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positively affect the recording industry, helping it recover from the devastating consequences of the Digital Age and outdated public policies affecting the industry," the paper notes.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
Related Stories
Two music-related Google subscription services, YouTube Red and Google Play Music, are going to be merged:
Right now, YouTube's music ecosystem is unnecessarily complicated. There's YouTube Red, which removes ads from videos and lets you save them offline, while also giving you access to Google Play Music for free. Then there's YouTube Music, which anyone can use, but it gets better if you're signed up for YouTube Red. And YouTube TV is also a thing — an entirely separate thing — but it's not available everywhere yet.
The merger has been rumored within the industry for months, and recently picked up steam after Google combined the teams working on the two streaming services earlier this year.
In a statement to The Verge, Google said it will notify users of any changes before they happen. "Music is very important to Google and we're evaluating how to bring together our music offerings to deliver the best possible product for our users, music partners and artists. Nothing will change for users today and we'll provide plenty of notice before any changes are made."
It doesn't look like YouTube's users want to pay for what they can get for free a click or two away:
The comments came after [Tom] Silverman raved about his experience using YouTube Red, but said that when he mentions to people how much he likes the service they "look at me like I have two heads. They didn't even know you can subscribe. How come people don't know about it?"
"You probably don't know there is Google Play Music either, and people really love that, too," [Lyor] Cohen replied.
That exchange gets to the heart of the existential issue facing Google's two streaming services: identity. Neither service has gained much traction in the music-streaming marketplace despite their best efforts and Google's massive user base. While Google hasn't released subscriber numbers,YouTube Red, which launched in Oct. 2015, was estimated to have 1.5 million as of late last year; Google Music Play has more than double that number. One industry source put their combined paid user numbers at 7 million -- far behind Spotify's recently-announced 50 million and Apple's 27 million subscribers.
The lack of identity for Google's music services in the marketplace may also be due, in part, to the runaway success and ease of use of both YouTube's ad-supported tier, with more than 1.5 billion monthly users, as well as Google search's ability to surface free music with minimal effort
Related: Metallica Manager: YouTube is "the Devil"
Study Claims That YouTube Avoids $1 Billion in Music Royalties Using DMCA Safe Harbor
All Your Bass are Belong to Us: Soundcloud Fans Raid Site for Music Amid Fears of Total Collapse
(Score: 5, Informative) by patrick on Sunday April 02 2017, @08:51PM (1 child)
YouTube should be paying nearer the same kinds of royalties per spin as its subscription-based rivals do
Or, "subscription-based rivals" are paying too much.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by YeaWhatevs on Sunday April 02 2017, @11:52PM
I feel that the real reason the price is overblown is supply and demand. With a plentiful supply of essentially free music, the demand and consumption skyrockets. The fair market value of course would be nowhere near that amount if it had to be paid for at the rates used to calculate the billion dollars. If the study were to include supply and demand curves to create a realistic price point, I might be more sympathetic to the vendors recovering their lost profit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Sunday April 02 2017, @09:31PM
Sounds like a perfectly fair and independent study ...
... financed by the RIAA.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 02 2017, @09:43PM (3 children)
I would be shocked if I actually gave a damn. The music industry is overly greedy. Let's suppose that they start getting that $0.008 per track. What will that mean to users? Google will put up 8x the ads they already put up? Will Youtube go to a subscription model? More people will download and store their songs, so that they don't have to see the ads? Fewer people will go to Youtube?
Except, I'm back to "can't give a damn". The recording industry hasn't "lost" any money, unless we are actually, physically, taking money OUT of their accounts, and taking it for our own.
Didn't we just have a story about MBA's? Those folk like to project profits into the future, and they really want to be paid interest on that money as soon as they declare the money "earned". People just aren't willing to pay the price they demand, so they don't make those sales, so there just isn't enough profit to suit them. Screw 'em. They need to learn real accounting. They don't have that money, so they can't "lose" that money. At best, they can call it a "missed opportunity".
If they had any clue what "wisdom" is, they would write all that money off as public relations and advertising.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 02 2017, @09:53PM
Greedy nothing, they endorse legislation and technology that is invasive, grossly violates privacy, and amount to essentially censorship, all the while pushing copyright to lengths it was never intended to even approach.
Frankly, fuck the RIAA. They're an active danger to innovation, freedom of speech, and the technology industry, and that is at the very least.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 03 2017, @03:10AM
Also, don't give any BS from the RIAA about those poor musicians getting cheated out of their hard-earned bucks. The RIAA doesn't give a damn about musicians, at all. They see all of them as simply resources to be exploited until they aren't worth anything anymore, whether we're talking about a no-name you've never heard of that's still coming up to beloved icons like, say, Willie Nelson. And the way the accounting works, once a musician gets signed it is not uncommon that they are essentially in debt to their label until the day they die.
If you care about musicians, and want to support them, the way you do that is to buy stuff from the people doing indie music projects online, or get out of the house to their live performances. Live performance is where most musicians make their money, not record sales. A substantial portion also make a lot of their money from teaching, so taking guitar lessons and such is also a good way to help musicians out. Streaming their stuff on Spotify or something doesn't make much difference to them, at all.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday April 03 2017, @06:25PM
The music industry is overly greedy.
What industry, or rich person, isn't?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Lagg on Sunday April 02 2017, @10:44PM (1 child)
If rationality played into this at any part they probably would have had better foresight instead of shotgun-litigating fucking IP addresses and instead pursued aforementioned policies in the first place. But now it's at the point where spite is just as valid an excuse to download as convenience. And I honestly could not blame people for that.
So unless they want to give google better fingerprinting algos (But haw, that would require invention and ideas) I think people are going to keep on downloading for as long as the electricity is on. In ever-increasing amounts to boot. Or just stop using the RIAA as a middleman and buy for $2 on Bandcamp or $hostingservice. It's pretty strange to blame Google with this in mind.
YT is very heavily viewed but I guarantee people downloading FLACs and shit would be fine without it. Which is why I think this is yet another cynical money making strategy. A single entity like Google paying out a lump sum is easier to be a parasite to than thousands and thousands of IP addresses even though the cumulative amount (going by something trivial like image cost / track count) "stolen" by those IPs are probably a magnitude larger.
No amount will ever be enough. The industry will only feel compensated when people buy music and then delete it without listening to it at all. [torrentfreak.com]
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday April 02 2017, @11:23PM
Or just stop using the RIAA as a middleman and buy for $2 on Bandcamp or $hostingservice.
If a recording artist goes this route, how can he be sure he didn't accidentally copy someone else's musical composition?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday April 02 2017, @10:55PM
Will no one rid me of this turbulent mafiAA?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday April 02 2017, @11:32PM (2 children)
After getting fucked on CD prices from the mid 80's to the mid 00's, when I bought an average of 1-2 CDs a week, I really don't care anymore. I feel kinda bad when I download a new band's CD, but IMHO when I reload my Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Iron Maiden, etc, you know, the stuff I bought on record, 8 track, and CD already I feel more vindicated than bad.
I don't rip CDs anymore, if I own the CD and want to listen to it I just go to Pirate Bay and be done with it. My CDs are in 8-9 boxes in storage, I have no desire to root through them (even though they are in alphabetical order) to find the one I want to listen to.
Don't get me started on attending concerts nowdays. Venue fees, service fees, ticketshafter fees, parking fees. Haven't been to a concert in 10-15 years, and I drove up to LA to see Fate's Warning for that one.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 03 2017, @12:48AM (1 child)
The big concerts with big names are kinda shitty. I've only been to two: System of a Down for a friends birthday, and Nine Inch Nails with a co-worker who won two tickets to the show. Don't get me wrong, the shows were great. The driving, waiting in line (in the hot sun for SoaD), and finding seats, bathroom lines and sitting in seats is not. Hell, I've never seen any of the big four and I grew up on that stuff.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday April 03 2017, @01:59AM
Understood. I love live music, but hate getting ripped off. Concerts nowdays make me feel like I'm being ripped off. 2X amount of feeling ripped off defeats X feeling of loving the concert.
The MBA's sucked the life out of concerts a good 10-15 years ago.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(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?
;)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday April 03 2017, @12:42AM
Remember how YouTube has been facing a boycott [soylentnews.org] from advertisers? Perhaps a WSJ reporter lied to exacerbate it [soylentnews.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by CZB on Monday April 03 2017, @12:52AM (2 children)
Another good reminder to download your favorite covers, remixes and mashups before they disappear one day.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday April 03 2017, @01:45AM (1 child)
That's a separate issue. An issue of fair use videos getting taken down by DMCA complaints with little recourse.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @06:43PM
This used to be a lot better with sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dvv-Yib1Xg [youtube.com]
e.g. https://vimeo.com/61930750 [vimeo.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @09:51AM
If DMCA is so bad you might just let it die. No? Thought so.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 03 2017, @03:50PM
A recent study by my Phony Center in Washingbribe shows that IFPI together with racketeering and colluding RIAA owes me just about everything and little bit more including all executive houses, bank accounts, virgins and the dog. Pay no later than next Friday to avoid French guillotine at the square. :P