Slashdot Mirror
YouTube's $1 Billion Royalties Are Not Enough, Says Music Industry (bbc.com)
YouTube said Tuesday that it has paid the music industry over one billion dollars in advertising revenue in the past 12 months. The music industry thinks that sum is not enough. From a report on BBC: "Google has issued more unexplained numbers on what it claims YouTube pays the music industry," said a spokesperson for the global music body, the IFPI. "The announcement gives little reason to celebrate, however. With 800 million music users worldwide, YouTube is generating revenues of just over $1 per user for the entire year. "This pales in comparison to the revenue generated by other services, ranging from Apple to Deezer to Spotify. For example, in 2015 Spotify alone paid record labels some $2bn, equivalent to an estimated $18 per user." In his blog post, Mr Kyncl conceded that the current model was not perfect, arguing: "There is a lot of work that must be done by YouTube and the industry as a whole. "But we are excited to see the momentum," he added.
It's my opinion (IANAL) that YouTube owes the music industry nothing. And when you start paying the local thugs some protection money, they'll keep coming back to ask for more.
The music industry should bear the entire responsibility of chasing down individual YouTube users, and Google should wash their hands of the whole thing. I think that $1B would be better spent offering legal services to users that are under attack.
Make this like the Cold War, where each side tries to outspend the other. Music industry's global revenue is somewhere around $15B, and Google's is around $17B. If each organization were to play a very costly game of chicken, only Google would have the possibility of walking away from the wreak. In a mutually assured destruction scenario, that means Google wins because their destruction isn't assured. Once that thought experiment is out of the way, only then should negotiations between the two sides begin.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Cut out the greedy RIAA pigs and give the money straight to the artist.
The RIAA represents the labels and distributors. There is no requirement for musicians to sign with a label, or to use a distributor. The are completely free to go-it-alone, and many do. However, many independent artists would leap at the change to sign with a label, since 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
It is common for creative people to assume that they create the only value that matters, and that marketing, promotion, and distribution are all worthless.
Technology and globalization have "cheapened the middle" of almost every industry. Get used to it.
The most popular performers will do well, and even get bigger access to global markets, but the middle-ground is being hollowed out because the Internet gives consumers more choice and more access to old-but-good material. And, many amateurs give out works for free either to promote them or because money is not their goal. This gives for-profit performers competition who work for peanuts.
Concert, venue, wedding, and bar performances are probably the best source of music wages, not recordings.
The rich get richer, the rest stagnate. Welcome to the club!
Table-ized A.I.
Everyone hates the RIAA, but the fact is without the marketing by these entities you would never have found your "favorite" bands
I disagree.
While it may be true that you may be initially steered in the general direction of good music, you rarely ever hear good music in places where big budget marketing is.
For example, I heard Metallica on the radio when I was young and I liked it. But then my own research led to Megadeth which led to metal shows where I learned about bands like Fear Factory which led to euro metal like In Flames which led to other record labels like Century Media and Nuclear Blast records and all of those artists, etc, etc.
While it is impossible for me to know for sure, I would like to believe that the RIAA had nothing to do with my music listening evolution. At the very least, they haven't received any money from me in quite a long time as I buy directly from the artist, from emusic.com or by just browsing the second hand CDs at the local shop.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I would say it's a large percentage, actually. In fact I was astounded to find out a few years ago that college-age kids quite often listen to music exclusively on youtube while they are working on homework or hanging out in their flats. An astounding waste of bandwidth but it doesn't matter.
But comparing percentage of users is kind of silly. Yes 100% of spotify users are there for the music. A certain percentage of youtube users are there for the music as well, but the question is how many of them in total? I would not be surprised if youtube's total viewership that was there for music at any one time was greater than spotify's.
That said, how many billions would the record companies think is fair? 2? 10? infinity? Obviously I'd like a much greater salary too. But the market decides the fair price and if that doesn't match their greed, so be it.