CS70 wrote:If you could just reply, I would appreciate: monopoly of what?
Certainly of cat videos. If you put 'cat video' into a search engine (I use 'duck duck go' to bust mono... my apologies, I forgot about your allergy to that word, to make the market more competitive) Youtube comes out first, and second, and third and ...
Now to compare that with a more competitive market -- how about guitar strings? Putting 'guitar strings' into a search engine gives a range of brands. Too vague maybe? OK, I'll put in '11 nickel guitar strings' and again there is a range of brands. We can at least say internet video hosting is not a competitive market.
Let's take a competitor to Youtube -- Dailymotion.
Ahah, no problems with the word monopoly. I love pizza and love cheese, but if you take some cheese and call it pizza, I'll raise the same objection. It's just uselessly confusing.
Yours is a good example - which well illustrates why YT's got nothing to do with a monopoly. How much do you pay for cat videos? Cat videos are not a market. They have no economic value.
YT does not prevent you to upload to Dailymotion (notably, both say Standard Oil and Microsoft did prevent you to do something, with the precise intent to undermine competitors and prevent them to grow).
"biggest" is not the same as "monopoly". Otherwise SOS would be a monopoly as well.. after all, it's the best recording technology magazine ;-) and probably the biggest in terms of sales and the easiest to find at any given counter.. but they do not, in my knowledge, systematically prevent other magazines to appear on the same counters or price cut in order to make them fail and be able to buy them...
That Google comes up with many YT results says more about Google's ranking algorithm than anything else. Besides, Dailymotion results do come up for video searches - I did learn of Dailymotion existence exactly from clicking on some video and - surprisingly - finding aftre a while I wasn't on YT. Nothing stops Google from showing Dailymotion results other than - well - its algorithm finds less content on Dailymotion.
I get what you mean. YT is big indeed. But if you go and learn what a monopoly is (in the sense of the word that can be used to legally force a company to break up) you will find that a monopoly it ain't. "Big" isn't enough, nor is "biggest".
Whereas if say a certain music company would place restrictions on dealers to prevent them to sell competition's product or practice price manipulation to ensure said competition don't make a profit... ;-)
I don't necessarily have a problem with a monopoly -- it could be state owned and run as a public service. Electricity, water and wi-fi are candidates for this approach.
Well, monopolies are generally bad because they allow arbitrary pricing and other nasties that impact everybody. But that's nothing to do with music business, so I'd rather stick with the subject.
The free market is still broken and may never be fixed, and that's not necessarily a bad thing -- but if the tech companies want to rule the world they'll have to fix roads, build schools, pay nurses and incur other inconvenient expenses.
No idea precisely to what you refer - it does sound like an empty slogan.
The specific music market (that is: the sale of recorded music) was
broken by a (perhaps unforeseen, as Drew says) consequence of freeing platforms from being responsible of the content that passes thru them, which in turn allowed YT (and others) to declare themselves such platforms and allow all sort of copying of copyrighted material to be in practice to be available to everybody for free, thus reducing the economic value of recorded music to zero.
In turn, this allowed players like Spotify and other streamers to present themselves as saviors and provide the same content with a little better packaging and a little more convenience, while paying a pittance to recording artists instead of the market rate that had come so far, because a little money is better than no money when you're hungry. So long piracy and systematically copyright violation is not pursued actively, the situation will stay the same.
What you and I can do about it, is to pressure our political representative and, since pressure better works in numbers, coalesce and create organizations that do so more effectively that single individuals alone, with the goal of ensuring that we can reliably make money out of our creations.
That has indeed been happening in the last years, with more and more musicians recognizing how things are.
But paradoxically one of the major obstacles has been that loads of musos seem to take pride in not understanding crap about business and economy - and even to be arrogant and pigheaded about it, because the world does not work as they think it should. The same attitude that got them generally shafted by the traditional recording businesses.
Luckily, that's less and less the case..
You started presenting your ideas with "musicians are ten a penny" and now defend multi-national corporations with the apparent assumption that the system these corporations exist within has solid foundations, requiring only a few minor tweaks to be fit for purpose. I would suggest a different attitude would make the music ecosystem healthier.
ten a penny. Even less. It's not my fault, it's just how it is. Look around. Really look, without prejudice. Open a random Facebook group and check some of the stuff. There'll be lots of fuff, sure, but at least once a day there will be something that you go - wow. Multiply that for seven billion people. And even the fuff very often could be nurtured and massaged into something really good - it's just that for some reason (unfathomable to me) people like to put out their unfinished fuff as if everybody else was just begging for it.
The distance however, from having talent and actually making money out of it is quite large, in music. It's the same in many businesses: good ideas are usually a dime a dozen - the persistence, tenacity and resistance to make any of them become a money-making business... not so much. Inspiration and perspiration and all that.
As for YT, you seem to have a knack for not getting it (or surely, it's me not writing clearly).
I am not defending them at all. I think YT has and is abusing the copyright safe harbor concept and by allowing indiscriminate upload in enormous volumes without verifying licensing for the material, has contributed in large part to keeping the music recording business unviable after it had been made so by indiscriminate, unpunished piracy. I think they should bloody pay for the royalties they own, and not decide themselves how much and when to do so.
It was perhaps understandable that they did so at their inception. But that they keep doing it today when the tech exists to do otherwise and they have the means to deploy it, it's inexcusable.
This does not prevent me to tell you that if you claim that YT is a monopoly, you're factually wrong. The two things got nothing to do with each other. I don't particularly like the Røde NT1A, but if you say it's a banana I will raise my hand and say "er.. no".
Hope it's clearer..