I stand corrected in this instance. I wonder how this actually worked.Len911 wrote:The ethical complaints and practices in the suit are serious and need addressing, because both companies have the same ceo, there is no ethical separation. I'm not sure if the case has been resolved. From the complaint in the suit, they didn't operate like a standard production library. They targeted consumers, offering 15,000 free tracks they could use on youtube, then changed the terms of use, or fine print on their website, and went after people unlike a production library.P.S. - I wouldn't get too worried about FreePlay either - yes originally when they started as a production library their model was "sync free", for broadcast uses where royalties are paid, and hence the ear catching name. For uses like corporate videos etc where they are not broadcast on cable or network TV, there is a "needle drop" fee that is assessed based on the use.
All of this in included in the "fine print" on their website / media.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/09/0 ... n-plot.htm
EDIT:
second question http://www.freeplaymusic.com/faq.aspx
AND:
http://freeplaymusic.com/termsandconditions.aspx
http://www.freeplaymusic.com/howitworks.aspx
I would say the nitty gritty is in the details again.