Music fans will no longer be able to watch their favourite videos on YouTube after Google blocked viewings during a dispute over licensing.
Last Updated: 11:25PM GMT 09 Mar 2009
Google started to block UK viewers from watching "premium music videos" from tonight but said it will take several days until all professional music videos are covered by the restriction.
The internet giant described it as a "painful decision" which it knew would cause "significant disappointment".
PRS for Music licenses Google to make music videos available to UK users on YouTube but the firms are currently negotiating a new licensing deal.
PRS for Music said it was shocked by Google's "drastic action" which it said would "punish" music lovers and songwriters.
The collection society which issues licences and collects royalties on behalf of copyright holders, said Google wants to pay "significantly less than at present to the writers of the music" while Google said the deal it had been offered would result in it losing money every time a video was played.
A statement from Google said: "Our previous licence from PRS for Music has expired, and we've been unable so far to come to an agreement to renew it on terms that are economically sustainable for us."
It said "prohibitive licensing fees" were an obstacle in the negotiations.
"We value the creativity of musicians and song writers and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright. But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our licence than before.
"The costs are simply prohibitive for us - under PRS's proposed terms we would lose significant amounts of money with every playback.
"In addition, PRS is unwilling to tell us what songs are included in the licence they can provide so that we can identify those works on YouTube - that's like asking a consumer to buy a blank CD without knowing what musicians are on it."
The statement added that they were still working with PRS for Music to reach mutually acceptable terms.
PRS for Music said it was "outraged on behalf of consumers and songwriters that Google has chosen to close down access to music videos on YouTube in the UK".
PRS for Music's Chief executive Steve Porter said: "We were shocked and disappointed to receive a call late this afternoon informing us of Google's drastic action which we believe only punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent."
While negotiations continue, Google said it would be working "to create more ways to compensate musicians and other rights-holders on YouTube".
A spokesman for PRS for Music said the new licence it is negotiating with Google reflects "the huge jump in music video use on their site".
He said Google provides PRS for Music with information about which videos have been viewed on YouTube and is billed according to that usage for those songwriters, composers and publishers which PRS represents.
If the video you're trying to watch on YouTube isn't playing any sound, chances are it isn't your speakers that are busted - it's more likely that copyright laws were broken.
In the latest chapter of YouTube's ongoing dispute with Warner Music Group over rights to its songs, the online video sharing site is allowing users to mute videos they've uploaded that violate copyright laws. Previously, the Google-owned company either yanked the videos or forced users to swap the soundtrack with its "pre-cleared music."
In response to media inquiries about the change, a YouTube spokesman pointed to a statement released Wednesday afternoon through its blog.
"We want you to have options when uploading videos with music in them. And if your video is subject to a copyright claim, you should have some choices too," said the statement signed, "the YouTube team."
The company said many of its users are using the newly introduced option to mute.
Doing so adds this message to the bottom of videos: "This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders. The audio has been disabled."
In December, 2008, Warner Music Group forced YouTube to cut off access to videos on the site containing Warner music after talks between the companies over licensing agreements collapsed.
YouTube warned its users at the time that they "may notice videos that contain music owned by Warner Music Group being blocked from the site."
On Wednesday, YouTube said music licensing "can get very complicated." The company added it's "working to find the right balance between encouraging creativity and free expression and respecting the rights of copyright holders and the law."
Warner could not be reached for comment. However, a spokeswoman from the company told Wired's Epicenter blog that the muting policy was Google's idea.
The response to Google's blog post was less than supportive.
"Fail," wrote one person. "Complete and utter fail."
Another person who responded said Google should pay for rights to use the songs.
"I guess since you guys are making money off of our videos, you should pay the companies to leave the audio how it is."
There was a measure of sympathy for YouTube: "YouTube is the wrong party to be complaining to about this," wrote one person. "It's the copyright holders who are holding YouTube responsible for infringing their rights."
Google-owned video-sharing site YouTube is silencing music videos in the U.K. after negotiations with the country's Performing Right Society (PRS for Music), which collects licensing fees for artists and labels, failed.
"Our previous license from PRS for Music has expired, and we've been unable so far to come to an agreement to renew it on terms that are economically sustainable for us," a statement from YouTube read. "There are two obstacles in these negotiations: prohibitive licensing fees and lack of transparency. We value the creativity of musicians and songwriters and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright. But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our license than before."
The YouTube statement continued: "The costs are simply prohibitive for us--under PRS' proposed terms we would lose significant amounts of money with every playback. In addition, PRS is unwilling to tell us what songs are included in the license they can provide so that we can identify those works on YouTube--that's like asking a consumer to buy a blank CD without knowing what musicians are on it."
But a statement from PRS for Music claimed that Google doesn't want to pay enough for licensing fees.
"PRS for Music is outraged on behalf of consumers and songwriters that Google has chosen to close down access to music videos on YouTube in the U.K.," read a statement from the industry group, which noted that Google rakes in billions of dollars in revenue. "Google has told us they are taking this step because they wish to pay significantly less than at present to the writers of the music on which their service relies, despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing."
A report from the BBC suggests that the change will take effect later on Monday.
YouTube representatives, meanwhile, pointed to the fact that royalty fees in the U.K. caused streaming music service Pandora to pull out of the country (along with other non-U.S. markets) two years ago, and said that smaller players in digital media are currently feeling the pain. PRS for Music has also targeted small businesses in the U.K. for playing radios publicly, which the group says is a form of piracy.
Since it only pertains to music videos, this won't affect, say, Queen Elizabeth's royal YouTube channel. But U.S. digital media companies, particularly when it comes to music, have repeatedly encountered rough seas abroad.
One of the most high-profile has been Apple's iTunes, which several years ago came under scrutiny from one European government after another, typically concerning digital rights management restrictions in its iTunes Store. But music videos have been contentious both in and outside the U.S., with labels apparently unclear as to whether the best strategy would be to ink deals with YouTube--where they have less control--or go at it on their own. Much of the controversy comes from the fact that the music industry says it just doesn't profit much from having its videos on YouTube.
Sources told CNET News earlier this month that YouTube was working with Universal Music Group to create a standalone site "closely linked" to YouTube, a shadowy project that has been described as a Hulu for music videos. And Viacom has created its own hub, MTVMusic.com. It's complicated enough in the U.S.; bringing overseas players and viewers into account opens many new cans of worms.
Subject: Warning to HDV / AVCHD owners wanting DVD output. Posted by: IdahoJoe Date: 12/4/2008 3:10:07 PM
After an extensive support session with Sony, please be aware that Vegas MSP9 does not allow DVD compatible MPEG-2 content to be rendered as upper field first.
If you have an HDV / AVCHD camera, it records interlaced video as upper field first.
When Vegas renders out your MPEG-2 files for DVD, it will be lower field first, regardless of your project settings. You will experience horrible shuddering and combing on fast moving sequences when played back on interlaced devices due to frame reversal. Note that the problem will not exhibit on progressive playback devices such as a PC monitor, but once viewed on an interlaced television, it will be painfully obvious.
There is no work around to enable upper field first rather than purchase Vegas full. Other industry players such as Apple have issued fixes for these types of problems, but Sony does not see it as a problem.
If you are thinking of editing interlaced HDV / AVCHD footage for DVD output, you'll need to find a different tool to achieve quality results. ***************** I was frustrated too with the fact that Movie Studio is unable to keep the field order unchanged while creating an MPEG2 file. I end up rendering my AVCHD footage from the timeline into an intermediate uncompressed HD YUV and then converting it to SD MPEG2 using a third party software. Shame on you, Sony. ****************** VMS is a good editor with a bunch of features, no one asks for any extra. But once you've finished editing your project you need to be able to export into something playable on a standalone player. Right? In my case I needed an MPEG2 for creating a DVD and an AVCHD file for Blu-Ray. What could've been simplier than that... but... None of those essential features worked properly. And this is nonsense. It's a bug that Sony should have fixed ASAP. I had a trial version then but two month later I see people on this forum still struggling with the same issues.
Ivan123, now, you're suggesting to buy a DVD player with a USB port supporting wmv? I dont know if that's gonna be easy for me to convince all my friends, ralatives, workmates and many other people whom I'm sharing my videos with, to follow this route and toss all their DVD players and get a new one only because my current video editor is unable to create a simple MPEG2 file... That will be tough. ****************** I would hardly call maintaining the proper field order of your source video a "pro" feature. EVERY SINGLE OTHER editing suite, even the most basic that comes with the hardware, has provisions for keeping the proper field order. Apple even issued a patch for compressor-2 that allows for proper field order in their product when used with AVCHD cameras.
This is a huge bug that Sony chooses to ignore. And it's only going to get worse as more and more of these cameras become in use. Hopefully the number of complaints will rise to the point that Sony will respond, as Vegas truly is a marvelous piece of software. Unfortunately, it is impossible to create acceptable results while this bug exists. ********************** AVCHD/HDV footage can be rendered as MPEG-2, but Vegas will swap the field order to lower field first, causing combing and jerking playback on interlaced devices.
Each frame of interlaced video has two fields. Think of each field of the frame as a moment in time. You have to play the earliest recorded field first, then the later or it would appear you are going backwards in time. The order in which to display the fields of the frame is determined by the field order. Different types of equipment have different field orders. NTSC DV cameras, for instance, recorde the lower field first. HDV/AVCHD cameras, however, record the upper field first.
Essentially, Vegas is taking our upper field first video, and rendering it as lower field first. Upon playback on an interlaced TV, the lower field of the frame (the later position in time) is now played before the upper field (the earlier position in time). Our output now has a backwards jerking motion for every frame. The effect isn't noticeable on scenes with little movement, but a fast pan is a terrible thing to behold.
You will usually not see the problem on a progressive display, as the entire frame (both fields, or moments in time) will be displayed at the exact same time. Some de-interlacers, however, will show a ghosting or combing type effect depending on the type of de-interlacing. (blending, smart, bob, etc..)
To see if you are affected by this problem, you'll need to watch your output on an interlaced display. Make sure your footage is not static. The faster the motion, the more noticeable the problem. It affects all versions of Vegas that do not allow us to set the render to upper field first. (Vegas Pro allows for custom MPEG-2 templates). ********************* I'm sure that would work if you don't value your time and don't care for the quality of your finished product.
Interestingly enough, I'm trialing both Corel X2 and the Pinnacle 12 products. Both allow upper field first selection, and even smart render my source keeping quality at 100%. I'm leaning towards X2 right now, but I will sure miss the Vegas interface. Sadly, quality output is more important... after all it's the end video I am concerned about, not the interface niceties. ********************* I have also duplicated this error. I guess main project properties doesn't affect on rendering options ( if i choose right field order on main properties it doesn't go to rendering)?
I also noticed that VMS does not recognize progressive frames on raw AVCHD m2ts clip properties. It says always Upper field first, although I have also progressive material from Canon HF100.
***************************************************************************** If it's too broke, it's beyond fixing.
