Slashdot Mirror
Rates Lowered For Streamed Music In the UK
An anonymous reader tips the news that the UK's music collection society, PRS, has announced a new pricing plan it hopes may entice YouTube and Pandora back to the UK market. Pandora pulled out at the start of 2008, and YouTube began removing content from the view of UK users last March. "From 1 July 2009, firms will have to pay 0.085p for each track streamed, down from the previous rate of 0.22p. [The] head of the music streaming service We7 told BBC News he welcomed the new charges. 'It's brilliant. Not so much the rates but the realization by the PRS that things have to change in the digital world. Till now it's felt like they were not listening,' he said. ... 'They [the PRS] are getting in touch with the reality of the digital world.' [The PRS's managing director said] 'We've laid our stall out and listened to everyone who would engage with us. We've consulted with the 25 firms that represent 97% of our revenue over the past six months and have been given opinions from many others. We need to ensure the music artists are paid for their work, but we also wanted to make sure that the framework was in place to enable the digital market to grow.'"
What I don't understand is that PRS asks for 3-5% of your Net Broadcasting Revenue yet if you're an online radio they ask for 6-8% of your total revenue. Why aren't these figures closer?
Also confusing to me is that I thought YouTube reached a deal with these guys back in 2007? Did that just fall apart?
My work here is dung.
I don't see how much the Artists get from the "0.085p for each track streamed".
I bet it's extremely low.
Bear in mind the PRS represents songwriters. So the performer gets nothing from this, unless they're also the songwriter.
As such a fair proportion of what's collected should go to the songwriter - since the PRS is not in itself a profit making institution, and this money doesn't go towards record company expenses such as marketing.
I remember a day when the composers and songwriters were also the performers.
Nothing has changed in that respect whatsoever. Kanye West writes his own material. Frank Sinatra sang songs written by someone else. Mozart wrote music to be performed by other musicians.
And -- best of all -- it's money that the record label doesn't get to touch.
Only if you own the copyright on your music. Which writers initially give up to the publishers.
"PRS for Music is a not-for-profit membership society. Music creators - writers, composers, publishers - join PRS for Music and give us permission to license to use of their music."
Which musicians making a living from selling music do not have publishers? They for example say things like:
"Collecting societies, like PRS for Music, exist to simplify the arrangement between the millions of music-users who require permission and the music creators who can provide a licence."
They define publishers as "music creators". On the whole very few professional music creators (the people who actually make the music) can provide a license. The publishing companies, Sony / Warner / EMI et al., own the rights and hence collect the royalty payments.
PRS think 1 person is an audience and that them listening to the radio constitutes a performance ( http://www.prsformusic.com/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/Pages/WhatisPRSforMusic.aspx ):
"There is no statutory minimum of people required to constitute an audience. However, in some cases, PRS for Music does not charge a licence fee to workplaces with a single (lone) worker."
Note that if that person listens to a CD instead they need both a PRS and a PPL license in addition to paying the price for the CD.
--- ./ have to strip out whitespace and make this unreadable?
Why does