Just received the following from my local MP. I have not enclosed my original message as it is a bit longwinded and covers a lot of what we have discussed.Even if it goes no where it is bringing PPL unwanted attention from the legislators.
"Thank you for your email.
I completely agree with you that this practice is completely unacceptable, particularly if you are not playing recorded music on a regular basis.
I would like to take this up with PPL for you and do my utmost to get them to back off. Are you happy for me to do this? If so, could you let me have all relevant contact details. If you are agreeable to this, I then suggest if the debt collection agency contact you again to say that your MP is taking your case up with PPL and for them to take no action in the meantime."
"Thank you for your email.
I completely agree with you that this practice is completely unacceptable, particularly if you are not playing recorded music on a regular basis.
I would like to take this up with PPL for you and do my utmost to get them to back off. Are you happy for me to do this? If so, could you let me have all relevant contact details. If you are agreeable to this, I then suggest if the debt collection agency contact you again to say that your MP is taking your case up with PPL and for them to take no action in the meantime."
Upvote
0
Paulears can you please advise me - I play music in my Barbers and so I have to have a licence to cover the composers costs etc etc etc. I also provide magazines and newspapers - Can you please provide the details of where I send the money for the Reporters/Photographers work as surely I am doing them out of an income ? If someone comes in my shop and reads the paper or magazine they will not now buy that paper/magazine so lost sales for publisher/distributor. But if they come in my shop listen to a song and like it they my actually go and buy that song so more money for the composer/distributor - So which one do I have to pay a fee for ??? Yep the one that make sthe person more money. This is why it is viewed as a tax because it is simply illogical. I am sure the rules started with regards venues that played music for dancing etc which I do agree with, as you are gaining business from that activity. But when it is just background noise how can you be depriving the composer of anything ???
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 114095
- Original Poster
- #124
Well here we are some 4 months down the line and neither PPL or the debt collections agency have made any progress on our issue. We wrote to the debt collection agency appointed 3 times. Then suddenly PLL issued anther collection agency. We wrote to them too. We pointed out the fact that a debt collector can not be appointed to recover a debt if the invoice is in dispute. So far we have written about 20 letters to both PPL and their agancies. We want to know why there are issuing a bill for something we did not have. Surley that is not unreasonable? How many people would pay a bill for something they didn't have We asked for a copy of the original telephone transcript which is what this is all being based on. They wanted us to pay for it! I've now written back to them yet agian!
Upvote
0
If any of you are having problems with debt collection companies ignoring correspondence etc and continuing to chase debts in dispute then I would advise keeping an account of the time you spent needlessly dealing with them.
I had an issue a few years ago and invoiced them for my time successfully and there is another case highlighted in the telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...stomer-wins-2000-payment-for-wasted-time.html
I had an issue a few years ago and invoiced them for my time successfully and there is another case highlighted in the telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...stomer-wins-2000-payment-for-wasted-time.html
Upvote
0
Why should PRS only apply to composers and performers.
Dress designers are also in the creative field.
Surely we should also pay rights on everytime we wear the dress/ shoes/jumper.
Everytime we drive the car someone designed.
Maybe we should also pay rights on using another's recipe or looking at a picture we bought.
Tongue in cheek as my husband is also a composer and I do not want to reduce their income, but the way it works those who already have large incomes keep getting paid on works they did years ago and I cannot think where else that is the case. Is it really moral that after getting the pay for the original performance they then also get paid for repeated broadcasts?
I can understand it if the business is profiting from the broadcast directly, (a theater) but not if an employee just wants to listen to their own radio in their own lunch time when the premises are not open for business.
Dress designers are also in the creative field.
Surely we should also pay rights on everytime we wear the dress/ shoes/jumper.
Everytime we drive the car someone designed.
Maybe we should also pay rights on using another's recipe or looking at a picture we bought.
Tongue in cheek as my husband is also a composer and I do not want to reduce their income, but the way it works those who already have large incomes keep getting paid on works they did years ago and I cannot think where else that is the case. Is it really moral that after getting the pay for the original performance they then also get paid for repeated broadcasts?
I can understand it if the business is profiting from the broadcast directly, (a theater) but not if an employee just wants to listen to their own radio in their own lunch time when the premises are not open for business.
Upvote
0
The performing rights society collects on performance rights. There are many other rights, that use the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act - Disney would be a good example where their rights are fiercely protected. Make a T-shirt, sticky Mickey Mouse on the front and sell it, and wait for something to happen. On a Sunday market, you'll probably get away with it unless trading standards make a visit. Stick it on Ebay and expect the ad to be pulled.
Make your own fizzy drink and stick "thirst quenching lip smacking" on the label and Pepsi will be interested.
If you use one of Delia's recipes in your restaurant then the permission to use the recipe privately granted by the book, might not be enough.
It's all to do with scale. Is it really worth them taking action? In most cases, you get a cease and desist from the legal bods, and it's usually enough.
Years ago, I wrote a song called Fungus the Bogeyman, and sent it to Raymond Briggs, with a lighthearted note, and got instead of a nice reply - a cease and desist note. You don't need to license a car to drive it, but you do if you wish to modify it and sell it as original. Range Rover, just as one example provide cars to a small number of specialist firms who carry out modifications and then sell it as a Range Rover, brand new - often sold as the Overfinch Range Rover. These things have to be approved by the copyright owner. Looking at pictures is fine - photocopying or scanning it and using the copy - in say, and ad is not.
I don't wish to wind people up - but I just cannot see why music should be different to any other item. When you make something, you can choose to keep the copyright, or give it away. Anybody remember when wedding photos were done on film? Did the photographer of your wedding give you the negatives, so you can get your own printed at Boots? Nope - they own those negatives and all you bought for the money were the ones you paid for. The others taken, remain theirs, and if you want them you pay for them again - even though they were taken at the time. A driving license doesn't last forever, it isn't even yours - DVLA can insist you hand it back, even though you paid for it.
You get what you agree. When you buy a CD or DVD or bit of computer software, do you ever read the blurb? Computer software frequently remains the property of the people who make it. You simply buy a license to use it. Anybody got a version of Word that says at the top - domestic use only, yet you use it in the office? It's not a copy - it's original, but you got your version cheaper than the business version, and you promised NOT to use it for business. What happens when Microsoft knock on the door because they are checking up - "sorry, but I only use it to type personal letters, not business ones?"
If you sell something cheap to a charity for use in their shop, because it's a good cause - would you be miffed if you found the manager had taken the item home and was using it there with no charity link at all? Your right to set the price for a specific reason is a right, the same as anything else - and the agreement has been broken.
Rights are for a purpose.
Make your own fizzy drink and stick "thirst quenching lip smacking" on the label and Pepsi will be interested.
If you use one of Delia's recipes in your restaurant then the permission to use the recipe privately granted by the book, might not be enough.
It's all to do with scale. Is it really worth them taking action? In most cases, you get a cease and desist from the legal bods, and it's usually enough.
Years ago, I wrote a song called Fungus the Bogeyman, and sent it to Raymond Briggs, with a lighthearted note, and got instead of a nice reply - a cease and desist note. You don't need to license a car to drive it, but you do if you wish to modify it and sell it as original. Range Rover, just as one example provide cars to a small number of specialist firms who carry out modifications and then sell it as a Range Rover, brand new - often sold as the Overfinch Range Rover. These things have to be approved by the copyright owner. Looking at pictures is fine - photocopying or scanning it and using the copy - in say, and ad is not.
I don't wish to wind people up - but I just cannot see why music should be different to any other item. When you make something, you can choose to keep the copyright, or give it away. Anybody remember when wedding photos were done on film? Did the photographer of your wedding give you the negatives, so you can get your own printed at Boots? Nope - they own those negatives and all you bought for the money were the ones you paid for. The others taken, remain theirs, and if you want them you pay for them again - even though they were taken at the time. A driving license doesn't last forever, it isn't even yours - DVLA can insist you hand it back, even though you paid for it.
You get what you agree. When you buy a CD or DVD or bit of computer software, do you ever read the blurb? Computer software frequently remains the property of the people who make it. You simply buy a license to use it. Anybody got a version of Word that says at the top - domestic use only, yet you use it in the office? It's not a copy - it's original, but you got your version cheaper than the business version, and you promised NOT to use it for business. What happens when Microsoft knock on the door because they are checking up - "sorry, but I only use it to type personal letters, not business ones?"
