creative deconstruction

British Musician Wants Free Publicity – and to Get Paid for It

Posted on 07. Apr, 2009 by refe in NEWS

It seems that yet again the music industry lobbyists want to have their cake and eat it too – they want someone to drum up free publicity for their work, and to cough up a fee for the privilege.

Last week I wrote about Google’s decision to block music videos on YouTube in the UK and Germany due to rising royalty fees. This has upset a lot of artists who have enjoyed the free exposure that YouTube has brought them. One of the most vocal in this camp is British musician Billy Bragg. He recently railed on Google for its decision to block music videos, and demanded that they agree to pay the fees:

“We have growing concern over the use of our music on the internet and the unfair way we believe music is treated by Google and YouTube, which it owns. At the heart of the issue is Google’s disagreement over the prices it should pay to PRS for Music, the not-for-profit licensing organisation. Music fans in the UK are confused and angry at Google’s stance. We, as songwriters and composers of music, share those concerns. It is not in anyone’s best interests to block access to music. Fans are denied enjoyment, creators aren’t paid and illegal music sites benefit from the resulting displacement of web traffic.
Google says it cannot operate YouTube if it has to pay a royalty — however small — every time a video containing music is played. In 2007 the UK’s independent Copyright Tribunal established that a minimum royalty per play was an essential requirement in the licensing of online services. Google fails to recognize this and ascribes little value to music — in spite of a huge increase in music usage on YouTube’s UK service. Royalties are a vital income source for all professional creators and must be preserved to ensure a continued vibrant music industry. We trust that Google will reinstate music on YouTube and pay a fair price for it.”

Let’s take a step back and consider what Bragg is really saying here. The crux of his position can be summed up in his assertion that Google has some sort of moral obligation to play music videos because if they don’t, “creators aren’t paid.” Later in the article he goes on to say “Royalties are a vital income source for all professional creators and must be preserved to ensure a continued vibrant music industry. We trust that Google will reinstate music on YouTube and pay a fair price for it.”

There is a fundamental problem with Bragg’s reasoning. He argues that because content creators need to get paid, Google needs to play music videos and pay royalties – even at the expense of its own business. To put it another way, Google’s main function as a company should be to support the music industry.

This just doesn’t make sense. Google’s main function is to be a profitable business. Larry Page and Sergey Brin didn’t establish their company as a not-for-profit designed to provide a welfare system for musicians. And they acquired YouTube because they saw potential for increased revenue – not because they realized it could be a great way to make sure Billy Bragg never goes without a paycheck.

If Google doesn’t want to play music videos on YouTube it doesn’t have to. However, if musicians so badly want their music videos on YouTube, they should be willing to compromise on the fees they’re demanding. Google holds all the cards here. My guess is that over time artists will realize just how much they were benefiting from YouTube and when they do, they might even begin to change their tune.

Tags: business models, creative deconstruction, MUSIC INDUSTRY, royalties, youtube