EU Regulators Seem To Think They Can Tell YouTube That Its Business Model Should Be More Like Spotify
from the really? dept
We've been quite concerned about new internet regulations on the way from the EU, with a focus on how internet platforms must act. As we've noted, the effort is officially part of the (reasonable and good!) idea of making a "Digital Single Market," but where the process is being used by some who think it's an opportunity to attack the big internet companies (mainly Google and Facebook). There are two EU Commissioners heading up the effort, and one, Gunther Oettinger, has been fairly explicit that he'd like to burden American internet firms with regulations to "replace" them with European equivalents. Of course, as we've noted, when you have giant companies like Google and Facebook, they can pretty much handle whatever regulatory burden you throw at them. It's the innovators and the startups that will be shut out because they won't be able to manage it. So, ironically, in trying to hold back Google and Facebook with regulations, the EU would really only entrench them as the only players able to handle those regulations.The other EU Commissioner deeply involved with this process is Andrus Ansip, who is generally seen as more reasonable on internet and technology issues. He actually seems to understand many of the trade offs at play. So it was mostly good to see him make some comments recognizing that across-the-board regulations may have negative consequences:
European Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip, who is overseeing a wide-ranging inquiry into how web platforms conduct their business, said on Friday the EU executive would not take a horizontal approach to regulating online services.That's mostly a good sign, but you do worry about what kinds of "problems" they're looking at. Because, at the same time Ansip seemed to indicate that he was upset about how much YouTube paid artists:
"We will take a problem-driven approach," Ansip said. "It's practically impossible to regulate all the platforms with one really good single solution."
Andrus Ansip, who is overseeing an overhaul of the bloc’s copyright rules, said the YouTube’s comparatively small payments to artists gave it an unfair advantage over rivals such as Spotify, the Swedish streaming service.Different services have different business models and offer different features and benefits. That's how competition and innovation work. What if it's Spotify's model that is the problematic and unsustainable one? Why is the EU choosing one particular business model over another and suggesting that all business models should work the same way?
“This is not only about rights owners and creators and their remuneration — it is also about a level playing field between different service providers,” said the former prime minister of Estonia. “Platforms based on subscriptions are remunerating those authors; others service providers do not. How can they compete?”
Now, I know that there have been lots of complaints about how much YouTube pays -- just as there have been lots of complaints about how much Spotify pays. And I'm not sure how telling these companies how they have to run their business fixes any of that. Because, at the same time, I know of artists who say that they've only become successful because of YouTube or because of Spotify. They're pretty happy with how those systems work. Why should the EU government suddenly come in and say "this model is okay -- this model is not"?
Mandating business models and worrying that one business decision makes it more difficult to compete -- and thinking that's a regulatory issue -- doesn't seem like a good way to encourage startups and innovation in Europe. It sounds like a massive headache for any platform -- especially smaller ones -- operating in Europe.
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: andrus ansip, digital single market, eu, gunther oettinger, platforms, regulations
Companies: google, spotify, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The most amazing song or video in existence is worth nothing without a way to hear or see it
I think the best way to handle such things is to ask them point blank: 'What percentage of profits from a given video or song do you believe are owed the artist who made the song/video? What percentage of profits from a given video or song you you believe are 'owed' to the collection agencies who (theoretically) collect and distribute the money to the owners of the songs/videos? And lastly what percentage of the profits from a given video or song do you believe are owned to the company providing the service itself?'
Nail them down to a percentage, rather than a number, and the discussion is a lot easier and realistic, as now they're dealing with numbers that are actually matching what can be distributed, rather than the amounts they want and which may very well be several times more than the song/video brings in, making it unsustainable to pay out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most amazing song or video in existence is worth nothing without a way to hear or see it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube's small payments to artists?
Please tell me why Google / YouTube should be paying ANYTHING to artists at all?
If an artist doesn't want their work on YouTube, then DON'T UPLOAD IT.
If someone else uploads it, and you're sure it's not obvious fair use, then avail yourself of the remedy to sue the uploader for copyright infringement.
If YouTube wants to offer you a way to monetize videos that you upload, which you have the proper copyright authority to upload, then don't complain. Either take the deal or don't take the deal. Or try to negotiate. Just like any other business arrangement.
Why is any special regulation needed to cover this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube's small payments to artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the broadest terms Spotify and YouTube are both platforms that deliver content. But in practice they operate much differently, and the income streams each earns is very different.
If a music video goes out on YouTube for a popular song it might get some hits, where users of Spotify might make it the stream of the moment that they have in heavy rotation. Based on the different deals the payments go out, and considering the labels/artists aren't expected to pay for the resources they are using on either platform, its a pretty good deal.
The larger problem seems to be twofold
1 - Google is the internet
2 - Google makes a bunch of money, and there is only 1 pot of money so anything they are getting is taken away from someone else. (Usually the poor poor artists the cartels like to unshackle and parade around before locking them away again to cash their royalty checks of $.15 after costs are deducted.)
Each platform is different, and part of that is an industry and regulation (purchases by the industry) that makes everything a fight and slog to get to selling something to consumers. If they wanted everyone to pay the same, they should regulate the copyright laws and set 1 flat price for all platforms and work from there. That way the 'fight' over wanting 11 cents for every dime the platform makes (h/t Mike) are over.
If every platform knew what the costs where, and didn't have to worry about decade long pointless lawsuits you might get an EU based competitor who can challenge the big players... but serving the cartels interests benefits no one because their demands are so far removed form reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: or....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: or....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whadda Ya 'Spect??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Ahead Level the field
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a person who does not understand YouTube, and other Internet services. A large part of YouTube, Facebook, instagram etc. is people sharing knowledge, and helping each other to solve various problems. Anybody with any interest in making things can find all sorts of demonstrations, tutorials, and Vlogs of people making things. A surprising number of those people are owners of small businesses showing others how they solve day to day problems.
To many Youtubers, Youtube is not about making money, but rather about being part of a world wide community, sharing knowledge and helping each other to solve problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon Coward
We say, give it a rest bro' - your pontificating is way boring...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]