The prices put down during the pirate bay trial, it was claimed that artists lost between 20-30$ per watched performance.
So 14 thousands performance is almost a half million dollar lost of revenue, stolen by those streaming services. Worse, they claim its all moral and legal.
$20 or $30 per performance? Is that what they're making off of each YouTube stream? That's a ridiculous claim. Back in the pre-digital era like the 90's singles were $9 for a CD single. And those usually came with 3 songs, even counting for inflation I don't think that math adds up, and that's for purchasing a song.
$4 for 14k performances of a streamed song seems totally reasonable to me. If you own the song 100% then charge more.
The "$20 per performance" number, and your math, sounds just about as intellectually honest as the case where RIAA claimed damages totaling more than the world gross domestic product [1].
Is a streamed/recorded song really considered a 'performance'? Isn't it just one performance? If one performance is recorded and replayed 14k times, how does that turn into 14k performances? I must be missing something...
The prices put down during the pirate bay trial, it was claimed that artists lost between 20-30$ per watched performance.
We're talking about streaming audio over the internet, though. I don't think one listen of a song brings in $20 in revenue (advertising and subscriber fees).
Someone’s making money, and in true fashion with the music industry, it’s not the artists.
Who's making tons of money from streaming 14 thousand songs over the internet? I can't imagine this brought in a serious amount of revenue for anyone.