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."
This Jimmy Page is left intentionally blank
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
At least i won't be able to be rick rolled now
I think the intention is that it will raise public awareness of the issue, and is thus a good thing.
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?
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
"...how long until the people of Britain rise up to the tune of Yakity Sax?"
Fixed that for ya.
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."
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
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).
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".