If you sell something cheap to a charity for use in their shop, because it's a good cause - would you be miffed if you found the manager had taken the item home and was using it there with no charity link at all? Your right to set the price for a specific reason is a right, the same as anything else - and the agreement has been broken.
Rights are for a purpose.
Upvote
0
Nope, no license required. It's 'royalty free' hence no royalties. Getting something thats good to use is a different matter
Upvote
0
Pauleras - I understand your point(s) fully, however....the artist is paid by the radio stations that broadcast the music in order to make the public aware of it and entice them to buy the CD - for which the artist gets paid again. They are paid for every 'broadcast' of that piece of music, be it in a nightclub, a pub, a production etc.
So I buy the CD, I then play it in my little design room with only me there......because the design room is situated in a commercial premises, the artist wants to me to pay again, for listening to something i have personally bought, and for which they have already received payment in the form of royalties from sale of the CD, which I and others have bought as a result of hearing on a radio, for which the artist was paid......
I have a particular design that is copyrighte to me; I sell this design on garment, but don't expect payment from other people who see it other than the person who bought it - I don't expect payment if they use it in a commercial premises either. I have the original, it is mine, and I charge people to use it on a garment of their choice, once they have bought the garment with the design on it, I don't care where it is seen, in fact, I am very happy for others to see it, as it increases my sales by word of mouth.
A customer coming into my design room (never happens they are not allowed in there, but hypothetically) hearing my new CD may be enticed into buying a copy for themselves......the artist gets paid again from this sale - where is MY commission for enabling this additional sale? Oh, thats right, I don't get a commission for promoting their music, I get a BILL for 'allowing' it to be heard in a commercial premises......
So I buy the CD, I then play it in my little design room with only me there......because the design room is situated in a commercial premises, the artist wants to me to pay again, for listening to something i have personally bought, and for which they have already received payment in the form of royalties from sale of the CD, which I and others have bought as a result of hearing on a radio, for which the artist was paid......
I have a particular design that is copyrighte to me; I sell this design on garment, but don't expect payment from other people who see it other than the person who bought it - I don't expect payment if they use it in a commercial premises either. I have the original, it is mine, and I charge people to use it on a garment of their choice, once they have bought the garment with the design on it, I don't care where it is seen, in fact, I am very happy for others to see it, as it increases my sales by word of mouth.
A customer coming into my design room (never happens they are not allowed in there, but hypothetically) hearing my new CD may be enticed into buying a copy for themselves......the artist gets paid again from this sale - where is MY commission for enabling this additional sale? Oh, thats right, I don't get a commission for promoting their music, I get a BILL for 'allowing' it to be heard in a commercial premises......
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yep - that's how it works, and all the points have been covered about the radio thing. Artistes actually don't think about radio play in this way - as I've already said, a limited number of promo copies are produced, but if it's played, it's paid. Nobody is charging twice. They are charging for use within the terms of the license, and business is NOT part of it.
On the subject of license free - a person on another forum (a pro-audio one) is really angry because he produces copyright free music, which he puts into the public domain with no restrictions (and makes no money, of course). Another firm used his copyright free material as background for one of their own products and retained copyright. When the guy put some of his music on youtube, it got pulled because it infringed copyright - of the people who used his material!
So even the producers have problems with copyright! Sadly, it was his choice to give it away, and nothing at all he can do about it!
On the subject of license free - a person on another forum (a pro-audio one) is really angry because he produces copyright free music, which he puts into the public domain with no restrictions (and makes no money, of course). Another firm used his copyright free material as background for one of their own products and retained copyright. When the guy put some of his music on youtube, it got pulled because it infringed copyright - of the people who used his material!
So even the producers have problems with copyright! Sadly, it was his choice to give it away, and nothing at all he can do about it!
Upvote
0
yep, that was my point.
I know the law is behind PRS and PPL but it defies common sense and I doubt it really helps the vast majority of composers either. It seems like most money goes to those who have already been well remunerated for their work.
It seems morally crazy for an artist to expect it is their right to keep on earning year after year and decade after decade for a single piece of work when the fee payers are doing nothing other than listening and paying yet again for what they have already paid for many times over.
It is like buying a picture and then having to pay each time you look at it.
That is not to say it is reasonable for people who make money directly from the broadcast not to pay, we understand that. But that is not the case where an employee is listening privately to their own radio/mp3 player or whatever while on a break at work. Nor does it really apply even when the radio is on in an office or workshop or cafe to be realistic. It does apply to a theater that is charging people and the music is part of the show or to a radio station. Its just got out of reason.
If we did not have these royalties laws would music be fresher, and more creative and more of the moment rather than building up huge dependencies on certain artists and songs?
I know the law is behind PRS and PPL but it defies common sense and I doubt it really helps the vast majority of composers either. It seems like most money goes to those who have already been well remunerated for their work.
It seems morally crazy for an artist to expect it is their right to keep on earning year after year and decade after decade for a single piece of work when the fee payers are doing nothing other than listening and paying yet again for what they have already paid for many times over.
It is like buying a picture and then having to pay each time you look at it.
That is not to say it is reasonable for people who make money directly from the broadcast not to pay, we understand that. But that is not the case where an employee is listening privately to their own radio/mp3 player or whatever while on a break at work. Nor does it really apply even when the radio is on in an office or workshop or cafe to be realistic. It does apply to a theater that is charging people and the music is part of the show or to a radio station. Its just got out of reason.
If we did not have these royalties laws would music be fresher, and more creative and more of the moment rather than building up huge dependencies on certain artists and songs?
Upvote
0
I feel radio should be viewed as advertising, if you like what you hear then people go buy it. I can't say that people actually 'listen' to the radio, it's just something thats there in the background.
A lot of the music I have has come about because of an advert or soundtrack on tv or radio, it's a great way to fine new avenues in music.
A lot of the music I have has come about because of an advert or soundtrack on tv or radio, it's a great way to fine new avenues in music.
Upvote
0
Sorry? Why is it morally crazy for an artist to expect it is their right to keep on earning year after year and decade after decade for a single piece of work?
If you go to the cinema to see the movie you saw last year, you pay again.
The copyright period now extends to 70 years, to protect people's income, and possibly their dependents. Noddy Holder always talks about "So here it is merry christmas" as his pension.
People who write songs do it with the knowledge that if they get it right, then it will be guaranteed income (almost) for life. What's wrong with that? If you think it unfair compared to your own job, try writing songs and see if it's better than playing the lottery.
Answer me this one. When Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey in Dads Army) wrote a play, and sold the rights because he was broke, did he realise that it was going to be a very popular play - the Ghost Train? If he'd retained copyright, he'd have died rich. It's a gamble. How about a struggling painter who sold his pictures for just a few Francs. They now change hands for millions - is that unfair too?
If you go to the cinema to see the movie you saw last year, you pay again.
The copyright period now extends to 70 years, to protect people's income, and possibly their dependents. Noddy Holder always talks about "So here it is merry christmas" as his pension.
People who write songs do it with the knowledge that if they get it right, then it will be guaranteed income (almost) for life. What's wrong with that? If you think it unfair compared to your own job, try writing songs and see if it's better than playing the lottery.
Answer me this one. When Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey in Dads Army) wrote a play, and sold the rights because he was broke, did he realise that it was going to be a very popular play - the Ghost Train? If he'd retained copyright, he'd have died rich. It's a gamble. How about a struggling painter who sold his pictures for just a few Francs. They now change hands for millions - is that unfair too?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
- Original Poster
- #139
No. Its like buying a picture and then copying it to benefit your business. Buying a picture does not give you reproduction rights.
You have to pay a fee for most business use of copyright material. My local HMV has generic Xmas Cds for £5 but you need a PRS licence to play them in a shop. You can buy similar Royalty Free disks for £39. The difference is the licence terms for which you are paying £34 for business use of the CD.
Upvote
0
Because that's how the copyright rules work.
Recording artists (and the composers) release music on the basis that this is how they get paid. If you don't want to pay them, don't use their music.
Steve
Upvote
0
It could do. But what stops competitors creating similar products and not asking for ongoing payments?
(Plus there's the expense and hassle of collecting these payments.)
Charging money for commercial broadcasts of music works because people want the music that's copyrighted. If royalty-free music was more popular, the industry might be forced to change.
Steve
Upvote
0
Well a patent for a start.
Music is a product and I must admitt I have a problem with the concept of ongoing payments once a product is sold.
