PRS v Google

Subject: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 11:40 AM

If you would like to pledge your support to the PRS in its battle with Google, please go here: PRS v Google

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 12:29 PM

Done Jim !

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:35 PM

I remain to be convinced.
The PRS do a necessary job, but on this occasion it seems to be complaining that Google is not paying for not playing the music.
Surely that's what the PRS wants!

When the PRS chase small garage owners saying "If you don't pay us you can't have the radio on for your workers" then this is what they're after.
A case of wanting both the penny and the bun?

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:39 PM

They certainly do seem to be complaining that Google is not playing music and, therefore, not paying royalties. Do they really think they can force Google to play the music? That seems a bit ridiculous.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 05:12 PM

Fair Play for Creators was established after Internet-giant, Google, made the decision to remove some music content from YouTube.

Google's decision was made because it didn't want to pay the going rate for music, to the creators of that music, when it's used on YouTube.

Music creators rely on receiving royalties whenever and wherever their work is used. Royalties are vital in nurturing creative music talent. They make sure music creators are rewarded for their creativity in the same way any other person would be in their work.

Fair Play for Creators believes that fans should have access to the music they love, and that the work of music creators should be paid for by the online businesses who benefit from its use.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 05:20 PM

Fair Play for Creators believes that fans should have access to the music they love, and that the work of music creators should be paid for by the online businesses who benefit from its use.

You will play our music, and you will pay us for doing so. The option of not playing our music is not one we will accept!

I don't see how this can possibly come under a title of "Fair Play"

Surely the fans have access to the music, they can buy the CDs.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 05:24 PM

There are numerous provisions in US law designed to stop Payola and Plugola - the payments made by record companies to ensure that their records were played on the wireless. They did that because such play produced increased sales. The PRS is complaining about free advertising. Nowt so queer as folk.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 07:11 PM

the "going rate", Jim ?

the Youtube position :

"There are two obstacles in these negotiations: prohibitive licensing fees and lack of transparency. We value the creativity of musicians and songwriters and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright. But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our licence than before. The costs are simply prohibitive for us - under PRS's proposed terms we would lose significant amounts of money with every playback. In addition, PRS is unwilling to tell us what songs are included in the license they can provide so that we can identify those works on YouTube -- that's like asking a consumer to buy an unmarked CD without knowing what musicians are on it".

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: s&r
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 08:10 PM

I can only applaud anyone who is prepared to stand up to the PRS bullies.

Stu

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 08:26 PM

well while I support what the PRS do generally, I think this is kind of bizarre.

Youtube are removing music from their site, often at the request of record companies and rights holders, because they have had complaints about copyright infringement.


Now I have no doubt that if youtube could find a way of making a profit out of it, it would keep that music up there even if it meant paying record companies and individual artists a royalty. But they don't appear to want to. And a petition can't force them to.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 09:01 PM

Google asked the PRS to itemize their bill in a verifiable way.

The PRS refused.

That's the behaviour of somebody running an invoicing fraud.

I support Google on this one.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 09:47 PM

Once upon (a long, long, time ago...in a kingdom far, far, away) I liked PRS....

Never liked PRS after they took government grants - and then added fund-raisers - and then added info-mercials.

Of Course - all this is "necessary" to secure the best "talent" in the "administrative" field...to "insure" continual programing.

STOP "continual programing"

FIRE "administrators/directors"

RETURN to a budget of 1988

WHY RUN the same loops throughout a month? (There is good stuff in the archive that no-one has heard in 15 years...but it is "available with a special offer and donation of 119.99 US dollars)

This is one very sorry-sister that the new administration should castrate.

Return her to her ROOTS.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 10:03 PM

Gargoyle, you have the wrong PRS.

The one Google is arguing with is the Performing Right Society in the UK.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: matt milton
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 05:27 AM

bottom line is, youtube is google's site and they can put what they want up on it.

It's absurd for the PRS to be suggesting that youtube keep videos on their site that were not put up there by them in the first place, just so that musicians can be paid as a result.

Effectively what they are doing is like asking a file-distributing service such as yousendit to pay a royalty for any copyrighted music that a third party might have uploaded to it. Or asking a CD manufacturer to pay a royalty for any bootleg CDs that might have been made from their products.

