Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Jonny on March 10, 2009, 12:40:31 AM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7933565.stm
:?
-
We're screwed.
-
Oh well.
I don't really understand why the PRS exists... i only hear bad things about it.
And looking at what they've funded... what cr@p! they haven't funded anything of interest what so ever.
-
they should sort out how stupidly unfair it is for british bands to tour america, compared to the difficulties faced by US bands coming here.
-
If the PRS are pushing for way more money, then I can see why Google have decided not to give in- profits for YouTube (in 2008), were predicted to only be $180-$200million, which for an online company purchased for $1.6 billion (2 years ago), isn't very good at all. Even though in the last few months they've really been pushing adverts on the site, it's still not generating enough income for other companies to be able to demand a higher price (PRS, Warner music etc.)
-
In essence, Youtube is gonna be having a firstclass ticket onboard the fail boat.
-
nothing more than corporate clowns spewing their greed all over the common man.....
in retrospect, this is the perfect theme for a new Radiohead song!
-
Hmmm... there's another angle on this, which we as potential creators of music, for which we'd like to be paid, maybe ought to bear in mind...
You guys do realise that if you're a songwriter, PRS is the body that collects your royalty income for your publisher, and therefore for you, in the UK, don't you?
That is, unless you feel like going to all distributors yourself (radio stations, venues, restaurants, cafes, web sites like YouTube, and so on) to negotiate a separate deal with each one and then extract the money from them personally :lol:
This news report does seem to imply that PRS was still in negotiating mode for a licence fee, and as I read it, Youtube, as part of their own "negotiation", have decided to resort to whipping up public opinion to force PRS, and therefore the owners of songs (people like us and our publishers) to accept a smaller income than PRS was trying to negotiate...
Maybe this is a good thing, maybe this is a bad thing, I don't have enough knowledge or detailed info to go on... but as a creator of music I don't like what it smells like :(
-
Bah, storm in a tea cup. It'll all blow over.
-
Hmmm... there's another angle on this, which we as potential creators of music, for which we'd like to be paid, maybe ought to bear in mind...
You guys do realise that if you're a songwriter, PRS is the body that collects your royalty income for your publisher, and therefore for you, in the UK, don't you?
That is, unless you feel like going to all distributors yourself (radio stations, venues, restaurants, cafes, web sites like YouTube, and so on) to negotiate a separate deal with each one and then extract the money from them personally :lol:
This news report does seem to imply that PRS was still in negotiating mode for a licence fee, and as I read it, Youtube, as part of their own "negotiation", have decided to resort to whipping up public opinion to force PRS, and therefore the owners of songs (people like us and our publishers) to accept a smaller income than PRS was trying to negotiate...
Maybe this is a good thing, maybe this is a bad thing, I don't have enough knowledge or detailed info to go on... but as a creator of music I don't like what it smells like :(
PRS gets a bad press, but does some good. You see them every now and again on the pub and club scene noting the music that pro and semi pro bands play. I remember watching a jazz band in Pizza Express adjust their set to that they played more songs from "deserving" songwriters (i.e. the estates of poor generally black blues and jazz artists) got the cash.
Mark.
-
I remember watching a jazz band in Pizza Express adjust their set to that they played more songs from "deserving" songwriters (i.e. the estates of poor generally black blues and jazz artists) got the cash.
Mark.
Now THAT is VERY cool..
-
I mainly look at old blues clips and guys with mullets playing fast Telecaster Chicken' picken'.
So I probably won't notice a difference :D
-
PRS isn't trying to negotiate a higher fee for individual viewings, they're trying to get a higher payment because of the increase in the volume of viewings overall, well, actually that's not even what it is, youtube are demandin to pay less than the current rate so that their costs don't increase as the use of their site skyrockets indefinately. Basically, if I started using a hundred times as much energy at home but decided I was going to demand to get to pay a hundredth of the current rate so that I didn't have to pay more overall.
If you use more electricity than you used to, your bill goes up...
-
Wheres the facepalm smiley?
I need a facepalm smiley!
-
We're screwed.
Well said C.M. :)
I have been taught more / been able to research more / been encouraged and downright inspired to develop more as a guitarist by watching and re-watching 'You Tube' presentations - than by any other single medium.
Let us hope that ( as Johnny Mac opined ) this will blow over - or as Nfe and Afghan Dave implied, we can get an ethical resolve which enables people that really appreciate / utilise the service to carry on doing so.
" You don't know what you've got till it's gone " e.t.c.
-
" You don't know what you've got till it's gone " e.t.c.
So true.
I miss Pandora :(
Roo
-
" You don't know what you've got till it's gone " e.t.c.