I suspect the music industry is based on the idea that an artist should not have to go and get a proper job
when things are slow.I don't suppose the designer of the QM2 gets ongoing royalties.:|
Earl
Upvote
0
I just don't think it is morally sensible to keep on paying for something done once. I know that is the way copyright works, but I don't think it builds a healthy society.
I certainly do not think that charging organisations to let people listen to the radio at work is reasonable - they are not making money on using other people's talent.
As I've made clear before there is a big distinction in my mind about using materials in the same way as at home and making money by re-broadcasting it.
And yes, this is anyway advertising the performers works so why charge for it anyway. perhaps they should instead charge companies for not playing the radio! : )
"Because it may well mean that every product ever made could command ongoing payments.
Earl"
And this is not what living is, we need to hear today's creativity today! Not keep regurgitating yesterday's
I certainly do not think that charging organisations to let people listen to the radio at work is reasonable - they are not making money on using other people's talent.
As I've made clear before there is a big distinction in my mind about using materials in the same way as at home and making money by re-broadcasting it.
And yes, this is anyway advertising the performers works so why charge for it anyway. perhaps they should instead charge companies for not playing the radio! : )
"Because it may well mean that every product ever made could command ongoing payments.
Earl"
And this is not what living is, we need to hear today's creativity today! Not keep regurgitating yesterday's
Upvote
0
This doesn't help. It's already been covered.
The copyright owners license their music for broadcast for non-commercial use. It would be difficult for them to include a commercial use in the licence since most people aren't using it commercially and it's a wasted payment (and would probably mean a lot fewer stations), so they get people using it commercially to pay directly.
The grey area is encompasses the term 'commercial use'. If your business benefits from it, then of course you should pay. If you're on your own in the office just listening to the lunchtime news then of course you shouldn't have to pay.
Upvote
0
Making the atmosphere in a shop or restaurant more inviting leads to better trade and more income. The same on a factory floor improves the morale of workers, making them more productive and thus generating more income.
These are very easy to understand examples of why music should be paid for in a commercial environment. It's simply a cost of running your business; although whether the cost is reasonable is a whole different argument though.
No they haven't, you keep avoiding those difficult morality questions, since it massively weakens your position of 'being in the right'.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not convinced from what I saw on the shop floor. But that's the theory!
And the number of times we have left a cafe because of intrusive noise from canned music.
I wonder if any research has ever been done or we are all just so afraid of silence?
Upvote
0
I see your point, and I would say this is just outside the grey area about 'benefiting a business'. However, these situations are very clearly attempting to make money through the use of the music, so it's only fair that the licence is paid for; the outcome isn't relevant to the intention.
And as for silence, part of my very first business was a small café and I had Radio 2 on quietly in the background. It made all the difference, but when I found out I needed a licence I removed the radio. The quiet periods in the morning could be very uncomfortable when there were only 4 or 5 people in - conversations were whispered and it all felt a bit awkward. It was fine once we were established as we were busy all day with people trying to talk over each other, but the radio never made a return in that café since I felt the £250 asked was exorbitant compared to the benefit it provided.
Upvote
0
I would feel more inclined to moan less and I'm sure more people would pay freely if more of the cash went the artists or they just had lower fees.
Last year the PPL showed a net profit of £124m and the highest paid director was paid £729k, the PRS showed a net profit of £400m with the highest paid getting £574k.
Maybe if they weren't so greedy and bloated they could lower the fees AND pay more out, this sort of business should be restricted heavily from making profits like this maybe? They produce nothing tangible and are only making life easier for artists by collecting money on their behalf but then take a massive cut for themselves.
Last year the PPL showed a net profit of £124m and the highest paid director was paid £729k, the PRS showed a net profit of £400m with the highest paid getting £574k.
Maybe if they weren't so greedy and bloated they could lower the fees AND pay more out, this sort of business should be restricted heavily from making profits like this maybe? They produce nothing tangible and are only making life easier for artists by collecting money on their behalf but then take a massive cut for themselves.
Upvote
0
But its a not for profit organisation?
I really must start one of those.
They pay a pittance to the artists.its an extortion racket,what artist would not sign up if offered the chance for extra free money.:|
Earl
Earl
Upvote
0
Sirearl - are you a member? I really hope so, speaking on behalf of people who actually are?
