IDMf Netlabel is adding Distrokid!


Good morning, afternoon, evening everyone.

Your loving and caring Netlabel Team has been hemming and hawing over this one for a while now, but we have cleared away all the questions and are pleased to announce that we are going to distribute our future single-artist content via Distrokid, starting with our upcoming EP release from Metaside!

This means Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Deezer, Tidal, and more. With Distrokid, we are bringing your music to a wider audience. This is just part of our plan for the Netlabel to maximize our value to you, our forum family.

You’re Welcome.


This is awesome news, and I’m glad to hear that its finally happening. :slight_smile:


You’re going to run smack into a problem with my music as it’s already on Distrokid and fully locked in and released legally.

I would advise you to omit my music from being included in Distrokid.

Should you ever release my music on any exclusive licensing service like Distrokid which makes you the exclusive owner of the music, which you are not, you will be in violation of my CC license which we entered into an agreement of by my song’s inclusion in an iDMF album.



They said future music and single artist content, so I don’t think that includes back catalog stuff or comps.


yeah, @Jayson, we are only talking about new releases here:


Just making sure it’s openly stated as it wouldn’t be the first distribution platform choice originally picked for future endeavors that ends up releasing back catalog material down the road.

You also might want to update the license agreements to match that because Distrokid is not CC compliant and does not distribute the material under CC licensing.

Whomever gives the music to Distrokid legally owns the material, or they dictate the share ownership.

Either way, it is at complete odds with CC and I think you might want to get a legal exclusive contract drawn up since that’s what iDMF is now doing.

Having a CC license agreement and using Distrokid is like saying it’s yours if you let us use it, but not really because we’re going to make it ours in the eyes of all distribution services and if you try to upload your music elsewhere, like youtube, you will be blocked from uploading your own music because we now own it.

Two very different things.



Yea but doesnt distrokid come with search engine hits? Or something…that helps get it out there…
Idk how this works…
Meh this is beyond me

Why am I even in this thread?
Nvm me carry on.


It’s not that big of a deal. If something comes up we’ll just take everything case by case. If we have to remove a track we will once we get notice, if we ever even do. No need to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.


Well of course you don’t think it’s a big deal to freely take exclusive ownership of other people’s music. There’s no harm on your side unless they hire a lawyer and file suit, but since CC is a pile of murky garbage legally, effectively you would likely easily win ownership 9 out of 10 times since you registered it first for exclusive ownership.

You would have a quite different opinion if everyone was handing you music they already registered and everytime you went to Distro you were told you could not make a claim of ownership for distribution because of it.

I know you have said before that you don’t approve of music on iDMF being released elsewhere previously, but you are effectively doing quite more than that on the inverse without being up front of the consequences to anyone.

I think you need to put the Distro licensing terms up in the public notice…at the very least.

You really should just flat out tell everyone in there that giving music to iDMF transfers complete exclusive copyright of the song in part and in full to iDMF.

Note: I am not being pointlessly pedantic. This is an earnest point of address.



Having just done our first upload, I should note a couple of things:

  1. Everything I did, I did in Metaside’s name, not the labe’ls. As far as Distrokid is concerned, we’re covering an account for Metaside. If I had his banking information, I could send 100% of the proceeds to him if he so desired.

  2. There are currently no plans to re-release older material on the platform. That would eat up our artist limit very quickly (which is 5 per year). Further, you’re right, and previous artists did not agree to be distributed via distrokid, so it would amount to IP theft if we just went and did it without consulting them. Believe me, I’m sensitive to this issue because I’ve actually been hit with a copyright strike on soundcloud this year for one of the tracks off one of the older albums that has now been signed and distributed elsewhere without our knowledge. Feels bad to suddenly just lose an awesome track from the catalogue, and I wouldn’t want to surprise anyone else with it.

  3. We asked Meta’s permission before doing this specifically because we did not want any surprises, telling him in full that it would reduce some of his rights with his music, most specifically his ability to release it on his own on these platforms, and he agreed to that. We do not intend to do this in the future if an artist has plans to release via distrokid or other distro services themselves.

  4. As I see it, Distrokid does not interfere with our ability to distribute and have our music re-worked freely under the terms of CC. The issue arises when it lands on some of these platforms, like spotify, which have their own terms as far as downloading and reworking, then uploading material is concerned. However, everything we release is still going to bandcamp and soundcloud, where it is and always will be available for free and distributed under a CC liscense. I am aware of the issues with youtube and google play, and have chosen not to distribute on that service to avoid being added to content ID. If other issues come up with other services, then we will not be distributing there as well. Unfortunately, we don’t have the legal mind to think these things through, so we’re stuck learning from experience like the legal troglodytes that we are. However, I don’t think we intend to enforce any copyright on our catalogue, as before. In practice, the aim is for nothing to change, once we know what the hell we’re doing.

  5. I believe in order to be sued the constitution says there has to be at least 20 dollars in damages. I very much doubt we will see that much come from distrokid for any single album any time soon, but if an artist really has a problem, I think we can find a way to cover it without going to court.

In short, all I’m trying to say is we have thought about these points as best we can since you brought them up previously, and we believe we’ve come up with a workable solution or we wouldn’t be doing this. Maybe we’re wrong, I really don’t know, and I wanted that communicated a bit more in the original post. This is an experiment, both marketing and licensing, and it may or may not work out. But we’ve had a good enough year financially that we can afford to see what happens if we do this. If nothing comes back and it costs us extra to settle some disputes, we’d still be OK, so I’m willing to take the risk.


Good to read.
Should also consider updating the publicly displayed license agreement to clarify this very murky area.

On a note about this.
That was not the opinion of the CC when I wrote to them previously.

The other distribution was hairy as it was, though in our opinion it was fine since reading that distribution’s terms showed no change to the copyright ownership.
However, the CC was pretty clear that any exclusive ownership service was inherently not in line with CC licensing.

An individual, according to them, was fully capable of granting CC licenses out to something which they themselves had exclusive ownership of. This is actually the expected natural situation: by all CC advisories, every CC song is highly suggested to be personally copywrite registered. This prevents being powerless in the event you experienced with your song where you lack convincing filed proof of ownership while someone out there took your CC distributed work, claimed it, and no one stopped them - so without a lot of struggle, you lose.

However, the other way around was not possible and to lay claim - in their eyes - of a CC relationship.
A CC recipient cannot take something that was given to them by someone under CC and then pass it out under any exclusive terms. Even if what you’re doing is filing it on their behalf.

That, according to them, overrides the CC and the CC is no longer valid (assuming you’re registering it fully in the artist’s name, that is).

This is why I said you should pull the terms from Distro, outline the process you just described, and plaster that up on the policy section.

Again, just to be clear here. When you registered that work for Meta, you nullified the CC and just filed an exclusive license for Meta under your holding (again, another issue that is not compatible with CC - you have the control over the strings for that registration; not the artist you are registering for).

Make it easy on yourself.

  1. Drop the CC for anything going forward.
  2. Grandfather the old stuff that came in under CC.
  3. Post the exclusive license from Distro in the policy section.
  4. Outline the split share.

Cover your ass, use an exclusive license, inform the submitters, and be done with it.

Trying to dance both dances at the same time is a mess and entirely needlessly complicating things for no reason at all.
People happily sign up to exclusive labels all the time.



I think the problem is solved I dont see the need to go over the fine details.


To be fair, you don’t see the point in much though. :stuck_out_tongue:

More earnestly, however, the details are important and going over them is helpful to the business end of things where, since nothing has been incorporated, individuals are capable of being drug into suits (whether you believe that likely or not is entirely irrelevant, as already one legal flop happened to at least one song, and that couldn’t be stopped because of a lack of attending to the “fine details”).

I won’t keep hammering on about it, however, as of my last post I outlined everything there really needs to be said about the matter (mixed with what WN wrote), and it is ultimately up to the individuals involved in the pseudo-label if they want to needlessly play with fire or not.

But all CC artists should register for copyright, regardless of anything.