Performing Rights Society - Is there a legal obligation to join?

[Cobby]

Still - I've passed it on and shall quickly forget all about it.

Uh oh, sounds like someone is providing goods unfit for purpose, hehehe

 

[Dawg]

Slight tangent here.

Reading 'Men who stare at Goats', and there is a great bit where a songwriter's agent phones him to tell him that the US Army in Iraq are using one of his songs to torture people with; they play prisoners this song continually on a loop: "Jeez Guy, can you imagine the royalties the Army owe us for that?"

I wonder if the PRS monitor MI5 and MI6.....bit bloody unfair if some poor creative songwriter doesn't get torture royalties, huh?

 

[paulears]

Today another job came in, and as part of the job, the client wants me to sort the copyright out as the people funding the project want to be 100% legal. The show is a dance show, featuring dance from children, young adults and teachers from local schools and colleges - all performing to CD. PPL are the rights holders and the system works on a pay per minute basis - just over £3 per minute of playing time. The show will be two hours worth. However, PPL cannot license any track that has a performance linked to the source music - meaning, that if they do a song from Lion King, and the kiddies are dressed as animals - then PRS and PPL cannot license it at all - and I need to apply to the license holder direct for permission - which may not be granted.

So in this case, it's going to cost a minimum of £360 + VAT for a single performance, even though people actually have the CDs in their possession.

I didn't believe it was this complex. I'm also informed that if I transfer the CD tracks to say, a mini disk or computer system for playout without swapping cds, then strictly speaking, I also need a license for this too.

In all honesty, it's no wonder people do have trouble trying to be legit!

 

[yorkshirejames]

meaning, that if they do a song from Lion King, and the kiddies are dressed as animals - then PRS and PPL cannot license it at all - and I need to apply to the license holder direct for permission - which may not be granted.

This is presumably the old "this work cannot be performed in a dramatic form without the permission of x".

The question is - if you get copyright permission from disney then (given disney also presumably own the copyright to (a) the music score and lyrics and (b) the CD) do you need to pay paything at all to PRS/PPL/MCPS?

 

[paulears]

That's correct - when certain works are removed from PRS control, it's called "7F'd" - clause 7(f) that allows a rights holder to withdraw their material from rights management. Disney are a tricky one. They will often give permission to use their material in concert conditions - so they would permit you to sing songs from their shows with the cast in posh frocks, or dinner suits, with a real band - but say NO very strongly to any performance with scenery or costume and makeup.

In these cases, you would pay Disney, and that's sufficient.

This is what happens to those shows that use original music - like Boogie Nights, or Grease. Popular music, not written for the show. When these shows tour, the songs get 7f'd - meaning that for that period, PRS/PPL et al cannot help you.

I used 20 seconds of Sugar Baby Love once, and that was charged for - yet another popular song, 'owned' by a big record company just told me, unofficially, over the phone with nothing in writing - to use it. Turned out the fees would have been £30, but it would have cost them over £70 to draw up the contract, so they turned a blind eye. Nothing is ever certain in copyright issues.

My dance show problem has been neatly solved by PRS who are providing a special permit at quite a modest cost.

 

[hdsbob]

I write and record music in my spare time, as well as in a past more serious semi pro basis. I use that music for our Music on Hold.

I really am looking forward to the day when we get the phone call from a jobsworth at from the PRS. We can tell them to get lost and then, hopefully they will take us to court! Then at the last minute I can tell them I wrote it so the copyright is mine. lol.

 

[paulears]

Now that one I like!

 

[yorkshirejames]

I write and record music in my spare time, as well as in a past more serious semi pro basis. I use that music for our Music on Hold.

I really am looking forward to the day when we get the phone call from a jobsworth at from the PRS. We can tell them to get lost and then, hopefully they will take us to court! Then at the last minute I can tell them I wrote it so the copyright is mine. lol.

Can I get a ticket for the public gallery please?

 

[Sue De Nimes]

The sports club that I am Chairman of has received a quotation from these bottom feeders.

I am pretty hacked off at the nerve of these guys to just pluck a figure out of thin air and say that is the charge due. In my conversation with them they frequently lied about their powers and the law. They seem to pass themselves off as some sort of quasi-judicial body.

I am also baffled as to what difference the size of a TV screen makes to the potential rights due for playback of music.

Anyone got any recent advice on dealing with these bottom feeders? On a point of principal I object to paying anything like the sort of money they are looking for. We only play sports on a TV in the clubhouse and the money they are looking for is for music played as part of adverts and as background music on sports programming.

 

[paulears]

If when they call you, you tell them you are a member, and provide your number, they'll go away.

As for the Chairman of the sports club. Must be dreadful to have to pay money for something you obviously value so little. Big screen = lots of people, a 12" portable in the corner is always an option if only a couple of people want to watch. As a Sports club, I thought you'd be up to speed with rights - after all, football, rugby and most sports like F1 are now pay to view in some way.

I really wish people would accept the fact that music belongs to people, and users consume it with their permission. The permission might be free of charge, it could be expensive. If you really object to paying for something, then don't use it.

Nobody takes copyright issues seriously, and treat PPL/PRS and MCPS as some kind of parasite, sucking the lifeblood out of people's need to use other people's property for free. Maybe, just maybe if so many people didn't put two fingers up to them, the members would be happy for them to be more gentle, say please, and trust the consumers to pay up on their own. That's not going to happen is it!

You can have points of principal on all sorts of things. Tax, politics, immigration - but the law says this doesn't matter - if there is an Act of Parliament that makes rules, then people are free to use the law to recover what is due. Like it or lump it. I use radio equipment, and the licenses are pretty expensive. Lots of people don't bother with that either - it doesn't make it right though. If there was an equivalent to PRS/PPL for that, loads of pubs and clubs would moan like mad about having to pay for these too.

Over the years I've got used to people being outraged by this subject. I know everyone disagrees with me - but I don't care one jot! Some musicians and composers are rich, some are poor. Without PRS/PPL, there would be far more poor ones!

How about at the next annual general meeting you put in the minutes that you don't like having to pay to use music - you've done your job. Why not also say you don't like the TV license as well, or how about the premises license - thats expensive too, and maybe insurance, and security on the door..................

 

[Deleted member 59730]

They seem to pass themselves off as some sort of quasi-judicial body.

And isn't it a shame that the UK Government want to extend this type of licencing?

 

[Sue De Nimes]

The likes of the PRS are parasites. This is tantamount to "demanding money with menaces"

I object to the amount being charged, the way they go about their business and their misrepresentation.

Can you explain to me why a 14" portable affects the PRS in a different way to a large flat screen TV? They are collecting rights for what is listened to - not what is viewed.

 

[paulears]

For goodness sake - the bigger the TV, the more people in a public location can watch it! Have a think about the huge screens we've had about in the past year where thousands of people watch.

In a small theatre with 100 seats they pay less than a big one.

I guess PRS/PPL now just get treated the same as a tax collector - my sister is one of those, and doesn't let people's opinion worry her any more.

I'm going to do the same with copyright.

I think PRS and PPL do a fine job - making people who don't want to pay for what they use - pay!

Tough!

 

[Sue De Nimes]

For goodness sake - the bigger the TV, the more people in a public location can watch it! Have a think about the huge screens we've had about in the past year where thousands of people watch.

For goodness sake did you not read my post? You don't watch music - you listen to it.

More people can listen to a 14" portable connected to a large set of speakers than to a 60" Plasma with its internal speakers.

Now if you are not going to be of any help with my query can I politely ask you to leave it for someone who is.

 

[paulears]

Sadly - it is you who do not understand how media is licensed. A radio receiver is one category of use, while a TV is a multi-channel media device. So if you use a television receiver to only play sound, you still need a TV license, and the fact you only listen is immaterial.

If you consume copyright material on your TV set, you will be charged based on the people that could, not do, listen.

