9 replies · 573 views
YouTube in the UK is to be stripped of its most popular music videos after the site failed to agree a new licensing deal with the Performing Rights Society for Music, the trade body that collects music royalties.
YouTube said today that after the expiry of its former deal, PRS had proposed new payment terms that would be financially prohibitive for the site and would require YouTube to pay out more than it makes from the ads next to each video.
Diamond 383 wrote: YouTube in the UK is to be stripped of its most popular music videos after the site failed to agree a new licensing deal with the Performing Rights Society for Music, the trade body that collects music royalties.
YouTube said today that after the expiry of its former deal, PRS had proposed new payment terms that would be financially prohibitive for the site and would require YouTube to pay out more than it makes from the ads next to each video.
shame, PRS should view it is a promo tool, I wouldn't have bought tickets for Bill Bailey if I hadn't seen the links to yootoob that were put on here.
assuming Bill Bailey is covered by prs that is, otherwise me argument lacks bite
Thats utter shite, how will we post musical genius now? Those tracks with the album cover as a video, often also have shit quality for audio.
I suspect from the wording of this, that while it may make the latest Girls Aloud video hard to find, it's unlikely to affect some dodgy footage of a Factory band playing in a universtiy toilet in 1981.
Besides, there must be SOME grey hat hackers left in the UK who can bugger up their fingerprinting routines and force them to administer the ban manually.....which is NOT gonna last.
It's about most popular videos. So I suppose smaller labels and bands will stay unharmed (like my friend Chris Olley e.g. who just discovered youtube for self-promotion).
WMG is shooting youtube in the foot, I refuse to see shit live performances, I want fucking music videos.
Interestingly, Warner still has a deal with imeem, so they're not pulling their music video catalogue off imeem.
Record company people need to understand that you should not expect millions and gazillions of money from just streaming. The key is exposure. If people like the song a lot after listening to it on YouTube, there's a bigger chance they might buy the album or song (itunes, amazon, local CD shops, wherever)....ending up with more money for the artists (and maybe even the record companies).
Of course, if the companies demand money for streaming, that's understandable. But the main money making thing with YouTube, is increased exposure (independent and mainstream people alike)...not many people have cable TV in Japan for example (hence most don't get to see music vids on TV), and I hear the American MTV doesn't play much music vids. So, wouldn't YouTube and other similar sites be a good way of playing/streaming music vids? Why make a music video if you can barely even promote the damn thing?
Ironically, since I got a YouTube account in 2006, I've been buying more CDs than ever; many new CDs, and some used CDs. (That doesn't mean I buy everything---I only buy the CDs I think that are worth buying.)
leather_girl wrote: Interestingly, Warner still has a deal with imeem, so they're not pulling their music video catalogue off imeem.
Record company people need to understand that you should not expect millions and gazillions of money from just streaming. The key is exposure. If people like the song a lot after listening to it on YouTube, there's a bigger chance they might buy the album or song (itunes, amazon, local CD shops, wherever)....ending up with more money for the artists (and maybe even the record companies).
Of course, if the companies demand money for streaming, that's understandable. But the main money making thing with YouTube, is increased exposure (independent and mainstream people alike)...not many people have cable TV in Japan for example (hence most don't get to see music vids on TV), and I hear the American MTV doesn't play much music vids. So, wouldn't YouTube and other similar sites be a good way of playing/streaming music vids? Why make a music video if you can barely even promote the damn thing?
Ironically, since I got a YouTube account in 2006, I've been buying more CDs than ever; many new CDs, and some used CDs. (That doesn't mean I buy everything---I only buy the CDs I think that are worth buying.)
Well said, this is a stupid move by them.
Diamond 383 wrote: YouTube in the UK is to be stripped of its most popular music videos after the site failed to agree a new licensing deal with the Performing Rights Society for Music, the trade body that collects music royalties.
YouTube said today that after the expiry of its former deal, PRS had proposed new payment terms that would be financially prohibitive for the site and would require YouTube to pay out more than it makes from the ads next to each video.
Reading posh papers is bad fur ye.
