Slashdot Mirror
EU Sides With RIAA, Says YouTube Underpays For Music Streaming (mercurynews.com)
Profits from both CD sales and digital downloads are declining, while online streaming now accounts for the majority of the $7.7 billion U.S. music market, according to a new article. And the music industry's newest complaint is that 25% of music streaming is happening on YouTube, which they believe is paying them too little. An anonymous reader quotes the San Jose Mercury News:
Now, the battle is heating up as the European Union is expected to release new rules later this year for how services such as YouTube handle music, potentially upending some of the copyright protections that undergird the Internet... The E.U. has formally recognized that there is a "value gap" between song royalties and what user-upload services such as YouTube earn from selling ads while playing music... How such a law would address the gap is still being decided, but the E.U. has indicated it plans to focus on ensuring copyright holders are "properly remunerated." Even the value gap's existence is disputed.
A recent economic study commissioned by YouTube found no value gap -- in fact, the report said YouTube promotes the music industry, and if YouTube stopped playing music, 85 percent of users would flock to services that offered lower or no royalties. A different study by an independent consulting group pegged the YouTube value gap at more than $650 million in the United States alone. "YouTube is viewed as a giant obstacle in the path to success for the streaming marketplace," said Mitch Glazier, president of the Recording Industry Association of America... YouTube pays an estimated $1 per 1,000 plays on average, while Spotify and Apple music pay a rate closer to $7... The music industry claims YouTube has avoided paying a fair-market rate by hiding behind broad legal protections. In the United States, that's the "safe harbor" provision, which essentially says YouTube is not to blame if someone uploads a copy-protected song -- unless the copyright holder complains.
YouTube argues that its automatic Content ID system recognizes 98% of all copyright-infringing uploads -- and that each year they're already paying the music industry $1 billion in royalties.
A recent economic study commissioned by YouTube found no value gap -- in fact, the report said YouTube promotes the music industry, and if YouTube stopped playing music, 85 percent of users would flock to services that offered lower or no royalties. A different study by an independent consulting group pegged the YouTube value gap at more than $650 million in the United States alone. "YouTube is viewed as a giant obstacle in the path to success for the streaming marketplace," said Mitch Glazier, president of the Recording Industry Association of America... YouTube pays an estimated $1 per 1,000 plays on average, while Spotify and Apple music pay a rate closer to $7... The music industry claims YouTube has avoided paying a fair-market rate by hiding behind broad legal protections. In the United States, that's the "safe harbor" provision, which essentially says YouTube is not to blame if someone uploads a copy-protected song -- unless the copyright holder complains.
YouTube argues that its automatic Content ID system recognizes 98% of all copyright-infringing uploads -- and that each year they're already paying the music industry $1 billion in royalties.
On the other hand, why should YouTube benefit from widespread copyright infringement? I can understand arguments about compensation for the artists and others directly involved in the creative process vs. benefits to the general public, but YouTube is just an intermediary, even if it's a very big one.
Also, from my own professional experience, YouTube is appallingly bad at living up to even its basic obligations under the extremely generous (to hosting sites) provisions of the DMCA and its equivalents around the world. I'll have no sympathy whatsoever if they take a big hit on this one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But it's not copyright infrimgement. It's paying agreed charges when the charges weren't well thought out by RIAA when they were set before YouTube was conceived. There is no piracy/infringement happening, just a unilateral change to terms of a contract because the RIAA wants more money.
Learn to love Alaska
You should be grateful for the wider audience youtube provides. In fact, you should pay them for use of their storage and bandwidth. Like the rest of us plebes, you can get paid when you perform. All work is for hire. Playing a movie of me eating a steak doesn't fill my stomach (Of course, filming it does). Why should it be different for anybody else? The industry is abusing its privileges (DMCA, indefinite copyright, captured legislators, etc), and I certainly will have no sympathy for them if they ever take a hit.
But it's not copyright infrimgement. It's paying agreed charges when the charges weren't well thought out by RIAA when they were set before YouTube was conceived.
Can you provide a citation for this? I have never heard this before, and TFA says nothing about any pre-existing agreement, which leads me to believe that you just made it up.
"YouTube is viewed as a giant obstacle in the path to success for the streaming marketplace," said Mitch Glazier, president of the Recording Industry Association of America...
Here's a Jewish joke (I'd like to tell it in Yiddish but then nobody would understand it):
Every day at the synagogue, Moyshele falls on his knees and prays "oh God, I have seven mouths to feed, payment is bad, I don't know where to get the money for shoes, oh let me win the lottery! You know I need it!" This goes on and on for weeks, more desperate every day.
Finally there is a cloud of thunder and lightning and a reverbating voice states "Moyshele! Give me chance. Buy a lottery ticket."
I mean, "giant obstacle in the path to success for the streaming marketplace"? What streaming marketplace? For the RIAA, any kind of streaming is criminal because of the pricing. The RIAA wants a "streaming marketplace" as a "self-destructing media marketplace" and they want the media priced comparatively to previously, just without the option to hear stuff multiple times and collect and arrange them. DRM on steroids: region coding in spacetime rather than just space.
That's not what streaming is about.
For starters. It doesn't stop there. Or anywhere.
Surely it would be copyright infringement to redistribute those works without a licence from the rightsholders of some form, though, even if YouTube itself could avoid responsibility for the infringing acts of its users because of the safe harbor provisions in laws like the DMCA.
Given that YouTube's origins are of questionable legitimacy in terms of respecting copyrights, yet today the site is one of the biggest names in online video hosting and features revenue-generating ads, I'm still voting "live by the sword, die by the sword" on this one.
Of course, I'll vote the same way if the demands of Big Media groups like the RIAA prove to be excessive, YouTube walk away from the deal and take down the associated videos, and then it turns out that the previous deal was actually a fair market rate and instead the RIAA wind up with less in royalties than before.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I don't know about preexisting as in 'before youtube went up', as that is aeons ago. There are however agreements of some nature: c.f. https://youtube-creators.googl...
I *think* initially Youtube did the DMCA dodge of 'if you report it we take it down, until then we didn't know, we didn't do bad, we'll pull THAT upload'. Around the time google acquired it(?) they switched to the automated detecting and either 'royalties or yanked' method. Some groups don't offer the choice - video is taken down regardless. I know with japanese music groups there are lists of the ones that permit uploads and take the revenue from; while others seek to have your account banned if you try, no mercy. So does seem there are agreements with the artists...but that might be the RIAA's issue: maybe they aren't getting their 'fair share' for doing nothing.
The article says "YouTube pays an estimated $1 per 1,000 plays on average".
Are you under the impression youtube is voluntarily kicking over a billion bucks over out of the goodness of their hearts?
And it was trivial to find this
"The rhetoric intensified this year as YouTube's licensing agreements with the three major record labels - Sony, Warner and Universal - came up for renewal."
You can use that string to google the article.
It took me *two* searches to find it and about 35 seconds.
Harder than the last citation monkey.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The dream, is over...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The companies in RIAA are largely the same companies as in the MPAA. Hollywood started by not respecting IP law. So your 'live by the sword, die by the sword' comment applies more to RIAA.
I usually like the stance against huge monopolies like Google and Microsoft that EU goes for, but not when it's in support of asshole troll associations like MPAA and RIAA.
Honestly, I want to see YouTube just outright removing all music videos licensed under big labels that lobby under RIAA just to see what would happen. They'll never do it, and RIAA will keep whinning and begging for more money (occasionally using artists to do it) 'till the end of times, but I'd want to see that happens just so that these associations take another shot in the foot like the multiple ones they already did.
It's quite obvious what happens when labels decide to take their content out of hugely popular platforms to put into stuff like Tidal and other crap like that. You already tried those, you lost it.
Honestly, from a cold perspective, here's what happens: everyone that's not willing to pay for a streaming service subscription or doesn't have money to keep paying directly for digital music goes to YouTube, plain and simple. The idea that a majority of people who goes to YouTube would migrate to paid streaming services or outright buying digital music is as ridiculous as saying that every pirated music would automatically translate to CD or digital music sales in the past. It doesn't. We all know that, despite the likes of RIAA and MPAA repeating this mantra to death.
YouTube won't pay more for those views because it would disrupt business for them with advertisers, they can't keep business afloat with something like this because they have multiple times more views in comparison to paid subscription music streaming services, and the music industry also cannot give away such a lucrative stream of revenue.
It's all kinda bullshit anyways. YouTube has contracts with major music labels. This isn't some sort of charity or fine that YouTube pay for them. Music labels signed deals with YouTube to get that revenue. If YouTube doesn't have a contract with a specific label that has music on YouTube, the video gets flagged and taken down by the overzealous automatic DMCA bot. So the licensed music that is on YouTube is there because there is a signed contract agreement on both sides stating that 1 buck every 1000 plays is the deal. And it's far better than what most people creating content on YouTube gets. It's far better than what creators making content exclusively for YouTube that is not only music but also video gets.
You can't compare YouTube with streaming services as if the model of business was the same. It's like saying that TV stations should pay the same as Cable TV which should pay the same as movie theaters for content. They don't. They all have different contracts that will stipulate payment based on how each media makes money, which in turn is directly related to target audience and revenue stream.
The comparison that needs to be made is what music labels get on YouTube versus what all the rest do. Music labels have a far better deal. If I had a buck for every 1000 views on my videos, even though I have almost nothing published, I'd still be making a living from almost nothing. The RIAA is complaining about having an incredible deal effortlessly. If they really think the whole thing is unfair, cancel your contracts and tell YouTube to remove all their intellectual properties from the website. They don't do it because they don't want to lose the revenue. And if they were so sure that people would migrate to other music streaming services, they would have done it already.
One of the paradoxically interesting flameouts. The observation that nobody is attacking the EU, when the US would be vilified, is rather insightful on the surface.
Criticism is usually funneled to a US political body or a Corporation on slashdot. I can see how it might be a disturbing pattern to non-US readers. This is probably because the EU (as a whole) is too unfamiliar and fragmented to make casual connections, for the majority of readers. When talking about the US or US Corporations (although you sometimes see a random Monsanto or Alibaba, etc), there are existing insiders, an accessible history, and strong pre-existing viewpoints. Visitors want to read about and discuss topics they are able to relate to and reason about.
Beyond the blame, I think there's obvious self-injected bias of the poster. The focus on bigotry/pro-white? male-centric views is apt, if you analyze posts in a cursory way. Every /. reader, I know IRL, fits that stereotype so our views will often be framed from that perspective. From the first time I visited /. the bias toward a specific sexuality (specifically straight), was something that was refreshingly absent. I feel like that's just something the poster wants to be true.
Nothing is wrong with being frustrated by the state of /.
I don't think there's anything to gain from trying to SJW the site into some equity of content.
You're free to leave and find a subreddit you like better.
That's just my .02
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
The RIAA associated companies voluntarily put their music up on the site...
Unless my math is wrong, the RIAA would end up with about 13% less revenue to the tune of $1B if youtube does away with ContentID and goes with strict DCMA requests/takedowns.
The the RIAA really want to give up a billion dollars/year?
Then just renegotiate a better deal when the current contract runs out or take the 25% profit loss and stop distributing your music on YouTube.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Isn't there a European record industry association, or a consortium of national associations that would be better placed here?
So why doesn't RIAA demand that all of their products are removed from Youtube?
So why doesn't RIAA demand that all of their products are removed from Youtube?
I've been told that this is because they'd then lose access to the ContentID system, which detects copyright infringement, and piracy would run amok. This is the true leverage of (YouTube's interpretation of) the DMCA — not because it allows a lot of undetected infringement, but that it gives YouTube leverage in negotiations because the record companies would lose protection if they walked away.
Also, from my own professional experience, YouTube is appallingly bad at living up to even its basic obligations under the extremely generous (to hosting sites) provisions of the DMCA and its equivalents around the world. I'll have no sympathy whatsoever if they take a big hit on this one.
Uhm, they keep blocking things from the original artist because RIAA sent a fraudulent DMCA to them.
DMCA isn't generous at all. There is not provision in it to protect artists from RIAA shitting on them and blocking them out.
Google could buy the entire music industry using there lunch money. And maybe should just to shatter these retarded into a million pieces.
As long as YouTube is shielded by the DMCA, that can't be a winning strategy for the RIAA, even if in theory they thought it would be in their favour. In practice, they know lots of people will just put up illegal rips instead, and with YouTube effectively immune to any sort of consequences because of the safe harbor provisions, pulling the "authorised" versions would just mean losing what controls and revenue they do have. (This was one of the points mentioned in TFA.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The DMCA is extremely generous to hosting sites. It basically puts them above the law as far as normal responsibilities for respecting copyrights are concerned, as long as they comply with some simple conditions about takedowns. And as I mentioned before, IME they sometimes don't even comply with those very well, but still seem to benefit from the immunity anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
More verifiable version of story.
Disclaimer: I'm neither endorsing nor criticising the writer's take on the subject; I was simply annoyed that TFA was so exceedingly vague about what conclusion exactly had been reached by which contingent of the EU government. Because "the European Union is expected to release new rules" does a grave injustice to the complex process through which such rules are decided upon.
Artists make $0.0000955 per listener, per play on radio. Meaning it takes over 10,000 listeners/streams to earn that $1 - not just 1,000. Youtube is actually paying 10X the royalty that a performer would make on the radio... And Spotify/Pandora/etc. are paying even higher.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
One source says you're wrong. Youtube pays 10X what radio does...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
RIAA and their clients believe in an existence post the CD era. New tech will displace old, and leave it in the dust. Horseshoe and buggy-whip makers are now doing other stuff.
It is inevitable.
The music "industry" was formed to fill a need, now that function is gone, so fuck you CD guys, go pound sand or what ever.
[...] what'd you call them, 14-year old somethings?
Wankers!
Anyway, kudos.
Thank you!
If you're following creimer that closely, surely you must see what a spectacular, self-destructing nincompoop he is?
ROFL
If YouTube had to pay what they ate legally obligated to pay for all the pirated stuff they host, Alphabet company would be in bankruptcy
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
http://entertainment.howstuffw...
web sites are covered under BMI/ASAP licensing. These are RIAA organizations with blanket licensing agreements. The numbers were created for restaurants, not for something YouTube scale.
Oooh, something you've never heard of. Must be made up! You know everything. Except for common things, like licensing agreements through companies over 100 years old.
No, I'm not saying that's what YouTube is doing. I'm saying that's a common thing people do to pay minimal licensing to play works publicly. Simple, easy, and cheap. Works out about right for the numbers given, seems like YouTube could be over-paying, but then, they have to do something for those that upload songs that aren't under BMI or ASCAP.
Learn to love Alaska
Surely it would be copyright infringement to redistribute those works without a licence from the rightsholders of some form, though,
Nope. The rightholder has licensed out the works to BMI/ASCAP in most cases, and YouTube could then get a license from those, without any involvement of the rightholders. That's commonly how it's done.
Learn to love Alaska
In that case, YouTube would still have a formal agreement to distribute the works, even if it's via the rightsholders' representative rather than directly with the rightsholder themselves. Legally this may be a slightly different relationship, but the practical implications are much the same.
