"Since YouTube doesn't pay equitable licensing fees, isn't that a nonsensical question?"

Preach !

[img:$uid]http://i63.tinypic.com/25u66p4.png[/img:$uid]

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/03/prince-explains-his-anti-youtube-stance-and-why-he-removes-all-concert-footage/

[Edited 3/29/16 9:58am]

He's not wrong, people whose new music isn't that popular don't make much money from youtube. It's not a fair system.

[Edited 3/29/16 9:45am]

His music, his decision. He doesn't need to explain why imho.

It's always worse when he does

Prince is missing the big picture. Youtube is advertising to grow his audience. The lost "fees" come back through album sales.

Prince wants Youtube to give him a $100 million check and that's when he will finally upload his music videos "Money don't matter 2night"? Yeah,right! lol

Prince is all about the money $$$$$$$$$$, this is what drives his career.

Now finally confirmed.

EmmaMcG said:

How are people outside of his existing fanbase supposed to give a shit about his music? He doesn't make it easy for himself.

Besides, who's he fooling? He wouldn't make YouTube that much money if his content was on there.

laurarichardson said:

EmmaMcG said:

Instead of looking at youtube as a means of selling his music, maybe he should see it more as an opportunity for free marketing. It won't cost him anything to upload his music videos but if people who aren't too familiar with his work see them, they might be willing to purchase the songs or albums from iTunes or whatever.

-///He is not using it to sell anything and he does have a few recents cuts officially on YouTube which appears to be Marketing purposes. No artist is getting rich off of YouTube views and the only people irritated are those that are two cheap to pay for music.

Putting a couple of recent songs is only marketing to established fans. Artists don't get rich off of youtube directly, but they do expand their fan base and make money that way. Other artists make it easy to discover their music. Prince makes people jump through hoops.

[Edited 3/29/16 10:35am]

laurarichardson said:

EmmaMcG said:

Instead of looking at youtube as a means of selling his music, maybe he should see it more as an opportunity for free marketing. It won't cost him anything to upload his music videos but if people who aren't too familiar with his work see them, they might be willing to purchase the songs or albums from iTunes or whatever.

-///He is not using it to sell anything and he does have a few recents cuts officially on YouTube which appears to be Marketing purposes. No artist is getting rich off of YouTube views and the only people irritated are those that are two cheap to pay for music.

The selfish attitude of fams...

People would gladly buy his music if over 2/3rds of his catalog weren't impossible to find in stores, and out of print (some even going for outrageous prices.)

And that's a great way to dismiss those who dare criticize Prince. How about those who can't afford to buy his stuff at high prices on eBay? Those with no internet access who can't go on eBay in the first place? Hell, even those who live in places where eBay or Amazon don't ship to (like places those sites blacklisted due to buyer fraud)? I'm pretty sure those people are the ones irritated at his actions...

[Edited 3/29/16 10:55am]

Whos stance ? Whatever, tons of other artists I can watch, be gone with you if thats the thinking.

PurpleMedley122 said:

laurarichardson said:

EmmaMcG said: -///He is not using it to sell anything and he does have a few recents cuts officially on YouTube which appears to be Marketing purposes. No artist is getting rich off of YouTube views and the only people irritated are those that are two cheap to pay for music.

The selfish attitude of fams...

People would gladly buy his music if over 2/3rds of his catalog weren't impossible to find in stores, out of print and going for outrageous prices.

And that's a great way to dismiss those who dare criticize Prince. How about those who can't afford to buy his stuff at high prices on eBay? Those with no internet access who can't go on eBay in the first place? Hell, even those who live in places where eBay or Amazon don't ship to (like places those sites blacklisted due to buyer fraud)? I'm pretty sure those people are the ones irritated at his actions...

I don't know which titles you're talking about that are out of print and sell for high prices. You can find every single one from the 80s on CD for $5 or less on Ebay right now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/is-youtube-really-ripping-off-the-record-labels-a6949326.html

Is YouTube really ripping off record labels and artists?

Streaming currently brings in more revenue for music companies than downloads. But some executives are claiming that digital platforms don’t pass on enough of the advertising revenues

After years of lamenting the decline in CD sales, music industry executives might have been popping champagne corks at the latest figures from the Recording Industry Association of America.

