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."

22 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?
  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. 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 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. 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!
  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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."
  11. 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!
  12. 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.

  13. 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).

  14. 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.
  15. 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.