SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA allow Internet platforms to avoid liability for the infringements of their users. However, it also helps them avoid paying for content, critics say. A new study from the US which aims to put a value on the revenues lost claims that the sums are huge, potentially up to $1 billion per year on YouTube alone.
[...] Exactly how much money is at stake is rarely quantified but a new study from the Phoenix Center in Washington claims to do just that. The numbers cited in 'Safe Harbors and the Evolution of Music Retailing' by authors T. Randolph Beard, PhD, George S. Ford, PhD, and Michael Stern, PhD, are frankly enormous. "Music is vital to YouTube's platform and advertising revenues, accounting for 40% of its views. Yet, YouTube pays the recording industry well-below market rates for this heavy and on-demand use of music by relying on those 'safe harbor' provisions," the paper begins.
Citing figures from 2016 provided by IFPI, the study notes that 68 million global subscriptions to music services (priced as a result of regular licensing negotiations) generated $2 billion in revenues for artists and labels at around $0.008 per track play. On the other hand, the 900 million users of ad-based services (like YouTube) are said to generate just $634 million in revenues, paying the recording industry just $0.001 per play. "It's plainly a huge price difference for close substitutes," the paper notes.
What follows in the 20-page study is an economist-pleasing barrage of figures and theories that peak into what can only be described as an RIAA-friendly conclusion. As an on-demand music service, YouTube should be paying nearer the same kinds of royalties per spin as its subscription-based rivals do, the paper suggests. "More rational royalty policies would significantly and positively affect the recording industry, helping it recover from the devastating consequences of the Digital Age and outdated public policies affecting the industry," the paper notes.
http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB41Final.pdf
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 02 2017, @11:49PM (3 children)
I don't know Marc Ribot (ace guitarist) but his point of view might be worth a few minutes of your time -- just to make sure that you have read more than one side of this argument... Here are a couple of links to get you started:
http://marcribot.com/artists-rights [marcribot.com]
https://thetrichordist.com/2017/01/02/ghostship-mourn-the-dead-fight-like-hell-for-the-living-guest-post-by-marc-ribot/ [thetrichordist.com]
In a nutshell, his point is that YouTube and other big tech companies are making plenty of money on "content" and due to the way various laws are constructed, the artists are prohibited from unionizing to protest as a group. He also pointed out (somewhere, lost the link that I read a few weeks ago) that much of the music on YouTube was not uploaded by fans, there are sleazy companies involved that are scamming the artists and taking home all the advert money.
Oh, and if you wonder who Ribot is and like jazzy blues, try this live recording -- https://vimeo.com/56169574 [vimeo.com]
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday April 03 2017, @12:27AM
Understood. But as an old fart I realize for every penny Mr Ribot makes the record company is making a dime. So sad, too bad, I feel for you Mr Ribot but, well, damn.
Back in high school (70s) we all used to borrow each other's albums and record them ourselves. I felt back then I wished there was a way I could send $1 to the band and bypass the record companies.
Somehow in the 70's and 80's I turned into the guy that everyone wanted to borrow albums/CDs from, but nobody had anything I wanted to record.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday April 03 2017, @01:26AM
...his [Marc Ribot's] point is that YouTube and other big tech companies are making plenty of money on "content" and due to the way various laws are constructed, the artists are prohibited from unionizing to protest as a group.
So youtube is behaving in the same way as a recording company.
Prohibited from unionising? Pehaps it's time for the fourth box?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @04:04AM
That much of the music on YouTube was not uploaded by fans, there are sleazy companies involved that are scamming the artists and taking home all the advert money.
You mean like VEVO?
;)