TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Is YouTube Killing Music Piracy?

For years the top record label executives have been claiming that it’s impossible to compete with free, but YouTube is proving them wrong. With billions of views every month the major record labels are making millions by sharing their music for free. For many people YouTube takes away the incentive to ‘pirate,’ but at the same time it may also cannibalise legal music sales.

youtubeThe music industry has witnessed some dramatic changes in recent years, even when piracy is left out of the picture. In just a decade the Internet and the MP3 revolution have redefined people’s music consumption habits.

We’ve previously documented how people moved from buying albums to buying singles. But there’s another big change that occurred, one that may have an even bigger impact on the music industry as a whole; YouTube and other ‘free’ music sources.

If we go back in time 5 or 6 years, people had only one option if they wanted to listen to their favorite artists online without paying for the pleasure. That one option was piracy. Today the public has a wide variety of legal options, and the medium of choice for most people appears to be YouTube.

Although true music aficionados are hard to please, the majority of the public appreciates the option of listening to their favorite tunes for free on YouTube. Google is not complaining either, as music videos are a substantial revenue source for them.

But what about the record labels, are they happy too? This is not an easy question to answer, but we’re going to give it a try.

Revenue wise YouTube and Vevo have be come a serious revenue source. The major labels haven’t been very open about their revenue sharing deal, but EMI Music chief financial officer Paul Kahn said (pdf) during the LimeWire trial that his label gets half a penny for each YouTube play.

Half a penny may not sound much, but with billions of views it adds up quickly.

If we look at David Guetta, one of EMI’s top artists, we see that his YouTube uploads were viewed 308,000,000 times over the past 12 months. That means $1,540,000 in revenue, for only one artist.

Just as a comparison, Guetta and EMI have to sell more than 2 million singles to earn that much from ‘paid’ music.

In their latest report music industry group IFPI write that at the end of last year the major record labels were getting 1.7 billion views a month, and this number is rising rapidly. In the last 12 months alone Universal Music tripled the number of YouTube views from 2.3 billion May last year to nearly 7 billion today.

Staggering numbers that bring in tens of millions of dollars at least, with free music.

In part YouTube’s success goes at the expense of music piracy. With free music on YouTube a large group of people have less incentive to pirate, and indeed, the number of people who share music on BitTorrent appears to be slowing because of these and other alternatives.

This doesn’t mean that music sharing BitTorrent communities are fading away, but the more casual downloaders have found an alternative in YouTube and other streaming services.

That’s great news for the labels right? Well not so fast.

All those billions of views on YouTube each month may have slowed piracy down, but if we have to follow the logic of the music industry then actual sales of recorded music would also be affected. After all, for years they’ve claimed that “free music” on pirate sites caused billions in losses. Free music on YouTube should have a similar effect.

The big question is of course whether the revenue from YouTube can match these alleged losses or not. Not an easy question to answer, but these are crucial factors that define how the major record labels will fare in the coming years, probably even more so than piracy.

TorrentFreak asked both the RIAA and BPI to share their thoughts on how YouTube could affect music sales, but both unfortunately withheld their comments.

This leaves us with the conclusion that, unlike many record label execs have argued in the past, you can compete with free. You can even compete with piracy. Whether the net result is going to be a positive one has yet to be seen, but YouTube is taking up a larger chunk of the record label revenues each year.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Pingback: Is YouTube Killing Music Piracy? | Torrentfreak.com

  • Anonymous
    • kk

      yeah have fun with your shit quality mp3s

      • Anonymous

        I know that, you know that, but try to tell that to the people who use it & don’t even give a fuck. I personally don’t like anything under 192kbps, absolutely no less than 320 if it’s been re-encoded. But I’ve seen so many people use it that it’s not even funny anymore…

        • Anonymous

          “absolutely no less than 320″ – there’s more? 192 is cd quality. i’ll listen to flac when you put a $20 flac player in my pocket.

        • Noah C.

          Honestly, I prefer .mp3 over .flac for two reasons:

          1 – I don’t pay much attention to quality unless there’s ridiculous white noise or it’s just really bad.

