You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making from the music. Just because they're big companies doesn't mean they can squeeze water from a rock. Your music is worth much less to them than you assume.
What if you can’t put on concerts, like it’s the case right now, do your work then become worthless?
Honestly I think the issue is the record labels. The need to seriously reduce their cut and let the musicians keep the bulk of the royalties.
It’s a little concerning that a Youtube channel with maybe 500 - 1000 Patreon supports and few ads can be a living, but musicians need to tour, to make a profit. That seems to indicate, to me at least, that Youtube may not be the problem.
The moment a digital file exists, your competing price point is free. People can still pirate, and don't because of youtube and streaming sites. You don't have to think that's right or fair (I don't), but it's absolutely the reality.
Interestingly enough Youtube Music is the most expensive streaming service, that least in Denmark.
If all music were wiped off of YouTube, you can bet it would become convenient. I believe there's already an app somewhere that lets you stream music using BitTorrent, throw in some onion networking for privacy, a better means of content discovery, and get more people uploading music, and you'll be off to the races.
Neither Napster nor their end resulted in decent streaming options. Why would Youtube changes be any different ?
They can decide how much they want. Not how much they get. Isn't it the same as with any service or product?
The problem is too complex to be solved by just reducing the labels cut. The price of records is driven down by a combination of piracy, overwhelming offer and the existence of streaming platforms.
Except government :)
You mean release on https://bandcamp.com ?
Put your stuff out, set your price, handle your own publicity, Bandcamp takes their cut. That's it.
I’m not sure what you mean. The musician can be a YouTuber making a living from Patreon and ads.
Sounds good. What if Google looks at that cost, and the revenue they make, and realizes they would lose money?
Isn't Google's next logic move to decide to not lose money? To not host that content?
Then break up Koda to start with, they're the state created monopoly.
Politicians decide for them and pass laws to enforce this structure.
I am against middlemen but people get so emotionally charged that they don't understand that middlemen exists for reasons: 1) They are grandfathered into the system with laws 2) They provide value. I am against the former.
Spotify got rid of all the record label nonsense and they directly allow you to publish your music and broadcast it to millions of people.
If anything else, we need to get rid of the TicketMaster mafia that's running the show - literally and metaphorically.
Sure you can. Tech companies are constantly losing money at the margins, by paying out more than they take in for a wide variety of things.
It's sustainable as long as tech companies can find financing, or fund one part of their business from another part, which seems fairly long-term.
EDIT: I know I'm gonna lose karma on this, but I'm right. There's no shortage of tech companies with negative revenue, or negative revenue in certain business units, and that money isn't disappearing, it's being paid to counterparties in business deals.
But if their terms are unacceptable and immovable, the other party has every right to tell them No Deal.
Sure, but that's different than "You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making from the music." Of course you can, and you can do so long-term provided that new tech companies appear as existing ones fail.
I enjoy watching news stories about new tech companies that die after making horrible deals and investors who lose their money after investing in them. People should know better than to accept loser deals like this.
I disagree with your characterization: The work is being given away by artists, who are welcome to accept the terms that tech companies offer them.
The artists are welcome to reconsider, renegotiate.
> Why should the creators lose by default?
The creators are offered terms by tech companies. They are welcome to turn down those terms, and seek better ones.
If they lack the power to negotiate a better deal, then I suggest forming a negotiating block of some kind.
The tech companies are welcome to think those negotiations are not favorable and not accept the terms.
Or possibly the artists should form their own new tech company (cf. Patreon, Band Camp)
It's not the job of tech companies to provide a living to artists. That's what your characterization implies, and it's just not the case.
That's the context in which generally well-off tech folks champion piracy and ridicule musicians who have the audacity to question tech industry exploitation.
And yet you will certainly not find me championing piracy. I don't see what you're trying to get at.
Good grief, how I hate the disregard for musicians so commonly seen in the tech industry.
For scale, the global music industry has about $20 billion in annual revenue, Google alone has about 8× that.
Oh? Then you didn't see me going off about the "Commons Clause" bullcrap.
For what it's worth, I'm a former member of the Board of Directors and V.P. Legal Affairs of the Apache Software Foundation, and I'm a music industry person who worked in a recording studio for 6 years before transitioning to tech.
It is philosophically consistent to defend attribution-based Open Source licenses and musicians' right to negotiate hard. In both cases, the rights of the creator are prioritized.