YouTube vs PRS, who wins?
Everybody wants to be the good guys! No surprises there..
Negotiations on a new deal for YouTube UK to continue to show certain music videos have broken down with the Performing Rights Society, who collect license fees for public ‘performances’ of music (including radio, TV etc) and dish them out to musicians.
Interesting to compare the PRS statement and YouTube blog post on why this has happened.
PRS:
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.
…
Google had revenues of $5.7bn in the last quarter of 2008.
Google sorry, YouTube:
Our previous licence from PRS for Music has expired, and we’ve been unable so far to come to an agreement to renew it on terms that are economically sustainable for us.
There are two obstacles in these negotiations: prohibitive licensing fees and lack of transparency.
We value the creativity of musicians and songwriters and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright. But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our licence than before.
So which is it – are PRS charging more, or Google/ YouTube trying to pay less? This is starting to look like the kind of divisive positioning which music fans – and musicians – have been suffering for so long. Each party claiming to be on the side of music lovers and casting the other as the bad guys.
Fans have become accustomed to Music Industry mistrust of New Media, and cast the PRS in the ‘Man’ role (see the comments in the YouTube post). Meanwhile like a couple of others I can’t help wondering who is really the David, and who the Goliath here.
What do you think?
