So the record companies have pulled music videos from YouTube. I think anyone with half a brain knows that if you want to get free music now you can and YouTube can make or break a star so it seems a little bit silly, but whatever. For me the more interesting question is why record companies think the deserve to get paid what they did before the internet.
I have often wondered why somone like Robbie Williams or Noel Gallagher, or the most annoying one from Girls Aloud feel like they deserve millions of pounds for singing a song. Probably they never dreamed they would but they got lucky and had a good manager and so if you did before, why not now?
There is nothing to suggest that these people are the 'best' at their jobs. There are better singers than Robbie, better guitarists than Noel and better karaoke singers than Cheryl Cole. The record companies seem to think that because they were able to charge 10 quid for a product that everyone knows cost about 10p to produce that they still should be able to. But the internet has changed that.
Peoples notions of delivery and usage have clearly changed but I don't think people realise that this means there is just not the money about in music anymore. Is that so bad? (same could be said for the Automotive Indsutry)
What's a decent wage for a singer? Someone who works hard and is good at their job, actually enjoys their job. Why should it be 1 million pa. Surely 100k would be ok? No?
Oh and just in case you were in any doubt about how passionate YouTubers are about music check out this amazing film that makes a track out of YouTube samples
For saint Cheryl? What can you give to a disposable princess of pop, but a husband like Ashley Cole.
Apparently Youtube (corporate as opposed to user public) has pulled a proportion of it's music content as it is re- negotiating rights contracts with people like PRS. PRS want paying more....... but Youtube's music is growing at 200-300% a year...... it's all interlinked, but can i suggest that Chezzer Cole she should get at least 50 pence or a pound every now and again for her Youtube playouts......which is really no way to listen to music or to meet a nice girl
Firstly, as far as I know - Record Comapnies have not pulled music videos from youtube. Youtube themselves have pulled the plug on UK users.
Why ?
Because despite Googles revenues of 5.7 Billion Dollars last quarter - they refuse to pay a fair price to the rights holders of the COPYRIGHT materials - with which they are making serious money with on Youtube.
Now predictably the web will be full of the great mis-informed all shouting "Greedy Record Companies" !
But as far as I'm concerned its as simple as believing if a person or a company is making good money out of copyrighted material the the rights holder/s (particularly from my POV, the artists) - should see a fair percentage of that.
It's not all about Robbie Williams. Not at all - and this issue actually goes much wider than just Youtube.
There are all sorts of Web & Web 2.0 companies making money from other peoples creative & copyrighted content. This is basically criminal.
If you make money from *my music, good for you - but you damn well better make sure I see *my cut !!! ;-)
The whole concept of youtube is to make money from "Other peoples content" aside for a Chad & Steve's much neglected channels and a couple of lame attempts at an official Youtube "Community" channel all the content on Youtube is created by outsiders
I totally agree that musicians - and all artists - should be paid for their work. The internet has made it really easy for people (Ad Agencies esp) to rip off other people's work. And that's clearly not right.
What I am saying is that it seems that people are expecting to strike deals that would have them paid the same riches they had before the web and I just don't think that's tenable any more.
We all have to just admit that the game has changed. There are always ways to make money through art - the smart record companies and indeed Google / YouTube will work that out. I just don't think it will be in the same nature as before
The danger is, that as Google & Youtube move into the future and possibly become equivalent to the largest broadcaster (as TV and media become more digital) - they will take their lax approach to copyright with them.
As content creators, I believe we should ALL stand up to them now. Of course from my POV that creative content is music (although the youtube thing doesn't directly effect me personally)
Even without the lines between broadcast models like BBC Radio, TV etc merging with online delivery - if Google & Youtube do not play fair - and do not pay their dues, how long do you think it will be before the BBC says, OK then, why should we ?
No, I'm behind PRS 100% on this, except to say - that the original, temporary deal, which they negotiated with Google in the first place (and which expired on December 08) - was to weak to start with.
Make the F*cker$ pay, I say.
;-)
In case it's of interest, I just received this email from PRS :
Dear Member
You may have read the news stories this week about Google blocking access to ‘premium’ video content on YouTube in the UK as a result of their not agreeing a new licence with PRS for Music. Premium content appears to refer to music videos that are traditionally uploaded by record companies.
You may also have read that Google took this decision unilaterally, without any request from us to do so. Their licence with us had expired at the end of December 2008 and we were negotiating their new one. We do not usually ask anyone to remove content as long as good faith negotiations are taking place.
Immediately we heard news of Google’s decision to pull content from YouTube, and that they were talking to the press about it, we issued our own press statement. We expressed our outrage, shock and disappointment on behalf of UK consumers and on behalf of you, our members that Google should take this action.
Google’s decision must be seen as an attempt to influence commercial negotiation and the focus on ‘premium’ content as an attempt to cause disruption within the music industry again. This content may account for about 1% of YouTube music streams.
At the heart of Google’s precipitous action is the going rate for music. This is the rate set by the UK Copyright Tribunal in 2007. The Tribunal is the ultimate and independent arbiter of copyright dispute. Digital service providers pay a fraction of a penny per stream to the creator of the music.
Most of the major digital service providers are licensed by PRS for Music. And just recently we have signed deals with Amazon, Beatport, Nokia Comes With Music and Qtrax.
YouTube has signed-up to licences in very few countries around the world – we were one of the few. They have never before taken down content unless they have been forced to do so by copyright holders. Meanwhile, in the UK, consumer streams of YouTube ‘premium’ content have risen by almost 300% in the last year alone (up from 75m streams a quarter to nearly 300m streams a quarter). In total, Google want to pay 50% less than they paid before for that usage. Google think they paid too much last time. But their music usage, charged at the going rate, suggests they were significantly underpaying.
A further delay to our negotiation has been that Google is, at present, not giving us the data we need to calculate correct royalty payments to you. We ask them to make returns on their music use in the same way that every other major licensee does in order that we can properly analyse it, charge the right fee and then pay the copyright owners we represent. If there’s a stream of a track we don’t control, Google won’t pay us for that stream. Google would like to see our database in order to match it against theirs so they can calculate how much they owe us.
We look forward to continuing our negotiations with Google where we will be looking for them to pay an appropriate amount for the volume of music they use and the contribution that songwriters make to the success of their service.
In the meantime, please help us to help you. There are numerous Internet blogs hosting discussions on songwriter royalties. All too often, the voice of the composer and songwriter is lost in the midst of issues relating to the freedom of the Internet. Many blog posters misunderstand how royalties work and how you get paid. We should not forget that more than 90% of PRS for Music members receive less than £5,000 per year in royalties.
... etc
I'd give Cheryl Cole Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
James Cooper
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 17 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 210
