YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?
from the curious... dept
Remember those days when YouTube was "killing" the entertainment industry. You don't even have to look back very far. There are artists who still insist that YouTube is killing creativity and is nothing but a den of piracy. Viacom spent years trying to argue that YouTube was the equivalent of Napster, but for video, until that lawsuit finally settled just a few months ago.However, reality is looking pretty different these days. A couple months ago, Businessweek had a big cover story about how YouTube has become Hollywood's "hit factory", and just this week, YouTube revealed that its ContentID program, which allows copyright holders to monetize unauthorized uses of their works, had paid out over $1 billion since its inception. This isn't to say there aren't problems with ContentID. We've noted in the past the problems with false flagging, revenue diversion and other issues -- but the simple fact is that it appears to be making money for content creators. Actually, quite a lot of money.
And this brings us back to a key point that we've hit on over and over and over again: given a chance to operate, these business models tend to come about without the need to pass draconian copyright laws and without the need to completely takedown and destroy businesses. When allowed to thrive, innovate and experiment, it's only natural that workable business models develop. We've seen it over and over again in the industry. The recording industry insisted radio was going to kill the entire industry -- and then it made the industry into a massive juggernaut. The movie industry insisted that the VCR would be its "Boston Strangler," but four years later home video outpaced the box office in generating revenue for the studios.
The continuous claims of "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" on copyright issues is so clearly bogus. As we've argued for years, it's the innovations of the tech industry that keep saving the entertainment industry over and over and over again. There's no "war" between the two when it appears that Silicon Valley is the one supplying the "weapons" that's making Hollywood very, very wealthy.
But when will those folks in Hollywood learn this? Instead, they keep attacking these new services, demanding more copyright "enforcement" and blocking these forms of innovation. Who knows what other innovations might have occurred had the industry not shut down Veoh. Or Grokster. Before the US government completely shut down Megaupload, it was experimenting with new revenue models were attracting the interest of lots of famous musicians. Imagine if that had been allowed to continue. Who knows what other kinds of cool business models would be in place today making more money for artists.
Attacking innovation seems to be the legacy entertainment industry's default position, no matter how many times that innovation actually opens up new markets, provides new revenue streams and makes pretty much everyone better off. Oh, except some of the gatekeepers. Those guys tend not to be able to keep quite as much of the revenue generated by these new platforms. And maybe, just maybe, that's the real reason they're so angry about innovation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, contentid, copyright, culture, experiments, hollywood, innovation, silicon valley, youtube
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en
Looks like to me like 100% goes to the rights holder if they choose to monetize it. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there were hidden "fee's" .. processing and the like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Artists who hold their own copyrights get 100% of the proceeds, while artists who have allowed someone else to hold it get whatever their contract says (if they're lucky).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And there you have the problem, the traditional middlemen are not getting the money when artists can go direct to their fans for their income, or use a service that pays them most of the income, and only take a reasonable amount for the service offered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as all the money earned from new innovation isn't going into Hollywoods pockets then Hollywood will continue to attack and sue the new innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree. Their hated of innovation is not directly because of the money. It's because of the loss of control. My version of your statement would be: as long as the major media companies don't have total control over how the innovation is deployed and used, they will continue to attack and sue."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice and all
It's an example of the innovation that can be done, but to say it's 'in spite' of the content industry is a bit disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice and all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
And let's talk about fairness. GOOG is pocketing a pretty penny by keeping a share of that ad revenue. What a way to cut yourself into the business. The recording company didn't ask to be partners with GOOG. GOOG just muscled its way in with their army of pirate ants. So the recording companies can either fight a long battle with the pirates in court go along and let GOOG profit off their hard work.
If I poke around YouTube I see a gazillion videos uploaded by "fans". It's easy to find almost every song you want up there. But only a small fraction are enrolled in this ContentID. GOOG is still getting rich off of piracy. They're still not paying the pirate ants at all (suckers!) and kicking back very little to the artists.
So that's why no one is celebrating. It's like a thief came along and took a $20 bill from your wallet and replaced it with a $1. Then the thief kept saying, "Why do you keep talking about how I took the $20. Can't you just focus on the $1 I gave you? Come on. Don't be so negative."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
[citation needed]
Wild conjecture about why sales figures are going down =/= a good argument.
"And let's talk about fairness. GOOG is pocketing a pretty penny by keeping a share of that ad revenue. What a way to cut yourself into the business. The recording company didn't ask to be partners with GOOG. GOOG just muscled its way in with their army of pirate ants. So the recording companies can either fight a long battle with the pirates in court go along and let GOOG profit off their hard work."
If Google doesn't take money, YouTube shuts down. Glad to see you've got your priorities straight. Also, YouTube can be a great way to "expose" your music. Someone might listen to one of your songs on YouTube and think "Hey, this is a great song and I want to buy the album!" Congrats, YouTube made you a sale. Otherwise, people may be more likely to go onto a pirate site and pirate your music for real.
Also, why pirate ants? That doesn't make any sense.
"If I poke around YouTube I see a gazillion videos uploaded by "fans". It's easy to find almost every song you want up there. But only a small fraction are enrolled in this ContentID. GOOG is still getting rich off of piracy. They're still not paying the pirate ants at all (suckers!) and kicking back very little to the artists."
Because it's their fault that:
a) They make money
b) Users upload pirated stuff
"So that's why no one is celebrating. It's like a thief came along and took a $20 bill from your wallet and replaced it with a $1. Then the thief kept saying, 'Why do you keep talking about how I took the $20. Can't you just focus on the $1 I gave you? Come on. Don't be so negative.'"
I thought you said the revenue was 'destroyed'. Now it's been stolen. Google isn't stealing their money, genius.
