UK copyright enforcer unclogs Youtube
VIDEO STREAMING SITE Youtube has struck a deal with the Performing Rights Society (PRS) to re-enable viewing of premium videos in the UK.
Under pressure from the music industry, Youtube attempted to remove copyrighted material from its UK servers six months ago, with limited success.
The PRS, which represents music creators and performers and makes sure they get paid whenever their music is played in clubs, pubs and shopping centres, has secured an undisclosed sum thought to be in the tens of millons of pounds to keep Paul McCartney in gold-plated lawn furniture until 2012.
The deal, which covers 'official music videos' rather than the shaky footage your sister took of Kings of Leon playing at the Brixton Academy, has taken such a long time to nail down because of the complexity of Youtube, the international music industry and the fact that the PRS has 60,000 active members all holding out their hands for a slice of the online pie.
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.
Youtube has always shown a willingness to compensate performers but, before this current round of negotiations took place, PRS lawyers were said to be seeking payments so out of line with the benefits to be obtained that the world's most popular website had no choice but to pull the plug.
In fact, at one point the whole row got so nasty that Technology Minister Lord Carter was dragged into the ring in order to stop the handbags flying.
Google-owned Youtube has said that the tens of thousands of missing videos should reappear over the next few days.
Youtube is also rumoured to be in negotiations with the Hollywood studios to allow new movie releases to be 'rented' online. The buzz is that films will be priced between $2 and $4 and you'll be able to view each one you rent as many times as you can stand within a 24-hour period. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
"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.
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.
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.
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.