[A2k] The Register: YouTube blocks music videos in UK

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/09/youtube_blocks_music_=
vids_in_uk/
YouTube blocks music videos in UK

Content yanksploitation against royalty collectors

By Austin Modine

Posted in Music and Media, 9th March 2009 22:55 GMT

YouTube is blocking most of its music videos from UK viewers after
negotiations with British royalty collectors turned sour.

The Performing Rights Society (PRS) for Music, a group representing
artists and publishers, and YouTube both blame each other entirely for
the impasse, of course.

Patrick Walker, YouTube's top pact-maker in Europe said in a blog post
(http://www.youtube.com/blog?gl=3DGB&hl=3Den-GB&entry=3DUaUSnLJ1wWE) today
that the site will block all "premium" music videos in the UK until it
can strike up a new contract with PRS that is "economically
sustainable."

"But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our license
than before," he wrote. "The costs are simply prohibitive for us -
under PRS's proposed terms we would lose significant amounts of money
with every playback."

He also claims PRS is unwilling to even tell the video streaming site
what songs are included in the licensing renewal being negotiated.
Walker claims the deal is "like asking a consumer to buy an unmarked
CD without knowing what musicians are on it."

PRS appears to have been taken off guard by YouTube's sudden yanking
of content. Shortly after the site said it's pulling UK music videos,
PRS chief Steve Porter announced (http://www.prsformusic.com/about_us/press=
/latestpressreleases/Pages/PRSforMusicStatementGoogleYouTube.aspx
) he was "shocked and disappointed" to receive a call late in the
afternoon informing him of YouTube's drastic action.

The music group claims YouTube wants 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."

PRS said YouTube's decision to block music videos in the UK was done
in the middle of licensing negotiations, and urged the site to
reconsider "as a matter of urgency." As a jab =97 apparently to show
that YouTube should have plenty of money to spend on fees =97 PRS noted
the site's parent company Google made $5.7bn in revenues in the last
quarter of 2008.

The situation draws obvious parallels to how the automated streaming
music service Pandora decided to block UK listeners (http://www.theregister=
.co.uk/2008/01/08/pandora_uk_closes/
) in early 2008 because it couldn't afford a license with PRS and
music labels. Pandora had attempted to work with copyright holders
from the outset, as opposed to YouTube, which only more recently has
been scoring licensing deals in an effort to generate more revenue.

But YouTube is the most popular online video streaming site out there
=97 so it certainly begs the question of who can earn enough money in
the biz if YouTube can't?

Yanking content off streaming sites appears to be an increasingly
common negotiating ploy for both sides of the table. In December 2008,
Warner Music Group began removing its videos from YouTube after
claiming it wasn't getting enough cut of the profit. Apparently
companies are betting customer outrage will spur the other side to
bend to their demands. But when customers can get their content
elsewhere easier (and often illegally, where nobody gets paid) the
licensing e-tantrum can certainly backfire on both.

------------------------------------------------------------


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru@keionline.org


Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997