So glad to here that the PRS have finally decided to back down and stop preventing artists from advertising their new songs on new media in the UK.

I thought it was so stupid that artists who had even given YouTube permission to use their song had their songs removed because YouTube hadn't paid the PRS licence.

It made you wonder who actually owns the music, the artist or the PRS.

PRS has 60,000 members and revenue last year of £ 600 M so if 90% get less than £5,000 10% get more than half of the money or more than £55,000. Actually most probably get a lot less than £5,000 and the top 1% will earn a great deal more than the average for the top 10% so it is clear from there own numbers that PRS is to a large degree all abot collecting a lot of money for a very small elite. It woudl be interesting to see a detailled breakdown of the income distribution but I would not hold my breath waiting for it.

The PRS complained about YouTube showing videos without paying large sums of money. So YouTube pulled the plug. Whereupon the PRS got even more upset, because they still weren’t getting large sums of money, and now they were no longer enjoying the promotional value of having their music shown.

So all the aggro was entirely on the part of the PRS, no-one else.

"But the money won't all go for sable-lined Bentleys and indoor swimming pools to drive them into, apparently. The PRS reckons that 90 per cent of its membership - which includes composers, songwriters, musicians and other performers - earn less than £5,000 a year."

This is a standard bogus argument. You want to cut taxes on capital gains? Ignore the fact that 90% of the tax cut will go to the rich, and point out that 90% of people report some capital gains.

You want increased revenue for the music corporations? Point out that 90% of their artists make less than X amount per year.

Just *once* I'd like to see the money distributed to the 90% that was *implied* would get it, and hear the greedy lying b**tards scream.