Take it down, then.

And that's exactly what professional content providers are going to do.

That's tragic.

Everybody uses YouTube. It's a jukebox, a theatre, a university. And it will all go away if this problem isn't solved.

We continue down the rabbit hole of abuse for content providers.  

> Fortune 500 companies spending 100s of millions of dollars advertising on pirate sites.

> Payment processing companies that are laundering money for illegal ISPs.

> Equity deals struck as part of licensing agreements.

> Search behemoths dragging their feet on implementing solutions.

> Misguided college law professors speaking out on behalf of free file sharing.

> Companies going public with no clear path to profitability at the expense of artists.

> Artists who remain silent about the injustices that impact their ability to make a living.

> A generation that believes illegal downloading is a victimless crime.

> Award shows that make no mention of the disease that is gutting their industry.

Have a great day,

Will Buckley, founder, FarePlay

Thank you for posting this, great list!

I think you should add Google, though. And not just because of today's news.

Think about their book scanning project. Or how they block all attempts to fight piracy (sopa, etc.). Or how they openly encourages you to steal other people's property (search for Photoshop on YouTube, and the autocomplete suggests "Photoshop CS6 full version free download", "Photoshop serial number", etc.).

Thank you visitor.  Google?  That would be "search behemoths".  Can't forget those guys and gals.......

Sorry, I missed that. :)

Well said William. Excellent list with some darn good ideas.

Matt Fitzgibbons (PatriotMusic.com)

That's awful.

If Google doesn't fix that -- right now -- then major content providers will go away.

It always puzzled me why Google seemed to do the right thing regarding YouTube while they're directly responsible for most internet piracy. But the keyword here's apparently 'seemed'.

Why don't the Dead Kennedys and others who feel they are being screwed bring litigation about it?  If damages are small for each damaged person, then that's what class actions are for.  There are lots of good class action/music business lawyers in California and elsewhere.  It doesn't solve problems to just complain that someone took your red stapler and you want it back.

Yes, it's always a good thing to sue Google.

With all these trials going on, somebody may indeed be able to stop at least some of their scams someday.

But in the meantime, I for one appreciate that Dead Kennedys are open about this.

uhm, who the fuck clicks on ad's on youtube?

you? you don't?  guessed that much.

As long as youtube is paying per ad click and not per video view, this is the logical consequence. Guess what, youtube cant pay per play either, since they only earn from people who click on ad's.

One more thing - since youtube is blocking the dead kennedys in for example germany, because their publisher works with GEMA and GEMA asks youtube to block, from germany there are only that kind of person watching the videos, who know how to run arround the block - thats usually the same kind of person that runs ad blockers though.. 

GEMA does not ask YouTube to block.

They asked to take down 12 videos and that's it. Everything else YouTube blocks in order to get the public all riled up about copyright and incite hatred towards performance rights societies.

It's a terrible strategy that YouTube is playing and it's horrible that "the internet" (kchkch...) does not see the power distribution and long term goal in this struggle.

You're sooo right about Google's war on performance rights societies.

No other company, institution or state has ever hurt art and artists as much as Google.

Without Google, we would have all the acronyms that everybody hates today without having the slightest clue why -- SOPA, PIPA, ACTA -- and the IP-workers who make the books, software, inventions, movies and music we all need and love would be paid so they could continue to make wonders and create jobs for millions of people across the world.

Meanwhile, today's top story is that Google now is worth more than Microsoft...

I run a YouTube network for music.

These payouts are very low, but where are the views coming from? Was this 14 Million Views on a partnered channel running ads againsts premium content? Or 14 Million Views of Third Party uploads?

Those are very different and have very different rates.

I can also say without a doubt that if you know what you're doing on YouTube you will make WAY more than Spotify, it isn't even close.

The problem is secrecy.

I applaude Dead Kennedys for being open about the problem.

If you have a different story, you shouldn't hide behind weasel statements like "you will make WAY more than Spotify".

Bring some documented facts and numbers to the table, and you'll be taken seriously.

I've heard that a prominent indie label that we all know receives $.004 per stream for the content on their partner channel.

Is this the rate you receive?

DK's "open".  LOL!!! Jello Biafra is notorious for trying to cheat bandmembers out of songwriting royalties!

