YouTube unplugs music videos in U.K.
Updated at 1:25 p.m. PDT.
Google-owned video-sharing site YouTube is silencing music videos in the U.K. after negotiations with the country's Performing Right Society (PRS for Music), which collects licensing fees for artists and labels, failed.
"Our previous license from PRS for Music has expired, and we've been unable so far to come to an agreement to renew it on terms that are economically sustainable for us," a statement from YouTube read. "There are two obstacles in these negotiations: prohibitive licensing fees and lack of transparency. We value the creativity of musicians and songwriters and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright. But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our license than before."
The YouTube statement continued: "The costs are simply prohibitive for us--under PRS' proposed terms we would lose significant amounts of money with every playback. In addition, PRS is unwilling to tell us what songs are included in the license they can provide so that we can identify those works on YouTube--that's like asking a consumer to buy a blank CD without knowing what musicians are on it."
But a statement from PRS for Music claimed that Google doesn't want to pay enough for licensing fees.
"PRS for Music is outraged on behalf of consumers and songwriters that Google has chosen to close down access to music videos on YouTube in the U.K.," read a statement from the industry group, which noted that Google rakes in billions of dollars in revenue. "Google has told us they are taking this step because they wish to pay significantly less than at present to the writers of the music on which their service relies, despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing."
A report from the BBC suggests that the change will take effect later on Monday.
Royalty fees in the U.K. reportedly caused streaming music service Pandora to pull out of the country (along with other non-U.S. markets) two years ago, and many smaller players in digital media are currently feeling the pain. PRS for Music has also targeted small businesses in the U.K. for playing radios publicly, which the group says is a form of piracy.
Since it only pertains to music videos, this won't affect, say, Queen Elizabeth's royal YouTube channel. But U.S. digital media companies, particularly when it comes to music, have repeatedly encountered rough seas abroad.
One of the most high-profile has been Apple's iTunes, which several years ago came under scrutiny from one European government after another, typically concerning digital rights management restrictions in its iTunes Store. But music videos have been contentious both in and outside the U.S., with labels apparently unclear as to whether the best strategy would be to ink deals with YouTube--where they have less control--or go at it on their own. Much of the controversy comes from the fact that the music industry says it just doesn't profit much from having its videos on YouTube.
Sources told CNET News earlier this month that YouTube was working with Universal Music Group to create a standalone site "closely linked" to YouTube, a shadowy project that has been described as a Hulu for music videos. And Viacom has created its own hub, MTVMusic.com. It's complicated enough in the U.S.; bringing overseas players and viewers into account opens many new cans of worms.
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline. 
Maybe that's the formula everyone says they are looking for. The artists run it.
It's not for everyone, but when a man sets out at thirteen years old on a path and sticks to it through all the changes in tastes, industry and media and succeeds, you have to ask if that really is the way to get it done.
So Caroline, take a trip out of the concrete canyons and talk to the Arlo about what this means to music and the biz. If the rockers can't get it right, maybe the folkies already have.
It seems to me that PRS is the one that closed down access.
But for some reason everyone wants digital created by educated, talented, competent providers and then sent out into the network eternally for free. Who can gather education and facilities and the kind of talent and diligence and long periods of invested time needed to create first rate digital product....... for free?
I mean ***? Who believes that? And why?
What is that song line - money for nothing on the MTV
right then
The rights of songwriters and music publishers are totally separate from the rights of artists and labels.
YouTube, rather than reaching an agreement with PRS, elected to shut down videos which will be to their detriment (because they will lose audience) and is fine with me as a songwriter because there are other outlets that have agreed to pay to use my work.
Now that they shown they can shut off infringing videos with such ease ... I hope they do the same thing here n the US so their business will move to services that respect the rights of creators.
- by aMUSICsite March 10, 2009 3:05 AM PDT
- Google are showing the PRS what it would be like if all the music videos were taken down from YouTube.
- Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)When YouTube starts taking down the videos the PRS say....Hold on don't take them down!
So the music industry wants YouTube but just want to add dozens of adverts all around the videos so Google can make more money off it and then give it to the PRS.
It's pure greed, Goggle are paying them money, they just want more.