Revenues from recorded music were up 0.9 per cent to $7bn (£4.9bn) in what the RIAA called “a milestone year for streaming music”. But Cary Sherman, chairman and chief executive of RIAA, said the champagne should remain on ice.

Streaming services had accrued 13 million subscribers by the end of December, he noted, but the system has been hijacked by tech giants.

“So many of our music community brethren feel that some technology giants have been enriching themselves at the expense of the people who actually create the music,” Mr Sherman said.

In 2015, streaming accounted for 34.4 per cent of music industry revenue, after overtaking downloads for the first time. Owning music – in whatever format – is on its way out. Revenue from downloads is down. Streaming is starting to pay, but not fast enough, according to those counting the cash.

Mr Sherman said that in 2015, fans listened to hundreds of billions of audio and video music streams through on-demand ad-supported digital services such as YouTube.

“But revenues from such services have been meagre – far less than other kinds of music services. And the problem is getting worse,” he said.

Ad-supported streaming revenue is up 30.6 per cent on 2014, at £385.1m, but that figure only accounts for 16 per cent of total streaming revenue. The majority comes from internet radio royalties and subscription services.

Nielsen figures show that video streaming services such as YouTube and Vevo accounted for more than 50 per cent of music streamed in 2015, or more than Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal and Google’s own Play Music combined. Put those two figures together, Mr Sherman contends, and it doesn’t look as though YouTube is paying its fair share.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, disagrees. “Past comparisons to other audio-only, subscription music services are apples to oranges,” a YouTube spokesperson said. “To date, Google has paid out over $3bn to the music industry – and that number is growing year on year.”

Jon Webster, president of industry trade body MMF, agreed that while tech companies have profited from changes to the way music is consumed, they have also provided the tools for artists and managers to grow their business. “Blaming technology for our woes is not a solution. The recorded music industry needs to work together to solve our internal issues, and externally to finding better modes of working with technology,” he said.

Those solutions are already emerging, according to James Sandom, who manages bands including Belle & Sebastian, Interpol and Kaiser Chiefs.

“Currently there are tech companies retaining a larger slice of revenue that rightfully should reach the songwriters and artists, and the morality of this is dubious; however structures continue to evolve,” Mr Sandom said. “The recorded music industry overall is in a period of growth again for the first time in a while. There is reason for optimism that a balanced blueprint will be established in time.”

YouTube says it’s at the forefront of this evolution. It contends that it provides a promotional platform for artists and labels who want to reach an audience of a billion users. It’s also launched a copyright system called Content ID that allows copyright holders to identify and monetise copies of their work.

But as long as YouTube remains the go-to platform for music streaming, paid-for subscriptions like the one offered by Spotify, who declined to comment for this article, are going to be a harder sell to the listener.

YouTube will continue to benefit. It was valued at $80bn by a Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst last year – more than Starbucks, Yahoo and eBay combined.

As one major label executive told online trade magazine Music Business Worldwide: “YouTube boasting about its payments to the music industry is like Bernie Madoff boasting about paying dividends to his investors.”

The music industry made more money out of vinyl sales than it did from ad-supported streaming from services such as YouTube in 2015.

Now streaming is starting to pay, YouTube may find itself under increasing pressure to give more money to the makers and the owners of the music it hosts.

lrn36 said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/is-youtube-really-ripping-off-the-record-labels-a6949326.html

With the added irony that The Independent is folding (in print) because there are not enough people willing to subscribe...

Prince could at least put all the official videos on there, or rather: WB, and they should get paid

half for it, as they paid for the videos.

Indeed no need to have your entire catalogue up for free.

Pentacle said:

lrn36 said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/is-youtube-really-ripping-off-the-record-labels-a6949326.html

With the added irony that The Independent is folding (in print) because there are not enough people willing to subscribe...

Prince could at least put all the official videos on there, or rather: WB, and they should get paid

half for it, as they paid for the videos.

Indeed no need to have your entire catalogue up for free.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

.

Al least open a monetizing channel with all your music videos and just remove the songs if it bothers you so much. At least you will collect some revenue (although small) from the videos instead of nothing at all (you're not releasing a box set, etc.)...

^^^WHEN YOU'RE SITTING ON MASTER TAPES YOU CAN'T USE^^^

blacknote said:

^^^WHEN YOU'RE SITTING ON MASTER TAPES YOU CAN'T USE^^^

Poor guy, if only WB hadn't refused his vanilla Purple Rain remaster!

@Prince. Shouldn't U b directing your silly pix @WB?

Firstly I would argue that the Original Artist/Songwriter really should receive the lions share of any income from these videos which clearly they currently don't.

Secondly there are only really two ways to put Prince videos out there.

A) Put everything out there entirely for free which would generate very little sales as people can just download the tracks for free.

B) Put out certain songs as promotional tools for albums which he has done to an extent.

All available legally on Youtube.

WAY BACK HOME - https://www.youtube.com/w...2bOp45EFgo

THIS COULD BE US - https://www.youtube.com/w...cHPdfZFW18

FUNKNROLL - https://www.youtube.com/w...9R1E4y7_Js

FUNKNROLL (LYRIC VIDEO) - https://www.youtube.com/w...ZdBH79MC94

MARZ VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/w...1wsn4ug0tc

BREAKFAST CAN WAIT (BEHIND THE SCENES) - https://www.youtube.com/w...MWwwZB33Jo

ARSENIO HALL SHOW 2014 - https://www.youtube.com/w...UVZW6-rZKw

[Edited 3/29/16 11:15am]

[Edited 3/29/16 11:16am]

[Edited 3/29/16 11:16am]

Youtube is making a killing off the ad revenue from music videos when some videos from top artists can have 500 million to over a billion views. I've heard youtube pays out anywhere from 60 cents to 2 dollars per 1000 views to content creators. I don't know what percentage of that is from Youtube's overall take.

Twitter pays musicians nothing but Prince sees the advantages of using it to have an online presence. .

.

Any reasonable marketing team would advise incorporating the same approach to YouTube. It's part of a larger strategy, which unforunately Prince does not have, particularly elements that don't pay him what he feels he's worth. His choice, but IMHO, a poorly calculated one if he wants his music to be seen and discovered by people today.

lrn36 said:

jayspud said:

Secondly there are only really two ways to put Prince videos out there.

A) Put everything out there entirely for free which would generate very little sales as people can just download the tracks for free.

B) Put out certain songs as promotional tools for albums which he has done to an extent.

Yeah, or the third way: you know, show the videos that were originally made for promotion.

The '80s videos have made their money by now. If he/WB want(s) to make more money, you release a DVD with perfect sound and image.

Yes, I know this is rocket science, people, but come on, put your thinking caps on.

Doozer said:

Twitter pays musicians nothing but Prince sees the advantages of using it to have an online presence. .

.

Any reasonable marketing team would advise incorporating the same approach to YouTube. It's part of a larger strategy, which unforunately Prince does not have, particularly elements that don't pay him what he feels he's worth. His choice, but IMHO, a poorly calculated one if he wants his music to be seen and discovered by people today.

Whilst I understand your point, Twitter isn't giving away full sings/albums entirely for free. Prince has 144k Twitter followers, decent views on the videos listed above and genuinely isn't short of publicity. Prince played the chart/sales games for decades starting the best part of 35 years ago. I would imagine that's not his main interest now. I mean, he doesn't need the money, one more No1 isn't exactly going to change his world that much.

Pentacle said:

jayspud said:

Secondly there are only really two ways to put Prince videos out there.

A) Put everything out there entirely for free which would generate very little sales as people can just download the tracks for free.

B) Put out certain songs as promotional tools for albums which he has done to an extent.

Yeah, or the third way: you know, show the videos that were originally made for promotion.

The '80s videos have made their money by now. If he/WB want(s) to make more money, you release a DVD with perfect sound and image.

Yes, I know this is rocket science, people, but come on, put your thinking caps on.

A number of Prince DVD's are available. Also, whilst hardcore fans would love these, it isn't that likely to draw many new followers in. Prince does fine for money and also enjoys the control of his art.

laurarichardson said: