> 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 m

> 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 ;)