Slashdot Mirror
More Are Paying To Stream Music, But YouTube Still Holds the Value Gap (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader shares a report: With Google's user-generated content loophole firmly in lawmaker's sights, global music trade body IFPI has published new research looking at demand for music streaming. The research confirms YouTube's pre-eminence as the world's de facto jukebox. 46 percent of on-demand music streaming is from Google's video website. 75 percent of internet users use video streaming to hear music. The paid-for picture is bullish: 50 percent of internet users have paid for licensed music in the last six months, in one form or another, of which 53 per are 13- to 15-year-olds. Audio streaming is split between 39 percent who stream for free and 29 percent who pay. [...] So what's the problem? European policy makers have become convinced by the "value gap" argument: compensation doesn't reflect usage. Google finds itself with a unique advantage here, thanks to YouTube's "user-generated content" exception, as we explained last year.
fr1st ps0t
f1rst p0st
The only value gap is the price people are paying for streaming, and the actual value of digital files. Which is zero.
50 percent of internet users have paid for licensed music in the last six months
Yes, I've done that.
None of it has been "pay to hear it once, then pay to hear it again, and the time after that". I've bought non-DRM files outright. I can move them to any device I own, content-shift them as my heart desires, back them up, and bring them forward to future hardware or whatever the next format-of-the-moment turns out to be.
And they're cheap to purchase outright. Some has also been creative-commons licensed which technically I don't have to pay for, but I do if I like it, to support the artist.
But then I'm pushing 5 times the age of TFS's indicated demographic, and maybe I don't get the appeal it holds for kids these days to not own things, be they games, music, software, , and generally anything that answers to someone who is not you.
You can either get the ad revenue from YouTube or nothing from when people go back to filesharing. Because 50% is already about 49% more than I'd have expected to pay for something as useless as the audio pollution you sell as music.
Slaughtering the goose laying the golden eggs may well result in having nothing at all.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
LOL. Did they run the survey on a sample of martians? Or does it come from 1994 maybe?!
50 percent of internet users have [...] of which 53 percent are 13- to 15-year-olds.
26.5% of internet users are between 13 and 15 years old? That explains everything!
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
What we have gotten from fear like this is censorship and the great firewall of the west. We don't need copy"right" and I'd argue the value of music, movies, and entertainment has long been over valued. You can't tell me that a song or bunch of songs is worth millions of dollars. Songs are literally worth little more than a dime a dozen. There is a reason that the industry "needs" copy"right". It really doesn't, but it thinks it does. What it needs are sound business models (which it has with or without copy"right" as evidenced by the fact we have widespread piracy and the industry still exists and is doing better than ever before).
There was culture before copy"right" and the idea you can't produce films without mega budgets just isn't true. You may have to get creative- but if the movie producers are as good (well, most aren't, but hey-) as they should be they'll come up with better cheaper solutions. The problem we have had until recently is that the entertainment industry didn't have to compete. Copy"right" is a monopoly. That's what it is by definition. It was supposed to be to benefit the arts and sciences for the benefit of the people, but in reality it's a means of funnelling money into the hands of an elite. We need to put and end to copy"right" and look toward competition and a free market. The people living in western countries today have a great advantage in terms of knowledge and education, but we need to end boarders, trade barriers, restrictions on travel (passports, drivers licenses, vehicle registration, license plates, etc), socialism which doesn't work on a massive scale because we have too many poor people trying to get in which leads to armed boarders being a necessity (and haven't really worked anyway), and other inefficiencies in our current system. In the short term its scary- but in the long term freedom creates jobs in the process of "destroying" them.
If EU policy makers believe this crap is bad for the music industry, they are injecting some bad stuff into their skin. Soon Britain won't be the only former member of the EU.
Thanks Policy Makers !!!!1!!1
What you need, nay MUST do is to create your own music for youtube that your users can then select (royalty/royaly free based on monetisation terms of the video) to be played, in part, or its entirety.
Then abolish 3rd party music beats that have not been registered by the user (may be own content creator of the piece)
Fucking profit!!!
Youtube music will fan to the top with user voting for either inhouse music or original youtuber. Screw the music industry and their fat chubs into the earth about 6feet will do.
While I think Google has become far too powerful to be healthy for society, I wish that corrupt IFPI to shrivel up and die, barupting some of its shills and lobbyists in the process.
Perhaps Google and IFPI (and the *AAs) can annihilate each other in one last, fiery embrace? Bliss.
53 per? I feel like there may be a certain symbol that could shorten that grouping of symbols even more, but I can't seem to remember which. it is.
I see no mention of Internet Radio which is all I listen to. Real radio stations with live hosts and music. Excluding Beats One as it is nothing more than a kid-friendly hip-hop station. Might as well describe itself as "Urban Social Pop Status Music".
That completely downplays the costs associated with filtering content. Youtubes ContentID system is far from perfect. It doesn't even hit 80% accuracy. Trying to auto-detect and ban ALL uploads of a single song is just ridiculously hard to do. And when I take a song like the beatles 'revolution' and layer it over my own unique video, basically making my own beatles music video, the resulting content should be considered 'fair use' since its a remixed work, the new work is my own. Music labels decry this as piracy but it should be considered a legitimate form of art expression, and therefore protected by free speech. ALSO: the article completely ignores the fact that music services such as spotify and Pandora are paying TOO MUCH to license music from labels. They used to have to pay one royalty to play one song on their service. Then the music industry manipulated the government and now Pandora has to pay one royalty to play one song FOR EACH USER. When you have thousands of users listening simultaneously, thats a LOT of royalty fees.
From my point of view, its not that youtube isn't paying enough, its that everyone else is being forced to pay too much.
Buy disks, rip, compress, keep it with you. (disks are super cheap on the used market these days)
Streaming = Provide me bandwidth random store or eatery so that I may stream music into my head for your roof is metal and my phone signal does not penetrate well.
Storing your own music = Hackers took down the ENTIRE INTERNET and cellular network? LOL I've got this.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.