So true.
I miss Pandora :(
Roo
Let's genuinely hope that there will one day be room for 'positive negotiations' there too ... :wink:
-
" You don't know what you've got till it's gone " e.t.c.
So true.
I miss Pandora :(
Roo
Last.fm is better and waaaaaay more comprehensive. As is Spotify.
-
I wouldn't mind paying a small monthly fee to use youtube ... if that would be a solution.
I mean if advertising today pays the royalties of the musicians (advertising = youtube income = money to pay to PRS) but it makes more sense if music consumers pay, right?
-
I don't live in the UK so this doesn't affect me. That said, I think it is unfortunate that youtube has made this decision. It doesn't seem like it will ultimately be good for business.
As far as viewing the vids themselves, couldn't you browse by a proxy connection that puts you out in another country? Something like the tor network?
-
" You don't know what you've got till it's gone " e.t.c.
So true.
I miss Pandora :(
Roo
Last.fm is better and waaaaaay more comprehensive. As is Spotify.
*Scurries off to Last.FM*
-
Hmmm... there's another angle on this, which we as potential creators of music, for which we'd like to be paid, maybe ought to bear in mind...
You guys do realise that if you're a songwriter, PRS is the body that collects your royalty income for your publisher, and therefore for you, in the UK, don't you?
That is, unless you feel like going to all distributors yourself (radio stations, venues, restaurants, cafes, web sites like YouTube, and so on) to negotiate a separate deal with each one and then extract the money from them personally :lol:
This news report does seem to imply that PRS was still in negotiating mode for a licence fee, and as I read it, Youtube, as part of their own "negotiation", have decided to resort to whipping up public opinion to force PRS, and therefore the owners of songs (people like us and our publishers) to accept a smaller income than PRS was trying to negotiate...
Maybe this is a good thing, maybe this is a bad thing, I don't have enough knowledge or detailed info to go on... but as a creator of music I don't like what it smells like :(
PRS gets a bad press, but does some good. You see them every now and again on the pub and club scene noting the music that pro and semi pro bands play. I remember watching a jazz band in Pizza Express adjust their set to that they played more songs from "deserving" songwriters (i.e. the estates of poor generally black blues and jazz artists) got the cash.
Mark.
Exactly. The Performing Rights Society plays an extremely important part of a working musician's life. Like most big companies, it seems that with the economic situation as it is, Google is seeking to use its clout to bully others into reducing its margins without doing anything itself. It is not unreasonable that they should have to pay a fee relative to the amount of licensed music on their site, though I don't know enough about the specifics of what the PRS is asking for to comment on the situation.
-
It was interesting what Hunter was saying about "I'd be prepared to pay a small fee to use youtube..."
I thought yeah, same here... at first. Then I realised (and I'm not a big user) that youtube's fine if it's free, but I'd be one of the people who never went there again if I had to pay... there must be millions like me - they'd lose loads of audience if they charged, advertisers would be less interested maybe, blah, blah...
Not really thought about any of this before... it'll be interesting to see where this all goes...
-
I don't live in the UK so this doesn't affect me. That said, I think it is unfortunate that youtube has made this decision. It doesn't seem like it will ultimately be good for business.
As far as viewing the vids themselves, couldn't you browse by a proxy connection that puts you out in another country? Something like the tor network?
Never heard of the Tor thing until today.
Might have to investigate that...
-
Shhh, don't tell everyone about proxys! :D
It used to work... but these days, i've tried many times to use american proxies to view US only web pages and it just hasn't worked.
Though im not the tech savvy genius i used to be :/
Everyone should use www.justhearit.com, searches plenty of video sites and hell, its about time youtube lost a few popularity points!
-
Shhh, don't tell everyone about proxys! :D
It used to work... but these days, i've tried many times to use american proxies to view US only web pages and it just hasn't worked.
Though im not the tech savvy genius i used to be :/
Everyone should use www.justhearit.com, searches plenty of video sites and hell, its about time youtube lost a few popularity points!
Thanks for the link ! :)
-
The benefits of running a server in the US, SSH tunnelling. ;)
-
Last.fm is better and waaaaaay more comprehensive. As is Spotify.
Spotify is nice but it doesnt have as wide a range of music as I'd hoped for :(
-
Last.fm is better and waaaaaay more comprehensive. As is Spotify.
Spotify is nice but it doesnt have as wide a range of music as I'd hoped for :(
Nah, Last.fm is by far the better of the two, but if you want to hear whole albums by less obscure bands, it's handy.
Really I just meant it's better than Pandora, and if you liked Pandora, chances are the more obscure stuff isn;t your bag anyway, y'know?