List otwarty Irvinga Azoffa

Ogólne tematy.

Moderatorzy: Adm's Team, Mod's Team

ODPOWIEDZ
Awatar użytkownika
Damned
Gdańsk Supporter
Gdańsk Supporter
Have A Nice Day
Have A Nice Day
Posty: 4971
Rejestracja: 7 listopada 2012, o 03:16
Ulubiona płyta: These Days
Lokalizacja: Polska
Kontakt:

List otwarty Irvinga Azoffa

Post autor: Damned »

Nowy manager Bon Jovi wystosował otwarty list do YouTube. Na początek jednak wyjaśnię o co chodzi. Całe zamieszanie rozpoczęło w marcu tego roku, kiedy grupa znanych producentów, menadżerów i artystów w tym JBJ, Steven Tyler, Pearl Jam, Christina Aguilera, podpisało kilka listów do YouTube, w których domagali się zaostrzenia przepisów dotyczących własności intelektualnej.

28 kwietnia YouTube odpowiedział tym tekstem: http://youtubecreator.blogspot.com/2016 ... aight.html
YouTube pisze:Lately, there’s been a chorus of music label representatives and artists accusing YouTube of mistreating musicians. As the music industry shifts from a business that mainly sold albums and singles to one that earns money from subscriptions and ads, there are bound to be disagreements.

But many of the arguments don’t do justice to the partnership YouTube has built with artists, labels and the fans who support them. So let’s attempt to cut through the noise.

First, let’s start with where we agree. Music matters. Musicians and songwriters matter. They deserve to be compensated fairly. We believe this deeply and have partnered with the music industry for years to ensure it happens on our platform.

That’s why it’s surprising to see those same labels and artists suggest that YouTube has allowed a flood of “unlicensed” music onto its platform, depriving artists of revenue.

The truth is that YouTube takes copyright management extremely seriously and we work to ensure rightsholders make money no matter who uploads their music.

No other platform gives as much money back to creators-- big and small-- across all kinds of content.

Decades ago, fans shared their favorite songs or performances on mixtapes. Then the sharing moved online. This was all considered piracy, costing the industry billions.

Today, thousands of labels and rightholders have licensing agreements with YouTube to actually leave fan videos up and earn revenue from them. They agree that a world where fans express love for their favorite artists by uploading concert footage and remixes is something to be celebrated. And they see that fan-uploaded content can be a way to drive exposure and boost sales; just this month, a funny video of a Ben Affleck interview helped propel Simon and Garfunkel’s “Sound of Silence” to the Top 10 Hot Rock Songs chart fifty years after it was released.

All of this is possible because our technology, Content ID, automates rights management. Only 0.5 percent of all music claims are issued manually; we handle the remaining 99.5 percent with 99.7 percent accuracy.

Today, the revenue from fan-uploaded content accounts for 50 percent of their revenue.

The next claim we hear is that we underpay compared to subscription services like Spotify. But this argument confuses two different services: music subscriptions that cost $10 a month versus ad-supported music videos.

It’s like comparing what a cab driver earns from fares to what they earn showing ads in their taxi. So let’s try a fair comparison, one between YouTube and radio.

Like radio, YouTube generates the vast majority of our revenue from advertising. Unlike radio, however, we pay the majority of the ad revenue that music earns to the industry. Radio, which accounts for 25 percent of all music consumption in the US alone and generates $35 billion of ad revenue a year, pays nothing to labels and artists in countries like the U.S. In countries like the UK and France where radio does pay royalties, we pay a rate at least twice as high.

Instead of talking about a “value gap,” we should be focusing on a “value shift;” if the ad revenue currently spent on radio instead flowed to online platforms, it would double the current size of the music business.

The decades-long argument radio makes for not paying artists is that it’s a promotional tool, raising awareness that artists use to cash in elsewhere. But YouTube offers promotion, too—promotion that pays. And that gets at another argument the industry is making: YouTube hurts emerging artists most.

Every musician knows how challenging it can be to get a deal with a label or their song heard on the radio. YouTube is one of the only platforms that allows anyone to get their music heard by a global audience of over one billion people. And it allows artists like Justin Bieber, Tori Kelly and Macklemore to explode from obscurity to build a massive community of fans that generates hundreds of millions of dollars for the industry.

YouTube also gives artists data they can use to plan tours, land press and even secure record deals. We believe that transparency is critical to ensuring the music industry works for artists. We’re engaged in productive conversations with the labels and publishers around increasing transparency on payouts which we believe can answer many artist concerns.

The final claim that the industry makes is that music is core to YouTube’s popularity. Despite the billions of views music generates, the average YouTube user spends just one hour watching music on YouTube a month. Compare that to the 55 hours a month the average Spotify subscriber consumes.

Make no mistake: regardless of the amount of time people spend watching music, we still feel it’s core to YouTube. That’s why we worked with labels and publishers to build and implement Content ID. It’s why we created a model that offers promotion that pays—to date, we have paid out over $3 billion to the music industry and that number is growing significantly year-on-year. And it’s why we created a custom YouTube Music app and recently introduced YouTube Red, our own subscription service, so that we could drive even more revenue to musicians and songwriters.

It’s these investments and strong ties that demonstrate our love of music and our commitment to strengthening the industry. And while there may occasionally be discord, history shows that when we work together, we can create beautiful harmonies.

Christophe Muller, Head of YouTube International Music Partnerships, recently watched carpool karaoke with James Corden and Justin Bieber


Wczoraj, w odpowiedzi na powyższy list, swoje słowa do YouTube skierował tym razem nowy menadżer Bon Jovi, Irving Azoff: http://www.recode.net/2016/5/9/11609494 ... ming-music
Irving Azoff pisze:Dear YouTube,

Your attempt at "Setting the Record Straight" through a post on your "creator blog" last month did exactly the opposite: It was obfuscation to divert artists’ attention from the fact that YouTube hides behind the DMCA’s "safe harbor" provision and pays artists a pittance.

You say that music matters to YouTube. There is an old adage about actions and words. If YouTube valued music, then it would allow artists to have the same control which YouTube grants to itself. YouTube has created original programming. Those programs sit behind a "paid wall" and are not accessible for free unless YouTube decides to make them available that way. If a fan wants to watch the YouTube series "Sister-Zoned," that fan has to subscribe to YouTube Red for $9.99 a month. But the same does not apply to music.

If music matters to YouTube, then why not give musicians the same choice you give yourselves? Taylor Swift should be able to decide which of her songs are available for free and which are part of a paid subscription service. Or she should be able to opt out of YouTube if you won’t give her this choice.

But artists can’t opt out of YouTube. Because of the outdated Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the only way for an artist to keep a song off YouTube is for that artist to send YouTube a notice every time that song is uploaded by a different user. It is impossible. The Content ID system that you flaunt is meaningless when YouTube continues to hide behind the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. If YouTube cares about copyright management then join the music business in its efforts to reform the DMCA. Or, better yet, you could really prove your love for music by not allowing music on to YouTube unless you ask the creators of that song for permission.

I know realistically you won’t voluntarily agree to take on the task of asking artists for their permission. So, if you are going to continue to force artists to notify you when an infringing song is on YouTube, once an artist tells you that she wants her song taken off YouTube, you should keep it off. When the artist sends a "take down," it should be a "stay down."

Before you tell me that you can’t control what is uploaded to YouTube, let me say it seems clear that YouTube can control the content on its platform when it wants to do so: It controls its own series programming, and it limits offensive content like pornography. It certainly monitors what people are listening to on YouTube and provides that information to advertisers.

But when it comes to music, YouTube claims it has no control and can’t keep a song off its platform. You exercise control over content when it is good for your business. But the truth is that, from the beginning, free music consumption drove YouTube’s business, and so YouTube chose not to give artists control over how their music reaches their fans.

You state with apparent pride that you have licenses with labels, publishers and PROs. But don’t confuse deals made out of desperation with marketplace deals made by willing participants. YouTube has benefitted from the unfair advantage which safe harbors gives you: Labels can take the deals you offer or engage in an impossible, expensive game of "whack a mole," while the music they control is still being exploited without any compensation. Spotify and Apple don’t have that advantage, and this is why they are better partners to music creators.

In your post, you say it isn’t fair for an artist to compare what they make from Spotify to what they make on YouTube because they are different services. From a fan and artist perspective, they provide the same service — on-demand, streaming music. It is true that YouTube has a different business model, but that was not the artist’s decision. It was YouTube that decided to invest in an ad-supported platform. If an ad-supported streaming service doesn’t generate enough revenue for YouTube to pay artists at rates which are comparable to Spotify or Apple, then maybe it isn’t a good business?

If you want YouTube to be compared to terrestrial radio, then you have to be a good partner to artists like radio is. Radio works with artists so they can present music to their fans in the way they intended. Radio does not provide unlimited, on-demand access to music which can be shared. Radio doesn’t leak music, and it doesn’t make unfinished or poor-quality live recordings available. It’s about creative control.

You say you want transparency, and I agree that labels and publishers have not traditionally been the best at that. Two wrongs don’t make a right. You need to be transparent, too. Be transparent about your ability to keep illegal music off your platform. Be transparent about your ability to keep your own content behind a paid wall. Be transparent about your revenue and, when paying artists, include all the revenue that is generated by music including advertising on YouTube’s home page. If you do this, I pledge to you that I will pressure the labels and publishers to pass on that transparency and increased revenue to the artists.

YouTube, ask yourself this question: If you are paying so well and providing such a great service to artists, then why is there discord between you and the creative community? You can blame the labels and publishers — or the "middle men," as you call them. I know how easy it is to take shots at record companies and publishers — I have been doing it for years. But the root of the problem here is you: You have built a business that works really well for you and for Google, but it doesn’t work well for artists. If you think it is just the labels and publishers who are complaining, you are wrong. The music community is traditionally a very fractured one, but on this we are united.

— Irving Azoff

Dodam, że obecnie Bon Jovi zarabiają na każdym filmie z ich muzyką jaki znajduje się w YouTube. Wygląda na to, że najbardziej nie podoba im się jednak zbyt niska marża, ale chyba przede wszystkim fakt że na YouTube można umieścić praktycznie wszystko. Artyści chcieliby mieć kontrolę nad tym co może pozostać dostępne dla każdego w sieci, a co powinno zniknąć bezpowrotnie. Mam nadzieję, że to zamieszanie nie odbije się na nas, fanach, którzy korzystają z YouTube aby obejrzeć stary koncert lub występ.

Gdyby doszło do ugody pomiędzy stronami, to w pierwszej kolejności zaczęłyby pewnie znikać materiały oficjalne, czyli te które można kupić w najbliższym sklepie (całe albumy, wszystkie utwory w wersjach albumowych lub b-side'y singli). Innymi słowy dostęp do darmowej muzyki nie byłby już taki łatwy.

Co o tym sądzicie? Czy z YouTube powinny zacząć znikać niechciane przez Jona materiały?
Brand New EVENo

Re: List otwarty Irvinga Azoffa

Post autor: Brand New EVENo »

Nie od dziś jest to trudny temat. Prawda jest taka, że artyści mają prawa do tych materiałów i mogą sobie z nimi robić co chcą. Później trzeba sobie zadać pytanie "Czy chcą się tym dzielić?". Są tacy, którzy dają do sieci tyle, że kopiowanie i piractwo nie jest nawet potrzebne, bo oficjalnych materiałów jest wystarczająco wiele, żeby zadowolić fana. Inni jednak nie dają nic, myśląc, że dzieciaki pójdą do sklepu i to kupią. Tymczasem dzieciaki nie wiedzą, że muzykę można posiadać fizycznie :P

Rodzi się też pytanie, w którym momencie jest przesada? Oczywiście, jeżeli wrzucamy cały album na YouTube, to jest przestępstwo jak cholera i na pewno nie pomoże twórcom płyty zarobić. Ale po drugiej stronie medalu mamy słynne przeróbki z kozą, które, jestem o tym przekonany, podbiły popularność chociażby Taylor Swift. Koza zdecydowanie wyszła jej na dobre.

Producenci chcą pójść z YouTube na ugodę, bo po pierwsze, wiedzą, że z nimi się da, po drugie, nie chcą sądzić się z ogromną marką. Gdy muzyka Pink Floyd trafiła na Grooveshark, nie było potrzeba wiele czasu, żeby stamtąd zniknęła, a każdy plik z "Pink Floyd" w nazwie był natychmiast odrzucany. Później to samo wywalczyli kolejni artyści, i kolejni, i kolejni, aż w końcu skończyło się na tym, że portal zamknięto i wystawiono pokorne przeprosiny "Teraz wiemy, że to co robiliśmy, było złe".

Z YouTube jest inaczej, bo to znacznie popularniejszy portal, ale to nie oznacza, że nie ma konkurencji. Właściciele mogą się bać, że gdy swoboda zostanie ograniczona, ludzie mogą odejść na inne strony z darmowymi filmami. Ja sam gdy czegoś nie znajduję na YT przez prawa autorskie, od razu wstukuję dailymotion.com i tam zazwyczaj to znajduję. Mówię tu wprawdzie o materiałach sportowych, a nie muzycznych, bo tych drugich nie słucham w przeglądarce, ale wiem, że większość tak robi.

Tak jak mówię, artyści mają prawo do swojego stuffu, a czy pójdą w zgodzie ze współczesnymi standardami, to już ich sprawa. Ja na ich miejscu walczyłbym, aby nieoficjalne piosenki, video z koncertów były usuwane, ale w zamian za to dawałbym na oficjalny kanał regularne "bonusy". Raz na jakiś czas wrzucał jakiegoś B-Side'a, a koncertowe DVD promował wycinkami. Wtedy ludzie mieliby coś za darmo, a jednocześnie byliby zachęceni do kupna. Ale jak oni to rozegrają, to już ich sprawa.
Fromasz1899
Gdańsk Supporter
Gdańsk Supporter
Have A Nice Day
Have A Nice Day
Posty: 945
Rejestracja: 24 lutego 2013, o 14:11
Ulubiona płyta: The Circle
Lokalizacja: Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki
Kontakt:

Re: List otwarty Irvinga Azoffa

Post autor: Fromasz1899 »

Jeśli chodzi np. o całe albumy które znajdą się w jednym filmiku to w sumie można by takie usuwać, to kwestia bardzo sporna.. nie każdy kupi płytę gdy wysłucha jednego lub dwa single, czasem dodatkowym bodźcem do kupienia płyty może okazać się inna piosenka która singlem nie. Wiadomo są takie portale i platformy jak Spotify czy Tidal. Jest to jedno ze źródeł zarobku dla gwaizdy.
Moim zdaniem jeśli gwiazdy chcą zarabiać powinny same takie filmiki udostępniać.

Przeróbki nie powinny być ruszane bo to, ze ludzie w internecie potrafią zrobić coś fajnego z piosenką akurat jest fajne, gwiazda jako gwiazda niech zarobi na tym tytule ale jeśli uważa, że za mało niech powalczy o więcej.

wydaje mi się, że chodzi tu głownie o pieniądze, na YT prawa autorskie są bardzo jasno określone. ja wrzucając na swój kanał filmiki z koncertów nie mam żadnych praw do zarabiania na nich powinien zarabiać bezpośrednio zespół (gwiazda).

wszystko prowadzi do tego, że z YT zrobi się YT Red i będziemy za każdy normalny filmik musieli zapłacić.
I'm still living, yeah, semper fi!

When you want to give up and your heart's about to break
Remember that you're perfect
God makes no mistakes
ODPOWIEDZ

Wróć do „Dyskusja ogólna”