          2 – I’ll listen to .FLAC when you give me something that can organize .flac files for a Mac OS. Hell, most of my .mp3′s are 320kbps ones, so I’m not complaining. They’re fine, and they sound fine. .FLAC is just a pain in the ass when it comes to listening to it digitally, because there’s not a decent program to organize them and listen to them with, since iTunes doesn’t support .FLAC, or least mine doesn’t.

        • dfgdszs

          Music album in .mp3 -> 100 MB
          Music album in .flac -> 421 MB
          Unless you have a pile of hard drives in your house, .flac is really not worth it.

        • R7

          Also don’t forget that you also need capable audio system to actually benefit from .flac compared to 320kbps .mp3
          A .flac file won’t sound better than a 320kbps .mp3 on €2 portable headphones on a low end mp3 player or a phone.

        • Ciabattered

          I’ve started downloading FLAC wherever possible and converting it to more portable mp3s myself.

          Lossless is the future and I’m not going to redownload all my music when the technology finally catches up.

        • Pikka

          @dwpbike
          192 is CD quality?!

          ROTFL!

        • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

          In reply to “Noah C.” (since the Reply button isn’t showing): don’t use iSh1t. It’s that simple.

          Also, use your brain sometimes: the official FLAC site has players and plugins. flac(dot)sourceforge(dot)net(forward-slash)download.html

        • Nklenchik

          I’ll download the album then push it down to 224. I don’t see a difference between 320.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          An well encoded vbr saves space and is enough for most needs. Still, I now download lossless (flac in my case) whenever I can. They are very versatile and you can convert them to the format needed.

          Space? 1Tb drives at $75. Processing power? Cell phones even have dual processors today and some come with flac support by default! No software to deal with flac? Open source.

          In the end, it’s a matter of suiting your needs. If 192 kbit mp3 is enough then who cares about what Joe or Bill think? Their needs are different than yours.

      • Cujo

        agreed ,, shit ,, shit ,, shit!

      • Cujo

        agreed ,, shit ,, shit ,, shit!

      • Josh C

        You keep crying sh*t when that’s your only option for listening to a tune you can’t find anywhere :|

      • Josh C

        You keep crying sh*t when that’s your only option for listening to a tune you can’t find anywhere :|

        • Anonymous

          +1 . They (flac snobs) would rather listen to crap music in average 16bit 44kHz.

      • Anonymous

        can’t polish a turd….. can you ?

        Crap music @ 32bit float , 96kHz wav…. is still crap music….

        OF COURSE , Wav / flac and other lossless encodings/recordings are better quality…
        As a guy who makes music…. I know about audio file quality… and the snobby hate mp3 brigade , who love the format more than the content……

        i would rather have better quality..but…..MP3′s are fine if it’s all you can get…..

        still….you can’t polish a turd….. no matter how much quality the turd has.

        • Anon84

          “can’t polish a turd….. can you ?”, Mythbusters (tv show) did that myth and surprisingly enough you can, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rax27_ZIVM

        • Steve Ronka

          Nah, but you can at least make sure you download high-quality turds in the first place, so they don’t need polishing…

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon84 /

          Mythbusters …… processing,,,,, then polishing the turd.

          Just like remixing a crap track into a great track.

          My point stands.

        • Pugz

          “still….you can’t polish a turd…..”

          Oh? You can’t? That’s what I thought Simon Cowell did for a living.

    • Lol

      lol how is it competeing wit piracy when half use youtube mp3 rippers
      and heres a high quality ONLINE ripper
      flvto.com

      • Asd

        Hahaha. “Quality mp3 rippers”.

      • Anonymous

        tanks for the link. first plus: it works on ubuntu. second plus: vlc reports 192kbps.

    • http://twitter.com/QWERTYCommander Christopher Mauro

      I found one that’s better. You can actually encode the songs to 320kbps with this one.

      http://www.clipconverter.cc

      • Blackplan

        There’s no point encoding to 320kbps if the quality of what you rip is 192kpbs. It’s not like it’ll magically improve or anything.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          You are underestimating the lil green leprechauns inside his computer.

      • meateaffle

        Upconverting = a huge waste. Don’t waste your time. Crap quality to begin with wont magically become better when you go to 320kb.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jordan.kratz Jordan Kratz

          garbage in garbage out

      • TheMasta

        Ok let me explain in correct terms…
        When you transcode from 192kbps to 320kbps, your file will NOT become a 320kbps song, it will stay 192kbps.
        The only thing you will add is unnecessary data, making the file a bit larger than it “should be”.
        Protip: google about bad transcodes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chillinfart Arturo Julio Zevallos Córdova

    If the record labels open again thier markets instead of marking us “We are thieves” (I am from peru, South America), maybe this story will be better. Unfortunately, they prefer to label us as thieves and restrict zones to feed this psychosocial of “We are thieves”.

    This is my article about the sad reality in this part of the world about “buying music” (in spanish). They want money but you cannot buy that they sell because they do no not want that you listen their music (legally). Pathetic.

    “Quiero comprar legal, pero la RIAA no deja” (I want to buy legal, but RIAA doesn’t let it):

    http://www.arcades3d.com/forosmf/index.php?topic=13164.5

    (I hope that you can translate it)

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      <3

      Agreed.

      Everyday we see evidence that crushes their arguments against file sharing. And yet they keep pushing for laws.

      RIAA is learning, slowly. Music has a longer relation with piracy as large files came after. MPAA and the rest are in the "Napster" phase of evolution. Expect MPAA to take the lead in file sharing litigation.. Oh wait, they are at the lead already ;)

  • Anonymous

    These “loses” are not true. Not every download is a sale lost. Some people may not have payed for the song but because its free they will. So its not a lost sale, its just not a sale made. If that made any sense…

    • Anonymous

      They think listening to a song on the radio instead of buying it is a lost sale. If you look at an album cover & don’t buy the CD, they think it is a lost sale. If you write down the lyrics & let someone read them, that is a lost sale to them.

      It’s insane…
      These people literally belong in a mental institution, instead they parade around court rooms brainwashing judges & law makers…

      • Anon

        You don’t get to hear any song you want whenever you want on the radio, do you?

        Also, YouTube is monetized by advertising so it is not free. Piracy is free, and that you cannot compete with.

        • Anonymous

          I do get to hear any song I want when I want on the radio, it’s called “making a request”. So that’s already wrong. And YouTube is monetized by advertising, but it is technically free to me or to anyone who wants to check something out on there. So that can compete.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, you can’t compete with free.

          Unless your name is YouTube. Or Apple. Or Amazon. They do it by either giving content away for free and monetizing it with ads or selling music for a reasonably sane price. Anybody who does the same can successfully compete with free, as well.

          So, actually, you’re a dipshit.

        • IDIOCRACY

          You can always compete with free, however your profit could be lower than before; there will always be real fans that want to have the original (CD or DVD) you can compete with those, I for that matter I like to have the originals from the shows I am a fan of, and something that you can’t find digital (like mp3 or WAV or ..) a real vinyl record played on my high end turntable (Lenco) and class A tube amplifier (Quad).

      • Anon

        You don’t get to hear any song you want whenever you want on the radio, do you?

        Also, YouTube is monetized by advertising so it is not free. Piracy is free, and that you cannot compete with.

      • Noah C.

        For me a lost sale is when there are two options, and one of them means that you actually had incentive to buy the product in the first place.

        If I saw an album I really wanted and PLANNED on buying it, and I had no problem buying it, but later found a way to get it free, then I would pirate it. That qualifies as a lost sale. But because the whole “lost sale” theory is disputed and nobody knows the real definition, and everyone has a different definition of a “lost sale” AND that you can’t tell when someone really WAS a lost sale or just a “oh, this is free so I’m downloading it.”

        30GB of music in my library. Not much, but I wouldn’t pay for any of it.

    • Anonymous

      They think listening to a song on the radio instead of buying it is a lost sale. If you look at an album cover & don’t buy the CD, they think it is a lost sale. If you write down the lyrics & let someone read them, that is a lost sale to them.

      It’s insane…
      These people literally belong in a mental institution, instead they parade around court rooms brainwashing judges & law makers…

  • Anonymous

    These “loses” are not true. Not every download is a sale lost. Some people may not have payed for the song but because its free they will. So its not a lost sale, its just not a sale made. If that made any sense…

  • Anonymous

    I still think only about 10% of every download is a lost sale, and that’s a wide estimate with no real support.

  • Dan

    I use Youtube to find and install music. There are dozens of great programs that can rip music from YT videos. In fact, I’ve also downloaded quite a few movies and clips from YT. Rather than kill piracy, it’s a good place to find copyrighted content.

    • Ven

      If the ripping method is analog, then it is perfectly legal to grab music and videos off of Youtube. All the software needs to do is pass the MP3 through your soundcard in real time, and then record the output.

      • Anonymous

        “If the ripping method is analog, then it is perfectly legal to grab music and videos off of Youtube.”

        Copyright knowledge fail.

        • Ven

          Actually, it would be defended in court under the Audio Home Recording Act in the same way VHS and Cassette recording were defended in decades prior.

          “Section 1008 explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with “analog” devices and media.”

          A soundcard that is taking a digital audio feed, converting it for playback, and then recording the converted audio is considered analog recording.

    • Ven

      If the ripping method is analog, then it is perfectly legal to grab music and videos off of Youtube. All the software needs to do is pass the MP3 through your soundcard in real time, and then record the output.

  • http://twitter.com/RobbertvOoijen Robbert van Ooijen

    Nice article! It’s interesting to see that YouTube is now becoming a substantial revenue source for the labels, while it was initially condemned and associated with piracy practices.

    Last year I wrote my Master’s thesis about the influence of (free) streaming music on music piracy. If you’re interested, the full thesis can be read here: http://haveyouheard.it/home-streaming-is-killing-piracy/

  • r3loaded

    YouTube is ok, sound quality leaves a bit to be desired but it’s great for listening to a song you want to find out more about. The only issue is the heavy-handed censorship of the lyrics which tends to ruin songs. Take a look at the official Vevo upload of Act a Fool by Ludacris – they’ve even gone as far as to censor out phrases like “flip-away license plate” and “shotgun” (“ridin’ shotgun” is fine but not “shotgun” for some odd reason). Take a look at the comments of any Vevo-uploaded video and there are plenty of viewers who are annoyed by this.

    • Josh C

      This must have been early Vevo, but current Vevo accounts typically have an uncensored and a censored (if available) :3

    • Josh C

      This must have been early Vevo, but current Vevo accounts typically have an uncensored and a censored (if available) :3

  • Quest

    Off with casual listeners. They probably only listen to Bieber and Gaga anyway

  • Anonymous

    Did these retards ever stop and consider that the economy may be affecting how much people spend on their tripe?

    I don’t currently have a job. I’m not going to waste what little money I get on music I can find for free on the internet, like on YouTube.

    If I DID have extra money, chances are I’d drop some on the few groups I like.

    But nooo….That can;t be the issue. It’s all the evil pirates, right?

  • ?????? ???????

    I don’t think Youtube is of any threat to copyright or piracy since videos from my playlist get deleted very often because they violate copyright((

  • Herbert

    the music industry probably is losing money in actual disk sales, but no where near as much as they say. however, they are making a hell of a lot of money from youtube and others, which more than makes up for the decline in those sales. this revenue is not disclosed to governments because they want to make this money as well as continuing to make the same amount from disk sales, hence the constant plea for stricter controls over the statement that ‘piracy is killing us’. if they were ever forced to ‘come clean’ over the amounts made from where per year, then governments would be able to see how they are being used. the industries are pushing hard for internet disconnections to be implemented in every country. this has been condemned because of the violation of human rights. governments need to take much more notice of this than they do of those industries and realise that this move is in favour of those industries and no one else.

    • Noah C.

      They need to start making Vinyl again. Vinyl was the shit.

  • anon

    the sound quality on yt is not good, sure i use it to find music, but for keeping it i actually go through the trouble to download it

  • Milka

    http://www.economist.com/node/17199460
    Les artistes n’ont jamais gagné autant d’argent

  • I am a sausage not a hotdog

    The labels will never be happy and always whine and bitch and claim poverty.Youtube and has been a great service for me aswell as many users that try doing stuff on our own without some label getting in our way.Many artist became known and one we all know love or hate is justin beiber.My point youtube has made a difference but we can’t put all eggs in 1 basket.Theirs many services beside youtube that are out there.

    • Noah C.

      Haha. Hotdog! xD

      • I am a sausage not a hotdog

        you know it ;)

  • Anonymous

    i do hate seeing something on youtube that’s not available on a torrent site. but for me, mielophone is superior – witness buckethead’s latest album.

  • Anonymous

    i do hate seeing something on youtube that’s not available on a torrent site. but for me, mielophone is superior – witness buckethead’s latest album.

  • Anonymous

    Well as long as I keep seeing ” This entertainment has been denied to you by … ” Im not using YouTube. Btw good advertising for your company this bs, instead of sponsored by… But yeah, there is potential. For those on Droid, YouTube remote, awesome app. Remote your youtube/leanback through your Google account. You don’t even need to be on the same WiFi.

  • Anonymousse

    95% of the time when I listen to a song on Youtube it’s because a friend of mine sent me a link and said “Hey check out this band”. Half of the time said band gains a new fan. Total sales lost: 0. Potential customers gained: 1.

    Youtube should have been a godsend to music labels. Free word of mouth advertising (the most effective kind) with a user base in the millions, it’s a marketer’s wet dream.

    But the labels are run by senior citizens who can barely figure out how to check their email, much less understand what the younger generation is doing with the internet and what huge opportunities that brings with it. To them the internet is just a new kind of radio, something to control. Which is why they waged a war on Youtube uploads and all the new customers it brought, until Google figured out a way for them to make money off advertising.

    By the way, have you noticed how they all shortened their names to 3 letters in the “This video is unavailable in your country” messages? UMG, SME, UMI… they’re so out of touch that they don’t even dare to put their full company name in those messages anymore, because they know how much resentment they create.

    God, it pisses me off that they’re still making money. The world would be a little better without them.

    • http://twitter.com/terzake elias verstappen

      I Coudn’t agree more.

  • Anonymousse

    95% of the time when I listen to a song on Youtube it’s because a friend of mine sent me a link and said “Hey check out this band”. Half of the time said band gains a new fan. Total sales lost: 0. Potential customers gained: 1.

    Youtube should have been a godsend to music labels. Free word of mouth advertising (the most effective kind) with a user base in the millions, it’s a marketer’s wet dream.

    But the labels are run by senior citizens who can barely figure out how to check their email, much less understand what the younger generation is doing with the internet and what huge opportunities that brings with it. To them the internet is just a new kind of radio, something to control. Which is why they waged a war on Youtube uploads and all the new customers it brought, until Google figured out a way for them to make money off advertising.

    By the way, have you noticed how they all shortened their names to 3 letters in the “This video is unavailable in your country” messages? UMG, SME, UMI… they’re so out of touch that they don’t even dare to put their full company name in those messages anymore, because they know how much resentment they create.

    God, it pisses me off that they’re still making money. The world would be a little better without them.

  • Pingback: Is YouTube Killing Music Piracy? | Links Daily

  • Germanguy

    No ! The Majorlabels will kill YouTube .

    • I am a sausage not a hotdog

      youtube/google is too large and big to killed by the big labels they can bow down .Viacom is a big example.

  • Pingback: Is YouTube Killing Music Piracy? | TorrentFreak | my blog

  • http://twitter.com/johnekerr John Kerr

    It has been confirmed by my local CD store “Youtube helps sell CD’s. We find music that we did not know was recorded, like it and go to the store to buy it.

    Record companies just lament that they are no longer in control.

  • Peteref

    Agree with Germanguy

    In recent last years i have noticed that the internet wants to be owned by the corporations and companies.

    Now more and more videos on tube looks like this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imoJ6xLOswo

    They can just type the message like this.

    We thank users of youtube for billions of hits and all the fame you give us. But now we dont need you anymore . We have better friends and those are record labels. SO F*** OFF everyone.

    Messages like ‘This video is unavailable in your country’ are real nonsense. They looks like “The label doesnt want the interpret to be famous in your country”. I dont think the real artists are happy with that.

    So
    THANK YOU YOUTUBE AND THANK YOU LABELS.

  • Pingback: P2PTalk » Is YouTube Killing Music Piracy?

  • Dre

    you tube is great for previewing stuff you intend to buy/download, but you need to be the dj the whole time. But when anything goes into my collection, its gotta be the whole album with art, correctly tagged in the best quality available.
    The argument between lossless and lossy is quite a simple one for me. I will always download FLACs or APEs in preference to Mp3s but if its not available in lossless then at least I still have a copy to be going on with.
    The argument that people download music for free is not true either. OK, YT pay the labels 1/2 penny per track, but i still have to pay my ISP, and i have to have a PC and new HDDs every so often. When you buy a CD, the tunes have their own storage, for me, I have to pay to store them.
    I use Foobar to convert all lossless downloads to flac, and i have a decent network audio system that plays most formats including FLACs. This wasnt free either, but it will stream from any network source including apple hardware. so even if the Mac cant play the tunes, it is still possible to benefit from Lossless.
    So between paying the electric bill, the ISP and the computer store for my hardware, it soon mounts up.

  • Dre

    you tube is great for previewing stuff you intend to buy/download, but you need to be the dj the whole time. But when anything goes into my collection, its gotta be the whole album with art, correctly tagged in the best quality available.
    The argument between lossless and lossy is quite a simple one for me. I will always download FLACs or APEs in preference to Mp3s but if its not available in lossless then at least I still have a copy to be going on with.
    The argument that people download music for free is not true either. OK, YT pay the labels 1/2 penny per track, but i still have to pay my ISP, and i have to have a PC and new HDDs every so often. When you buy a CD, the tunes have their own storage, for me, I have to pay to store them.
    I use Foobar to convert all lossless downloads to flac, and i have a decent network audio system that plays most formats including FLACs. This wasnt free either, but it will stream from any network source including apple hardware. so even if the Mac cant play the tunes, it is still possible to benefit from Lossless.
    So between paying the electric bill, the ISP and the computer store for my hardware, it soon mounts up.

  • Anonymous

    That’s impressive considering that a fair amount of music on youtube (like BMI) are restricted from most countries outside of the US. (BTW, I am speaking from first-hand experience).

    • 3LU51V

      VPN or proxy mate. The internet has no borders
      I still don’t understand why people complain about restrictions when they are so easy to bypass
      I pay $10 month for my VPN, but there are free services available
      Use your brain

  • ColePheltch1947

    This is good – free at the point of access music FTW! And I hope those fuckers pass some of the cash back to the artist who created it.

  • http://twitter.com/K1rkpad Dylan Kirkpatrick

    Very interesting article. I have met many people who liked an artist I showed them (ie. Pretty Lights) and even told them that the artist themselves GAVE their music away for free on their website.

    “Nah, I’ll just youtube it.”

    “But there’s 6 albums of amazing stuff!”

    “Meh, I’ll listen to low quality audio”

    This is why unique music has basically dried up.

    • http://twitter.com/protocollie protocollie

      “This is why unique music has basically dried up.”

      Uh… what planet are you living on? Music’s as diverse as ever, there’s new and challenging stuff coming out all the time, you’re just not looking hard enough.

  • NeoToasty

    YouTube = Google. So Google is, in a way, defeating the music industry.

    But, I’m not one of those who relies on YouTube for everything.

  • Anonymous

    No way dude torrents still totally rock, ust be sure to mask your IP address.

    http://www.hide-your-ip.at.tc

  • http://twitter.com/kingalekz Alexander Karp

    If those record labels would stop putting up those ridiculous regional restrictions, they could even make more money. I don’t get why they don’t want that. What’s better getting a bit more money or getting no money?

    • Ripoff

      because “GRORIUS KUNTRY OF MURRIKA” is the only one that matters in their minds

  • Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  • Orsonwells

    “Nobody gets justice. People only get good luck or bad luck.” ~Orson Welles ~

  • http://slyck.com/ zbeast

    I hear people yelling quality, quality but what are you playing that need this “quality”.
    most music is so over produced at the studio there’s nothing left of the original sound.
    192 is just fine for me.

    • Anonymous

      As it is for me. The truth is most people can’t tell the difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps and FLAC. The only time you’ll be able to tell the difference is in subpar encodings, and by that I mean taking something from youtube and encoding it to mp3. Then you’ll hear the difference, but regular rips from CDs, almost no diff to the average ear. Only audiophiles will notice the difference and debate the point. But eh [shrugs], to each their own.

      • JJ

        If you have a good Hi-Fi amplifier like YAMAHA amplifier
        It can tell the difference

  • Umad?

    http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/

    Everything you need and more.

  • Portboy318
  • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

    Wasn’t aware they made money from views.

    Now I will avoid content from labels on YouTube and get it P2P instead.

    **** the MAFIAA!

  • Pingback: NewsBuzz

  • muumi

    this is bad? Piracy is killing piracy or maybe it´s win-win situation.

  • Guest

    I couldn’t care less about YouTube or Google.

    I don’t give money to MAFIAA and never will.

  • Happy time harry

    file sharing = legal
    commercial piracy = illegal

    get it right tf

  • AnarchyNow

    Youtube is one of the worse way to listen to music, it makes my ears bleed.
    And I still don’t understand how Google makes money out of thin air…

    • JJ

      because it’s convenient
      like Starbucks, KFC, Burger King, etc…

  • TviruZ

    these ppl talking abbout quality aint getting the damn point

  • Pingback: Morning Coffee with David Farrell, June 6

  • Pingback: ryanfiend - Is YouTube Killing Music Piracy?

  • http://twitter.com/mikecane Mike Cane

    That is the point music blogger Bob Lefsetz has stated over and over: If you want to listen to music today, you go to YouTube.
    http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2011/04/04/colberts-friday/

  • Pingback: Os direitos dos autores, os downloads ilegais, o MPPP | Procuro uma namorada

  • http://www.stopcp.com/ stopcpdotcom

    “his label gets half a penny for each YouTube play.”

    A farthing from the multitude – that’s the way to do it!

  • Pfft

    Erm… Youtube is now my preferred source for downloading singles.
    So many ways to grab the vid and rip the audio to mp3, all for free, with no comeback for uploading / sharing ;-)

  • anon

    How do you know that youtube is eating into a significant fraction of the labels’ profits? It’s disingenuous that this argument when used against file sharing is judged as false but conveniently becomes true against a commercial venture like youtube.

  • Katrin88
  • http://www.facebook.com/AsteriskCGY Jeffrey Wu

    Actually one thing I see youtube do is also provide a music video, which are usually fun to watch too. I’m not restricted to listening to my song, and some videos can be damn good.

  • Pingback: SearchCap: The Day In Search, June 6, 2011 - SEO & Internet Marketing Tips

  • Pingback: Zabíjí YouTube pirátství, nebo legální prodej hudby? | eZpravy.eu

  • nwoconspiracy

    please explai what the article didnt…does google/youtube pay record labels everytime someone listens to music ? so the money google makes from putting adverts near the music pays the record labels right ?

    • JesusPizza

      Yes.

      Or whoever the artist has nominated to help them collect revenue. Hopefully the original creators get a decent percentage of the cash generated through selling their content – that would somewhat reaffirm my faith in humanity.

      But I think it’ll far more likely go towards recouping the costs of failed torrent piracy lawsuits and bribing politicians to censor the internet.

    • JesusPizza

      Yes.

      Or whoever the artist has nominated to help them collect revenue. Hopefully the original creators get a decent percentage of the cash generated through selling their content – that would somewhat reaffirm my faith in humanity.

      But I think it’ll far more likely go towards recouping the costs of failed torrent piracy lawsuits and bribing politicians to censor the internet.

  • Pingback: A YouTube lehet a zeneipar megment?je?

  • censorship

    THIS VIDEO IS UNAVAILABLE IN YOUR COUNTRY

    FUCK YOU MAFIAA

    • Anonymouse

      ha.. be happy you don’t live in germany like me..

      afterdawn . com/news/article.cfm/2009/04/02/youtube_blocks_music_videos_in_germany

      80% of all content with any form of commercial music in it is blocked.
      just to get a slight idea of the scale: if it’s VEVO, it’s blocked. ALL of it.

      srsly? fuck that

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Davies/100002536326959 Susan Davies

    Youtube isnt killing anything its just decreasing the downloads but people do still download the songs using convertors

  • Pingback: YouTube is killing Piracy | Indie Riviera

  • Pingback: Youtify: YouTube Meets Spotify | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: Geek Media Round-Up: June 7, 2011 – Grasping for the Wind

  • Mstjean

    More importantly, to me as a (relatively) independent artist-
    Do these monetary reimbursements for plays get handed to EVERYONE or just people with lawyers who call up YouTube and say WTF ?

    For example, the group ‘Pamplemouse’ must have millions and millions of hits by now, covering all the popular tunes with their videoedit/audio performances… Are they millionaires?

    What if you put up your first video and it goes viral (has been known to happen I’d say)… Do you lose out on your potentially one and only big return, if you don’t sort out the legal details first?

    • Slimcatt

      Bands and artists need to sign up with the Youtube ContentID program – you upload a reference copy of your tracks and every time someone uploads a video that uses your song, the machines scan it and assert your rights – you can choose to a) block it, or b) PROFIT.

      Millionaires might pushing it though. The payments are rightly called MICRO payments. They amount to precisely bugger all. But get enough of them and yeah – it can be an income.

      I don’t know if it works retroactively. AFAIK it should – because Google has been profiting from something they did not have the rights for.

  • Mstjean

    More importantly, to me as a (relatively) independent artist-
    Do these monetary reimbursements for plays get handed to EVERYONE or just people with lawyers who call up YouTube and say WTF ?

    For example, the group ‘Pamplemouse’ must have millions and millions of hits by now, covering all the popular tunes with their videoedit/audio performances… Are they millionaires?

    What if you put up your first video and it goes viral (has been known to happen I’d say)… Do you lose out on your potentially one and only big return, if you don’t sort out the legal details first?

  • Dario Volaric

    Quote: “That means $1,540,000 in revenue, for only one artist.”
    Sounds to me like the record labels are the pimps and the artists are the b**ches!

  • Quest

    Anonymousse said:

    >God, it pisses me off that they’re still making money. The world would be a little better without them.

    /THREAD.

  • teg

    I heard an interesting story on the radio earlier this month, Lady Gaga was selling her latest album for 99cents on Amazon because she basically said it didn’t matter as it was the downloads that was selling that cheap and anybody who really liked her work would buy a physical copy as well.

    Regardless of wither I approve of her music or not. I really like her stance on the situation and it’s paid off: taking her to number one in the US selling more than 1.1million copies in the first week.

    Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/13628204 (from BBC Radio 1)

  • Pingback: Engagements and Accolades: Jun 3-10 » Blog | NetShelter Technology Media

  • Johnny

    It is hilarious that labels expect us to believe this nonsense (” Oh my God, those lil’ thieves on the internet, they’re stealing artists’ payment and violating our right to,well, copyright”).I am Romanian and I often have to clear my Favourites on YT of the tracks that have been banned in my country, and it’s annoyng, especially that many artists became notorious thanks to YT.There is a resemblance between music labels and movie labels’ complaints about piracy, but take a look at the huge profits made in the last years in the film industry,despite the piracy (most of the top-selling movies are quite recent, and profits of billions have been made in cinemas…but they never seize to complain). I mean, how cheap can you be?

  • Xpectre

    I am amazed as well by the total lack of interest from the artists, who continue to allow the labels to take most of the revenues,and maybe that’s the reall issue – I mean, you are already famous and you’ll never be poor again (as billions of people know your tracks), but you don’t care that your voice cannot be heard in other countries besides Western ones – that says alot about how much artist care about us.
    I was pleasantly suprised by Radiohead’s gesture(in 2007, as I recall) to allow everybody to download for free their newest album (if you wanted to pay, you could pay as much as you wanted).They said that the album they “sold” in this manner was more profitable for them than any other album they have previously released through a large label (as worldwide fans pomped large amounts of cash in their pockets) .Too bad that they were amongst the few (if not the only ones) to do that.As for the labels, I think (and I hope I’m not wrong) their winning (and profits) are going to come to a painful end if they don’t change their perspective (as piracy cannot be disappear).now, I’ll go back to torrents surfing and YT watching (“thievery”, as the labels hotshots would say).

  • Pingback: What iCloud and Music Match Mean for the Piracy Fight

  • Pingback: » Schadet Youtube den Musikpiraterie?

  • Kathsy49

    downloading nowadays can be considered as selling. it is one way to reach the listeners, the difference is technology plays an important part with it. i use torrsapps toolbar for my downloading needs.

  • Alex

    The actual text in the transcript is:

    Q. do you know whether Google pays something like half penny when someone clicks on, let’s say, a video or music from one of your artists?

    A. That sounds reasonable.

    If they get half a penny per stream, they’re laughing… I suspect it’s not actually that much. If it is, it’s about 5000x better than what most indies are getting.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.