3 ms·

Actually, no; the PRS is authorized to negotiate mechanical rights rates on the artists' behalf -- otherwise Waterman would have to sign a contract with each an

Actually, no; the PRS is authorized to negotiate mechanical rights rates on the artists' behalf -- otherwise Waterman would have to sign a contract with each and every local radio station, pub, etc. The PRS negotiated the agreement with Google at a rate close to .022p per play (note: pence, not pounds!), which is well below the legally mandated minimum (I believe this legal minimum was introduced after the agreement with Google) for radio stations and other users of 0.22p per-play. Google, so far, has been getting an excellent deal compared to other redistributors of music. That they can't manage to eek a profit out of their business model is not PRS For Music's fault. I applaud Waterman's looking out for the interests of musicians and songwriters -- considering how much mullah he already has, it's quite clear that he's not doing this out of self-interest. He's interested in protecting the community of musicians and songwriters. And rightly so, in my opinion: they are being fleeced.

lacker 18y ago
He's not being fleeced. You think he'd be better off if Rick Astley was banned from Youtube? Without Youtube, there would be no Rickrolling, and there would be no value in having the rights to "Never Gonna Give You Up". Plus, I'm sure the phenomenon is making him money via making the song more popular in other more lucrative channels. This is making him money, just not as much as he'd like.
- seertaak 18y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. You're saying he's not being fleeced because he would make less if his video wasn't on YouTube. That's like saying a sweatshop worker in China is not being fleeced, even if they earn a pittance, because they'd be making less money working on a farm, for instance...
swombat 18y ago
These same people would be quite happy to charge you 0.22p every time you whistle a copyrighted tune. Fuck'em. Let them go bust. In fact, it is your duty as a human being to do whatever you can to help them go bankrupt faster, so the world is rid of their rotten business model. When making an argument, particularly one as controversial as this, it is important to know who you're siding with. And sadly, in this case, you're siding with the bad guys.
- lucumo 18y ago
  Thank god there's still something like a nuanced argument...
- seertaak 18y ago
  swombat, here are some of the "bad guys" you'd like to see getting "fucked", "going bust", and whose business model is worthy of moral opprobrium: http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/comments.html http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/comments.html
prospero 18y ago
But when radio stations play a song, potentially thousands of people are listening to it at the same time. In the case of YouTube, the upper boundary is a couple of people crowded around a monitor. How is even an order of magnitude reduction in cost for Google an "excellent deal"?
weavejester 18y ago
"Actually, no; the PRS is authorized to negotiate mechanical rights rates on the artists' behalf" As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.
- seertaak 18y ago
  > As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, You're right. I meant "on the member artists'" behalf; should have been clearer. But my point, that Waterman has ceded the ability to negotiate with YouTube, still stands. > nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away. Look, I think you do have a point here, but you are oversimplifying somewhat. What you're not taking into account is that if the PRS orders YouTube to take down the videos, the content will appear anyways as so-called "user-generated content" (although it quite obviously doesn't merit that title) -- the onus is then on content creators to enforce it's IP rights. Should the PRS then push for all of YouTube to shut down and risk massive PR damage, not to mention hurting all the innocent bona fide UGC creators? Should it be forced to incur the costs of policing the content on YouTube, when YouTube itself reaps all the rewards in terms of advertisements? Or should the onus on policing go to the government, or YouTube itself? All of these issues would need to be addressed were the PRS to simply walk away from a deal. Needless to say, each and every one opens up a horrendous can of worms. So while it's true that the PRS has "the option to walk away", it amounts to the option of getting murdered through a bullet to the head or a slit to the throat ;)
  - weavejester 18y ago
    Well sure, but just because there isn't a solution, doesn't mean Google should foot the bill. The PRS, and organisations like it, face a battle against technology, as the ease at which an individual can pirate content and get away with it is largely proportional to how cheap bandwidth and storage are. Ultimately I don't think they can prevail, as it seems unlikely that current technological trends will stop any time soon. Google is a figurehead of cheap bandwidth and storage, but ultimately the problems the PRS faces are global trends. Attacking Google is like attacking the snowflakes before an ice age. It's not fair on the snowflakes, and won't do the members of the PRS any good in the long term. Either they adapt to a more hostile climate, or be crushed under the glacier of the information age.

lacker 18y ago

He's not being fleeced. You think he'd be better off if Rick Astley was banned from Youtube? Without Youtube, there would be no Rickrolling, and there would be no value in having the rights to "Never Gonna Give You Up". Plus, I'm sure the phenomenon is making him money via making the song more popular in other more lucrative channels. This is making him money, just not as much as he'd like.

seertaak 18y ago
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying he's not being fleeced because he would make less if his video wasn't on YouTube. That's like saying a sweatshop worker in China is not being fleeced, even if they earn a pittance, because they'd be making less money working on a farm, for instance...

swombat 18y ago

These same people would be quite happy to charge you 0.22p every time you whistle a copyrighted tune. Fuck'em. Let them go bust. In fact, it is your duty as a human being to do whatever you can to help them go bankrupt faster, so the world is rid of their rotten business model. When making an argument, particularly one as controversial as this, it is important to know who you're siding with. And sadly, in this case, you're siding with the bad guys.

lucumo 18y ago
Thank god there's still something like a nuanced argument...
seertaak 18y ago
swombat, here are some of the "bad guys" you'd like to see getting "fucked", "going bust", and whose business model is worthy of moral opprobrium: http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/comments.html http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/comments.html

prospero 18y ago

But when radio stations play a song, potentially thousands of people are listening to it at the same time. In the case of YouTube, the upper boundary is a couple of people crowded around a monitor. How is even an order of magnitude reduction in cost for Google an "excellent deal"?

weavejester 18y ago

"Actually, no; the PRS is authorized to negotiate mechanical rights rates on the artists' behalf" As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.

seertaak 18y ago
> As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, You're right. I meant "on the member artists'" behalf; should have been clearer. But my point, that Waterman has ceded the ability to negotiate with YouTube, still stands. > nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away. Look, I think you do have a point here, but you are oversimplifying somewhat. What you're not taking into account is that if the PRS orders YouTube to take down the videos, the content will appear anyways as so-called "user-generated content" (although it quite obviously doesn't merit that title) -- the onus is then on content creators to enforce it's IP rights. Should the PRS then push for all of YouTube to shut down and risk massive PR damage, not to mention hurting all the innocent bona fide UGC creators? Should it be forced to incur the costs of policing the content on YouTube, when YouTube itself reaps all the rewards in terms of advertisements? Or should the onus on policing go to the government, or YouTube itself? All of these issues would need to be addressed were the PRS to simply walk away from a deal. Needless to say, each and every one opens up a horrendous can of worms. So while it's true that the PRS has "the option to walk away", it amounts to the option of getting murdered through a bullet to the head or a slit to the throat ;)
- weavejester 18y ago
  Well sure, but just because there isn't a solution, doesn't mean Google should foot the bill. The PRS, and organisations like it, face a battle against technology, as the ease at which an individual can pirate content and get away with it is largely proportional to how cheap bandwidth and storage are. Ultimately I don't think they can prevail, as it seems unlikely that current technological trends will stop any time soon. Google is a figurehead of cheap bandwidth and storage, but ultimately the problems the PRS faces are global trends. Attacking Google is like attacking the snowflakes before an ice age. It's not fair on the snowflakes, and won't do the members of the PRS any good in the long term. Either they adapt to a more hostile climate, or be crushed under the glacier of the information age.