PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!

Subject: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: sapper82
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 10:22 AM

BBC Radio 4's Feedback has had comments from listeners about the strong arm tactics of the PRS demanding licence payments from owners of non-domestic commercial premesis where there is no public access.
Claimed to be a non-profitmaking organisation, it would be interesting to see how many people they employ and what their salary structure is like!
Available on Listen Again for the next week, the topic is 12 min into the programme.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 10:29 AM

Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 a summary
,if you use copyright music in public (i.e. outside of the home), you must have permission from every writer or composer whose music you intend to play.

A PRS Music Licence makes things easier and having a valid licence in place prevents you being prosecuted under this act.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 11:08 AM

The The MCPS-PRS Alliance has an excellent web site that answers questions about its duties and responsibilities under the 1988 Act, membership, how directors are elected and where the money collected goes to.

In addition there is a full Directors Report and Accounts for 2006 available.

Personally I believe that all muscians should receive public and financial recognition for their work.

Subject: Whistle while I bicycle?
From: Mysha
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 11:31 AM

I don't think that went right.
Trying to answer message 30 Nov 07 - 10:29 AM

Hi Emma,

Are they saying, when I whistle while I walk, I need a permit ???
(Well, in my case most likely "whistle while I bicycle.")

                                                                   Mysha

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 11:51 AM

Mysha, here is a list of what constitutes "music for business"

I think your bike is safe unless you are towing a rickshaw :)

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: GUEST,Jumping in
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 12:17 PM

Mysha,looks as though you'll be ok on the bike-providing you don't ride around whistling in the Company car park.In which case you or your employer will be expected to keep the PRS-together with McCartneys,past and present,in the manner to which they have become accustomed.


NB no disrespect to Sir Paul intended.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 12:26 PM

I know a number of musicians who have registered with PRS and receive NOTHING from them !

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 12:44 PM

some information on Gigs and clubs royalties

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 12:50 PM

the problem with Imro ,The irish equivalent of PRS,is that they waste a lot of money [ that would be better distributed to their members]on glossy magazines etc.
What I want from IMRO is more efficient collecting of any royalties[Particuarly uk radio stations] that are due to me.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 01:52 PM

You should not believe everything the "copyright service" or the PRS say.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Marje
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 02:01 PM

AS I understand it, the PRS require a licence fee so that they can pass the money on to the artists/composers of the music in question. What was not explained in their reply was how this could be achieved in the case in question - it was a man who worked alone in a laboratory, listening to a radio.
Can anyone explain how the PRS would know what he had listened to and how much should be paid to the musicians? I believe that if the workplace was actually broadcasting the music, they're required to keep a list and pass it to the PRS, but how on earth could they do this for a number of employees listening to separate radios?

Marje

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 02:36 PM

I am starting to publish my playlist for my radio station. I fill in a PRS form for every two-hour show and I am positive the radio station I work for sends it off.

So once I am fully in the swing of things - any artist who appears on my playlist could let me know if they don't receive any money. (It is not likely to be a fortune - but it is better with folk music than commercial music as far as I am concerned).

And I intend to keep a close eye on things with some friends.

www.sheffieldlive.org on 93.2FM

Dave

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 02:44 PM

Perhaps Emma B could enlighten us on what definition of "in public" that act uses and where it comes from. Nothing on the page she pointed us to suggests where to look.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 03:39 PM

folkie Dave,I think the procedure with local radio,is known as sampling,so only one day in a month,is the PRS paid out,So it depends whether your folk show falls on that day,as to whether we get our 35 cents.
you still haveto fill in the forms regardless.
Your red and white wizards are doing well.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: GUEST,Jumping in
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 03:53 PM

How did they know about one man in a lab?-probably nothing more scientific than sending out blood-curdling letters to any registered businesses and waiting for a response.

They used to assess payment on the number of potential listeners on each site,so 5 blokes with a radio each would presumably be charged the same as an office with 5 people in hearing range.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 04:29 PM

Here is the full act

The original post referred specifically about a complaint to the use of broadcasted commercial music in the workplace (i.e. "non-domestic commercial premises) being subject to requiring a licence.

The legislation over what constitutes "public" in this context is fairly clear

'If copyright music is played in public - in shops, restaurants, workplaces or any other business, then a PRS licence is required. 1,000s of such businesses throughout the UK have participated in this agreement since 1914 and understand the need for it."

This situation has been brought to attention recently by the actions of Kwik Fit, an automotive parts repair company , which was taken to court for violating musical copyright because its mechanics play the radio loud enough to be heard by work colleagues and customers alike.