I know it sounds a bit stupid, but nowadays even if playing the radio, TVs have screen savers or captions.

Music used during the production of a television programme is still subject to copyright, and is a licensable feature. On tonights live Emmerdale my wife is watching, they featured a number of well known tunes at a wedding reception. This will have cost them quite a bit to use. You only listen to it, but it's been used hasn't it.

You called the PRS parasites - let me ask you how you would pay for the music you consume without them collecting on behalf of their members? I think it probable that without these 'parasites' you would not pay for it at all, not because you are dishonest, or thief like, but because you would pay, if you knew how? I assume you would have paid? So perhaps if we work on the assumption that PRS are parasites because they got you - what are you defending? I hate paying my tax, I hate paying VAT I collect for free for the Government, I hate paying through the nose for gas and electricity, not to mention fuel duty. I happen to approve of PRS - sorry about that, but music is part of what I am in business for - and when I use it in a product I produce I pay up. I can't say I like it - but if I use somebodies music I have to, in the same way that if they use mine, so do they!

Not liking something doesn't mean it's somehow immoral - and people insist on personalising copyright in some way to make it kind of optional, sort of - and it is NOT!

 

[fathippy]

I really wish people would accept the fact that music belongs to people, and users consume it with their permission. The permission might be free of charge, it could be expensive. If you really object to paying for something, then don't use it.

Nobody takes copyright issues seriously, and treat PPL/PRS and MCPS as some kind of parasite, sucking the lifeblood out of people's need to use other people's property for free.

I get the feeling this thread might be going back around in a circle it has already been through, but....

I am not sure it is as simple as you make out. What people dont accept is having to pay for something coincidental, accidental, unwanted. If you could request for the adverts not to happen then you could happily watch your football or game of tennis or cricket without bothering other peoples copyrights, but if this is forced upon you without asking, it is a bit rich to then be forced to pay for it.

Also bear in mind that the money that is paid up front for the music for anything from adverts, to TV programmes, to radio stations is not inconsiderable, and based solely on the projected audience. If the majority of these people are persuaded to avoid listening for fear of getting "double-billed" the primary source of income will get decimated.

In short, the public annoyance is both for being forced to pay for something you dont really want or need but cannot opt out of, and the general principle that the "product" maybe being sold multiple times.

 

[simon field]

The music industry had it good for all those years, charging £15 - £16 for a CD.

Well now they don't have it so good do they? Internet has come along = free stuff!

They're trying to claw back some of what they've lost.

Tough.

 

[Sue De Nimes]

Sadly - it is you who do not understand how media is licensed. A radio receiver is one category of use, while a TV is a multi-channel media device. So if you use a television receiver to only play sound, you still need a TV license, and the fact you only listen is immaterial.

If you consume copyright material on your TV set, you will be charged based on the people that could, not do, listen.

I know it sounds a bit stupid, but nowadays even if playing the radio, TVs have screen savers or captions.

Music used during the production of a television programme is still subject to copyright, and is a licensable feature. On tonights live Emmerdale my wife is watching, they featured a number of well known tunes at a wedding reception. This will have cost them quite a bit to use. You only listen to it, but it's been used hasn't it.

You called the PRS parasites - let me ask you how you would pay for the music you consume without them collecting on behalf of their members? I think it probable that without these 'parasites' you would not pay for it at all, not because you are dishonest, or thief like, but because you would pay, if you knew how? I assume you would have paid? So perhaps if we work on the assumption that PRS are parasites because they got you - what are you defending? I hate paying my tax, I hate paying VAT I collect for free for the Government, I hate paying through the nose for gas and electricity, not to mention fuel duty. I happen to approve of PRS - sorry about that, but music is part of what I am in business for - and when I use it in a product I produce I pay up. I can't say I like it - but if I use somebodies music I have to, in the same way that if they use mine, so do they!

Not liking something doesn't mean it's somehow immoral - and people insist on personalising copyright in some way to make it kind of optional, sort of - and it is NOT!

I disagree with you completely and I have no interest in discussing this topic with you. As I said earlier unless you are willing to be of any help with my question I would rather you left things to those who were.

 

[davidakerr]

You are required by law to pay a licence fee to PRS and PPL.

If you are unsure about this, contact your solicitor who may very well charge you a fee to dispense the legal answer. Everybody is making money except the people who are playing the music............the licence holder!!

 

[PrestonLad]

I disagree with you completely and I have no interest in discussing this topic with you. As I said earlier unless you are willing to be of any help with my question I would rather you left things to those who were.

Sue (nice name, btw),

I'm afraid that Mr. Ears did make some pretty good points... although maybe his passion for the rights of musicians shines through rather strongly!

I'd put it this way.

1/ Recorded performers have generally worked hard, and deserve reward, as I'm sure you'd agree.

2/ It is very very hard (impossible in practice) to find a "golden system" that allows the user of these recordings to pay for this service exactly in proportion to the amount consumed.

3/ There's a long established principle that TV licences are required, whether you watch BBC for 16 hours a day, or just watch the ITV news. This is one of those practical broad-brush rules that has been established, to deal with the fact that a golden system is not practicable. (if you're a BBC TV addict, you win by the current system, but if you're an occasional viewer who doesn't really even watch the bbc, you lose. A pity, but someone has to apply some rules. So the fact that you only intend to show the sports events means that you're probably unfortunate, but you have to pay up. Otherwise, the whole system would just be over-complicated.

4/ In your sports club example, for a 'golden system' that precisely worked out a 'fair' payment, you would need to calculate the number of man-hours of music that was actually heard through your TV. Now this might be a very small amount, and could theoretically be monitored, but might cost 30-50K per year to get the staff to do that monitoring! They'd need to record (a) which channels you actually showed - checking you stuck to the sports channel. (b) how many people were watching for how many hours, and (c) for how many of those hours there was actually any music audible! It's just not going to happen. There's a clear need for some sort of broad-brush system. Again, you can feel aggrieved if the chosen system means you lose out... but what else can you do?

5/ You say you can't understand why the PRS people want to make a charge based on the size of your TV. This is strongly related to point (4). Nobody can actually count the number of people who watch the TV, so they need some basis on which to judge. And you'd surely agree that a 50"plasma is, on average, going to be more-viewed (hence more listened-to) than the 14" portable that you mention. Again... not an exact science... but we need practicable rules.

So in conclusion... there are always going to be winners and losers in any licencing system like this, and it seems that your sports club will get a rough deal. But can you think of a better system? Remember that if you find a way to charge some people less, you need a way to charge other people more - and the system needs to be easy to understand and apply.

There are millions of example where broad-brush rules lead to some unfairness. But they are accepted in society for the sake of simplicity.

• fairground rides where children have to be accompanied by adults. I don't want to go on... It doesn't cost the operator more for me to go on... but I pay for a ticket for both me and my daughter.

• Swimming pool... they don't charge by the hour. You buy your ticket whether you want a quick dip, or stay in there all day.

• All inclusive holidays... My wife & I never eat or drink much, so we're effectively subsidising the gluttons who take everything they can, and even have no shame in putting so much on their plates and in their glasses, half of it gets thrown away!
• the list could go on and on and on.

 

[paulears]

I'm sorry Sue, that I can't give you the answer you want - as just explained above very well - the problem is that I am passionate about it, because this is a business forum, and my business features copyright issues in almost every single project I do. In many of them, it works for me, in others, it costs me a lot of money to do the right thing - that is pay people for using their material.

I do realise the public perception of PRS is of some kind of shark, trying to get money off you - but they are an agent for people who produce material that left to themselves, they'd never get paid for.

The thing that always causes confusion is that only very rarely is copyright sold. In effect, the money you pay is a kind of rental, you pay to use it, and the amount you are charged depends on what you are doing with it. Music played to an audience of thousands at a pop concert is more expensive than that played in a small pub. Ironically, the premises license for venues now means more pubs can put on live music. Loads have already started - BUT - lots will forget this also means paying PRS for these new events. They may well have the plus sticker saying PRS - but if this is for background music, it won't cover live music. Music is just a business cost, to add to the others that we are all having to pay. People get upset because they don't think they should have to pay - when perhaps they already do pay something they think covers all kinds of music. It doesn't. Look at music a bit like a patent. If you wish to produce a new product that incorporates something like Dyson's patent on the critical bit of his vacuum cleaner into a new gizmo, you need to have their approval, and pay them. If you get approval, it can have strings attached. Maybe a maximum quantity, maybe a geographical restriction, maybe an electronic one - perhaps preventing you incorporating features from a product designed by Hoover?

It could be too difficult or expensive to license, so you don't do it. Music is the same. A religious organisation may decide NOT to license their product through PRS and do it themselves, giving rights for use for free to worthy causes, but charging commercial companies aiming to make a profit. It is their choice - the consumer only has the choice of doing it properly, or doing it illegally. There isn't a half-way house. Last year I paid ten times more TO PRS than I received from them for other people using my work. I've even attempted to make PRS aware of my work being used, but most of their data comes from sampling, so while Sting may always be in the sampling data, I won't be. It's just how things are, and even if I make next to nothing, it will always be better than I could have done myself. Lots of music producers would like PRS to be tougher, but based on public reaction to what we have now, I suspect that would be even less popular. Can I make it clear that you do NOT have to pay PRS at all. You are free to negotiate with every single rights holder yourself, and collect individual permission from each one. So you could make a list of say twenty songs you wish to play in public for your premises, Google to find the composer and the recording company or artiste (depending on their contract with their record company) and tell them how many times you will play it, for how long, and the number of people who will hear it. They will produce a contract - they do it all the time, and you pay them direct. Once you have done this for every song you wish to play, you are completely legal, and PRS/PPL will leave you alone once you provide them with the evidence you are covered, rights wise.

Anyone who uses solicitors for contract work will know how much this kind of thing costs. This is why the blanket PRS/PPL system gets used. It is CHEAPER than doing it yourself, and do you really wish to even try?

I'm sure nobody would wish to use music illegally, depriving the rights holder of what is legally their product - giving them the right to control who uses it. Perhaps you can remember when Beatles music never appeared on TV adverts? At that time the rights holders simply refused to allow it. Nobody took the chance, because they were advised that legally it was the holder's right to say no. Maybe a meat producer might have wanted to use a Beatle's song, but Linda McCartney did have the right (moral and legal) to say no.

I realise music is just 'something' trivial, and hence why it is misused, but to the people who produce it - it is their business!

There is a roaring trade in copyright free music - lift muzak being one example, or bland instantly forgettable music for a dentist's waiting room. Maybe the dentist paid £50 for a CD to be played non-stop, for ever. That again, is a choice the consumer makes. You could buy a CD and never pay PRS a penny, even if you distribute it around a building on TV sets of any size! If, however, you decide instead of my music you want Dire Straits, it is going to cost you!

The rules for charging are complex because it's such a technological world, and things change. A few years ago, the notion of sending music between rooms over a computer network hadn't been thought of, so couldn't be charged for. Now - electronic distribution is covered, music on TVs is covered, TV programmes on a laptop wireless network is covered, and the list will evolve endlessly. This does mean PRS can sometimes price you on the wrong tariff, but when people talk to them, it can often be explained and rectified. I've even heard of somebody on a lower tariff being told to 'not ask' when their real charge should have been higher. What is clear is that the law is on their side, so hard-nosed "see you in court" comments do not help people with their negotiations.

I do understand people hate the idea of paying for music use, but not understanding the system is the name of the game. How many people realise they do not OWN the music on a CD they have bought? They own the plastic, the box, the ink and the paper - BUT they only paid for permission to listen to it for domestic purposes. It's been written on every record, LP and CD since they were invented, but who reads it?

 

[fathippy]

I think some very valid points are made on both sides, however there is one point that interests me most about this, and that is the double billing element. I can understand that the "broadcasting" of a CD is a fairly clear cut thought process - ie just because I pay £10 that doesnt mean that I can benefit from an infinite amount of use of the music and an infinite amount of people to listen to it.

Where I dont get it, is when a radio station (or TV etc etc) pays a license specifically because it intends to target a certain amount of listeners. Surely this includes everybody it reasonably expects to listen, whether this be in an office, a bedroom or a car. If a certain percentage of these are going to be re-billed for the same thing directly, then the station is due a refund! Also if it has paid up front to broadcast to X thousand people, it would be a little annoyed if the recipient of the money was going around forcing some of the X not to listen!

Some slightly loose analogies have been given before about multiple payments for the same thing, but I dont think any accurately replicate this situation. For example, I agree that it costs the same to host a concert whether 1 person or 10,000 people watch, however if someone had block booked one entire side of the stadium, they would be a little peeved if their guests all got charged a second time!

 

[paulears]

The cost of production I agree is the same for the example given, but this is straying into a totally new area - that of recoupment. Popular artistes are given big advances by the record company, and until the cost of the event is recovered in full, the artiste gets none of the royalties, because they're offset. I good example of recoupment in this kind of example is where 'angels' contribute to the costs of a new show, or a tour. They only see a percentage of profits once recoupment is complete.

The difficulty with rights is the collection of numerous different rights, so the most common split is private vs public vs business. A common example being the warning on a video or DVD - not for use in prisons, hospitals, oil rigs, hotels etc. The rights holder could, if they wish, allow a DVD bought in WH Smiths to be used on an oil rig, taken there perhaps in the personal luggage of a worker. However, these kinds of group venues probably have a separate agreement with a rights organisation. It even happens in schools where there is an educational licensing agency to cover this kind of thing. They need to be able to record programmes and stick them on a shelf for repeat use.

The BBC have a large spend on rights clearances, often timed to the second - important, when millions of listeners mean even an extra second of replay costs serious money. The agreement they have is for direct to home, to the public. Direct, to a shop, then to the public is an extra step, that the BBC do not have permission for, so it then falls to PRS/PPL, who are the agent for that kind of usage. The actual product being played really doesn't matter - what is being charged for is how it is delivered to the end user. Even the media it is carried on is licensed. If the media with the protected work on it is copied, it effectively is a new product - so technically should then be a 'mechanical right' - because of the fact somebody actually carried out a process to transfer it - at this point there indeed two copies of one paid for original - hence how complex the system is.

PRS and MCPS formed an alliance to prevent each of them doing similar things.

When you create something you have the choice to protect your work completely - or partially. Maybe you can set a territory? As in DVDs that only play in certain regions, or even players that can only be changed from UK to US so many times. This gives separation in marketing. A DVD in the states could well be cheaper than one for the UK, because of production scale. Rights can also be linked to time. So in perpetuity in any territory does really mean forever, anywhere! However - only in Suffolk and for one year is equally valid (although I'd guess untrackable and unenforceable!).

UK prisons currently allow the inmates to listen to UK radio (as they are members of the public), however, the Home Office decided NOT to fund the license for staff radios, because they didn't need to, and didn't want to. Staff use on the premises puts it firmly into business use - and like shops and factories, they needed an extra license. So the daft situation is the prison officers who walk into a cell, where a radio playing, should stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly to themselves, because they mustn't listen - a totally daft process, but something legally safe.

I have never said copyright is common sense - because much defies logic, but there seems little doubt in the legal minds that it exists, and getting it wrong could result in a trip the the men with wigs. In most cases, the legal advice is to pay up, and move on. You can't fight a legal case on what you'd like to be the law. It's also something that winds people up.

Some people, attempting to be ultra-legal even start banning things. If the waiters in the local Indian restaurant sing happy birthday to you - very out of tune, in the restaurant - then that too is unbelievably a copyrighted item still. 70 years after the composers death puts it firmly in copyright. Same with an old comedy routine using a song that seems very, very old "If I were not upon the stage..." The original words were different, and the new words were written within the 70 year period. It even seems that technically the copyright actually belongs to Paul McCartney (or at least, one of his companies) - although this is currently disputed.

I like the 30 seconds of music on countdown - every time that is played to millions of viewers, syndicated all over the world, one mans bank balance takes a jump. That has to be the shortest earner in the world!

 

[lesliedocherty]

If when they call you, you tell them you are a member, and provide your number, they'll go away.

As for the Chairman of the sports club. Must be dreadful to have to pay money for something you obviously value so little. Big screen = lots of people, a 12" portable in the corner is always an option if only a couple of people want to watch. As a Sports club, I thought you'd be up to speed with rights - after all, football, rugby and most sports like F1 are now pay to view in some way.

I really wish people would accept the fact that music belongs to people, and users consume it with their permission. The permission might be free of charge, it could be expensive. If you really object to paying for something, then don't use it.

Nobody takes copyright issues seriously, and treat PPL/PRS and MCPS as some kind of parasite, sucking the lifeblood out of people's need to use other people's property for free. Maybe, just maybe if so many people didn't put two fingers up to them, the members would be happy for them to be more gentle, say please, and trust the consumers to pay up on their own. That's not going to happen is it!

You can have points of principal on all sorts of things. Tax, politics, immigration - but the law says this doesn't matter - if there is an Act of Parliament that makes rules, then people are free to use the law to recover what is due. Like it or lump it. I use radio equipment, and the licenses are pretty expensive. Lots of people don't bother with that either - it doesn't make it right though. If there was an equivalent to PRS/PPL for that, loads of pubs and clubs would moan like mad about having to pay for these too.

Over the years I've got used to people being outraged by this subject. I know everyone disagrees with me - but I don't care one jot! Some musicians and composers are rich, some are poor. Without PRS/PPL, there would be far more poor ones!

How about at the next annual general meeting you put in the minutes that you don't like having to pay to use music - you've done your job. Why not also say you don't like the TV license as well, or how about the premises license - thats expensive too, and maybe insurance, and security on the door..................

Get down from that high horse, what i object to is all the money going to Paul McCartney

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I like the 30 seconds of music on countdown - every time that is played to millions of viewers, syndicated all over the world, one mans bank balance takes a jump. That has to be the shortest earner in the world!

Dear Paul

I was once told that the biggest earner by size was the Channel 4 ident. Four notes of the Morse for 4.

 

[awebapart.com]

Over the years I've got used to people being outraged by this subject. I know everyone disagrees with me - but I don't care one jot! Some musicians and composers are rich, some are poor. Without PRS/PPL, there would be far more poor ones!

Not everyone Paul, and I always find it interesting to hear what you have to say on this extremely complex and confusing issue. Keep up the good work!

 

[paulears]

You don't know how much the occasional "you are not alone" post makes me feel better.
Thanks.
Paul

 

[rkemp78]

If anyone would like some information about the other side of the coin I spent some years as a musician and I joined PRS in 2006. They currently owe me £780, plus took £100 from me as joining fee.

They made it impossible to claim a penny because their dreadful website made it impossible to register works. I literally emailed them asking for assistance once every 3 weeks for nearly two years but no one ever got back to me with any useful help, or they just gave me a phone number which just went to answerphone whenever I tried (no one ever called me back when I left a message). Eventually they locked my account out and wouldn't unlock it. After nearly three years I gave up.

This is who you pay your money to for licences. I've no idea who gets paid by PRS. I have lots of friends who work in music and they've never been paid by PRS either.

So I hate PRS just as much as you do.

 

[paulears]

I'm a frequent user of the web site and have no problems whatsoever registering or amending my works. In fact, it's far simpler than the PPL site where so much extra info is needed - but that said, it's data content is higher.

PPL want details for who recorded it, who paid for it, which musicians took part and even the details of any engineers who may have taken part in musical decisions - so their interests in the product can be registered.