owner. DJs aren’t required to carry an RIAA license to play. Amazon already takes a huge chunk of revenue from monetized streamers - which is also going up by $1/month in July. Twitch obviously has no clue how to handle this situation, and are waiting for the blowback in order to course-correct.
I think we were mistaken with the way the revenue is divided up which highlights how unclear all of this is so don’t take my word on it. Definitely doublecheck with twitch if you’re worried about that.
They arent taking 50% though. Its not 50/50 revenue split like the rumour going around (and this video will be updated I think to correct it); its Twitch paying half of the royalties.
This is the wording from the Twitch DJ Program page - "Earnings Sharing: We set aside a portion of earnings generated by your channel to be paid to musicians via the music companies that represent them. These costs will vary across different monetization products. For most streamers, Twitch will be splitting these costs 50/50 with you.". Twitch is paying half the licensing fees, and streamers pay the other half. That's the 50/50.
Repeating myself for the people in the back row... hope it helps!