Rates Lowered For Streamed Music In the UK 94
An anonymous reader tips the news that the UK's music collection society, PRS, has announced a new pricing plan it hopes may entice YouTube and Pandora back to the UK market. Pandora pulled out at the start of 2008, and YouTube began removing content from the view of UK users last March. "From 1 July 2009, firms will have to pay 0.085p for each track streamed, down from the previous rate of 0.22p. [The] head of the music streaming service We7 told BBC News he welcomed the new charges. 'It's brilliant. Not so much the rates but the realization by the PRS that things have to change in the digital world. Till now it's felt like they were not listening,' he said. ... 'They [the PRS] are getting in touch with the reality of the digital world.' [The PRS's managing director said] 'We've laid our stall out and listened to everyone who would engage with us. We've consulted with the 25 firms that represent 97% of our revenue over the past six months and have been given opinions from many others. We need to ensure the music artists are paid for their work, but we also wanted to make sure that the framework was in place to enable the digital market to grow.'"
Dual Standards (Score:5, Informative)
Also confusing to me is that I thought YouTube reached a deal with these guys [paidcontent.co.uk] back in 2007? Did that just fall apart?
Re:How much do the Artists get? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see how much the Artists get from the "0.085p for each track streamed".
I bet it's extremely low.
Bear in mind the PRS represents songwriters. So the performer gets nothing from this, unless they're also the songwriter.
As such a fair proportion of what's collected should go to the songwriter - since the PRS is not in itself a profit making institution, and this money doesn't go towards record company expenses such as marketing.
Re:Dual Standards (Score:5, Informative)
Also confusing to me is that I thought YouTube reached a deal with these guys [paidcontent.co.uk] back in 2007? Did that just fall apart?
The PRS wanted to increase the fees. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7933565.stm [bbc.co.uk] back in March:
Mr Walker told BBC News the PRS was seeking a rise in fees "many, many factors" higher than the previous agreement.
I think they only realised they were shooting themselves in the foot after the trigger was already pulled.
Re:Dual Standards (Score:3, Informative)
What I don't understand is that PRS asks for 3-5% of your Net Broadcasting Revenue yet if you're an online radio they ask for 6-8% of your total revenue.
Because they're a monopoly, backed by the power of the government, so they will define each market as they please and set their prices in each market based on maximizing the amount they can get away. Literally they'll do this until companies run away and exit the business, as apparently happened with YouTube.
If they wanted 20% from people wearing green clothes, they could demand it, because the people with green clothes would have no other choice other than to not play music in their shops and offices.
Rich.
Re:How much do the Artists get? (Score:5, Informative)
I remember a day when the composers and songwriters were also the performers.
Nothing has changed in that respect whatsoever. Kanye West writes his own material. Frank Sinatra sang songs written by someone else. Mozart wrote music to be performed by other musicians.
Re:How much do the Artists get? (Score:3, Informative)
Er, Performing Rights Society?
Yes, you pay this Society for the right to perform the material they manage.
Re:The thing that amused me about TFA... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How much do the Artists get? (Score:4, Informative)
And -- best of all -- it's money that the record label doesn't get to touch.
Only if you own the copyright on your music. Which writers initially give up to the publishers.
"PRS for Music is a not-for-profit membership society. Music creators - writers, composers, publishers - join PRS for Music and give us permission to license to use of their music."
Which musicians making a living from selling music do not have publishers? They for example say things like:
"Collecting societies, like PRS for Music, exist to simplify the arrangement between the millions of music-users who require permission and the music creators who can provide a licence."
They define publishers as "music creators". On the whole very few professional music creators (the people who actually make the music) can provide a license. The publishing companies, Sony / Warner / EMI et al., own the rights and hence collect the royalty payments.
PRS think 1 person is an audience and that them listening to the radio constitutes a performance ( http://www.prsformusic.com/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/Pages/WhatisPRSforMusic.aspx [prsformusic.com] ):
"There is no statutory minimum of people required to constitute an audience. However, in some cases, PRS for Music does not charge a licence fee to workplaces with a single (lone) worker."
Note that if that person listens to a CD instead they need both a PRS and a PPL license in addition to paying the price for the CD.
--- ./ have to strip out whitespace and make this unreadable?
Why does
Re:How much do the Artists get? (Score:3, Informative)
I should have been more clear. When referring to "labels" I meant record labels... the folks who press and ship CDs and who deal with recordings. Publishers deal with the music and lyrics in non-recorded form.
Publishers come in all shapes and sizes. Many, many composers and lyricists are also their own one-person publishing companies. Those with less business acumen (or who simply don't want to deal with things) will make use of a publishing company, but even in these cases, the publisher takes a minority of the revenue. As you mentioned, there are a few monolithic publishing companies that handle the publishing for thousands of works (Warner-Chappell comes to mind). In a few cases, publishing companies are owned by music conglomerates which also own record labels (Sony ATV, per your example).
But regardless of a music publisher's size or ownership, they're in service to the composers and lyricists. There's little point in signing up with a publisher that takes 100% of your publishing earnings -- this was prevalent in the 1960s with the "song factories" that used the work-for-hire model, but much less so today.
You're correct that collection societies provide an opportunity for big publishing companies to make a lot of money, but I don't think it's as bad for composers and lyricists as you paint it. As mentioned, the cash split is much more favorable to the composers/lyricists than the royalties for sales of recordings, and (unlike selling CDs) it's relatively easy for writers to be their own publishers.