You are here

Music on YouTube

Page 2 of 2

Re: Music on YouTube

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:03 pm
by CS70
ManFromGlass wrote:I don’t know if a labour club would fall under this same scenario, but if you were having the event at a pub wouldn’t the pub be paying a fee to the local performing rights society to play music? So would YouTube’s fall under the same license? Sounds like it could be another gray (grey? I never know) area.

Alas, it's not grey at all. The business need to acquire mechanical licenses (and in there's "flat" agreements so it doesn't need to do it on a per-song basis) and often must also issue a monthly reporting.

This is a different fee than, for example, the one paid for having a band play live music (which is not mechanical).

The system seems byzantine at first (and there's surely ways to makes it simpler) but once you get into the ways that music is played and how the various actors make a living, it's actually reasonably rational.

What is really broken is how all the money so collected then becomes compensation for the artists - meaning how the calculations are done. But that's a different thread...

Re: Music on YouTube

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:11 pm
by CS70
OneWorld wrote:But it is not for commercial uses, it's for charity, no entry fee, no tickets. That being said I fully appreciate there are many many 'charitable' ventures that are lucrative that masquerade as having charitable intent - there's gold in them thar collecting tins!

Yeah but that's the point I'm trying to make: you have different players which place different requirements on you and the "non-commercial" point doesn't get you free on all of them.

YouTube is nice, and says that for non commercial use you can actually stream publicly (while a business can't: YT is targeted towards private use). What they say is "it's ok to use our platform".

But YT doesn't say anything (and cannot say anything) about what the owners of what you stream using that platform allow or not. It's not YT property to decide upon, so YT is very careful to state that it doesn't.

So you can stream publicly your own material that you uploaded on YT for example (but if includes other people content, you must have obtained licenses before uploading it... unless it's fair use). But the moment you stream someone else's video, you need a license for the content regardless of the commercial intention or not, because it's not private use, and YT (or Spotify) has negotiated only license for private consumption.

As in my post up, it makes good sense because the owner may well not agree with your use - whether is commercial or not - and, since it is his creation, it's his right to decide whether to agree (it's a bit like private property).

Re: Music on YouTube

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:14 pm
by OneWorld
CS70 wrote:
ManFromGlass wrote:I don’t know if a labour club would fall under this same scenario, but if you were having the event at a pub wouldn’t the pub be paying a fee to the local performing rights society to play music? So would YouTube’s fall under the same license? Sounds like it could be another gray (grey? I never know) area.

Alas, it's not grey at all. The business need to acquire mechanical licenses (and in there's "flat" agreements so it doesn't need to do it on a per-song basis) and often must also issue a monthly reporting.

This is a different fee than, for example, the one paid for having a band play live music (which is not mechanical).

The system seems byzantine at first (and there's surely ways to makes it simpler) but once you get into the ways that music is played and how the various actors make a living, it's actually reasonably rational.

What is really broken is how all the money so collected then becomes compensation for the artists - meaning how the calculations are done. But that's a different thread...

I guess what i am getting at is, does the PRS differentiate between which kind of mechanical artefact actually plays the music - a gramophone, a juke box (HDD) or a streamer?

Re: Music on YouTube

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:17 pm
by OneWorld
Anyway, I've given up on my charitable intent, it's not worth the bother

Re: Music on YouTube

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:19 pm
by CS70
OneWorld wrote:I guess what i am getting at is, does the PRS differentiate between which kind of mechanical artefact actually plays the music - a gramophone, a juke box (HDD) or a streamer?

No.

A big challenge for the big streamers was how complicated the system was in the face of thef fact that computers allow uploads of thousands of compositions per day, as opposite to "old times" were compositions were deposited manually . In the US this has just been fixed...

Re: Music on YouTube

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:13 pm
by OneWorld
CS70 wrote:
OneWorld wrote:I guess what i am getting at is, does the PRS differentiate between which kind of mechanical artefact actually plays the music - a gramophone, a juke box (HDD) or a streamer?

No.

A big challenge for the big streamers was how complicated the system was in the face of thef fact that computers allow uploads of thousands of compositions per day, as opposite to "old times" were compositions were deposited manually . In the US this has just been fixed...

Yep and the worst of it is, the likes of iTunes et al takes the biggest cut. I remember reading a quote by Pete Waterman who having latched onto streaming and it's potential decided to re-release "Never Gonna Give You Up" and to his delight got about 75,000 plays within a day or so, then he discovered the payment he got for that would just about buy him a new set of buffer stops for his train set. OK, we know he won't be reduced to a life in penury, but I got his point, seems YT etc is more a showcase than a revenue stream, but that's another topic.

Thanks for your help anyway