Some random points.


You can opt out of the PRS collecting PRS fees for performances by you of your own compositions, and elect to self adminster the self-performance right. That was what the U2/PRS litigation was about.

U2 would play a concert in Blueland. The Blueland PRS would collect a large amount of money from the promoter. Some time later (at least a quarter, sometimes up to two years) the Blueland PRS would account to the PRS for themoney collected - less their fees and cultural deductions of course. And without interest. Sometime later the PRS would account to U2 for the money - less their fees and cultural deductions of course, and without interest.   U2 wanted to get the money directly from the promoters, without deductions, and immediately. They got what they wanted n a settlement.

Another related point is that there are SCARPRA A adn SCARPRA B agreements.
In one kind, Blueland pays Pinkland the performing rights fees earned by Pinkish artists in Blueland and vice versa. In the other, Blueland keeps the Blueland performing rights fees of Pinkish artists, adn vice versa.

Guess which sort is in force between England and Japan?




In theory, the PRS is only entitled to collect fees in respect of the PUBLIC performance of COPYRIGHT works the performing rights in which are controlled by the PRS or an affiliated foreign society. An arrangement can be a copyright work.    I think Hamlin Slowe are still the PRS's lawyers. Do not bluff. THey take no prisoners (and not very politely either).



It is wrong to compare the cost of PRS fees to a pub with the pub's turnover. It should be compared with the pub's profit, for it comes staraight out of the bottom line.