So I recently came across this article written by Eric Beall (from Berklee School of Music) on the current state of negotiations between the music industry and the big wigs at YouTube, and their new owner Google.
http://ericbeall.berkleemusicblogs.com/2009/05/30/if-you-havent-got-a-penny-a-half-penny-will-do/
It is really interesting to see how non-cooperative Youtube is as a service to provide standard royalty rates to artists and publishers for their music. For some of you, you will have no idea what I'm talking about - so to break it down very simply: Youtube has been ripping off the music industry ever since its inception. Youtube is essentially a service that provides no material of its own - it is merely a conduit for other artists and creators to share their content through the Youtube platform. Youtube argues that they exist NOT to make money, but provide a service... but then they turn around and sell off their service for a couple billion to Google (who want the service for its popularity) and walk away, not paying musicians or their publishers (who help collect money on behalf of the artists from various royalty sources). So... Youtube is not existing to make money? really... (advertising revenue perhaps?)
Just look at a video like Oren Lavie's innovative video using stop motion photography:
Back in the 80's and 90's Mr. Lavie would have had a hard time as an independent getting this video on MTV (possibly), but with the ease of Youtube - users can post their own video and garner a world wide viewing audience with the help of some viral marketing! So it cannot be denied by Youtube provides a valuable service to developing artists and existing artists (you can now get your video out there and get some attention for it by using the Youtube platform they provide); however Youtube should AT LEAST recognize that music is one of the biggest services that they provide, and least 25-45%.
Take a look at this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/media/11youtube.html
For some Youtube users, who have a built in audience and have tons of visitors and viewers for their videos, Youtube pays out some of them up to 6 figure numbers for advertising with them... so if Youtube can make this happen for these users, what about the artists and musicians whose videos are being hosted on the site?
I'm not sure what will be the future of royalty payouts with Youtube now that a conglomerate like Google has taken over.. but hopefully they will recognize the value of music a lot more than Youtube's previous owners.
Cheers,
Andrew D.B. Joslyn
1 comment:
YouTube isn't some big bad corporate pimp that is out to make money off of the little guys. YouTube is just a marketing/entertainment platform. I think YouTube does more good than bad. Let's see it from a marketing standpoint. Marketing can break a band/artist before they even take off, and how are you going to get paid if no one even knows who you are. Now say you're a big time artist making millions and YouTube isn't helping you with your revenue. Fine, don't advertise there. YouTube still has to have copyright agreements in order to carry a video (that's the idea anyway). YouTube is not forcing anyone to use their site. I like to think of it as a gallery, or an art walk location where artists display their work for the public. If YouTube really wanted to be a total dick about it they could charge artists to feature their material. Viva la YouTube!
Post a Comment