Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Pays Music Industry $1 Billion From Ads (cnet.com)
YouTube, the music industry's enemy No. 1 earlier this year, said Tuesday it has paid more than $1 billion in advertising revenue to artists, labels and publishers in the last 12 months. From a report on CNET: The milestone, released in a blog post by business chief Robert Kyncl, is a stab by Google's giant video site at mending fences with music industry critics. At least, it's YouTube hoping to convince some of them that the massive amount of free, ad-supported music listening that happens there is a valuable complement to music subscriptions, the industry's main area of growth right now.
So, somewhere around $37 trillion dollars less than the music industry thinks they're owed?
Log in or piss off.
Try this.
.
What percentage of that $billion has gone to the artists who perform the songs? Or the writers who write them?
If you're a music company exec, the tune is "where's the rest?"
I assume that people watch videos containing major label music instead of Creative Commons music because major label music is more familiar to them. Then the question becomes how major label music became more familiar to them in the first place, despite Creative Commons music being readily available for both download and streaming. Is it that people without a big cellular data plan still listen to FM radio, which plays almost entirely major label music?
So YouTube vs the music industry is an odd fight for public opinion. The music industry is hoping that public pressure will get them a bigger cut of whatever profits are to be had (not that YouTube is profitable, but it could potentially be). However, the media companies are not campaigning for a change in law (this time), they just want a bigger cut. So the question is, why does this article exist? I am fairly certain that Google has made this point before, and that it was posted on Slashdot. Are we concerned that the new administration will be more favorable somehow? Is this just a random dupe?
I am on Google's side here -- legally their position is very clear -- but this is propaganda, not news. Yes, YouTube pays out lots of money, but it's not like they just started doing that today. What's the real story? Why are we seeing this?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Huh. The more you know. Good on them for monetizing it somehow.
Then again, I don't see this as a "new" thing. Music artists have generally done very poor from record sales, while ad agencies and music execs who own studios do quite well. Musicians tend to make their money from performances, not from record sales. Records unfortunately tend to do much better in sales after tragedy.
Consider that the average record, 60 minutes or so, costs about $10.00US. Bands rarely go "gold", which would mean$10million in record sales. Deduct from that the cost of the studio, material, mastering, editing and engineering, art work, distribution costs, and there is not much left.
Compare that to a Small/Mid sized band selling 2500 seats to a concert at around 70.00 a seat. That's $175,000, and add in concessions, and you are at $200K. Take away venue costs and security, and you have an easy 100K for the band, techs, drivers, etc..
A good few months of touring can make a band very wealthy, but a record does not make much. You need the records to remain relevant and have recognition, but you don't make them so much for the cash.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Advertising is overvalued by about 99.9%. The people who sell ads are the same ones who rate what they are worth.
You want to support the bands you love? Buy tickets to see them live, buy a t-shirt from their merch counter at the venue. That is the only way they make real money. Only the top top .01% of recording artists actually make money from CD sales.
We don't need regulation on the internet for instance
Yes you do, even if only to obtain easements to pull your last mile across non-subscribers' land.
we can get that by eliminating the regulations hindering start ups from rolling out new services/lines/infrastructure.
Regulations are needed to allow companies to "roll[] out new services/lines/infrastructure." Otherwise NIMBY holdouts can block anything by reporting a startup to the police for trespassing.
Don't be fooled! It doesn't work, it doesn't block this ad!
Your ad is robbing me of "speed, security and privacy", APK!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
If Google gave the music and video industry every penny in revenue Google received every year, it still would not be enough for them. There's always more coke and whores to buy.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Good, then you should have no problem proving to us that your hosts file can block your advertisement while allowing us to view Slashdot normally.
Stop your ad in robbing us of "speed, security and privacy", APK!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
See? I'm right, it doesn't work, it doesn't block APK's ad! This is all an attempt at distraction!
APK's ad is robbing us of "speed, security and privacy", just see all this information it's gathered on me in responses and tries to manipulate the conversation!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
This is a misdirection, it's not blocking APK's ad, which is what this particular thread is about.
APK's post is the very definition of "advertisement", that's how. There is no special caveats introduced in the word definition as you are trying to show.
I would argue however this is really not on topic for the story, as the topic is "YouTube Pays Music Industry $1 Billion From Ads", not, "how do I block ads?", so even if there was such a caveat, it wouldn't be relevant.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Don't be fooled! It doesn't work, just look at how it doesn't block his ad!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Good, then you should have no problem proving to us that your hosts file can block your advertisement while allowing us to view Slashdot normally.
Stop your ad in robbing us of "speed, security and privacy" (as you claimed they do), APK!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Your ads concern me more than any advert that Slashdot intentionally promotes and I'll elaborate why.
Your ads are more dangerous. Why you may ask? Because you're worse than a regular advertising company! You keep a dossier on people, tracking all their posts, trying to find out their Internet history and keep records (I mean, just look at your replies on this thread), you've been known since the 90s on the Internet as someone who contacts people's ISPs if you have sufficient details, you contact their webhosting providers, people's companies where they work to make a scene because they dared to disagree with you on the Internet.
You ironically are the antithesis of safety online, you harass, provoke (and don't think I didn't realize that was your sock puppet posts earlier), stalk and it often starts with one of your advertisements. You have people tell you to go away and leave them alone, but you continue to pursue them, make legal threats etc. until you are satisifed. You are one of he few advertisers out there that I can actually point at and show that you are using information gathered against other people!
In summary, the most dangerous advertisements people need to be weary of is yours, APK. Your adblocking solution does nothing to stop them either.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.