PRS is not in the artists interest

Now that Youtube and PRS have broken off talks, and UK based Youtube viewers are now being denied access to music videos, the blanket of secrecy around how PRS works should come under closer scrutiny.

PRS are demanding fees for the webcasting of songs. Now, one can argue the rights and wrongs of that all day, is it promotion for the artist (see it on youtube, buy it on CD or download), or exploitation of the rights holder (they're stealing my stuff)? But the issues don't end there.

If, for arguments sake the rights holders should be paid for promotion of their product (sorry), how are they going to get paid? The beauty of the online world is measurability, you can count how many time an individual artists properties get accessed, not so much pay per click, more pay per play. And there is a good argument to say that that is exactly the kind of model I and others want - individuals getting paid for their creativity and efforts.

The PRS approach however is different, they "represent" artists and collect a song based fee irrespective of what that song is., and are not interested in what the song is. They say, stream a song, it's 4p each. Which is arguably fine, a friend on mine wrote a song that gets played occasionally on 80's nights and it is fair and proper that he gets recompensed (maybe). The problem is that PRS don't pay by number of plays!

Now, if you the artist or publisher provides evidence in the form of playlists or similar you can try and determine you rights, but unless you have access to all online services, radiom stations, pubs, clubs, etc. to get these playlists (if they exist) you are on a hiding to nothing. But PRS are still collecting the fees.

So where does the money go?

You could ask the PRS, short shrift there though, even members don't get a straight answer. But here's an interesting thing, who do you think are the biggest beneficiaries of this "unclaimed" money, why its the established artists. Think Phil Collins, Cliff Richard anyone who has had lots of number 1 hits, "they must be played most" goes the thinking. Hmm.

But regardless of the inequality of distribution, looking at the PRS published numbers for 2007 (the latest availabel on their website) online accounts for just 1.7% of their revenue, and they are prepared to block Youtube showing music videos in the UK.

Pathetic. If only they embraced this technology with a positive mindset there is a profitable future for thir members, at the moment they are working the very people they should be representing.