Within the last year YouTube struck a new and courageous deal with the UK Performing Rights Society (PRS). This saw it agree to pay an unspecified flat rate fee to PRS to cover the rights to all copyright music featured on videos posted on its website.
Apart from making straight music videos available to users, the YouTube agreement allowed home video makers to use copyright music in their sound tracks without a liability to pay the music rights which were covered by YouTube.
This has now fallen apart with YouTube walking away from negotiations and making thousands of videos unavailable to UK users from today.
Steve Porter, CEO of PRS, described himself as ‘outraged… shocked and disappointed’ by YouTube’s decision, saying that the action ‘punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent’. He has asked YouTube to reconsider its decision as a matter of urgency.
The disagreement appears to be about the level of the charge.
PRS say: ‘Google has told us they are taking this step because they wish to pay significantly less than at present to the writers of the music on which their service relies, despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing’.
YouTube’s Director of Video Partnerships,Patrick Walker, has told the BBC that he had not wanted to take this action but that PRS was seeking a rise in fees many times higher than the previous agreement.
With negotiating positions so far apart he feels that YouTube has no choice but to take music content off the site while negotiations with PRS continue.
The dispute looks like becoming a mutual blame-fest, possibly with chauvinist overtones. Our own first hand experience would suggest that any Brits fired up to rush the barricades in defence of PRS would be advised to stay their feet.
Patrick Walker told the BBC that the rise PRS had demanded was ‘prohibitive’. He said: ‘The rate they are applying would mean we (YouTube) would lose significant amounts of money on every stream of a music video. It is not a reasonable rate to ask’.
From a very much more humble position in the online media food chain, this is a scenario we recognise. ForArgyll.com evolved from an early notion of being a largely speech-based online radio station. In putting our business plan together, we calculated that, with the number of streams we would need to attract, we would pay music fees of over £10,000 per annum for playing no more than 15 tracks every 24 hours.
At that stage we decided to avoid copyright music altogether because we could not afford it; and instead make a feature of unsigned Argyll musicians. That remains our policy against the time that we develop this side of our service. It means that we can use our audience strength to support new bands while avoiding the significant losses that we would otherwise certainly have incurred.
It really is a case of killing the goose. Ths current stand-off with YouTube has all the hallmarks of a sort of PRS heist – an early agreement to seal them in, followed by a swift hike from which YouTube have simply walked.
We’re with YouTube in this dispute. Their initial move was a bold one, liberalising access to copyright music and freeing up the creative conjunction of music with other expressive forms for ordinary people to develop and share – at YouTube’s expense. PRS is behaving like a Rachmanist landlord for the music industry which, in its own interests, needs to change its culture.
Hi
Our boss at work told us we couldnt listen to music at work anymore because of the PRS/PPL fees, well we stood for it for a while and then I did a google search for “say no to prs fees” and found http://www.rfmradio.co.uk and its great! Unsigned quality bands and artists with pro Djs adding there bit, All fully royalty free music, no prs fees, the workers are happy, and the boss is happy, wish we had switched earlier.
We now have a wifi radio so its just like listening on an ordinary radio set.
Thanks R Billy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0