Opinion: This YouTube / PRS dispute is madness
So, thousands of music videos are to be blocked for UK users of YouTube, following the latter’s decision to remove them due to fraught licensing negotiations with PRS for Music. We’ll stop short of assigning outright blame, but what’s clear is that this is a baffling and hugely damaging turn of events where everyone loses out.
Naturally, music fans are the immediate losers, since they’ll be unable to watch music videos from some of their favourite artists on what’s quite possibly their favourite online video site.
The blow may be softened by the fact that most of these videos are available elsewhere, of course. Muzu.tv has already issued a rapid-response press release pointing out that it has a PRS licence and deals with Sony and EMI, plus indies, for example. Meanwhile, we’ll be interested to see if UK users can still watch YouTube’s catalogue if using other sites like Songza that leverage the YouTube API.
Labels and artists lose out too, especially the digital teams who use YouTube as a key plank in their marketing strategies. The majors may have their own strategies when it comes to working with Google – WMG has already whipped its videos off the site, while UMG is reportedly planning a joint music video venture with YouTube – but the PRS dispute does them no favours.
Think about smaller artists too – just last week, The Mentalists were making headlines around the world for their iPhone-powered MGMT cover, which they disseminated via YouTube. Or think of the many artists who now build YouTube videos into their own sites. WMG artists have already suffered embarrassing blackouts due to that label’s hardball negotiating tactics, but now that’ll expand to many of their peers.
And YouTube loses out too. Music videos are one of the most popular categories on the site, with the most popular racking up tens of millions of downloads. It’s increasingly seen as a music destination in its own right which, if those rumours of the Vevo JV with UMG are true, it plans to take to the next level.
Remember the keynote interview at MidemNet with Google’s VP of content partnerships David Eun? “We don’t make money unless our partners make money, so the idea that we would screw a partner on whom we depend is not rational or logical,” he said. “The intent of Google and YouTube is to be a really good partner…”
If what PRS for Music says is true, and Google opted to summarily remove thousands of music videos during licensing discussions as a negotiating tactic, that’s not a recipe for good partnership.
As ever, there are two sides to this story. Should Google agree to every licensing demand made by the labels or performing rights societies, no matter how inflated, simply because it’s Google, and has Google-sized coffers of cash? No. There’s a long and heated debate to be had around the music industry’s willingness (or lack of) to allow new online music business models to flourish.
But whipping thousands of music videos off YouTube hurts YouTube itself, hurts labels and artists, and most importantly alienates millions of music fans. For a company that says it wants to be good partners with the music industry, Google’s attitude in this dispute is hard to fathom.
Tags: Google, music videos, PRS, youtube
March 10th, 2009 at 12:29 am
I think this is madness I couldn’t believe it when I read the article on the way home from work. The only thing is that there are plenty of places to find music videos on the internet. Daily Motion, Hulu and MUZU TV are brilliant examples of sites that are built with the industry in mind where you tube wasn’t. I would like to see sites like these get more of an equal share of the market.
Hulu and MUZU TV having the most impressive interfaces.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I agree with Grace,
There are plenty of sites out there that will compensate the songwriter a little for their effort. YouTube and Google make billions in profit and the artists see almost nothing. If you like music then go to free sites like Hulu or Muzu where both the artists and the fans can benefit and there is far less rubbish to sort through
March 10th, 2009 at 11:20 am
It is madness but from a totally different angle
Youtube highlights the single common fact that the minima/fixed rates defined by the JOL does not reflect the economical world out there. Put anyone from any legal music services together in a corner and the message is consistent, we want to pay but the rates make no economical sense.
Minima rates are the biggest single threat to a healthy legal digital society. The facts are simple if legal entities cannot make money then its better to give in and let the pirates have total control. We have seen this many times already.
The Internet gives scale and that is never taken into account so actually 10% of a big something is much more than 100% of nothing. In the last 90 days We7 have taken 500,000 people from the net of piracy and created a valuable legal mechanism that values the artist and the music.
Protecting fixed or minima rates is a bad case of the Emperors new clothes, they dont protect the artist and dont increase the potential wealth available. They destroy the potential of value to the artists with the exception of the chosen few.
Its time that people stopped trying to hide from the realities and get on earning money for the artist and the industries together.
Steve
Steve Purdham
CEO and founder investor
We7 – Great Music FREE
March 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Yes, I agree with what Mike and Grace are saying. I know that they were one of the first music sites but I don’t think that youtube was built for the music industry. The offering to bands was blurred for such a long time and still is in some way. I think that sites like Daily Motion, MUZU TV and Hulu are the best alternative in this situation.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Steve,
I find your input useful and sometime would like to get in touch with you. Perhaps you can email me at andre.barrow@iribbeantunes.com.
Re this issue I’m following this with interest as a new entrant to the market. Without knowing all the fact in this case, I too have had some issues with PRS on the said topic. If you have had agreements with Record Labels, publishers, copyright owners etc, all directly, and are paying them agree amounts based on the rates that govern royalty payments etc. What exactly are you paying PRS for? Also like Youtube, I’ve asked where and who will the money be going to and that has never been established. So I do understand the point about transparency.
This case is going to have a major effect on the industry here in the UK as Youtube are the first to make their queries public. I believe the PRS will not come out of this good. From a populous basis their argument seem plausible – the artist needs to be paid. I believe we all agree this. However, when you question their transparency and ask Who are you paying? What are your rates based on? I think you may find that the PRS seem little more than some kind of Stealth Tax.
Andre
Director
iRibbean Ltd.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I am mortified as I love The Killers and enjoy watching their videos. I am unable to go to their concerts and festivals so I get huge enjoyment from watching them on the internet. This is a very sad day for me if I can no longer do this. I would like to add that I have bought all their albums.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I’m on the side of the PRS for asking higher rates from the likes of Youtube and Pandora. I don’t see why Internet services should pay lower rates than TV stations or radio stations do. All of them are businesses who make money from advertising. When Radio and Commercial TV started out, did we give them Lower rates to help their business flourish? no. and i don’t see why net companies should have that special status. Its a business like any other. The argument they put forward that high rates ‘hurt their business and they can’t pay them’ well, BooHoo. Sort it out.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
90% of song writers out there signed up to the PRS make less than 5,000 in royalties per year can youtube and google really justify paying less than they already do. Generally they provide data lacking accuracy already pay ridiculously small amounts in royalties and make a killing in advertising revenue it seems with that the state of the global economy is just making people greedy and most of all silly
May 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I just have one question, why if youtube don’t offer such a good deal for the artist, do so many up load thire own work…?
Simple for the publicaty.
Any artist, Record company or organisation loading their own content should not be paid anything as they are trying to profit from YouTubes good work