4 ms·

Since there is a contract in place, it means one of two thing: 1) Google is failing to keep their end of the agreement or 2) the PRS is taking the lions share.

by TJensen 18y ago

Since there is a contract in place, it means one of two thing: 1) Google is failing to keep their end of the agreement or 2) the PRS is taking the lions share. 150M views * .022p/view = 33,000£. I doubt Google is going to risk a lawsuit over that amount, so my guess is the PRS took 32,500£ and divvied out the other 500£ to the various artists (including the writers 11£). Now, who is doing the exploiting here? Of course, if Google didn't pay the 33,000£, then it is a lawsuit is in order. Google should not be blamed for the PRS' poor bargaining. Nor should they be the target of what really amounts to another smear campaign by the music industry.

seertaak 18y ago
I must have remembered incorrectly. In fact, I think the deal was a flat rate. I don't think it materially changes my argument that Google is getting an amazing deal for streaming these videos, certainly better than radio stations or similar get. Waterman's £11 for 150MM views is testament to that. And the PRS (a not-for-profit group, btw) is is quite transparent about costs; check out their website. > Google should not be blamed for the PRS' poor bargaining. Nor should they be the target of what really amounts to another smear campaign by the music industry Remember that the context here is a renegotiation! The original deal certainly was very poor for artists, and that's what the PRS is looking to redress. Now, you could say that the old deal was due to poor bargaining. But at the time it wasn't clear how large YouTube would get -- the old adage of hindsight being 20/20 applies here. As for the Google being the target of a smear campaign -- I admit that this whole debate leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. But let's not forget that it was Google who fired the opening salvo by removing the PRS members' content prior to the finalization of negotiations. So at the very least Google is not a shining white knight here.

by TJensen 18y ago

seertaak 18y ago

I must have remembered incorrectly. In fact, I think the deal was a flat rate. I don't think it materially changes my argument that Google is getting an amazing deal for streaming these videos, certainly better than radio stations or similar get. Waterman's £11 for 150MM views is testament to that. And the PRS (a not-for-profit group, btw) is is quite transparent about costs; check out their website. > Google should not be blamed for the PRS' poor bargaining. Nor should they be the target of what really amounts to another smear campaign by the music industry Remember that the context here is a renegotiation! The original deal certainly was very poor for artists, and that's what the PRS is looking to redress. Now, you could say that the old deal was due to poor bargaining. But at the time it wasn't clear how large YouTube would get -- the old adage of hindsight being 20/20 applies here. As for the Google being the target of a smear campaign -- I admit that this whole debate leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. But let's not forget that it was Google who fired the opening salvo by removing the PRS members' content prior to the finalization of negotiations. So at the very least Google is not a shining white knight here.