PRS Performing Rights Gestapo

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:07 AM

What is extremely thin on the ground on this thread is discussion on the effect organisations like PRS would have/are having on the clubs; apart from Jon's orginal posting, Stallion's pretty accurate summary, and a few others, it has largely been the bemoanings of 'pity the downtrodden folkie'. Sorry Tom, I become more and more convinced that there are a substantial number of people who would happily throw many the clubs to the wolves in order to protect their own interests.
No self-respecting landlord is going to invite a group of people onto the premises who incur for him/her a regular PR debt. Having tramped the streets of London , Manchester and Liverpool on different occasions looking for a venue, I know the difficulties without adding a long list of 'dependents' to the job. It really has become a 'business' to some people, hasn't it? Folk music should not be about securing the incomes of a few performers, it should be about making the music available to as many as possible.
Dave,
Sorry, you are quite right, I did badly phrase my point. Kennedy didn't rip off John Reilly - he illegally used recordings belonging to Tom Munnelly (now the property of The Irish Folklore Department), thereby helping to deprive a group of impoverished Traveller children of an education. Sorry if you feel I've been deliberately and unduly harsh on him.
I know Topic is to handle his collection; I trust that they, should they make use of the recordings, will see that the Traveller school is suitably awarded - oh, I forgot, they can't - it collapsed through lack of funding!
Thanks to all of you who have attempted to steer me through the vagueries and idiocies of the copyright laws. My point regarding 'Maid and the Palmer' was to underline the irony of the source dying from malnutrition, while a well-heeled, fairly successful, middle-of-the-road, musician is able to claim it as his own (albeit an 'arrangement').
Richard; I wonder why you come to the conclusion that you did on the significance of John Reilly adapting the ballad. There were three recordings made of him singing it, each one substantially different. In many ways John Reilly was living proof of David Buchan's theory that a traditional singer re-created a song at the point of performance.
Many of the singers we recorded adapted the songs in their repertoire to suit themselves. Around a quarter of Walter Pardon's repertoire was re-built by him using incomplete songs from different members of the family to make them whole ones; failing that, from printed texts. Two magnificent examples were 'The Parson and The Clerk' and 'Dark Arches', both of which he brought back to life from a couple of half-remembered verses, via printed texts.
I don't think we ever met a source singer who didn't consciously adapt a song to suit him or herself.
I believe that most versions of folk songs as performed by traditional singers can be claimed to be 'arrangements', just as validly as any adapted and 'arranged' by folkies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:28 AM

The point I was trying to make about "arrangement" is that an "arrangement", like any literary dramatic artistic or musical work has to be pass a "substantiality" (and "originality") threshold in order to amount to a copyright work.

In the case of a literary work, the alteration of a few words would be unlikely to create a new work.

It seems to me that most unaccompanied singers do not vary the actual notes of the principal melody that they sing. They may change key but a mere change of key (that is to say for this purpose a mere transcription up or down by so many semitones, it might be differnet if it was a change from major to minor or vice versa) on its own is unlikely to amount to an arrangement.   They may add some decoration but in most cases decoration is largely commonplace, following established cadences. A single singer cannot add a harmony line to himself. Likewise there is no accompaniment. That leaves timing. I suppose it leaves loudness too but I cannot really see variations in loudness being held by a judge to amount to a fresh musical work (which is the threshold that an "arrangement" has to surmount).

So what is there in timing? Can you think of a single traditional song that is likely to be recognisable if the notes were deprived of pitch so that it became a sequence of clicks? The only possibility that springs to my mind would be "Famous Flower of Serving Men", but that in turn is because I play it with rhythm rather than (as Martin Carthy said) in the time signature of "one". People do tend to say that what I do to traditional songs is distinctive (not necessarily the same as "good") but I think that's pretty much just because I grew up wanting to play "chunk-a-chunk" rock and roll so I just thump a rhythm and syncopate a bit. I wouldn't really call that an arrangement, although I might claim that for some of the guitar parts.

If that doesn't meet the threshold what will an unaccompanied singer be doing that will amount to the making of a new copyright work?   Mostly they (and, if I sing unaccompanied, I) just convey the work.

More importantly, if you were trying to prove to a judge that there was an arrangment, you would surely have to show the "before" and "after" versions of the work. Ex hypothesi that would be a bit tricky.

It's not wholly cut and dried, but that's my view. If you really want to get a feel for it you should steep yourself in copyright textbooks - Laddie Prescott and Vitoria is well regarded, likewise Copinger and Skone-James. Sterling and Carpenter is less well known but I think it shows a good grasp of principle, and there is an Australian book, now very out of date, the author of which I forget, that again showed a good grasp of the principles.

Some of the modern cases are showing what I think to be a heretical tendency to reconise an arrangement or fresh work when in truth there was no such thing. Sawkins -v- Hyperion falls, for me, in that category.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Simon G
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:54 AM

Jon said about 40 messages ago.

>Yet they demanded over £700 on the "basis of the square footage of the property

The reason is because the PRS licence fee is based on the number of people the premises is licensed for. One singaround I go to is in a massive three storey pub (converted warehouse) I calculate the PRS fee per singaround of 10-20 people to be over £60 plus VAT. Because the premises must be licenced for around 1,000 people.

There fees are designed to get rid of all the small fry -- why -- because it is much easier to sell to a market of bigger players, stmap out the small fry and they hope just hope that we will all go to bigger events. Rest assured those bigger events won't be singing the songs of the songwriters who come on here supporting the PRS

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Policy Appraisal
From: stallion
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:30 AM

I think a Joe Clone could change it to PRS performing policy appraisal

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:15 AM

oops, I was going on to say to make it more accessible and less subjective, my view is that a sensible balance has to be struck between overt financial exploitation and recreational use, if the legislation has necessarily to be a "catch all" net then some moderation has to be exercised by the administrators, unfortunately, as has been shown by the implementation of the new licensing laws, this is a rare occurrence. I have a theory (and I maybe way off beam here)that if someone is given powers they use them even if they are not necessary, just because they are there, and, if it is your job, then you have to be seen to be doing it vigorously or you get the sack because it seems the only criteria for a job well done is how much money you make. Also, the PRS exists to collect and distribute cash for it's members and not to encourage and promote music of any kind although one might think they have a vested interest to promote music. I have just deleted a rant on the grounds that it is carping and not at all constructive, I think Tom is a tad optimistic if he thinks PRS members might advise its administrators to omit folk sessions from the licensable activities I doubt it would get enough support and die of apathy.

Peter

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:15 AM

Of course you might say the difference is between folk music (1954 Definition) which should need no permission, and other music which should.....

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:27 PM

"Of course you might say the difference is between folk music (1954 Definition) which should need no permission, and other music which should....."
Whoops - cat among pigeons time. I wish I'd said that; in fact I was going to, but bottled out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:33 PM

To take it a step further - I have a cunning plan my lord.
Suppose all those who have usurped the term 'folk' go off and call themselves something else, then the rest of us who are interested in the real thing can claim our music to be in the public domain - problem solved.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:24 PM

Good heavens, I thought no-one else believed that.....

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:04 PM

"I have a theory (and I maybe way off beam here)that if someone is given powers they use them even if they are not necessary, just because they are there, and, if it is your job, then you have to be seen to be doing it vigorously or you get the sack because it seems the only criteria for a job well done is how much money you make."

I'll modify that slightly - "use them or lose them" - just ask any Police Force... :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard "Can you think of a single traditional song that is likely to be recognisable if the notes were deprived of pitch so that it became a sequence of clicks?" etc...

One word....

Rap!   

;-)

:-P

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:38 PM

Send your songs to he US. You won't get any money from us just singing them as we don't as far as I've ever heard charge for the singing of them at venues nor do the venues have to pay a liscense of fee if they're performed, so if they're good enough, they'll get sung & they'll get spread about too..If I'm wrong please correct me, so I can stop singing.

Some folks may even want to buy recordings once they've been heard. We do have the same copyright laws but they don't extend to performences.
I believe that if we had the same system here you'd not find anyone singing songs if those songs sung would cost the performer or the venue a penny. I've never been asked to give a play list of a performence, at a venue, festival or session & the day that happens it would be a sad day for not only traditional songs but for those who write too. The whole concept of the "copyright" was to enhance the creativity & culture of the medium as well as protect the "property". This system seems to protect the property at a greater cost to the property while destroying all that it was originally supposed to foster, enhance & benifit the culture that it was born from.

Turning public parks into tourist traps & charging the visiting public for the upkeep of the property which has become a fenced in & caged zoo is not benifical to conserving the wild kingdom. The idea was not to turn the park into a "for profit" for those that didn't own the park in the first place, it was for all to enjoy but for those that want the park to flourish, grow, bloom & blossom & don't mind putting in their little bit of extra, those that want to write in their small contribuion & add it to the mix maybe there's a better way to replay/repay them for what they've written instead of giving away the farm because this system at present sucks for every involved except the Gestapo, who by the way creates nothing but a distaste & a dislike for evreyone & thing they touch.

Here in the US we had a department of Agriculture (notice the word culture) it started out with 600 employees, they managed around 6,000,000 farms, now that department has about 600,000 employees handling 60,000 farms. The non-produce-ing entity becomes a bit top heavy in it's need for survival while draning the life out of that which it was supposed to encourage & help to prosper & grow, it's killing it's own goose. It's become a cannibal.
I'd have to agree with Jim.

Barry

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:39 PM

Sorry that rant from across the pond was me on my wife's computer at her work.

Barry

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:49 AM

S 106, US Copyright Act 1976 confers, inter alia, the right

"To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;"

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:19 AM

As far back as 1971 there was an indication of what was happening to folk music, when Bob Pegg let the rat out of the bag at the National Folk Festival at Loughborough.
To a questioner who asked what motivated him (35 years ago) he replied,
"I'm no longer interested in folk music - I'm in it for the money".
I still treasure Trevor Fisher's thoughtful pamphlet in response entitled 'We're Only In It For The Money'.
Richard; sorry to persist with this, but I find I am now banging my head on the limits of my understanding of copyright (not really my interest, but how creativity among traditional singers is estimated does interest me).
How many of the features you listed above have to come into play before it can be considered that a singer has re-worked a song enough for it to be regarded that it is a product of his/her creation.
Each time John Reilly sang 'Well Below The Valley' the verse structure altered radically, the tune varied likewise, the only thing that remained constant (more or less) was the text. How does this differ with what Phil Coulter did to it in order to copyright his arrangement?
We recorded Walter Pardon and Tom Lenihan talking about altering songs to suit themselves, and in Walter's case, have before/after examples.
Don't wish to be a pain in the bum (not at the moment anyway)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Mafia
From: Simon G
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:21 AM

Must be expensive to legally run a restaurant were the staff will come and sing happy birthday when asked. As the audience is different each time and each is arranged separately they are separate events so PRS must be asking for at least £7.62 each time

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:56 AM

To take up what Jim was saying about arrangements being different, for the cd "Sing the Sun into the Sky" we recorded 20 songs, we dropped 2 because we felt they needed more voices the other 4 were dropped because the arrangements had changed so much (for the better)that it wsn't a true "snapshot" of what we were doing. Some stuff we do is tight and rigid but for the most part, if you have a big chorus, like The Press room in Portsmouth NH, it's great to busk the harmonies and fly all over the place to make new sounds and I remember Martin once whispering in my ear "I bet you couldn't sing that again", he was right! It also keeps the songs fresh to us by constantly working them. So I think the arrangement thing is baloney, except, if we had written on MCPRS licence form arr 2BS&S we would have only had to pay half the licence fee, we didn't.

Peter

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:17 AM

Copyright does not subsist until the word is recorded, in writing or other material form. A tape recording suffices. NB US state law, notably Californian, may recognise a common-law copyright in unrecorded works and arguably since this is not dealt with by Federal Satute it may not be federally pre-empted.

Substantiality is not measured by a "row of beans" approach. It is a question of where the substantial merit lies. In music the ear is the judge - Francis Day & Hunter -v- Bron.

Notwithstanding that a huge amount of research went into finding a "suitable" word, the name "Exxon" has been held not to amount to a copyright work.

Likewise "Beauty is not a luxury but a social necessity" was not enought to amount to a copyright work,although it was a successful advertising slogan.

Mere "stage business" is not a copyright work. Tate -v- Fullbrook [1908], Tate -v- Thomas [1921] nor a contests played differently but to the same rules each night Seltzer -v- Sunbrook (US, UK Report 1936-45 MCC 337]

A person who makes an arrangement of an old tune, by the exercise of a sufficiently substantial amount of his own skill, useful (copyright) labour or judgment (Sawkins -v- Hyperion) may have copyright in the arrangement. Lover -v- Davidson (1856) 1 CBNS - accompaniemnt to an old air. Wood -v- Boosey (1868)LR - piano score of opera.   Austin -v- Columbia Gramophone (1923)   - new harmonisation of old (non-copyright) tunes infringed by different but similar sounding harmonies.

Laddie comments that the change of only a few notes may result in a new tune (with its own copyright) if it is perceived by audiences to be a new tune, and cites teh Oxford Companion to Music in support.

Mere interpretation by performance is not a subject matter of copyright - CBS -v Gross (Australia) (1989).

Laddie also comments on collection of folk music, and distinguishes the copyright that may arise in a transcription if (but only if) sufficient skill and labour is exercised, on the one hand (Walter -v- Lane, considered in Robertson -v- Lewis (1960) reported [1976 RPC, from, pon the other hand the mere switching on if a tape recorder. If there is a transcription copyright, it covers the transcription and anyone else can make a fresh transcription from source, but they may not copy the copyright transcription eg by performance from it without licence.


Of course as I have said before there is or may be copyright in a sound recording.

Hope that helps. If you want more it's hours with the textbooks and cases!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Psychomorris
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:21 PM

My what an interesting debate. All perspectives appearing to be both logical and covering moral ground. People who write should get just reward and those who perform, should be catagorised into who should pay and who should not. Arguements as to the benefits for all.
i have had coinversations with the writers performers and 'gestapo' all put forward rationalisations as to why their approach is important. They are all valid . However there is an endemic sickness that is slowly creeping through our society that is eating away at individual freedom and reasonableness. all things can be viewed as having incremental progression. What starts out small and reasonable can grow into something that cannot be controlled. 100 + yr old Conker trees removed because a conker might fall on someones head. Swings and slides removed from childrens playgrounds because a child may get hurt. Police unable to save drowning children because they are not trained to do so. This all started somewhere. It was probably very innocuous at its time but has led to a sadder quality oflife as a result of progression. A sad aspect, is the reasonable arguement put forward to justify why.The worse aspect is it us as people who create and maintain the problem. Are you all not doing the same when it comes to folk music. I go to folk clubs and venues for enjoyment with others. I do not get paid or ask of such. It is the enjoyable experience and being with others, similar, that I go for. You can all take this away if you want. The market based concept now entrenched in British society is killing any quality of life.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Tootler
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:47 PM

Last night, I was told at one of the folk clubs I go to on a regular basis are to receive a visit from the PRS next month. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

And to some points made in the previous post

The market based concept now entrenched in British society is killing any quality of life.

How true. At the moment those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing are in control and unless we start to realise that not everything of value can be expressed in monetary terms, Britain will continue its inexorable slide towards becoming a very nasty, vicious, selfish nation. The actions of some copyright owners need to be seen in this light.

OT, I know, but worth mentioning:

Police unable to save drowning children because they are not trained to do so

A coastguard near here (NE England) resigned last week. He had been reprimanded for "not following proper procedures" when he went to rescue someone who had fallen off a cliff. By all accounts, if he had followed "proper procedures" it is likely that the person he went to rescue would have died. Someone seems to have a warped sense of priorities.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 01:20 PM

It's because we are becoming the land of the Sue (like our American cousins) had the coastguard broken the procedures and the person had died and or himself had died the coastguard service would be open to hefty compensation claims.   This is driven by the insurance companies who will try anything to wriggle out of stumping up even blaming God for some stuff and refusing to pay up.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:24 PM

Yes indeed get rid of them, they shouldn't dropping conkers on peoples heads.

Enter the PRS Stormtroopers wearing the dreaded Ivor Novello Award with oakleaves, Vee Haff Vays of making you gift more money to Robbie Villiams... for you Tommy volksingers, the var is over!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:07 PM

I was given a double CD of winners of the Ivors once. It is torture to listen to.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Rasener
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 01:06 PM

Well our Faldingworth Memorial Hall Chairman rang the Godfathers today and opologised for not knowing about PRS and they thanked him for being honest and then asked him for the Sales Income for 2007 for the Hall and they charged him £47 for this year 2008. It feels nice to be on the side of the Godfathers :-)

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: synbyn
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 06:03 AM

I'd feel happier about the reasons for this zealous collection of anticipated dues if the PRS got serious about billing every radio station on the basis of a full submitted playlist. The 'sampling' method may have been appropriate way back when, but there's no excuse now, computer technology being what it is. Lost income from this source would for most songwriters far exceed that for random plays in sessions, as these plays stimulate proportional payouts from the pub/karaoke pool as things stand. At the moment the money goes in and, unless the writer self-certifies as Tom Bliss says, is absorbed into the general pool.
Until then, one could reasonably assume that there are other items on the agenda.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Simon G
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 12:31 PM

For The Villan

It would help a lot if we could find out how the Faldingworth Memorial Hall Chairman managed to keep his PRS fee down to £47.

PM me if you want to keep it off the board.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 12:44 PM

The 'sampling' method may have been appropriate way back when, but there's no excuse now, computer technology being what it is.

Having asked this very question of a singer/songwriter whose music I have played on my radio show - I am assured that is now as you have suggested it should be and said artist receives detailed records of his "plays" on radio.

Dave

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM

We have to fork out around £1000 to KODA for a 3 day Festival I help run in Denmark. We submit set lists and composers (if we know the composer.

I think that's OK, as long as the money gets to where it should. But there is a selective enough process as to who actually gets billed.

Let it be a level playing field.

B.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:02 AM

I think there would be less resistance to PRS if we could be satisfied that the royalties were going to the composers whose music we play, rather than being distributed on a rather vague pro-rata basis which seems to favour the Elton Johns and Paul McCartneys of this world. If we could have a more efficient way of reporting performances and allocating the cash where it's properly due then I'm sure many folk musicians would be more supportive of it.

And before you point out that it isn't the performers who have to pay PRS, that's true, but the demands of the PRS can put a session or folk club in jeopardy if the pub landlord (who may not be charging for the room or selling much more beer than he would otherwise) feels the cost of a licence is too much.

The problem is, what would you do with a return from a session which consists mainly of

"Title: unknown Composer: unknown"

which applies to most of my repertoire!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: pavane
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:20 AM

Tootler,
This might help keep the bill down when you get your PRS visit:

Make sure everyone who sings (or plays) that night sticks to PUBLIC DOMAIN songs, and makes a list.

Ideally, quote a source book older than 100 years, (e.g. Kidson for Scarborough Fair) or a copy of a broadside, as the origin.

Beware of the copyrighted TRAD stuff like Wild Mountain Thyme
(and Happy Birthday to you). If you must sing it, call it The Braes O' Balquidder by Robert Tannahill, c1795

I think there is a site listing all known public domain songs somewhere in the web (but that may apply only to the USA).

They might get fed up and go away.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Opportunity
From: Simon G
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:24 AM

I think we need to turn this around. We are all grumbling that folk songwriters/composers/arrangers don't get rewarded enough by PRS. It is in our hands. If we get the returns in then our composers are likely to get over compensated because they will get a small contribution from all the blues/rock/pop/jazz events that don't send in returns.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: pavane
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:35 AM

See
Public domain in USA

I haven't yet found a site for public domain in the UK, but anything in the above site before 1900 should be OK.

Does anyone want to start a UK version?

Here's one for starters.

'My Johnny was a shoemaker' was composed and printed in about 1859 in the USA. It can be seen in the Lester Levy collection.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Windy
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

Pavane,many thanks for the link but the injustice to which the original poster alluded is the fact that the UK PRS expect their slice regardless of whether the music performed is in'the public domain'or not.
Incidentally,the concept of a body of work in The Public Domain is not as well established in the UK as in the US,that may be why no site leaps out of the search.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 09:43 PM

I still can't get access to 'Mudcat' on my local library network because of this thread (use of the word 'Gestapo')!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Helen
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:42 AM

Odd coincidence ... I run a small business, (stationery, not music) and a couple of days ago one of the girls in the office had a call from someone perporting to be PRS, wanting to speak to the owner to check we had no radio/stereo/other music broadcast equipment on the premises as we'd need a licence for it. We haven't, and she told this to the bloke and as I wasn't in, he wasn't able to speak to 'The Owner', as he tried to insist.

I didn't think much more about it except that they'd probably phone back again if they needed confirmation of our 'no music equipment' status from me, but that evening another member of staff was talking to a friend who's in the police force. Apparently there is a scam, based largely on Wearside (NE England) where people phone, posing as PRS and convince businesses they need a licence for a radio, or whatever. They then take credit card details over the phone to 'pay' for said licence ... you can guess the rest. Don;t know how widespread this is, or even whether the call my office received was legit. But be warned!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:40 AM

Stallion wrote

It's because we are becoming the land of the Sue (like our American cousins) had the coastguard broken the procedures and the person had died and or himself had died the coastguard service would be open to hefty compensation claims.

And if he had followed procedures and the person had died, they would still have been sued for allowing it to happen.

This is driven by the insurance companies who will try anything to wriggle out of stumping up even blaming God for some stuff and refusing to pay up.

On the whole I agree with you having had experience of wriggling by insurance companies to avoid paying out. On the other hand, "Acts of God" have long been a standard insurance exclusion unless you specifically insure against the "Act" concerned.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM

Windy referred to the point that "the injustice to which the original poster alluded is the fact that the UK PRS expect their slice regardless of whether the music performed is in'the public domain'or not."

If you can demonstrate that all the music performed is either non-copyright or your own copyright, or that you have the written permission of the copyright owner (unless he/she is a member of PRS, in which case PRS controls the rights)then you can tell PRS to take a running jump. However it is very difficult to be sure, especially in a session or folk club, that none of the material performed at any point is copyright, particularly as many songs or tunes widely assumed to be "traditional" are in fact copyrighted.

The PRS says they can't apportion the licence fee between copyright and non-copyright material, and I have some sympathy - it would be an adminstrative nightmare, and I'd rather they devoted their resources to seeing that composers' royalties are more fairly distributed.

So if you play a single piece of copyrighted music, then a PRS fee is payable - simple as that.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Windy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:47 AM

Play one piece of copyright and you owe PRS?-simple alright,simply outrageous.

A benevolent landlord allows amateurs to have a session once a week.Approaches PRS-that'll be 52x £7.62 (£396)p.a.please.

Fillng in the form he'll be asked how many people his pub holds-up to 100 in this case (although he knows only 20%of the punters are even vaguely interested).PRS will take his word for it,tick that box,
and jump on him if it turns out to have a 1000 capacity.

Now,where is the 'administrative nightmare' that prevents them from including 'boxes' asking for % of'public domain'(to use that lovely inclusive phrase)music and giving a pro-rata reduction?
If that drives the amount down to the point where it's not worth raising an invoice,so be it-they exclude minor composers on that basis don't they?

Figures based on an unpracticed reading of their site
Before anyone points it out:in reality most establishments will also broadcast music from other sources for which a'licence'is appropriate.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:18 AM

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:33 AM

I `ad that Tony Deane in my cab the other night. I said "Ow`d you git on then down the folk club" `E said " Terrible, I reckon they`ll git the PWS on to me". I said "Dont`cha mean the PRS?" He said "Nah, the PERFORMING WRONG SOCIETY. I forgot the words of "Jones`s Ale!!"

But seriously though we`ve been performing and running clubs `ere in London and the Sarf East since Adam was a lad and we`ve never had a run in wiv`em and I`ve never seen an singer `and over a list for approval. Are we lucky or what?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:27 PM

" I`ve never seen an singer `and over a list for approval"

That's because, for small gigs that come outside the Concert system, members now send a list of songs and tunes played, together with a list of venues, directly to the PRS every 20 gigs or so. It may be that some of the calls paid by PRS on previously unvisited pubs are a direct result of information culled from this new system. And that exercise will doubtless continue. So it's becoming ever more important that the system and the prices are, and are seen to be, reasonable and fair - and understandable by all.

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: pavane
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM

I think I see now why the TV has gone from our local Balti takeaway. They must have had the visit.

(Can someone advise us who it is that licences premises for playing prerecorded music, and TV and radio? Is it the PRS or someone else?
If someone else, then Helen's caller would be a scam.)

I know that for making your own CD, it is the MCPS you have to pay.

Backing tracks for singers must also have a licence for public performance. Note that KARAOKE tracks do NOT have this licence, and if they catch you using them as backing tracks, you will have to pay.

(To make this easy for them to check, KARAOKE tracks fade out, licenced backing tracks do not)

Not easy to keep up with it all, is it?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: pavane
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:46 PM

Oh yes, and note that you cannot sing in public to home-made backing tracks of copyrighted music, because the fee has not been paid.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Martin
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:18 PM

Max, have PM'd you under the title 'Mudcat Forum Access Denied' regarding my problem when using my local library network, suggest the word 'Gestapo' in this thread title be changed (if possible).

Thanks.


Jim Martin

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: s&r
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 11:50 AM

Jim - can you think of another word with the same flavour?

stu

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 03:24 PM

Play one piece of copyright and you owe PRS?-simple alright,simply outrageous.
Watch one TV programme a year = pay a years TV licence!

A benevolent landlord allows amateurs to have a session once a week.Approaches PRS-that'll be 52x £7.62 (£396)p.a.please.
Sells Beers to singers and if the session is half decent more beer to "audience"

Fillng in the form he'll be asked how many people his pub holds-up to 100 in this case (although he knows only 20%of the punters are even vaguely interested).PRS will take his word for it,tick that box,
and jump on him if it turns out to have a 1000 capacity.
and???

Now,where is the 'administrative nightmare' that prevents them from including 'boxes' asking for % of'public domain'(to use that lovely inclusive phrase)music and giving a pro-rata reduction?
If that drives the amount down to the point where it's not worth raising an invoice,so be it-they exclude minor composers on that basis don't they?,
can I get a refund for the TV programmes I don't watch?

Figures based on an unpracticed reading of their site
Before anyone points it out:in reality most establishments will also broadcast music from other sources for which a'licence'is appropriate.

8 people at a session, enjoying themselves and singing songs from their favourite song-smiths - must be worth a pound each? the more at the session, the less per person and maybe the Landlord to cough up for his extra beer sales?


Jim - can you think of another word with the same flavour? stu

maybe not; but maybe a more appropriate and less offence one, for individuals who perform a service for professional musicians!

MCPS, PRS etc - I've never minded paying my way in this world, If I get paid for singing or recording someone else's songs, I think they deserve a share - if it's good enough to sing it's good enough to pay for!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Rasener
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:26 PM

I thought Guest had to at least add a name to it?

Or have the rules changed?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:42 PM

guest,
read the thread, i think the argument has been covered, although it is interesting idea that someone who is playing, not for hire and reward, should pay a pound because they are in a pub, should this also be included when played at home? So, are we all going to have an "honesty box" at home or, as someone has already pointed out, whistling in the street, or maybe on a building site, should this include the morons who only know one line and sing it endlessly? How long is a piece of string? As I have already pointed out the line is fuzzy and PRS don't win friends by being heavy handed and whilst I sympathise with the people like Tom who are trying to make money out of music I resent having a gun pointed at my temple for singing songs for nowt with my friends in pub, no, I deeply resent it, and so do a lot of others and the PRS membership should take note and reign them in. What we do is not exploitation it is a celebration of the music and exists in spite of the rest of the world

Peter 2BS&S

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 02:45 AM

Go easy on PRS lads and lasses - they vere only obeying orders
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,but must have a name - nice welcome
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM

No, whether the performance is played live or by such means as CD, radio, DVD, TV, karaoke etc, whether a charge is made for admission, or whether the performers are paid, a PRS Music Licence is still necessary.

If you play music in your business or want to include it in your product you need clearance to do so from the owners of that music. PRS and MCPS represent the owners and can get you the clearances you need. We are a not-for-profit organisation, enabling you access to the world's music in the most efficient way.

If you don't obtain clearance for your use of copyright music, you could face legal action for copyright infringement and may become liable to pay damages and costs.

I can see nothing wrong with the above quotes from PRS/MCPS

Buy a music/song books you pay for it, buy a CD you pay for it, or is it easier to download free from the Internet and steal from the artistes you enjoy so much?

Landlords allow sessions out of the goodness of their hearts yeah! cheap entertainment and more beer sales no doubt - karaoke yeah than that must be tolerated to let all the wannabes get it off their chests !

You all should be fighting for fair payments for composers not moaning about not being able to do what you want for nothing (you can of course sing songs in a pub without charge, it's only the Landlord who pays for the attraction and license to have music played, the same as he needs a license to sell alcohol) whilst other die in poverty giving you those songs.


need a name "the Villan"? OK,

Elizabeth Ntsele

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Rasener
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:37 AM

Elizabeth (if that is your name), we constantly have problems with guest coming on Mudcat and causing real problems. So, as I understood it, people posting as just Guest would not be allowed, thats all.

Les Worrall