PRS v Google

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 05:24 PM

There are numerous provisions in US law designed to stop Payola and Plugola - the payments made by record companies to ensure that their records were played on the wireless. They did that because such play produced increased sales. The PRS is complaining about free advertising. Nowt so queer as folk.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 05:20 PM

Fair Play for Creators believes that fans should have access to the music they love, and that the work of music creators should be paid for by the online businesses who benefit from its use.

You will play our music, and you will pay us for doing so. The option of not playing our music is not one we will accept!

I don't see how this can possibly come under a title of "Fair Play"

Surely the fans have access to the music, they can buy the CDs.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 05:12 PM

Fair Play for Creators was established after Internet-giant, Google, made the decision to remove some music content from YouTube.

Google's decision was made because it didn't want to pay the going rate for music, to the creators of that music, when it's used on YouTube.

Music creators rely on receiving royalties whenever and wherever their work is used. Royalties are vital in nurturing creative music talent. They make sure music creators are rewarded for their creativity in the same way any other person would be in their work.

Fair Play for Creators believes that fans should have access to the music they love, and that the work of music creators should be paid for by the online businesses who benefit from its use.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:39 PM

They certainly do seem to be complaining that Google is not playing music and, therefore, not paying royalties. Do they really think they can force Google to play the music? That seems a bit ridiculous.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:35 PM

I remain to be convinced.
The PRS do a necessary job, but on this occasion it seems to be complaining that Google is not paying for not playing the music.
Surely that's what the PRS wants!

When the PRS chase small garage owners saying "If you don't pay us you can't have the radio on for your workers" then this is what they're after.
A case of wanting both the penny and the bun?

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 12:29 PM

Done Jim !

Subject: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 11:40 AM

If you would like to pledge your support to the PRS in its battle with Google, please go here: PRS v Google