Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Releases Study Defending YouTube's Value To Music Biz; Trade Bodies Hit Back (billboard.com)

Posted by msmash on from the curious-case-of-free-music dept.

The ongoing tussle between YouTube and the music industry took a new turn this week when Google assured everyone that its video platform doesn't have any negative impact on the other streaming music services -- despite all the free music it offers. From a report: A Google-commissioned report into how YouTube impacts on the wider music economy has -- somewhat unsurprisingly -- found that the hugely popular, yet much-maligned platform significantly drives sales and stops users from visiting pirate music services. According to a European study carried out by RBB Economics, if music content was removed from YouTube around 85 percent of the time that users spend on the platform would switch to lower value channels, such as TV, radio or internet radio. RBB claimed there would also be a significant increase in time spent listening to pirated content (up 29 percent), while only 15 percent of heavy users, defined as someone who watches more than 20 hours of music videos per month, would switch to higher value offerings like subscription streaming services. In the U.K., that number increases to 19 percent; in France it's 12 percent. [...] In response, music trade bodies poured scorn on the paper's findings. "Google's latest publicity push once again seeks to distract from the fact that YouTube, essentially the world's largest on-demand music service, is failing to license music on a fair basis and compensate artists and producers properly by claiming it is not liable for the music it is making available," reads a statement from IFPI. "Services like YouTube, that are not licensing music on fair terms, hinder the development of a sustainably healthy digital music market," claimed the international trade body, repeating its regular call for tighter regulation around safe harbour licensing.

7 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Ifs and maybes... by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Its out of the box, there is no putting Music back on old platforms like radio and TV and controlling the releases like they used to. Seems odd the music industry is fighting it.

    1. Re:Ifs and maybes... by gnick · · Score: 2

      If the RIAA says the latest Top 40 track is worth X, it is worth X.

      Slapping a price tag on something doesn't change its worth. It's worth what somebody will pay for it. All the RIAA can change is their asking price.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Ifs and maybes... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      To use a car analogy, music listeners are cars owners and the RIAA is a gasoline company. YouTube is the gas station. Right now, the gas station is directly connected to the oil refinery and they are filling up the cars of anyone who pulls into the gas station.

      Not quite true. When a gas station fills up a car and the car drives away, the gas is consumed - it's physically gone from the refinery. When a song is played on YouTube, (or even downloaded), the original recording still exists. Nothing physical has changed hands, and the original 'owner' or custodian of the song hasn't lost anything except an abstract, intangible opportunity. The advent of digital media has simply turned what might be called a 'natural scarcity', (the expense and difficulty of faithfully copying and distributing musical recording), into a 'natural abundance'; as a result, the previous beneficiaries of the natural scarcity are now engaging in various attempts at creating mechanisms of artificial scarcity, (DRM, laws, litigation, etc), to replace the earlier natural ones.

      I understand why you are defending the RIAA's actions here; I'm also sympathetic to the artists' plight, I don't know how to ensure the continued health and viability of music as an economic, cultural, and social driver, and I don't have any easy answers. You seem to think there's a simple, unambiguous approach and/or moral stance here, so let me extend your car analogy a bit and ask you this: if somebody invented a way to infinitely replicate gasoline at low or no cost, would you continue taking your car to a gas station and paying the oil industry for your gas? Or would you use that replicator to multiply what's already in your tank, and simply tell the oil companies to fuck off? Yes, I also understand that at some point new music might stop being made or recorded, and then no amount of replication will get us anything other than more copies of old music. But in the mass, humans aren't good at recognizing such abstractions and taking them into account - as a species we excel at choosing short term gain for long term pain, instead of the other way around. What to do?

      The fundamental nature of music production and distribution has changed. It's time to stop trying to put the genie back in the bottle, and to start finding ways to adapt to the new reality. The old business models are dead, and the animated corpses of them shambling around are really starting to stink.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  2. The truth notwithstanding by bill.pev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm no fan of Alphabet, but the music industry just had its best year in 20 thanks to streaming and digital music. Youtube is a big part of that ecosystem. The music industry may have legit complaints, but digital music hurting them isn't one of them.

  3. Re: Industry Complaints are standard by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    Sorry, you sung a song in the shower. You know owe the RIAA your life savings.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  4. Re: Why YouTube isn't a substitute for streaming m by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're not getting paid by the record companies either; record sales haven't been profitable for artists for ages due to the way record company contracts work. The only way for artists to get paid is to go on tour; it's been like this for quite some time.

    Youtube is the only way I've found to actually listen to any new music to see if I like it or not, since they don't play anything worthwhile on the radio these days.

  5. Re: Why YouTube isn't a substitute for streaming m by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I listen to the same song again and again. The artist got paid once.
    I buy CD's used. The artists doesn't get paid there.
    I share CD's. Guess what -- the artist doesn't get paid.

    Quit playing the "starving artist isn't get paid" card -- because there are numerous legal examples.

    Maybe you missed the memo that the RIAA are the the biggest thieves -- NOT the consumers.

    People who pirate regularly spend MORE on films and BUY more.

    Google is not different from anyone else. You are conflating the (free) distribution of music on YouTube as if it is the ONLY source of income. This is false. Artists aren't making a living off of YouTube even if ZERO of their music is "pirated."

    --
    Fuck You Red Cross for hijacking the + operator and the color red hundreds of years AFTER the Templars.