According to Complete Music Update:
[Google] paid a company called RBB Economics to survey 1500 music consumers on its platform in a bid to respond to the music industry’s repeated vocal criticism of YouTube. And in particular the industry’s argument that the Google site exploits the copyright safe harbours to secure preferential deals from music rights owners, while hindering the growth of premium streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music that pay much better rates to the record labels and music publishers.
The Europe-focused study reckons that – if all the music was somehow removed from YouTube – 85% of the time, users who are currently tapping some tunes on the video site would instead rely on TV or radio for their music, which pay relatively low royalties too. Users would also spend 29% more time on piracy networks.
I know, I know….resist the temptation to snark that the study was based on removing all music from YouTube which is as false an assumption as basing it on the ability to remove any music from YouTube because of the fake “DMCA license” aka “safe harbors” that Google relies on to shake down artists and songwriters. Let’s put that to one side and throw down a challenge to Google. Because if you remove something, in YouTube’s case that would mean permanently block. You know, like if I send YouTube a take down notice they actually take it down. Permanently.
Since Google have paid for this big study and all, let’s do a test. Let’s take down all the music from YouTube—Google’s premise on which their study is based—and see what happens. Because if they are doing this study based on removing all music from YouTube they must be able to actually remove all music from YouTube or else the study would be…you know…fake news.
So if their study contemplates removing all music, then how about removing some music. Permanently. That is, how about doing less then they say they can do in the study. Should be easy, right?