In conclusion, go back to the RIAA and tell them no one is falling for your act. Mostly because we're not as dumb as they think we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Year Revenue Change Notes
2005 $20.7 billion -3%
2006 $19.6 billion -5%
2007 $18.8 billion -4%
2008 $18.4 billion -8%
2009 $17.4 billion -5%
2010 $16.8 billion -8.4%
2011 $16.2 billion -3%
2012 $16.5 billion +0.3%
And you can choose whether you like the word "stolen" or "destroyed" better. If people are taking something for free and not paying for it, both fit. But I'm sure you've got some wackjob rationalization about how you're really giving people publicity or something like that.
There are tens of thousands of artists who used to make a living in the recording industry and now they can't. But GOOG is getting a big, fat cut of the revenues that used to go to the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Competition, which the Internet has enabled, rather than piracy is reducing the labels income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Nope. Just the big bad Google monster that puts you in a constant state of fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
You know what else came out in the early 2000s?
iTunes.
Know what happened then?
People bought less and less records, causing the recording industry to lose money that way, and went back to the pre-1970s model of buying singles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
BULLSHIT ALERT!!
Actually, prior to the internet, only a very, very tiny percentage of musicians were able to make money recording music and of those who were able to become somewhat successful only a very, very tiny percentage of them were actually able to recoup the advances given to them.
You must have pulled this "tens of thousands of artists who used to make a living" out of your ass, because it isn't based in truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
It looks like wild conjecture to me. Your revenue changes table in no way indicates what the cause of the revenue change is. You are asserting it's because of YouTube. Common sense would point in a different direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
2005 $20.7 billion -3%
2006 $19.6 billion -5%
2007 $18.8 billion -4%
2008 $18.4 billion -8%
2009 $17.4 billion -5%
2010 $16.8 billion -8.4%
2011 $16.2 billion -3%
2012 $16.5 billion +0.3%
Those numbers make me wonder how much of those loses are due to the labels wasting their money on senseless lawsuits, failed education programs and massive lobbying to further their pointless agenda of "fighting piracy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
[citation still needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
A lot of attention and cash i would have paid to larger producers of content has gone to indies ever since I got steady access to Internet. that 5 billion is probably losses due to the lower barriers to entry for legal competitors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
But all it takes is five seconds on YouTube to convince anyone with a brain that it's evolved into one huge jukebox that destroys the need for people to purchase music. Only a fool can't see the effect.
But I'm guessing you're one of the loons who's not going to feel guilty and cling to any rationalization that maybe, just maybe, the band really authorized that upload. Yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Just like pirate radio removed the need in the 60s, and cassettes did in the 70s. It's a wonder that there is any music industry left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Any year now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
I have to hand it to you Bob, this was actually a pretty slick way of slipping a general insult into your opinionating. What you're actually saying is "the only reason that you wouldn't agree with my unsubstantiated accusations is because you're an idiot."
Sorry, that doesn't fly. You'll need to actually substantiate something or face the fact that your argument isn't actually an argument at all. It's just an opinion backed by nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Then, perhaps, technology and society have moved beyond the need or desire to pay for music as was the previous fashion. The music industry is not *entitled* to X profit year after year, decade after decade (which, btw, you conveniently left out the entire *previous* decades MASSIVE year-over-year increases in music sales, from about 1955 straight on through to 2000 or so. Every. Year.) If there is less interest, then perhaps they need to find new ways to get paid, new avenues to get people to listen to music, new ways to monetize. Just because it's been done that way for years does NOT mean they can expect it to stay that way FOREVER. What hubris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
I do in fact know the artists authorized the uploads because they themselves announce such. And easily verified too.
Do you just have your head so up the industry's ass that it's inconceivable that anyone would try to make it on their own or even give content for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Talk about fairness? Well after years and years of being screwed, I've went from buying 500 vinyls a year to none. I put them all on reel to reel and quit the repurchase constantly. That was years ago.
If you talk to the artists they tell you the labels aren't fair, so you're purposely picking partial arguments that are transparent in where your bias is.
The kick back to artists as you claim it, was shown to really be an attempt at black mail when you look at what Pandora went through. The judge in the case ruled Pandora would not have to pay the new fees though they had agreed in essence to pay them. So the real pirates aren't the fans.
After all the thievery by major labels out of my wallet, it is high time I quit supporting them and did. I have purchased not one single song nor album since the days sue'em all started. When you piss your fans off, keep pissing them off, you can expect the market to reflect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
If you didn't like the music, you could have recorded your own. Or simply purchased things from the cutout bin. But you didn't, did you. You weren't screwed.
Perhaps you like to believe that you were screwed because the record companies only gave, say, 15% to the artists. People love to latch onto that small number while forgetting just how much work it is to publish anything. It took the hard work of thousands of people in the recording companies to bring to you that vinyl you purchased. They need to be paid too.
So you could have bought a cassette tape from some folk singer at a concert but you chose to spend your money willingly for a record album from a major company. You got what you expected: expensively produced music that was artfully packaged and distributed. I don't know why you think you were screwed.
It's amazing how the pirate sleezeballs gin up this woe-is-me attitude among the music lovers in order to convince them that it's better to give their money to the pirates.
How much did you give Kim Dotcom? Or one of the other fake services on the web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
It's hilarious watching you squirm, trying to convince people that you're not in support of corporations.
You want more money, go be a professional cocksucker like antidirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
Maybe the loss is due to the fact that more people are becoming independent and therefore less people are signing up to the recording industry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So my million dollar question is: how much of that billion went to the wrong people? It's probably not the majority, probably not even close (let's face it, there is a lot of infringement on Youtube), but I'd bet that it's a noticeable percent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An old saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The share is not fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$1 Billion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $1 Billion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more great humor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more great humor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more great humor
[CITATION NEEDED]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more great humor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]