Discussion in 'Law & Ethics Discussions' started by Ne1co, Mar 10, 2009.
Not sure how I sit on this, PRS demanding a per view charge was a bit steep, sure its all posturing, both sides need each other so doubt this will stay for long.
I reckon its a good case to open the performance rights and copyright issues though
The rest of the world can manage to agree shit however the PRS perform like fucktards
umm google are evil, and want to keep their huge profits from the adverts played next to music videos. The PRS simply demand a better payout for the producers than google are willing to give.
pretty simple google don't deserve to keep such big profits, the PRS is correct and we should support them in their quest for fair payment to artists.
I support the PRS in principle (many of my mates are releasing musicians) but when greed is mentioned I think that hot potato is this case is the PRS's
the PRS is non-profit though - they don't make ANY money from their activites. The PRS is like a union, they are attempting to get the best deal for their memebers. Should they just roll over and accept whatever google feels like paying?
But hey this is about videos innit?
Where are the royalties for the video directors?
If the PRS get the percentage they are after, what chance of a share for others?
PRS collect money for writers and composers, video directors do not normally recieve royalties for music videos.
Do you think directors should get a cut?
are you suggesting that the employees of the PRS that go around demanding £250 for a garage premises to play a radio in the workshop are all volunteers or do they 'make' a living wage out of it? something many of the people they are 'acting on behalf of' dont get the luxury of
and should some greasy bloke in a workshop go "oh ok then I will just roll over and pay a stupidly large amount just because you demand it"
sounds to me a bit like the arguement you are deploying but in reverse - so cake and eat it for the PRS? and less fees for artists as a direct result?
directors are commissioned to create music videos by the label. Their work is paid for at a rate agreed with the label / artist. A fixed fee is how this is normally agreed with copyright on the video passing to the label. A music video's popularity has very little to do with the quality of the video and is much more dependent on how well the song does. I don't see why my pay as a director should be dependent on the popularity of the song / artist.
Well its not all google, the PRS changed their stance and did decide to try and tie youtube into a pay per view deal, just remember many music vids on youtube often have 80 - 90million views so even at a 1 cent per view deal that could mean $900,000 in royalties for one video, now youtube only generated $90m from ad revenue in 2008, that mean a single vid can wipe 1 percent off a whole years ad revenue. One vid! 100 videos like that and they are making a loss every year, youtube can't accept that, especially every day the site has at least 100m visitors, so say those 100m people hit 50m plays for music vids, 50m per day for 365 days a year at 1p per play = £182m thats over double what youtube gets from ad revenue.
Knowing the PRS I hardly imagine the PRS were asking for 1cent, probably more like 5p... but say it was 10p for arguement that would equat to 9 million in royalties for a single track, times that by hundreds of tracks and the figures become astronomical.
So rather than youtube lets take googles money into account... its worth say 100 billion, and accepted a 10p per play deal, paying 9m for a single song with 90m views, that would mean that they could only afford 100 popular songs before they were totally broke. Its taken them what ten years to get that big but tracks like leona lewis are getting 90 million views in less than 2 years... so even googles growth could not support new artists consitently getting viewers in the tens of millions.
Even a 1p deal means that every song with 50m views would cost google 500,000, so only 2000 songs hitting 50m would wipe 100 billion off googles value. Thats scary even for google.
Youtube just doesn't work for a per per view, all other avenues like the radio, tv MTV etc pay a flat fee on how many times they broadcast, but are not charged on a pay per listener basis, thats why the model doesn't work. Every music broadcaster would go bankrupt if they were charged per listener rather than per broadcast, youtube is a problem because evey listener counts as a broadcast.
Lets be even more reasonable say they only have 200 tracks with 10 million views, 500 with a million views and 10000 with 50k views, thats equal to 9.5billion views, that means even a 1p deal would cost youtube £95m..more than youtube generates from advertising last year and doesn't even consider in running costs etc for youtube.
More likely 5p figure per view and youtube is already unable to stay afloat as a model... it would even wipe half of the whole of googles value, so within 2 maybe 3 years even google would collapse under the weight of PRS payments. So when they say that this deal will cost youtube more than it generates from the adverts... google aint telling lies.
So the PRS needs to compromise, google isn't being greedy, just the figures for a site with as many viewers as youtube becomes untenable for the PRS deal. If the videos cost more to play than the income youtube can generate then they can't agree to it.
1 pence sounds resonable but do the figures with youtubes hit rates and even that becomes the most expensive PRS payments in history. I can bet that the previous flat fee figure for tracks like leona lewis was alot less than the potential $900,000 the PRS are get even on a 1p per view deal.
The middle ground is needed, artists need youtube as much as youtube needs them, but the PRS needs to weigh up the value youtube offers, and find a deal that suits everyone.
pay per view is not unworkable if the price is worked out correctly (1p is not the smallest fee you could have)
it would seem unlikely that the PRS is arguing for a system which is unworkable, they are too experienced for that. The current PRS fees for other sectors do not bankrupt businesses and do allow the music industry to maintain a revenue stream even in these days of mass downloading and piracy.
Thats the exact reason google stated for pulling out though, the proposed deal worked out more in PRS than youtube generates from ad revenue.
Agreed it could be a percentage of a penny, but whatever fiigure they state I bet the jump from a flat fee is still vast. As it is google obviously felt the deal so untenable they needed to make a stand.
I'm a firm PRS fan but I'd still want to get the exposure youtube offers and accept a lower rate.
"YouTube, however, cannot be expected to engage in a business in which it loses money every time a music video is played - that is simply not a sustainable business model." he said.
The PRS was seeking a rise in fees "many, many factors" higher than the previous agreement.
Mr Walker said the PRS was asking for a "prohibitive" rise in the cost of a new licence.
While not specifying the rate the PRS was seeking, he said: "It has to be a rate that can drive a business model. We are in the business for the long run and we want to drive the use of online video.
"The rate they are applying would mean we would lose significant amounts of money on every stream of a music video. It is not a reasonable rate to ask."
Separate names with a comma.