Hello there.

Having read Howard's point about sampling methods I'd like to observe the following:

Where a gig or session falls "under the radar" due to size, the following apply:
Either
1. the performer or session organiser can submit a generic but representative setlist once in a blue moon detailing all the dates it applies to. Any licences paid by the pub will be distributed according to that information less the c. 12% admin costs of the society. Result of reporting: the writers get their due, gradually.
or
2. The performer or session organiser does nothing and for a long time no one gets their due, until someone comes in and samples what's played, at which point every registered (i.e. professional) writer played that night gets a bumper and disproportionate payday.
Result of sampling: The writers get their due, eventually

I'm pointing out the latter as I don't see how else a sampling system can operate - by nature, it's a sample, a snapshot - leaving aside the question of amateur writers who want no recompense for the use of their work, any negative argument about the PRS is likely to lead to less revenue to those who are struggling, as, if in doubt, they are more likely to reject the chance for payment when it _does_come their way. I know of at least half a dozen cases of this.

Yours

Dan Plews