What would be very different in practice is YouTube hosting the same works but uploaded by its users rather than from "official" sources, without any sort of formal agreement authorising the redistribution of those works. This is the real alternative that rightsholders are facing if they don't make a deal (directly or indirectly) with YouTube for legitimate hosting, as long as YouTube can hide behind safe harbor and just dump all the costs of YouTube-facilitated infringement on the rightsholders while obviously still benefiting from having that content available on its service. And so in reality, those rightsholders are still negotiating with a gun to their head here, and I still don't see why YouTube should get a special legal loophole that grants them that sort of commercial advantage.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
YouTube's proprietary music check algorithm already flags birdsong as being copyrighted:
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Let Brussels send hunters to American woods to rid the world of these pirating birds. And we'll let our hunters know they're coming.
Be careful what you wish for...so if YouTube stops playing music entirely, does that help or hurt musicians?
Exactly.
-Styopa
I still don't see why YouTube should get a special legal loophole that grants them that sort of commercial advantage.
They don't. BMI/ASCAP licensing has been around much longer than you. Anyone can use it. Spotify and others negotiate more direct (and favorable) agreements. The RIAA is breaking their standard practice to try to extort from Google. Google calling the RIAA's bluff doesn't have me siding with the RIAA.
Do you similarly complain when Spotify and Apple negotiate more directly than the standard BMI/ASCAP licensing?
Did you also object when the RIAA literally hired mob hitmen to shut down the 100% legal operation, AllOfMP3?
Or are you just anti-Google, and the rest doesn't matter?
Learn to love Alaska
Sorry, but I think you're either missing the point here or misunderstanding the situation.
The collection agencies provide a pragmatic way to license music legally and collect revenues, but in general they have no special status in law. In particular, this is not a compulsory licensing arrangement; rightsholders actively enter into agreements with these intermediaries to administer the licences on their behalf.
The terms those collections agencies offer for granting those licences on behalf of the rightsholders are renegotiated from time to time, and it is their job to negotiate the best deal they can on behalf of the rightsholders. There is nothing unusual about this in general business terms, nor is there any sort of extortion or other inflammatory rhetoric going on just because someone with some exclusive legal right tries to maximise its value commercially. Google's a big business. It can fight for its own corner to get a fair deal, regardless of what anyone else is doing.
My objection is when hosting services are given extra legal ammunition to fight for more than a fair deal, which is clearly the case where you've got any major hosting service well known for having infringing content uploaded by its users on a large scale but the hosting service is essentially immune to the normal legal protections for rightsholders against redistributing their content on such a large scale because of safe harbor. This distorts the bargaining positions, because the alternative for the rightsholders (or their agents) to negotiating in good faith to reach a fair deal for licensing is not to have nothing happen at all but to have their work widely pirated with the direct assistance of their negotiating partners anyway, just with little meaningful accountability.
I'm not going to get drawn into any other cases that you seem to want to introduce here. We're talking about one specific case here. Let's stick to the details of that one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I understand your objection, and disagree with the premise. Google has no more ammunition over the RIAA than anyone else. Safe harbor doesn't grant safe harbor. Safe harbor is an affirmative defense, not an indemnity. Many have had safe harbor and lost. The filesharing sites that did takedowns under safe harbor were still sued into oblivion. If Google were to gain money from infringement, they have no safe harbor, even if they comply with 100% of the DMCA safe harbor provisions. I know that's not how the law reads, but that's how the cases about the law read.
If Google fell back on safe harbor, and made "billions" on copyright infringement, they'd be as liable as the P2P that complied and were still shut down.
Learn to love Alaska
All lottery winners has a secrets they will never share to the public 90% will keep the secret of their success to the grave, but in this life of no mans own you have to help others in other for you to gain more help in the future, its been seven years now i have been playing the lottery the highest win i won was $700, night and day something inner always tell me that there is a perfect way to win the lottery so i continue my search which lead me to Dr.Poula the great voodoo doc who cast a lottery spell for me and i won (11,000,000,00) i doubted him at first, but success was the final result Email Drpoulaspell@gmail.com good luck