Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   I say...

   

   RD, Jun 1st, 2009 @ 10:42pm

   
   

   I say YouTube tells them to go f*ck themselves. Hard.
   
   They tried to strong-arm them, and are now learning what it means when you pick a fight with a dog bigger than you. They deserve NOTHING, and YouTube doesnt NEED them. Cut them off at the balls, and teach them and every other greedy, over-valuing, big-content, unleash-the-lawyers-on-your-customers, screw-the-artist A-HOLE company out there a very big lesson.
   
   Adapt or die. Learn how the world works now, adjust to it, or die.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: I say...

   

   Designerfx (profile), Jun 1st, 2009 @ 11:16pm

   
   

   agreed.
   
   We need a royalty rate of 0. It's time for reality and who should be paying who.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   cram, Jun 1st, 2009 @ 11:20pm

   
   

   Perhaps Youtube should start charging its users, so that it can pay more royalty to content companies. After all, it's bleeding nearly half a billion dollars a year.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re:

   

   Big Al, Jun 1st, 2009 @ 11:30pm

   
   

   Maybe YouTube should pay the same royalties as radio stations ie a certain amount to the writer and nothing to the labels. Should be able to cover that from ad revenue...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Content vs Connectivity

   

   Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 1st, 2009 @ 11:49pm

   
   

   This is a point that has been made over and over, since the dawn of the Internet: it’s about connectivity, not content.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2009 @ 11:52pm

   
   

   "so that it can pay more royalty to content companies."
   
   This shouldn't be about what's best for rich special interest groups (ie: the RIAA and the MPAA). It should be about what's best for societies social benefit.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 12:33am

   
   

   I'm not even sure how this is supposed to work. If there is a band in the U.K does PRS automatically represent them, even if the band doesn't do anything to request representation? If I start some random band and I live in the UK and I put my videos on youtube and people watch it, does that mean PRS automatically collects royalties on my behalf (though they probably never actually give me the royalties that they collect)? Can I opt out, saying that I don't want any royalties being collected for my band? If not, this is only hindering innovation, it's not advancing it. If I'm a band and I put my work on youtube no one else should be able to collect royalties for my work against my will.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: I say...

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 1:56am

   
   

   No thanks. I live in the UK and i'd quite like some of my music videos back.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 3:57am

   
   

   Another story where instead of reporting facts, you start trying to create something that just isn't there.
   
   "is now basically begging YouTube to remove the block"
   
   Please show me where in the story that this is discussed.
   
   It isn't.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Re: I say...

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 4:02am

    
    

    No thanks. I live in the UK and i'd quite like some of my music videos back.
    
    Shouldn't you complain to PRS then?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re:

    

    Musicman, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 4:03am

    
    

    As a UK writer, artist... You absolutly have every right NOT to be a member of PRS. This is a society you join so if you have, resign... Or do not join. Have your royalties collected via copyright control.
    
    Prs along with the rest of them are acting like gangsters! Fuck them

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re:

    

    Musicman, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 4:04am

    
    

    As a UK writer, artist... You absolutly have every right NOT to be a member of PRS. This is a society you join so if you have, resign... Or do not join. Have your royalties collected via copyright control.
    
    Prs along with the rest of them are acting like gangsters! Fuck them

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Re: Re: I say...

    

    Temple (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 4:12am

    
    

    I live in the UK and don't notice any UK music videos missing. I went looking, extensively, several times after but I found everything I was looking for including recent acts like La Roux and Kosheen. They were available in HD too.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    being optimistic are we?

    

    braindead (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 4:50am

    
    

    "It looks like maybe the PRS is beginning to understand that without useful distribution (like that provided by YouTube), its members' content loses a lot of value[...]"
    
    i think PRS feels its getting the short end of the stick and i bet if they could sue youtube for black mail (or what ever else) that's what we would be reading about on TechDirt today.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    Pandora

    

    SteveD, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:12am

    
    

    Sadly Pandora has announced that the rates still are not low enough to tempt them back to the UK. :/

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    Re: being optimistic are we?