The judge Lord Emslie ruled the action for £200,000 brought by the Performing Right Society (PRS) could go ahead in a procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

PRS ahve given interviews to BBC in the past here is one from BBC Humber

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 05:08 AM

The "legislation" is not clear since there is no definition of the word "public" in the 1988 Act. The quote from Emma B is, if my memory serves me, from PRS propaganda, and not from any legal source.

However, the courts have consistently been restrictive, and have consistently rejected arguments that assemblages are private rather than public. They often use the test of whether the occasion is "domestic or quasi-domestic".

Cases relating to performance only to workers, performances that are not audible to customers, are rarer. Distribution by Tannoy to workers only has been held public, and in a 1992 Australian case (based on identical principles) a performance by way of instruction to 11 bank workers in a single room to which no others were admitted was held public. Long ago, a play performance to doctors and nurses only at a hospital was held non-public, but that may be confined to its special facts. The Kwik-fit case was one in which customers and those near the premises, access to which was unrestricted, could hear the music, so it is not in point in this case.

I have not been able to trace any relevant case in which playing to a smaller number of workers was held "public".

I have no doubt that one worker listening on headphones would not be public. I can see no basis for saying that replay by a loudspeaker that could be heard by one person alone, and in circumstances where others could not come and listen, is public.

However, the PRS are often a bullying organisation, and I know that they have in the past used some lawyers (no names no pack drill) who are very keen on bullyboy tactics. By and large, if they are after you, you can pay up as demanded or be ready to go to the House of Lords.   

The MCPS may be a little more circumspect at times - perhaps because the Irish MCPS got (wrongly, in my view) a very expensive bloody nose in Ireland at the hands of the nightclub disco operators in the early 90s I think it was.

There can, I think, be little doubt that these restrictive interpretations of the law are out of public sympathy, but the chance of the law being put on a rational basis must be very slim.   To return to the PRS propaganda quote, I would submit that the public would accept the need for a PRS licence if the performance in question was used itself to generate, or with a view to generating, profit - eg to attract customers.   Likewise, arguably, if music is used in an internal (ie private, as most people would understand it) productivity scheme, a case can be made that the music is earning and so should be paid for. To go further than that is in my view not ""right" although the law may at present indeed go further than that.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Mysha
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 05:27 AM

Hi,

Those KwikFit guys are charged because their employees don't wear earphones?

                                                                  Mysha

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Marje
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 12:55 PM

The case quoted in the radio programme was different from the Kwik-Fit case. It concerned one man who worked alone in a lab to which the public were not admitted - it was specifically NOT a public area.
What the PRS alleged in their reply was that "in public" means anywhere outside a private home, which is an astonishing definition of "public", and one I would have thought oopen to challenge in the courts.

I'm also still struggling with the logistics facing an employer whose employees listen, in different rooms, buildings or areas, to different radio stations, or who switch stations between programmes. How, precisely, are the royalities to be worked out on these broadcasts, and by whom?

Marje

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 01:07 PM

Whatever the facts of the matter, there is one bloody obvious fact. the present system works hardly at all.

we live in age where the Inland revenue can ask me about every transaction on every credit card I own. And yet the PRS claims that it can't afford to keep tabs on even the major radio stations (sampling days my arse!) Try and tell the Inland revenue you don't know where you where on such a day, when you put in such a petrol receipt - and yet the PRS can't come up with a system to record which records have been played - bollocks!(pardon my bluntness)

And as the Irish gentleman pointed out, it has limitless funds for producing damn silly booklets and running competitions that nobody you've ever heard of, or are likely to hear of, wins.

moreover the big hitters the big publishers seem to be in a an unassailable position. Their contracts say they agree to collect our royalties, but they can't arsed with anybody less than Paul MacCartney. I think frankly publishers and artists do not have the same sgenda, and we need a separate organisation looking after our interests.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 01:20 PM

What about those chaps from Bonga Bonga Land who drive around in BMW cars with darkened windows, and play a hideous racket at deafening sound levels for all to hear??? What do the PRS do about them??

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Roughyed
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 07:03 PM

Who let Prince Philip onto this forum?

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: s&r
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 07:07 PM

Richard's 'bully boy' comments describe our experience with the PRS where we capitulated because we couldn't afford to lose a court case.

Stu

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Lanfranc
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 07:20 PM

The committee of our Sailing Club have just removed the CD and cassette players from our Clubhouse rather than pay the PRS £300 a year for a licence.

The Clubhouse is only used for a couple of days a week, and the fee worked out at about £10 per hour that the equipment was used.

There is a distinct lack of proportionality in the PRS policies.

Alan

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 04:32 PM

So what would be the position if they only played foreign radio stations?

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 06:13 PM

PRS would collect on behalf of its foreign affiliated societies.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: s&r
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 07:04 PM

Anyone know why patents and copyrights are treated differently?

Stu

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 07:13 PM

We still haven't heard from Emma B about wher she gets the authority for her bizarre redefinition of the word "public".

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Emma B
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 07:23 PM

well Jack, I do have a life and have been Carolling for the weekend.

I also have friends who are professional folk performers and have no criticism of the role of the PRS acting on behalf of the existing legislation to ensure that the people who write the music I love receive their rewards for the "public" performance of their work.
In fact it would be very difficult to find an organization with more transparent details of their operation, far from the carping criticism that started this thread.

I don't feel I need to justify or further explain anything that is quite adequately defined in the legislation.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 03:13 AM

Yes. Patents confer a true monopoly of limited duration as a reward for inventing a device capable of production for economic benefit. Copyright protects the creator from being copied.

Jack. Emma's definition of "public" is pretty closely the one the PRS asserts. It is not far from what precedent has determined.

Emma. Read my lips. It is not defined in legislation. If you think it is, cite the statute (that is to say, the Act of Parliament) and section. It is close to defined by precedent, which is something quite different. It may also be more flexible if someone withthe right case has the money totake it to the House of Lords (or "Supreme Court" as Mr B. Liar has renamed it)

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:18 AM

The problem as I see it is that the way it seems to operate for my radio station is a monthly sample. Thus the folk artists who are played on A Friday between 1000 am and 12noon - may or may not receive a royalty for their work. (That's 93.2FM and on the internet at www.sheffieldlive.org by the way).

Seems a bit hit and miss to me. Surely with modern communications they could set up an electronic system whereby I enter the records into some sort of database. (I am doing the work anyway).

Even pretty obscure CD's come up on the internet with track listings and time so it can't be all that hard.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:51 AM

'The problem as I see it is that the way it seems to operate for my radio station is a monthly sample. Thus the folk artists who are played on A Friday between 1000 am and 12noon - may or may not receive a royalty for their work. (That's 93.2FM and on the internet at www.sheffieldlive.org by the way).

Seems a bit hit and miss to me. Surely with modern communications they could set up an electronic system whereby I enter the records into some sort of database. (I am doing the work anyway).'

Exactly Folkiedave! I don't think its 'carping criticism' - buggering up someones football clubroom, while major corporations are not held accountable for using our music.

As a full PRS member since the dawn of time, I personally find their operations about as transparent as mud. I don't want to join a committtee and bandy words with them, but I really do wish someone would.

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Emma B
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:02 AM

Actually I do agree with you Dave, my criticism was directed at the initial suggestion that the PRS was "feathering its own nest" rather than protecting the interests of composers/muscians and were using strong arm tactics to enforce this.

Personally I would rather prefer to just slap fines on the shops, lifts etc that daily assault the ears with the worst kind of muzak and reserve a special place in hell for those folks who make the music tapes for "hold the line" telephone calls! :)

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:30 AM

Just a thought.......
Apparently, even music performed "live" is covered by the PRS demands for payment.
Therefore, at a folk club, where I play "traditional" songs.....who gets the royalty? There is no known author of the work.

I've also penned a few ditties myself, and have heard others singing them (which gave me an immense sense of pride) but never a penny expected from or granted by the PRS.
The way I see it the PRS just collect a "tax" which is paid out to the big names in music.
To quote the words of a friend's song " The rich get rich, and the poor grow many" (oops....I suppose i should pay him a royalty for that!)
Once music is on the airwaves or on a CD.....it is already "in public" and therefore nobody should pay another penny, unless a much fairer system of distribution is invented.

Rant over......
Jon

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:10 AM

Jon, total collections are apportioned according to returns and weightings - so the big music publishers get most of it!

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:20 AM

Hi Richard,
Thanks for your kind confirmation.

"it's the same the whole world over - it's the poor what gets the blame......"

All together now.......sing along!

Jon

Subject: RE: PRS refuse to talk on Radio4 Feedback!
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:25 AM

Just another thought.......

The radio station have already paid the levy, and then we have to pay again to hear it.......

Smacks of double taxation....surely not in the motherland of Democracy and all things fair and decent?

Jon

Sorry everyone DEFINATELY my last comment on this.....