Now I accept that youtube probably do get a sizeable amount of traffic from people coming to look at their music videos on there. But they also get a sizeable amount of traffic from comedy videos of cats falling over etc etc. When faced with the no-brainer question "do I want to pay the PRS thousands of dollars a year to keep certain music videos up; or do I just want to take them down and not pay anything?" what answer do you think they'll reach?

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: pavane
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 05:33 AM

I keep getting threatening letters from the PRS that I need a licence in case anyone listens to music in my company's workplace.

As we do not have a workplace, I have binned the letters, but it doesn't make me want to support the PRS, who insist on a requesting you to purchase licence if there might be any chance that a work by one of their members MIGHT be performed.

Guilty until proven innocent. But as it is completely impossible to prove a negative, we msut all be guilty, is their logic.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 06:07 AM

This from Mitch Murray:

Despite all the excitement and gold-rush hysteria inspired by the Internet over recent years, there is still almost no money in it at all for creators of music.
Internet Piracy is bad enough, but when even legitimate websites like YouTube, claim that the only way they can make their business model work is for composers and songwriters to accept tiny micropayments for the use of their music, something weird is going on.

The precipitous action taken by YouTube in the middle of negotiations with PRS For Music could only be for dramatic effect and is a disservice to their own subscribers.
Do they really think it's fair that several million hits will earn a songwriter barely enough to finance a visit to Starbuck's? Is that the real difference between legal and illegal online music?

Mitch Murray, songwriter - 25 March 2009

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 06:22 AM

Do they really think it's fair that several million hits will earn a songwriter barely enough to finance a visit to Starbuck's?

That's pretty much how the PRS itself operates - their sampling scheme ensures that only the highest-profile people get paid fairly, at the expense of the small fry.

Mitch is spin-doctoring.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 08:06 AM

I don't know about that, Jack. I'm not a high profile person but I assume I get fairly paid when I look at my PRS returns sheet.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 09:18 AM

It's not a question of whether or not it's fair, it's a simple matter of market forces.

YouTube will have a price which it can afford to pay to legally broadcast music and still make money from it. If that price is at a level the songwriters, via PRS, are willing to accept, they've got a deal. If not, then they won't buy the music. At the moment, YouTube are telling PRS that their price is too high - that's their commercial decision.

It's exactly the same decision I make if I go to buy the artist's CD - if I don't think it's worth the asking price then I won't buy it. Same as if I go to buy a pound of apples, for that matter.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 09:23 AM

This article, by the most intelligent, articulate and savvy musician it has ever been my privilege to meet with, should be required reading for everybody involved in this issue.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 10:11 PM

Jim - Matt Millton hit the nail on the head when he mentioned third parties uploading songs and performances.

I resent it when some idiot with a cell-phone camera comes to one of my shows, records a song or a portion of the show and uploads it to YouTube without my permission.

Bad quality video and bad quality sound don't help me.

So I'm grateful if YouTube takes it down.

Seamus

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 05:40 AM

Seamus, I don't think YouTube removed your video for the reasons Matt suggests.
"The precipitous action taken by YouTube in the middle of negotiations with PRS For Music could only be for dramatic effect and is a disservice to their own subscribers" (Mitch Murray.
My concern is that if PRS isn't out there trying to protect composers' interests then who is?

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:01 AM

As one on the receving end of the PRS bully tactics I would in no way support ANYTHING they do. In addition, as others have pointed out, this petetion is to force You Tube to put on music just because the PRS says it should. What next? Will they force us all to but CDs we don't want? A campaign to put 'Girls Aloud' in every hifi in the country?

I am quite happy to say Google should pay royalties for anything they put up but to say they should be forced to put on something just because the PRS demands it. What??? Sorry, but they are talking out of their nether regions if they think anyone will support them.

Now if there were a campaign to do away with them altogether...

DeG

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 10:35 AM

And who would collect your world wide royalties, DeG?

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: s&r
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 12:21 PM

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: s&r
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 12:21 PM

There should be an organization like PRS. It should be rather different - threats implicit and explicit and bully boy tactics do no-one a service. Nonsense charges like the Kwik Fit debacle lose respect for the organization

Stu

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:34 PM

s&r makes the point exactly. The work PRS does is important for songwriters, and any musician should support it. However the way it goes about it is often divisive, destructive (PRS came close to closing down a folk club I was once involved in) and often results in publicity which is damaging to its own cause.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:47 PM

"s&r makes the point exactly" which is there should be something like the PRS. The point is there isn't something else like the PRS so we have to stick with the devil we know.