    

    John Duncan Yoyo, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:13am

    
    

    >i think PRS feels its getting the short end of the stick >and i bet if they could sue youtube for black mail (or what >ever else) that's what we would be reading about on >TechDirt today.
    
    Well I doubt PRS has anything to sue over. Youtube decided it isn't willing to pay the rate so it isn't running the material. Now that turns out to be more painful for PRS than youtube.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Re: being optimistic are we?

    

    res2 (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:17am

    
    

    braindead is an apt name. Refusing to enter into a contract with another party is not illegal.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Nelson, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:18am

    
    

    Ha ha

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    Re: Re: being optimistic are we?

    

    braindead (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:22am

    
    

    @ John Duncan Yoyo agreed,
    I just think that they're not happy about this and decided to go along cause there was no other alternative.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Vincent Clement, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:28am

    
    

    Or maybe no one should be paying anything to anyone other than the initial purchase price of the content?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    Re: I say...

    

    Stupid Genius, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:33am

    
    

    Lets compare for a second. Lets say... for example.. strictly an example... that i was a drug dealer. big time cocaine czar of some sort. and i decided that i needed 2 charge people double what they were paying for pure coke right. If they decided they weren't interested any more... i lose money cuz i cant move coke. The difference here is that the prs didnt seem to understand that google / youtube > prs. G is the top dog. and when G decides that you are charging em too much, G cuts u off and u lose alot more than you THOUGHT you deserved.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    Re: I say...

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:46am

    
    

    YouTube should actually charge them for providing all that free infrastructure to distribute videos.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    Re: Content vs Connectivity

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 5:49am

    
    

    Incorrect. It is about both. This is an example of a symbiosis between a medium and content. This issue is the content providers believe the value resides solely with the content. YouTube has shown them the medium is a large part of the value proposition.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:13am

    
    

    You meant -
    
    "Perhaps Youtube should start charging PRS, so that content companies have to pay more to reach its users. After all, it's bleeding nearly half a billion dollars a year."

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    Re:

    

    nasch (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:27am

    
    

    I think in the world of sales, cutting your prices by more than half is pretty much begging.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    Re: Re:

    

    nasch (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:28am

    
    

    You can not be a member, but that doesn't mean they're not going to try to collect on your music, does it?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:34am

    
    

    Well, then artists should be able to sue for punitive damages

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 8:56am

    
    

    "but that doesn't mean they're not going to try to collect on your music, does it?"
    
    So the RIAA/MPAA/PRS are nothing more than a bunch of parasites that try to freeload off of other peoples work? They collect money from work that other people do and they do nothing for the artists or anyone but themselves? Is that what you're suggesting? What a bunch of lazy bums.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 11:18am

    
    

    ... and google and youtube aren't being parasites?
    
    Geez.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    
    

    Google and youtube are offering a valuable service and the author is willingly putting his stuff on those arenas. But he should have the option (and it should be an easy to exercise option) of putting his work on Google/Youtube and not allowing these unnecessary parasitic third parties profit from it.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

31.  

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 12:06pm

    
    

    Google and Youtube are offering a valuable service to the author and the author of a work are willingly putting their work on Google/Youtube. But the author of the work should have the option (and it should be an easy to exercise option) to put his work on Google/Youtube without having these unnecessary parasitic third parties profit from it.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

32.  

    Re: Re: Re: being optimistic are we?

    

    John Duncan Yoyo (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 12:06pm

    
    

    >I just think that they're not happy about this and decided
    >to go along cause there was no other alternative.
    
    Well it is like not being willing to meet WalMart's requirements in a town where there is only WalMart. If you want to be in the market you need to dance with the devil.
    
    People hearing new music is the life's blood of getting any chance for people to buy new music. Screwing all your sampling venues will destroy your market.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

33.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 2:17pm

    
    

    So, PRS, how do you like your crow cooked?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment