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."

37 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. New 404 message: by Goffee71 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This Jimmy Page is left intentionally blank

    --
    If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    1. Re:New 404 message: by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It looks to me like the PRS needs Google more than Google needs them. Hopefully Google will refuse to show any more of their dross until they can come back with some reasonable and sensible licensing terms for all their music.

      The most ridiculous part is that the PRS apparently can't even tell Google which artists would be covered by their licence. If they don't know who they're representing then how are the artists ever going to get any money from them ? Totally ridiculous !

    2. Re:New 404 message: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously they have no intention of passing the money on to the artists. Just like they have no problem collecting money for artists they don't represent.

  2. "Great news?" by lanes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What am I missing? Is the idea that people are going to complain about it until something changes?

    1. Re:"Great news?" by lilo_booter · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the intention is that it will raise public awareness of the issue, and is thus a good thing.

    2. Re:"Great news?" by slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Public awareness might well be a good thing.

      It's quite common to see PRS stickers on the instrument cases of amateur musicians. Presumably the logic is "I'm a performer. I support the society that protects my right to perform.". The "Performing Rights Society", right? PRS encourages that misunderstanding with the slogan "keep music live".

      So it's good to spread the word that that is not what this organisation is about. This is the organisation that lobbies for more grasping application of copyright law. They're the ones that want you to buy a license just to have a radio in your workplace. They're the ones want it to be illegal to perform Happy Birthday in a public place without the premises having a license.

      They campaign to restrict the rights of performers, not protect them.

    3. Re:"Great news?" by slim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're joking. It's bad enough the UK makes you "rent" your television set, but now you have a license on radio too???

      Actually I support the TV license. Most people get more value back for that than they get in return - not only BBC TV, but also its web content, radio, podcasts etc.

      The PRS radio-in-the-workplace thing is another matter. They consider that if a customer hears music coming from a radio (or CD player, whatever) that it counts as a 'public performance'.

      The insulting thing with radio in particular is that they've already been paid for the content by the broadcaster.

      Looking on the bright side, PRS is doing what it's meant to do: lobbying for those it represents; copyright holders. It's government's job to slap them down when they ask too much.

      And back on topic: it's Google's right as their customer to say "no thanks, the price is too high, come back when you're cheaper".

  3. Every cloud.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least i won't be able to be rick rolled now

    1. Re:Every cloud.... by Jurily · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least i won't be able to be rick rolled now

      Wrong. Guess what you get if you try to view a blocked vid.

  4. youtube...hulu... by wjh31 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    who knows what else, anyone got a half decent US proxy?

  5. Their own fault by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Record industry (or their representative in some manner) gets stroppy, demands multiples of the usual licensing fee.
    Google tells them to get stuff (made $7bn last year by NOT caving in to people like you)
    Record industry up in arms, tries to gather sympathy
    Everybody else in the UK goes on Youtube to look for the latest Rhianna, finds it's still online, it's just certain "official" and HD versions that you're missing, and carries on as normal (or, at worst, moves to a better video place if they REALLY want high-quality music videos).
    Google carries on making $7bn a year
    Record industry misses out on a share of Google's IMMENSE revenues.
    Artists revolt and put their work on Youtube themselves.

    Seriously, is it just me or is the record industry TRYING to commit commercial suicide?

    1. Re:Their own fault by Malenx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Their own fault by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it just me or were Music Videos given away free as adverts for the product at one time... when did they become the product?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    3. Re:Their own fault by ledow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No... my point is that $7bn means that they can ENTIRELY abandon music videos (and, thus, enforce a policy to remove music videos from YouTube) and not even care. In fact, they would probably make MORE money through less hassles. None of that $7bn came from people paying Google to look at music videos, except a TINY, TINY proportion of Google's ad earnings which are probably FAR outweighed by the licensing required for them. But I bet some of those ads fund the record industry indirectly (e.g. a CD-Wow advert on a particular Youtube music video for the CD etc.)

      The fact that Google *aren't* being sued shows that the record industry are the hypocrites, because they KNOW they won't make anywhere near as much money if they started annoying the big users of their content - much better to target the end-user and ask them to pay £1000 for a single MP3. If the record industry could AFFORD to lose music videos being available on Google, it would have sued for compliance, etc. and caused lots of hassle by now. They know, though, that would be a stupid move that would alienate them and ultimately cost them a lot of "airtime", so they try to triple (or more) their earnings overnight because Google is bringing them a lot of royalties - however they get *too* greedy and Google do EXACTLY what they should do - refuse to have Music Videos for the countries that are giving them legal/licensing hassle. I'm sure it won't be long before the two "settle their differences" and once again the money flows to the record companies because, to be honest, they need it at the moment and they can't afford to not be present on one of the world's largest websites.

      My point is that shouting and bawling in the press about Google not wanting to pay the new, enhanced, shinier (fabricated) royalites isn't going to make Google pay... in fact, the opposite and the UK will be the only country listed on Youtube as "Unavailable for music" because of such stupidity. Does that make Google look stupid? No, they are complying with the law, exactly as the record companies have wanted all this time. Does it make the UK record industry look stupid? Yes, because they are the only ones NOT on Youtube. Greed has become the downfall because Google can *easily* afford to not care, but legally comply, and thus just block music videos for UK Youtube. The *only* people I have heard complain about this have been complaining about the record industry, not Google/Youtube which would seem the obvious choice for the layman to complain about.

      I don't particularly care for Google, or Microsoft, or any of the others, but Google don't seem to have done anything wrong - they were paying the previous license (teething problems from the takeover aside, I don't know the details), they wanted to pay the new license but it was too expensive, so they pull videos in the smallest region that is affected by the licensing. Seems to me they did everything they could, to the full extent of the law. Additionally, they are still bound by all the laws they've *previously* been bound by, including being a carrier of other people's creative content - there's nothing stopping the UK or other record industry from obtaining cease-and-desists on anything they find infringing, but Google are *not* necessarily required to police the entire website without notification.

      The Pirate Bay, by the way, are on trial for (allegedly) "facilitating" the potential for copyright infringement to occur - nothing to do with the money they made, unless you only read press clippings from a particular party in the case. There's a big difference there, under a different law system, in a case in which there is no decision yet (but it's not looking good for the record industry). I have quite expected Pirate Bay to have legal problems for a very long time now (because they are walking a legal knife-edge in a litigious gray area) and this is the first time anything's happened.

      I don't care what the Pirate Bay do... I expect them to get arrested, or sued. It's not my concern a

    4. Re:Their own fault by residieu · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do those stand for, anyway? I used to think the M was for music, but there's no sign of music on MTV any more.

    5. Re:Their own fault by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have an idea...

      How about Google stops indexing their web pages and removes them from their database. Oh yeah and deprecate their advertisement down a few tiers so they get even less hits. I'm sure the RIAA and its international clones would consider this evil but the rest of us would relish an internet without their bullshit. Oh or make searching the RIAA direct to http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ instead as the top hit.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  6. Big hand for the PRS! by Fuzzypig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  7. Re:Huh wot ? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry. You privacy is totally safe, Mr. Richardson. Just finish your bagel and stop worrying so much.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Re:Huh wot ? by 16Chapel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Huh wot ? by FinchWorld · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Tell people there data may be mined whilst looking for terrorists, they will applaud it. Tell them certain website have been blocked, as child molesters could use them to exchange information, and they'll nod sagely in agreement.

    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
  10. UK music fans lose again... by Shrike82 · · Score: 3, Informative
    From TFA:

    Services such as Pandora.com, MySpace UK and Imeem have also had issues securing licence deals in the UK in the past 12 months.

    The Pandora fiasco is particularly annoying for UK music fans. I was poised to become a subscriber and pay a very reasonable fee to listen to music tailored for my tastes. Instead Pandora were forced to pull the plug in the UK, so everybody loses. Pandora lose subscription funds and advertising, the artists lose income from potential UK subscribers and Pandora adverts, and the listeners lose out on the chance to hear great music.

    Actually, the PRS don't seem to be losing out. How strange.

    --
    You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    1. Re:UK music fans lose again... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  11. Re:Huh wot ? by Fx.Dr · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...how long until the people of Britain rise up to the tune of Yakity Sax?"

    Fixed that for ya.

  12. Re:If not in youtube then in some other site... by sunking2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Videos on MTV/VH1? That's so 20 years ago.

  13. the what? by thanasakis · · Score: 2, Funny

    For a moment I read:

    The Pornographic Performance Limited has a stranglehold on music use in England?

    I almost spit my coffee.

    1. Re:the what? by gsslay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  14. Re:Huh wot ? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  15. Not just Youtube by sfraggle · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's not just Youtube that has been harassed by these people. Check out the Youtube blog post on the issue for some interesting comments, eg.

    ... I used to run a small business specilaising in car audio. They made me pay an extortionate fee because I had radios on display in my showroom. - Well, of course I did... That was what I was selling.

    ... We used to listen to the radio in my workplace but we now have to work in silence because the PRS decided someone from the public might hear it so the company would have to pay.

    --
    were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
  16. Long-standing idiocy by jonnyj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. Oblig by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This brief music video
    1. Is still available in the UK.
    2. Shows the appropriate reaction to this news.
  18. PRS Show Inneptitude by coofercat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  19. Re:Anarchy in the UK? by M-RES · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's going on is:

    1. US moneyed interests think up some new globally hegemonic business plan and/or legislation.*
    2. The US political 'allies' (better known by the local indigenous populations as 'lapdogs') step in to help spread this insidious new plan/legislation to their own parts of the world by helping to steer it through the local legislative processes for a personal cut of the profits.
    3. Profit!

    And voila, we have finally solved the underpant gnomes' quandry and sold our individual nation states down the toilet for a backhander. Well done the politicians.

    *Disclaimer: not ALWAYS US moneyed interests - quite often also EU moneyed interests too, but much of this seems to originate in the US, such as the RIAA/MPAA getting local arms of the same gang (MPC, MPA, PRS) involved. Once we have been successfully subjugated, expect to see versions coming your way too, once they work out how to break through the legal wall of the constitution.

  20. Re:If not in youtube then in some other site... by Samurai+Tony · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know if you have watched recently but MTV no longer shows music videos, it is full of My Super Sweet 16 and The Osbournes/Run's House or whatever celebrity they can dig up from decades past.

    --
    ...oh, and yo momma's so fat, her Schwarzchild radius is visible to the naked eye.
  21. Re:Huh wot ? by vain+gloria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Amusingly enough, the propensity to unthinkingly invoke Orwell is akin to his concept of duckspeak. Reading multiple +5 Insightful "1984 wasn't an instruction manual maaaan" posts in a single Brit-related topic makes me wonder about the duckmods though. Perhaps it's hard to peck out the -1 Overrated with a bill?

  22. Re:If not in youtube then in some other site... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  23. Re:RTFA. by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What you're missing is:

    4. Google take down music videos from YouTube

    5. PRS start whining that having the videos removed from YouTube is a bad thing for the artists.

    It sounds to me like PRS want (a) Google to advertise their product for them, and (b) Google to pay them for the privilege.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  24. Re:Anarchy in the UK? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

    They thought 1984 was an instruction manual.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!