As I keep saying - what I get from PRS and PPL is a very small amount, but it's more than I would get trying to market the same material myself. We'd like more, but I'd like cheaper electricity too - but it isn't going to happen.
My county council had one of the highest paid CEOs - and they're pretty useless. What makes me smile is that we are a business forum, and you're moaning about a successful business model that works for the membership, simply because personally, it costs you. Not being funny, but hard luck. If you don't wish to pay - feel free, but please there are so many things in life that appear expensive, unfair and over complicated.
You're effectively complaining about how much I get paid. Do any of you feel your own pay is something others should be able to complain about?
If a plumber can charge £70 to unblock a sink, that's the market rate. Complaining about it is pointless.
PPL seems to be working for the members.
Incidentally - what did the two organisations do with the profit
It's simply because people have this opinion that music is not a commodity to be traded, sold, or licensed - when that is exactly what it is.
As I keep saying - what I get from PRS and PPL is a very small amount, but it's more than I would get trying to market the same material myself. We'd like more, but I'd like cheaper electricity too - but it isn't going to happen.
My county council had one of the highest paid CEOs - and they're pretty useless. What makes me smile is that we are a business forum, and you're moaning about a successful business model that works for the membership, simply because personally, it costs you. Not being funny, but hard luck. If you don't wish to pay - feel free, but please there are so many things in life that appear expensive, unfair and over complicated.
You're effectively complaining about how much I get paid. Do any of you feel your own pay is something others should be able to complain about?
If a plumber can charge £70 to unblock a sink, that's the market rate. Complaining about it is pointless.
PPL seems to be working for the members.
Incidentally - what did the two organisations do with the profit
It's simply because people have this opinion that music is not a commodity to be traded, sold, or licensed - when that is exactly what it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Well I certainly would not join any organisation that would have me as a member.:|
Bad analogy the plumber does something for the money he is paid.
A musician being paid over many years for a product that he has sold is obviously immoral,as the norm is for people to be paid based on what they do on a daily basis.
Creating special catorgories is unfair on the rest of society.
I can guess what this type of organisation does with the profits b ut would have to ask there accountant to be sure.
Earl
Upvote
0
The PPL have a couple of "red flags" lodged at companies house, PRS are clear.
Paulears, is it possible to define the amount you actually do get from PPL/PRS?? I guess its pretty slim, I have no qualms about artists getting paid but if i were in the same boat, i would be kicking up a stink about the collection agency creaming off millions in profit and only paying a pittance to its members who are in effect, their primary source of income.
How can a "not for profit" organisation declare a massive profit? Many businesses work damn hard just to break even let alone declare a net profit, these two companies effectively do nothing and live off the backs of those hard working companies by invoicing them for questionable use of the damn radio i.e. they are PARASITES.
DO you pay to be a 'member'? Do you receive more than your membership fee back in royalties each year?? Please educate us as to how the system works Paulears.
It seems as though these two companies are in a blessed market - no material costs but plenty of income.
Paulears, is it possible to define the amount you actually do get from PPL/PRS?? I guess its pretty slim, I have no qualms about artists getting paid but if i were in the same boat, i would be kicking up a stink about the collection agency creaming off millions in profit and only paying a pittance to its members who are in effect, their primary source of income.
How can a "not for profit" organisation declare a massive profit? Many businesses work damn hard just to break even let alone declare a net profit, these two companies effectively do nothing and live off the backs of those hard working companies by invoicing them for questionable use of the damn radio i.e. they are PARASITES.
DO you pay to be a 'member'? Do you receive more than your membership fee back in royalties each year?? Please educate us as to how the system works Paulears.
It seems as though these two companies are in a blessed market - no material costs but plenty of income.
Upvote
0
But you have already stated that it doesn't work and that you get almost nothing from it (so it seems reasonable to assume the same for the majority of members).
It's very difficult to understand such blinkered support of an organisation that makes itself a tonne of money in your name using your work. It's doing exactly what you claim everyone else is attempting to do, and for which you seem to despise them.
From the looks of the thread it seems more people are complaining about the system and the fact thatactually, you aren't getting paid enough. I wish people would do that for me. ;]
Not a single person in this thread has said that. Not one.
Upvote
0
I think you (and others) might be:
1. confusing revenue/income with profit - most of the money (around 84% for PRS) goes to the artists, publishers etc
2. wrongly assuming they are taking the lion's share of the money collected when in reality they are working at about a 16% admin cost with the majority of the money going to the artists, publishers etc - and for such a complex operation a 16% admin/running cost isn't so bad
3. wrongly assuming that PRS etc only collect from companies whose employees or customers are listening to music. No, that is only one small area of their remit, PRS are responsible for collecting from the whole music sales channel (with worldwide partners), the whole music broadcast channel, the whole music licensing channel, radio, tv, internet (e.g. youtube, spotify) etc
4. wrongly assuming that what they do is easy, when in reality it is a hugely complex worldwide accounting and reporting system
As I mentioned in a previous thread, PRS for Music's 2009 accounts, state a total income of £441 million for 2009 (page 5) and amount allocated to members (artists, publishers) and affiliate societies of £372 million for 2009 (page 16) so that suggests a percentage more like 84% which goes to members (members include songwriters, publishers, performers etc).
PRS for Music and the industry it deals with is hugely complex and worldwide in scope dealing with similar organisations in other countries. So say for example, if a UK songwriter's song is covered by some other group and sold on iTunes US, in some roundabout way hopefully some money gets to the songwriter, possibly via iTunes US, the US equivalent organisation like PRS for Music (e.g. BMI, ASAP, SESAC), and finally back to PRS for Music in the UK - and that is probably a big over-simplification of a more complex accounting processing taking into account US radio stations, live performances, film soundtracks, games soundtracks, other sales channels (CD retail, other downloadable services), etc.
So whilst some UK businesses might feel bitter about PRS for Music, those multi-million pound figures are not the money that PRS are getting from small business (that's only one small part of their operation).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Interesting stuff, but wouldn't the outgoing amounts to artists etc be counted as running or operating costs and therefor be deducted before showing net profit??
That may be total BS as my accounting knowledge is limited at the best of times:redface::redface:
BTW I would never assume that the profits are the sum of fees from small businesses only
That may be total BS as my accounting knowledge is limited at the best of times:redface::redface:
BTW I would never assume that the profits are the sum of fees from small businesses only
Upvote
0
I think you may have answered your own question.
I'm no accountant either, but the PRS for Music's accounts makes simple sense to me. I'm not even sure where you are getting the "net profit" reference since this term isn't mentioned in the PRS for Music's main company accounts. The report talks about money coming in, income, and then money going out, money paid to artists/publishers (roughly 84% of income), with the remaining 16% going to admin/running costs. Simply put, PRS collect money for artists/publishers, and pass most of that money (84%) on to those artists/publishers, at an operating expense of (16%) (2009 figures).
That's my non-accountant layman's terms explanation. Perhaps an accountant here might be able to provide an explanation in more official accounting terms, although to the layman (like us) the layman explanation might be easier to understand. I hope that helps.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
- Original Poster
- #159
The musician, composer, creator, artist has not produced a 'product' he has sold. Unless you have paid hundreds of pounds a day to have a composer write music exclusively for your premises you haven't 'bought' it either.
Is it immoral for an author to earn royalties from book sales?
Suppose an author spends a year writing a book and expects to get paid the same as other skilled professionals. Add in the cost of research, warm room to write in and other business expenses and it would probably cost you well over £100,000 to have exclusive use of a book. How is it unfair on society for authors to be paid a small royalty on each book so that books become affordable for everyone?
Upvote
0
You're actually purchasing a book though. Not paying by the amount of times you read it.
I await the day PRS Phone to find out what stories I read my Daughter at bedtime so they can invoice accordingly.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
The Most Dangerous Moment in Business Is When Everything Is Going WellThey Saw It Coming. They Did Nothing. The Lessons Every Business Owner...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI and Your Business: Useful Tool, Not a Magic WandThere is no shortage of noise around artificial intelligence right now...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Companies House WebFiling security incident: what happened, what to check, and what to do nextCompanies House has confirmed that its WebFiling service suffered a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Spring Budget 2026: A Quiet Update for UK BusinessesChancellor Rachel Reeves delivered the UK’s Spring Statement on 3 March...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Practical Ways to Make Your Small Business More Resilient (Especially When the Unexpected Happens)Running a business means juggling plenty of things you can plan for and...- UKBF Editor
- Updated: