PRS claims that you decided to block UK users access to videos in the middle of negotiations, and that they didn't require you to do so anyway. Nice one guys. Real classy.
YouTube. This is a disgraceful decision. The PRS have even said they dont want this to happen, so why have you gone ahead & done it? You are simply punishing millions of people in the UK. Reverse this ludicrous decision immediately please!
YouTube have shot themselves in the foot anyway even oif they do bring it all back. The fact that they can treat the people of UK like this is scandalous & is something the people of the UK will never forget. Great "publicity stunt" (not)
I feel for your users you must take action and support them not punish them....by throwing all your toys out of your pram because you cant get your own way....
Until then... I will be logging out I wont be returning....
And I'm sure many other UK users feel the same as me....
all these companies think of one thing -->£££££ why cant they think about the consumers for once? im not mad at google/youtube more PRS. its like virgin and sky all over agian. sky wanted masses amounts of money to broadcast sky1 etc on virgin and virgin laughed in their face and said come back with a real offer. the sames happening here the people who lose out are the viewers and now musicians also. its quite dissapointing.
my option is if a music video i want to watch is blocked because of this i guess ill go to myspace videos or aol videos. they'll always be shown somewhere else.
Is this in the UK and Ireland or just the UK? MUZU.TV has the majority of the content from the labels anyway. It could be just a publicity thing but we will see
This is utter c**p ! all the new music i have come across made it worth while but now its just all pi**ed kids with mobile phones dicking about i be off ! hmm note how the management are offering a unaffected pay as you use service though!.
I, for one, completely support you making a stand against this. The music industry is a joke and it needs a big player to stand up against them or they'll never change.
It's true that, for the moment, it's the consumer who misses out, however we're pretty resourceful so we'll be OK.
I can't say it comes as much of a suprize but it is such a shame. As someone else said it still wont be impossible to get onto the videos by using a proxy, I for one wont be doing this though, I will simply pay for music.
This is a pretty extreme and disappointing form of negotiation from youtube. There are so many sites and blogs with youtube music videos embedded in them, what are they going to do.. have they been warned in advance? How come other sites can show music videos in the uk like muzu or last fm - why does their business model work and youtubes doesn't? Down the tubes more like ;-)
Owners Of Youtube, You Don't Give A Damn, Youtube. You know the Reason We ALL Go on To Your Site, Don't You? To watch Music Videos! Why are You doing This to Your Brit Public?! It's Killing me To say This But, You will Lose Millions of Viewers, Now Why Would You Want to Do That?! EVERYONE LOVES MUSIC VIDEOS. The point I'm Trying to Put through is, JUST PAY THE FRICKIN' ROYALTIES ALREADY! Sorry About That. The Royalties may Cost Quite a bit, I Know there is a Credit Crunch at the Moment, But we've all Made it through fine so far, What About You? You are all Acting like Spoilt children. This Has gone too far, Owners of Youtube. WE NEED YOU, YOUTUBE. DON'T EVER FORGET THAT. Natalie. P.S. - We won't ever forget, You Don't Give A Damn. (I'm Right, aren't I? You Just Want the Money!)
Given the exorbitant relative cost of CD's and DVD's in the UK it never surprises me when artists, music labels, and their representatives try to squeeze more £ out consumers.
Although consumers in general are suckered into paying these high prices, I'm glad YouTube has the market share and popularity to actually turn around and tell these people NO.
I support You Tube in the dispute with PRS - PRS have got a bit drunk with power in their recent enforcement activities and need to be brought up with a jolt!!!
As a Youtube user, I strongly support this decision. I have no doubt that after their revenue stream dries up and they realise that they'll be getting nothing, while users just go to other sites instead, they'll change their tune pretty quickly.
In fact, from the BBC news article it seems they're already realising this. Steve Porter, head of the PRS, said he was "outraged... shocked and disappointed" by YouTube's decision"
I personally will not be using youtube again after this- if it is just temporary I will not forget that it was the UK they took it out on. I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.
Some of you are absolute idiots posting here tbh. This isn't YouTube penalising Brits. This is PRS being greedy and as said above wanting "many" times more in royalties than they were previously given and thus Youtube would be losing a lot of money in order to keep these videos up. The fact the PRS hasn't even given YouTube a list of their videos means ALL music videos have to be blocked because they can't be sure which ones are PRS and which ones aren't. Hopefully what this will do is cause PRS to lower the amount of money they're trying to collect and YouTube will be able to show videos again to UK users.
I hope everyone can see that the PRS is the problem here and we must remember that YouTube is FREE for us to use and that Youtube has to PAY for a licence so that you can sit at your machine and watch music videos in a legal manner. I imagine that reason that the head of the PRS was "outraged... shocked and disappointed" is because tomorrow he will have to explain to labels and artists exactly how his organisation managed to kill their revenue stream!
I think it's a good step. So we won';t have music videos for a couple of days? It's good to see someone this big standing up to all the record companies. Youtube gives them free advertising, and they still want money for it - it's sick.
Given that PRS are now chasing people who have a Radio on in public - (Radio already has a public license for broadcast) our office got the warning letter from them wanting £££ - and as for web radio - £500 min!
I should probably add that it wouldn't surprise me if the PRS was very lax with passing on their earnings, can anyone give details from a musicians perspective
On youtubes side in this case i think, PRS claim to exist to support artists but everything they do that appears in the news suggests they are doing the opposite. Forcing people to stop playing radios in public, needing to give them money to have any form of concert no matter how big, they are a very outdated (and somewhat money obsessed) organisation
Having been shafted before by the PRS this is a typical ploy that is intended to get the most money possible for the fat cats that sit on their backsides that do very little, in the hope that the users of Youtube will blame Youtube. Based on some comments here that what some idiots are saying. The problem is that the copyright Law in the UK is so outdated and so complex, that any infringement will cost you a packet in a uk court room. Youtube had little choice in the matter as their license had expired. Of course we the customer could start paying for the service... I don't think so. Of course their are other ways to get/hear such content and then you are breaking the Law, hope you have deep pockets.
I completely support YouTube and Google on this issue. There is no reason why they should lose money for us watching a video on their site... I mean PRS, if they have actually demanded costs of multiples TIMES what they used to be payed, are obviously getting greedy and over valuing their product.
What will be interesting to see is how this affects the UK public, both a) in their usage - there is no way youtube will be able to stop some music videos being uploaded (note it is only the 4 or so record companies that are included in this deal) b) The public reaction. It's already clear there are some negative reactions to youtube's decision. But why should youtube lose money just so that British users can watch videos? If we can't see the videos on youtube, we go elsewhere, the PRS will lower their price out of necessity(hey its better getting some deal, rather than no deal) then youtube will allow music videos again... Basically, short term this will affect people wanting to watch the most popular music videos, but long term it will mean more reasonable demands from record labels and societies such as this regarding payment...and ultimately a better deal for consumers...
Bravo Youtube! Take a stand against the extortionate practices of the PRS! Would everyone complaining run a business if they were losing money rather than making it? I don't think so, so why should youtube?
Although i am very very sad about the extreme steps of taking down many works of music, I DO FULLY SUPPORT YOUTUBE in it's fight against PRS & the licensing terrorists. Please Please Please do not give in to PRS.... they are leeches thier licensing racket has grown out of all proportion of common sence. GOOD FOR YOUTUBE...
I applaud youtube for exposing the Performing Right Society's attempt at hanging them over a barrel, let the power struggle for public opinion commence... i would urge people to look beyond the surface on this one, the PRS are the definition of corporate greed all they care about is lining thier own pockets. Its pretty clear the PRS were trying to charge extortionate prices and clearly weren't expecting this move from youtube, so kudos for taking a stand, even if its the british public that take the hit.
I'm completely behind YouTube. PRS are greedy, have been bullying small businesses for some time and stunting the growth of online music in the UK. The rules need changing - hopefully this is the start of getting it sorted.
For a long time the PRS has pilfered fees from 'minor' artists to fill the pockets of their larger ones, as it chooses not to adopt a system that fairly registers airplay and live performance for both. All this move from YouTube will acheive is to tip the economic balance further in favour of 'three of the four largest record labels in the world'.
You will lose fans from not sorting this legal issues with record labels etc also you tube is being used to attack certain minorities and vunrunable people some people comments on cetain videos are way not right to put cetain foul language hence often like many people do flag videos to stop such hate and upset and then find you tube do nothing about it. I think the way for you tube is on the downward sprial if they dont change their ideas for you tube its a dam shame about the music if they don't come to aggreement on their licsence they will be nothing without music really or for upsetting different parts of our beliefs and our britishness and our amazing ability in producing great music of our past and future too we need to inspire new blood into the music community and you tube has been great inspareation to do that if that does then music will just run dry again and bands from aboard will take over and rule the music seane again
having been shafted by the performing rights society myself i totally support youtube. my boyfriend and i ran a small business and we told the prs we would rather turn the radio off and work in silence than pay, one week later they phoned back and the price had gone down 50 quid still we refused another week went by another phone call with further reduction of 50 quid we took them up that time. just goes to show though they would rather have some money off you than none at all and in my opinion they were trying to shaft us out of an extra 100 quid. NEVER BUY A LICENCE ON THE 1ST CONTACT THEY WILL BE BACK WITH A REDUCTION.
Seems to me YouTube want to give music away for as little as possible so they can make money with little royalties and do as little work as possible to do so. YT is bleating but come on. There is still a truck load of copyright material available for download (not moderated until complained about), and YT seem to do little about some of the grossly offensive videos, and the language in the comments are not even tailored. It's not hard to do.
So before YT bleats about hard work, why not actually do some. For instance, looking down the page here I can see the F-Word.
i would imagine that Google/Youtube's earnings are more per year than the PRS. So it's the Goliath Google/Youtube masquerading as the underdog - when really Google/Youtube are the bully with more $$$$$'s than the PRS would ever have - using their privileged position to bully the musicians to let them use their music for next to nothing - whilst making Google/Youtube even more powerful
This is terrible news! you have outright removed my single reason for visiting this site. In the past, I have bought so much music using youtube's links, and also generated you revenue by clicking on your sponsers. Clearly, all that is a thing of the past!!!
The prs are a greedy organisation which contains members who will justify prs fees for the playing of others (not prs members arrangements) of traditional /public domain material.
seems to me this gives you tube an easy way to make cash,preying on peoples love of music.someone as big as you tube must have the power to overide this.we all rely on you tube for the obviouse reasons,and you tube is a great outlet for discovering stuff you havent seen or heard before and usually generates sales and fresh income for artists.we will not be sucker punched. beleive that much every body needs to get together on this.contact your local phone in/press
seems to me this gives you tube an easy way to make cash,preying on peoples love of music.someone as big as you tube must have the power to overide this.we all rely on you tube for the obviouse reasons,and you tube is a great outlet for discovering stuff you havent seen or heard before and usually generates sales and fresh income for artists.we will not be sucker punched. beleive that much every body needs to get together on this.contact your local phone in/press
PRS are just in for money. One of the online radio stations I DJ (and all the other sites) were asked to remove their radio unless they pay a licence by PPL, then we also would need a licence by PRS too! It was going to cost too much, so they shut down the radio. Unfiar, something should be done. Welcome to the UK.
The PRS need to be investigated in my opinion. As many others on here have already stated, their methods and practices are appalling. I used to run a small business specilaising in car audio. They made me pay an extortionate fee because I had radios on display in my showroom. - Well, of course I did... That was what I was selling. And without people like me selling radios, would they even exist? Stick to your guns YouTube, and for pity's sake, will someone take control over the PRS!
PRS are a joke, they think there helping musicians etc but there just annoying the end consumer and retail outlets. They really do need to be looked at.. Its just another way for someone to make a quick buck..
I hope YouTube's advertisers know about this - what's the point of visiting YouTube if they no longer can be bothered to have what people are looking for - no music, no visits, no advertising, no YouTube. Let us know when you have the music back and we'll think of coming back, maybe, in the mean time I'm off elsewhere.
YouTube. This is a disgraceful decision. The PRS have even said they dont want this to happen, so why have you gone ahead & done it? You are simply punishing millions of people in the UK. Reverse this ludicrous decision immediately please!
YouTube. This is a disgraceful decision. The PRS have even said they dont want this to happen, so why have you gone ahead & done it? You are simply punishing millions of people in the UK. Reverse this ludicrous decision immediately please!
This situation is ridiculous. PRS - seriously, YouTube is a huge marketing tool for music which promotes discovery. You won't have a music industry left to licence out rights to if you copyright obsessives don't start appreciating that the world has changed. It's modernise or die time. YouTube, Google, while this site is a loss leader, it is an enormous online tool that has huge influence - music is an important element of the offering, and you need to resolve this. Soon!
I strongly belive in youtube and backing them the whole way. I am a mobile DJ and have to pay near £200/year just to play music to a group of people no matter the size. I can't imagine the size of the License fee that Youtube has to pay im supporting youtube the whole way and hopefully PRS will think twice about their prices. End of day their close to lossing a big customer!
I do pretty much all my listening on YouTube. I hope this gets sorted quickly. I'm sure this will only encourage piracy and then PRS are really going to lose out.
I think the BOTH of you need to get your act together (pardon the pun) & quickly.I personally always view videos before buying/downloading albums/tracks etc & the performers will lose out on this.My only reason for visiting YouTube on the majority of occasions is to view these videos...what use are you to us if you do not allow us to use them! I think Google et al are getting too big for their boots,If you don't sort this out quickly I shall remove YouTube/Google/Google Toolbar & everything else related from my PC & use competitors facilities & I'm sure many others will too! No one is too big that they can't be brought down, ask Woolworths.What will you advertisers think of a mass exodus by UK viewers?
You are BOTH behaving like spoilt kids in a sandpit & will lose a lot more than the respect you ALREADY have.Be good kids & play nice...& Youtube don't pretend that the reveues you make from this site aren't making you fat cats.Do we look stupid?
As a longtime user of both google and youtube I am frankly appalled. I use a google phone, google has been my default search engine since day one, but not any more. I am making the transition to cuil, youtube will no longer be my stopping point for web media and my ggole phone will be returned to the carphone warehouse the second my nine month minimum is completed.
I agree wholeheartedly that the PRS is being unreasonable in it's demands, but by pushing the issue upon uk customers as a means of leverage lowers my opinion of the standard to par with that of microsoft or apple. To hell with us? To hell with you!
Well, my first and last ever communication on Youtube. A disgusting decision, I will be boycotting this site from now on, and Google as a whole. I've never like the sinister way Google have encompassed the net, I know exactly what your game is and I'm not sticking around to see how it ends...........typical bully tactics
You people trying to blame Youtube for this need to get a grip. The PRS and PPL are a cartel that set their own tariffs in the hope that no-one will take them on. They charge hotels and guest houses for having televisions for guests on the grounds that there's music on them and harass small businesses. Search the web for more informartion on them, for example the Federation of Small Businesses site. It's about time both were wound up or investigated.
I don't come on youtube for music, but if music is there i'll listen. But stopping music wouldn't stop me coming onto youtube. I come on youtube for the strange, weird, crazy, etc, that's excluded from traditional content. The internet's business model isn't solidly established to relate it to the traditional pricing model. So, PRS will have to change rather than youtube.
i completely support you making a stand against this,the PRS are nothing more than a greedy bunch of bastards who are taking advantage of antiquanted,out of date copyright laws in the uk to line there own pockets.thanks to broadband and instant international communications regional copyrights and censorship no longer exists.the PRS are only hurting the music industry in this country.i like a lot of people see a music video on this site and then buy the song.......well done geniuses
I'm in complete agreement with youtube's decision on this matter, and the comments of waynedaniel and Majere613 to name 2. PRS and PPL are money grabbing b******'s. Fair enough, the artists deserve a good rate for their music, but why the sudden change. Are PRS suffering in the economic climate and see youtube as someone they can try and cash in on. I work at a radio station and our PRS & PPL bills alone are a vast amount of our yearly budget. All of those saying they're going to "boycott youtube" and saying youtube is to blame are looking at this from the wrong perspective. To be honest, out of the millions of users that youtube has, that one youtube boycott isn't going to do anything apart from deprive yourself from quality content that's hard to find on other D-list webshites! YouTUBE is awesome, and I for one are 100% on side! I think the people who are blaming youtube for this don't know the full PRS & PPL story. If you have a radio on in your shop and x amount of people can hear it, you need to pay PRS & PPL on that. So, the radio station pays the PRS & PPL and then you have to aswell! PRS & PPL need to take a good long look at themselves and realise the only people that they're hurting are themselves! YouTUBE will thrive whether music is removed or not, and if it does come to that, it'll be PRS that suffers. PRS.... Get a grip!
Imagine this happened to the US... how many of you would be so quick jump to YT's defence.
I completely understand why YT is at odds with PRS, however, this is surely a step too far!? We in the UK understand that YT is a FREE service and that THEY PAY for our viewing/ listening pleasure. Nevertheless, we have come to love and rely on YT to have access to a wide variety of music, as have the entire world. You may say that YT arent punishing the UK... but what they are doing is alienating their UK audience.
I can guarantee that most of Britain will be "shocked... appaulled and outraged". I for one am disgusted... all my playlists...gone... subscriptions... worthless.
PRS are bastards... dont get me wrong... but a black out to the UK seems to be extremely harsh... we are innocent viewers...
Good on you YT. The PRS are greedy twats. I have heard of loads of cafes, shops and workplaces that have to survive in silence due to massive and obscene licence fees.
I have had with buying music 3 or 4 times over because its on a different fomat.
Guys, the main reason I use YouTube is to watch music video. I'm gutted that just because I live in the UK I can't do so. I hope you get it sorted soon.
The PRS are supposed to look after the musicians, the bands , the music makers !! With this kind of Draconian legislation they will just kill it completely. I live in the UK and my music on tv is Jools Holland ... good ...... and X-Factor .... bad beyond belief !! Hard for new bands to break to the public ...TV is shit ... major stars do a 5 night UK tour ... all dates in London !!! What I used to do was search for music that I liked ... look at the other music on the side .... view that and if it was good .... GO AND BUY THE CD of some band that I had never previously heard of . The PRS has got to stop looking after the rights of multi millionaire bands and help promote new music. I love Metallica ... but lets face it guys ... you got enough money .... Time you helped the new guys. Cos if you don't ... there won't be any new bands.
Prs are being petty, they wont stop people who dont want to pay for music vids songs etc finding it online, they cant theres more of us than there are of them. I understand why tube has done this, but to all of you out there who are affected by this, use a proxy avoidance site, which gives full access to tube content for uk users because it changes your ip, solved.
So, prior to the existence of youtube, PRS lacked this particular revenue stream. Ergo, enter youtube, enter a new revenue stream. One which, as far as I am aware, is keen to 'pay it's dues' and promote the growth of new bands, artists and music. As is ever the case, people (in this case PRS) can't help but wish to 'own' the 'goose that lays the golden eggs' Me? I'm gutted that, for the time being at least, premium music video is going to be unavailable to us here in the U.K. but long term, I say more power to google and youtube. PRS ought to consider precisely on which side it is that their bread is buttered.
Another great reason i'm getting out of this county. We used to listen to the radio in my workplace but we now have to work in silence because the PRS decided someone from the public might hear it so the company would have to pay.
When will these dinosaurs realise that they are killing the market, I used to feel guilty for downloading albums but now I don't care, all these company's want to do is rip of the consumers. Times are changing.
So once again incompetent fools who don't have the common sense that God gave sawdust are trying to eat the beans instead of planting them and climbing the beanstalk to treasure. The record labels did the same with music downloads, not realising that a whole new market place was opening up for them, AT NO COST TO THEM!! This is akin to asking an advertising company to pay for the "privelege" of advertising a company's product. Shame on you, PRS for Music and I hope that the major artists and record companies boycott you and turn to a different company for royalties collection.
If you feel strongly about this, scroll down the page to find the link to PRS for Music's query submision web page and let them know what you think - in the politest of terms, obviously!
For those of you blaming Google, go ask why Pandora had to completely block their Internet radio service to listeners in the UK. Yes, it came down to music licensing in the UK being many times the cost of the same streaming licenses in the US.
Our copyright system is broken, and unless angry users complain to their MPs, more nonsense like this will continue. Go read the Gowers Report - and then wonder how Andy Burnham can reject it on "moral grounds".
Streaming a music video to the UK is not a hard thing to do. Even Tudou can manage it! Just tell PRS you're not paying and turn the videos back on ffs!
This is stupid, i am not saying the PRS are right. However, all the man hours spent removing videos and all the people who will now not be using Youtube. Doesnt the money lost based on this outweigh the cost of the PRS agreement?
$5.5bn profit last quarter, according to BBC news last night. Google that is, youtube's parent. This is about nothing more than money. No moral high ground to be found here.
Youtube is not the first service to try and beat copyright by targeting UK consumers. Microsoft, BT and Sony have all tried the same stunt in one form or other. but it's only our muppet Labour government that happily capitulates to American pressure, not the rest of us.
I'm sorry this is a business suicidal decision please reconsider. It is a minimal cost -most people commenting are from industry - whatever the short term problems the cost is the long term. There are people out there now -as we speak designing a website like yours -and will be offering the same product. I would not spend too much time reconsidering....we've all enjoyed Youtube it would be a shame to lose you..it's credit crunch now is not the time to have ego, pride whatever.....please reconsider QUICKLY....
We have invented a concept in entertainment and have been developing this for 2 years we are all ready to roll out the game online in the casual gaming and online gaming market but PRS are holding us back asking for a ridiculous amount of money to make this happen. We have held numerous meetings with PRS and currently have support from a major record label, but our model does not fit in with their current JOL Licence!! Therefore we need to negotiate this in order to make it happen. Our game utilises no more than 8 second streaming clips of music based on an already recognised format and we have been receiving an enormous amount of interest from a number of companies but PRS are asking for a percentage of the top line rather than accepting our offer of revenue from our receipts
well done youtube sick and tried of these clowns over here thinking everyone is a meal ticket to them. The greed in Britain is getting right out of hand everyone from the bbc to the prs seem to think they have a licence to print money. And its always someone else's fault when it go's pear shaped.
Saying that because Google makes a huge amount of profit overall, they should pay the PRS more money than they make from PRS controlled content is nonsense.
If Tesco has a shop that loses money hand over fist, should they keep it open because overall, they make a metric ton of money? I don't think so.
Who side are these people on, the times I have watched/listen to a new up and coming and then purchased the CD.. With out first seeing and hearing I would not have purchased …. PRS - Small minds with small ideas !!
Google had revenues of $5.7bn in the last quarter of 2008 - Oh big effin deal, how absolutely pathetic the prs should mention this - if google is making millions then good on them - if the prs have a problem with this then so fucking what. Change with the times or roll over and die losers. The greedy shits at the prs are unbelievable. Good on google for telling them were to go. The only people that will lose out are the uk consumers who buy this stuff, and thus the artists the prs 'protects' will also lose out. Who's looking like a bunch of sick cunts now? Their greed shows no bounds. Some of the prs stunts are laughable. And anyone intested on how to still view them, google a proxy (hidemyass has one set up especially for this) and away you go. Rip off Britain rears its ugly head once again. Rot in eternal hell in your filth ridden cesspits you prs scum.
i hope someone goes to wherever the PRS headquarters are and firebomb them, these fatcats dont deserve any fucking money. I can understand the issue over illegal downloading but music videos on youtube are of a poor quality and without considerable effort cannot be viewed outside youtube.com so in no way are detrimental to artists profits. These rich bastards get richer and the poor get poorer.
I'm with youtube, the only people that this will effect are greedy PRS and major artists and record labels, how many times do you watch professional videos on youtube anyway? They were already paying a massive amount of money to PRS and now they want more.. also if an upcoming artists wants there music on youtube they shouldn't really be thinking about the money, they should think about the audience! I would happily put my music on youtube free of charge, PRS are ruining the British music scene with an act like this
What the people calling PRS greedy fail to realise is that PRS are a ‘not for profit’ organisation. So the money is not for them but the people who make the music.
Unlike You Tube which is a purely profit making affair making money for themselve. You Tube’s outdated business model is based on illegally hosting copyrighted material and then gaining vast profits from advertising. How come many other sites can afford to do this? YT is just using it’s size to bully it’s way into ripping off musicians
Judging by the 'knee jerk' reaction in comments below it's clear that the bloggers have no understanding of the role of PRS. If I can just enlighten them by saying that PRS does not just collect for 'the rich stars' but ALL composers of music. From U2 to the local band playing in your local pub. The 'small' royalties earned fromYoutube / Myspace etc give the unknown artists just the encouragement needed for them to carry on pursueing any dreams of creating and earning from their music and PRS help to collect these royalties for them. The days of 'the big artist' are slipping away to a more widely spread earning potential for all and the likes of Youtube and myspace are helping to fuel this distribution of earnings potential and PRS are helping to collect and distribute the royalties concerned to ALL users... at tyhe moment it's a lose - lose situation for everybody so the quicker negotiation is made the better for all musicians, writers, viewers , broadcasters and collection societies.... it's not difficult it's common sense ... get yer fingers out and knock yer 'eads together........
hell most of them a greedy fuckers all about money for them fat greedy bastards. but end of the day it is sites like youtube who do most of the promoting of music. it sites like this ppl like me and all the other users like to go on to find new music to old music and if we like them then we buy them i love listing to new and up and coming musicians on youtube.dont give in to them.McL
paxsaxman66 - your assumption that people who have commented have no understanding of the prs is patronising and naieve to say the least. Don't assume all people have left comments without knwoing about the whole situation. The way they have tried to stop radios being played in small businesses is draconian. They're a bunch of dinosaurs who are just shooting themselves in the foot. The UK has some of the worst cases of 'rip off culture' I can think of. And whilst I agree in principle about artists being paid, this bunch of jobsworths have gone too far. Again people, fuck the prs - you can still watch any videos you wany by proxy. As the other poster stated, this has little to do with morals and all the poor little recording artists - its about ££. And the fact that teh guy chose to highlight googles revenue as some kind of means to justify this is pathetic,childish and outdated.
mafustokes it's clear you have no idea either of the role of the PRS, as what we do in fact is to collect and distribute royalties to songwriters, and not to artists and record companies. PRS for Music, as has previously been stated, is an entirely non-profit organisation, and the people there work incredibly hard to collect as much money as possible for songwriters, no matter how big or small or successful or unsuccessful they are, and I think people should not comment until they actually understand what they are talking about, as many of these people clearly don't.
