I am in very mixed opinions on this issue, on one hand I agree that songwriters and composers are rightfully entitled to royalties when their music is used. The music business is seeing a decline as it stands, with an increase of illegal downloading and file sharing sites popping up all over the net, I can understand the perceived importance of demands made by the industry body. Refusal to pay sent out a message to the music industry that they do not agree with charges but the main sufferers of this exercise are the YouTube users…. Without the permissions of official music videos and tracks, the great success and usage of the site will fall dramatically, meaning a decrease in profits for the owners. The use of these tracks and videos are again a mixed bag, It could be seen as free advertising for the artists/ record companies etc, as people can review songs with removing them from the site, in this sense I disagree with UK Music for their actions.
So what is the answer? Do Google pay the charges laid out and risk having to charge users for the service or should UK Music re-evaluate their demands and come to an agreement with Google?
I suppose the question you have to ask is why this problem has only arisen with the PRS. Google have had no problems with the equivalent organisations across the globe but for whatever reason the PRS deal is proving troublesome.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely unbiased on this subject, ever since reading that the PRS will take legal action against anyone who listens to the radio at work and doesn't pay the fee to do so I've been against their organisation. I'm hoping it is yet another sign that the music industry as we know it is in its final throes of death