PRS for Music Deals With Spotify, Bashes YouTube

PRS for Music, a collecting society for UK songwriters, composers and music publishers, confirmed yesterday that it agreed “commercial terms” with music streaming service Spotify. PRS for Music wants to force YouTube/Google into a deal to pay for the use of UK music, and supposedly the agreement with Spotify shows that such arrangements are possible with streaming services.

Guy Chambers, who wrote the Robbie Williams hit Angels, said: “Google is manipulating the PRS for Music dispute in a deeply cynical way; to confuse the public into believing that the industry is outdated and behaving in a protectionist manner.”

Streaming music services such as Spotify and YouTube are turning fans away from piracy. Warner Music’s executive vice president of digital strategy and business development, Michael Nash, said that “the research we followed and our internal view suggests there is some migration away from illegal sites.”

YouTube, as a promotional tool, makes money for the industry. A recent Ipsos MediaCT UK study showed that 50% of adult YouTube users went on to spend money on music, 36% of which bought a CD, 15% bought a download and another 7% went on to buy concert tickets. Younger users are probably content to stick to streaming, and never get around to actually paying for music.

PRS for Music has been charging a rate of £0.022 per stream. So if Spotify has to pay that much per play, can it remain profitable? That’s YouTube’s excuse, saying that losing money every time someone streamed a song isn’t a viable business decision. Will the deal make Spotify’s service any better? YouTube is still broadcasting many user-made music videos with. From a consumer perspective, how important is it to appease the royalty collectors?

Photo via 4.bp.blogspot.com
Source: TimesOnline