|
||||||||
Article : Youtube royalties not piracy is depriving performers of revenue |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stoke Prior, Leominster, Hfds
Posts: 1,402
|
Article : Youtube royalties not piracy is depriving performers of revenue
An article from US magazine Fast Company explains that declining royalties, not piracy, is what is depriving artists of revenue. Youtube revenue is tiny as compared to dedicated streaming services. A battle against piracy on Youtube is not attacking the right problem, the article suggests :
http://www.fastcompany.com/3061256/y...-royalties-war Warning : This article is packed with information and is a "long read" - but if you are a person who likes to delve deeply into issues like this, then you should find it interesting to trawl through... I've spotlighted it for you anyway... All the best |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454
|
If they weren't on Youtube hardly anyone would listen to them. Convenience listening only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
both piracy and legal streaming impacts on artists sales
the main difference is with legal streaming, someone other than the artist can be making money from it. of course people running certain pirate sites can also make money from piracy too, but that's illegal whilst people can legally make money from legal streaming |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,349
|
Quote:
If they weren't on Youtube hardly anyone would listen to them. Convenience listening only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Record companies still have a part to play in the strength of the agreements they can get from YouTube and other providers. Vevo seems to offer a better deal for official music. Piracy monitoring could always be improved and another rival to YouTube emerging might help?
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 461
|
Youtube are currently going through a big battle with all record companies.
Just remember that YouTube profits heavily when big videos get 50 million views, but a proportionally low amount is paid back in royalties... YouTube also recently offered the BPI and AIM (trade bodies for record labels) a ridiculously poor deal, basically saying "accept this new royalty rate, or we'll remove your videos from YouTube" It's about time that YouTube step up and pay the fair amounts. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 18,239
|
As I recall, youtube pay around $2 per cpm. TV pays £12 per cpm (which I think is around $19), so youtube underpays by 90%.
Gangnam Style is the most watched pop video with 2.6bn views, which works out around $5m in revnue. A video viewed a million times gets $2000. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,174
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't streaming just like radio airplay that never runs out?
Sure, artists are paid not very much per stream, but if songs are steady 'replayers'...you have songs like Rihanna's 'Needed Me' which was like a #38 chart hit getting 90k streams in the UK alone per day and bringing Rihanna in £500+ every day it does that. Not to be sneezed at. How many radio plays in a given day would she need to match that in royalties? |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,295
|
All the majors get a shiteload of ad revenue money every year from streaming services. This is NOT passed on to their acts - but you can bet that any act who speaks out in favour of Spotify for example (like Ed Sheeran) gets a backhander.
If only a big act had the balls to challenge their label on this... |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:40.


