Re: The biggest corporation of all is actually...
Maybe you should read the site more closely?
No @AC, I think you need to read the site (and it's source material) more closely and apply some critical thinking and analysis to some of their articles.
The fact that the music industry gets more revenue from vinyl than from billions of YouTube streams tells you something is very wrong. Google is exploiting a loophole to reduce the rates its pays - and the smallest suffer the most. But don't let facts spoil your day. Keep fapping away about how evil it is to pay people fairly.
From the article you cite:
Although YouTube is the world's de facto music jukebox, the music sector gets less money from Google's 25 billion YouTube streams than it does from the puny annual sales of vinyl (4.1 million units, according to the record labels' association, the BPI). According to industry-funded body UK Music, YouTube brings in about 50p per user per year.
50p per user per year? Across 100's of millions of users? That's not bad for what is effectively zero costs, it's all pretty much pure profit.
Vinyl has material costs, manufacturing costs, distribution costs, stocking costs. Since the vinyl industry is so small compared to 30 years ago, manufacturing costs of vinyl are relatively high. Vinyl is a premium channel, high costs, high margin, low volume. It's not particularly surprising that a premium line has higher revenue, or otherwise why would they still invest in such a low-volume channel?
I've just gone to one of the source article for the cited article, and it says (emphasis mine):
Audio streaming services including Spotify and Apple Music pay around £4.3bn or £15 per user annually for the music they use – significantly more than the £650m or 50p per user returned annually to the industry by firms like YouTube.
So, £650m is more than they make on 4.1 million record sales? For total record revenue to be £650m on 4.1 million units means an average selling price of £158. But then, how much of that £158 is profit? That is revenue, and the Youtube £650m would be nearly all profit.
Also, it is completely misleading to compare vinyl sales to just Youtube income, it is cherry-picking. Vinyl is a stream of revenue, Youtube is a single company out of the 'streaming' stream of revenue. It'd be like pulling out a single retailer who sells vinyl and using just their figures.
To be intellectually honest, the entire streaming market should be being used when comparing it to the entire vinyl market. And to do this at the very least you'd have to throw in the stated Spotify, Apple and Youtube revenue, which is £4.95billion pounds.