YouTube's Big Traffic Stick Forces PRS To Slash UK Streaming Royalty Rate

from the who's-got-the-value dept

Mon, Jun 1st 2009 10:27pm — Carlo Longino

Back in March, YouTube began blocking music videos for users in the UK after it said the PRS, the country's music licensing body, was charging royalties so high that it was losing money every time a user watched a video. As Mike pointed out at the time, "Google is making the point to PRS: you need us much more than we need you." It looks like that point's been made, as the PRS last week cut its streaming royalty rates by more than half, and is now basically begging YouTube to remove the block, since the site was at one point responsible for 40 percent of PRS' online plays. It looks like maybe the PRS is beginning to understand that without useful distribution (like that provided by YouTube), its members' content loses a lot of value, and that in turn, moves it makes to hamper distribution (like high royalty rates) actually serve to destroy value, not deliver it.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: music, rates, uk
Companies: google, prs, youtube

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

RD, 1 Jun 2009 @ 10:42pm

I say...
I say YouTube tells them to go f*ck themselves. Hard.

They tried to strong-arm them, and are now learning what it means when you pick a fight with a dog bigger than you. They deserve NOTHING, and YouTube doesnt NEED them. Cut them off at the balls, and teach them and every other greedy, over-valuing, big-content, unleash-the-lawyers-on-your-customers, screw-the-artist A-HOLE company out there a very big lesson.

Adapt or die. Learn how the world works now, adjust to it, or die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 1 Jun 2009 @ 11:16pm
  
  Re: I say...
  agreed.
  
  We need a royalty rate of 0. It's time for reality and who should be paying who.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 1:56am
  
  Re: I say...
  No thanks. I live in the UK and i'd quite like some of my music videos back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 4:02am
    
    Re: Re: I say...
    No thanks. I live in the UK and i'd quite like some of my music videos back.
    
    Shouldn't you complain to PRS then?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Temple (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 4:12am
    
    Re: Re: I say...
    I live in the UK and don't notice any UK music videos missing. I went looking, extensively, several times after but I found everything I was looking for including recent acts like La Roux and Kosheen. They were available in HD too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stupid Genius, 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:33am
  
  Re: I say...
  Lets compare for a second. Lets say... for example.. strictly an example... that i was a drug dealer. big time cocaine czar of some sort. and i decided that i needed 2 charge people double what they were paying for pure coke right. If they decided they weren't interested any more... i lose money cuz i cant move coke. The difference here is that the prs didnt seem to understand that google / youtube > prs. G is the top dog. and when G decides that you are charging em too much, G cuts u off and u lose alot more than you THOUGHT you deserved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:46am
  
  Re: I say...
  YouTube should actually charge them for providing all that free infrastructure to distribute videos.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 1 Jun 2009 @ 11:20pm

Perhaps Youtube should start charging its users, so that it can pay more royalty to content companies. After all, it's bleeding nearly half a billion dollars a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Big Al, 1 Jun 2009 @ 11:30pm
  
  Re:
  Maybe YouTube should pay the same royalties as radio stations ie a certain amount to the writer and nothing to the labels. Should be able to cover that from ad revenue...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Clement, 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or maybe no one should be paying anything to anyone other than the initial purchase price of the content?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2009 @ 11:52pm
  
  Re:
  "so that it can pay more royalty to content companies."
  
  This shouldn't be about what's best for rich special interest groups (ie: the RIAA and the MPAA). It should be about what's best for societies social benefit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:13am
  
  Re:
  You meant -
  
  "Perhaps Youtube should start charging PRS, so that content companies have to pay more to reach its users. After all, it's bleeding nearly half a billion dollars a year."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 1 Jun 2009 @ 11:49pm

Content vs Connectivity
This is a point that has been made over and over, since the dawn of the Internet: it’s about connectivity, not content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: Content vs Connectivity
  Incorrect. It is about both. This is an example of a symbiosis between a medium and content. This issue is the content providers believe the value resides solely with the content. YouTube has shown them the medium is a large part of the value proposition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 12:33am

I'm not even sure how this is supposed to work. If there is a band in the U.K does PRS automatically represent them, even if the band doesn't do anything to request representation? If I start some random band and I live in the UK and I put my videos on youtube and people watch it, does that mean PRS automatically collects royalties on my behalf (though they probably never actually give me the royalties that they collect)? Can I opt out, saying that I don't want any royalties being collected for my band? If not, this is only hindering innovation, it's not advancing it. If I'm a band and I put my work on youtube no one else should be able to collect royalties for my work against my will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Musicman, 2 Jun 2009 @ 4:03am
  
  Re:
  As a UK writer, artist... You absolutly have every right NOT to be a member of PRS. This is a society you join so if you have, resign... Or do not join. Have your royalties collected via copyright control.
  
  Prs along with the rest of them are acting like gangsters! Fuck them
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    You can not be a member, but that doesn't mean they're not going to try to collect on your music, does it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, then artists should be able to sue for punitive damages
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 8:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "but that doesn't mean they're not going to try to collect on your music, does it?"
      
      So the RIAA/MPAA/PRS are nothing more than a bunch of parasites that try to freeload off of other peoples work? They collect money from work that other people do and they do nothing for the artists or anyone but themselves? Is that what you're suggesting? What a bunch of lazy bums.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... and google and youtube aren't being parasites?
        
        Geez.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google and youtube are offering a valuable service and the author is willingly putting his stuff on those arenas. But he should have the option (and it should be an easy to exercise option) of putting his work on Google/Youtube and not allowing these unnecessary parasitic third parties profit from it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google and Youtube are offering a valuable service to the author and the author of a work are willingly putting their work on Google/Youtube. But the author of the work should have the option (and it should be an easy to exercise option) to put his work on Google/Youtube without having these unnecessary parasitic third parties profit from it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Musicman, 2 Jun 2009 @ 4:04am
  
  Re:
  As a UK writer, artist... You absolutly have every right NOT to be a member of PRS. This is a society you join so if you have, resign... Or do not join. Have your royalties collected via copyright control.
  
  Prs along with the rest of them are acting like gangsters! Fuck them
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 3:57am

Another story where instead of reporting facts, you start trying to create something that just isn't there.

"is now basically begging YouTube to remove the block"

Please show me where in the story that this is discussed.

It isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:27am
  
  Re:
  I think in the world of sales, cutting your prices by more than half is pretty much begging.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
braindead (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 4:50am

being optimistic are we?
"It looks like maybe the PRS is beginning to understand that without useful distribution (like that provided by YouTube), its members' content loses a lot of value[...]"

i think PRS feels its getting the short end of the stick and i bet if they could sue youtube for black mail (or what ever else) that's what we would be reading about on TechDirt today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Duncan Yoyo, 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:13am
  
  Re: being optimistic are we?
  >i think PRS feels its getting the short end of the stick >and i bet if they could sue youtube for black mail (or what >ever else) that's what we would be reading about on >TechDirt today.
  
  Well I doubt PRS has anything to sue over. Youtube decided it isn't willing to pay the rate so it isn't running the material. Now that turns out to be more painful for PRS than youtube.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - braindead (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:22am
    
    Re: Re: being optimistic are we?
    @ John Duncan Yoyo agreed,
    I just think that they're not happy about this and decided to go along cause there was no other alternative.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Duncan Yoyo (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 12:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: being optimistic are we?
      >I just think that they're not happy about this and decided
      >to go along cause there was no other alternative.
      
      Well it is like not being willing to meet WalMart's requirements in a town where there is only WalMart. If you want to be in the market you need to dance with the devil.
      
      People hearing new music is the life's blood of getting any chance for people to buy new music. Screwing all your sampling venues will destroy your market.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- res2 (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:17am
  
  Re: being optimistic are we?
  braindead is an apt name. Refusing to enter into a contract with another party is not illegal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SteveD, 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:12am

Pandora
Sadly Pandora has announced that the rates still are not low enough to tempt them back to the UK. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nelson, 2 Jun 2009 @ 5:18am

Ha ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 2:17pm

So, PRS, how do you like your crow cooked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
preogrm, 1 Mar 2017 @ 6:30am

preogrm
thanxxx for this,it is useful
http://preogrm.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]