Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
YOUTUBE HAS REVEALED it’s paid out over $1 billion to the music industry in recent years after it was criticised for not paying artists enough.
The vice president of YouTube content at Google, Tom Pickett, revealed the figure during a panel session at the Midem music show in Cannes.
“We’ve paid out to the music industry over the last several years over a billion dollars.” said Pickett. “So there is money being generated in this ad-supported model.”
However, Pickett was heckled during the panel and the conference saw regular anti-Google outbursts from speakers, according to The Guardian.
When asked whether YouTube will be launching a music subscription service sometime soon, Pickett didn’t confirm it but said creating one would be difficult since “we’re taking people who are used to zero, and trying to take them to a much higher level.”
More than six billion hours of video are watched each month on the site, and music videos make up a significant proportion of that figure. The top 25 music videos of 2013 received hundred of millions of views each, the most popular video, Gentleman by PSY, got 634 million views.
YouTube was said to be developing its own music streaming service at the end of the year, but haddelayed it until early 2014.
YouTube and music streaming services like Spotify and Pandora have been criticised for profiteering from music plays while artists get little in return.
Spotify responded by offering its own report, highlighting how much revenue the site gets and how it’s broken down between artists and record labels.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What annoys me is the fact I can’t use a good song when I make videos. I’d happily pay a couple of euro to be able to use a song I like on my YouTube video.
What I don’t get is why you can’t use them. I’ve put up videos with soundtracks which have prompted people to actually take an interest in that band. Surely that’s a good thing for the relevant artists.
It is a good thing, and there are many alternative artists who will welcome anything that maybe they can use – but at the same time, the very least you could do would be to ask permission. Those artists created that piece of music / song. They had to work and put in all sorts of money for practice space and recording, or the software or instruments, it costs most artists a lot of time and money to put that song out there (the unsigned ones anyway), so I’m sure you wouldn’t begrudge them even a little compensation, or at least the respect of seeking permission and respecting their decision :)
I think that goes back to my original point. I wouldn’t begrudge them at all. In fact I’d happily pay them to allow me to use one of their songs.
And how much of that money ends up in the artists hand???……….not much as the big record companies are greedy €unts!!
Maybe keep some of that money and spend it on developing the buffer model that you are using? It’s infuriating using YouTube these days and having to wait for the videos to load.
That’s Biebers bail money sorted!
have your say