YouTube have announced that they will block access to music videos for UK viewers due to a dispute over licensing terms with UK collection society PRS for Music (formerly known as the MCPS-PRS Alliance).
This is the almost inevitable result of two long-term strategic courses which have ultimately been on collision path:
- On the one hand you have PRS becoming increasingly assertive of its remit and licensing position, right from the level of policing small business performance licenses. PRS sees a digital world in which numerous start ups build their businesses around music but that publisher and performance rights seem to be much further down the agenda than record label rights.
- On the other hand you have Google still desperately trying to figure out how to make YouTube ‘work’ as a business. More effective innovation in video advertising is needed on the one hand, whilst better relationships with content owners are needed on the other. Ever since Google bought YouTube, numerous content owners have come in for their share of the pie. In many instances unsatisfactory licensing negotiations have seen content owners opting to take legal action against YouTube instead (e.g. Viacom, The English Premier League etc). Others have started playing hard ball by other means (e.g. Warner pulling their music videos). With revenue from advertising needing to grow more strongly, YouTube can only cede so much ground in rights negotiating and also needs to be seen not to be a soft touch. Otherwise all content owners will seek aggressively better terms.
So with both parties set to fiercely fight their corner, a conflict was always a strong possibility. The action does have the air of a PR stunt about it and certainly ensures that dirty laundry is now washed in full public gaze. PRS’s Steve Porter said
This action has been taken without any consultation with PRS for Music and in the middle of negotiations between the two parties
Whilst YouTube’s Patrick Walker said
[PRS was seeking a rise in fees] “many, many factors” higher than the previous agreement.
UK consumers needn’t worry too much. The music videos will be back. Once the grandstanding is over both parties will hit upon a compromise. Music video is too important to YouTube not to reach an agreement, just as YouTube is too important a revenue stream for PRS. Until they do UK music fans have plenty of alternatives, such as Daily Motion and of course file sharing networks. And there’s very strong reason why the labels, PRS and even YouTube don’t want YouTube’s loss to be Bit Torrent’s gain.
EDIT: One very important additional element I missed off has just been pointed out to me: Google are also arguing that PRS cannot give them an exhaustive list of which artists they represent. Historically this would have just been because of the many very small artists, often without label deals. But now, with some major publishers withdrawing their online rights the publisher collection market is becoming highligh fragmented. This raises the stakes for PRS and may well be an astute negotiating tactic for Google. If push came to shove PRS would probably sacrifice significantly higher rates in favour quoshing the dispute over catalogue reach. If they don’t their position as a one stop licensing body will be weakened.
As a PR stunt it will mainly work in YouTube’s favour.
Many fans conflate PRS with record companies, big publishers and bodies like RIAA and BPI. It’s all “music industry” to most of the kids and it’s getting in the way of their music and obstructing YouTube’s technological and cultural advancement.
I work with musicians and if you ask a songwriter on any level, PRS is among the finest collections of sounds you could utter – particularly on royalty statement day.
Songwriters have their own disagreements with their collecting society (e.g. this Welsh language radio dispute). Everyone is going to fight for their own interests naturally.
It’s a minor and temporary skirmish. I’m curious about the royalty rate PRS are demanding. Why can’t it just be a blanket licence as with MTV Networks?
Pingback: Music Ally | Blog Archive » YouTube / PRS: Online reactions to UK licensing dispute
Pingback: Opinion: Why It’s In Everyone’s Interest to Get Music Videos Back on YouTube in the UK
Just to clear things up, Mark, PRS doesn’t represent “Artists” – as in recording artists – they represent songwriters, composers and music publishers.
As they are the only performing rights organization (PRO) in the UK, they, in effect, (through direct association or via reciprocal agreements with other PROs) represent EVERY songwriter, composer and music publisher in the world.
Therefore, as far as songs in music videos go, they represent pretty much everything offered in their territory.
Composers are artists as much as performers are which is why I used the catch all phrase. They are however not just the performing rights organization as PRS for Music is the new name for the MCPS-PRS Alliance, which incorporates the mechanical rights organization.
Pingback: Britische YouTube-Nutzer gucken in die Röhre
Mark writes: “Composers are artists as much as performers are which is why I used the catch all phrase.”
Yes, composers are artists, however, copyright laws assign different rights to performing artist and to songwriters, composers and music publishers which allow for separate income streams for each. Therefore, when you use the ‘catch all phrase’ to include songwriters with recording artists, you are not clearly reporting the issues at hand and the creative group involved.
Remember recording artists have nothing to do if songwriters don’t provide them with something to sing.
And, while it is true that some recording artists write their own songs, most of the music that has become popular through the years was NOT written by the performers who sing it. (American Idol might be the clearest example in this regard.)
A song can be recorded by many recording artists, but as a general rule when a recording artist records a song, he or she only does so once.
With regard to the change of the name from the PRS-MCPS Alliance to PRS for Music, whatever you call the organization, it only deals with the rights (including mechanical rights) granted by law to songwriters, composers and music publishers.
People who write the music we love have been lost in the shuffle in the digital debate … however, without us there would be no digital debate.
We’re an important story that needs to be covered accurately.
Hi Tonso, yes your clarifications are valid and ones I’m very familiar with having had a music publishing contract myself in the past.
Could you email me? I wanted to speak to you about a piece I’m writing for the sunday times…
How much extra money will PRS members receive after music has been deleated from youtube ???
Pingback: Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning » Blog Archive » Copyrights and wrongs
Me parecia raro ver un articulo asi een este sitio ,en cambio estoy bastante sorprendifo en