Slashdot Mirror
Google Using YouTube Threat As Leverage For Cheaper Streaming Rights
Sockatume writes: "According to a press release issued by WIN, a group representing independent musicians, Google is threatening to de-list musicians' videos from YouTube if they do not agree to the terms for its unannounced streaming music service. The template contracts issued to musicians are described as 'undervalued' relative to other streaming services, and are not open for negotiation. The press release was issued by WIN but rescinded when Google agreed to further discussions; The Associated Free Press and The Guardian have published stories based on that original release."
Famous?
Where do I sign?
Google strong-arming musicians like the worst of the music industry? I dunno, sounds pretty evil to me.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
How much personal information are you really putting into Google+?
Have you heard of youtube-dl? It is actually possible to download videos from YouTube.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Nonsense.
Google spends time, effort and resource to create the infrastructure for a music streaming service that requires daily, constant effort to maintain, and so gets to define the terms.
Musicians spend a few hours/days/weeks/months/years creating songs, then look for ways to milk that brief period of productivity for a lifetime (and for their descendants or estates as well, because copyright).
What musicians don't do: create their own music streaming service built on their own terms and funded by them, asking for the fees they sincerly believe they deserve. And then test it in the free marketplace and discover what the true value of their work actually is. And adjust their model until they have come up with a viable and sustainable business. That's what musicians don't do.
Yet when someone else does all the work for them but actually wants to get something for THEIR effort that actually reflects the cost and effort involved, it's evil and exploitative.
Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.
I can't blame those who are actually doing the hard work for refusing to cater to the exaggerated sense of entitlement that pervades the culture of 'creatives'. For every artist that is sitting on their duff crying out about the unfairness of these services, there are probably a hundred hard working people that get up every single day to collect their tiny paycheck in order to make that service viable so the artists can reap the rich benefits they think they are due.
As a composer and a musician, I totally, 100% agree with you. This really isn't a big deal. It's a non-exclusive agreement. If you don't like the terms, sign with someone else, or start your own thing. No one's being backed into any corners here. Plus, there's also the aspect of considering that even though it is alleged that YouTube is going to pay less than other services, the amount of traffic on YouTube compared to other sites could quite possibly generate significantly more "sales" to an artist, so really it becomes a question of price vs volume (sales volume, not sonic volume).
Spotify pays 70% of its revenue to rights holders. They also include a chart on their site which shows royalties paid per million listens when compared to radio and other streaming services.