YouTube Music Content Takedown Continued

pregnantfridge writes "In the ongoing conflict between PRS for Music and YouTube over the takedown of all music related content in the UK, PRS for Music have created a new site, fairplayforcreators.com, exposing the views of the music writers impacted by the YouTube decision. I am not certain if these views have been editorially compromised, but by reading a few pages, it's clear to me that Music writers represented by PRS for Music are largely clueless about what the Internet and YouTube means to the music industry. Kind of explains why the music industry is in such a decline — and also why so much litigation takes place on the music writers' behalf."

Comments

What's the big deal? From the FPFC website

[Daengbo]

Fair Play for Creators was established after Internet-giant, Google, made the decision to remove some music content from YouTube.

Google's decision was made because it didn't want to pay the going rate for music, to the creators of that music, when it's used on YouTube.

If Google doesn't want to pay the rate, so doesn't broadcast the music, I don't see the issue. Lower the rate and maybe Google will pay.

Re:What's the big deal? From the FPFC website

[Captain Splendid]

If Google doesn't want to pay the rate, so doesn't broadcast the music, I don't see the issue. Lower the rate and maybe Google will pay.

I know! These idiots want to get paid for their work, but instead of working with Google or just setting up their own site, all they can think of is to bitch. Come to think of it, this is the we-don't-have-the-budget-for-flesh-eating-lawyers version of what the RIAA is currently doing.

So the music writers, don't get it...

[foniksonik]

Sounds like they just want to take their ball home since they don't get to be the star player (or even get their way).

SO be it. Give them what they want. Take down all music related content everywhere that isn't on their own sites. That means: Discussion boards about their music, Fan sites about their music, album reviews, links to amazon, etc. All of it.

Boycott these people up the wazoo... and just to make it fun... pick on someone specific to make and example of them.

Start by removing their Wikipedia page then systematically begin contacting websites which are highly ranked in Google for their name... ask them to participate in protest.

It doesn't have to be permanent (though the 301 responses need to be ;-p ) - just long enough to make the point.

"Hey [music writer who is famous], what happened to all your google hits? i can't find anything about you anywhere... it's like you don't exist except on your 'official' site. Aren't you supposed to be famous.

Keep it up long enough and maybe they'll even see an economic impact.

Re:Difference of Opinion

[Captain Splendid]

and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube

Is he really owed all that money? Pete, dude, nobody was actually enjoying that song, you know. It's basically the work safe version of goatse.cx

Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

> I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

Translation: I did some work back in the 80's, and I still want collect paychecks from it.

Re:Translation

[Swampash]

I'm sorry, did I just hear Pete Waterman complain about not having any money?

Stock Aitken Waterman, sometimes known as SAW, were a UK songwriting and record producing trio who had great success during the mid-late 1980s and early 1990s with many of their productions. The three can be considered to be the most successful songwriting and producing partnership of all time, scoring more than 100 UK top 40 hits, selling 40 million records and earning an alleged $104 million).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_Aitken_Waterman

To date, Waterman has scored a total of twenty two UK number one singles with his various acts and he claims upwards of 500 million sales worldwide (inclusive of singles, albums, compilation inclusions, downloads, etc). Pete has also appeared in the Steps video "Tragedy".

Waterman is worth £30 million[4] according to the Sunday Times Rich List.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Waterman

We're talking about a guy who collects railways. Not "trainsets" or "model trains", he collects railway networks.

So, yes. Translation: "I started doing coke off hookers' tits every day in the nineties and I'd like it to continue indefinitely please."

Fuck off Waterman, fuck you and all the other McMusic parasites who turned popular music into fast food. Rather than demanding money from me you should be thanking me that I don't spit on the ground at the mention of your name.

Re:Translation

[AnalPerfume]

Stock, Aitken & Waterman have never been about the music, they have always been a hit making machine. They have one target firmly in their sights, adolescent youths with pocket money to burn who are easily manipulated by crushes and marketing.

It's easy to sell something as "new" if your target age group are unlikely to have the life experience to know it's been done several times before; you only need to look at the amount of covers they do.

They know that age group are always gonna be looking for the next new thing so their "artists" (I use the word VERY loosely in their case) have a shelf life of a few years before they are dropped to fend for themselves or switch careers, with a bit of luck they invested their short term fame and earnings while they had screaming fans mob them.

They know that there's always a new generation of exploitees, as the 10yr olds who spent every penny on one artist have grown older and potentially into better tastes, there are a new group of 10yr olds to be manipulated into falling for the new artist. The same bullshit machine swings into action with every new investment / artist.

It's the proverbial "taking candy from a baby" on an industrial scale. Others do this too, but none quite so blatantly or successfully (in the late 80's anyway).

Aside from that particular example, look at the list of who has signed onto it. All the major names people recognize are those who have made a fortune from their music already. They are either multi-millionaires with several homes / businesses etc and several income streams from their back catalogs being played on TV / radio stations the world over, or they are perceived to be that, where the reality is that they've blown the vast riches they did earn on an excessive lifestyle and have therefor spent their earnings. Either way, the rich gain little sympathy when pleading poverty.

I'd have more sympathy if they really DID fight for the artists, not the top earners, they can look after themselves. If they were a non-profit agency who made sure the little peeps got their fair share, while accepting that things have changed and they need to be realistic. I'd have more sympathy if these asshats didn't try to extort broadcast license payments from workplaces listening to the radio as "more than one person can hear, so it's a broadcast, therefor give us cash".

While this is the only response they offer, I say fuck them.

Re:Translation

[Simon Brooke]

Just to put this in perspective, if the song had been played 100m times on UK National Radio, he'd have been paid GBP2-5bn instead of GBP11. *That's* how much Google are underpaying compared to market rate.

If he doesn't want Google playing his music without paying him, then that's fine: he's got what he wants. Google are not playing his music. What's his beef?

The going rate is whatever rate can be negotiated between the producer and the consumer. Google, as the consumer, has said 'if that's the rate, fine, we don't need the product.' Astley (and people like him) have to decide whether they want their music to reach an internet audience or not. If they don't, that's fine - Google not playing it works for them. But what they can't reasonably do is complain that Google refuse to buy their product. If the supermarket in your high street tries to sell you chocolates at more than what you think they're worth, you don't buy them - no-one needs chocolate. If the PRS tries to sell Google music at more than Google thinks it's worth, Google doesn't buy it. So - where's the beef?

Furthermore, your computation is wrong. When a tune is played in BBC Radio 1 or Radio 2, it's heard by about 6 million people. When a tune is played on YouTube, it's typically heard by one person. So 100 million plays on YouTube is not equivalent to 100 million plays on Radio 2, it's equivalent to seventeen plays on Radio 2. Not seventeen million, seventeen.

So the equivalent payment is not £2-5Bn, it's £340. Which is a lot more than £11, I'd agree - but is that because Google are offering too little, or because radio is paying too much?

Well said...

[Siener]

Just ran out of mod points, so I'll rather add this:

Somewhere the public perception of copyright (and other IP rights) went from "a time limited incentive to encourage the creation of novel content" to "content creators have the right to get paid in perpetuity".

Because of the technological and legal environment of the 20th century it was possible for content creators and distributors to make insane amounts of money for a very limited amount of work.

That created the idea that they have some god-given right to get paid for absolutely everything that ever gets done with their content or anything that is derived from it. That has not been the case for most of history and it will almost certainly not be the case in the future ... and no that will not mean the end of music and art.

Thanks For Killing The Music

[CyberSlammer]

Millions of people have discovered music that was once thought lost through Youtube...artists have gained new fans, even restarted their careers by people rediscovering their music through the magic of Youtube.

Now that medium is silenced. Way to go fairplayforcreators, you are going to lose more revenue than you know.

And by the way:

FUCK YOU

Free from unfair competition

[hwyhobo]

I read TFAs and the comments and do not understand the outrage. Google disagreed on the amount of royalties and obliged the authors and other interested parties by removing the music. That should be considered a win, right? I mean now the authors are free from unfair competition to open their own streaming website and offer their music at what they consider a fair price. Isn't that what they want?

Re:Difference of Opinion

[CowboyBob500]

As a musician myself, I was compelled to comment there. They won't put it up though.

I take the opposite view. I have one album up for sale on iTunes and Amazon and another being uploaded right now - http://tinyurl.com/cdx44l I don't actually want to be represented by the PRS, but I have no choice. There is no opt out. You will collect royalties on my behalf whether or not I want you to. If I wish my music to be available free for streaming on Internet radio, you will not let me. So who's worse, Google for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or the PRS for extortion?

Re:question to poster

[phulshof]

Question to poster: how does it follow from their statements that the music writers are clueless?

Very simple: they seem to focus on how much money Google is making, and how much money they think their music is worth. The question they SHOULD be asking is: how much money is my music WORTH to Google? How much revenue would Google lose if my music was pulled from YouTube tomorrow, and what % of that money might I fairly claim? They should also ask themselves the question: how much money will I lose/gain if my music was NOT on YouTube? If the payment is not enough for you, then don't complain when Google removes your music.

Re:"No opt out"?

[CowboyBob500]

You can opt out of collecting your royalties from the PRS. You can't stop the PRS collecting from the broadcaster.

Say I want to perform a set of my music in a pub, no covers, just stuff I wrote. The pub has to have a PRS performance license and has to pay the PRS for my performance even if I'm not registered with them.

It's extortion, and as usual it's the artists who get screwed - the number of places to play is dropping for the small local artist as landlords stop paying the PRS tax.

Write to the Lib Dems again

[Kupfernigk]

Our MP (David Heath, one of the good guys) raised this when it first came out, but I had forgotten. I think we need to target the Lib Dems with this one. How can a private company have private law? Surely this is contrary to EU law? - incidentally, no I am not a Lib Dem, this is not trying to gain support, I will write to any MP or political party that seems to have a clue on an issue, just like the Conservative David Davis seems to have a clue about civil liberties. Maybe we should try him as well.

Re:Difference of Opinion

[Vintermann]

"I wish my wages worked like that!"

Yeah, me too. I think most people do, unfortunately.

I'm appaled at how quickly would-be musicians/composers adjust their attitudes when tempted with regular royalty payments. Reading the publications of interest groups for authors, musicians, composers and other royalty-paid professions is pretty disgusting. They'll gladly censor you, spy on you, and demand a private tax from you as long as they get a chance at perpetual income.

It's not just a big industry position, either. Just like when poor people support tax cuts for the rich because they think they will be rich one day, two bit "content producers" support perpetual copyright terms, oppose orphan works legislation, want to obliterate fair use, install DRM in everyone's computers etc. The sense of entitlement is astounding.