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.

Comments

Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut out the greedy RIAA pigs and give the money straight to the artist.

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

See how record labels do bands these days? They create the bands from people they fish out of YouTube, SXSW, and other places. The songs and words are made by marketing droids. The "artist" is the label now, the musicians are just singing parts.

Re:Here's an idea

[TWX]

This is absolutely nothing new.

Before he became a homicidal maniac, Phil Spector was a maniac responsible for the sound that many acts had. He was not ever considered part of the bands that he was ostensibly a Producer for, but he made lineup choices, made arrangements of the tunes brought by bands, and worked extensively in the editing booth after the tracks were laid-down.

If anything the only change is that modern technology lets the producer involve far fewer other people in crafting an act's sound, and makes it possible for the act to tour with what used to be only achievable as a studio sound.

It almost doesn't matter how an act is discovered, what the people in the group must be willing to let their act be subjected-to is what will define where the label is willing to market them and how much effort they're willing to spend.

Re:Here's an idea

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Here's an idea

[phantomfive]

Cut out the greedy RIAA pigs and give the money straight to the artist.

There's a reason that won't happen: the RIAA's skills are more important than thee artists' skills.

There are plenty of really good musicians all over the place. The reason you haven't heard of them is because of poor marketing. The artists you do hear about have good marketing. If the RIAA dies, another marketing agent will replace them (or, a cluster of marketers).

To make $1 million as a musician, you don't even need to sing in tune. But you do need marketing.

Re:Here's an idea

[hey!]

Everyone hates the RIAA, but the fact is without the marketing by these entities you would never have found your "favorite" bands.

We'd have to make do with "favorite" (why the scare quotes?) bands we find ourselves.

Re:Here's an idea

[mishehu]

Gosh, I don't know whatever I would have done had I never found my favorite band thanks to payola I mean the RIAA and friends. Imagine how miserable my life would have been...

Re:Here's an idea

[lgw]

I haven't found music through marketing since I was a teen. Sure, marketing in any industry will always be able to sell inferior crap to the ignorant, and that may never change, but there are plenty of ways to discover music these days. Heck, do labels even bother with payola any more (do kids still listen to the radio?).

These days I usually discover new artists through the various "people who bought/listened to X also bought/listened to Y" algorithms on Amazon, YouTube, etc. I think a lot of people find new music through Spotify's algorithms (has there been a Spotify payola scandal yet?).

Marketing was just more important in the days of broadcast media and limited distribution channels for records. Now there's no scarcity of airtime or shelf space.

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

I don't know what you would have done either, but that is how you found your favorite band.

Re:Here's an idea

[lgw]

You've made an assertion, and now repeated that assertion. Would you care to make an argument?

You forgot to call me a troll though, so you lose bonus points.

Abuse is across the hall, in room 12.

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

100% correct. You can go on Youtube and see some AMAZING musicians. There are a ton. Piano players who play better than professionals who sell out concert halls. But skill isn't what makes a FINANCIALLY successful musician. You need the RIAA and their ilk for that.

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

Me: "out will come the people protesting that they like their favorite indie band because they heard them in a bar, Youtube"

You: "These days I usually discover new artists through the various "people who bought/listened to X also bought/listened to Y" algorithms on YouTube, etc"

It is almost like you don't even read.

Re:Here's an idea

[The-Ixian]

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.

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

RIAA is already finding your "favorite" bands for you. If I go through your music collection, 99% of it will be RIAA affiliated music (or whatever marketing/promotion entity is in your part of the planet).

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

All those "indie" record labels you mentioned are affiliated with the RIAA. For example, Nuclear Blast is distributed by BMG Entertainment. You are a perfect example of how marketing lead you to your favorite bands in your particular genre.

Re:Here's an idea

[drakaan]

...or bands that we find via something like YouTube. That's the real reason the RIAA is trying to squeeze Google. They don't like the deal they got with Apple's iTunes, and don't want to be even *more* left behind. They failed to embrace online digital distribution when customers initially clamored for it, tried to sue their way out of it being possible, and now are scrambling to try and figure out how to claw their way back to the same type of margins they once had when they controlled distribution and marketing.

Re:Here's an idea

[phantomfive]

Piano players who play better than professionals who sell out concert halls.

I don't know about that, who in particular are you talking about?

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

There already are. Torrent sites. You know what people download and search for on torrent sites? Justin Beiber. U2. Ariande Grande(?), etc

Re:Here's an idea

[Calydor]

Is it so hard to grasp that services like Pandora will continue to have a "Recommend Similar" feature for building playlists?

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

You aren't cool enough to understand the brilliance of the underground players I am talking about, so I won't bother. As a special snowflake, my music tastes aren't swayed by marketing at all. I am real hard core and listen to music based on my deep understanding of the art.

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

How do you think Pandora finds "Recommended Similar" music? All the "similar" music is RIAA marketed and distributed music. Without the RIAA the "recommended" music wouldn't even be ON THE LIST. I don't know why it is so hard for you to grasp.

Re:Here's an idea

[RatherBeAnonymous]

Everyone hates the RIAA, but the fact is without the marketing by these entities you would never have found your "favorite" bands. Of course, out will come the people saying I am stupid (or a troll), and protesting that they like their favorite indie band because they heard them in a bar, Youtube, from a friend, etc. But the reality is that 99% of music is heard because of marketing. Period.

I'm not going to insult you, but I will protest.

Yeah, 99% of what is heard is from marketing, but it's still the same 10 hottest bands that sound exactly like the last 10 hottest bands who sounded exactly like the previous 10 hottest bands. Marketers don't take risks, and they don't care about putting out a good product. They just repackage the latest, generally pleasing band's stuff and ignore everything else. Different is unpredictable. Unpredictable is bad because they might not hit their target sales figures.

Re:Here's an idea

[phantomfive]

You aren't cool enough to understand the brilliance of the underground players I am talking about, so I won't bother.

Too bad, I thought you might have some interesting music to listen to. Turns out you're just talking.

Re: Here's an idea

[110010001000]

Of course you did. You are a special snowflake of course. Oh by the way, "Snarky Puppy" is marketed by Universal Music Group. You possibly couldn't have chosen a worse example.

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

I only listen to live music created by aborigines. Because that is the only REAL music and I am not gonna pay the RIAA a dime!

Re:Here's an idea

[The-Ixian]

I am pretty sure that Nuclear Blast was acquired at some point then. When I discovered it, they didn't even have an office in the US.

Re:Here's an idea

[110010001000]

100% correct. Which is why 99% of the music we hear is the same, especially today. Even the supposed "indie" bands are part of the RIAA.

Re:Here's an idea

[AthanasiusKircher]

However, many independent artists would leap at the change to sign with a label, since 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

THIS. People always make the mistake of looking at high revenues that big-name artists get and dream of doing that themselves.

But that's kinda like dreaming of playing for the NBA or NFL or whatever -- sure, it happens, but the 99% of the kids out there playing high school sports will never have a chance at those sorts of salaries.

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.

Exactly. There's this new myth of "YouTube-o-genesis" -- just put your stuff up on YouTube, and users can "discover you," and then you start raking in the big bucks, no labels or whatever needed.

