[VIDEO] YouTube vs The Record Labels: Goliath vs Goliath

What’s the future of YouTube Music?

Digital Music News recently reported that YouTube’s deals with the record labels have ended, and also that 40% of streaming music is consumed via YouTube, accounting for only 4% of the total revenue for the record labels.  In my recent video for A Dose of Buckley, I break down a number of scenarios that could play out in this all-out war, and what it means for you, the person who just wants to watch some free music videos.

WARNING: video contains strong language.

3 Responses

  1. Remi Swierczek

    VEVO is a useless UMG invented music monetization CREMATORIUM with no happy end at sight!

    Reply
  2. Musicservices4less

    Buckley:
    You don’t discuss or comment on the function of the power of the record industry Goliath’s and their ability to structure the playing field against a behemith like Google. Please don’t refer to youtube as they are definitely not a separate company from Google. Google is one big fucking non-elected, 1984 type monster in the making or already made. The major music companies mostly define the playing field for independent artists and record labels. By the very nature of the definition of “independent” they do not even have a chance against the “behemoth”. since Google without a doubt is causing THE monetary problem for the music industry, the music Goliath’s are the only hope of changing Google stupid ad based calculations to a flat rate. That’s right, everything on Google needs to be paid on a flat rate. Period. Fuck advertising. Advertising should not be linked directly to how anyone gets paid. It’s just stupid for content owners.

    Reply
    • Buckley

      YouTube may not be a separate company, but they are a separate entity as far as the books are concerned. I mention at the end of the video how much money Google claims to have made in 2015, but that’s not money that’s going to go to paying licensing fees for YouTube videos. I’m not going to argue with you about the “flat rate” idea, but Google sure would. It’s fine to say something like “every view should equal a half a penny” for example, but how practical is that? In 2012 (a lifetime ago on the Internet), YouTube claimed 4 billion video views a day, that would be 1.46 TRILLION views a year. At a half a penny per view, that would be $7.3 billion to pay out. In 2012, I can guarantee that YouTube didn’t make that much money (they made $4 billion in 2014, and estimated $9 billion in 2015). And I’m going to bet that YouTube gets more use now than it did in 2012. Google’s not going to pay out $7.3 billion in revenue, not unless YouTube itself was generating at least double, maybe even triple or quadruple that.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *