YouTube Music Content Takedown Continued 291
pregnantfridge writes "In the ongoing conflict between
PRS for Music and
YouTube over the takedown
of all music related content in the UK, PRS for Music have created a new site,
fairplayforcreators.com,
exposing the views of
the music writers impacted by the YouTube decision.
I am not certain if these views have been editorially compromised, but by reading
a few pages, it's clear to me that Music writers represented by PRS for Music are
largely clueless about what the Internet and YouTube means to the music
industry. Kind of explains why the music industry is in
such a decline — and also why so much litigation takes place on the music
writers' behalf."
Re:Difference of Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
I take the opposite view. I have one album up for sale on iTunes and Amazon and another being uploaded right now - http://tinyurl.com/cdx44l [tinyurl.com] I don't actually want to be represented by the PRS, but I have no choice. There is no opt out. You will collect royalties on my behalf whether or not I want you to. If I wish my music to be available free for streaming on Internet radio, you will not let me. So who's worse, Google for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or the PRS for extortion?
They are reaping what they sowed.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's always about the money (Score:4, Informative)
Google was already paying royalties. The issue at hand is, how high should those royalties be.
The PRS argument seems to percieve that a 'view' is worth a lot more than makes sense (see the comment on the page about getting 25,000 views and expecting more than a couple of pounds in royalties).
Google does make billions, but it makes those billions by serving trillions of pages. 1000 video views might result in one ad click. One ad click is only worth a few pence.
If they paid what the PRS is asking, Google would make a loss. So, they said "no thanks".
Re:Difference of Opinion (Score:4, Informative)
(For example, the copyright laws being extended to cover the duration of a musicians lifetime has been discussed here before and seems to be unpopular)
However - I can't understand this:
If I want to use a radio at my place of work - the PRS demand that my workplace pays a license because there is more than one person listening to it - but the radio station has already paid for playing the song...
To me - it is fair enough to pay once - but to pay twice is greedy, ridiculous and unfair...
Re:Difference of Opinion (Score:4, Informative)
So do I. However, if I wish to make my music free to listen to, shouldn't I be able to as the copyright holder? At the moment I can't as the PRS will collect royalties on my behalf even though I don't want them to.
Re:"No opt out"? (Score:5, Informative)
Do I need a Music Licence to play music within the bar area?
Yes, if you use live or recorded background music in the bar, restaurant, cafe, or on your telephone system, then a Music Licence will be required. There is a relevant section on the review form where this music usage can be declared.
How does PRS for Music distribute the income it collects?
It is a condition of the Music Licence that, when requested, the licensee shall supply details of all musical works publicly performed. This information is needed primarily to assist PRS for Music to distribute royalties to writers and publishers. It also helps to identify performances which contain no PRS for Music controlled works for which no royalty is therefore due.
In other words, you still need the public performance license even if no royalties are due.
Re:"No opt out"? (Score:3, Informative)
No, I'm right. From the same page you quoted, I've highlighted the important words in bold:
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 means that if you use copyright music in public, you must first obtain the permission from every writer or composer whose music you or hirers of your venue intend to play. A Music Licence from PRS for Music grants you the legal permission to play just about any copyright music which is written and published by our members and those of our affiliated societies worldwide.
The PRS don't make a big thing of the fact that you don't need a licence if you are not using their music, but that's the way it works.
Re:"No opt out"? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, if I read that right, I could just as well get a permission from every single artist or other copyright holder if I intended to play their music and bypass the PRS altogether. The PRS only seems to serve as some sort of "blanket license" issuer.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is essentially what this statement says. Get a permission from every writer/composer you play, or get a PRS license to play them all.
Re:Difference of Opinion (Score:2, Informative)
>>>The guy gets money for work he did over 20 years ago. I wish my wages worked like that!
Social Security works like that. You defer 7.5% of your wages (from your employer) in hopes of getting those wages paid to you in old age.
Commission salespeople work the same way, albeit on a shorter timescale. I quit my job at JCPenney and was still getting checks a month later. Those were due to my customers buying items after I had left, and I received the credit as the principal salesman. It was only a few pennies, which is the equivalent size to most actors or writers royalty checks. You don't get rich off deferred wages.