YouTube Pays Music Industry $1 Billion From Ads (cnet.com) 76
YouTube, the music industry's enemy No. 1 earlier this year, said Tuesday it has paid more than $1 billion in advertising revenue to artists, labels and publishers in the last 12 months. From a report on CNET: The milestone, released in a blog post by business chief Robert Kyncl, is a stab by Google's giant video site at mending fences with music industry critics. At least, it's YouTube hoping to convince some of them that the massive amount of free, ad-supported music listening that happens there is a valuable complement to music subscriptions, the industry's main area of growth right now.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a music company exec, the tune is "where's the rest?"
Re: (Score:1)
If Google gave the music and video industry every penny in revenue Google received every year, it still would not be enough for them. There's always more coke and whores to buy.
Right (Score:3)
So, somewhere around $37 trillion dollars less than the music industry thinks they're owed?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that, now I know why the saxophone is the worst instrument ever. (Apart from the kazoo).
Re: (Score:3)
If they want revenue they should really get with the times and accept micropayments that grant licenses to individual people to use music as underscore in their videos, as webpage ambiance, and add it to the playlist of online games when they are in the session, or in second-life-like environments, play it in their spaces so other players can hear it. That would create a new revenue stream versus only being able to license it for listening.
Re: (Score:3)
The music industry doesn't "get with the times". They'll be dragged into the times kicking and screaming, but not before they shit all over the bed and generally make everyone's lives as miserable as possible.
Really? (Score:2)
Music industry != artists (Score:5, Interesting)
.
What percentage of that $billion has gone to the artists who perform the songs? Or the writers who write them?
Re:Music industry != artists (Score:5, Interesting)
I think artists of the progressive rock genre are ones that suffer most from streaming
I think they are probably among those who suffer least.
Artists in most of the less mainstream forms of rock have basically never made any money from royalties. Their album sales have always served primarily to feed fan interest in their live shows, and they've made most of their their money from merchandising at the shows. I'd expect prog rock to be in this category. And for artists who make most of their money from touring, YouTube is a *good* thing because it does an even better job of feeding fan interest, enabling a lot more interaction with fans. YouTube does this so well it's enabled artists who would never have made it in the old world to make a decent living with their music. One of my favorite examples is Lindsay Stirling, the dancing pop violinist. She actually makes considerable money from YouTube streaming (because she doesn't go through a label), and sells out concerts in respectable venues worldwide.
The artists who in decades past made their money from royalties rather than touring are the ones who are most hurt by streaming, because their contracts generally pay them a pittance of streaming revenues. On the other hand, the artists in question, the ones to generate massive royalties on album sales, are the big pop acts who are rolling in cash in spite of being ripped off by their labels.
Please don't interpret this as a defense of the labels. I spent a while writing a royalty calculation system for a big label, and it's crazy how much crap they get away with and how badly they rip off the artists, with or without streaming. They suck, and I'm rooting for artists to exploit YouTube, iTMS, Google Play, etc., and social media to reach their fans directly and cut the bloodsucking leeches out completely.
Mostly yes (Score:2)
Then again, I don't see this as a "new" thing. Music artists have generally done very poor from record sales, while ad agencies and music execs who own studios do quite well. Musicians tend to make their money from performances, not from record sales. Records unfortunately tend to do much better in sales after tragedy.
Consider that the average record, 60 minutes or so, costs about $10.00US. Bands rarely go "gold", which would mean$10million in record sales. Deduct from that the cost of the studio, mate
Re: (Score:1)
Who's still selling CDs ? They would get 70c per song sale on itunes, no ? I have no idea what are the numbers for streaming like, but the CDs low revenue should not really be looked at that much in those time I believe..
Re: (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/story/06/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That`s over 10 years ago.. And I don`t expect an artist to still need a record producer if they aren`t making records anymore ;)
Re: (Score:1)
I was also winking at the latest slashdot news about vinyls generating more $$$ than downloads (in the UK) =)
Lets say that I start making music, I can just publish it, and no one will have a penny out of it, beside apple and me. If they've signed their rights off, then all bets are off too. (I do not mean I would be successful in anyway doing that though!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's still selling CDs ?
About 10 years ago I used to sell printing supplies to a guy who had a pretty good business pressing (or burning maybe) CD's for bands directly, and he reckoned one of his customers was the most profitable band in the country*
They all had day jobs during the Winter and spent the Summer on the road, playing bluegrass at mostly country pubs and selling their CD's (also T-Shirts) at the door.
Every year a major label would offer them a contract, and every year they would tell the label the contract they
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people patronize the major labels? (Score:2)
I assume that people watch videos containing major label music instead of Creative Commons music because major label music is more familiar to them. Then the question becomes how major label music became more familiar to them in the first place, despite Creative Commons music being readily available for both download and streaming. Is it that people without a big cellular data plan still listen to FM radio, which plays almost entirely major label music?
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason I would expect would be visibility. Radio, TV, advertising, etc.
What do you use to stream CC music? I hadn't heard of anything being available for this before, and would dump Amazon Prime Music in a heartbeat. Do CC artists get anything from me streaming? Is there a way to pay so that the artists do get something for their work besides donating to individual artists?
Propaganda (Score:2)
So YouTube vs the music industry is an odd fight for public opinion. The music industry is hoping that public pressure will get them a bigger cut of whatever profits are to be had (not that YouTube is profitable, but it could potentially be). However, the media companies are not campaigning for a change in law (this time), they just want a bigger cut. So the question is, why does this article exist? I am fairly certain that Google has made this point before, and that it was posted on Slashdot. Are we concer
Re: (Score:2)
It is news though, even though it benefits google. If we were to file away anything that benefits the person giving info as propaganda, there will be no news to publish. How it benefits google is unknown right now, we may or may not know in the future, and there is nothing with that.
Re: (Score:1)
Now you are getting it. Most news is both propaganda AND news. I think recent events have got people thinking about the media differently but this has always been the case.
Let me let you in on a little secret. Most articles are not dreamed up by reporters. They arrive, in final or near final form, on the desk of the reporter. Originally typed up by someone else that benefits from the news. Same goes for political news. This make reporters happy (yay! no real work required) and the people generating t
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing new about YouTube paying $1B to media companies. Literally nothing, and it has been reported here before [slashdot.org]. So not intending any personal reflection, but you're not going to piss on me and tell me it's raining. I also note a coincidence in that the articles were posted by the same person, although I tend to doubt there is any significance to that. So if it's not new, informative, or current, what is it doing here?
There are Ads on YouTube? (Score:2)
Huh. The more you know. Good on them for monetizing it somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
So it seems like they may be going straight for an ad & tracker supported model.
Yeah (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need regulation on the internet for instance
Yes you do, even if only to obtain easements to pull your last mile across non-subscribers' land.
we can get that by eliminating the regulations hindering start ups from rolling out new services/lines/infrastructure.
Regulations are needed to allow companies to "roll[] out new services/lines/infrastructure." Otherwise NIMBY holdouts [wikipedia.org] can block anything by reporting a startup to the police for trespassing.
Buy a t-shirt, not a CD! (Score:1)
You want to support the bands you love? Buy tickets to see them live, buy a t-shirt from their merch counter at the venue. That is the only way they make real money. Only the top top .01% of recording artists actually make money from CD sales.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to support the bands you love? Buy tickets to see them live
That works only if the band is touring anywhere near you, which is likely not true of foreign bands. It also works only if the band either plays at all-ages venues or is still together after you turn 21.*
* In Slashdot's home country, many smaller music show venues require all attendees to be at least 21 years of age because of state alcohol control laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)