YouTube Paid Music Industry $1 Billion From Advertising Alone

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I have read this blog post twice now and it sure seems to me that YouTube is trying to convince everyone that, despite what the RIAA is claiming, YouTube is actually good for the music industry.

Last year was a bright one for music—after several tough years of declining revenues, the industry started growing again, spurred in large part by the growth of music streaming subscriptions. This year, the industry has even more reasons to be optimistic. Even as music subscriptions have been growing faster than any other subscription type, advertising is another powerful driver of revenue. In fact, in the last 12 months, YouTube has paid out over $1 billion to the music industry from advertising alone, demonstrating that multiple experiences and models are succeeding alongside each other.
 

hardboner

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
235
I'm confused.

WTF is youtube advertising? I thought the music industry would pay youtube for advertising, like those VEVO music videos and shit. Not the other way around.

What does youtube provide in terms of music content?
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
how much has youtube made from the music? If they made a trillion (joking) from it, but paid out a billion its hardly any payout.
 

SonicTron

Snopes is My Fact Checker
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
5,894
I'm confused.

WTF is youtube advertising? I thought the music industry would pay youtube for advertising, like those VEVO music videos and shit. Not the other way around.

What does youtube provide in terms of music content?

Really? Music industry makes the product, Youtube is just the delivery system. Since monetization of music and videos is no longer in the physical sales category, there needs to exist a revenue share of advertising. Youtube/Google gets their cut of the ad dollars and the content makers get their own cut of the ad dollars. That's business.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
It should have been 2 billion, but piracy stole the other billion. /s

I pirate ads all the time. Trying to sell me a Lincoln? F-that, I wrote a script to replace it with a Chevy and source it to BBC.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,634
I pirate ads all the time. Trying to sell me a Lincoln? F-that, I wrote a script to replace it with a Chevy and source it to BBC.

Pirates don't see ads because... nevermind. Pirate those ads!
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,673
Yeah, but they're cutting out the record labels so there's definitely something illegal going on here.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,142
You wouldn't download a car.
You can bet your ass I would if I could. And it would be all right, because no one would loose a car as a result. As opposed to stealing a car from the street.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
You can bet your ass I would if I could. And it would be all right, because no one would loose a car as a result. As opposed to stealing a car from the street.

they would however lose the money they should be making from selling you that car. But please continue telling us how you like to enjoy content but don't expect you or anyone else to pay for it.
 
D

Deleted member 204526

Guest
they would however lose the money they should be making from selling you that car. But please continue telling us how you like to enjoy content but don't expect you or anyone else to pay for it.
In such a case, every potential car seller would lose out, not just the maker of the one particular model being downloaded.
 

Dwango

Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
682
they would however lose the money they should be making from selling you that car. But please continue telling us how you like to enjoy content but don't expect you or anyone else to pay for it.

To follow the music vs car anology: so if I design a car that people could download I shouldn't let them do it because some car company that still makes their cars the old expensive way would lose money? It's my product and my creativity and my choice in how I want to distribute it. That's essentially the RIAA's argument: No one should be able to create and distribute music without them getting involved and getting a cut. And that's an opinion that people are rightly rejecting.
 

Sly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
5,748
Would this be related to the BGMs used in videos?



This isn't mine, but one of my own videos used a BGM that got flagged. Youtube didn't take it down but ads got force enabled and the revenue from that apparently goes to the music label.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
To follow the music vs car anology: so if I design a car that people could download I shouldn't let them do it because some car company that still makes their cars the old expensive way would lose money? It's my product and my creativity and my choice in how I want to distribute it. That's essentially the RIAA's argument: No one should be able to create and distribute music without them getting involved and getting a cut. And that's an opinion that people are rightly rejecting.

1) its a bad analog, and the point flew over your head
2) if you choose to distribute it for free thats your right.
3) you are wrong, theres a bunch of freeloaders that make the claim that just because you didn't lose a physical item, you have not lost anything.
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,972
3) you are wrong, theres a bunch of freeloaders that make the claim that just because you didn't lose a physical item, you have not lost anything.

So are they. They're treating digital copies as physical ones. Just because we made a copy doesn't mean they've lost anything either. I'm happy to see though that, slowly, ever so slowly, they're making strides to address the digital and streaming space with legal options. But it's still way, way too expensive.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,366
To follow the music vs car anology: so if I design a car that people could download I shouldn't let them do it because some car company that still makes their cars the old expensive way would lose money? It's my product and my creativity and my choice in how I want to distribute it. That's essentially the RIAA's argument: No one should be able to create and distribute music without them getting involved and getting a cut. And that's an opinion that people are rightly rejecting.

