Venomous debates and negotiations between YouTube/Google and content owners are nothing new, but they have just gone to the next level. In the United Kingdom, Google and PRS for Music (the overseas equivalent of ASCAP/BMI) have so far failed to reach an agreement on the payment of royalties for the broadcasting of music videos and visitors find themselves blocked from watching videos with licensed music.

Since negotiations are ongoing, this seems like a heavy-handed intimidation tactic, but it also underscores the power struggle over the content treasure trove and the degree to which the public suffers. Neither side seems to be willing to concede that the other side is an integral part of the content distribution process. In many ways, YouTube is the self-service radio of this Internet age and its users are interested in instant gratification. Because every hit song has an accompanying video that can be found on the Internet, major music channels like MTV and VH1 now deal mostly in their own original content. Radio has been losing listeners, and now the Internet has become the most effective means of promotion.

Unfortunately, a more technologically complex distribution method means that the distribution of money becomes more complex as well. With so many parties interested in their piece of the pie, the true purpose of the content, entertainment and/or education of the public gets lost in the details.

So, how do we shift the focus back to the consumer? The first possibility is to let this round of debate run its course with the hope that the eventual agreement reached by Google and PRS will set the standard for future royalties.

The second possibility is for a statutory rate to be set by the government. While this option is less savory in terms of free market principles, it would allow parties dealing with content to know up front what their terms would be, allowing things to run more smoothly. In the end, we should not forget that the primary goal of copyright law is to benefit the public and, if our laws are not functioning in a way that makes that happen, they should be amended.

-- Steven Reilly

Image Source

2 Responses to Google/PRS Royalty Battle Has Unlikely Victim: The Public

  1. glyn says:

    the way that music is paid for is a joke, royalties for years after your death?? crazy – why is it that music makers believe they have the right to be paid whenever someone listens to a recording? does da-vinci get paid every time someone looks at mona lisa? does a construction worker get paid every time someone uses the lift? No. for too long the music industry has been a gravy train, its time to pay musicians and composers and artists the same as everyone else – a one off fee that they accept at the time.

    I for one am sick of the prs acting like the SS – coming into businesses and demanding payments because you have a radio switched on, forcing our workforce to work all day without music because we cannot afford it as a business. It’s ridiculous – we have less than 100 employees but they wanted £4000 from us just so we can have local radio station on for them to listen to.

    Drop dead PRS is my reply and musicians should get paid what they agree to at the point of sale like everyone else or go get a proper job!

  2. hb says:

    An interesting debate. Comments: calling MTV and VH1 “major music channels” is rather mystifying since there’s almost no actual new music/video played and “distributed” there, and hasn’t been for many years; “education of the public”??? watching music video is ‘educational’? OMG; let the government set rates???? What is this utter obsession displayed around here with having the government butt its nose into everything???