And yes, that HAS happened. But for every sudden "YouTube sensation," there are 10,000 people out there who are uploading stuff that gets 5 views only from their friends. And among those 10,000 unlucky people are usually loads of talented folks... they just need some help getting attention.

Labels can still be a path to help that (though they're not the ONLY path). Getting a few percent of revenue from a label that actually promotes you, gets you gigs, etc., is likely a lot better than the beer money people chip in when you just sing at the local karaoke bar.

And I hate the RIAA's abusive copyright tactics as much as anyone else here, and I'll be the first to criticize labels that do bring in large revenues for their executives and staff, but pay a pittance to artists. Nevertheless, they CAN still serve a function, and thus many independent artists still DO sign on.

Re:Here's an idea

[Calydor]

Oh, I didn't realize that.

Damn, if only they'd dismantled the RIAA before making that system in a way so it could never ever in a million years be changed to something else, like musicians submitting their music and users tagging it as appropriate (pop, rock, instrumental, folk, rap ...)

Oh well, I guess it's too late now. Let's just keep the RIAA.

Re: Here's an idea

[jxander]

You are correct: the RIAA fills a need and does provide a service.

However you seem to assume that they are the only ones who can provide this service.

If the RIAA vanished tomorrow, new mechanisms would form to help people find music they like. And those new mechanisms would be better for both the artists and listener.

Re:Here's an idea

[TroII]

I love the song "Space Truckin'" by Deep Purple. Does that make me a space nutter?

Re:Here's an idea

[MitchDev]

He's paid by the post by the RIAA....

Re:Here's an idea

[Baloroth]

Except the RIAA doesn't do any of that. The RIAA does not do marketing, the record company itself does. RIAA doesn't sign artists, and it doesn't pay artists. Mostly, what the RIAA does is lobby the government, sue people, and desperately try to stay relevant.

Re:Here's an idea

[lgw]

Your fallacy of poisoning the well does not constitute an argument. Sophistry, sure, but that's different.

You have asserted "without the marketing by these entities you would never have found your favorite bands," but you have yet to make an argument for that position. I'm beginning to doubt that you can.

Re:Here's an idea

[sit1963nz]

Yeah, ever watch those crappy TV talent shows, thousands of people lining up all believing they are just an undiscovered talent. You can waste huge portions of your life finding the people with REAL talent, and even then they may only ever have one song that resonates with you. Music labels do that sorting for you, they get rid of the delusional no talent wannabes (unless it is Black Friday and Daddy has a shit ton of money). For every one real talent they waste time with thousands of idiots, that costs. The labels also invest in talent they hope will make it, spending huge sums on teaching them to play in sync, variations on playing styles, introducing them to different instruments and sounds, fitting songs to bands, practice studios, recording studios, sound engineers, etc etc etc etc. That too all costs money, and most recorded artists probably never make it really worth while, but without that support the real gems are even less likely to make it.

Re:Here's an idea

[lgw]

Everyone's a space nutter to that guy, but if you love Ranch on Mars by Galactic Cowboys from their album Space in Your Face, you might be a space nutter.

Re:Here's an idea

[tepples]

Thank you for the correction. Now what are your thoughts on the following claim?

Labels affiliated with RIAA are already finding your "favorite" bands for you. If I go through your music collection, 99% of it will be music from RIAA affiliated labels (or whatever IFPI affiliated marketing/promotion entity is in your part of the planet).

Re:Here's an idea

[tepples]

Without the RIAA labels, more artists would be using the CD Baby route to Pandora Internet Radio.

Re:Here's an idea

[phantomfive]

So, we can actually talk about one concert pianist who did launch their career on youtube, Valentina Lisitsa. As you can see, she actually is quite talented. Somehow she did gain popularity there, which is good for her, but if you want to make big bucks in the classical music world, you need to hook in to the system, and she did that, going on the tour circuit. She was co-opted by the system, and now she's a typical musician.

Re:Here's an idea

[Penguinisto]

Actually, there are exceptions to this. See also The Glitch Mob

Re:Here's an idea

[mrclevesque]

When I was young most bands I listened to were suggested by friends.

Labels seemed more into finding bands that are minimum work for maximum profits for them rather than finding bands I like.

Re:Here's an idea

[tbannist]

Labels affiliated with RIAA are already finding your "favorite" bands for you. If I go through your music collection, 99% of it will be music from RIAA affiliated labels (or whatever IFPI affiliated marketing/promotion entity is in your part of the planet).

I think the point was that, while most of our current favourite bands might have be found by the RIAA, we'd still have favourite bands if the RIAA and it's affiliated labels didn't exist. In fact, there are arguments that can be made that we might actually have better music if the RIAA affiliated labels weren't picking our favourite bands for us. They have been accused many times of producing cookie-cutter music and drowning out diversity with conservative musical picks.

Re:Here's an idea

[tbannist]

The labels also invest in talent they hope will make it, spending huge sums on teaching them to play in sync, variations on playing styles, introducing them to different instruments and sounds, fitting songs to bands, practice studios, recording studios, sound engineers, etc etc etc etc. That too all costs money, and most recorded artists probably never make it really worth while, but without that support the real gems are even less likely to make it.

The problem is that from the anecdotal stories that I've heard about the music business, the RIAA and the major labels don't actually do any of that stuff. What I've heard is that most of that is done by the actual artists on their own time and their own dime. That doesn't mean that no label associated with the RIAA ever does that, it's just that none of the stories I've heard mention anything like that. In fact, most go into excruciating detail about how the labels are loathe to give anything at all away. The general story seems to be that they are billed by the music label for anything the label does for them and sometimes for anything the label could have done, even if it didn't. In particular, I remember one band complaining that they were charged a hefty fee because they didn't use the label's recording studio, and that was in addition to the fees they paid to the recording studio of their choice.

Maybe that's standard practice and I have just never heard anyone ever mention it, but I'd like some evidence that it's common for anything other than label organized boy bands.

Re: Here's an idea

[Type44Q]

The songs and words are made by marketing droids.

That's if you're lucky; I suspect that a lot of "lyrics" are sharted-out by algorithms.

Re:Here's an idea

[cayenne8]

It almost doesn't matter how an act is discovered, what the people in the group must be willing to let their act be subjected-to is what will define where the label is willing to market them and how much effort they're willing to spend.

*SIGH*

I guess there will never be another Zeppelin or Stones....that wrote and produced their own records, played their own instruments, etc.

Re:Here's an idea

[Applehu Akbar]

Cut out the greedy RIAA pigs and give the money straight to the artist.

In line with this, I would like to see intellectual property in general redefined as a personal right of the creator of work, not any more fungible than one's right yo free speech. The effect of this would be that any third party that makes money off an artist's work would have to maintain a contractual relationship with the artist or inventor.

Re:Here's an idea

[Altrag]

Ehhh there might be. The current environment certainly isn't favorable to groups like that but who knows what things will be like in a generation or two.

Also don't forget selection bias. Standing along side Zeppelin and the Stones was 100,000 bands you've never heard of because their music wasn't good enough to last beyond the initial pop burst.

