AfterDawn: Tech news

YouTube music videos back in UK

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 03 Sep 2009 10:50 User comments (5)

YouTube music videos back in UK After a dispute that arose over royalties early this year, YouTube began blocking music videos to users in the UK. Google, YouTube's parent company, had at that point failed to agree a fee with RPS for Music (formerly The Performing Rights Society) in the region, resulting in the action taken in March 2009 to block viewers access to some music tracks.
However, YouTube has agreed a deal reportedly in the "ten of millions" of pounds with PRS for Music that will last until 2012, meaning the music content will return to the site and be accessible in the UK. It will take a number of days before all of the deleted videos and audio tracks can be returned to normal.

"We are pleased to announce that an agreement for a license has been reached and both PRS for Music and YouTube are happy that the negotiations resulted in a mutually acceptable deal," YouTube said in a statement. "As a result of the new agreement, premium music videos in the UK are coming back to YouTube - this is good for songwriters and composers, music fans and YouTube."

PRS for Music collects licensing fees in the country for over 60,000 members. "We have 60,000 song-writer and composer members and many of them don't earn very much money at all - 90 percent of them earn less then 5,000 pounds a year," Adam Shaw from PRS for Music, said.

Previous Next  

5 user comments

13.9.2009 11:04

second!

music videos are promotional items, theyre for advertising your music. what suited monkey thinks people should have to pay to watch them?

as for the poor musicians, boo hoo. if they were any good then they would get a lot of gigs, where they should be making most of their money anyway. workshy fops!

23.9.2009 11:22
pphoenix
Inactive

Originally posted by MarkPants:
second!

music videos are promotional items, theyre for advertising your music. what suited monkey thinks people should have to pay to watch them?
The RIAA:

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI

Originally posted by MarkPants:
as for the poor musicians, boo hoo. if they were any good then they would get a lot of gigs, where they should be making most of their money anyway. workshy fops!
The musicians are being ripped off also by the major record companies, especially with digital distribution, it is well documented that many artists receive no royalties whatsoever.

take a read of this: i suggest following the link and reading the whole article not just my copypasta.



Quote:
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/albini.html

This is an article from Maximum Rock n' Roll #133 written by Steve Albini, and it details the problems encountered when dealing with a major label. Reprinted without permission.


Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke. And he does of course.

Originally posted by afterdawn news:
PRS for Music collects licensing fees in the country for over 60,000 members. "We have 60,000 song-writer and composer members and many of them don't earn very much money at all - 90 percent of them earn less then 5,000 pounds a year," Adam Shaw from PRS for Music, said.
lol that's because the major labels steal it all from them.


Radiohead: Artists often screwed by digital downloads

Courtney Love does the math
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."


Sony sued by artists for royalties due on digital downloads

Coldplay hates their evil record label

Frontman to File-Sharers: Steal Our Album, Help Bury the Label


Record label defections by major acts a troubling sign for recording industry


Trent Reznor to China: download our music, don't buy it from pirates

Musicians tricked into appearing in anti-piracy propaganda movie

Joss Stone wants her music to be shared, calls piracy "brilliant"

whats happened to music?

Frank Zappa Explains the Decline of Music - Video



Originally posted by Prince:
The first step I have taken towards the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bind me to Warner Bros. was to change my name from Prince to the Love Symbol. Prince is the name that my mother gave me at birth. Warner Bros. took the name, trademarked it, and used it as the main marketing tool to promote all of the music that I wrote. The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros... I was born Prince and did not want to adopt another conventional name. The only acceptable replacement for my name, and my identity, was the Love Symbol, a symbol with no pronunciation, that is a representation of me and what my music is about. This symbol is present in my work over the years; it is a concept that has evolved from my frustration; it is who I am. It is my name.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Sep 2009 @ 11:40

33.9.2009 11:27

Does that mean that all muted/copyrighted music videos are now accepted by YouTube?

If so, that's great news.

43.9.2009 11:51

indeed so, my firey friend! the first part of my post was at once rhetorical and whimsical, merely my way of saying that the offending organisations on your list are all really quite mean and silly.

as for my second part, well when do you ever have an excuse to use the phrase, "workshy fop"? i think artists should give music away freely, and earn their living from performing (and, to a degree, merchandise). because then the major labels would be in quite a pickle and nobody would be sued for $2m because they downloaded a few songs.

nevertheless, i was just having a little fun and i am 100% on the side of the artists :)

anyway. the topic at hand. it seems that the big labels were too busy being big bullies to notice that blocking access to music videos only harmed the artists (though thats obviously no concern of theirs) and themselves. however, i suppose that was to be expected as nothing they have done yet has indicated that they have any awareness of their own reputation, especally when theres money to... aquire.

511.9.2009 18:53

If songwriters are not satisfied with their earnings, shouldn't they either:
a) Give it up or
b) Get a second job like the rest of us have to?

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive