Youtube could give them none and block all there music.
It's hilarious how many people don't realize that the Music industry is one of the most shady, greedy, and brutal out there.
[QUOTE=Aide;51491850]Youtube could give them none and block all there music.[/QUOTE]
this makes germans cry
It's never enough is it? Give a man a fish, and they'll only want another.
[QUOTE=Scratch.;51491885]this makes germans cry[/QUOTE]
Please do not take that away (again), at least now we are enjoying mostly unblocked music.Tho many creators still manually block Germany for what ever reason.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;51491910]It's never enough is it? Give a man a fish, and they'll only want another.[/QUOTE]
The article does bring up that Spotify payed them 2bn in 2015, which makes it 18x more profitable per user than YouTube.
So there's at least a *bit* more justification to this than just bottomless greed. Tho I'm sure as long as contracts are being re-negotiated, people on both sides will always try to get a better deal than last time.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;51491936]The article does bring up that Spotify payed them 2bn in 2015, which makes it 18x more profitable per user than YouTube.
So there's at least a *bit* more justification to this than just bottomless greed. Tho I'm sure as long as contracts are being re-negotiated, people on both sides will always try to get a better deal than last time.[/QUOTE]
Well in youtubes defense, spotify is a ad/subscription based service purely based on music. All their content they stream is purely just that. $2bn is fair, for something that is likely gaining more hits than youtube. As I am sure you don't use youtube to stream music videos when you're just wanting to listen to music.
[editline]7th December 2016[/editline]
To further the greed of the disservice the music industry likes to play on:
[quote]
The industry has also pushed for reforms to the "safe harbour" laws, which mean YouTube and other similar sites cannot be penalised when users upload copyrighted material - including full albums - provided they remove it on request.[/quote]
Youtube isn't responsible for their users behaviour. Simply way too much to do there. When the industries push youtube to address these problems, you get shit technology like ContentID which only serve to be more burdensom to the other people using the service.
If they remove safe harbor laws, this makes service providers responsible for their clients behavior. So they can sue youtube directly for something they didn't know what was going on, and they never bothered reporting it anyways. It fuels to break DCMA even further.
If youtube paid 2 billion dollars a year, would it even be [I]worth[/I] hosting music on youtube? I mean they don't make any money off it as is, losing an extra billion a year just to keep the music there, why bother hosting it?
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;51491910]It's never enough is it? Give a man a fish, and they'll only want another.[/QUOTE]
Not just another, they'll want lobster and caviar.
Tbh I dont mind if music in germany gets blocked again, it's not like it's hard to circumvent it anyway.
Pure greed, honestly.
The old type of music industry were people would go and buy music is a dying trend. People don't go to stores and buy CDs anymore. What's the point of doing it when you can simply download a program and stream it for free? Or purchase a subscription for a program that costs the same amount to use for a month that a single cd costs? Why the hell should I buy music when I can go on YouTube and watch a specific video for free trough the Internet? People don't want to buy CDs because it's impractical, costs a lot and time consuming to get to the store in the first place. The old farts that work in the music industry have unfortunately not realised this and still believe it's the 1990s and refuse to make any major investments into streaming devices.
The entire industry of music is falling apart from its own stupidness of refusing to evolve further. Artist nowadays, just like game developers, don't need massive public ads for their newly released content.
I bought a CD once because I was stuck in an airport for 3 hours waiting around for the plane to stop being so fucking delayed and wanted something nice. Needless to say I ripped that motherfucker, read through the booklet once and put it in the drawer.
I wouldn't have found that CD if it wasn't for youtube's mixlists but nothing I listen to is published by the music industry so I couldn't give less of a shit what their opinions are.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;51491910]It's never enough is it? Give a man a fish, and they'll only want another.[/QUOTE]
Give a man a fish and he'll want two. Give the music industry 1,000,000,000 fish and they will sue you for more.
[QUOTE=freaka;51492195]The old type of music industry were people would go and buy music is a dying trend. People don't go to stores and buy CDs anymore. What's the point of doing it when you can simply download a program and stream it for free? Or purchase a subscription for a program that costs the same amount to use for a month that a single cd costs? Why the hell should I buy music when I can go on YouTube and watch a specific video for free trough the Internet? People don't want to buy CDs because it's impractical, costs a lot and time consuming to get to the store in the first place. The old farts that work in the music industry have unfortunately not realised this and still believe it's the 1990s and refuse to make any major investments into streaming devices.
The entire industry of music is falling apart from its own stupidness of refusing to evolve further. Artist nowadays, just like game developers, don't need massive public ads for their newly released content.[/QUOTE]
the big thing with streaming is that you don't own any of the music you listen to, so if any legal spat happens (which does all the time), then you can no longer listen to that music. there's also the argument regarding quality of streaming sites, but less people care about that.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51491998]If youtube paid 2 billion dollars a year, would it even be worth hosting music on youtube? I mean they don't make any money off it as is, losing an extra billion a year just to keep the music there, why bother hosting it?[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to bet that it would cost the music industry more than $1 billion to setup and host the amount of music YouTube has (factoring in engineering cost and server+CDN cost).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.