AfterDawn: Tech news

YouTube signs royalty deal for the UK

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 30 Aug 2007 14:40 User comments (6)

YouTube signs royalty deal for the UK YouTube said today that they had finally agreed to a royalty deal with MCPS-PRS Alliance, the organization in the UK that distributes royalties to the record industry. The deal would compensate artists for their music that is posted on the UK version of YouTube.
The deal, for an undisclosed sum, would license 10 million tracks of music and would shelter the video site from any possible legal actions.

The deal should also cover media content such as music videos, said officials knowledgeable of the deal.

"Whether it is music videos, user uploads or other audio visual content, our agreement will allow our 50,000 songwriter, composer and music publisher members to be paid when their creative talents are being enjoyed on YouTube's service across the UK,"
MCPS-PRS CEO Steve Porter said.

The deal is the first permanent one for YouTube anywhere in the world, as the similar agreements in North America are only temporary intended to keep both sides happy for the time being.

The royalties should be distributed according to how many times an individual artist's content is viewed but the company did admit it would be difficult to monitor the massive amount of content on YouTube.

Source:
BetaNews

Previous Next  

6 user comments

130.8.2007 16:30

Why is the payment of this royalty fee the responsibility of YouTube? Isn't it good enough that they simply remove content when asked?

230.8.2007 17:17

IMO, this was a smart move for YouTube. The cost of royalties--I'm guessing--are less than the on-going lawyer/lawsuit fees.

Plus, YouTube was a lot better before they started pulling all the copywritten material down.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Aug 2007 @ 17:21

330.8.2007 19:19

Originally posted by ShoeBark:
IMO, this was a smart move for YouTube. The cost of royalties--I'm guessing--are less than the on-going lawyer/lawsuit fees.

Plus, YouTube was a lot better before they started pulling all the copywritten material down.
Not quite, YT had plenty of CP content on it however it made no moeny and was under the radar of the media mafia, once the media mafia decides it must go it will even if its not breaking the law.

YT is not breaking any laws and if it is the laws need to be changed to meet the times.

431.8.2007 10:22

Quote:
Originally posted by ShoeBark:
IMO, this was a smart move for YouTube. The cost of royalties--I'm guessing--are less than the on-going lawyer/lawsuit fees.

Plus, YouTube was a lot better before they started pulling all the copywritten material down.
Not quite, YT had plenty of CP content on it however it made no moeny and was under the radar of the media mafia, once the media mafia decides it must go it will even if its not breaking the law.

YT is not breaking any laws and if it is the laws need to be changed to meet the times.
I might be reading this wrong--wouldn't surprise me--but it seems to me, YouTube is paying the royalty fee so they may continue to upload/keep copywritten material on their website. Correct?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 31 Aug 2007 @ 10:25

59.9.2007 23:29

Well done youtube appluade common sense.

610.9.2007 5:24

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ShoeBark:
IMO, this was a smart move for YouTube. The cost of royalties--I'm guessing--are less than the on-going lawyer/lawsuit fees.

Plus, YouTube was a lot better before they started pulling all the copywritten material down.
Not quite, YT had plenty of CP content on it however it made no moeny and was under the radar of the media mafia, once the media mafia decides it must go it will even if its not breaking the law.

YT is not breaking any laws and if it is the laws need to be changed to meet the times.
I might be reading this wrong--wouldn't surprise me--but it seems to me, YouTube is paying the royalty fee so they may continue to upload/keep copywritten material on their website. Correct?
Its not hat much different from the "tax" they have on blank media.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive