PRS PPL - The Music Licence

[Christmashamster]

I wondered what your experiences were with PRS PPL and the transition to the new Music Licence? Both of my separate PRS and PPL licences expired in November, and before then, I was told I would get more information about transitioning but I haven't heard anything or received any invoice. I have sent emails to which I only get an automated response, and I have tried to phone but there is no one answering (I was on hold for an hour!).

 

[Christmashamster]

I think they only have 3 songs for their hold music. After a while, they just play Adele's "Rolling In The Deep" over and over again...it almost makes me hate the song...

 

[Dimo]

PPL/PRS QUOTE: "We exist to protect the value of music, so that music creators can continue making the music that we all love and enjoy. After our business costs, music licence fees are distributed to all those involved in making music via our parent companies PPL and PRS for Music. This means that those people who write, perform, compose, record or publish music are fairly paid for their work."

This outfit will not publicly name the artists it represents. There is no way it can effectively distribute royalty payments according to what receives daily airtime across all radio and tv media. It is a blanket scam in my view, and the PPL/PRS often targets businesses aggressively, insisting they pay for a license because a radio is on in an office or workshop where, in some cases, just two people operate. Besides, airplay of music sees royalyies paid to artists and composers by the broadcaster, so the PPL/PRS is in effect levying a tax on listening at work. And they're making good money at it, also charging members an annual fee to register with them.

I've no objection to people being paid for their work, but this system cannot and does not operate fairly.

 

[paulears]

They do, and I am very happy with them, and can view the entire catalogue of protected works quite easily. I am, of course, a member - so can always be relied upon to support them, pretty much the only organisations I can rely on to pay me for people using my music. It isn't a tax, its a payment system to collect money from you, and give it to me? Many people nowadays use agents to collect money on their behalf. A solid business model. The only people who do not use PRS/PPL are composers and producers who can do better themselves. Few of us could even come close.

 

[Dimo]

... pretty much the only organisations I can rely on to pay me for people using my music.

Where is your music played? In what media?

It isn't a tax, its a payment system to collect money from you, and give it to me?

A duplicate payment system. Broadcasters pay royalties for playing the music. The PPL/PRS wants to collect royalties again. Explain why this is acceptable; and explain why people listening to music at work should pay for what is a form of advertising of a musical product.

Many people nowadays use agents to collect money on their behalf. A solid business model.

Yes, but they are not duplicating cash already raised and paid in royalties.

 

[paulears]

This always happens, so before I start to rant - just to say you're wrong, and your viewpoint inaccurate, and distorted. I don't have too explain because the legal niceties are established and have been for a very long time. If somebody using my music in the US eventually triggers a payment to me here, I'm happy with the system. I appreciate the people who hate the notion of paying for music they use aren't happy. That's life. I'm out because it always goes downhill rapidly when this topic gets brought up, over and over again. If you don't like it, don't play the music - there is a choice.

 

[obscure]

A duplicate payment system. Broadcasters pay royalties for playing the music. The PPL/PRS wants to collect royalties again.

Wrong, there is no duplicate payment. The broadcasters pay for certain limited rights which do not include the re-broadcasting to multiple people in an office or retail environment. If you want to use the material in that way you will need the appropriate license from the PRS/PPL.

It's no different than licensing a photograph for use on your website (single). You can't then turn around and use it on 10 more websites or sell/license it to others for use on their website. Those are additional right and would require another/amended license which would doubtless cost more.

That is how copyright law currently works. Feel free to contact your MP to get the law changed or start an internet petition.

 

[Dimo]

I know how copyright works thanks as I've a lot of copyrighted material and trade marks out there.
Look at the PPL-PRS with a simple example:

1 - Music recordings are played on the radio
2 - The PPS-PPL collects royalties from the broadcaster and pays the recording artists
3 - The PRS-PPL issue a Music License to businesses with a radio playing
4 - The license income from these businesses is paid to the recording artists

From the horse's mouth:- "We pay royalties for our members' works that are played on national, local, international, online and digital radio stations that are broadcast in the UK."

No problem with that. What an increasing movement is objecting to is paying a fee to listen to the radio when the broadcasting of its material has already seen royalties paid out.

 

[obscure]

I know how copyright works thanks as I've a lot of copyrighted material and trade marks out there.
Look at the PPL-PRS with a simple example:

1 - Music recordings are played on the radio
2 - The PPS-PPL collects royalties from the broadcaster and pays the recording artists
3 - The PRS-PPL issue a Music License to businesses with a radio playing
4 - The license income from these businesses is paid to the recording artists

From the horse's mouth:- "We pay royalties for our members' works that are played on national, local, international, online and digital radio stations that are broadcast in the UK."

No problem with that. What an increasing movement is objecting to is paying a fee to listen to the radio when the broadcasting of its material has already seen royalties paid out.

Its really unfair. When I ride the taxi back from Hong Kong the meter says one amount but then the driver charges me again for "the tolls". It's outrageous! He's charging me twice for the same ride... except he isn't. The meter doesn't include tolls so if you want to go on a toll route you have to pay.

Nothing in your post contradicts my post above. You are simply choosing to ignore the fact that you haven't paid for the particular thing you want.

 

[Dimo]

There word you're looking for and conveniently ignored is duplication.

Music played on the radio has already seen payments made to the artists by the broadcaster, collected by PPL-PRS less their percentage. What you and some others are happy with is to see the artists paid again by people listening to the radio. This outfit is laughing all the way to the bank, earning millions of £ per annum by corporate extortion.

There is another aspect to this: Having your music played on the radio is in effect a form of advertising in the hope that the public will go out and buy it. So we have artists firstly paid by the broadcaster, secondly paid by the listening public, and thirdly paid once again by anyone purchasing it.

And regarding your taxi - you had a choice. Companies having a radio playing are not given a choice.

Where are the parallels with any other creative arts?

Some dental surgeries are required to have the new combined "MusicLicence" because they play relaxing music. Hey, but someone created a pot pourri for surgeries that gave off a scent of well-being. Perhaps they should be paid a royalty per patient? And one surgery placed a relaxing painting on the ceiling for patients to look at while having treatment. Maybe the artist should be paid a royalty per patient as well?

The audio medium is a joke and a virtual scam. Originators get paid every time their stuff is broadcast. Why isn't that enough???

 

[obscure]

There word you're looking for and conveniently ignored is duplication.

There is no duplication just different fees for different things. Those are the facts that you either can't understand or simply refuse to accept because it doesn't mesh with what you want.

You simply repeating the same nonsensical claims over again won't make you right and, more importantly, I have better things to do that keep rereading the same nonsense.

I'm out of here. Please turn the lights off when you leave the thread.

 

[NickGrogan]

Companies having a radio playing are not given a choice.

Turn off the radio?

If you think that musicians are grossly overpaid and get massive royalties from their songs, that are just adverts to sell their songs iTunes, then surely the most sensible to do would be to write songs.

You can hire musicians by the hour/day, record your masterpiece and get cheques from PPL - PRS for decades to come.

 

[Dimo]

If you think that musicians are grossly overpaid and get massive royalties from their songs, that are just adverts to sell their songs iTunes, then surely the most sensible to do would be to write songs.

If??? Grossy overpaid? Hahaha. For a great many it's just pocket money. I do write songs and they've been played on BBC radio. Playing one's music on the radio is a form of marketing and promotion, no question. Do you think we musicians and the record companies think otherwise? Hahaha...

As for the PRS-PPL - a critical issue is some licensees complaining that royalties do not go to the appropriate companies or individuals. Example: A wedding venue using live bands pays for an annual licence, but the performed song royalties cannot filter down to the relevant publishing companies, musicians, artists and composers. That is one reason why the licence has been called a scam. So much for the licence supporting particular artistes.

PPL-PRS website: "You can play or perform the music of specific artists only if you wish, but it will not affect the cost of your licence. That’s because the cost is not calculated based on which music artists you play, but instead depends on factors such as the size of your business or organisation and the ways you use music."

"By purchasing TheMusicLicence, you are supporting the future of music by helping to ensure its creators are paid for their work, so that the people who write, perform and record it can continue making the music you love."

In the wedding venue example (and many other establishments) perhaps someone would like to explain precisely how the licence fee money is distributed to the actual music creators and artists given that the PRS-PPL has no idea of the music performed.

 

[NickGrogan]

I do write songs and they've been played on BBC radio.

So presumably you understand exactly how the system works and you benefit from PRS-PPL.

Not sure how you can equate PRS-PPL "earning millions of £ per annum by corporate extortion" and "Grossy overpaid? Hahaha. For a great many it's just pocket money"

Where are the £millions that are being collected, going to, if not the artists?

Looking on the PPL website, costs run around 16.5%, with the rest distributed.

 

[paulears]

My email from PPL today (as a member) says this.

PPL announces quarter four payment details
In total over 73,000 performers and around 8,000 recording rightsholders were paid by PPL in December 2018.

"Throughout PPL, we are committed to providing the best service for all our members. This is demonstrated by the breadth of our income sources, and by the number of performers and recording rightsholders that we pay," says Chief Executive Officer, Peter Leathem.

Only people who are not members of PRS or PPL seem to complain. Those who make a living from music really appreciate what they do - because there isn't a hope in hell anyone else would generate what they do for the people who produce music for others to consume.

 

[Nord20]

And yet people do complain. A lot. And in great numbers.

So, clearly, people are not happy about it. And it isn't because they are unwilling to pay for music, it's the perceived unfairness of the tax.

Consumers make up, what, 90% of the music buying market? Yet as a consumer, you pay once, the music is yours and you can play it as often as you like. Seems like a fair license.

As a business, you have to pay each and every time you play any music. This is infuriating and leads to people having exactly the kinds of conversations we're having here. I can choose to either pay thousands and thousands every single year, or just stop using music in my business.

Guess which we did?! So now PRS/PPL, and by extension the music producers, get nothing, instead of the c. £2k we paid every year until we decided nope, not any more, it isn't worth it.

It's much like the income tax rate - a simplistic view says the higher the rate, the higher the take, but we know in reality that there comes a point where people will actively work to avoid paying. That is what happens with PRS/PPL - people resent it and take action to avoid having to fork over large amounts of money that are seemingly randomly distributed amongst people who's music you've likely never even heard of.

Even if you completely 100% agree and support PRS with the way they operate, you must concede that their system relies far too heavily on businesses being honest - within a system that strongly encourages businesses not to be. Their system basically says "how much do you want to pay? Because we will never, ever check that what you tell is true".

 

[paulears]

I've no issue with you making that sensible business decision - you're honest and made the call appropriate to you. If you don't consume the product, then not paying its correct. It's those folk who wish to consume it, but not pay that I've an issue with. It does absolutely depend very heavily on honesty - but I also see so many people trying to find reasons to avoid it because they don't wish to pay for it. To a degree I even agree it's pretty difficult to fathom out - but real records since before I was born have the "no public performance" etc etc copyright notice. It isn't new. It's not something that has suddenly sprung up. As somebody who spent far too long filling in handwritten reporting sheets, I'm sort of glad that now it's sampling and stats. It does mean I personally get less than I did, because the sheer quantity of music is growing exponentially but I really cannot think of anything better. Some of the music we produce is NOT controlled by PRS/PPL and we sell it direct to the end user, and it's a steady earner in a very narrow market. If we produced popular stuff we'd be stuck with the micro-pennies from iTunes. I earn a living from music as one of my income streams, I just think it mildly amusing so many people think I shouldn't. We complain about HMRC, and now PRS and PPL are in the same category I guess?