Google removes all Danish music from YouTube

[Macedk]

 

Summary

Google flexes in a bad way.
 

 

Quotes

Quote

While the negotiations on a new joint Nordic agreement are in full swing, Google have chosen to leverage their total dominance in the market in the strongest way possible. On the evening of Thursday 30 July, Google announced that they will soon remove all Danish music content on YouTube.

 

My thoughts

All music is now Youtube Premium for me in Denmark. See pictures, picture 1 is for danish music and picture 2 is for international. 

 

Sources

https://www.koda.dk/about-us/press-release-google-removes-all-danish-music-from-youtube

[Tea-Sir]

Due to disagreements between the Danish organization KODA and Google, all Danish music either has been, or is in the process of being removed from YouTube.

 

Usually I wouldn’t post something like this, in an international forum, as I am sure most people here Danish music won’t really be missed. But since there is a huge antitrust investigation going right now, this just might be a rather good example of the kind of “power” these companies are gathering. And how they can “control” the market.

 

The source for this is in Danish, so will do my best to translate.

 

Link to Danish source:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/google-blokerer-dansk-musik-fra-youtube-midnat

 

So here is the problem. In Denmark, all Danish artists have an agreement with a company called KODA, which is responsible for all the copyright stuff, and making sure that artists receive money, when the music is played in the radio or online, like streaming and YouTube.

 

The dispute right now is that Google is demanding that the amount of money paid to the artists is to be lowered by 70%, compared to the previous agreement between Google and KODA. And that agreement expired in April and received an extension to August 1st.

 

Because KODA and Google has been unable to reach a new agreement, Google is now removing all Danish music from YouTube.

 

KODA thinks the price as it is, is already low, and will therefore not agree to the 70% cut.

 

I don’t have any idea what the artists receives now, or what Google is demanding specifically. That info does not seem to be out there yet.

 

I don’t know who is in the right, as I don’t have any numbers to compare to, in terms of what other services pay. however, I think this illustrates the kind of power Google has over artists, they are giving them a simple choice, share your music with your fans and accept 70% cut in pay, or don’t post your music on YouTube. Essentially cutting away what most artists would use a YouTube account for.

[flashiling]

yes the billion $ company want's to pay musicians less.

[Tristerin]

21 minutes ago, flashiling said:

yes the billion $ company want's to pay musicians less.

MOAR BOTTOM LINE

 

PURMP DER NURMBERS UP

[Macedk]

Ehh why the post snipe ? 

 

[TempestCatto]

Guess it was that bad it made the CEO's ears bleed.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Danished..i mean Banished.

[duncannah]

Maybe the EU could step in? They probably won't though

[porina]

Are Koda the music industry representation organisation for the region? It sounds like they are in negotiation with YouTube for a future deal, and of course they want more $$$ (or equivalent local currency), and YouTube want to pay less. That should surprise absolutely no one.

 

The removal of music part is more complex. We only have one side's story on it, which of course will be highly biased to their position. I'd ask, does youTube have an appropriate licence to continue serving content, given they say that one country agreement had already expired and was extended. If they do not have an agreement between them, it would be YouTube's legal obligation to remove content they don't have a right to. 

 

On a technicality, does Google own YouTube, or does Alphabet own YouTube and Google? 

[akio123008]

1 minute ago, porina said:

On a technicality, does Google own YouTube, or does Alphabet own YouTube and Google? 

afaik both.

Google first acquired Youtube, then Alfabet "acquired" Google, so Alfabet owns Google which owns Youtube and therefore Alfabet also owns both Google and YouTube.

 

I could be wrong but I think that's how it is.

[Dujith]

34 minutes ago, Macedk said:

Ehh why the post snipe ? 

 

Its a few minutes apart. Could be down to typing  either way the OP post does not follow the forum rules and yours does. So you got that going for you  

[Macedk]

2 minutes ago, Dujith said:

Its a few minutes apart. Could be down to typing  either way the OP post does not follow the forum rules and yours does. So you got that going for you  

Ok hehe
The story is the most important here

[Spotty]

Threads merged. Looks like @Macedk and @The89Lunder both posted the same topic within a minute of each other

[Macedk]

3 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Threads merged. Looks like @Macedk and @The89Lunder both posted the same topic within a minute of each other

Thanks

[porina]

1 hour ago, The89Lunder said:

The dispute right now is that Google is demanding that the amount of money paid to the artists is to be lowered by 70%, compared to the previous agreement between Google and KODA. And that agreement expired in April and received an extension to August 1st.

 

Because KODA and Google has been unable to reach a new agreement, Google is now removing all Danish music from YouTube.

Google legally have to do this. If they don't have rights to the content, they can't knowingly distribute the content after the end of any existing agreement unless they want to walk straight into a lawsuit.

 

1 hour ago, The89Lunder said:

I don’t know who is in the right, as I don’t have any numbers to compare to, in terms of what other services pay. however, I think this illustrates the kind of power Google has over artists, they are giving them a simple choice, share your music with your fans and accept 70% cut in pay, or don’t post your music on YouTube. Essentially cutting away what most artists would use a YouTube account for.

Any deal has to work for both sides.

 

I don't know what it costs to run YouTube, let alone make a profit from doing it, but it for sure isn't zero cost. Income from YouTube comes in two main parts, advertising revenue, and YouTube Music/Premium subscription services. I know they now also have Twitch style streaming stuff, but that doesn't directly apply to music in this sense.

 

From Koda's website press release: "Ever since the first agreement was signed in 2013, the level of payments received from YouTube has been significantly lower than the level of payment agreed to by subscription-based services."

 

At best this statement is negligence on their part, at worst intentional misdirection. YouTube isn't primarily a subscription fee service. I know, I just said they have YouTube Music/Premium subscription services, but how many use them vs the free tier (with or without adblockers)? So the income they get per view would be far lower and it isn't a fair comparison. I don't know how true it is, but I think I heard somewhere that a YouTube Premium watch of a video is worth more to a YouTuber than a "free" person watching all the ads they can. View counts in that sense are very low value.

 

Again I don't know the numbers, but it has been widely reported that cpms have gone down significantly since we entered the human malware era. That could be a contributing factor in Google wishing to rebalance payments with what they can realistically get in their income.

[Drama Lama]

3 hours ago, duncannah said:

Maybe the EU could step in? They probably won't though

Oh they will if „ article 13 „ has shown us anything it’s that the EU is often on the side of copyright owners ( like publishing companies )

and the EU isn’t known for touching Google, Facebook and others with silk gloves 

[Tea-Sir]

@porina

I know Spotify did not have an easy time getting into Denmark either. KODA can be very protective, to the point of overprotective. It felt like they were dragging their feet back then.

 

Without knowing the numbers, it is difficult to figure out who is in the wrong. The way I see it, they can both be at fault. Maybe the world needs a discussion about what YouTube is? Is it a subscription service or something else, maybe we need to invent a new word?

 

YouTube has so many good things going for it, I use it to upload tutorial videos sometimes. I also use it to keep up with news and reviews. LMG is a fairly good example of what YouTube also is.

 

YouTube is just such a large platform, it puts Google in a position where they can bully the contributors to just accept their rules and prices or hit the fence. Who tells Google/YouTube when fair is no longer fair?

 

@Macedk

I didn't try to snipe the post, we just both saw something missing here I guess, and because I needed a little time to clean up my english writing, you got there first

(at least you didn't write "first" )

[porina]

2 hours ago, The89Lunder said:

YouTube is just such a large platform, it puts Google in a position where they can bully the contributors to just accept their rules and prices or hit the fence. Who tells Google/YouTube when fair is no longer fair?

I think it is well within Google's right to say, here is the offer, take it or leave it. It is equally valid for Koda to say the same to Google. They both have an idea of what value that content has. If there is not sufficient agreement, no deal. There is no problem in that. Google are by no means the only player in the music space and there are many alternatives. The only niche you might argue that have is on-demand video streaming for music. It is only one small if not insignificant part of YouTube.

 

I think Google has the harder time making money here. They have much more tangible costs associated with the serving of music in terms of servers and bandwidth. The creators, after the initial creation, the costs are to maintain and sell licenses. Hardly the same level. Personally I think the big business music industry, as a whole, is more in need to a kick than Google is. They are too backward thinking, hindering consumption, and over-enforcing of copyright. They just want to protect traditional revenue, where they instead could be investing in enabling easier usage, and thus increase potential monetisation of their content. 

[Thaldor]

I wish Finnish Teosto or Gramex Don't hear about this. They are not the smartest CR organisations out there (like in the year 2020 they still have a problem with what CC-license means and are collecting royalties even if you are the artist in some cases, like if you are taxi driver and play music that you have made from ground up by yourself to your clients, you still need to pay Teosto fee with what you could just play radio or whatever to your clients, so it's quite expensive fee).

[Tea-Sir]

@porina

Saying to Google and KODA they both have the right to set the rules or turn away people/business, is basically the story of the unstoppable force and the immovable object. They need to come to an agreement that makes sense for both YouTube and the artists. And if they can’t someone need to tell the “children” that it is time to behave.

 

I don’t think YouTubes music videos could be considered a niche, because of the vast number of users on YouTube, one good/crazy/wicked video and literally make or break an artist. Would the world know Gangnam style if not for YouTube?

(Just food for thought)

 

Also, I use YouTube for music a lot, namely for discovery. I have several channels I keep track of and listen to new music being released. Sometimes the “music videos” is just album cover art with a little panning. So even though I would never create a music playlist on YouTube, I do use it to discover music. And working in a school, I happen to know YouTube is the “music service” of many of the students. They have a tab with a YouTube playlist going in the background, every time they are allowed headphones .

 

No need to argue that the music industry is backward thinking. There is so many examples out there. The continued battle between copyright holders and pirates. And enough is said

 

So, I don’t think it is as black and white as you make it sound. But I agree, the costs are a difficult thing to work out. It is expensive for YouTube to host it. But I don’t think artists should get screwed here either. The record labels need to keep their grubby mittens to themselves, no disagreement there. As far as I know artists already make very little on streaming music, and if YouTube already pays less than that, and wants to cut it by the 70%, in my ears something doesn’t add up. And maybe Google/YouTube is trying to be the greedy “label”?

