UK Users Not Being Allowed To Listen To Music On Youtube

[AtariLegend]

As of 6pm Monday [9 March] every professional music video began being removed from YouTube.

The move came after a row between the video website and PRS [Performing Rights Society].

The two could not agree on a new license which details how much artists should be paid when their video is watched.

The impact cannot be underestimated, almost half of the top 24 most-viewed videos of all time on the site were professional music videos.

Leona Lewis' Bleeding Love clip was ranked the highest with over 83 million views.

Still available

However, YouTube say it will take time to remove the videos. Right now many official clips are still available.

Search Britney Spears or Oasis and their official videos can still be viewed.

Alongside MTV, YouTube is one of the most popular areas for people to discover new music. It is the Google - incidentally Google owns You Tube - of the music video world.

As recent as February a survey by Marrakesh Records and Human Capital of a 1,000 15-24 year-olds rated YouTube as the most popular way to discover new music [38%] followed by MySpace [15%] and official artist sites.

The site's prodigious reach has seen more and more artists use the service to debut their videos.

In 2008 Sigur Ros took over the video channel to screen their new documentary.

Repercussions

Currently, it's a lose lose situation.

YouTube have started removing much of their most popular content, PRS hasn't negotiated royalties for their artists and fans will have to turn to alternative places to watch the latest video from their favourite acts.

The fall out, if not resolved, could have frustrating consequences.

An inconvenience more than anything else - music fans will head to other outlets to find music videos.

MySpace, official sites and unofficial clips [some still posted on YouTube] provide easy alternative outlets.

Despite the setback users will find ways to find clips of their favourite artists.

YouTube phenomenons or viral videos - such as Ok Go's Here It Goes Again - will have to find other paths to popularity.

No resolution

Right now the dispute has not been resolved.

YouTube's director of video partnerships Patrick Walker stating: "There are two obstacles in these negotiations: prohibitive licensing fees and lack of transparency.

"Under PRS's proposed terms we would lose significant amounts of money with every playback."

It's not known if, or indeed when, the content will return to the site as discussions continue.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7933000/7933659.stm



So if the "Better" video ever gets released, we won't be able to see it without MTV.

[mrlee]

absolutely pathetic.

i fucking hate these bastards. Fuck them all.

For the artists my arse.

I guess the Daily motion will have to do. Shame its searched ratio is flawed badly.

[babydolls]

10 March 2009

Latest PRS for Music Statement in relation to Google/YouTube
Talks between PRS for Music and Google took place today to discuss the licensing of YouTube following Google's sudden decision to block premium video content on the service in the UK.

The meeting was positive. We are committed to ensuring our 60,000 songwriter and composers members receive a fair deal and that UK consumers continue to enjoy music videos on YouTube.

 PRS for Music and Google are due to meet again over the next few days.

Source: http://www.prsformusic.com

[jarmo]

absolutely pathetic.

i fucking hate these bastards. Fuck them all.

For the artists my arse.

Record companies let MTV play their music for free. They're not gonna do the same mistake again....


They have a point.

If a song is played on the radio, the artist makes money.

If the video/song is played on Youtube, who makes money? Not the artist...





/jarmo

[mrlee]

Most artists dont care about free exposure on youtube though.

Most praise it. I mean Rob Zombie posted he was pissed they kept muting fan made videos audio n said hes fine with it so why should the company force to take it down.

[jarmo]

Most artists dont care about free exposure on youtube though.

Most praise it. I mean Rob Zombie posted he was pissed they kept muting fan made videos audio n said hes fine with it so why should the company force to take it down.

Sure, a lot of artists don't care.

Then you have some that probably wouldn't mind getting paid for royalties but won't say so because they might be afraid of a backlash....

I'm saying, I understand that the artists might want to be paid for their work (songs).


I mean, people don't pay to hear the music by buying the albums/singles...





/jarmo

[mrlee]

its a double sided sword. ITs free and its great exposure, i get into alot of bands thanks to the easy search and listen option. This helps them because they gain a new fan, and potentially a sale on the album.

But then theres all those millions of views they lose money out on.

