It now means that if a song is popular but isn't making many sales that the artist can get their share of the revenue. The only negative is that to qualify for the revenue you have to get it from those who are collecting it. As greedy as the record labels are it means that artists have a good chance of getting some of their money for the work they do. Lazy spoilt brats who somehow feel that all music should be free should be disconnected from the net and made to take music lessons. Just because record labels make far too much money doesn't mean that the artists should make none. In the example of YouTube the advantage is if some 15 year old skater makes his video feature Linkin Park (showing his poor music taste) the kid doesn't have to pay instead Linkin Park make their money from YouTube/Google and their advertising revenue. Seems pretty fair all round.

Martin Bentley, Bristol, UK

Lets suppress creativity on the net for a few bucks profit

Obscene

G Roberts, Perth, Australia

It now means that if a song is popular but isn't making many sales that the artist can get their share of the revenue. The only negative is that to qualify for the revenue you have to get it from those who are collecting it.

As greedy as the record labels are it means that artists have a good chance of getting some of their money for the work they do. Lazy spoilt brats who somehow feel that all music should be free should be disconnected from the net and made to take music lessons. Just because record labels make far too much money doesn't mean that the artists should make none.

In the example of YouTube the advantage is if some 15 year old skater makes his video feature Linkin Park (showing his poor music taste) the kid doesn't have to pay instead Linkin Park make their money from YouTube/Google and their advertising revenue. Seems pretty fair all round.

Martin, Bristol, UK

It isn't a 1 to 1 situation like that. It is more like Linkin Park's producers are going to be recieivng money regardless, as YouTube would be paying a flat-fee to liscence all songs from these produces, and if the top 5 videos with millions of hits each all use Linkin Park songs, then their producers will get a much bigger cut of the money that YouTube will be paying. Clubs usually have the same kind of contract going on so that if a DJ comes in and plays music by someone or a band comes in and does cover songs, royalties are considered already paid for. So this isn't an uncommon sort of agreement at all, it is just uncommon for it to be applied to internet sites. And if the popular songs get more people to watch the videos and YouTube can turn that around into advertising revenue, it is a pretty good deal for them I would imagine.

Andrew, RP, California

license to print money:
What exactly is to stop the music industry/artists or agents from uploading their own video c/w soundtracks [for free] and get paid for doing so..

A N other, york,

This couldn't possibly mean that if some 15yo kid makes a skateboarding showoff video, and uses a Linkin Park song for the background music, YouTube has to pay Linkin Park?

If so this would be thethe most pathetic example of runaway greed I've ever seen.

Dave, Philadelphia, PA