Slashdot Mirror
YouTube To Block Music Videos In the UK
ChunKing writes "YouTube is to block all premium music videos to UK users after failing to reach a new licensing agreement with the Performing Rights Society. For many of us in the UK this is great news. The two main music licensing agencies in the UK — Phonographic Performance Limited and PRS — have a stranglehold on music use in this country and are stifling creativity."
What am I missing? Is the idea that people are going to complain about it until something changes?
Well done PRS, you managed shut out a big advertising opportunity to the artists to supposedly represent. I'm sure the record companies will be round later with a big bunch of flowers to say thanks!
Well done for now forcing people onto sharing sites to pick up ripped DVDs!
Well done for forcing people to go to dodgy malware ridden proxy sites to get around Google's stupid IP range blocking!
Well done for screwing the lesser known and poorer artists who really do get benefit from appearing on YouTube vids, getting some recognition and maybe a handful of those really important sales to keep going.
Big round of applause!
Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
I think we need a new version of Godwin's law: With any Slashdot discussion concerning Britain, it's only a matter of time before somebody mentions Orwell. Look, have you actually read 1984, or any of Orwell's works? He was righteously angry about many things, but copyright law was not one of them.
Tell them they can't watch there favourite music videos due to "money issues", they'll cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
Man, such an ignorant post.
Google barely scratches a profit from youtube currently. That $7 billion profit your crying about is from other aspects of the company, not form advertising on youtube.
Google negotiates after the fact because they are big enough that other companies can't exploit them. It's not murder, it's user generated content. It's not Google throwing up those videos. Google if anything, is inadvertently acting as a wall currently, between users and corporations trying to squash the information paradigm shift.
Sure they're making billions in return, that's what companies do. If they weren't making it, someone else would be.
Nonetheless I still think he'd be miffed that they're taking his works as instruction manuals rather than warnings.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The PRS is guilty of long-standing idiocy. In one celebrated incident a few months back, they attempted to fine a garage owner £2,000 unless his customers turned off their car radios before driving onto his premises.
This thing is absolutely fine with me. I've never watched music videos on Youtube, but I don't for a moment imagine that the kids who did will be queuing up to stuff fistfuls of fivers in the PRS's pockets in some other way. Instead they'll turn to piracy or give up on music and play with Facebook.
In due course, big media will realise that their so-called guardians are actually their enemies and they'll fire them. But, by then, there might not be a music industry that's worthy of the name. It'll be a well-deserved outcome.
I know it's not 'the done thing', but I RTFA. Lord knows, the BBC aren't famed for their excellent technology journalism, but even they managed to show how incredibly stupid and "woe is me" the PRS are.
In the article, the PRS say that they've been pleading with Google to re-instate the videos in the UK. Google of course basically say the PRS made it too expensive for them. The PRS carry on acting like they're the ones who've been kicked in the teeth, and say that Google doesn't want to pay more, "despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing". Of course, as we know, video-views only cost Google money - and only ad-clicks actually make them anything.
So just because a video gets viewed lots of times means nothing - it's how many ad-clicks you get that counts.
However, where a music video is concerned, those views may, in a small number of cases, lead to the viewer deciding to buy that music or video. Of course, Google make nothing out of that sale, but the PRS does.
So the PRS is saying they want Google to pay them for advertising their product, regardless of how much money Google makes or loses from doing so.
So in this story, Google is the closest thing to a representative of the music buying public that we have. The PRS really serves itself, and to a lesser extent the music producers. As a consumer, I'm quite happy with Google's choice - if people don't want to sell me music, then I won't buy it. If someone else on the Internet wants to show me those videos instead, then maybe I'll go there, maybe I won't.
However, if I was a producer, I'd probably be rather upset by the PRS's actions (although given the spin the PRS is putting on this, the producers are probably blaming Google).
YouTube: OK, we won't have the videos then
PRS: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Yup. Then again its all about posturing. Google is making the point, a bit like Apple did with iTunes, that they don't have to provide their content, getting the other party to realise how little negotiating clout they really have.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Yeah, that's what I don't get. Services like Pandora are free advertising and generate sales for the music industry. So do music videos on YouTube.
Why in the HELL do they always seem to want to hinder or shut down these services? Don't they see that it is just free marketing for them?
Congratulations, you are the one millionth slashdotter to have cracked this joke.
Still, isn't it nice to know that in an ever changing technological landscape, one thing can always be depended on to surface in a slashdot thread regarding music licencing.