ICYMI, I’ve migrated the music that’s been on this site to YouTube. That took some time and effort but I think it’s worth it. The central reason for that is that it gives the artists (and their record companies) the opportunity to earn some revenue off of the music, even though most of them are either unable or unwilling to put the music back into distribution. As many of you know, this site specialises in the “Jesus Music” era of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
In the process of doing this, some of the albums were claimed by their copyright holders, usually the record companies or their agents, successors or assigns (how’s that for a little legalese!) And that’s fine; I didn’t go on YouTube to make money, and the channel (thanks to the recent change in YouTube rules) isn’t eligible for monetization because it doesn’t draw enough traffic. I’m glad to see that we’ve got a workable mechanism (not perfect but workable) to link the copyright holders with their music.
Most of the claims made during the process were for albums released by secular labels (which did happen in the Jesus Music era) where the album came from. There are a few for Christian labels, but they’re the exception, not the rule. But virtually all of the claims came for original artists.
This week I’ve seen a rash of claims for “covers,” i.e., songs not performed by the original artists. This is something new. It indicates to me that the algorithm for determining which songs are which has stepped up. With the new regulations coming from Europe, that’s going to be a survival mechanism. This tells me that YouTube has stepped up its game on this.
Fortunately in all cases they just claim revenue and let the album stay up. I suppose that, for music this old and frequently obscure, they’re glad to have any exposure for it, especially when someone else goes to the trouble of putting it out there. As of now this situation is IMHO a happy one for everyone, and I hope it stays that way.