Brummiefied - and it's clear that I think your opinion is a load of shit to be honest. Look, I am aware of what the prs does - did you even think that a quick look on the site/net will tell you enough - so please, stop repeating uninformed rubbish. They (or should I say 'you' as it appears you work for them) may do exactly as you described - and rightfully so too. But that don't change the fact that thay have been draconian and over the top in my opinion. You and this paxsax guy are only to quick to point out 'not for profit' blah,bla,blah - but that doesn't mean they're aren't perceived to be greedy in the actions they take. They may not be for profit, but there pusuit of ££ for artists has gone too far. You have your opinion, I have mine - but to keep regurgatating all the 'you dont understand/non profit' crap is getting boring fast. But seeing as you mention 'what WE do' - I can't say I'm suprised.
Mafustokes what I'm trying to get across to you is that I think the days of the Big Rich recording stars are coming to a close and windows are now being opened for a more widley earned and distributed income for more artists but for the artists to recieve anything for their endeavours collection societies (non profit as brumfield points out) are essential to look after protect and distribute to small artists ... compendre'? In reality all musicians want to earn while they play and they need such 'bodies' in place so they can do so....
they don't pursue money for artists, as you'd know if you actually paid a bit of attention. their only concern is songwriters, many of whom make their living out of solely writing, and never performing music.
paxsax - the first sentence in your last post, I couldn't agree more with. And don't get me wrong, I agree with the principle behind their plans, I just think that some of the methods they have used have been executed poorly and can't see how it's helping anyone.
YouTube don't give in. At the end of the day, I use YouTube to listen to songs and if I like them I will buy them. Without YouTube I would not buy anything - seriously. You provide enough options such as buy on "iTunes" which I use (so do millions of other people). Seriously, don't give in!
mafustokes - How would you go about making sure songwriters get paid correctly for other people profiting from their work? And how would you deal with a multi billion pound company trying to dramatically devalue and under pay for the usage of those works in order to increase their profits?
Oh, and pax and brummie - why did the prs thing have to mention googles revenues ? What the fuck has that got to do with them or this issue - unless they want a bigger piece of the pie that is. Like pax said, times are changing and they should be looking towards intergrating more, I mean christ - people actually BUY music on the back of Youtube stuff. Oh and brummie - you last comment about artists/songwriters - yeah excellent, lets start nit-picking over silly things now. And mattdahl - just stop it now - here we have another having a go at google with regards to their revenue - they're a big successful company - get over it. And as for asking about how I would deal with it - FOOK KNOWS - it's not my job - idiot.
I agree PRS far from perfect but nevertheless are needed, to set up what they have in place over the years would be a gigantic task and probably not possible.... far better to make them better than knock them down ... I'm interested in giving more control to the artist (which is not difficult) but the bottom line is they need help in monitoring and getting paid by the broadcasters, these are the real moneymakers, and they have no qualms in how they get their music, they are paying less and less, not necessarilly Youtube but the big Film and TV companies aere certainly insisting on owning copyrights for usage... someone's gotta put up a stand for the musicians/writers.... PRS is a starting point....
pax - agree with last post. Be careful about the distinction between artist/composer/songwriter - that brummie guy will soon put you straight.!! But still, I think taking a moral viewpoint on this can only go so far - as previous posters stated, this is all about the ££ and their comments about googles revenue says a lot to me.
Guys/Girls, i think the main point that everybody is missing here is the way that PRS are conducting themselves. PRS is there to collect royalties, and that's fair enough. Artists/Writers/Composers etc etc deserve their slice of the cake. However it's the WAY that PRS are conducting themselves that really winds me up. YouTUBE had a licence with PRS before and that was working happily, now PRS by the looks of things are moving the goalposts wanting more money and MOST IMPORTANTLY not allowing youtube to know which artists are listed within the PRS coverage. Imagine if you will being billed an extortionate amount, then they refuse to tell you who you called! Hell, if this is the case, I can start writing bills to everybody in the world and not tell them what im charging them for. I think I may just do this, and I'll send an invoice to the PRS. What for you ask? Well I'm not telling! -- Also, just to add here PRS may well be a non-profit organisation.. That doesnt mean they're not making their cuts too. You CAN run a non profit organisation and still increase your own wages, and line your pockets with a nice wedge of cash.. As i said before PRS see youtube as someone they can cash in on! All PRS are doing here is harming the artists, and themselves.. Just my 0.02!
could be a case of cutting off nose to spite face but also worth remembering the whole of the industry is moving goalposts at the moment, trying to find new income streams after the demise of the (greedy) record companies (hoorah!) so as long as the artists get a chance to hold control over their works and benefit themselves then that's a plus, but all in all artists will need a body such as PRS to collect and monitor the broadcasters ..... got the feeling going round in circles ... bottom line is a compromise will be found coz they're all losing money .... welcome to Greed Britain !
Thank God for Youtube eh, who even knew they were endlessly endeavouring to find the next Arctic Monkeys, working tirelessly to uncover the next best thing?! A modern day internet Samaritan if you will, nothing in it for themselves. Come on guys n gals! Youtube is a global corporate enterprise, just like the media ironically, promoting NOTHING but it's own greed with advertising revenue. Why should they have to pay to exploit music that's directly lining it's own pockets? Beats me. If they are hosting more music being viewed by more people than last year then they should pay more ROYALTIES (1 + 1 = 2) so it gets back to the publishers/composers. Finally, all you mis-informed dissenters clearly have no clue what you are getting so vexed about, so why not save up some of that energy for getting up and scratching your asses after giving your QWERTY keyboards a good old thumping. Viva la capitolism et les douchebags. Cry me a river Youtube, oh no ya can't cause you can't afford a licence. *yawn*
I am a legitimate record company owner and I have 460 videos on YouTube, all of which I legally own.
Where does this leave me ?? I write most of my own material, but am also a member of PRS, but I will fight tooth and nail for the right to be able to put my own videos up on YouTube. I have had nearly five million hits. If I don't get to put up my new material on YouTube, how else will I get it heard by people who want to buy my CDs.
I will fight tooth and claw with anyone who tries to stop me putting up MY property, and MY compositions on YouTube.
I am very friendly with Ellis Rich, the chairman of PRS, who I have known for thirty four years now. believe me, I shall be making my anger felt most vehemently, especially in anyone else tries to interfere with my videos that I own.
What it really comes down to is whether you believe that composers should be paid royalties if their stuff gets played on youtube. There is of course an argument that youtube is promotional, but you musn't forget that Youtube do make money from the advertising they place around videos, so if I'm Paul McCartney and youtube make £1m from advertising around my videos, I reckon I'd be annoyed if I got no share in it.
My friend who works at PRS also told me that you need something like 8million hits to even generate £500 in royalties. I don't understand how that makes the cost prohibitive for Youtube; as I understand it, royalties are based on a percentage of revenue for that video, according to a copyright tribunal decision.
I hope they come to an agreement soon so we can all get back to watching music on Youtube!
What does this mean for bands/solo artists that write and compose their own music, these people want their songs to be seen on youtube. It's a huge promotion for their work and shouldn't the PRS be working for them too? Also are songs that aren't connected to the PRS getting blocked too?
"What it really comes down to is whether you believe that composers should be paid royalties if their stuff gets played on youtube."
Not to me it doesn't. That the PRS may ask for a royalty fee for the playing of it's members' work is reasonable, as is YouTube's deciding the fee is acceptable of otherwise.
The question to me really comes down to whether I believe the PRS are being greedy or whether I believe YouTube is being tightfisted.
On this, it has been my belief for some time that the PRS can be a greedy and bullying organisation.
I agree there. Surly the song writers should get sufficient payment from the artists in the first place. There's no reason that they can't just charge more. In my mind once a songwriter has sold the lyrics that should be it. What's next, charging the artists each time they sing?
People express their own feelings which includes music, it's a major part of how people feel, how can we express ourselves fully when certain labels block us from giving them free advertising when a song is played that people like?
However, i have to note that last night, BBC news stated that some of the artists were receiving as little as £10,000 a year 'bread and butter money' which is quite low, but i dont know how this can be overcome? Make better music that gets more views? or will it just have to be that the copyright and fees are so much greater?
matiia said: "However, i have to note that last night, BBC news stated that some of the artists were receiving as little as £10,000 a year 'bread and butter money' which is quite low, but i dont know how this can be overcome?"
How about the record industry fat cats stop taking the majority of the proceeds?
Ahh i see, i was just reading over the comments below, where brummie is constantly reminding everyone that the organisation is "entirely non-profit" seems a bit window dressed. a few profits on the side... backhand payment
YouTube crush them!
Or takeover - vertical integation and all of that shizzle :)
I don't really care who is to blame but why should we be denied the right to watch music videos that the rest of the world can see simply because we're British? It's not fair; once again the people of Britain are being treated appalling.
Very much so, if it's deemed that it's "not fair" for people to watch music on the internet which very often results in people buying it then why is it only the UK that gets affected?
"What's next, charging the artists each time they sing?"
That happens now although the venue probably pays. As far as I understand it in some cases a sort of blanket fee is agreed and in others PRS returns detailing what have been performed are completed.
That's a shame. The majority of videos I watch are music related, and I even managed to discover some new tracks recently. But it sucks that the UK users miss out. What happens when users from other countries watch music videos, do their representative PRS-type people pay royalties or what?
I would just like to say that I find this whole situation disgraceful! I am a regular YouTube user and particularly use the site to listen to and watch music videos. The whole affair seems ridiculous and unfair. On the other hand I have to say you've made the right decision and covered your back. Hopefully everyone will understand the awkward situation and be supportive
What I really don't understand is how the PRS has suddenly become so powerful? It's not an elected body, isn't accountable to the British people, was only something I had a vague awareness of yet now it is saying what I can, and in this case, can't watch... How did this happen? I feel like I'm living in a dictatorship that I didn't know existed until today.
volunteer at a centre for adults with mental disabilities, its a charity. In the last few months PRS have demanded that if we have the radio on we must pay for a licence. This is despite PRS being paid by the radio station already. We also need this licence if we play a cd. This is despite the cd being brought & paid for (this will include a payment to the artist/songwriter). PRS are money grabbing, bullying scum & I'm glad that YouTube are calling their bluff. Their demands have got way out of control & somebody needs to stand up to them. Nice one YouTube.
I don't think "PRS has suddenly become so powerful", Squitherwitch. I think they have just become more aggressive and unreasonable in excersising their power..
I don't believe this power extends to saying what you can or can not watch but they do have the rights to charge and collect fees on behalf of their members.
In response to all the previous comments, especially the pro-youtube ones: Youtube removed the music because YOUTUBE had a minor disagreement, i.e. the same as with WMG, because it is "being asked to pay too much". Sure, the songwriters and artists aren't getting the full amount, but that's due to the RECORD LABELS. The PRS may be helping artists, but they didn't remove the videos. Yes, the PRS has become more aggressive, but youtube's thrown a hissy fit, a la WMG situation... I vote for a third party mediator, to allow the TRUTH to come out about any further situations... this would remove the problems with multiple stories...
To Squiggle60: In this case the power does extend to what I can/can't watch because due to this disagreement between them and youtube I can no longer watch music videos on here. And it's OK saying we can watch them on other suppliers, but how long before the PRS gets involved with them too?
I understand they collect royalites, etc. but since when have their members got more rights than the rest of the British population? According to their website, they represent 60 000 members- that isn't the whole country so why is the whole country now being excluded from youtube? I know it's over royalties but it seems to have gone too far- a minority group is controlling the majority and when that group isn't elected, accountable, etc. it seems totally out of order.
Alot of my friends got closed down lately on here over the moving shadow label,thats not made anything for years.Makes me sick cant even do a mix now without some git crying about it.There was a good community of people on here just for the music who are all going elsewhere i suspect.I think the problem started when people began ripping the audio & making audio cd's with it.Personally i started up using this site to find rare tunes i had not heard for years to buy on vinyl,now it seems they will all be forgotten because of the greed of a load of suits.
To Mashup: But the greed will be the end of them- whoever the fault lies with. Under these circumstances, youtube UK won't make any revenue without music videos and their international branches might be affected too as people boycott them in sympathy for their British friends and family. And the UK music industry will suffer because musicians will have lost a major means of advertising their new music and if people who object to their greed effectively destroying this site and start to download music in retaliation, they will lose royalties too. And maybe that's what they deserve if their governing body chooses to hold the country to ransom like this.
Squgglewitch. I don't think they have more rights than the rest of the population, ie. I beileve you could write your own song and tune, copyright it, etc. without being a PRS member. They just happen to represent a substantial number of writers (which, yes, does give more clout than you would have alone).
Their is nothing Wrong with PRS collecting money for the writers of songs when it is done fairly. How ever this has not been the case for some time. Over the next few months people in the UK will start to notice that more and more small business's and shops will stop playing music because they can not afford what the PRS is asking for. I work in a charity shop and not only can we now not play any music in the shop but volunteers can not even listen to a radio in the sorting room in case a member of the public accidentally hears it. The PRS are out of control and their actions can only be damaging to artists. If we don't hear it in the first place how can we ever go out and buy it. Inform yourself's of their action on small shops, charitys, and of course YouTube and email them. Contact your MPs. Get these insane bastards sorted out.
PS They even take over £500 a year from volunteer run hospital radio stations
I'm disgusted by this... I have gone out and bought more cd's off the back of videos on YouTube than ever before. Through catching up with old musical interests and through other 'youtubers' asking what music is in clips and then searching for them, I have bought cd's that I never would have bought otherwise! Sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate... surely having old videos on here can benefit artists in a way by encouragin people like me to take an interest in music and artists they may have never looked at!
I'm appalled at this. I don't even know what to say. :/ I can't watch some of my favourite music vids by my favourite artists. It's not fair. Why should only the UK get affected? Seriously, yeah I know I can watch the certain video somewhere else on youtube, but I prefer to get the ratings up for my favourite band on their own profile. This is ridiculous.
No the PRS isn't vgdcx. The PRS is a UK organisation. I would imagine YouTube negotiates with other organisations in different countries. A quick at Wikipedia suggests there may 3 "similar" ones in the US - ASCAP, BMI and SESAC
All you morons saying Google make millions and millions of dollars, that may be so, but YouTube is NOT a profitable business at present and is struggling to make money. It is all very well having your parent company bailing you out, but if you don't make money, you can't last long.
The PRS's power is restricted to the copyrights of the music owned by the artists who are members... it's THEM they're representing, and if YouTube are making ANY money from having ads on the same page as a music video then the writer of the music in the video surely deserves a percentage.
That's all the PRS do... make sure the artist is treated fairly and not alienated. By doing this, YouTube, to me you are trying to make PRS look like the villian... pity too many gullible people won't do enough research to decide for themselves.
"By doing this, YouTube, to me you are trying to make PRS look like the villian" You mean for example someone reporting their charity is charged to play music is the work of Youtube?
Hope all you guys are also visiting prsformusic.com to leave your comments for the PRS.Hit 'Contact Us' & there is an online form. Personally think BOTH of these orgs are @ fault,both think that they have carte blanche to treat us as barganing chips..disgraceful tactics from both..
The problem stems from the fact that not enough people are supporting youtube for what they do.. Fair enough that PRS should work on behalf of their artists who need to be rewarded for what they do, however these artists should also understand that youtube is advertising their product to a huge audience for free. (how much is that worth?) If it was making enough money from doing so then I am sure they would not be taking such drastic action.
squiggle60, I won't lie that I do raise my eyebrows at things like that and there was a time when I was saying "F*** the RiAA, etc" with the best of them but we're not talking about that here... we're talking about this specific case - YouTube making profits from the plays of music streaming from the site. For the songwriters not to at least get a percentage, it totally alienates them from the process and frankly it disrespects them. Like YouTube deserves the money for the play for having stored it on the server, but the musician who actually CREATED the song doesn't?
Excuse me squiggle60. I have no great love for Google or YouTube. When I said that PRS have been heavily targeting charity's I was merely stating a fact. If you key in "PRS" and "charity" you can take your pick of news reports about it. It has even been discussed in Parliament about PRS heavy handedness. I am talking from first hand personal experience. I am not saying songwriters and composers should not have someone collecting money, just that PRS are going way over the top. I have been reading up on PRS for months now and as I said already it is quite right that royalties are payed. its a question of how much and from who that is up for debate
"youtube is advertising their product to a huge audience for free. (how much is that worth?)"
Most bands lose money going on tours. Royalties are the MAIN income for the majority of musicians and like they reported on the BBC, most earn on average about £10,000 a year. Not exactly the greed you guys are talking about.
Yes, squiggle60. I can see that now that I have read ALL the comments. They are in a bit of a mess the PRS. I got three different prices from 3 different people when I asked for fees.
nutnoodle. I never said artists should not be paid a fair share of any profits on their work .. but i think youtube made it clear when they said "PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our licence than before. The costs are simply prohibitive for us - under PRS's proposed terms we would "lose" significant amounts of money with every playback
i think PRS is being childish over this issue, the artists are losing out on the public that would love to support the artist by viewing their music via their music groups ie Universal music and Warner music groups etc on youtube.. i for one think that Youtube does a great job in looking out for the people
"Royalties are the MAIN income for the majority of musicians". I find that difficult to believe. For writers, quite possibly but for musicians with pub players, orchestral players, etc. around, I'd be surprised.
btw, does any one know how prs fees not involving prs returns are distributed?
Has everyone gone NUTS! PRS have done nothing wrong the reason that they have increased the amount is because youtube now actively advertise in their videos! YouTube is MAKING money on the videos. If PRS' fees are truly extortionate then why have they kept this out of the courts? The answer is that GOOGLE the owners of YouTube are a multi-million dollar company that don't actually stand to loose that much form this, all they would loose is money that they shouldn't have! the money should be going to the artists not a greedy multi-national company... I personally think that both companies should stop squabbling over what in terms of overall profit is peanuts and just allow artists to share their music with the world!
The PRS are an absolute nightmare. I've had many dealings with them and can fully understand the Youtube stance towards them. This is an organisation who will happily charge a small company with a few employees £1000+ to have a simple radio on in the office or a small charitable group to play music in an open environment in case the Public hear it. these are Organisations that struggle to make money and really can't afford the stupid fee's the PRS demand.
They are going to end up harming those they say they are trying to protect in the long run when people can't listen to the songs they want on here. It will drive more people to start using torrent sites or other such platforms. I deal with a number of artists who are very unhappy with PRS and are demanding answers.
PRS for Music is outraged on behalf of consumers and songwriters that Google has chosen to close down access to music videos on YouTube in the UK.
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.
This action has been taken without any consultation with PRS for Music and in the middle of negotiations between the two parties. PRS for Music has not requested Google to do this and urges them to reconsider their decision as a matter of urgency.
Steve Porter CEO PRS for Music said "We were shocked and disappointed to receive a call late this afternoon informing us of Google's drastic action which we believe only punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent."
Google had revenues of $5.7bn in the last quarter of 2008.
Now that everyone is better informed, you can make a better decision
Stick to your guns YouTube. The PRS have done nothing but create _problems_ where ever they go...
This is a bigger problem than most know. For example the song "Happy Birthday" is, from memory, copyrighted so you are _supposed to pay a fee to use it!!
PRS attacking charities.
Join the revolution and change ready for the new world. This is the digital era.
Two words. Hotspot Shield. Install this, hide your I.P., go back to watching Leona Lewis videos all day! Works on Hulu and MTV Multiplayer too. Take back the power, UK!
What a bunch of clueless and greedy idiots the PRS are. It's about time they died a death. First they kill off the awesome Pandora here and now this - talk about biting the hand that feeds them. It should now be obvious to all their artists that what they really stand for is Public Relations Suicide.
The sad part of this 'You Tube' fiasco is it us-the consumers and them-the artists who are suffering the most. Google should have negotiated with PRS before banning the videos in the UK territory. As a consumer and not knowing the inside story on the kind of deals PRS have with Google, we really can't comment. But in context to the You Tube Blog, its agreeable PRS should be more transparent in their dealings with royalties and artists. This only shows the deplorable use of power and monopoly over the consumers. Google/You Tube should also realise this will encourage traffic to other web tv sites and piracy as the online market at the end is controlled by the consumer not an organization.
U2 stopped using PRS ages ago because they are so useless.
PRS have made a rod for their own back, there might be a bit more sympathy for them if they didn't blatantly BULLY charities, hospitals & members of the public that play music with the window open!!!!!!!!!!!
This might be off-topic, but I want a blog from Youtube which clearly explains the no more FAKE views. Check this: http://www.youtubehacks.info or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFgEJ_LkhyY
Follow
What a joke, the only people who lose out is the UK consumers. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of crap - users will merely find the videos on other sites, and YouTube will lose out.
ReplyDeletePRS claims that you decided to block UK users access to videos in the middle of negotiations, and that they didn't require you to do so anyway.
ReplyDeleteNice one guys. Real classy.
Well, now there's no point in me having an account or ever using this site again, unless it's sorted.
ReplyDeleteThis sucks! thanks for thinking of the consumers rather than lining your pockets.
ReplyDeleteSay goodbye to the majority of your UK users.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we be penalised for being British?
ReplyDeleteWe pay the most for DVDs and CDs and now we can no longer watch music videos on Youtube.
Surely this is regionalism at it's worst?
I see a rise in torrent use!
YouTube.
ReplyDeleteThis is a disgraceful decision.
The PRS have even said they dont want this to happen, so why have you gone ahead & done it?
You are simply punishing millions of people in the UK.
Reverse this ludicrous decision immediately please!
It will be back soon.. it's just a publicity stunt so that YouTube can get a fair royalty deal.
ReplyDeleteYouTube have shot themselves in the foot anyway even oif they do bring it all back.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they can treat the people of UK like this is scandalous & is something the people of the UK will never forget.
Great "publicity stunt" (not)
I'm with G on this one. They have to put their foot down at some point - the PRS are known leeches.
ReplyDeleteIt just goes to show you can't be too careful
ReplyDeleteI feel for your users you must take action and support them not punish them....by throwing all your toys out of your pram because you cant get your own way....
ReplyDeleteUntil then... I will be logging out I wont be returning....
And I'm sure many other UK users feel the same as me....
I think that might mean the end for Rickroll in the UK.
ReplyDeleteall these companies think of one thing -->£££££
ReplyDeletewhy cant they think about the consumers for once? im not mad at google/youtube more PRS. its like virgin and sky all over agian. sky wanted masses amounts of money to broadcast sky1 etc on virgin and virgin laughed in their face and said come back with a real offer. the sames happening here the people who lose out are the viewers and now musicians also. its quite dissapointing.
my option is if a music video i want to watch is blocked because of this i guess ill go to myspace videos or aol videos. they'll always be shown somewhere else.
Is this in the UK and Ireland or just the UK? MUZU.TV has the majority of the content from the labels anyway. It could be just a publicity thing but we will see
ReplyDeleteThis is utter c**p ! all the new music i have come across made it worth while but now its just all pi**ed kids with mobile phones dicking about i be off !
ReplyDeletehmm note how the management are offering a unaffected pay as you use service though!.
LMAO! Just use an American Proxy or something
ReplyDeleteI, for one, completely support you making a stand against this. The music industry is a joke and it needs a big player to stand up against them or they'll never change.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that, for the moment, it's the consumer who misses out, however we're pretty resourceful so we'll be OK.
This is a real shame,
ReplyDeleteI can't say it comes as much of a suprize but it is such a shame. As someone else said it still wont be impossible to get onto the videos by using a proxy, I for one wont be doing this though, I will simply pay for music.
Ed x
This is a pretty extreme and disappointing form of negotiation from youtube. There are so many sites and blogs with youtube music videos embedded in them, what are they going to do.. have they been warned in advance?
ReplyDeleteHow come other sites can show music videos in the uk like muzu or last fm - why does their business model work and youtubes doesn't? Down the tubes more like ;-)
Owners Of Youtube, You Don't Give A Damn, Youtube. You know the Reason We ALL Go on To Your Site, Don't You? To watch Music Videos! Why are You doing This to Your Brit Public?! It's Killing me To say This But, You will Lose Millions of Viewers, Now Why Would You Want to Do That?!
ReplyDeleteEVERYONE LOVES MUSIC VIDEOS. The point I'm Trying to Put through is, JUST PAY THE FRICKIN' ROYALTIES ALREADY! Sorry About That. The Royalties may Cost Quite a bit, I Know there is a Credit Crunch at the Moment, But we've all Made it through fine so far, What About You? You are all Acting like Spoilt children. This Has gone too far, Owners of Youtube. WE NEED YOU, YOUTUBE. DON'T EVER FORGET THAT. Natalie. P.S. - We won't ever forget, You Don't Give A Damn. (I'm Right, aren't I? You Just Want the Money!)
Once again it's the UK that lose out. Oh well, your loss.
ReplyDelete...am I the only person whose majority of videos watched ISN'T music videos? This is a shame, but it won't really impact my activities on YouTube...
ReplyDeleteGiven the exorbitant relative cost of CD's and DVD's in the UK it never surprises me when artists, music labels, and their representatives try to squeeze more £ out consumers.
ReplyDeleteAlthough consumers in general are suckered into paying these high prices, I'm glad YouTube has the market share and popularity to actually turn around and tell these people NO.
I wonder how much Rick Astley has made in royalties.
ReplyDeleteI support You Tube in the dispute with PRS - PRS have got a bit drunk with power in their recent enforcement activities and need to be brought up with a jolt!!!
ReplyDeletetypical censorship of youtube- so next time just lie on the form and say you're not from the UK!!
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. Just tell the racketeers at the PRS to take a hike. Please don't cripple the site for one of your biggest markets.
ReplyDeleteAs a Youtube user, I strongly support this decision. I have no doubt that after their revenue stream dries up and they realise that they'll be getting nothing, while users just go to other sites instead, they'll change their tune pretty quickly.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, from the BBC news article it seems they're already realising this. Steve Porter, head of the PRS, said he was "outraged... shocked and disappointed" by YouTube's decision"
Go Google!
The UK always gets shafted. No Pandora, now this :/
ReplyDeletePRS has crippled Pandora, Internet Radio and podcasts, I'm glad someone has finally taken a stand.
ReplyDeleteI personally will not be using youtube again after this- if it is just temporary I will not forget that it was the UK they took it out on. I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.
ReplyDeleteSome of you are absolute idiots posting here tbh. This isn't YouTube penalising Brits. This is PRS being greedy and as said above wanting "many" times more in royalties than they were previously given and thus Youtube would be losing a lot of money in order to keep these videos up. The fact the PRS hasn't even given YouTube a list of their videos means ALL music videos have to be blocked because they can't be sure which ones are PRS and which ones aren't. Hopefully what this will do is cause PRS to lower the amount of money they're trying to collect and YouTube will be able to show videos again to UK users.
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone can see that the PRS is the problem here and we must remember that YouTube is FREE for us to use and that Youtube has to PAY for a licence so that you can sit at your machine and watch music videos in a legal manner. I imagine that reason that the head of the PRS was "outraged... shocked and disappointed" is because tomorrow he will have to explain to labels and artists exactly how his organisation managed to kill their revenue stream!
ReplyDeleteHooray! A good day for censorship!
ReplyDeleteI think it's a good step. So we won';t have music videos for a couple of days? It's good to see someone this big standing up to all the record companies. Youtube gives them free advertising, and they still want money for it - it's sick.
ReplyDeleteTwats.
ReplyDeleteone step closer to youtubes death :)
ReplyDeletefucks sake, what a pointless idea.
ReplyDeleteGiven that PRS are now chasing people who have a Radio on in public - (Radio already has a public license for broadcast) our office got the warning letter from them wanting £££ - and as for web radio - £500 min!
ReplyDeleteI should probably add that it wouldn't surprise me if the PRS was very lax with passing on their earnings, can anyone give details from a musicians perspective
ReplyDeleteOn youtubes side in this case i think, PRS claim to exist to support artists but everything they do that appears in the news suggests they are doing the opposite. Forcing people to stop playing radios in public, needing to give them money to have any form of concert no matter how big, they are a very outdated (and somewhat money obsessed) organisation
ReplyDeleteHaving been shafted before by the PRS this is a typical ploy that is intended to get the most money possible for the fat cats that sit on their backsides that do very little, in the hope that the users of Youtube will blame Youtube. Based on some comments here that what some idiots are saying. The problem is that the copyright Law in the UK is so outdated and so complex, that any infringement will cost you a packet in a uk court room. Youtube had little choice in the matter as their license had expired.
ReplyDeleteOf course we the customer could start paying for the service... I don't think so. Of course their are other ways to get/hear such content and then you are breaking the Law, hope you have deep pockets.
I completely support YouTube and Google on this issue. There is no reason why they should lose money for us watching a video on their site... I mean PRS, if they have actually demanded costs of multiples TIMES what they used to be payed, are obviously getting greedy and over valuing their product.
ReplyDeleteWhat will be interesting to see is how this affects the UK public, both a) in their usage - there is no way youtube will be able to stop some music videos being uploaded (note it is only the 4 or so record companies that are included in this deal)
b) The public reaction. It's already clear there are some negative reactions to youtube's decision. But why should youtube lose money just so that British users can watch videos? If we can't see the videos on youtube, we go elsewhere, the PRS will lower their price out of necessity(hey its better getting some deal, rather than no deal) then youtube will allow music videos again... Basically, short term this will affect people wanting to watch the most popular music videos, but long term it will mean more reasonable demands from record labels and societies such as this regarding payment...and ultimately a better deal for consumers...
Bravo Youtube! Take a stand against the extortionate practices of the PRS! Would everyone complaining run a business if they were losing money rather than making it? I don't think so, so why should youtube?
ReplyDeleteTo the PRS, let me listen to Pandora again!
Finally music banned on YouTube, now we can get back to how it used to be, not some massive advertisement
ReplyDeleteAlthough i am very very sad about the extreme steps of taking down many works of music, I DO FULLY SUPPORT YOUTUBE in it's fight against PRS & the licensing terrorists. Please Please Please do not give in to PRS.... they are leeches thier licensing racket has grown out of all proportion of common sence. GOOD FOR YOUTUBE...
ReplyDeletePRS - press@prsformusic.com - I have already sent my angry email to PRS. show your support for YouTube...
ReplyDeleteI applaud youtube for exposing the Performing Right Society's attempt at hanging them over a barrel, let the power struggle for public opinion commence... i would urge people to look beyond the surface on this one, the PRS are the definition of corporate greed all they care about is lining thier own pockets. Its pretty clear the PRS were trying to charge extortionate prices and clearly weren't expecting this move from youtube, so kudos for taking a stand, even if its the british public that take the hit.
ReplyDeleteI'm completely behind YouTube. PRS are greedy, have been bullying small businesses for some time and stunting the growth of online music in the UK. The rules need changing - hopefully this is the start of getting it sorted.
ReplyDeleteFor a long time the PRS has pilfered fees from 'minor' artists to fill the pockets of their larger ones, as it chooses not to adopt a system that fairly registers airplay and live performance for both. All this move from YouTube will acheive is to tip the economic balance further in favour of 'three of the four largest record labels in the world'.
ReplyDeleteYou will lose fans from not sorting this legal issues with record labels etc also you tube is being used to attack certain minorities and vunrunable people some people comments on cetain videos are way not right to put cetain foul language hence often like many people do flag videos to stop such hate and upset and then find you tube do nothing about it. I think the way for you tube is on the downward sprial if they dont change their ideas for you tube its a dam shame about the music if they don't come to aggreement on their licsence they will be nothing without music really or for upsetting different parts of our beliefs and our britishness and our amazing ability in producing great music of our past and future too we need to inspire new blood into the music community and you tube has been great inspareation to do that if that does then music will just run dry again and bands from aboard will take over and rule the music seane again
ReplyDeletehaving been shafted by the performing rights society myself i totally support youtube. my boyfriend and i ran a small business and we told the prs we would rather turn the radio off and work in silence than pay, one week later they phoned back and the price had gone down 50 quid still we refused another week went by another phone call with further reduction of 50 quid we took them up that time. just goes to show though they would rather have some money off you than none at all and in my opinion they were trying to shaft us out of an extra 100 quid. NEVER BUY A LICENCE ON THE 1ST CONTACT THEY WILL BE BACK WITH A REDUCTION.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me YouTube want to give music away for as little as possible so they can make money with little royalties and do as little work as possible to do so. YT is bleating but come on. There is still a truck load of copyright material available for download (not moderated until complained about), and YT seem to do little about some of the grossly offensive videos, and the language in the comments are not even tailored. It's not hard to do.
ReplyDeleteSo before YT bleats about hard work, why not actually do some. For instance, looking down the page here I can see the F-Word.
Stars out of ten for effort = fail
If you're interested in reading what PRS say, here's their statement on the matter
ReplyDeletehttp://bit.ly/prs-youtube .
i would imagine that Google/Youtube's earnings are more per year than the PRS. So it's the Goliath Google/Youtube masquerading as the underdog - when really Google/Youtube are the bully with more $$$$$'s than the PRS would ever have - using their privileged position to bully the musicians to let them use their music for next to nothing - whilst making Google/Youtube even more powerful
ReplyDeleteThis is terrible news! you have outright removed my single reason for visiting this site. In the past, I have bought so much music using youtube's links, and also generated you revenue by clicking on your sponsers. Clearly, all that is a thing of the past!!!
ReplyDeleteThe prs are a greedy organisation which contains members who will justify prs fees for the playing of others (not prs members arrangements) of traditional /public domain material.
ReplyDeletePRS are a crap organisation, claiming rights they do have and screwing money out of people who do not need to pay.
ReplyDeleteMany people think they are a statutory body, they are not, they are a private organisation created to make profit for thier members.
Stand up to them You Tube they need to understand of the realities.
The bullies are being confronted.
seems to me this gives you tube an easy way to make cash,preying on peoples love of music.someone as big as you tube must have the power to overide this.we all rely on you tube for the obviouse reasons,and you tube is a great outlet for discovering stuff you havent seen or heard before and usually generates sales and fresh income for artists.we will not be sucker punched. beleive that much
ReplyDeleteevery body needs to get together on this.contact your local phone in/press
seems to me this gives you tube an easy way to make cash,preying on peoples love of music.someone as big as you tube must have the power to overide this.we all rely on you tube for the obviouse reasons,and you tube is a great outlet for discovering stuff you havent seen or heard before and usually generates sales and fresh income for artists.we will not be sucker punched. beleive that much every body needs to get together on this.contact your local phone in/press
ReplyDeletePRS are just in for money. One of the online radio stations I DJ (and all the other sites) were asked to remove their radio unless they pay a licence by PPL, then we also would need a licence by PRS too! It was going to cost too much, so they shut down the radio. Unfiar, something should be done. Welcome to the UK.
ReplyDeleteWhy not tell PRS what you think - I just have.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to their contact form:
http://www.prsformusic.com/contact_us/pages/default.aspx
The PRS need to be investigated in my opinion. As many others on here have already stated, their methods and practices are appalling. I used to run a small business specilaising in car audio. They made me pay an extortionate fee because I had radios on display in my showroom. - Well, of course I did... That was what I was selling. And without people like me selling radios, would they even exist?
ReplyDeleteStick to your guns YouTube, and for pity's sake, will someone take control over the PRS!
PRS are a joke, they think there helping musicians etc but there just annoying the end consumer and retail outlets.
ReplyDeleteThey really do need to be looked at.. Its just another way for someone to make a quick buck..
I hope YouTube's advertisers know about this - what's the point of visiting YouTube if they no longer can be bothered to have what people are looking for - no music, no visits, no advertising, no YouTube. Let us know when you have the music back and we'll think of coming back, maybe, in the mean time I'm off elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteYouTube. This is a disgraceful decision. The PRS have even said they dont want this to happen, so why have you gone ahead & done it? You are simply punishing millions of people in the UK. Reverse this ludicrous decision immediately please!
ReplyDeleteYouTube. This is a disgraceful decision. The PRS have even said they dont want this to happen, so why have you gone ahead & done it? You are simply punishing millions of people in the UK. Reverse this ludicrous decision immediately please!
ReplyDeleteI support YouTube and Google here, PRS has killed off many really good web applications by extremely restrictive licensing costs.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is ridiculous. PRS - seriously, YouTube is a huge marketing tool for music which promotes discovery. You won't have a music industry left to licence out rights to if you copyright obsessives don't start appreciating that the world has changed. It's modernise or die time. YouTube, Google, while this site is a loss leader, it is an enormous online tool that has huge influence - music is an important element of the offering, and you need to resolve this. Soon!
ReplyDeleteI strongly belive in youtube and backing them the whole way. I am a mobile DJ and have to pay near £200/year just to play music to a group of people no matter the size. I can't imagine the size of the License fee that Youtube has to pay im supporting youtube the whole way and hopefully PRS will think twice about their prices. End of day their close to lossing a big customer!
ReplyDeleteI do pretty much all my listening on YouTube. I hope this gets sorted quickly. I'm sure this will only encourage piracy and then PRS are really going to lose out.
ReplyDeleteI think the BOTH of you need to get your act together (pardon the pun) & quickly.I personally always view videos before buying/downloading albums/tracks etc & the performers will lose out on this.My only reason for visiting YouTube on the majority of occasions is to view these videos...what use are you to us if you do not allow us to use them! I think Google et al are getting too big for their boots,If you don't sort this out quickly I shall remove YouTube/Google/Google Toolbar & everything else related from my PC & use competitors facilities & I'm sure many others will too! No one is too big that they can't be brought down, ask Woolworths.What will you advertisers think of a mass exodus by UK viewers?
ReplyDeleteYou are BOTH behaving like spoilt kids in a sandpit & will lose a lot more than the respect you ALREADY have.Be good kids & play nice...& Youtube don't pretend that the reveues you make from this site aren't making you fat cats.Do we look stupid?
As a longtime user of both google and youtube I am frankly appalled. I use a google phone, google has been my default search engine since day one, but not any more. I am making the transition to cuil, youtube will no longer be my stopping point for web media and my ggole phone will be returned to the carphone warehouse the second my nine month minimum is completed.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly that the PRS is being unreasonable in it's demands, but by pushing the issue upon uk customers as a means of leverage lowers my opinion of the standard to par with that of microsoft or apple. To hell with us? To hell with you!
Well, my first and last ever communication on Youtube. A disgusting decision, I will be boycotting this site from now on, and Google as a whole. I've never like the sinister way Google have encompassed the net, I know exactly what your game is and I'm not sticking around to see how it ends...........typical bully tactics
ReplyDeleteYou people trying to blame Youtube for this need to get a grip. The PRS and PPL are a cartel that set their own tariffs in the hope that no-one will take them on. They charge hotels and guest houses for having televisions for guests on the grounds that there's music on them and harass small businesses. Search the web for more informartion on them, for example the Federation of Small Businesses site. It's about time both were wound up or investigated.
ReplyDeleteI blame both as stated in my mssg & have left a similar one on PRS For Music site.
ReplyDeleteI don't come on youtube for music, but if music is there i'll listen. But stopping music wouldn't stop me coming onto youtube. I come on youtube for the strange, weird, crazy, etc, that's excluded from traditional content. The internet's business model isn't solidly established to relate it to the traditional pricing model. So, PRS will have to change rather than youtube.
ReplyDeletei completely support you making a stand against this,the PRS are nothing more than a greedy bunch of bastards who are taking advantage of antiquanted,out of date copyright laws in the uk to line there own pockets.thanks to broadband and instant international communications regional copyrights and censorship no longer exists.the PRS are only hurting the music industry in this country.i like a lot of people see a music video on this site and then buy the song.......well done geniuses
ReplyDeleteI'm in complete agreement with youtube's decision on this matter, and the comments of waynedaniel and Majere613 to name 2. PRS and PPL are money grabbing b******'s. Fair enough, the artists deserve a good rate for their music, but why the sudden change. Are PRS suffering in the economic climate and see youtube as someone they can try and cash in on. I work at a radio station and our PRS & PPL bills alone are a vast amount of our yearly budget. All of those saying they're going to "boycott youtube" and saying youtube is to blame are looking at this from the wrong perspective. To be honest, out of the millions of users that youtube has, that one youtube boycott isn't going to do anything apart from deprive yourself from quality content that's hard to find on other D-list webshites! YouTUBE is awesome, and I for one are 100% on side! I think the people who are blaming youtube for this don't know the full PRS & PPL story. If you have a radio on in your shop and x amount of people can hear it, you need to pay PRS & PPL on that. So, the radio station pays the PRS & PPL and then you have to aswell! PRS & PPL need to take a good long look at themselves and realise the only people that they're hurting are themselves! YouTUBE will thrive whether music is removed or not, and if it does come to that, it'll be PRS that suffers. PRS.... Get a grip!
ReplyDeleteImagine this happened to the US... how many of you would be so quick jump to YT's defence.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand why YT is at odds with PRS, however, this is surely a step too far!? We in the UK understand that YT is a FREE service and that THEY PAY for our viewing/ listening pleasure. Nevertheless, we have come to love and rely on YT to have access to a wide variety of music, as have the entire world. You may say that YT arent punishing the UK... but what they are doing is alienating their UK audience.
I can guarantee that most of Britain will be "shocked... appaulled and outraged". I for one am disgusted... all my playlists...gone... subscriptions... worthless.
PRS are bastards... dont get me wrong... but a black out to the UK seems to be extremely harsh... we are innocent viewers...
This is really bad.
Youtube and PRS both suck, both are in it to make cash and don't give a crap about the people on the ground.
ReplyDeleteGood on you YT. The PRS are greedy twats. I have heard of loads of cafes, shops and workplaces that have to survive in silence due to massive and obscene licence fees.
ReplyDeleteI have had with buying music 3 or 4 times over because its on a different fomat.
Tossers
so even the proffessional channels can't show THEIR music to us? THATS FUCKED UP
ReplyDeleteGuys, the main reason I use YouTube is to watch music video. I'm gutted that just because I live in the UK I can't do so. I hope you get it sorted soon.
ReplyDeleteThe PRS are supposed to look after the musicians, the bands , the music makers !! With this kind of Draconian legislation they will just kill it completely. I live in the UK and my music on tv is Jools Holland ... good ...... and X-Factor .... bad beyond belief !! Hard for new bands to break to the public ...TV is shit ... major stars do a 5 night UK tour ... all dates in London !!! What I used to do was search for music that I liked ... look at the other music on the side .... view that and if it was good .... GO AND BUY THE CD of some band that I had never previously heard of . The PRS has got to stop looking after the rights of multi millionaire bands and help promote new music. I love Metallica ... but lets face it guys ... you got enough money .... Time you helped the new guys. Cos if you don't ... there won't be any new bands.
ReplyDeletePrs are being petty, they wont stop people who dont want to pay for music vids songs etc finding it online, they cant theres more of us than there are of them. I understand why tube has done this, but to all of you out there who are affected by this, use a proxy avoidance site, which gives full access to tube content for uk users because it changes your ip, solved.
ReplyDeleteSo, prior to the existence of youtube, PRS lacked this particular revenue stream. Ergo, enter youtube, enter a new revenue stream. One which, as far as I am aware, is keen to 'pay it's dues' and promote the growth of new bands, artists and music. As is ever the case, people (in this case PRS) can't help but wish to 'own' the 'goose that lays the golden eggs'
ReplyDeleteMe? I'm gutted that, for the time being at least, premium music video is going to be unavailable to us here in the U.K. but long term, I say more power to google and youtube. PRS ought to consider precisely on which side it is that their bread is buttered.
Another great reason i'm getting out of this county. We used to listen to the radio in my workplace but we now have to work in silence because the PRS decided someone from the public might hear it so the company would have to pay.
ReplyDeleteWhen will these dinosaurs realise that they are killing the market, I used to feel guilty for downloading albums but now I don't care, all these company's want to do is rip of the consumers. Times are changing.
So once again incompetent fools who don't have the common sense that God gave sawdust are trying to eat the beans instead of planting them and climbing the beanstalk to treasure. The record labels did the same with music downloads, not realising that a whole new market place was opening up for them, AT NO COST TO THEM!! This is akin to asking an advertising company to pay for the "privelege" of advertising a company's product. Shame on you, PRS for Music and I hope that the major artists and record companies boycott you and turn to a different company for royalties collection.
ReplyDeleteIf you feel strongly about this, scroll down the page to find the link to PRS for Music's query submision web page and let them know what you think - in the politest of terms, obviously!
PS. If you still want to watch music vids, use a proxy as previously mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThere is an answer to this, play the music of musicians who are not members of the PRS cartel.
ReplyDeleteThere is a significant buisness oportunity to compete with PRS who have pried themselves out of so many markets.
For those of you blaming Google, go ask why Pandora had to completely block their Internet radio service to listeners in the UK. Yes, it came down to music licensing in the UK being many times the cost of the same streaming licenses in the US.
ReplyDeleteOur copyright system is broken, and unless angry users complain to their MPs, more nonsense like this will continue. Go read the Gowers Report - and then wonder how Andy Burnham can reject it on "moral grounds".
Thinking about it the PRS is probably an anti-competitive agreement, and as such in breach of EU law.
ReplyDeleteWe need competition in the music licensing market in the UK and then this could not happen.
Streaming a music video to the UK is not a hard thing to do. Even Tudou can manage it! Just tell PRS you're not paying and turn the videos back on ffs!
ReplyDeleteThis is stupid, i am not saying the PRS are right. However, all the man hours spent removing videos and all the people who will now not be using Youtube. Doesnt the money lost based on this outweigh the cost of the PRS agreement?
ReplyDelete$5.5bn profit last quarter, according to BBC news last night. Google that is, youtube's parent. This is about nothing more than money. No moral high ground to be found here.
ReplyDeleteYoutube is not the first service to try and beat copyright by targeting UK consumers. Microsoft, BT and Sony have all tried the same stunt in one form or other. but it's only our muppet Labour government that happily capitulates to American pressure, not the rest of us.
I'm sorry this is a business suicidal decision please reconsider. It is a minimal cost -most people commenting are from industry - whatever the short term problems the cost is the long term. There are people out there now -as we speak designing a website like yours -and will be offering the same product. I would not spend too much time reconsidering....we've all enjoyed Youtube it would be a shame to lose you..it's credit crunch now is not the time to have ego, pride whatever.....please reconsider QUICKLY....
ReplyDeleteI have dealt with PRS and what a bunch of paper pushers. Stand your ground - only publish NON Prs artists on your site.
ReplyDeleteJust pay a decent price. Just because you have run the service on illegal uploads in the past, is no reason to expect to have content for free now.
ReplyDeleteroost, home, chickens.
We have invented a concept in entertainment and have been developing this for 2 years we are all ready to roll out the game online in the casual gaming and online gaming market but PRS are holding us back asking for a ridiculous amount of money to make this happen. We have held numerous meetings with PRS and currently have support from a major record label, but our model does not fit in with their current JOL Licence!! Therefore we need to negotiate this in order to make it happen. Our game utilises no more than 8 second streaming clips of music based on an already recognised format and we have been receiving an enormous amount of interest from a number of companies but PRS are asking for a percentage of the top line rather than accepting our offer of revenue from our receipts
ReplyDeletewell done youtube sick and tried of these clowns over here thinking everyone is a meal ticket to them. The greed in Britain is getting right out of hand everyone from the bbc to the prs seem to think they have a licence to print money. And its always someone else's fault when it go's pear shaped.
ReplyDeleteSaying that because Google makes a huge amount of profit overall, they should pay the PRS more money than they make from PRS controlled content is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIf Tesco has a shop that loses money hand over fist, should they keep it open because overall, they make a metric ton of money? I don't think so.
Who side are these people on, the times I have watched/listen to a new up and coming and then purchased the CD.. With out first seeing and hearing I would not have purchased …. PRS - Small minds with small ideas !!
ReplyDeleteGoogle had revenues of $5.7bn in the last quarter of 2008 - Oh big effin deal, how absolutely pathetic the prs should mention this - if google is making millions then good on them - if the prs have a problem with this then so fucking what. Change with the times or roll over and die losers. The greedy shits at the prs are unbelievable. Good on google for telling them were to go. The only people that will lose out are the uk consumers who buy this stuff, and thus the artists the prs 'protects' will also lose out. Who's looking like a bunch of sick cunts now? Their greed shows no bounds. Some of the prs stunts are laughable. And anyone intested on how to still view them, google a proxy (hidemyass has one set up especially for this) and away you go. Rip off Britain rears its ugly head once again. Rot in eternal hell in your filth ridden cesspits you prs scum.
ReplyDeletei hope someone goes to wherever the PRS headquarters are and firebomb them, these fatcats dont deserve any fucking money. I can understand the issue over illegal downloading but music videos on youtube are of a poor quality and without considerable effort cannot be viewed outside youtube.com so in no way are detrimental to artists profits. These rich bastards get richer and the poor get poorer.
ReplyDeleteI'm with youtube, the only people that this will effect are greedy PRS and major artists and record labels, how many times do you watch professional videos on youtube anyway? They were already paying a massive amount of money to PRS and now they want more.. also if an upcoming artists wants there music on youtube they shouldn't really be thinking about the money, they should think about the audience! I would happily put my music on youtube free of charge, PRS are ruining the British music scene with an act like this
ReplyDeleteI'm also with youtube. For official videos visit the musicians website, for everything else do a youtube search. Who cares about the PRS? Not me.
ReplyDeleteWhat music videos are gonna be blocked anyway? Just ones from official record companys?
ReplyDeleteWhat the people calling PRS greedy fail to realise is that PRS are a ‘not for profit’ organisation. So the money is not for them but the people who make the music.
ReplyDeleteUnlike You Tube which is a purely profit making affair making money for themselve. You Tube’s outdated business model is based on illegally hosting copyrighted material and then gaining vast profits from advertising. How come many other sites can afford to do this? YT is just using it’s size to bully it’s way into ripping off musicians
Judging by the 'knee jerk' reaction in comments below it's clear that the bloggers have no understanding of the role of PRS. If I can just enlighten them by saying that PRS does not just collect for 'the rich stars' but ALL composers of music. From U2 to the local band playing in your local pub. The 'small' royalties earned fromYoutube / Myspace etc give the unknown artists just the encouragement needed for them to carry on pursueing any dreams of creating and earning from their music and PRS help to collect these royalties for them. The days of 'the big artist' are slipping away to a more widely spread earning potential for all and the likes of Youtube and myspace are helping to fuel this distribution of earnings potential and PRS are helping to collect and distribute the royalties concerned to ALL users... at tyhe moment it's a lose - lose situation for everybody so the quicker negotiation is made the better for all musicians, writers, viewers , broadcasters and collection societies.... it's not difficult it's common sense ... get yer fingers out and knock yer 'eads together........
