PRS/PPL has got to be the biggest scam going

paulears

Free Member
Jan 7, 2015
5,653
1,661
Suffolk - UK
My band were guests on Jeremy Vine, and played live in the studio - actually, a first for that show as they don't normally do music. Cost us to go, got no fee, and made absolutely no difference to our income, or increased sales. Just how it works when you are not on the BBC play list - that's where the money is.

A few inaccuracies to put right. When you buy a CD you do not own it, you simply have a license to use it for domestic use, same as a DVD - read the label on every CD and DVD.

Actually - in prisons, the officers cannot listen to an inmates radio - they are banned from doing so because there is no license to cover it, the same as my wife's hospital. Everyone thinks it petty, but if they can't afford cancer drugs for everyone, then paying for radio 2 is definitely out!
 
Upvote 0

TODonnell

Free Member
Sep 23, 2011
1,405
210
London (UK)
From memory:

In the old days, music publishers made money by printing music. On paper. I don't think there was a system of collecting money every time music was used. I'd guess people who put on theatrical productions would pay the composer. Performers got paid when they sang. Maybe.

So Arthur Spudwhistle ,who created "Toor A Loora Laddie", that great hit in the spring of 1807, which was on the lips of every paperboy and whose tune was used in the great musical "Onward, Quantity Surveyors" by the great music-hall duo Pringle And Dullard, would die in a garret, a poor man.

The current system sees creators and distributors get paid for something ethereal: music. It distribution can't be limited, like tinned meats. Once it's out there, it can't be recalled or seized.

It is fair that someone who learns to play an instrument (which takes years) and to compose well (takes more years) should be paid for the one hit tune that they create, when someone uses what they made.

If I make a hammer and someone takes it, without paying me, on the basis: "hammers want to be free" or "You're rich already", "You have plenty of hammers, it's harming no one", you would say he was insane.

Musicians promoters and distributors should also be paid. They need to eat too.
Implicit in them doing what they do is the expectation that they'll get paid. Otherwise, we can all listen to and watch videos by amateurs. All that great amateur music out there. Yeaaaaah.

The licence (the permission they grant you) works in particular ways, as stated in the small print.

You can listen to the music under the licence, or ignore it. You have no legal or moral right to bootleg it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Byre
Upvote 0

Alan

Free Member
  • Aug 16, 2011
    7,089
    1,974
    I don't think any one says that they should not get rights and they should not get paid.

    What they are saying is the current system is pretty much illogical, and therefore not understood or trusted, and there is a massive enforcement machine that gets paid to try and catch out unwitting micro businesses that inadvertently play the radio to a couple of people.

    What would be good, is if the was some data on the cost of enforcement / collection versus what is distributed. (maybe a freedom of information request)

    And also a modernisation of the law so it is cheaper and more effective to enforce. Which was my point, the point of initial broadcast is easier to manage and the point of 'relay'.

    If you are broadcasting, which means putting a CD or MP3 in a machine then you pay, if you are receiving and just relaying what some one else broadcast to people ears, you don't pay.

    The current situation is if you relay to someones ears you pay or don't pay depending on the situation (if the door from the workshop to the shop is open or closed, if the employees in your work shop are close family members or employees etc etc)
     
    Upvote 0

    paulears

    Free Member
    Jan 7, 2015
    5,653
    1,661
    Suffolk - UK
    Indeed - copyright even includes funerals nowadays. No music can be played unless it comes off the system. Any unusual music people want to play can be registered onto the system and downloaded to the system. Today at a funeral I was at they played two pieces of popular music to an 'audience' of over a hundred people. The composers and performers had their music used. They deserve paying for it.
     
    Upvote 0
    R

    Root 66 Woodshop

    The composers and performers had their music used. They deserve paying for it.

    To be fair, they've already been paid for it... that's why it's out there, it's been a hit - it's been remembered £1,000,000's of pounds will probably be received by loyalties more often than not... the person playing the music has already paid for it by purchasing it - the pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people for playing music, especially for something to remember someone by at a funeral is a complete disgrace - it shouldn't be about money or whether it's legal or not at a funeral.

    With all due respect Paul, I do get what you're saying but I can't honestly see you forking out to play a particular piece of music at your funeral just because it's the legal thing to do, nor would your family. :)
     
    Upvote 0
    the pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people for playing music, especially for something to remember someone by at a funeral is a complete disgrace

    Now let's look at other parts of a funeral -

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £500 for a £50 coffin banged together in Rumania is a complete disgrace.

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £400 for digging a grave with a digger that has paid for itself over and over again is a complete disgrace.

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £750 for a hearse and four bearers is a complete disgrace.

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £250 to transfer a body from the hospital mortuary is a complete disgrace.

    Come to think of it, the pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people anything for anything is a complete disgrace. We should be giving our goods and services away for free - at least, that is what you seem to be implying!

    You are commenting as if all musicians are bling-laden rap stars with a G-Waggon, a Hummer, a Roller and a Lambo in the garage and millions rolling in every year. Trust me, even the biggest rap stars on Planet Earth do not earn anything like the kind of money that the PR departments would like you to believe they do. Most are hired hands that have signed 360-deals (i.e. all income streams) in exchange for a fixed income.

    Creating music is about as speculative an activity as you could possibly imagine and most successful musicians have just one or two 'cash-cows' that get played over and over again. It takes decades to become a musician and build up a repertoire or catalogue of music and recordings and as I pointed out earlier, marketing music has become prohibitively expensive.

    Promoters, labels, managers and agents pour huge sums into acts that you have never heard of and that sink without a trace. If you can find one good act a year, you are doing well and it takes about ten such acts to have a single minor hit.

    You do the maths!
     
    Upvote 0

    paulears

    Free Member
    Jan 7, 2015
    5,653
    1,661
    Suffolk - UK
    I'm a member of PRS and PPL. I make very little money from them, most income is from direct downloads from my server. However - it would be hypocritical of me to have a very strong music producers should be paid stance, and then break the law myself. In fact - as part of what I do, I actually use music for public performances, and pay PRS an awful lot more than they pay me. One day - maybe it will reverse but I doubt it!

    The theme is that this is about complying with the law, and not how good or fair we think it is.

    Funeral wise - copyright payment is now built into the system. The new crematoria have no facility to play music apart from through their system, and they will not permit equipment to be brought in to circumvent it!

    At my own funeral, I could benefit (or at least my family might) if my own music was played as I'd have to pay to play it, and I'd get back a small proportion. Weird, but that is how it works.
     
    Upvote 0
    R

    Root 66 Woodshop

    The byre, you've taken a part of what I've said and taken it out of context and ignored the fact that I do get what Paul is saying... personally, I just feel that it can get too much, especially where a funeral is concerned.

    If we were to do the same as the music industry and charge folk every time they use the lock's that we've installed then we'd be rolling in it lol
     
    Upvote 0

    paulears

    Free Member
    Jan 7, 2015
    5,653
    1,661
    Suffolk - UK
    Ah - but that is because you sell your locks. All you get when you buy a CD, is a free piece of plastic and a license to do something with it. It's a poor analogy, I know, but let's say you invented a new lock design, and then to keep control of it, and stop your competitors using it, you patented it. Then you fitted them into nice doors that you rented to your customers to use on their houses. maybe you even negotiated special insurance rates because it was so secure? Would you allow your domestic customers to unscrew the locks and fit them to their business premises? It wouldn't hurt would it, you still get the income. It might hit the sales of your business rented doors with the clever locks, though - the more lucrative side of the business?

    That's the thing. Something tangible like a lock can be a physical thing. There is only one.

    Only this week on TV there's been a huge outcry in the music business. A TV presenter was talking about a new CD, that was difficult to get, and asked if the guest had one - they said no. Not to worry she said, I'll do a copy for you. That's exactly the problem. It's not seen as something serious. The ironic thing was that the artist, who's CD it was, was in the studio - she didn't realise what she did.

