The UK Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors criticized Google and SoundCloud – by clear reference, if not by name. In his speech, the head of the body focused on the licensing arguments around streaming music, putting particular emphasis on companies that he believes are not respecting songwriters.
According to his words, while streaming is becoming the dominant way of listening to music, it has yet to prove that it can provide a viable income for songwriters, because “some companies exploit safe harbor provision” to avoid paying fair value for music. The speech was addressed directly to tech firms whose search engines provide links to software enabling Internet users to steal songs from a service that is only licensed to stream. Apparently, this reference was aimed squarely at Google and software that allows to rip audio from its YouTube video service.
Other references were clearly made to SoundCloud – for instance, the words that songwriters get paid only if it monetizes their works. Indeed, SoundCloud has historically not paid royalties, but last year it launched the initiative to sell adverts and share the revenues with musicians. Since then, the service has paid out over $2m in royalties and continues negotiations with music labels.
Criticism of the music body came shortly after Sony Music decided to remove its catalogue from SoundCloud due to a “lack of monetization opportunities”. Today, the issue of the money earned by music creators from streaming is a hot topic, closely related to the discussions around how much performers make from YouTube or Spotify.
At the same time, songwriters and music publishers also express discontent with the fact that record labels get a much bigger share of the royalties paid out by streaming services.
According to his words, while streaming is becoming the dominant way of listening to music, it has yet to prove that it can provide a viable income for songwriters, because “some companies exploit safe harbor provision” to avoid paying fair value for music. The speech was addressed directly to tech firms whose search engines provide links to software enabling Internet users to steal songs from a service that is only licensed to stream. Apparently, this reference was aimed squarely at Google and software that allows to rip audio from its YouTube video service.
Other references were clearly made to SoundCloud – for instance, the words that songwriters get paid only if it monetizes their works. Indeed, SoundCloud has historically not paid royalties, but last year it launched the initiative to sell adverts and share the revenues with musicians. Since then, the service has paid out over $2m in royalties and continues negotiations with music labels.
Criticism of the music body came shortly after Sony Music decided to remove its catalogue from SoundCloud due to a “lack of monetization opportunities”. Today, the issue of the money earned by music creators from streaming is a hot topic, closely related to the discussions around how much performers make from YouTube or Spotify.
At the same time, songwriters and music publishers also express discontent with the fact that record labels get a much bigger share of the royalties paid out by streaming services.
No comments:
Post a Comment