YouTube vs PRS: whoever wins, it's bad news for musicians

10. Oh those greedy musicians trying to screw poor Google who can't make their business model work - they're getting too many hits for the amount of advertising they're selling. Strange how every other streaming enterprise can reach agreement with the PRS. Don't believe them - they are out to smash the idea of paying for music.

A good idea, you say? Yes a very good idea if you don't want any new music to listen to. Most music writers are not U2 or Coldplay. They depend on their meagre royalties (more than 90% of members of the PRS earn less than £5000 per year from royalties). Most bands slog for years and make a paltry living.

Within a few years, if the present trends continue, it will not be viable to earn any sort of living as a songwriter or composer (apart from a mega-famous elite few). Songwriters and composers will do it as a hobby and share it with friends and family while they do a 9-5 job to pay the rent. (.... well most have to have another job already - how far can you make £5000 go?) The world will be a poorer place musically and culturally.

The problem with music is that it's only sound waves at the point of experience. Where's the substance - why should I pay for air? But it takes work and dedication and talent (and money) to produce. No one thinks twice about paying for physical goods because you can see them. People have become used to getting music for free - and that is one business model that will not sustain.

The content that Google have removed apparently accounts for about 1% of music streams - but they know that by targeting the superstars they can make out that all bands and record companies are mega-rich and mega-greedy. WIth public opnion on their side, they'll screw the other 99% with no one even noticing.

9. its funny how people see it as somehow google is sticking it to this big machine. There is no machine only hurt musicians. Bottom line is music enhances business choose the right music for your business and you will see happier customers who spend more at your establishment.

Have you (avi) ever read a license agreement it states that a CD you buy is not meant for public broadcast and if this is the case a special license must be obtained.

please remember 90% of the writers whom are members of the PRS earn less than 5000 a year and a majority do not have much other income and no record or publishing deal to which they can live from. kill the license fee you kill the musician bottom line

8. There seems to be a common misconception that, Amy and U2 et al are the only musicians on the planet. Often, independent artists/songwriters and musicians are forgotten. Being one myself, this debate means a great deal to me as song writing and making music is how I make my living.

I’m unsure why you feel that the PRS and PPL are greedy? Have they wronged you in some way? As far am I’m concerned, they (PRS) represent songwriters and composers on Independent labels, those who have no labels at all as well as those signed to Major Labels. What about us non-major label artists, musicians and writers? How do you think we make a living? For many artists independent or otherwise, royalties are a large part of our income. If and when you buy music that you like, the songwriter and composer gets a portion of that sale.

PPL get people paid who may have sung or played on a record but not been a part of the band or deal, though the work they performed is being re-played and re-used. That sounds like a good thing for musicians to me. Instead of seeing ‘The Music Business’ as large greedy corporations that can afford to have music pirated and shared ‘for free’, just remember that there are people working in the business other than U2 and Amy who are no where near as prominent or in the public eye, but they need income too.

This is about ALL musicians, songwriters and composers. Blanket Licenses at least make it possible for people to get a fair cut. The music industry changes rapidly and yes, organisations such as PRS, You tube etc will have to readdress the laws and agreements on a regular basis, as with the point made earlier, publicans and restaurants buy chairs and tables and wouldn’t work well without them, music is a ‘necessity’ played in venues such as these and is taken for granted. It would be great if consumers, music and video sharing sites understood and respected that as long as a songwriter or composer owns the rights to their work, then they have the right to obtain royalties for their work, whoever pays. If you’ve paid for my music, then great, thank you!

Sites like YouTube don't buy the music that they have on the site. I feel that they cannot be responsible for peoples content, but as they offer a music video sharing facility a license should be the way to go.

Re: advertising, just like any business, we may have a budget allocated to advertising of our work, but that doesn’t mean that we should have to offer our music free to anyone in the hope that they might decide to buy, we may choose to, but that’s down to the individual.

Whatever you do for a living, I would like to know what you’d think if people were taking your product for free and expecting it as a right.

I am a PRS member and work as a songwriter and musician. I have my own record label, my music is my sole income. Like me, there are many musicians and songwriter’s who work independently. Not all of us have the opportunity to promote our music adequately to make enough sales. I chose the PRS to collect royalties on my behalf but whether I choose to use the PRS or not, I still have the right and should be paid royalties for my music. You as a music consumer, have every right to buy music that you like, good for you. Your purchase of that piece of music doesn’t give you the right to sell it on, or put it ‘out there’ in the public domain without respecting the artist.

I would love to see the effects if music that wasn’t paid for either by license or bought legitimately was removed and couldn’t be played anywhere. It would be interesting to see what would happen then. Music is taken for granted by so many, and I think life would be bland without it.

7. There seems to be a common misconception that, Amy and U2 et al are the only musicians on the planet. Often, independent artists/songwriters and musicians are forgotten. Being one myself, this debate means a great deal to me as song writing and making music is how I make my living.

I’m unsure why you feel that the PRS and PPL are greedy? Have they wronged you in some way? As far am I’m concerned, they (PRS) represent songwriters and composers on Independent labels, those who have no labels at all as well as those signed to Major Labels. What about us non-major label artists, musicians and writers? How do you think we make a living? For many artists independent or otherwise, royalties are a large part of our income. If and when you buy music that you like, the songwriter and composer gets a portion of that sale.

PPL get people paid who may have sung or played on a record but not been a part of the band or deal, though the work they performed is being re-played and re-used. That sounds like a good thing for musicians to me. Instead of seeing ‘The Music Business’ as large greedy corporations that can afford to have music pirated and shared ‘for free’, just remember that there are people working in the business other than U2 and Amy who are no where near as prominent or in the public eye, but they need income too.

This is about ALL musicians, songwriters and composers. Blanket Licenses at least make it possible for people to get a fair cut. The music industry changes rapidly and yes, organisations such as PRS, You tube etc will have to readdress the laws and agreements on a regular basis, as with the point made earlier, publicans and restaurants buy chairs and tables and wouldn’t work well without them, music is a ‘necessity’ played in venues such as these and is taken for granted. It would be great if consumers, music and video sharing sites understood and respected that as long as a songwriter or composer owns the rights to their work, then they have the right to obtain royalties for their work, whoever pays. If you’ve paid for my music, then great, thank you!

Sites like YouTube don't buy the music that they have on the site. I feel that they cannot be responsible for peoples content, but as they offer a music video sharing facility a license should be the way to go.

Re: advertising, just like any business, we may have a budget allocated to advertising of our work, but that doesn’t mean that we should have to offer our music free to anyone in the hope that they might decide to buy, we may choose to, but that’s down to the individual.

Whatever you do for a living, I would like to know what you’d think if people were taking your product for free and expecting it as a right.

I am a PRS member and work as a songwriter and musician. I have my own record label, my music is my sole income. Like me, there are many musicians and songwriter’s who work independently. Not all of us have the opportunity to promote our music adequately to make enough sales. I chose the PRS to collect royalties on my behalf but whether I choose to use the PRS or not, I still have the right and should be paid royalties for my music. You as a music consumer, have every right to buy music that you like, good for you. Your purchase of that piece of music doesn’t give you the right to sell it on, or put it ‘out there’ in the public domain without respecting the artist.

I would love to see the effects if music that wasn’t paid for either by license or bought legitimately was removed and couldn’t be played anywhere. It would be interesting to see what would happen then. Music is taken for granted by so many, and I think life would be bland without it.

6. Hi as a great alternative check out

www.muzu.tv

You can watch all your favourite music videos from the U.K. and organise them into your own playlists and embed the playlists into your social networking pages.

We are fully licensed by the PRS, labels, artists and everyone gets paid!

It's not the industrys fault that youtubes business model doesn't stack up!

Enjoy..

The MUZU'ers

5. kenken. I couldn't give a monkeys and don't think anyone else does either.

As far as I'm concerned if I buy music I expect to own it and to have finished paying for it. I don't expect the stinking PRS to try an extort money from me because I might be able to overhear someone's radio playing music I detest and the fact that other factories I know have been fined for refusing to pay makes me angrier still.

If a band has to sell 500,000 CDs to break even, then the system for making them is grossly inefficient and needs sorting out by competent managers who understand words like waste, arrogance and self indulgence.

Surely you can see how loathed and resented you are and how little people value all this "creativity". All you're doing is forcing people away from music or towards piracy. You and the PPL too.

You all need to come to terms with how much people are prepared to pay for music and you need to remember this is not a rich country and that people have enough of their own money worries not to care about musicians who have to sell 500,000 CDs to break even.