VEVO pays $0.007 per stream according to the Wall Street Journal.  ($70,000 for every 10 million VEVO views).

google "reinventing the music video" for the link to WSJ. 

I've been told that Youtube pays $.004 per stream to content owners who become Youtube Partners, which would be $4K per 1M streams.

Can anyone verify this or does anyone have the portion of the Youtube Partner Program agreement that states this?

And I've always heard they paid about $2.5k pr. million streams...

That sure isn't much, but it would still be better than Spotify because you don't have to upload complete songs at all (e.g. you get paid for teasers, extras, etc.).

But if today's story is true... :(

No one even knows if youtube is profitable. We know for a fact that a few years ago it definitely was not. It is an extremely expensive service to run. Artists should be glad they can use and get paid by the platform at all. Seriously.

YouTube and Spotify will die without artists. And they know it.

So here's the message all artists need to send to YouTube and Spotify now:

Pay or go away!

Youtube can survive without artists. In fact they would probably be better off. They wouldn't have blow millions on DMCA takedowns and building antipiracy systems and sharing ad revenue.

There is a lot more to youtube than music. People are still going to use youtube to access those videos.

YouTube will indeed die without artists!

Almost 40% of today's YouTube views are music videos:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120501youtube

Entertainment was another 15% back in 2009. That's before YouTube made significant improvements so the number is probably a lot higher today (note how Music increased from 31% to today's 40% in the link below).

http://www.sysomos.com/reports/youtube/

Take 55%+ away and YouTube is dead.

How do you figure they will die? Google going to kill them off? Hardly. Dailymotion going to take them out? Only in their dreams. The only way Youtube could die is if Google ends it. A 40% drop in video views is meaningless.

"Entertainment" is vague, but we are talking music here. Not entertainment.

Like you just said, there's more to YouTube than music.

A good chunk of that is Entertainment. And that chunk's gonna evaporate in thin air if YouTube fail to pay.

How YouTube's gonna die?

The usual way. We could call it The AltaVista Way:

A new, naughty kid appears on the stage. Streetwise. Funny. Less greedy.

Dino looks around, bewildered.

In short: Anything can happen. Don't forget Apple. They can buy Google twice and still be very well off.

Has not gone anywhere yet. No reason to believe it will anytime soon. Companies have tried and failed to take out Youtube. It is very difficult to start a new service. It takes a lot of money and without a large base of videos, they always fail to gain ground. Apple has no intention on getting into such an unprofitable industry, and to be honest, no one does. Plus Youtube is far from being a dino. They are still innovating quite rapidly.

Apple cannot buy Google. No one, not even Apple has enough cash to buy Google and it would never pass regulatory.

Well, Apple haven't made any attempts to destroy YouTube. Yet. 

But we know what they feel about Google.

Which, I suppose, pretty much sums up what the Entertainment & Music Industries feel about Google:

That they're common thieves.

Now, perhaps you have inside information about Apple's intentions, but I don't so I have to guess.

And I wouldn't ignore the fact that Apple has done more for musicians over the years than any other company, while Google hates musicians and their unions and fight them 24/7.

So why wouldn't Apple want to take the next step?

And they're pretty well equipped for the task, wouldn't you say?

As for the finances: Google is worth $249.5 billion. Apple, 630.

This story and others imply that advertisers are still trying to gauge the value of advertising on web pages. Why else be so sketchy about the revenue?

Obviously, click through is more valuable than viewing an ad, but how much more?

How does the advertisng dollar spent on terrestrial radio, satellite radio, or television compare to the same amount spent on youTube and spotify?

What about all of the other advertisng gimmicks on a webpage? what are they worth?

youTube and spotify free service seem to be indicating that the adspace is worth very little or they still have no idea what the value is.

So, musicians should expect next to nothing for the foreseeable future.

Good point!

Google try to trick content providers into believing that non-clickable ads are worthless.

But a McDonalds ad is obviously meant to be seen.

That's what McDonalds pay for.

Click-throughs are unexpected gifts from a minority who never heard about this exiting new company and really really wants to know more about the smiling clown.

Click through ads are worth a lot more. This is not google trying to convince anyone anything. That's just the way it is. Linking someone to a different website is a valuable tool.

lol @ everyone taking off handed comments from an old punk as factual information that should lead to lawsuits

This story will seriously hurt Google, but they haven't denied a word of it. So we must assume it's correct.

Would the statements be more believable if they came from a jaded industry hack?

because I am sure there are some others lurking around here that would corroborate or at least agree that the payouts vary widely depending on who is talking.

and normally screaming lawsuit in any other industry would be laughed at, howver since you are a jaded industry dude, you must know that in this industry if you want to know the real numbers you hire an accountant, a lawyer and start litigating.

I'm not sure Google laugh much at the prospect of new lawsuits. It's probably fair to call them the world's largest criminal enterprise. They practically live in court these days.

And they lose, lose, lose...

Do they? I think they are winning quite a bit lately. Look at the Oracle lawsuit.

Sure, they got 1M from Oracle.

And lost 500 in the prescription drug case last year.

It's beyond me, why anybody wants to be on their side anymore...

My point is you're all believing an off handed comment he made, without taking into account that he's one member of a large group who have managers, splits, and probably haven't even recouped from label expenses. Point being, he's not going to 'get paid by Youtube' if what the label is receiving in payments from Youtube is going towards recoup costs or not being given to the artist.

Odds are the label is more to blame here than Youtube. 

That's my point.  

That's the same song we hear each time artists complain over streaming scammers:

Blame it on the greedy labels!

Blame it on the stupid musicians!

In short: Blame the victim!

It's so much easier to deal with iTunes: You know what you should be paid. If you don't get it, the lawyers step in. No secrecy, no myths, no bs.

It's not that it's a 'simple' excuse to blame the labels. I'm part of the labels and distribution. I'm saying to jump to so many conclusions based off an off handed remark from an old punk musician is not a good idea. There are no facts or follow ups involved at all with what he said. 

For all we know, he doesn't receive royalty checks from anyone, but the conversation was geared towards Youtube specifically.

Everyone is jumping off the deep end with no real hard facts.

There are no lawsuits here. None. If you don't get paid what you want, don't offer your service on Youtube. They are not breaking the law simply because they are not paying enough.

There most definitely could be a lawsuit if you believe that you should be getting paid $10,000 and you are actually getting paid $400.

Now those are just examples but scaled larger there is definite possibility for accountants and lawyers to return your phone calls.

No, there isn't. I think I should be paid far more than I am for a lot of the things I do. Yet, I agreed to get paid far less regardless of if I like it. If you were promised more money, then yes there is a lawsuit. But there is zero evidence this is the case. If you have a contract and you don't understand it, that is not google's problem.

At least you admit there is a possibility that someone can sue youTube or any other company if the company doesn't pay what they agree to pay.

It's not the difference in value that you think you are owed, it is the difference in what was agreed to and what is actually paid that creates lawsuits.   

Yes, it does not say in the article that DK has an agreement with youTube or a company like VEVO or even if they participate in the content ID program.

However, the article also does not say that DK "agreed to get paid far less." So it could go either way don't you think.

Youtube is an extremely valuable service for artist and creatives of all kinds. Running youtube has an astronomic cost base. The idea of them paying anyone is completely absurd. Takedowns are simple and fast so no reason to be there if you dont want to. Also if your material is registered with them they csn block it automatically. Youtube is doing a great job and artists should just be grateful it is there at all.

If YouTube don't pay artists, then they're as worthless as Pirate Bay.

The response from content providers needs to be clear:

Pay or go away!

Actually, Google could demand money in exchange for letting artists post their videos on youtube. The artists are after all using Google's bandwidth and servers. They are using Google's service that they have invested billions into.

Problem is artists think they should be paid for everything, and at the price they think they should be paid with fuzzy mathematics. I am surprised they don't start charging fans for autographs.

Interesting new business model you are proposing.

An old business analogy to owning a music hall that musicians rent to perform live perhaps?

I don't think that can be pulled off in the digital world, unless youTube/Google is the only venue in town.

never say never

You don't seem to know YouTube's history. It was founded entirely on piracy and wouldn't exist today, had it not been for stealing the works of thousands of artists.

If they still don't pay, they should just go away.

Apparently you don't know the history. It was designed for users to upload their personal videos. Believe it or not, piracy was not even a thought until users started uploading videos they did not own the rights to. Users will always abuse services, that doesn't mean they were designed to promote infringement.

Is it abuse? They upload the video because they like it and want to share it with the rest of the world. That is what fans do. Tell me, what's wrong with that?

It is abuse because it violates the terms of service. Uploading videos that you do not own the rights to or do not have permission to post is a violation of the terms of service and is abuse of the service. Google has been pretty fair about the whole situation, by giving people strikes and abiding by DMCA. But it could look much differently.

One take-away from that article artists should really pay attention to --

"That's why [he] says he doesn't really buy music anymore. Neither does Arianna Caramat. "I stopped with the downloading of artists on iTunes," she says. "I just find that it's easier — more convenient — to, like, listen to online radio."

There's nothing new in the fact that Spotify and YouTube streaming destroy record sales.

So why use YouTube at all?

Well, there's a crucial difference between Spotify and YouTube:

On YouTube, you can stream trailers and all kinds of fan related stuff.

But you can't stream anything but complete songs on Spotify (at least to my knowledge) and that obviously cannabalizes your iTunes sales.

Plus, YouTube offers more exposure than Spotify -- not only because they're old and established, but because they add the video dimension.

So there would definitely be a point in using YouTube IF they paid the legendary $2-4 per thousand views.

Unfortunately, these numbers now seems to be wrong -- possibly seriously wrong -- and then it no longer makes sense for an artist to use YouTube.

It's never this simple.

WHAT !!??

Sadly unsurprising.

YouTube is simultaneously a treasure trove and a wasteland for music. And it doesn't make content creators much money.

who puts music on youtube in the hopes of making real money???

Any professional artist/band or company who uploads music.

That's the only reason to do it.

Absolutely incorrect. It's called publicity.

See: Radio. Same thing. Most artists get nothing (or almost nothing) from BMI/ASCAP for radio plays (only the largest artists see anything). Yet it's chock full of music sent by major labels, independent labels, bedroom labels, and artists 24/7.

and why do you want publicity?

To make money.

Again, that's why anyone puts anything up on youTube

Yup.

Take the money out of the equation, and YouTube is dead.

Don't get it wrong. Nothing beats making music, but it's the toughest job in the world. So I want to get paid -- and paid well -- if my audience likes the result.

You thought Spotify had rough payouts?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

in my opinion, youtube/google is worse for artists' profits more than any other platform legal and illegal, collecting huge cash while screwing the artist on the back of the shitty dmca law that allows all this bullshit to go down... and yet, they have avoided almost all scrutiny in the last decade or so. it is high time for this to change, the spotlight should be shining on them, especially since their hypocricy shines brightest when compared with their pro-artist rhetoric. i've been saying for years i think it's the biggest wealth transfer/undercutting i've ever seen go pretty much completely unnoticed. also, if you're not a partner, you're even more screwed... good luck working that out with their lawyers. PAY THE ARTISTS THEIR FAIR SHARE ALREADY, HELL ANY SHARE, BIG LABELS ARE BETTER THAN COMPLETE THEFT FOR YOUR STOCK PRICE!!

What a friggin joke...... We've been following a company soon to open call Funn Networks, who would have paid them $1.4m... You Tube is a JOKE!

Income should be from unit (CD/download) sales generated by teaser/samples on both tube and clouds. Not complete tracks. Performance royalties are the bonus checks.

Don't forget about juke boxes. They've been screwing everybody for years.

And ask yourselves why you won't find BMI and ASCAP offices in Chicago. (Nearby Nashville isn't the answer.)

buckbaran.com

I love how Google is even less transparent with its payout math than the RIAA.

Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.

Before you guys pull out your pitchforks, you should note that this article excludes a lot of important details. How many of those 14 million were monetized views? Mobile views (not-monetizable until recent)? Could there have perhaps been a licensing issue? Were those earnings reported directly from Google or from word of mouth (possible admin fee issues)?

Just like any other news source, don't jump to conclusions without facts.

I feel a strange disturbance in the force

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2012/10/improving-content-id.html