a) The figure would be 0.022 pence under the current contract, and 0.22 pence under the legally-mandated minimum per-play charge, not 22 pence. b) The argument

a) The figure would be 0.022 pence under the current contract, and 0.22 pence under the legally-mandated minimum per-play charge, not 22 pence. b) The argument that Google gives him free publicity depends crucially on the assumption that a viewer will go to iTunes and buy either a video or a single after viewing the video. But, and numerous consumer behaviour studies have borne this out, this is in fact not the case. And the reason why is obvious: what's the point of going to iTunes and paying for the video when you can watch it any number of times in YouTube? YouTube replaces demand for the video, it doesn't enhance it. Even if you don't accept the conclusion of the consumer behaviour studies (and it's true that there are a few studies which contradict those findings), the idea that YouTube promotes sales doesn't tally with industry revenues over the last two years in which YouTube's hits for music videos have exploded -- the music industry has seen online growth of, IIRC, 17% or so, but that has been more than offset by decline in CD sales of around 20%. So all in all, people are buying less music. If YouTube is such an excellent vehicle for publicity, where are the resultant increased sales? Over time, this argument becomes increasingly untenable.