YouTube's $1 Billion Royalties Are Not Enough, Says Music Industry (bbc.com) 220
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.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Cut out the greedy RIAA pigs and give the money straight to the artist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Actually, there are exceptions to this. See also The Glitch Mob [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I agree that 10% of something (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's paid by the post by the RIAA....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 soun
Re: (Score:2)
*SIGH*
I guess there will never be another Zeppelin or Stones....that wrote and produced their own records, played their own instruments, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
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 anothe
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 awa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it so hard to grasp that services like Pandora will continue to have a "Recommend Similar" feature for building playlists?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Without the RIAA labels, more artists would be using the CD Baby route to Pandora Internet Radio [cdbaby.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Airtime is still scarce (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
I love the song "Space Truckin'" by Deep Purple. Does that make me a space nutter?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's a space nutter to that guy, but if you love Ranch on Mars [youtu.be] by Galactic Cowboys from their album Space in Your Face, you might be a space nutter.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 sale
Re: (Score:2)
False (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go away, you're not 21 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Here's an idea (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
That's called Myspace, 53 million songs (Score:2)
> 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 prod
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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".
If you don't pay me 100 billion dollars I will (Score:2)
If you don't pay me 100 billion dollars I will....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
I am going to say this just once. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
Different business models (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
There is another difference too: The spotify users are willing to pay.
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Apples and oranges (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 take
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Whine whine whine... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 al
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point, but I think it's been covered elsewhere already.
RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs
http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Middle hollowed out, just like everywhere (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Not enough (Score:2)
Thought so [slashdot.org].
Music Industry Dr. Evil (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it above marginal cost? (Score:2)
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
This is just a negotiation tactic (Score:2)
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'
Can we get an IP pricing body please? (Score:2)
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
Enough is never enough (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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