Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: "Tim C." <spamtrap@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:07:52 +0100
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:15:48 +0000,
invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in post :
<news:rbadnZhX6rdphiXUnZ2dnUVZ8gCWnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> :
This just in
Dear Member
Google¹s decision must be seen as an attempt to
influence commercial negotiation ...
At the heart of Google¹s 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.
But for digital music, eg mp3s, not promotional videos?
I feel that promotional videos deliberately uploaded to YouTube by the
industry and bearing in mind their intended function: promotion and free
advertising, shouldn't be lumped together with /bona fide/ music tracks or
concert recordings.
The "going rate" for music may well be about to be reduced, if Google gets
its way.
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 ?premium¹ 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.
I don't see how that connection is made. The users don't pay anything so
pricing is irrelevant in terms of incentive or disincentive to download
videos.
Google says that the PRS wanted many factors more ... they're probably both
true. One seems tightfisted, the other greedy.
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. ...
Why does that not surprise me?
..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 there¹s a stream
of a track we don¹t control, Google won¹t 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.
Seems fair enough. One side or the other has to provide a list: either
videos downloaded from YT, or those under PRS control. The implication
there is that PRS won't supply their list.
... We should not forget that more than 90% of
PRS for Music members receive less than £5,000 per year
in royalties.
...
They do like this little nugget of information. Is it because over 90% of
their members aren't stars? Or perhaps the big guns are getting more than
their "fair" share?
--
Tim C.
.
- References:
- YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: no66yŠ
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: SteveShark
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: Tim C.
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: SteveShark
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: Tim C.
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: SteveShark
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: performingchimp
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: Adrian Clark
- Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- From: performingchimp
- YouTube to block UK music videos
- Prev by Date: Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- Next by Date: Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- Previous by thread: Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- Next by thread: Re: YouTube to block UK music videos
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading