I've been a songwriter member of the PRS since the late seventies, at which time I used to receive a token annual payment from them as a recognition that my songs were being performed somewhere (even if it was only by me!) in venues that did not submit returns. That has long since gone by the board, and I now receive no payment at all from them. Most of their revenue appears to go to those famous songwriters who are already doing very nicely thank you, leaving we not-so-well-knowns (for whom, it should be said, the PRS was originally set up to help) with nothing.

It was an excellent idea to create a licencing system in order to distribute songwriter royalties fairly, in accordance with how often songs and other musical works are performed, and taking into account the size and type of venue, and whether the performances are live or recorded. But, in order to be absolutely fair, they would need returns on every performance in every venue. And, to be honest, I don't think their computer system would be able to cope with that, even if venues/organisers could be bothered submitting returns. So yet another good idea has been turned into a moneyspinner for those who already have money...

A thought strikes me - we songwriter members could submit our own returns for each performance (their system does allow for that, as long as it's signed by the relevant proprietor). That way we could at least be sure of being part of the royalty distribution. I do remember, though, some years ago, submitting a return concerning a pub which, unbeknownst to me, didn't have a PRS licence (I don't think they fully realised what I was asking them to sign). Of course, the local PRS inspector paid a vist, and I was not Ms Popular in that pub for a while!

Seriously, though, I still think the idea behind the organisation is a good one - it's just the way it's operated that is unfair. And it would take one almighty overhaul of the system in order to make it fair.

Joan Blackburn