ReplyDeletehell most of them a greedy fuckers all about money for them fat greedy bastards. but end of the day it is sites like youtube who do most of the promoting of music. it sites like this ppl like me and all the other users like to go on to find new music to old music and if we like them then we buy them i love listing to new and up and coming musicians on youtube.dont give in to them.McL
ReplyDeletepaxsaxman66 - your assumption that people who have commented have no understanding of the prs is patronising and naieve to say the least. Don't assume all people have left comments without knwoing about the whole situation. The way they have tried to stop radios being played in small businesses is draconian. They're a bunch of dinosaurs who are just shooting themselves in the foot. The UK has some of the worst cases of 'rip off culture' I can think of. And whilst I agree in principle about artists being paid, this bunch of jobsworths have gone too far. Again people, fuck the prs - you can still watch any videos you wany by proxy. As the other poster stated, this has little to do with morals and all the poor little recording artists - its about ££. And the fact that teh guy chose to highlight googles revenue as some kind of means to justify this is pathetic,childish and outdated.
ReplyDeletemafustokes it's clear you have no idea either of the role of the PRS, as what we do in fact is to collect and distribute royalties to songwriters, and not to artists and record companies. PRS for Music, as has previously been stated, is an entirely non-profit organisation, and the people there work incredibly hard to collect as much money as possible for songwriters, no matter how big or small or successful or unsuccessful they are, and I think people should not comment until they actually understand what they are talking about, as many of these people clearly don't.
ReplyDeleteBrummiefied - and it's clear that I think your opinion is a load of shit to be honest. Look, I am aware of what the prs does - did you even think that a quick look on the site/net will tell you enough - so please, stop repeating uninformed rubbish. They (or should I say 'you' as it appears you work for them) may do exactly as you described - and rightfully so too. But that don't change the fact that thay have been draconian and over the top in my opinion. You and this paxsax guy are only to quick to point out 'not for profit' blah,bla,blah - but that doesn't mean they're aren't perceived to be greedy in the actions they take. They may not be for profit, but there pusuit of ££ for artists has gone too far. You have your opinion, I have mine - but to keep regurgatating all the 'you dont understand/non profit' crap is getting boring fast. But seeing as you mention 'what WE do' - I can't say I'm suprised.
ReplyDeleteMafustokes what I'm trying to get across to you is that I think the days of the Big Rich recording stars are coming to a close and windows are now being opened for a more widley earned and distributed income for more artists but for the artists to recieve anything for their endeavours collection societies (non profit as brumfield points out) are essential to look after protect and distribute to small artists ... compendre'? In reality all musicians want to earn while they play and they need such 'bodies' in place so they can do so....
ReplyDeletethey don't pursue money for artists, as you'd know if you actually paid a bit of attention. their only concern is songwriters, many of whom make their living out of solely writing, and never performing music.
ReplyDeletepaxsax - the first sentence in your last post, I couldn't agree more with. And don't get me wrong, I agree with the principle behind their plans, I just think that some of the methods they have used have been executed poorly and can't see how it's helping anyone.
ReplyDeleteYouTube don't give in. At the end of the day, I use YouTube to listen to songs and if I like them I will buy them. Without YouTube I would not buy anything - seriously. You provide enough options such as buy on "iTunes" which I use (so do millions of other people). Seriously, don't give in!
ReplyDeletemafustokes - How would you go about making sure songwriters get paid correctly for other people profiting from their work? And how would you deal with a multi billion pound company trying to dramatically devalue and under pay for the usage of those works in order to increase their profits?
ReplyDelete"If I can just enlighten them by saying that PRS does not just collect for 'the rich stars' but ALL composers of music."
ReplyDeleteNo. It collects for PRS members who are by no means ALL composers of music.
Oh, and pax and brummie - why did the prs thing have to mention googles revenues ? What the fuck has that got to do with them or this issue - unless they want a bigger piece of the pie that is. Like pax said, times are changing and they should be looking towards intergrating more, I mean christ - people actually BUY music on the back of Youtube stuff. Oh and brummie - you last comment about artists/songwriters - yeah excellent, lets start nit-picking over silly things now. And mattdahl - just stop it now - here we have another having a go at google with regards to their revenue - they're a big successful company - get over it. And as for asking about how I would deal with it - FOOK KNOWS - it's not my job - idiot.
ReplyDeleteyes they are, you have to be a composer or songwriter to become a member
ReplyDeleteSorry I'll rephrase that. Far from all composers are PRS members.
ReplyDeleteFinally! I hoped this day would come :)
ReplyDeleteCatsandwich - useful comment that. Care to enlighten anyone?
ReplyDeleteI agree PRS far from perfect but nevertheless are needed, to set up what they have in place over the years would be a gigantic task and probably not possible.... far better to make them better than knock them down ... I'm interested in giving more control to the artist (which is not difficult) but the bottom line is they need help in monitoring and getting paid by the broadcasters, these are the real moneymakers, and they have no qualms in how they get their music, they are paying less and less, not necessarilly Youtube but the big Film and TV companies aere certainly insisting on owning copyrights for usage... someone's gotta put up a stand for the musicians/writers.... PRS is a starting point....
ReplyDeletepax - agree with last post. Be careful about the distinction between artist/composer/songwriter - that brummie guy will soon put you straight.!! But still, I think taking a moral viewpoint on this can only go so far - as previous posters stated, this is all about the ££ and their comments about googles revenue says a lot to me.
ReplyDeleteGuys/Girls, i think the main point that everybody is missing here is the way that PRS are conducting themselves. PRS is there to collect royalties, and that's fair enough. Artists/Writers/Composers etc etc deserve their slice of the cake. However it's the WAY that PRS are conducting themselves that really winds me up. YouTUBE had a licence with PRS before and that was working happily, now PRS by the looks of things are moving the goalposts wanting more money and MOST IMPORTANTLY not allowing youtube to know which artists are listed within the PRS coverage. Imagine if you will being billed an extortionate amount, then they refuse to tell you who you called! Hell, if this is the case, I can start writing bills to everybody in the world and not tell them what im charging them for. I think I may just do this, and I'll send an invoice to the PRS. What for you ask? Well I'm not telling! -- Also, just to add here PRS may well be a non-profit organisation.. That doesnt mean they're not making their cuts too. You CAN run a non profit organisation and still increase your own wages, and line your pockets with a nice wedge of cash.. As i said before PRS see youtube as someone they can cash in on! All PRS are doing here is harming the artists, and themselves.. Just my 0.02!
ReplyDeleteOops, part of that last comment should read:
ReplyDelete"Imagine if you will being billed an extortionate amount for your mobile phone, then they refuse to tell you who you called!"
could be a case of cutting off nose to spite face but also worth remembering the whole of the industry is moving goalposts at the moment, trying to find new income streams after the demise of the (greedy) record companies (hoorah!) so as long as the artists get a chance to hold control over their works and benefit themselves then that's a plus, but all in all artists will need a body such as PRS to collect and monitor the broadcasters ..... got the feeling going round in circles ... bottom line is a compromise will be found coz they're all losing money .... welcome to Greed Britain !
ReplyDeletecareterproductions - couldn't agree more. Well said indeed.
ReplyDeleteThank God for Youtube eh, who even knew they were endlessly endeavouring to find the next Arctic Monkeys, working tirelessly to uncover the next best thing?! A modern day internet Samaritan if you will, nothing in it for themselves. Come on guys n gals! Youtube is a global corporate enterprise, just like the media ironically, promoting NOTHING but it's own greed with advertising revenue. Why should they have to pay to exploit music that's directly lining it's own pockets? Beats me. If they are hosting more music being viewed by more people than last year then they should pay more ROYALTIES (1 + 1 = 2) so it gets back to the publishers/composers. Finally, all you mis-informed dissenters clearly have no clue what you are getting so vexed about, so why not save up some of that energy for getting up and scratching your asses after giving your QWERTY keyboards a good old thumping. Viva la capitolism et les douchebags. Cry me a river Youtube, oh no ya can't cause you can't afford a licence. *yawn*
ReplyDeleteI'm backing YouTube on this 100%.
ReplyDeleteDown with excessive earnings of music companies!
I am a legitimate record company owner and I have 460 videos on YouTube, all of which I legally own.
ReplyDeleteWhere does this leave me ?? I write most of my own material, but am also a member of PRS, but I will fight tooth and nail for the right to be able to put my own videos up on YouTube. I have had nearly five million hits. If I don't get to put up my new material on YouTube, how else will I get it heard by people who want to buy my CDs.
I will fight tooth and claw with anyone who tries to stop me putting up MY property, and MY compositions on YouTube.
I am very friendly with Ellis Rich, the chairman of PRS, who I have known for thirty four years now. believe me, I shall be making my anger felt most vehemently, especially in anyone else tries to interfere with my videos that I own.
What it really comes down to is whether you believe that composers should be paid royalties if their stuff gets played on youtube. There is of course an argument that youtube is promotional, but you musn't forget that Youtube do make money from the advertising they place around videos, so if I'm Paul McCartney and youtube make £1m from advertising around my videos, I reckon I'd be annoyed if I got no share in it.
ReplyDeleteMy friend who works at PRS also told me that you need something like 8million hits to even generate £500 in royalties. I don't understand how that makes the cost prohibitive for Youtube; as I understand it, royalties are based on a percentage of revenue for that video, according to a copyright tribunal decision.
I hope they come to an agreement soon so we can all get back to watching music on Youtube!
What does this mean for bands/solo artists that write and compose their own music, these people want their songs to be seen on youtube. It's a huge promotion for their work and shouldn't the PRS be working for them too? Also are songs that aren't connected to the PRS getting blocked too?
ReplyDelete"What it really comes down to is whether you believe that composers should be paid royalties if their stuff gets played on youtube."
ReplyDeleteNot to me it doesn't. That the PRS may ask for a royalty fee for the playing of it's members' work is reasonable, as is YouTube's deciding the fee is acceptable of otherwise.
The question to me really comes down to whether I believe the PRS are being greedy or whether I believe YouTube is being tightfisted.
On this, it has been my belief for some time that the PRS can be a greedy and bullying organisation.
I agree there. Surly the song writers should get sufficient payment from the artists in the first place. There's no reason that they can't just charge more. In my mind once a songwriter has sold the lyrics that should be it. What's next, charging the artists each time they sing?
ReplyDeletePeople express their own feelings which includes music, it's a major part of how people feel, how can we express ourselves fully when certain labels block us from giving them free advertising when a song is played that people like?
ReplyDeleteLet
Us
Do
It
Our
Way
Anyway
:)
However, i have to note that last night, BBC news stated that some of the artists were receiving as little as £10,000 a year 'bread and butter money' which is quite low, but i dont know how this can be overcome?
ReplyDeleteMake better music that gets more views? or will it just have to be that the copyright and fees are so much greater?
matiia said: "However, i have to note that last night, BBC news stated that some of the artists were receiving as little as £10,000 a year 'bread and butter money' which is quite low, but i dont know how this can be overcome?"
ReplyDeleteHow about the record industry fat cats stop taking the majority of the proceeds?
Ahh i see, i was just reading over the comments below, where brummie is constantly reminding everyone that the organisation is "entirely non-profit" seems a bit window dressed. a few profits on the side... backhand payment
ReplyDeleteYouTube crush them!
Or takeover - vertical integation and all of that shizzle :)
I don't really care who is to blame but why should we be denied the right to watch music videos that the rest of the world can see simply because we're British? It's not fair; once again the people of Britain are being treated appalling.
ReplyDeleteVery much so, if it's deemed that it's "not fair" for people to watch music on the internet which very often results in people buying it then why is it only the UK that gets affected?
ReplyDelete"What's next, charging the artists each time they sing?"
ReplyDeleteThat happens now although the venue probably pays. As far as I understand it in some cases a sort of blanket fee is agreed and in others PRS returns detailing what have been performed are completed.
This is absolutely disgusting.
ReplyDeleteThat's a shame. The majority of videos I watch are music related, and I even managed to discover some new tracks recently. But it sucks that the UK users miss out. What happens when users from other countries watch music videos, do their representative PRS-type people pay royalties or what?
ReplyDeleteI dunno. Just really annoying.
I would just like to say that I find this whole situation disgraceful! I am a regular YouTube user and particularly use the site to listen to and watch music videos. The whole affair seems ridiculous and unfair. On the other hand I have to say you've made the right decision and covered your back. Hopefully everyone will understand the awkward situation and be supportive
ReplyDeleteGuys, the main reason I use YouTube is to watch music video. I'm gutted that just because I live in Ireland I can't do so. Get it sorted!
ReplyDeleteWhat I really don't understand is how the PRS has suddenly become so powerful? It's not an elected body, isn't accountable to the British people, was only something I had a vague awareness of yet now it is saying what I can, and in this case, can't watch... How did this happen? I feel like I'm living in a dictatorship that I didn't know existed until today.
ReplyDeletevolunteer at a centre for adults with mental disabilities, its a charity. In the last few months PRS have demanded that if we have the radio on we must pay for a licence. This is despite PRS being paid by the radio station already. We also need this licence if we play a cd. This is despite the cd being brought & paid for (this will include a payment to the artist/songwriter). PRS are money grabbing, bullying scum & I'm glad that YouTube are calling their bluff. Their demands have got way out of control & somebody needs to stand up to them. Nice one YouTube.
ReplyDeleteHavn't you guys learnt anything from last time with WMG? You're making a big mistake Youtube. >.<
ReplyDeleteI don't think "PRS has suddenly become so powerful", Squitherwitch. I think they have just become more aggressive and unreasonable in excersising their power..
ReplyDeleteI don't believe this power extends to saying what you can or can not watch but they do have the rights to charge and collect fees on behalf of their members.
In response to all the previous comments, especially the pro-youtube ones: Youtube removed the music because YOUTUBE had a minor disagreement, i.e. the same as with WMG, because it is "being asked to pay too much". Sure, the songwriters and artists aren't getting the full amount, but that's due to the RECORD LABELS. The PRS may be helping artists, but they didn't remove the videos. Yes, the PRS has become more aggressive, but youtube's thrown a hissy fit, a la WMG situation... I vote for a third party mediator, to allow the TRUTH to come out about any further situations... this would remove the problems with multiple stories...
ReplyDeleteTo Squiggle60: In this case the power does extend to what I can/can't watch because due to this disagreement between them and youtube I can no longer watch music videos on here. And it's OK saying we can watch them on other suppliers, but how long before the PRS gets involved with them too?
ReplyDeleteI understand they collect royalites, etc. but since when have their members got more rights than the rest of the British population? According to their website, they represent 60 000 members- that isn't the whole country so why is the whole country now being excluded from youtube? I know it's over royalties but it seems to have gone too far- a minority group is controlling the majority and when that group isn't elected, accountable, etc. it seems totally out of order.
VANESSA979 - I know they're not doing anything wrong, but in your situaton - unbelievable. Only in the UK.
ReplyDeleteAlot of my friends got closed down lately on here over the moving shadow label,thats not made anything for years.Makes me sick cant even do a mix now without some git crying about it.There was a good community of people on here just for the music who are all going elsewhere i suspect.I think the problem started when people began ripping the audio & making audio cd's with it.Personally i started up using this site to find rare tunes i had not heard for years to buy on vinyl,now it seems they will all be forgotten because of the greed of a load of suits.
ReplyDeleteTo Mashup: But the greed will be the end of them- whoever the fault lies with. Under these circumstances, youtube UK won't make any revenue without music videos and their international branches might be affected too as people boycott them in sympathy for their British friends and family. And the UK music industry will suffer because musicians will have lost a major means of advertising their new music and if people who object to their greed effectively destroying this site and start to download music in retaliation, they will lose royalties too. And maybe that's what they deserve if their governing body chooses to hold the country to ransom like this.
ReplyDeleteSqugglewitch. I don't think they have more rights than the rest of the population, ie. I beileve you could write your own song and tune, copyright it, etc. without being a PRS member. They just happen to represent a substantial number of writers (which, yes, does give more clout than you would have alone).
ReplyDeleteabsolute disgrace, the quality of youtube has really dropped ever since google took over
ReplyDeletewell - you are toast... i wont be using you again... even when you get your licence... greed WILL not be rewarded...
ReplyDeletei cant be doing with people that are just plain greedy. i will look for another site to use... and not use you again...
ReplyDeleteTheir is nothing Wrong with PRS collecting money for the writers of songs when it is done fairly. How ever this has not been the case for some time. Over the next few months people in the UK will start to notice that more and more small business's and shops will stop playing music because they can not afford what the PRS is asking for. I work in a charity shop and not only can we now not play any music in the shop but volunteers can not even listen to a radio in the sorting room in case a member of the public accidentally hears it. The PRS are out of control and their actions can only be damaging to artists. If we don't hear it in the first place how can we ever go out and buy it. Inform yourself's of their action on small shops, charitys, and of course YouTube and email them.
ReplyDeleteContact your MPs. Get these insane bastards sorted out.
PS
They even take over £500 a year from volunteer run hospital radio stations
I'm disgusted by this... I have gone out and bought more cd's off the back of videos on YouTube than ever before. Through catching up with old musical interests and through other 'youtubers' asking what music is in clips and then searching for them, I have bought cd's that I never would have bought otherwise! Sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate... surely having old videos on here can benefit artists in a way by encouragin people like me to take an interest in music and artists they may have never looked at!
ReplyDeleteI'm appalled at this. I don't even know what to say. :/
ReplyDeleteI can't watch some of my favourite music vids by my favourite artists. It's not fair. Why should only the UK get affected? Seriously, yeah I know I can watch the certain video somewhere else on youtube, but I prefer to get the ratings up for my favourite band on their own profile. This is ridiculous.
Has this anything to with the UK at all? :S
ReplyDeleteI don't understand.
Isn't the PRS for all around the world?
No the PRS isn't vgdcx. The PRS is a UK organisation. I would imagine YouTube negotiates with other organisations in different countries. A quick at Wikipedia suggests there may 3 "similar" ones in the US - ASCAP, BMI and SESAC
ReplyDeleteAll you morons saying Google make millions and millions of dollars, that may be so, but YouTube is NOT a profitable business at present and is struggling to make money. It is all very well having your parent company bailing you out, but if you don't make money, you can't last long.
ReplyDeleteWell done Google. About time someone stood up to them.
ReplyDeletePRS powerful? You don't understand.
ReplyDeleteThe PRS's power is restricted to the copyrights of the music owned by the artists who are members... it's THEM they're representing, and if YouTube are making ANY money from having ads on the same page as a music video then the writer of the music in the video surely deserves a percentage.
That's all the PRS do... make sure the artist is treated fairly and not alienated. By doing this, YouTube, to me you are trying to make PRS look like the villian... pity too many gullible people won't do enough research to decide for themselves.
This is a sad day :( my friend wasn't even allowed to upload his homevideo that had a sound track.
ReplyDeleteGood luck Google and Youtube! I really hope your successful, I'll miss it if PRS dont get their acts together!!
"By doing this, YouTube, to me you are trying to make PRS look like the villian" You mean for example someone reporting their charity is charged to play music is the work of Youtube?
ReplyDeleteHope all you guys are also visiting prsformusic.com to leave your comments for the PRS.Hit 'Contact Us' & there is an online form.
ReplyDeletePersonally think BOTH of these orgs are @ fault,both think that they have carte blanche to treat us as barganing chips..disgraceful tactics from both..
The problem stems from the fact that not enough people are supporting youtube for what they do.. Fair enough that PRS should work on behalf of their artists who need to be rewarded for what they do, however these artists should also understand that youtube is advertising their product to a huge audience for free. (how much is that worth?) If it was making enough money from doing so then I am sure they would not be taking such drastic action.
ReplyDeletesquiggle60, I won't lie that I do raise my eyebrows at things like that and there was a time when I was saying "F*** the RiAA, etc" with the best of them but we're not talking about that here... we're talking about this specific case - YouTube making profits from the plays of music streaming from the site. For the songwriters not to at least get a percentage, it totally alienates them from the process and frankly it disrespects them. Like YouTube deserves the money for the play for having stored it on the server, but the musician who actually CREATED the song doesn't?
ReplyDeleteExcuse me squiggle60.
ReplyDeleteI have no great love for Google or YouTube. When I said that PRS have been heavily targeting charity's I was merely stating a fact. If you key in "PRS" and "charity" you can take your pick of news reports about it. It has even been discussed in Parliament about PRS heavy handedness. I am talking from first hand personal experience. I am not saying songwriters and composers should not have someone collecting money, just that PRS are going way over the top. I have been reading up on PRS for months now and as I said already it is quite right that royalties are payed. its a question of how much and from who that is up for debate
"youtube is advertising their product to a huge audience for free. (how much is that worth?)"
ReplyDeleteMost bands lose money going on tours. Royalties are the MAIN income for the majority of musicians and like they reported on the BBC, most earn on average about £10,000 a year. Not exactly the greed you guys are talking about.
Some interesting stories:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-517539/Petty-officials-ban-shopkeeper-singing-customers--unless-buys-performance-licence.html
eclecticstars, I meant the PRS has been getting a bad name without YouTube
ReplyDeleteYes, squiggle60. I can see that now that I have read ALL the comments. They are in a bit of a mess the PRS. I got three different prices from 3 different people when I asked for fees.
ReplyDeletenutnoodle.
ReplyDeleteI never said artists should not be paid a fair share of any profits on their work .. but i think youtube made it clear when they said
"PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our licence than before. The costs are simply prohibitive for us - under PRS's proposed terms we would "lose" significant amounts of money with every playback
i think PRS is being childish over this issue, the artists are losing out on the public that would love to support the artist by viewing their music via their music groups ie Universal music and Warner music groups etc on youtube.. i for one think that Youtube does a great job in looking out for the people
ReplyDelete"Royalties are the MAIN income for the majority of musicians". I find that difficult to believe. For writers, quite possibly but for musicians with pub players, orchestral players, etc. around, I'd be surprised.
ReplyDeletebtw, does any one know how prs fees not involving prs returns are distributed?
Has everyone gone NUTS! PRS have done nothing wrong the reason that they have increased the amount is because youtube now actively advertise in their videos! YouTube is MAKING money on the videos. If PRS' fees are truly extortionate then why have they kept this out of the courts? The answer is that GOOGLE the owners of YouTube are a multi-million dollar company that don't actually stand to loose that much form this, all they would loose is money that they shouldn't have! the money should be going to the artists not a greedy multi-national company... I personally think that both companies should stop squabbling over what in terms of overall profit is peanuts and just allow artists to share their music with the world!
ReplyDeleteThe PRS are an absolute nightmare. I've had many dealings with them and can fully understand the Youtube stance towards them. This is an organisation who will happily charge a small company with a few employees £1000+ to have a simple radio on in the office or a small charitable group to play music in an open environment in case the Public hear it. these are Organisations that struggle to make money and really can't afford the stupid fee's the PRS demand.
ReplyDeleteThey are going to end up harming those they say they are trying to protect in the long run when people can't listen to the songs they want on here. It will drive more people to start using torrent sites or other such platforms. I deal with a number of artists who are very unhappy with PRS and are demanding answers.
This is what PRS have to say:
ReplyDeletePRS for Music is outraged on behalf of consumers and songwriters that Google has chosen to close down access to music videos on YouTube in the UK.
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.
This action has been taken without any consultation with PRS for Music and in the middle of negotiations between the two parties. PRS for Music has not requested Google to do this and urges them to reconsider their decision as a matter of urgency.
Steve Porter CEO PRS for Music said "We were shocked and disappointed to receive a call late this afternoon informing us of Google's drastic action which we believe only punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent."
Google had revenues of $5.7bn in the last quarter of 2008.
Now that everyone is better informed, you can make a better decision
Oh and has anyone else notice that its stupidly hard to complain directly to Google or YouTube?!?!
ReplyDeleteNo acess to Music Videos = BULLSHIT!!
ReplyDeleteThat mean's us in the UK including me won't get to enjoy YouTube. If YouTube keeps this shit up I'm leaving.
Oh please. Spare me the sob story. We in the UK are the ones getting screwed, not you!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTHANKS A BUNCH!!!!!!!!!
Stick to your guns YouTube. The PRS have done nothing but create _problems_ where ever they go...
ReplyDeleteThis is a bigger problem than most know. For example the song "Happy Birthday" is, from memory, copyrighted so you are _supposed to pay a fee to use it!!
PRS attacking charities.
Join the revolution and change ready for the new world. This is the digital era.
Two words. Hotspot Shield. Install this, hide your I.P., go back to watching Leona Lewis videos all day! Works on Hulu and MTV Multiplayer too. Take back the power, UK!
ReplyDeletewhats the point in youtube now?
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of clueless and greedy idiots the PRS are. It's about time they died a death. First they kill off the awesome Pandora here and now this - talk about biting the hand that feeds them. It should now be obvious to all their artists that what they really stand for is Public Relations Suicide.
ReplyDeleteTunes that were freely available for the enjoyment of all for centuries apparently can attract PRS fees because of copyrighted arrangements.
ReplyDeleteAnd futher more we slip into the nanny state.
ReplyDeleteThe sad part of this 'You Tube' fiasco is it us-the consumers and them-the artists who are suffering the most. Google should have negotiated with PRS before banning the videos in the UK territory. As a consumer and not knowing the inside story on the kind of deals PRS have with Google, we really can't comment. But in context to the You Tube Blog, its agreeable PRS should be more transparent in their dealings with royalties and artists. This only shows the deplorable use of power and monopoly over the consumers.
ReplyDeleteGoogle/You Tube should also realise this will encourage traffic to other web tv sites and piracy as the online market at the end is controlled by the consumer not an organization.
U2 stopped using PRS ages ago because they are so useless.
ReplyDeletePRS have made a rod for their own back, there might be a bit more sympathy for them if they didn't blatantly BULLY charities, hospitals & members of the public that play music with the window open!!!!!!!!!!!
This might be off-topic, but I want a blog from Youtube which clearly explains the no more FAKE views. Check this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtubehacks.info
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFgEJ_LkhyY