    On the funeral front. It's a sad occasion for the family and friends. To the undertakers, vicars, organist, furnace workers, florists and printers, funerals are their business. If the councils are enforcers of the law in many areas, they really cannot turn a blind eye to copyright infringement, even if they want to. The new system they are all putting in makes the thing work. It can handle all the hymns, the music, and even organ music if the local organist can't play it! Oddly, in the copyright world, religious music is very strong. The newer types of churches consume music in quantity. There is a very strong and totally unheard of in radio play, strand of music being created - and all copyright controlled. Indeed - in these modern churches, they are using complicated video and audio layout systems - using special licensed layout software.

    The world of copyright is extremely complicated - what we're talking about is very much on the edge. If you want to get really confused, try licensing still or moving images. Many of us own and run web sites. You can get image checking plug ins for many browsers and loads of websites have 'stolen' images, 'stolen' music clips and 'stolen' bits of video. It doesn't make it right, but the fines are creeping up, and of course there are now business models that are built around searching these things out and hitting them!

    For fun, after this topic started, I looked in the local High Street for the PRS stickers and did find quite a few. Only one PPL sticker. One day, their people will hit the town. Imagine the uproar when the businesses who tried - and paid PRS discover they also owe PPL. Explaining they are not paying twice for the same thing won't be easy.
     
    Upvote 0
    When you buy a CD you do not own it, you simply have a license to use it for domestic use, same as a DVD - read the label on every CD and DVD.

    That is at the heart of this issue.

    Also at the heart of this issue is the fact that so many people either do not understand the difference between licensing and owning - or more likely, do not want to understand.

    The funeral issue is a brillant one! Everybody who has a function there, is doing it for money. The vicar, the priest, the undertaker, his assistants, the florist, the organist, the person who runs the PA, everybody. If you tell any one of them that they are not going to be paid, they will be a no-show. No money = no vicar, no undertaker, no flowers, no sound system, no funeral.

    When you buy a CD, DVD, software or even (now that you've mentioned it!) a lock on a door, you have also bought the right to use it. In the case of the CD and DVD, that is the right to use them domestically only! The commercial use is a different set of rights.

    If I buy a lock or a CD, I can use them. I can copy neither of them!
     
    Upvote 0

    Duke Fame

    Free Member
    Jan 28, 2008
    1,309
    209
    The BBC license fee is almost universally disliked, however, if you have a TV you need one. You can tell the BBC to F off if you wish - it changes nothing.

    The BBC license fee is for domestic broadcasting. It's very clear in the license. If you are being nice, and allow your staff to benefit, then the BBC have NOT paid the intellectual copyright owners and agents for your use, so stop moaning.

    Not quite true, you can have a TV without a licence, you only need a licence is you watch or record TV as it is broadcast.

    As so many people consume TV 'off grid' and stream from an external source, it's not needed. The licence fee is going to be obsolete within 10 years, the BBC will either have to change, get privatised or cease to be.

    As for PRS, if you have a closed office, just deny it, what can they do?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: simon field
    Upvote 0

    paulears

    Free Member
    Jan 7, 2015
    5,653
    1,661
    Suffolk - UK
    Not quite true, you can have a TV without a licence, you only need a licence is you watch or record TV as it is broadcast.

    As so many people consume TV 'off grid' and stream from an external source, it's not needed. The licence fee is going to be obsolete within 10 years, the BBC will either have to change, get privatised or cease to be.

    As for PRS, if you have a closed office, just deny it, what can they do?

    When you log into bbc iplayer you get a pop up the first time telling you that you need a to license.


    Of course when pros or ppl phone or call, you can lie and say you don't do it. Some people call this a win. I call it a lie, and an indication that you might also drive your car with no insurance, give HMRC lower figures than are true and tell the blood doning people you've never done certain things? My point is simply that you should pay. The fact you don't agree with it or want to do it is irrelevant. Most people do have car insurance of course, and look down on those idiots on the police chase tv programmes. Just seems music is treated as something to be gained for free, and doesn't matter. To those of us who make a living from it, it does matter. It's income. To see it dismissed as some kind of rip off or tax just makes me wonder if people really understand 'business' in general, or just their own type of business? Nothing said here is new, I'm used to hearing it. Doesn't mean it's valid though.
     
    Upvote 0
    A

    Andrew Chambers

    Now let's look at other parts of a funeral -

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £500 for a £50 coffin banged together in Rumania is a complete disgrace.

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £400 for digging a grave with a digger that has paid for itself over and over again is a complete disgrace.

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £750 for a hearse and four bearers is a complete disgrace.

    The pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people £250 to transfer a body from the hospital mortuary is a complete disgrace.

    Come to think of it, the pettiness and greed of continuously wanting to charge people anything for anything is a complete disgrace. We should be giving our goods and services away for free - at least, that is what you seem to be implying!



    That's s terrible comparison, every time a coffin is used it's a new coffin, no matter what the mark up or origin, money and time have been spent making that coffin. Every time a grave is dug it's a new job and requires the same effort as the grave dug yesterday. Every time a hearse and bearers are used you are paying for the work the bearers are doing and a fee to cover the purchase and ongoing costs of running a hearse. The vicar is providing and performing a new ceremony, he's writing it, giving his time, and performing anew.

    If I happen to hear your tune in Tesco or in the workplace no extra effort, work or cost has been borne by you or your publishers.
     
    Upvote 0

    Chris Ashdown

    Free Member
  • Dec 7, 2003
    13,379
    3,001
    Norfolk
    its funny the difference you get with products, as stated here the licence to listen is fine in music but the licence to read a book is totally ignored worldwide in that it also states books may not be re-sold or lent without express permission yet there are thousands of secondhand book shops and sites who pay no royalty
     
    Upvote 0
    A

    Andrew Chambers

    its funny the difference you get with products, as stated here the licence to listen is fine in music but the licence to read a book is totally ignored worldwide in that it also states books may not be re-sold or lent without express permission yet there are thousands of secondhand book shops and sites who pay no royalty

    Same goes for video, music, computer games, board games and works of art. All widely available second hand. It's just music has a self governing body to enforce where you can listen to it.
     
    Upvote 0
    the licence to read a book is totally ignored worldwide in that it also states books may not be re-sold or lent without express permission

    No such statement or condition has ever been placed onto the masthead of any book published by a major publisher.

    You are confusing the standard statement forbidding copying or selling pirated copies which runs "This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form or binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."
     
    Upvote 0
    its funny the difference you get with products, as stated here the licence to listen is fine in music but the licence to read a book is totally ignored worldwide in that it also states books may not be re-sold or lent without express permission yet there are thousands of secondhand book shops and sites who pay no royalty

    Try taking a book and making it into a show or movie, after all you've bought the book,so you can do anything you want with it right?

    I have some old Marvel comics I bought - Those movies sell well, maybe I'll make one. Maybe use pictures of Rihanna and Taylor Swift in the posters, there are loads free on the internet, and they're really popular. No-one will mind, right.

    Listening to a CD in private is different from playing it in public.
     
    Upvote 0
    A

    Andrew Chambers

    Try taking a book and making it into a show or movie, after all you've bought the book,so you can do anything you want with it right?

    I have some old Marvel comics I bought - Those movies sell well, maybe I'll make one. Maybe use pictures of Rihanna and Taylor Swift in the posters, there are loads free on the internet, and they're really popular. No-one will mind, right.

    Listening to a CD in private is different from playing it in public.

    ..
     
    Upvote 0
    A

    Andrew Chambers

    Because libraries lend the books and get them back, many do CDs and DVDs too. In the same way that I could lend you a music CD and no one would mind.

    What libraries don't do is buy one book, copy it 50 times and give those out. In the same way I can't play my CDs in a club or upload the songs to YouTube, etc.

    So libraries work, generally, the same way for books as the radio does for music. Apart from the matter of payment every time a tune is played on the radio. Actually I could be wrong but I believe a author gets a few pence (8 or 9 pence is it?) every time a book is loaned, what do you get for a play of your music on the radio?
     
    Upvote 0

    Duke Fame

    Free Member
    Jan 28, 2008
    1,309
    209
    When you log into bbc iplayer you get a pop up the first time telling you that you need a to license.


    Of course when pros or ppl phone or call, you can lie and say you don't do it. Some people call this a win. I call it a lie, and an indication that you might also drive your car with no insurance, give HMRC lower figures than are true and tell the blood doning people you've never done certain things? My point is simply that you should pay. The fact you don't agree with it or want to do it is irrelevant. Most people do have car insurance of course, and look down on those idiots on the police chase tv programmes. Just seems music is treated as something to be gained for free, and doesn't matter. To those of us who make a living from it, it does matter. It's income. To see it dismissed as some kind of rip off or tax just makes me wonder if people really understand 'business' in general, or just their own type of business? Nothing said here is new, I'm used to hearing it. Doesn't mean it's valid though.

    iPlayer isn't the only way to catch up on TV, I have no problem avoiding the TV licence, I think it's a fundamentally unfair tax and although the BBC produce some great stuff, it's an archaic institution funded in an archaic manner.

    As for music, my business dabbled with the idea of creating a data-base of music genres at a knock-down price that would be PRS / PPL free with independent artists contributing. It was only unworkable when those artists became members of other organisations without telling us.
     
    Upvote 0

    Duke Fame

    Free Member
    Jan 28, 2008
    1,309
    209
    Simply from a small business POV, the process seems extremely unfair (a bit like the TV licence). The smallest business pays a huge % of their income on PRS / PPL in comparison to the big boys and therefore, most of us avoid paying it.

    Like all taxes, you find most people are OK with paying it if it is fair and scaleable. As soon as taxes become too high, we take steps (legal or otherwise) to avoid it.
     
    Upvote 0

    paulears

    Free Member
    Jan 7, 2015
    5,653
    1,661
    Suffolk - UK
    PRS have a system for removal of an individual work from their control - clause 7F. Loads of popular music is not in their control. Plenty of Abba and virtually all of Disney, for example.

    The real issue is that people are used to buying something, and that is that. It's theirs and they can do what they like with it. Intellectual property is different. Very often it costs large amounts to produce the music that you hope will become popular, and eventually recoup it's production cost and then move into profit. Many musicians are happy to do this. You won't find Berger giving away their paint, waiting for the day that pretty pink suddenly gets featured on the BBC and suddenly takes off big time.

    I realise that this is not considered by many to be something wrong. They consider the law unfair. They don't agree with it. Tough! Vote in a Member of Parliament who can get the law changed. I've no time for people who rip me and others off, dismissing what I do for a business as somehow unimportant.

    I think 'Most' people is stretching it. The people ignoring the law thankfully are in the minority - but often very vocal about it. We have to disagree. I do find it odd that it is somehow OK to boast about avoiding paying what legally you should?

    If you don't like paying for music, then don't do it?
     
    Upvote 0
    Simply from a small business POV, the process seems extremely unfair (a bit like the TV licence). The smallest business pays a huge % of their income on PRS / PPL in comparison to the big boys and therefore, most of us avoid paying it.

    Like all taxes, you find most people are OK with paying it if it is fair and scaleable. As soon as taxes become too high, we take steps (legal or otherwise) to avoid it.

    £44 per year for up to 4 employees. If that's a huge % of their income, its time to turn the radio off and get on with some work,

    http://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpressreleases/pages/prsformusicsmallbusinesses.aspx
     
    • Like
    Reactions: The Byre
    Upvote 0

    TODonnell

    Free Member
    Sep 23, 2011
    1,405
    210
    London (UK)
    There are a percentage of people out there who simply don't want to get it. Or they can't.

    They justify their villainy to themselves. Or they think crime's a laugh; they don't care.

    Nice people wring their hands over criminals; they, too, are also stupid. They think that everyone else, fundamentally, thinks like them. What self-centredness!

    The criminal's argument runs:

    - I want it;
    - It 's not hurting the property owner (I sez);
    - [insert any other specious justification here];
    -> I'm taking it.

    This is why there are police.

    There's no point debating the law with people like that. You just hit them over the head.
     
    Upvote 0

    Duke Fame

    Free Member
    Jan 28, 2008
    1,309
    209
    I think 'Most' people is stretching it. The people ignoring the law thankfully are in the minority - but often very vocal about it. We have to disagree. I do find it odd that it is somehow OK to boast about avoiding paying what legally you should?

    If you don't like paying for music, then don't do it?

    My comment was more general, 'most' people are OK in paying for something they consume if it's fair and in proportion to the benefit they get from it.

    If my wife's business manages to get all her customers bouncing and having fun, they spend more and I'm sure she'd be happy to pay £5 a month for the privilege. The problem is that it's very difficult to measure and she simply gets a load of unsigned bands to give her Mp3's

    I'm not boasting about breaking a law, I'm 'boasting' that I don't pay a TV licence but it's not unlawful as i never watch tv that is broadcast live.
     
    Upvote 0

    Duke Fame

    Free Member
    Jan 28, 2008
    1,309
    209
    Upvote 0
    R

    Root 66 Woodshop

    Just dropped off a CD too the Town hall for my wedding in two weeks time, with 4 songs of my choice on...

    Isn't it amazing how the Council asks you to break the law so that they can play the CD that you've illegally created? And funnily enough... they don't have a PRS or PPL licence for this particular department either ;)
     
    Upvote 0

    namesweb

    Free Member
    Jan 27, 2015
    143
    17
    Y'all need to just sign up to spotify/equivalent and let it choose tracks for you. Or set up a youtube playlist which will have all your fave tunes on it, has adverts played in between, and is free?

    Also if it's 5 lads in a private office, inaccessible to general public, why are you registered at all?

    Interesting debate though.
     
    Upvote 0

    Scott-Copywriter

    Free Member
    May 11, 2006
    9,605
    2,673
    I'm sure I read a story once where the PRS or PPL demanded that a business owner bought a license because the owner was listening to music through their headphones, but it was so loud in their ears that people very close by could hear it as well.

    That might be a myth, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.
     
    Upvote 0

    paulears

    Free Member
    Jan 7, 2015
    5,653
    1,661
    Suffolk - UK
    I've had a quite a few quite laughable examples myself. I wanted to play some 70s music in a show. PRS have a number of tariffs, but for theatres, one common one is to use the running time (we call it playing time) of the show, and then to calculate the music time. The two tracks were withdrawn from PRS control so I had to contact the copyright holder direct. PRS usually want 1% of the box office for the music content - so if the show is 60 minutes and has 30 minutes of music and you take £10000 at the box office, they want 50% of 1%, so £50. From memory, 30 seconds of Sugar baby Love was about a fiver, when I contacted them, but one VERY big record company when I approached them was a bit slippery. I would owe them about £7, however to prepare the contract would cost them about £70, so they told me verbally to just forget it. I asked if I could have that in writing and they laughed and said no! So I used the track for free, with their blessing. I doubt the copyright owner would be that bothered - but that's their record company's decision. My point is that if you ask, occasionally it works for you. I used some music from a famous American musician for an exam a few years ago, and was put in touch with the guy who did the arrangement on the CD. He wanted more than we could afford, but a friend of a friend of a friend worked in the man's office, and mentioned it to him. He was pretty amazed because it turned out the arranger had been paid a straight fee, so the rights were the musicians. He thought the project a good one, and said the contract meant he had to charge - how would $10 be? For what it's worth ABBA and Carlos Santana were very reasonable - some others very unhelpful, with some saying a straight NO!

    No just pop music. Fungus the Bogeyman was an absolute no no when his legal people contacted me in the 70s to put a stop to a humorous musical project we were planning. Despite parody being one of the exemptions in copyright application.

    I always try to do it properly when I use music, but it is rarely easy!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: simon field
    Upvote 0

    simon field

    Free Member
    Feb 4, 2011
    6,856
    2,691
    I kinda get my head around the promotional-within-the-entertainment-industry type stuff, where the music is deliberately being used as part of a show.

    It's just the notion of two blokes in a shed with radio 2 on (cue Simply Red, The Carpenters, Whitney Houston, Fleetwood Mac, Tom Jones and many other clapped-out old relics) of which they can hear occasisional blasts of in between table saws, sanders & routers being forced to pay for musician's adverts I find absolutely ludicrous.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Scott-Copywriter
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles