Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Businesses DRM EU Youtube

EU Sides With RIAA, Says YouTube Underpays For Music Streaming (mercurynews.com) 82

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Sides With RIAA, Says YouTube Underpays For Music Streaming

Comments Filter:
  • Giant obstacle? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16, 2017 @01:21AM (#54818053)

    "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.

  • Meh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Sunday July 16, 2017 @02:10AM (#54818157)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      Excellent point. YouTube views are not lost sales to premium services, they are a surplus payment to the artists/labels that wouldn't have happened at all. Nearly all industries must adapt (or risk fading away) to the changing times, musicians and record companies ought to be thinking about a new business model rather than lamenting how the music business worked in the 1960s up through and until napster.

    • 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

      So, let me get this straight. You want Youtube to demonstrate it's dominant position in the market, by abusing it... in the EU? Are you new here?

  • And yet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday July 16, 2017 @02:42AM (#54818225)

    The RIAA associated companies voluntarily put their music up on the site...

  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Sunday July 16, 2017 @04:47AM (#54818537) Journal
    Isn't there a European record industry association, or a consortium of national associations that would be better placed here?
    • The IFPI probably is the most "European" but within the EU most countries have their own. The thing is even among the blood suckers of the world theirs a hierarchy of aggressive stupidity. It takes an American to endlessly file strings of lawsuits ever time someone hurts their feelings, or in some cases even when they don't.

  • by OneAhead ( 1495535 ) on Sunday July 16, 2017 @08:54AM (#54819255)

    More verifiable version of story [completemusicupdate.com].

    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.

  • Youtube overpays... (Score:4, Informative)

    by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Sunday July 16, 2017 @08:56AM (#54819261) Journal
    Artists make $0.0000955 per listener, per play on radio [rockonomic.com]. 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.
    • And of course the big labels take most of that, before (maybe) handing the artists a pittance.

      The big dinosaurs record companies need to die out.

  • YouTube's proprietary music check algorithm already flags birdsong as being copyrighted:
    https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
    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.

  • 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

"Lead us in a few words of silent prayer." -- Bill Peterson, former Houston Oiler football coach

Working...