I mean, lately ive taken a great fondess to collecting music videos in good quality. So ive took to buying DVD's that they officially released (if i can)

I got RATT's DVD recently, and a Cinderella live one. I also, thank the ps3s better reader, finally managed to get my NIN fragile tour DVD to play (my ps2 couldnt read it for some reason) and that is a really great concert.

I havent found an official to buy Skid Row DVD yet. But i have them all on a bootleg DVD aswell as their two  tour DVDs Oh Say You Can Scream and Roadkill.

id like to get some form of Janes Addiction live DVD or music videos compilation. (i love janes)

[GNRFAN20]

Sucks. Gave the bands free promotion but they might want people to start buying albums.

[jarmo]

Sucks. Gave the bands free promotion but they might want people to start buying albums.

Isn't radio play free promotion too?

Yet artists get paid for that....



I still don't understand why there aren't buy links on Youtube.




/jarmo

[FunkyMonkey]

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/newsPage.cgi?news07485m01

Dispute With Music Licensing Group Leads to Action

March 10, 2009

Google's YouTube has begun to block access to music videos in the U.K., in a dispute with PRS for Music, a group that collects music licensing fees on behalf of record labels.

The move comes just as Google negotiates stateside with Universal Music Group on a possible new music video site on the popular user-generated, sharing site. YouTube had previously pulled down Warner Music Group content in a dispute with that company.
 
YouTube's previous license with PRS for Music has expired, and they have been unable to reach an agreement on appropriate licensing fees.
 
Patrick Walker, YouTube Director of Video Partnerships in Europe, Middle East and Africa", wrote on his blog: "We value the creativity of musicians and songwriters and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright. But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our license than before.
 
"The costs are simply prohibitive for us. Under PRS's proposed terms, we would lose significant amounts of money with every playback. In addition, PRS is unwilling to tell us what songs are included in the license they can provide so that we can identify those works on YouTube. That's like asking a consumer to buy an unmarked CD without knowing what musicians are on it."

PRS for Music disputed Google's action, saying it had not requested that they start blocking videos from the publishers it represents. It characterized the company's actions as a desire to pay less than it used to pay rather than an objection to a price increase.
 
Said PRS CEO Steve Porter: "Google has told us they are taking this step because they wish to pay significantly less than at present to the writers of the music on which their service relies, despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing.
 
"We were shocked and disappointed to receive a call late this afternoon informing us of Google's drastic action, which we believe only punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent."
 
Walker said YouTube will continue to work with PRS for Music to reach mutually agreeable terms for a new license. But until that happens, U.K. YouTube viewers won't have access to videos from major record labels.
   

[AtariLegend]

They have a point.

If a song is played on the radio, the artist makes money.

If the video/song is played on Youtube, who makes money? Not the artist...

It's also fairly easy to illegally download music and/or videos from youtube too.

[norway]

I'm saying, I understand that the artists might want to be paid for their work (songs).

They need to be paid to create it.

After that it's completely fair it becomes like a working class again imo, go tour!

I do hate these bloodsuckers too, but...

[babydolls]

From www.nme.com   Artist'sperspective on this from Beth Orton

"Beth Orton speaks out about YouTube music video cull

Singer underlines the importance of royalties

Mar 11, 2009
 
Beth Orton has spoken out about the importance of music royalties following YouTube's decision to remove all premium music videos from the UK site.

The movewas made after a dispute with the Performing Rights Society, which had been holding out for a better pay deal for artists whose videos get played on the site.

Orton said that royalties were vital for artists as they couldn't earn enough money just from playing live and releases. "Certain people can?t just make money from gigs, can they?" she told BBC 6music.

She added: "You should get money from recording, because record deals are different now as well, so it would make sense that revenue has to come from somewhere. It's been lovely for me because I've had the last two years to just concentrate on my little girl.

"That's been from working really hard for 10 years and then being able to live off the back of what I've done when those little royalty cheques come in."

YouTube representatives are currently negotiating with those for the PRS in an attempt to agree on a new deal that would allow premium music videos to be added to the site again. "