"The work PRS does is important for songwriters, and any musician should support it" so where is the alternative?

We can all criticise the PRS but no one has suggested an alternative. Unions were created to fight for the rights of the producers against claims that the owners couldn't afford to pay.

"YouTube will have a price which it can afford to pay to legally broadcast music and still make money from it. If that price is at a level the songwriters, via PRS, are willing to accept, they've got a deal. If not, then they won't buy the music. At the moment, YouTube are telling PRS that their price is too high - that's their commercial decision."

The above couple of quotes were from Howard Jones.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 05:12 PM

"force You Tube to put on music just because the PRS says it should."
bully boy tactics if ever I saw it.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: GUEST,highlandman at work
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 05:28 PM

Jim says, further up:
Fair Play for Creators believes that fans should have access to the music they love, and that the work of music creators should be paid for by the online businesses who benefit from its use.
(more or less quoted from the FPfC site)
This is the part that puzzles me.
I stipulate that creators should be paid when their work is used, and (grudgingly) that PRS and/or ASCAP & BMI are the practical ways we have of administering that.
But I look at it this way ... I pay for the music I use on my home CD player when I buy the CD's. I pay for the music I listen to at a show via the gate price. I pay for the music I listen to on commercial radio circuitously via the advertising revenue. (I must be paying for the music I listen to on public radio somehow, but I can't figure it out at the moment.) I pay for the music I listen to on the 'net (if the system is functioning) by a similar advertising revenue scheme.
When I feel I can't pay for the music, I don't buy it and I don't get to listen to it. If on a given day US$17 is too much for me to spring for a CD, it stays on the store shelf. I don't expect anyone to buy it for me. (Okay, I may whine to Mrs Highlandman a little if I really want it but that's off the point.)
I certainly do not expect the artist to complain to the music shop owner that my not-buying the CD robs the artist of royalties and therefore the shop owner should sell it to me at a loss and yet pay full royalty to said artist. This seems to me an exact analogy to what FPfC is trying to make happen, and no matter what angle I try to look at it from it still looks preposterous.
Sorry
-Glenn

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 06:20 PM

As I see it, the PRS were negotiating with YouTube about the amount YouTube should pay when they used composers' works. YouTube pulled out before the negotiation had reached any conclusion. This, to me, seems more like bully boy tactics employed by YouTube (Google) i.e. you don't like it then two fingers, we'll pay what we like.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: GUEST,highlandman at home still no cookie
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:12 PM

Jim, I've found it hard to locate a clear history... the Fair Play site so obviously tells only the one side that it is hard to not be suspicious that they're spinning the thing pretty hard their way.
Of course they can't expect to directly "force" YouTube to buy music if YT doesn't want to pay the going price. And it sounds to me like one party pulling out pretty much *is* the negotiating reaching a conclusion.
Anyway, again, I have no problem with PRS getting you your fair due but I think FPfC whining to the public that Google should be agreeing to their offer just because they are hugely profitable is silly and insulting.
I don't see where Google is saying "we'll pay what we like," they're just saying that there is so much distance between their idea of a price and PRS's ask that there isn't much point in pursuing it. They aren't threatening to play the music and stiff the artists, they are just saying "forget it."
Business is business and really not all that complicated. Offer, counteroffer, and either the parties eventually agree or they don't. If not, it's no-deal, neither money nor goods and services changes hands, and nobody is owed anything.
-Glenn
PS if there is any argument about paying back royalties for services already "taken," that's a different bowl of bugs, but I haven't seen anything about that. -G
PPS my point of view may be rather colored by the infamous ASCAP/Girl Scouts flap a while back, sorry if that skews my thinking. cheers -G

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 05:42 AM

And who would collect your world wide royalties, DeG?

Maybe an organisation that doesn't tell old peoples homes that unless they stop playing the radio to residents they will be prosecuted. Perhaps a body who will not tell folk clubs and festivals they have to pay up or close down whether they are playing copyrighted music or not. How about a system where the artist gets paid for the amount of airtime by the radio station or by the record company for the amount of CDs sold and doesn't try to stop live music?

If the PRS is providing such a good service how come that we hear far more complaints than compliments? Just a thought.

DeG

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 06:18 AM

Jim, I'm not saying songwriters shouldn't be rewarded, quite the opposite. Not am I saying there shouldn't be the PRS, or something like it, to obtain payments for them. I do have problems with the tactics it adopts, which are not only counter-productive but which bring it bad publicity which can only damage its cause.

From my personal experience, a PRS rep once turned up at a pub which housed a folk club I was involved with. Not only was the fee he demanded quite out of proportion to the benefit the landlord was getting from the club, but the landlord was so pissed of by his attitude that he very nearly refused on principle. It took a good deal of persuasion from the club before he relented and agreed to get the PRS licence and allow the club to continue.

So far as the discussions with YouTube are concerned, this looks like normal haggling to me. Either the parties will eventually agree a mutually acceptable price, or YouTube will stop broadcasting the music. As for YouTube being in powerful position, yes it has money but PRS has the monopoly position. If YT want to broadcast copyright music, they have to agree a price with PRS. PRS has other outlets for its members' music.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: s&r
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 07:46 AM

Has anyone called the bluff of PRS successfully?

Stu

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 07:52 AM

DeG, as Howard Jones says PRS has a monopoly position and there is no one else.
"How about a system where the artist gets paid for the amount of airtime by the radio station or by the record company for the amount of CDs sold ..." ".... and doesn't try to stop live music?"
The PRS and MCPS follow the requirements of the first part of your statement but it doesn't stop live music. Concert halls etcetera have to pay, and I think that's fair, and I'm sure there is a sliding scale of payments depending on the size of potential audiences. I do think that individual situations should be accessed on their merits and concessions given (if this doesn't already exist) but I think Google will eventually compromise, as HJ suggests, but in the meantime we have to watch the big boys dismissing fair claims for artists. After all that's where professionals obtain a lot of their income. I'm more fortunate, having retired and live magnificently on a state pension of under £90 a week. My PRS/MCPS returns are a welcome bonus.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 08:46 AM

Are "the big boys dismissing fair claims for artists"? PRS is pretty large itself, and has statutory authority behind it.

So far as I can tell, YT aren't disputing that composers are entitled to payment, through PRS. All we have here is a disagreement over price. If YT don't want to buy music at the price PRS is asking, that's their choice. If PRS doesn't want to sell music a the price YT is offering, that's its choice.

I can understand that Jim McLean, as a PRS member, has a particular point of view on this. But to paint a straightforward commercial negotiation as some kind of moral crusade is a little unfair.

Furthermore, it strikes me that YT would be acting improperly if they hadn't taken the music down, since they don't at present have a PRS licence.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 10:47 AM

I am not disputing that the PRS fees you receive are helpful to you, Jim. As a music provider I have a great respect for you and all who write the fine music that we listen to regularly. But the PRS are far too draconian. Just look at this (from the PRS's own website)

For performances of live music where the total
annual expenditure on the provision of music
by performers is less than £12,490 (£12,010)

and/or

For such performances where the licensee
incurs no expenditure, the charge per session
for the first 100 persons capacity*..................£8.36

So, we book you at our club. We charge a subsidised (to the tune of about £1) ticket price of, say, £4 and get 20 people in. We would like to pay you the whole lot - £80 - but we need to pay £8.36 to the PRS.

So, I hear people say, what if Jim plays ONLY his own stuff. Well, I can tell you with certainty that the PRS do not care. They will still take the £8.38. And you, Jim, will get a tiny fraction of that. The bulk will go to Michael Jackson or Paul McCartney or some other deserving cause...

So, you decide to boost your income by busking. Well, good idea but...

For each busking point the charge, per session, is £8.36! So, before you start, each SESSION, you need to pay £8.36 to the PRS. And you get back? Yes, a tiny fraction of that. So you tell them that you only play your own stuff. Do they care? No!

Sorry, but there must be a better way for all concerned!

Oh - and btw - Charity events are not exempt.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 12:18 PM

I put material on you tube,99 percent traditional,they are my concertina arrangements,I do it for two reasons,it is a useful resource for promoting traditional songs,secondly it might help those people who have bought my concertina tutor,to hear arrangements.
I am now a member of IMRO,I do not put my own songs up,but would gladly give permission[with the proviso of viewing the video first].
I gave permission to Al Whittle[wee little drummer]but was already accquainted with his music and his high standard.
however like Seamus Kennedy,I like to have a control of any performance that is put up by a third party.
I used to be amember of PRS,Now I am in IMRO,I think both organisations waste a lot of money on glossy magazines and their own expenses,I would prefer it if more of that money went into my pocket.
PRS are legally and morally correct,but I believe there should be an exemption,as regards live performance for venues such as FOLK CLUBS,Providing they limit their capacity to 50 or possibly 100 people.,or if they are a traditional song club.[traditional songs only]
otherwise many clubs would have to move out of pubs and become house concerts.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 02:17 PM

One point nobody has mentioned is that it isn't *all* copyrighted material on YouTube that PRS wants increased fees for.

It's what they call "premium content", which is only the stuff by the highest-profile, most profitable, best-paid artists, like official promos by Sony. People like Jim Maclean would get not a cent of the extra money.

The PRS is doing nothing to get more income for the small fry out of YouTube.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 02:43 PM

I believe there should be an exemption,as regards live performance for venues such as FOLK CLUBS,

Absolutely spot on, Dick. The small folk club, jazz club, open-mike idie venue etc. etc. are treated in just the same way as the big boys and the PRS representatives make no exceptions. These 'bully boys' seem to be paid on result, Like parking attendents. I could be wrong but I can see no other reason for it. They will cajole, bluster and finaly threaten if the owner of a venue does not pay up. There is no reasoning with them. Believe me - I have tried!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 02:58 PM

Why anyone supports the PRS is completely beyond me, as David notes, their bully boy (dare I say Gestapo?) tactics are beyond rhyme or reason

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 05:25 PM

I don't think I can add anymore to this discussion. I have emailed Steve Porter the chief executive of PRS informing him of this site so we'll see whether he contributes or not. All the contributions have been informative to me anyhow.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 07:22 AM

Rifleman, I support what PRS does, since I believe that creative people should be rewarded for their work.

I have a big problem with the way it goes about it, firstly because of its heavy-handed tactics particularly towards small venues, and secondly because I have no confidence that the people whose music I perform will see much benefit. since PRS's sampling methods are unlikely to reflect the venues I play in.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: s&r
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 10:17 AM

Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Kwik Fit and PRS for Music have today announced that their long-running legal dispute over copyright infringement is over. As a result Kwik Fit has entered into an ongoing licensing arrangement which provides for music use across their estate.

Just found this on the web. Better luck Google

Stu

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:14 AM

Dave the Gnome may be closer to the truth than he thinks, when he suggests that PRS operate a commission only structure.

The figures in their returns for 2007 (which are the latest obtainable) show that they raised in that year a total of £325,000,000 net distributable income (that's right £325 million).

However, their administrative costs are shown as £42,000,000 which I find a little hard to swallow.

The directors are not hugely overpaid, salaries vary between the £20K - £50K mark, although CEO Steve Porter raked in a cool £306,000.

Now, what I find interesting is the note at the bottom of page 12 of the accounts which states " there were no employees during this year or last year other than the directors"

Yet, the expenditure on "staff costs" comes to a whopping £23,260,000.

What are we to deduce from this figure ?

My guess is that Dave the Gnome is spot on, there are a whole army of self-employed bully-boy reps out there who get paid on results, and who will stop at nothing to get these results.

Maybe if Steve Porter comes on to this thread he could clarify the issue.

At the very least, the paying "victim " should be entitled to know what percentage of his fee is going to benefit composers, and what percentage is going into the pocket of the collector.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:00 PM

That is a bit of an eye-opener, Murray. I hope Mr. Porter does make it. If nothing else he may realise why the petetion may not be as well supported in some quarters as others!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:23 PM

yes, interesting.

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Jim McLean
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 05:14 PM

Article in today's Observer. Google

Subject: RE: PRS v Google
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 05:58 PM

The company I work for has also received threatening letters regarding employees own radios at work - including one along the lines of "are you still breaking the law" which borders on the libelous I would think

Point me to the petition to disband the PRS and I shall gladly sign