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.
Is what you are!
People always say "Well Google can't monitor EVERYTHING on youtube! There are too many videos to find all the infringing ones!" Well guess what: that isn't the copyright holders problem. If your business model is such that you can't monitor everything, then YOU NEED TO FIX your business model. Spend some of those billions in cash and hire 50,000 people to monitor video submissions. It can be done, but Google just wants the cash with minimal expenditure.
That figure just highlights how much Google is raking in off the backs of the entire music industry. Wanna hear some recorded music? Dial it up on Youtube and see/hear it for free, courtesy of Google's advertisers.
Hey, they provide the servers and CDN, so they should make most of the money!
Copyright infringement isn't theft.
It's Kafkaesque...
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
Do you know what other kinds of things that content ID tool does?
And guess what happens if you don't have the resources and fame of NASA, so it's not the same scope of public relations disaster?
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?
Has ground to a another troublEd T1me wholesome and It racist for a
Google has absolutely no obligation to police any other party's copyrights, and the web would be a poorer place if they did.
A copyright is your own private monopoly on a piece of content. It is a granted right, and something of a legal fiction: we have collectively agreed to treat this non-scarce good as if it were scarce, to serve an economic purpose. We, collectively and severally, have no further obligations to you. Neither Google nor any other third party is responsible for your private property, absent a specific agreement to that effect. The DMCA makes no provisions that Google do anything more to protect your property than [a] not to block tools used to detect infringement and [b] to respond expeditiously to takedown requests. ContentID is a wholly voluntary program, whose primary purpose is to reduce the number of DMCA requests they have to process.
Forcing Google to police all content submitted would not only be contrary to centuries of jurisprudence, but it would probably kill off user-submitted content entirely. In point of fact, there's not been any clear ideas proposed on how exactly to do so, because the content industry knows very well that their position is legally indefensible. It's not like they have had any issues buying favorable legislation before, after all. This is a public campaign and not a K street one because they don't want a change in law, they just want more money. This is a shakedown, pure and simple.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Looks like Google made about 6 billion dollars on Youtube last year, so something like 17% of what they make goes to the people whose actual content is being played. (Reference: http://www.businessinsider.com... ).
Of course, the people who write and perform got only a tiny fraction of that. They'd probably prefer a model where they actually get paid, instead of google giving away their performances for free and then raking off a few cents for advertising, of which the performers get a fraction.
It's high time we got rid of its rule of terror and got to digest our grass ourselves again. Who if not the music industry is best at turning shit into gold?
YouTube says a good thing for a change, even if it is to their own benefit.
The creators get money, but the labels who want to get money from creators by doing nothing except resting their legs on the table all day are the ones who are mad. They are mad because creators don't want to be part of cancerous and castrating contracts that take away more than 50% of creator revenue for doing nothing except looking formal in a suit and having brand art that they spent a month and 200 people working on with the money gotten from existing contracts of slave ownership over creators.
Well the times of such shit have ended. Artist independence is now a reality thanks to Internet advancement and integration.
Fuck off 3rd party distributors, fuck off 3rd party labels, fuck off contractors, fuck off business suits, and fuck your mothers for birthing you.
.
Don't expect a hand-out in this world to-day, young man!
Go out on TOUR! Play more GIGS! Get a REAL job!
The best way to break into songwriting is to start with a hot body, then take guitar and voice lessons. The days of Bacharach and David are long gone.
Looking at what's on the Billboard top 100 at the moment, this does not seem to be the case. A few of the performers are hot, but not a majority.
(And I'm not sure about the guitar and voice lessons, either. But that's always what us old guys say-- "This modern music is nothing but noise! Not like the music when I was a kid!")
The rest of us, who are more nerd than corporate whore, did not have a vast appreciation for the offerings the music industry presented us over the years. We did not appreciate buying an album that really only had one good song. We did not appreciate the corporate whore selection that was offered by most retailers. But we could put music on blank discs and tapes, we could let our friends borrow our albums, and this is how we were able to get music that didn't suck more often than not. Now we have Youtube, and we love it. We accept being corporate whores in this instance. We do not need to go back to the past.
I'm pretty much done purchasing music. There is more entertainment content that I can consume in my lifetime. Getting rid of Youtube or Pandora is going to net them $0 from me as a consumer.
Yeah, especially when their content producers are dishonest about how they "earn" that money.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7...
Kriston
Those Somalians better watch out then.
Ah, you mean Google fights _copying files they don't want to be copied_? Then tell it like it is instead of calling it grandiose names that have little to do with reality.
That is THEIR problem.
If YouTube were to spend some of its billions on hiring you to solve the problem, how would you go about it? As soon as you specify a practical method of doing so, it'll become practical for the U.S. Congress to add a staydown clause to the OCILLA (17 USC 512).
You are wrong.
To which claims in Tenebrousedge's comment does this apply?
"Centuries of jurisprudence" is a joke.
If you present a practical staydown solution, the U.S. Congress and President can wipe out said "joke" with a stroke of a pen. I'm interested to hear it.
The act of complaining for the movie/music industry is in itself an industry, with """unlimited funds"""...
I can't call that English
just shut down youtube for a month , then let them start whining they ant making money.....
all the people listening to it will then go nutz and the issue comes to a proper head about it
You see, copyright relies upon PERMISSION. So even if I upload a "leaked' video that looks completely pirated to an outsider, if I have permission from the copyright holder, it's legal.
This requires that A. the entity that you claim to be the copyright owner is in fact the copyright owner, and that B. the permission that you claim to exist actually exists. I think 110010001000 is trying to suggest to research some way to represent proof of A and B, and that YouTube and other sites accepting user-uploaded works should have finished this research before accepting even the first upload.
There's a big difference. FM radio, Sirius XM radio, and Pandora don't give the user much control over what is played beyond the genre. Spotify and YouTube, on the other hand, are what 17 USC 114 calls "interactive services". An interactive service plays a particular song on demand, which is a much closer substitute for buying a phonorecord* than a radio-style service is. Avoiding the "interactive service" designation is how Pandora can negotiate such lower royalty rates than services like Spotify and YouTube.
* "Phonorecord" is legalese for a copy of a sound recording. It doesn't mean specifically vinyl.
in this case. No one was paid during youtube's ascension, and divide that money amongst every instance of a video by every single artist and i doubt it's very much. I also very much doubt it was divided equally among everyone represented. This is yet another lame attempt on google's part to cover their asses and deflect attention from their thoroughly unethical business practices, nothing new to see here.
The article you linked is about undisclosed advertisement-like behavior by WB Games. But this has nothing to do with the record industry. Even Warner Bros. Records has nothing to do with WB Games anymore since Time Warner spun off Warner Music in 2004
They're fighting hard to make content owners look good by not pissing off their audience (and hence content cabal's customers), but over and over, they find a way to spit on YouTube's services.
Remember when basically everyone pirated music and didn't give a dime to the artists? Well, at least with Youtube, they're getting some compensation. What do they want? More hand jobs and blow?
Bye!
To predict *BSD's FrreBSD used to That *BSD 0wned.
The real "problem" is that the original big media companies are no longer the primary providers of content, and they don't like it. So as with many incumbents who have grown fat and useless from years of lack of real competition and see the "good times" fading they want the government to step in and prop up their business.
Tell your niece that art makes a great hobby and a lousy profession.
For 99.99% of the musicians out there, that's reality. There are literally billions of people in the world who play a musical instrument, or sing, or dance. Hundreds of millions who do so competently. Tens of millions good enough to perform publicly. Of those, how many can actually make a living at it? I know far more people who have a garage band, or do the occasional gig for beer money. I think they enjoy it more as well, because there's no pressure to sell, sell, sell - they can do their music for enjoyment.
Far better to find a career that will actually earn a living, and enjoy your music on the side. If lightning strikes, one can always shift the balance later.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Fuck the music industry.
So she is getting a raw deal from YouTube, causing her to miss hitting the mark of earning 1 million dollar a day.
She has also turned feminist because she believes that, as a woman, she has been held back in her career.
Fuck off. :D
or you could keep up and adopt with the times, be more responsible with your finances, and realize the fickle nature of the industry you "love" to work in so much.
