RIAA Blames YouTube for Low Artist RoyaltiesAdded: Thursday, March 24th, 2016
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, www.extratorrent.cc, 2016
The Recording Industry Association of America again criticized YouTube for the low royalties paid out to music copyright owners. The group released its annual report on the recorded-music market of the United States, blaming the Google’s video service and other free streaming services for low royalties paid out to artists.
In response, YouTube criticized the RIAA’s unacceptable comparisons to subscription-based music services such as Spotify’s premium tier or Apple Music. The RIAA’s report revealed that the US people spent on recorded music less than 1% more in 2015 ($7bn in total). The trend was that streaming overtook music downloads and now represents the largest share of those revenues.
According to statistics, streaming revenues in the country increased by 29% and totaled to $2.4bn in 2015. Paid subscriptions enjoyed a 52% rise to $1.22bn: overall, nearly 13 million Americans paid for a music streaming service by the end of last year. Nevertheless, the RIAA claimed that the income from free, ad-supported, “on-demand” streaming services was not growing fast enough.
In response, YouTube defended its impact on the music industry, pointing out that it has already paid out more than $3bn to the music industry, with the figure growing year on year, even despite the fact that the service was going way beyond music to include other popular categories like news, gaming and sports.
In its talks to the RIAA, YouTube reminded of the launch of its standalone YouTube Music app, which was to prove that the company was going to deliver even more revenue to the music industry. It also explained that it was inappropriate to compare YouTube to paid audio-only services like Spotify and Apple Music.
The interesting fact is that the sales of 17m vinyl albums in 2015 brought copyright owners more money than streaming on ad-supported services – $416m and $385m respectively. However, such comparison demonstrates the building tension between music copyright owners and Google, though YouTube remains an important promotional partner for music creators. The most popular video streaming service in the world has also launched a subscription service, YouTube Red, offering music and exclusive shows from YouTube stars. YouTube Red launched in the United States in late 2015, and is expected to expand to other countries soon.
Thursday, March 24th, 2016
|the RIAA can suck it!|
|So a business is complaining they weren't making enough money. Hey I think my work needs to make more money, stop using your phones as flash lights and go buy lights. Damn Apple bringing the little guy down.|
|posted by (2016-03-25 07:59:39)|
|Maybe they'd make more money if they actually had decent "artists" making records that don't sound like the same thing over and over.|
|posted by (2016-03-25 09:54:01)|
|do i care if the rolling stones ONLY made 78 million instead of 78 million plus 5 bucks ? NAH!|
|RIAA has it all backwards. Watching a music video is like watching a commercial. Without MTV or VH1 playing videos anymore artists lack exposure, that leaves commercial radio stations and nobody listens to radio either. Taylor Swift and her ilk have only hurt themselves by cutting off potential new fans and revenue sources by isolating their music to pay-for-play sites. Yes, they make money, but sacrifice growth and depend too much on built-in fan bases automatically buying their latest crap. They're trying like hell to kill off physical cd's, like they did cassettes and 45's, making music less portable beyond inferior digital iTunes. When you want to share a song with your friends it used to be easy, now its overly complex, sounds like crap, and in some cases a crime!|
|I like watching Greed battle Greed|
|as usual the RIAA goes after the wrong thing to justify a bad business model that has not kept up with the times. I worked for rock bands for 25 years. labels sign bands to contracts that only benefit the label, while forcing the artist to give up control of their music for pennies on the dollar.|
Bands make approximately 3 cents for every song on a CD. a CD that costs $15 dollars to purchase, only costs about $3.00 to produce, including sleeve and artwork. The label advances the band a set fee to record, which is paid back before the band sees any income from album sales. this is the reason bands go on tour for such a long period of time. touring is the only way they make any money. Merchandise that is sold at venues, has a cut, usually 10 to 20% taken off the top to "pay the venue". the rest goes to the band. I have seen bands sell $1500 in merch, and due to paying the venue, only walk out with $1000 to $1200 at the end of the night.
|I thought napster was to blame|
|That is like commission sales. I don't like that income scheme. It was probably great back in the 1960s and 1970s but now it should be pay-per-gig|
|posted by (2016-03-29 09:32:07)|
|If you seen what they make from the ads your head would spin!||
Most Popular Stories