 

We are missing a piece of this story, and that is the numbers. One can just wonder why there isn’t a little more transparency… Who is hiding something?

[porina]

25 minutes ago, The89Lunder said:

Saying to Google and KODA they both have the right to set the rules or turn away people/business, is basically the story of the unstoppable force and the immovable object. They need to come to an agreement that makes sense for both YouTube and the artists. And if they can’t someone need to tell the “children” that it is time to behave.

There have been parallels to this in the past, and no, there is no requirement for both sides to get along.

 

25 minutes ago, The89Lunder said:

I don’t think YouTubes music videos could be considered a niche, because of the vast number of users on YouTube, one good/crazy/wicked video and literally make or break an artist. Would the world know Gangnam style if not for YouTube?

(Just food for thought)

Gangnam style was an odd one, that the music industry decide to push worldwide and it stuck. The chances of it happening outside that much promotion behind it would be practically zero, and it would be no more than a meme at most. I'm not sure YouTube was essential in that happening, but it certainly amplified it as it became more well known.

 

25 minutes ago, The89Lunder said:

So, I don’t think it is as black and white as you make it sound. But I agree, the costs are a difficult thing to work out. It is expensive for YouTube to host it. But I don’t think artists should get screwed here either. The record labels need to keep their grubby mittens to themselves, no disagreement there. As far as I know artists already make very little on streaming music, and if YouTube already pays less than that, and wants to cut it by the 70%, in my ears something doesn’t add up. And maybe Google/YouTube is trying to be the greedy “label”?

Things are not constant. What we had in the past is no guarantee of what we will have in the future. The human malware we're going through is a major example of that. Business conditions have changed. We're of course speculating without knowing what the old or proposed deal is, but there are hints out there of what (non-music) videos bring in, and it depends a lot on the content and what advertisers are feeling at the time. Let's separate out the subscription and ad-supported income for now. Assuming sub based is competitive to other streaming services. Advertising income is much lower, and might be the driver of Google's claimed position. There have been many reports of cpms dropping significantly since earlier this year. What worked before, doesn't necessarily work now. Google wont want to make a loss on this.

 

25 minutes ago, The89Lunder said:

One can just wonder why there isn’t a little more transparency… Who is hiding something?

Details of private business matters are not generally for the public record.

[Trik'Stari]

11 hours ago, duncannah said:

Maybe the EU could step in? They probably won't though

If they did, it would just be to take a cut.

[StDragon]

The real news is that Google somehow advanced AI to the point of predicting what I might like.

 

For instance, today I woke up thinking to myself "I want to try something new. I think at this point in my life, it's time to do something bold and unique. I KNOW! I'll start listening to....Danish music!!!"

 

Well, can't do that anymore. I better be quick about it and enjoy music from Eswatini before that's removed too!

[Tea-Sir]

9 hours ago, porina said:

Things are not constant. What we had in the past is no guarantee of what we will have in the future. The human malware we're going through is a major example of that. Business conditions have changed. We're of course speculating without knowing what the old or proposed deal is, but there are hints out there of what (non-music) videos bring in, and it depends a lot on the content and what advertisers are feeling at the time. Let's separate out the subscription and ad-supported income for now. Assuming sub based is competitive to other streaming services. Advertising income is much lower, and might be the driver of Google's claimed position. There have been many reports of cpms dropping significantly since earlier this year. What worked before, doesn't necessarily work now. Google wont want to make a loss on this.

Things change, I know. But if Google isn't willing to make a loss, they just have to know, they might screw over the artists. And that isn't fair either. Without them, there is no music.

9 hours ago, porina said:

Details of private business matters are not generally for the public record.

I would have though so too, but KODA actually just released the numbers in their deals this morning. I have converted them from Danish Krona to USD (1 USD = 6,30 DKR, at the time of writing)

 

The payout is calculated for when the song has been played 1000 times. And again this is what KODA pays, so it does not give a view into what other deals are.

 

Spotify Premium - 1,40 USD

Spotify Free - 0,14 USD

Apple Music - 4,22 USD

Tidal - 2,32 USD

YouTube - 0,32 USD

 

Cutting that by 70%, I kinda get why KODA is not willing to play ball, but if Spotifys free tier can have the payout for 0,14 USD, in my mind, YouTube should pay the same. For music purpose I would compare the two, due to the "free"/ad based access.

[porina]

1 hour ago, The89Lunder said:

Spotify Premium - 1,40 USD

Spotify Free - 0,14 USD

Apple Music - 4,22 USD

Tidal - 2,32 USD

YouTube - 0,32 USD

 

Cutting that by 70%, I kinda get why KODA is not willing to play ball, but if Spotifys free tier can have the payout for 0,14 USD, in my mind, YouTube should pay the same. For music purpose I would compare the two, due to the "free"/ad based access.

For comparison, a 70% cut on the above would bring it down to 0.096. Going to the Spotify Free rate is a 56% drop. I'd argue video serving costs will be much higher than music only streaming. It would also be more interesting to break out YouTube Premium vs ad supported.