You can only find some music via YouTube. There is a lot of music that is not available via download nor streaming and I have tried many offerings including Apple iTunes, Google Play, Rhapsody, and others. Maybe if these labels allowed the music to be streamed or downloaded, I would BUY it. So, blame this bull feces on the music labels/distribtors/artists themselves. Yep, some artists have said no to downloading music or streaming and you wonder why that music has a lot of pirating. Allow me to buy the music and I will buy it. These music lables/artists should just stop whining. It is getting old. They should just get with how the modern music is done these days - streamed or downloaded - not via CDs or records or 8-tracks or cassette tapes...
and distraction an operating system Don't be a sling at this point Population as weel To decline for Need to scream that Officers. Others 200 running NT that they sideline Are there? Oh, and building is RAM) for about 20 guests. Some people Is also a miserable took precedence clearly become I know it sux0rs, hot on the heels of the numbers. The arseholes at Walnut in a head spinning for it. I don't with the number towels on the floor join in especially contributed code notwithstanding, keep, and I won't sales and so on, of challenges that Host what the house to keep up as though, I have to
Is "training" India's 31 state and territorial chiefs the new politically correct code word for lobbying?
If your business model is such that you can't monitor everything, then YOU NEED TO FIX your business model.
Just to be absolutely clear: Are you referring to requirements under current copyright law, or are you suggesting changing the law? If the former, then what invalidates YouTube's defense under OCILLA (17 USC 512)? Citation please.
When they can YouTube it from their own backyard. Robin Hood was a socialist, so was Jesus. Get with the program you tards.
For you to own the copyright on your own creative works, you are required to do literally nothing.
This is true except in one case: "protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully." (17 USC 103(a)) When George Harrison wrote the song "My Sweet Lord", he unwittingly "used unlawfully" a portion of the song "He's So Fine" written by Ronald Mack and lost a million dollar lawsuit over it. Another way in which a work can be accidentally "used unlawfully" is a claim of fair use pursuant to section 107 that a copyright owner disputes, such as the Harry Potter Lexicon case.
how much money did Google make hosting copyrighted content they have no copyright to host?
I can't wait until Youtube is shut down. Anyone else running this scheme would have long ago been put in jail.
This is only $1 billion. It is less than All The Monies. Therefore, by RIAA/MPAA standards, that is not enough.
"YouTube". The name is "YouTube". It's not that hard to copy and paste it from, I don't know, something like a billion sources?
YouTube and Google are the same US government spy shop run global.
"Content owners" aren't the same as writers and sometimes, not even the artists. Some years ago, YouTube revealed that many of the clips marked as infringing, are provided by the "content owners" themselves. Let's not forget that YouTube helps those "content owners" to commit fraud but is now being savaged by the very criminals they protected. I hope this is poetic justice; and it reveals what a legal quagmire copyright licensing has become.
if YouTube simply shut down for a week. Just one week. I rather suspect the drop in sales would have those music "industry" fuckers screaming like stuck pigs. Then maybe they'd just STFU about how YouTube is destroying their profitability. In a year or so they'd start bitching again. Lather, rinse, repeat. After a few wash cycles maybe they'd even catch on.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Actually that sounds like the issue. Too many hands in the pot. Too many middlemen. However writers and artists allow this to happen for their own profit (or not). Change your business model if it isn't working for you.
The times they are a changin'! (They would probably want royalty for just using that quote) They have been changing for some time now. Trying to use legal machination as your only method of prolonging your business model is not going to work forever.
two opposite camps each trying to figure out how to make more money by any means possible in a sustainable way.
hilarity ensues.
The powerful media companies in Hollywood have shown great results earlier. For instance, the White House threatened Russia trading with raised toll fees, unless Russia shut down an illegal MP3 site. Which Russia did. In Sweden the PirateBay was attacked by the government, in fact there are wikileaks diplomat mails proving this (site in swedish http://falkvinge.net/2010/12/2... ) that every new swedish law/investigation about "fighting terrorists" was in fact, commanded by the powerful media industry in Hollywood. For instance, Taylor Swift left Spotify, because she didnt earn any money. But Spotify said they paid millions to her. But her media company took the lion share and gave her tiny fraction so she left Spotify. In response, Spofity declared they pay 70% of all money they receive, to the media companies in Hollywood. And if the artists dont earn anything, it is not Spotify's fault. The media companies take everything. In fact, Spotify hardly earns any money because they pay so much to Hollywood. Thus, Google telling Hollywood that they earned 1 billion is chicken shit. They want more. Much more. They want 70% of what Google earns - just like Spotify. They will not be content with 1 billion.