Its entirely possible that the next Stones is currently playing in some dive bar in Texas at this very moment and you won't even realize that they exist for another 10 or 15 or 20 years while they struggle to make a name for themselves among the bright lights of our modern one- or two- album contract pop singers that the RIAA dumps the second their sales drop even slightly.

Re:Here's an idea

[sit1963nz]

Musical tastes vary from person to person, and sometimes day to day. My music goes from Opera though to Evanescence, Black Sabbath, hell I have Country and even a selection of Chinese violin music. While driving I tend to play heavy rock, while reading I play classical. I have quite a few CDs from groups I have heard playing in Subways, street corners . I barely listen to Radio and do not stream music regularly, I may go to Youtube to grab some nostalgia from the 60's-80's. Getting to people is actually becoming harder, I don't watch "normal" TV, I watch mostly netflix. Don't go to pubs and like most ignore adverts as background noise. The labels do more to cut through to people now than ever before.

Re:Here's an idea

[sit1963nz]

Like most things, the only ones you hear from are the 5% with a complaint the 95% who are happy rarely say anything. If anything its become worse because the complainers set up jerk circle sites to amplify the noise about their grudge.

Re:Here's an idea

[aevan]

There's plenty of bands that produce/write/perform/edit their own stuff. Personally I'm waiting on the next comiket (this new years) for its lineup of independent releases. There are even full orchestras of 'amateurs' that aren't signed to some recording company. Now they might not be world touring bands, but they do end up with their stuff purchasable online, performing at various concert halls and clubs, etc.

The biannual 'ket and M3 [music media-mix market] events are the highlights for my year for music acquisition. Has to be more events like that in other places, or at least the opportunity for such.

Re:Here's an idea

[aevan]

Heard all mine from independent artist events, events that have been happening for the last twenty years. Maybe RIAA was of extreme importance in the 70s? (Dunno, underground tape exchanges were how I got mine then), but sure, 99% of music people got from the radio were got from the riaa putting it on the radio. Inertia and laziness on the listener keeps that going, but eventually as it gets easier for an indie to get found and STAY indie... rather explains how frantic music industry has gotten.

Re:Here's an idea

[Gussington]

However, many independent artists would leap at the change to sign with a label, since 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

THIS. People always make the mistake of looking at high revenues that big-name artists get and dream of doing that themselves.

I've watched enough versions of Dragon's Den (or Shark Tank depending where you live) to know how important this is. So many fools hang on to 100% ownership because they can't figure out that $100% of peanuts is a worse position than 50% of a golden egg.

Nevertheless, they CAN still serve a function, and thus many independent artists still DO sign on.

Which is why they still exist, because they actually work.

Re:Here's an idea

[Aighearach]

I'm sitting here listening to Rolling Stones recordings from the 70s, and I was reading their history on wikipedia... they got their first UK chart hit by having fan club members buy the single at the record shops that were being polled for the chart! LOL That's what let them get bookings outside of London. They were way ahead of the game. The labels didn't have the payola locked up yet, so their band manager was able to finagle that stuff directly.

One of my other common listening choices is the Clancy Brothers. They were folk fans trying to be theater actors in NY, they opened a theater and production company and they only starting performing as a folk act to promote their venue. Commercial success as a promo was hoped for, but artistic success and recognition was perhaps a (welcome) surprise.

The money doesn't bother me. I also listen to Madonna, her money doesn't bother me either.

What people don't realize is that when their friend tells them about a show somewhere, it was probably promoted to them using money. "Word of mouth" often consists of happy customers simply repeating the ad copy for free to their friends. People miss that part.

Re:Here's an idea

[Evtim]

Oh, so behind the wall [a long time ago on this earth] we did not listen to any music and did not create any because there was no marketing [and truly there was no marketing for anything]? I think not.

Every time this content copyright stuff comes along I always ask the industry the same thing. OK, so I never own your product, I only bought the right to enjoy it until I live. OK, why then when the tape came along you asked me to purchase IN FULL the Beatles album I bought on vinyl. And then you asked me to pay it again IN FULL to get it on CD. And then you forbade me to make a digital copy so if the CD dies [almost 100% certainty that will happen more than once before I die] guess what. And man, even if you have digital copy they'd change the format in a few years from now and I'd have to convert again [if possible] or....you guessed buy it again IN FULL.

Bottom line: the industry does not honour the contract. Of course I can't sue.

P.S> Did I mention my 600 DVD/Blue ray collection? Those discs die as well - guess how much hassle is to back it all up. No help at all from the people I paid more than 10 000 euro over the years....

Re: Here's an idea

[Aighearach]

If the RIAA vanished tomorrow, new mechanisms would form to help people find music they like. And those new mechanisms would be better for both the artists and listener.

Or worse. Some places have mechanisms where people who listen to music have their heads removed from their torsos.

If a group of people is vanishing, I have a few questions before I know if it is better or worse.

Re:Here's an idea

[stealth_finger]

Everyone hates the RIAA, but the fact is without the marketing by these entities you would never have found your "favorite" bands. Of course, out will come the people saying I am stupid (or a troll), and protesting that they like their favorite indie band because they heard them in a bar, Youtube, from a friend, etc. But the reality is that 99% of music is heard because of marketing. Period.

Shame the RIAA don't do marketing, they collect royalties. The labels do all the marketing then charge the band back for it.

Re:Here's an idea

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Everyone hates the RIAA, but the fact is without the marketing by these entities you would never have found your "favorite" bands.

I found my favorite bands through word of mouth, pirated music from friends at LAN parties, and from reviews on independent websites and mentions of similar bands in the comments of said sites.

And they're real, actual favorite bands, not just flavor-of-the-week "favorite" bands.

Re:Here's an idea

[silentcoder]

The metal scene is actually still mostly like that. Perhaps less so in America but there metal was basically killed by the hair-metal movement anyway and became extremely small ever since. Ignore the Nu-metal stuff - since mostly they are of the sausage-factory variety, but you did also have Slayer, Death and Manowar who wrote their own stuff, experimented with new ideas (Manowar basically invented the combination of choral and metal music), produce their own stuff, play their own instruments and push boundaries. Even metallica has had periods where they created real art and their the most commercial metal band America ever had (and the best-selling world-wide of all time).

This is a LOT bigger in Europe - the best metal for two generations have come out of the Slavic countries - Norway, Germany and Finnland in particular and the generation before it was Britain. Priest and Maiden were fantastic and Maiden is still fantastic, still touring, still innovative - they may have grown old but they never grew stale (I saw them live a few months ago and it was one of the best shows I've ever been at). The German scene started out with bands like Accept, which was a one-hit-wonder in the US but had a long and illustrious career back home, and moved into legends like Hammerfall and Blind Guardian. Later they and their neighbours would birth bands like Amon Amarth, Children of Bodom, Korpiklaani, Nightwish - all of which had their own unique approaches to a very wide genre which had already significantly innovated from other metal subgenres (a focus on singable lyrics, low-use of bass but heavy use of rhythm guitars, extremely rapid double-bass-drum patterns, elements of opera, choral and classicalmusic mixed). And most of them are unknown outside their home countries. Meanwhile Norway gave birth to black-metal which is one-part music one part polical protest against the dominance of the state-church, and then Armenian/German band Powerwolf took the stylistics of black metal, mixed it with the musical stylings of powermetal and based their lyrics on the mythology of the Holy Roman Empire for a completely unique sound and style.

There are still great bands out there pushing boundaries, combining absurdly different influences into truly unique music - they just aren't in the USA anymore. In many ways the country is just too conservative. Every time you have an artist actually pushing boundaries, trying different things, exploring a different approach to theatrics - there's a million protesters blaming them for every ill in society. In the 1980's they burned Maiden's records (though the band didn't mind because, in their words: 'before they could burn the record - they had to buy it first'), in the 1990s they blamed Manson for Columbine (even though neither of the shooters listened to the band), a few months ago buzzfeed blamed Slipknot for the racism of Trump supporters (so it's not just the rightwingers who do that), and a judge had to tell law enforcement that listening to Insane Clown Posse does not automatically make you a gangster (so it's not just metal bands either).

That's why it doesn't happen anymore - because in America any band that doesn't toe the line very carefully will never get airplay, never get on radio - just face a constant barrage of harassment and horror. So while bands and musicians may be brave - the record companies aren't, they will have one or two controversial acts (because controversy also sells) but they won't risk anything more.

Back in the mid-1990s Oasis was planning a tour in the US which was struggling to sell, Bon Jovi at the time said "Oasis will never be very successful here, because America is too conservative"
And that's coming from the least controversial, least metal, musician to ever play hair-metal about a band that, honestly, was just a fairly average British pop-rock band who did nothing particularly original or special memorable in their music and whose sole claim to notoriety was once outselling the Bible and calling themselves "Greater than god" - which they stole from the Beatles anyway.

Re:Here's an idea

[silentcoder]

Mind you- the US music industry does seem to have gotten a lot less conservative about sex anyway (odd shift). I saw one of those 'kids watch' a while ago where a bunch of young teenagers were shown some Nirvanna videos, most had never heard of them (one had and was apparently a fan), a few had some vague idea of Kurt Cobain having killed himself. You know the drill.

But one thing was interesting: more than half the kids expressed astonishment at the fact that the people in the videos were fully dressed.

There's nothing wrong about sex and sexuality in music - it's part of life and should be part of music, but it isn't *all* of life and shouldn't be *all* of music.

Re:Here's an idea

[silentcoder]

Well let me tell you how I discovered my favorite band. I have had a love for powermetal for a long time, which began with Manowar back in the early aughts.

One day, I had some friends over and wanted some background music without effort - so I typed "powermetal collection" into youtube and left it playing. At some point a song came on which stopped me in mid-sentence to turn around and go turn it up... because it blew my mind. It was the first time I ever heard Powerwolf. Who is signed with a fairly small indie label in Europe that only does powermetal and is where most powermetal bands go to get signed because they get a good deal from a company that won't fuck with their sound.

I've had powerwolf dominating my playlists ever since. They are just unbelievably good.

Re:Here's an idea

[silentcoder]

Oh - and powerwolf has *never* been played on any radio or tv station in my country and even if it had I wouldn't have heard it because I haven't listened to either in more than a decade - I can't stand the crap they play 200 times a day.

Re:Here's an idea

[silentcoder]

He can't argue his point, because that would require proving a negative - which is logically impossible.

When your argument would require doing something logically impossible in order to defend it - that's usually not a good sign for the likelihood of you being right.

Re:Here's an idea

[thomn8r]

Standing along side Zeppelin and the Stones was 100,000 bands you've never heard of because their music wasn't good enough to last beyond the initial pop burst.

Or their music may have been better, they just weren't in the right place at the right time; we'll never know.

Re:Here's an idea

[vell0cet]

People complain about manufacturing jobs moving to China. What about the ones that moved to the music industry?

Re:Here's an idea

[houghi]

Basically they are a union for the companies. And still people think unions are a bad idea, while it is proven that they CAN work. The individual labels would never have that power. In union, they can.
You can dispute if they should be doing what they are doing, but they ARE successful in what they do for their members.

Re:Here's an idea

[slashdotwannabe]

But for every sudden "YouTube sensation," there are 10,000 people out there who are uploading stuff that gets 5 views only from their friends

Ha! My videos get more than TWICE that many views!

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing YouTube to Spotify.. seriously?

How many of Spotify's users are there for music? I'm betting its close to 100%.
How many of YouTube's users are there for music?

Re:Wow...

[fbobraga]

+1 informative

Re:Wow...

[caseih]

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.

Re:Wow...

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Most Spotify users are there for background noise to drown out the sounds of coworkers.

Given that RIAA et al have asserted copyright infringement against recordings of bird songs, I would expect them to demand payments for streaming "background noise".

Re:Wow...

[UnderCoverPenguin]

How many of YouTube's users are there for music?

Even "non-music" content often has background music.

And, in my experience, they don't care if the music is original. I have licensed recordings I made of music I composed to others for use as background music. Even after being sent signed copies of the license grants, they kept repeating demands for payments from people using my music.

Re:Wow...

[Aighearach]

Well, most of the cats do have soundtracks.

Re:Wow...

[kimvette]

"An astounding waste of bandwidth but it doesn't matter."

You say that as if bandwidth is a resource that is limited like fresh water, fossil fuels, etc.

If you don't pay me 100 billion dollars I will

[Joe_Dragon]

If you don't pay me 100 billion dollars I will....

Re:If you don't pay me 100 billion dollars I will

[Howitzer86]

Sit their quietly and pout.

Re:If you don't pay me 100 billion dollars I will

[Jason Levine]

Clearly, he's extorting money from those of us who can't stand to see bad grammar, Quick! Someone pay him before he misuses their//there/they're or says "my head literally exploded!"

Re:If you don't pay me 100 billion dollars I will

[stealth_finger]

Clearly, he's extorting money from those of us who can't stand to see bad grammar, Quick! Someone pay him before he misuses their//there/they're or says "my head literally exploded!"

What is you're pacific problem hear?

I am going to say this just once.

[nitehawk214]

If you give money to the recording industry via bands with recording contracts. You are part of the problem.

Giving those assholes money enables them to feed their greed.

Re:I am going to say this just once.

[Austerity Empowers]

That and desperate starving artists who signed really, really bad deals when they were young and unknown that won't let them easily break away from their publisher.

Re:I am going to say this just once.

[nitehawk214]

Except those "starving" artists aren't getting any of the money you pay for their music. There are thousands of starving artists that decided they would rather stay starving than sell out to a music label. I choose to give my money to them.

Music is like food. It is better when it is local.

Re:I am going to say this just once.

[bobbied]

That and desperate starving artists who signed really, really bad deals when they were young and unknown that won't let them easily break away from their publisher.

So perhaps the solution to this is to put some limits on what rights an artist can sign away? Sort of like Cali and their refusal to enforce employment non-compete contracts?

Re:I am going to say this just once.

[RatherBeAnonymous]

They would likely still be starving if they sold out. By my estimation, signing a contract infinitesimally increases your odds of hitting it big, but your odds of making a living go down significantly.

Re:I am going to say this just once.

[Aighearach]

Artists make money when you go to their show, buy a ticket, and buy swag from the booth. They might even make money off the CD sales at the concert booth.

This is generally true regardless of whatever deal they signed with a record company. Also, performing is most of the work that a performer should be doing. So it makes sense.

If they write their own songs, they also get paid when it plays on the radio.

Artists who complain about their record deal should be touring more. They're not really even in the "record" business.

Re:I am going to say this just once.

[nitehawk214]

Exactly. I don't understand why people don't see this. The contract makes sure the label makes money before the artist does. Those assholes will take any opportunity to screw over anyone, why would an artist trust them?

I suppose once an artist gets a bit popular, greed takes over.

Re:I am going to say this just once.

[nitehawk214]

Interesting. I thought they would pay more like per-song like Pandora, but I suppose it makes sense for Amazon to do flat-rate bulk fee.

Different business models

[ugen]

There is a crucial difference here - all of Spotify users are there for the music, while only a (small) percentage of Youtube users are using it to listen to music. If we take the actual count of users who use Youtube to listen to the music, the royalty per year would be quite a bit more. Of course MPAA is probably next in line for the handout, so Youtube should be careful there.

Re:Different business models

[SuricouRaven]

There is another difference too: The spotify users are willing to pay.

Re:Different business models

[Bite The Pillow]

"With 800 million music users worldwide" sounds like the MAFIAA already thought of that. However, I don't trust their estimates.

As sibling mentioned, other services have a majority of paid users. I don't think YouTube red has caught on to that extent, and that seems like the obvious disparity. And users aren't streaming YouTube music for hours in a row.

YouTube is just not targeting continuous streaming users, and I think that is audience behavior at this point. Users come for music videos or lyric videos or live performances, not streaming audio only. I doubt they could swing a change in business model if they wanted to.

Re:Different business models

[hambone142]

Agreed. I don't ever stream music from Youtube. Now and then, if I want to show someone what an obscure song is, I google it and if they have a Youtube link to the song, I'll play it but who the hell needs video to listen to music? Perhaps with a performance but not just listening to something off an album.

My music regimen is to stream an obscure station that I like, run it to bluetooth and broadcast it using low power over FM to my living area/outdoors. If I hear something I like, I download it and it goes on my iPod (I don't use the Apple store because it doesn't download .mp3, I use Amazon instead so I can put it on a flash drive for my car.

If I don't like what's playing on the streaming station, I move to Pandora.

I do use Youtube but I use it purposely for video, not listening to music throughout the day.

As you say, it's a non-comparable business model.

Re:Different business models

[complete loony]

users aren't streaming YouTube music for hours in a row

Actually, some users are. (eg)

Re:Youtube is not just a Music service

[BlueStrat]

Many Youtube users never use it for music covered by the RIAA so it is not fair to compare it to services like Spotify that are primarily for music.

Google/YT should try suspending all the record label and label-signed artists' accounts for a full business quarter and see if the labels/IFPI/RIAA change their attitude after they watch their bottom-lines take a plunge.

The labels and their stables of artists need YT more than YT needs them.

Strat

Apples and oranges

[PhantomHarlock]

You're talking about two entirely different things. One is a dedicated music service where users listen to music exclusively for hours on end. Another is a video service where people might occasionally go listen to a song, amongst the other videos they might watch that do not contain third party copyrighted music content. So comparing the amount per user is a bit like apples and oranges.

This should be straightforward...number of views on licensed content times amount per view, maybe on a sliding scale or something if that's how it was negotiated. Adjustment for percentage of the song they listened to or was used in the video, if desired.

Re:Apples and oranges

[tepples]

amongst the other videos they might watch that do not contain third party copyrighted music content

Or do they? Even if a video is ostensibly 100 percent original, how does the composer of the video's background music know that he or she isn't subconsciously infringing one of the millions of copyrighted musical compositions in existence?

$0 is what is owed

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:$0 is what is owed

[wisnoskij]

The thing is that Google already deletes videos which copyright infringe, for both video and audio. Legally, I do not see how they owe them anything. Do all major sites pay RIAA money?

Re:$0 is what is owed

[H3lldr0p]

Legally, you'd be wrong.

Music streaming is done in the US under a permissive, compulsory license. In the vast majority of cases the steamer will need to sign up with BMI or some other entity that will audit your counts and to whom you pay. They will further distribute the money as per the rate that the Library of Congress sets. The last change in those was in 2014, with another rate hike set to go in this year and again in 2020.

YT and Google however, negotiated directly with the labels instead.

The DMCA takedown notices are a separate law that is currently being abused.

Re:$0 is what is owed

[wisnoskij]

But they do not get anything in return. This money they are paying the music industry does not make it legal for them to stream any music, to anyone. All copyrighted music that Youtube or anyone else detects gets removed. Are you saying that the music industry owns some patent on audio streaming, and for a youtube videos to have sound they have to pay the RIAA for that right?

Re:$0 is what is owed

[Gussington]

If each organization were to play a very costly game of chicken, only Google would have the possibility of walking away from the wreak.

Except the record companies have the law on their side, and your idea is merely created of out fairy dust. Except for that it sounds great.

Re:$0 is what is owed

[houghi]

The fact that you say that the one with the most money wins is the whole problem. RIA sues me and they win because they have deeper pockets.
They should win if they are right and lose if they are wrong, regardless of the amount of money they have.
The thing is that if they are wrong, they will buy the law that makes it that they are right.

Re:$0 is what is owed

[OrangeTide]

The thing is that if they are wrong, they will buy the law that makes it that they are right.

This is a very old story that has been repeated in civilization for millennia. I'm not saying we should accept it, just that this sort of corruption is a difficult problem to solve.

Whine whine whine...

[sunking2]

You can say greed, or whatever all you want. But the fact is it's their content and they should be able to dictate the terms that it is consumed. While you can argue that its all about money, it's really not. It's about control of what they produce. Now that control will translate into money at some point, but the content owners should be the ones setting the terms how that is done.

Re:Whine whine whine...

[amicusNYCL]

It would be less about greed if the RIAA gave a larger piece of the pie to the people who actually created the music in the first place. When the RIAA gets the majority then it looks like they're being greedy about it.

Re:Whine whine whine...

[sunking2]

Not relevant. They own it, they should be able to control it any way they want. Don't like the system, don't consume from it.

Re:Whine whine whine...

[sl3xd]

But the fact is it's their content and they should be able to dictate the terms that it is consumed.

A good is only worth what a buyer is willing to spend.

I can say my turd is worth fourteen trillion dollars, and try to get listed as the richest man alive, but unless somebody is willing to spend that money for my effluent, the rest of the world would rightly laugh in my face.

The same is true for copyright holders. They may think they have something worth billions, but it's ultimately only valuable if buyers pay for it.

So the real problem is that the RIAA is in possession of the copyright for something that can be trivially and undetectably violated at a massive scale. Buyers only spend what they think it's worth, and there's the rub: the RIAA is trying to price thier goods above what buyers are willing to spend, and they get nothing.

Manyf producers in every industry price themselves out of the market. If they continue to price themselves out of the market, they can't sustain thier business. The RIAA is simply pricing themselves out of the market, and thier revenue suffers as a result.

Re:Whine whine whine...

[sunking2]

So don't consume it. Price them out and let them go out of business. You don't own the rights, its not your decision. It's there. If that means they go out of business, then that's how it works. You don't have some right to consume it just because you want to.

Re:Whine whine whine...

[RatherBeAnonymous]

You have a point, but I think it's been covered elsewhere already.

RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs
http://www.theonion.com/articl...

Re:Whine whine whine...

[tepples]

Don't like the system, don't consume from it.

How can I avoid the system when the local grocery store licenses the system's music to play over its speaker system?

And how can I avoid the system when writing my own music? Is there an accepted way for a songwriter to avoid accidentally infringing the system's copyrights?

Re:Whine whine whine...

[amicusNYCL]

No, it actually is relevant. They've created a de-facto monopoly by buying up as many smaller labels as they can where they are the major player in the industry, it is hard for a band to do anything if they don't cooperate. As a result, the contract terms are famously one-sided because, again, they have the leverage to essentially dictate whatever terms they want. The only reason they own the music that other people write and produce is because that is what they demand in order for the musicians to be allowed into the system which controls the vast majority of music distribution and publishing. When we're talking about the greed of the music industry in general, the contract terms that they force musicians to agree to in order for them to be included in the system are damn well relevant.

Don't like the system, don't consume from it.

Yes, the "our way or the highway" way of thinking has been their business plan for decades. Only relatively recently have bands had a legitimate distribution network which doesn't require them to be part of the system. And, look what happens, now the recording industry is talking about how unfair it is that they only get a billion dollars from one of the distribution outlets when they think they should get a lot more. That's greedy. There's a new system that doesn't require musicians to sign over ownership of their own artwork and the establishment labels don't like it. A lot of other people have agreed and have decided to not consume from their system, and they've been whining about it ever since.

They only have themselves to blame. If they want people to think that they aren't greedy then they need to reverse the contract clauses, so that the creators are the actual owners and the labels get a small cut for distribution while the artists get the majority. And then the artists can decide how their music is used. If that happens then people won't see the labels as greedy, but when you have people working in that industry who own a lot of content while specifically taking pride in the fact that they can't produce the kinds of things which they have the rights to, it is most definitely greedy and it is most definitely relevant.

Re:Whine whine whine...

[MrKaos]

The only reason they own the music that other people write and produce is because that is what they demand in order for the musicians to be allowed into the system which controls the vast majority of music distribution and publishing. When we're talking about the greed of the music industry in general, the contract terms that they force musicians to agree to in order for them to be included in the system are damn well relevant.

I've secured the music industry contracts to analyze them for my own performance art and the way they do this is just devious. They get performers contractually committed to a recording schedule to secure an advance. They loan them the $250,000 to record their album that they have to pay pack for recording from their advance. They then send the musicians to one of their recording studios where the label determine the rate at which the musicians will be charged.

When the musicians are finished they don't own the original recordings, the label does. Musicians who are able to record themselves are able to "lease" recording to the label and secure a slightly higher royalty rate (from 10% to maybe %15). All musicians seem to be fucked this way.

When considered from a perspective that geeks would be more familiar with: imagine if you had to get a $250,000 dollar advance to write a game. You have to pay it back out of the profits. The label owns all the code you wrote, you don't have access to your source code and you're still on the hook if it flops. Like paying back all of your salary, with interest.

Yes, the "our way or the highway" way of thinking has been their business plan for decades. Only relatively recently have bands had a legitimate distribution network which doesn't require them to be part of the system. There's a new system that doesn't require musicians to sign over ownership of their own artwork and the establishment labels don't like it.

Do tell more!

If that happens then people won't see the labels as greedy, but when you have people working in that industry who own a lot of content while specifically taking pride in the fact that they can't produce the kinds of things which they have the rights to, it is most definitely greedy and it is most definitely relevant.

and more because musicians don't have the right to produce new music AND the label can exercise creative control over the band to influence the type of music they produce. Of course they still have the option to distribute "unheard" recordings when it suits them.

The biggest issue I see is that the musicians are signed as individuals as opposed to corporate entities, which means musicians are personally liable if the label decides to get nasty.

The sad thing is that musicians are outsiders to the music industry, surprising as it sounds, like consultants who've come from outside to help the company break new markets. Sure those contractors are nice guys and they might get invited to the christmas party, but they're not really part of the team.

Re:Money-grubbing evil vs money-grubbing evil

[Anonymous Coward]

or just run an ad blocker on youtube.

Middle hollowed out, just like everywhere

[Tablizer]

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!

Re:Middle hollowed out, just like everywhere

[chispito]

Concert, venue, wedding, and bar performances are probably the best source of music wages, not recordings.

This is my thought, too. If you want to make a living in music, get used to gigging.

Re:All money in the world isn't enough

[fbobraga]

Ha ha!

Not enough

[c]

Thought so.

Give them what they want

[Varenthos]

Give the recording industry exactly what they want. Remove any and all music and recordings associated with them from all Google services. Watch as they come crawling back begging to play nicely.

Re:When is 2 billion 18 times bigger than 1 billio

[amicusNYCL]

That was my question also. I'm thinking that they are using the actual number of Spotify users (if it's about $18 per user for $2 billion, that would be around 111 million users), but then assuming that all 800 million "music users" use YouTube for music. I don't think that's a legitimate assumption. If I want to listen to a particular song I'll search on Spotify first, and if I can't find it there then maybe I'll try YouTube or something else. I would be surprised if even 100 million people use YouTube as their primary source of music. If that number is around 55 million people, then YouTube is paying the same amount per music user as Spotify.

Music Industry Dr. Evil

[Jason Levine]

Somewhere, in a plush office, a lowly functionary told a music industry big wig that they got $1 billion from YouTube. He quickly demanded more.

"Why make one billion dollars, when you can make [pinky to lip] one MILLION dollars?"

Time for the dustbin of history

[uncoveror]

The recording industry is as obsolete as buggy whip manufacturers, and pop music is something frivolous that is highly overvalued. That billion is way too much.

False

[s.petry]

I have never found a favorite band by marketing. I learned about bands through word of mouth and going to concerts, clubs, and bars. Today, I know people who have similar music taste and that's how I expand my knowledge.

While your statement may hold true for what people call Pop music (Swift, Gaga, Spears, etc..) I don't know anyone who listens to or likes that stuff.

The Ramones, Sex Pistols, and countless others were popular underground, like early Metallica and Megadeath. "Pop" came to them after they were already popular, and the labeling and change in music due to Pop influence drove large numbers of their followers away. My all time favorite Dream Theater has had virtually no marketing yet has remained successful for 30 years. I was not introduced to newer acts like Wolf Alice by marketing, it was someone saying "hey, this band sounds great".

Marketing is for Pop, and it has both pros and cons.

Re:False

[110010001000]

"I learned about bands through word of mouth and going to concerts, clubs, and bars."

Haha, as I predicted.

BTW, I am a HUGE Dream Theater fan, but face it, DM has TONS of marketing behind it for decades. "Pull me Under" was a MTV staple for a long time. They are marketed by Warner Brothers which is one of the largest.

Re:False

[s.petry]

So you are proud of making false claims across the board. Got it. Being a douche bag with false claims makes you a troll, not people who disagree with your incorrect opinion.

Re:False

[s.petry]

I should have added that you are making a false dichotomy. That a band has some marketing and advertising does not mean that those things are the reason for success. DT in particular had disputes with their original label and moved to Roadrunner because of it's independence. They were made famous because of bootlegs at sell out shows much more than a marketing campaign.

Re:Should

[hackwrench]

No. Intellectual property should be abolished.

Go ahead RIAA - push Google too far

[zerofoo]

I'd love to see the day where Google says fine - we can't agree on a price therefore, we will remove all your copyrighted content from Youtube.

The best way to handle a bully is to stand up to them. The RIAA needs Google far worse than Google needs the RIAA.

Re:Go ahead RIAA - push Google too far

[ausekilis]

Your analysis is way off. The RIAA owns plenty of distribution channels - their business IS distribution and Youtube is an unwelcome competitor. It would suit the labels just fine if Youtube died in a fire.

Lets continue this train of thought a little bit... Where do people still get music?

CD's at Best Buy/Hastings/Fry's/Target wherever... We've all seen the reports from the music industry that physical media sales are down, and have been on a downward slope for some time. The CD section of best buy (and DVD but that's another matter) is less than a quarter of what it was 10-15 years ago. Though I still occasionally get a CD through Amazon, I haven't actually done so in a couple years.

Digital distribution? The big players here are Spotify, iTunes (Apple), and Amazon. Does any member of the RIAA actually own or have a controlling stake in any of those? Didn't think so.

Radio/streaming - Amazon, SoundCloud, Youtube, Pandora, etc... None of these are run by the music industry either.

Physical media was the cash cow for the music industry for decades. Last I checked, NONE of the record labels for bands I listen to have their own digital distribution system. Those labels that do are also-rans, much like EA's Origin to Valve's Steam. Why limit myself to one label when I can get the same or better prices and wider selection somewhere else?

Youtube needs RIAA content more than the RIAA needs Youtube streaming.

If you've ever been to Youtube, you are sure to see clips from TV shows, assorted how-tos, video blogs, random people doing stupid things, video game stuff like speed runs and such, and cat videos (not necessarily in that order). True most of those videos have music, but they aren't RIAA albums or "official music videos". With this statement you're just embarrassing yourself.

Re:Go ahead RIAA - push Google too far

[houghi]

Remove that content and they will lose a lot of people that visit Google. That means loss in revenue. If they give 1B$ you can bet your ass that they made a lot more on ads for the views.

And people will not only watch one video. They will watch 5 after they came for 1 song. So yes, it would hurt Google if they delete all that content and people will go elsewhere for content hosting.

Is it above marginal cost?

[ShooterNeo]

If the RIAA shrinks down to a minimal number of middlemen from lack of money (I guess those people would go to work in regular finance or something their skills would apply for), is this enough to keep the world's musicians able to make new songs and live in modest comfort?

How many people does it actually take to record a decent sounding album? I had the impression, from my friends with their amateur semi-pro bands, that it just takes a few. You need the musicians, some instruments, and a booth in a place with cheap rent that has good mics and that special stuff in the walls. Then a computer and a few thousand bucks worth of gear (including the mics) to convert the sound to digital, and a (usually pirated) copy of that software that lets you mix the tracks.

1 billion from youtube, plus a few more billion from direct sales and from the movie industry does sound like it ought to keep a few thousand artists in business. Enough to make more new songs than we can ever individually or collectively listen to. Am I right?

Airtime is still scarce

[tepples]

do kids still listen to the radio?

Yes, if only in the bus or car while riding to or from state-mandated attendance at a public or accredited private school.

Now there's no scarcity of airtime

If there were "no scarcity of airtime", people wouldn't be complaining about monthly usage caps, and Google wouldn't have to introduce delta compression for Android application package updates.

Re:Airtime is still scarce

[lgw]

You're talking about per-user airtime. I'm talking about "only X songs will be played on the air in this city this week, how much am I bid for your song to be one of them". The latter is why the record labels were so important.

Re:Airtime is still scarce

[tepples]

You're talking about per-user airtime. I'm talking about "only X songs will be played on the air in this city this week"

Per-user airtime times the number of subscribers in a city equals per-city airtime.

My point is that schools ban "disruptive" electronic devices from school property, meaning the only music source left is the FM radio on the bus.

Go away, you're not 21

[tepples]

I learned about bands through word of mouth and going to concerts, clubs, and bars.

Then how are high school students and college underclassmen under age 21, for whom entering a bar or a club that serves alcohol is a crime, expected to learn about bands without help from labels affiliated with the RIAA?

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[s.petry]

Adults who do have access and listen to music. Good grief! Do you think I learned about Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Yes, The Doobie Brothers, The Who, Chicago, and literally hundreds of other bands because "Advertising" and "Marketing"? Hell no, I learned to hate Sunny and Cher because of it but not who good musicians were.

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[Gussington]

Depends on when you were born. The Beatles broke up before I was born, so I found out about them through marketing.
If not for marketing, my children would probably not know who they are either (I can tell them, but they wouldn't listen to me). So it does work.

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[Aighearach]

how are high school students ... expected to learn about bands without help from labels?

Adults ...

LMFAO you're not even from this planet, man. ROFLCOPTER

Most of the music I listen to is from before I was born, but I was a kid once. A human kid.

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[s.petry]

So are you attempting to claim that you would not know music unless a TV or Radio commercial played it? That the only reason you ever found out about an artist/group was through self discovery? You don't refute my claim, you just post an absurd insinuation that kids never listen to music playing when other people are around.

Perhaps in your personal anecdote you lived in a bubble where no music ever played so you could not be influenced by others. I'm doubtful, because I do not know a single person who enjoys music not influenced by family, friends, peers. and environments with music.

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[Aighearach]

No, I'm not attempting to claims that.

If I was attempting to claim that, I would have said so.

What I actually claimed is right there for you to read; and there is never any need to make up extra things that I didn't say in order to understand what I did say.

You're as stupid as the other guy. No, nobody magically learns about anything all on their own, the whole idea is idiotic. And just as idiotic is the idea that kids are going to intentionally turn to adults for music recommendations. The reason that kids get their interests from adults is only because the promoters are adults. Adults who are not using advertising or other promotion to interest the kids will be ignored because the kids will figure out that these adults are making recommendations!

You weren't even born human, it is obvious because you were never a human child.

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[s.petry]

LMFAO you're not even from this planet, man. ROFLCOPTER

You're as stupid as the other guy.

In other words, you are an asshole who can't complete simple thoughts in writing.

This is just a negotiation tactic

[bobbied]

This is just the RIAA trying to alter the licensing deal in place with U-Tube. Yea, they want a bigger piece of the pie and I don't blame them for asking. However, in all negotiations there comes a point where you have to realize that there are just some bargains that cannot be made or you risk killing the deal and giving up all your gains. RIAA seems to be dangerously close to this point to me.

So, if the RIAA wants to kill one of their golden egg laying geese by overloading U-Tube with license fees, it's their loss. Personally, I don't do much on U-Tube and the few videos I watch don't have RIAA licensed material in them so if they go bust trying to pay the RIAA their fees or actively remove any RIAA licensed material from their service, I won't miss U-Tube much. So if RIAA wants to shoot themselves in the foot, fine by me.

But I dare think that the RIAA is really just in the process of setting up the terms of their next license deal with U-Tube. They are asking for more than they expect to get from U-Tube in what is really just a standard negotiation tactic used in all sorts of situations, from bargaining over a $0.25 price at a garage sale though international trade deals.

Can we get an IP pricing body please?

[BlueCoder]

We need to stop IP greed. Instead we should shift to merit model. We need a licensing and pricing body in the US like they have in UK.
In the UK the government sets prices for IP and there is no restrictions on who can license. There is no right to refuse service. You can't charge one person one price and another a second price.

For YouTube there should be something like a tribunal/committee where all cards and analysis are laid on the table and then they decide the price according to public benefit (aka the justification of IP laws... promoting the arts and sciences). Such a committee doesn't need black and white like courts often do and can more fairly price arbitrary grey use that can fall between fair use and commercial use.

That's called Myspace, 53 million songs

[raymorris]

> If it weren't for the RIAA & large music industry companies I bet there would be large sites where all artists could upload their music and users could search for a specific artist, by genre or similar to someone they'd heard

That's called Myspace. There are 53 million songs for you to choose from on Myspace.

Some people like that approach and use Myspace or similar sites to find music. MOST people don't want to sort through 53 million songs by artists of varying quality, and greatly varying production quality - even a really good artist can sound crappy if the sound engineers and others involved in producing the song don't do an excellent job. Most people would rather have *somebody else* sort through the artists and songs for them, arrange to have skilled technicians and producers work with the artist's who are pretty good, then deliver an album of predictable quality.

Re:When is 2 billion 18 times bigger than 1 billio

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys expected the RIAA's numbers to make sense? Screw that, its called 'fake news' again. Or in other words 'use numbers that seem reasonable but require you to actually think a bit to realize their comparing apples to oranges'.

The RIAA can't assume that all '800 million music users world wide' use Youtube OR they'd have to assume all 800 million are using Spotify & apply that number to the Spotify revenues. Heck you can't even assume that the '800 million music users world wide' IF this meant 'Youtube music users' were listening to the same amount of music on Youtube as on Spotify. If you want to compare apples-to-apples you'd have to get this down to 'price per listened to track'...heck, you could even assume people stop a track at any point in the song (Maybe they don't like it, or weren't in the mood or thought it was a different song), so to get right down to real 'apples-to-apples' you might even do the comparison as 'price per second of listened to music'...of course this would likely be in the '10ths or hundredths of a penny' area so wouldn't 'look good' in stories e.g. 'Youtube pays us .0001 cents per second & Spotify pays us .00015 cents per second'...is that .00005 cents per second difference meaningful? people wouldn't have a 'feel' for it at all & most people would likely think 'REALLY you're debating over .00005 cents?' and missing the 'per second' part & not doing the math whereby say 1 billion 'listening seconds' means $50K difference. With 7 billion people in the world that's potentially 2.2x10^17 'available listening seconds' for all humans & thus a potential revenue difference of >$11 TRILLION dollars so yeah that '.00005' cents can make a difference.

Of course another major issue here is that the RIAA is assuming the amount that Spotify pays them is the CORRECT amount that should be paid vs what they make from Youtube. Perhaps the Youtube amount is more 'correct' and users are simply getting screwed on Spotify.

A cry for sympathy?

[XSportSeeker]

I dunno what this spokesperson is complaining about.

The DMCA system is already plenty abused on YouTube, all the revenue generated on YouTube works the same way for all.
In fact, YouTube kinda went out of their way overstepping common law and creating all sorts of anti-consumer provisions to conform to music and movie industry demands.
Labels have their official channels there on the service, they agreed to the same stuff all creatives on YouTube also do. That is, assuming YouTube didn't close even more profitable deals with record labels behind the scenes.

If YouTube is so bad, labels can simply delete their channels and stick to music streaming services instead. You know, there are plenty of channels to go for, including crap like Tidal.

What the music industry won't talk about, of course, is reach. It's the same exact reason why piracy always have a negative outlook without we ever hearing about positive impacts it had in several entertainment industries. It's why they won't pull channels from YouTube despite all this whinning.

How long have we been hearing complaints about YouTube coming from the music industry? Why the hell are they still there if it's this bad after all these years? The answer is pretty obvious. YouTube is not Spotify, Apple or Deezer. It's not even comparable. It's not a dedicated music streaming service. It's a general purpose video streaming platform. YouTube has over a billion users, while all these other services put together won't reach even a hundred million. YouTube's reach is tenfold at the very minimum, and to a wider variety of people.

You wanna expose your content to a public like that, that's the price to pay. And of course platforms dedicated only to music will generate more revenue, it is their main business after all.

Apples and Spotifies and Oranges

[Matheus]

Their comparison between what Spotify has paid them and what YouTube is paying them is a pretty poor comparison. On Spotify, the vast majority of the music played incurs some for of royalty. On YouTube, although there is a lot of copywritten material out there for sure, the bulk of the content does not necessarily incur royalty costs.

The comparison maybe would have been valid if they had qualified it with "For the same about of copywritten material viewed on YouTube vs played on Spotify, Spotify paid us double the royalties."

It's loosely equivalent to some Minneapolis politician complaining about how much less toll revenue they get compared to Chicago when a large number of Chicago's freeways are tollways and Minneapolis only charges for express lanes (when you're not a carpool).(I know the analogy is a bit of a stretch but it's been a long day.. gimme a break!! ;)

Re:Finite amount of music

[MrKaos]

There is? Yep, says MATH."

http://gizmodo.com/5962375/is-it-possible-to-run-out-of-new-music

Intervals dood.

Enough is never enough

[kimvette]

For the music industry, there is no such thing as "enough profit." If someone else is getting a tiny sliver of the pie, or if they are missing out on a few crumbs of the pie, the music industry demands to be compensated with several full pies.

I agree that 10% of something

[rsilvergun]

is still more than 100% of nothing, but with some of the contracts out there the band ends up in debt paying off their "advances". 100% of 0 is better than 10% of -$100,000.

The RIAA is a trade group

[rsilvergun]

so they're the public face representing the interests of those record companies and setting the policies and tone for those companies. It's like the NRA. They're a trade group.

How much money is enough?

[Neuronwelder]

When the original John D. Rockerfeller was asked how much money is enough? He replied: "Just a little bit more." https://starwinar.wordpress.co...