Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Says Content Owners Made $1B Last Year -- So Music Labels Should Stop Complaining (recode.net)
Peter Kafka, reporting for Recode: Here's the latest salvo in the back and forth between YouTube and the music industry: A report from Google that says its video site's copyright software has allowed content owners to generate $1 billion in the last year or so. Or, in other words: Hey, music guys! Stop moaning about money -- we're making plenty of it for you. Google's formal message comes via "How Google Fights Piracy," a 62-page mega-pamphlet it is releasing today. Google adds that its Content ID tool, which lets copyright owners "claim" their videos that users upload to YouTube so that ad money can be made off it, has garnered $2 billion since 2007. This is Google's response to a growing concern from the music industry that YouTube doesn't pay well, its Content ID isn't a solution, and that the video platform is built on stolen material.
ACtually, no, that's not how copyright works at all. The copyright OWNER is responsible for finding and reporting infringement, the service provider needs to provide some means for the content owner to report and request a take down. Youtube automatically scans content, flags are copyrighted, then layers ads on it sending the revenue to the content owner, or outright removes the video Every single asshat "musician" complaining about youtube is doing so because they are attempting to launch their own service and it sucks.
What is a "content owner"? Oh, the person who owns the recording.
For those of you who don't understand the big issue, there are two kinds of "owners" for a piece of recorded music - the guy who owns the actual sound recording (master) and the person/people who own the copyright on the underlying work (the writers). These are often not the same people, particularly in commercial music where a record label typically owns the masters.
Writers get paid statutory rates for sound recordings or digital downloads, known as a mechanical royalty rate. For a song that's 5 minutes or less, it's 9.1 cents per copy, with a 1.75 cent/minute increment above 5 minutes. They also get paid for broadcast uses of their works (this is what BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC handle in the US). The issue with Youtube is that there's no good way to pay writers, so they get screwed. Frankly, the labels are getting screwed, too, as $1B isn't a whole lot of money after it's sliced a million ways. I doubt Youtube's ads bring in enough money to pay out more, anyway. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC pay writers some from Youtube if the song is recognized in the content-id system, but the money is paltry.
Writers are really getting screwed on streaming and Youtube, and while people used to be able to make a decent living as a writer even 10 years ago, it's getting quite difficult now. I have a niece trying to get into the business and I'm telling her she has to perform as well as writing so she can make a good living at it.
Anyway, that's the issue.
Do you have ESP?
.
Are you claiming that YouTube ought to require each uploader to provide evidence that he owns copyright in the video (or has an appropriate license from its copyright owner) and that it is not an unlawful derivative work? If so, what steps would an uploader need to take to provide this evidence?
The short answer, for those who don't understand how copyright works, is that it would be literally impossible for Google to require such evidence, because in most cases there isn't any. Copyright is automatic. For you to own the copyright on your own creative works, you are required to do literally nothing.
Breakfast served all day!