In some countries, like England, people have been sued for humming a song to themselves. They don't fuck around over there.

In October 2010, it was reported that Sussex Police, in a money-saving move, were not intending to renew their PRS for Music licence, meaning that police officers would no longer be able to listen to the radio in their squad cars or other work places.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,142
they would however lose the money they should be making from selling you that car. But please continue telling us how you like to enjoy content but don't expect you or anyone else to pay for it.
We're not that far technology wise from the point when you can download an open source car schematic and print it on your home universal 3d constructor. ( deliberately not using the term printer)

Will they make home printing of cars illegal then?

If our economic / social constructs doesn't work with our technological reality anymore it's not our reality that we ought to change.

Nobody should be making money off of anyone else for things that can easily be replicated. But aren't because they're sitting on a paper saying they're the only one who can replicate it.

Anyway is there a lot of music uploaded to youtube without the right holder's permission? Yes. But they're still making a ton of money off of it. The alternative being youtube not existing at all. Then they'd be shorter that 1 billion now.
So they should slap their asses to the ground in happiness while this situation persists and they're still holding on by a thread to their existence. There is no need for giant publishing houses anymore. The artist can publish their own music without a big company behind them.
I'm counting the days when these anti consumer giants go out in a blaze of fire, and the artists get compensated based on how much the consumers value them. And youtube is a pretty good platform for that. Produce good material, put it on youtube yourself, and if the masses like it you'll make money from the ad revenue. And if you're good enough you can create gigs where people will happily pay to see you perform.
Yeah you can't make as much money on youtube as you could by being the no1 pet project of a giant label, put musicians making millions and millions was never a fair distribution of wealth to begin with in my view.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,142
3) you are wrong, theres a bunch of freeloaders that make the claim that just because you didn't lose a physical item, you have not lost anything.

Assuming every download equals a lost sale again. Which was known to be nowhere near reality for ages. I can't be sure but I have a feeling that the music industry is making more money off youtube ad revenue than they'd make by the increase in sales if youtube didn't exist at all. Plus I'm not even sure that without youtube sales would actually increase. Piracy serves an advertising function that noone wants to admit.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
We're not that far technology wise from the point when you can download an open source car schematic and print it on your home universal 3d constructor. ( deliberately not using the term printer)

Will they make home printing of cars illegal then?

If our economic / social constructs doesn't work with our technological reality anymore it's not our reality that we ought to change.

Nobody should be making money off of anyone else for things that can easily be replicated. But aren't because they're sitting on a paper saying they're the only one who can replicate it.

Anyway is there a lot of music uploaded to youtube without the right holder's permission? Yes. But they're still making a ton of money off of it. The alternative being youtube not existing at all. Then they'd be shorter that 1 billion now.
So they should slap their asses to the ground in happiness while this situation persists and they're still holding on by a thread to their existence. There is no need for giant publishing houses anymore. The artist can publish their own music without a big company behind them.
I'm counting the days when these anti consumer giants go out in a blaze of fire, and the artists get compensated based on how much the consumers value them. And youtube is a pretty good platform for that. Produce good material, put it on youtube yourself, and if the masses like it you'll make money from the ad revenue. And if you're good enough you can create gigs where people will happily pay to see you perform.
Yeah you can't make as much money on youtube as you could by being the no1 pet project of a giant label, put musicians making millions and millions was never a fair distribution of wealth to begin with in my view.

If no one gets paid to make music, because no one pays for for it, because its easy to copy. then will the music you dot not pay for even get made? Right now there are enough people paying for music that pirates and freeloaders can enjoy it as well. If everyone switched to freeloading there would be much less music made.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
Assuming every download equals a lost sale again. Which was known to be nowhere near reality for ages. I can't be sure but I have a feeling that the music industry is making more money off youtube ad revenue than they'd make by the increase in sales if youtube didn't exist at all. Plus I'm not even sure that without youtube sales would actually increase. Piracy serves an advertising function that noone wants to admit.

some piracy might equal advertising. But how much does it really? If someone pirates a song, and a friend hears it, that pirate will just give that song to the friend.
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,972
If no one gets paid to make music, because no one pays for for it, because its easy to copy. then will the music you dot not pay for even get made? Right now there are enough people paying for music that pirates and freeloaders can enjoy it as well. If everyone switched to freeloading there would be much less music made.

So what? The argument that 'We must be paid because that's always how it's been done!' is hogwash. Tech flat-out makes some people that used to be relevant irrelevant. Think of it this way, if tech didn't exist, I'd probably be an accountant with pencil and paper. So it can make some institutions immediately obsolete, and create new ones. Paid for or not, music would still be made by those passionate enough to make it anyway. Same for movies. Free software, music and movies are already out there.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
So what? The argument that 'We must be paid because that's always how it's been done!' is hogwash. Tech flat-out makes some people that used to be relevant irrelevant. Think of it this way, if tech didn't exist, I'd probably be an accountant with pencil and paper. So it can make some institutions immediately obsolete, and create new ones. Paid for or not, music would still be made by those passionate enough to make it anyway. Same for movies. Free software, music and movies are already out there.

so artists shouldn't be paid because you can copy their work for no cost?

guess what, most of what people make for free, they have to give away for free, because what they create is worth exactly zero.

I wish pirates would just come out and admit that they are nothing but freeloading moochers that are able to enjoy things because others are paying for them.
 
D

Deleted member 204526

Guest
Hopefully penalties for copyright violation become much more onerous in the future, as I suspect they will. You will never stop it completely, but you can discourage it enough that engaging in an artistic endeavour will remain profitable.
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,972
so artists shouldn't be paid because you can copy their work for no cost?

I wish pirates would just come out and admit that they are nothing but freeloading moochers that are able to enjoy things because others are paying for them.

I wish the business model would change to adopt a near free distribution channel. They've been mooching off of paying customers for far too long.

Hopefully penalties for copyright violation become much more onerous in the future, as I suspect they will. You will never stop it completely, but you can discourage it enough that engaging in an artistic endeavour will remain profitable.

Should be the full-on reverse. Copyright "law" and violations have created this disaster.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
I wish the business model would change to adopt a near free distribution channel. They've been mooching off of paying customers for far too long.



Should be the full-on reverse. Copyright "law" and violations have created this disaster.

your just wrong. But enjoy your commune living. everything should be free man, fight the man, fight the power.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,142
so artists shouldn't be paid because you can copy their work for no cost?

guess what, most of what people make for free, they have to give away for free, because what they create is worth exactly zero.

I wish pirates would just come out and admit that they are nothing but freeloading moochers that are able to enjoy things because others are paying for them.
Not exactly, artist should be paid, but not for the act of copying their work. They should be paid for performing. And they should be paid voluntarily trough things like patreon, and by donations, or trough paid downloads of their work. They absolutely should not be paid trough a record label, that takes 90% of the profit for what? Copying their work.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
Not exactly, artist should be paid, but not for the act of copying their work. They should be paid for performing. And they should be paid voluntarily trough things like patreon, and by donations, or trough paid downloads of their work. They absolutely should not be paid trough a record label, that takes 90% of the profit for what? Copying their work.

Ok, you make copies, but just dont listen to them.

You want it all. You want access to lots of high quality, highly produced music, but you dont want to pay for it.

Dont like the current setup? Dont like record labels. Dont listen to that music. Find artists that support your kind of pay system.

Even if the label gets 90% of the money, the artist still gets 10%.

How much does the artist get when people simple pirate the music? 100% of zero, is always zero.

Buying a record is voluntarily paying the artist. you downloading a pirated copy, is you voluntarily ripping that artist off.

Finally that artist choose to sign with the record label.
 
D

Deleted member 204526

Guest
The label fronts a lot of the artist's promotion and touring costs. Without such, most bands would be stuck barely being able to afford small regional tours. Touring is a difficult and expensive affair when you're slogging it out on your own with no label support.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,142
Ok, you make copies, but just dont listen to them.

You want it all. You want access to lots of high quality, highly produced music, but you dont want to pay for it.

Dont like the current setup? Dont like record labels. Dont listen to that music. Find artists that support your kind of pay system.

Even if the label gets 90% of the money, the artist still gets 10%.

How much does the artist get when people simple pirate the music? 100% of zero, is always zero.

Buying a record is voluntarily paying the artist. you downloading a pirated copy, is you voluntarily ripping that artist off.

Finally that artist choose to sign with the record label.
I'm probably the last person in my country who still regularly buys records, and I'm also subscribed to spotify, so you're banging on open doors.
Don't like it don't do it, is a very weak argument for anything. Because if the people that don't like the system simply ignore the industry, that won't help the artists at all.
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
I'm probably the last person in my country who still regularly buys records, and I'm also subscribed to spotify, so you're banging on open doors.
Don't like it don't do it, is a very weak argument for anything. Because if the people that don't like the system simply ignore the industry, that won't help the artists at all.

pirating the music doesn't really help the artist does it?
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
It helps them compared to completely ignoring them which was your suggestion.

If they get nothing from you, then what have they gained? A listener that doesn't pay for the work they created? ohh that's great. Odds are that if that pirate shares his opinion on music, they will just share the pirated copy.
 
Top