PRS license problem

Subject: PRS license problem
From: Cllr
Date: 28 May 03 - 06:04 AM

I am making a few enquiries into obtaining a PRS license. The Town Gala, we have, consists of a dozen or so floats and then a open air park event with displays and a stage with live music. While it is all free and open to the public the PRS seem to be wanting a rather large amount of money. Could people please give me any information on their dealings with this sort of thing. Personally I think we have to pay up and get on with it. Cllr

Subject: RE: PRS license problem
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 03 - 06:34 AM

Visited that and unfortunately you seem to be right Cllr. The PRS seems to be a legalised protection racket. They demand money from the organisers of events with the threat of dire consequences if you don't pay up.

In theory you only have to pay a fee for any song performed that is in copyright. All my legal contacts tell me that if you are sure that you perform ONLY public domain songs and tunes or your own stuff then the PRS would not have a case at all. But even then are you that sure you are not infringing any copyright of an arrangement?

Remember that it would be up to them to prove that you had infringed copyright and take a personal suit against the instigator of this infringement. There is no criminal recourse, unlike the PEL, for them to prevent your gala or stop people performing there. They do have recourse to take a (un!)civil action if they feel copyright has been breached.

The other thing is that the owners of venues often have a 'blanket' PRS cover and charging both the venue and the organiser for what ammounts to the same thing is pretty poor indeed. But they seem to get away with it because we let them!

Final rant against the PRS. Ask any of your local PRS registered songwriters how much they get from the them. It may may you smile. It may not...

You could always try telling them to bugger off and risk a court action but, as dirty Harry says, do you feel lucky?

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: PRS license problem
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 03 - 08:54 AM

Just had a thought as well (ouch, that was painful...) Re-visiting this made me think about how I could not originaly think of a better altenative to ensure that songwriters did get their cut if their songs were performed or played somewhere.

How about the performing artist paying it? Now, before all the professionals get up in arms about this I am talking something like a percentage - say 5% - for every cover they do.

So it goes like this. I book Finger O'Ear at our club and pay him £100. Finger sings 10 of his own songs. 6 traditional ones and 4 covers. Sends his playlist to PRS. PRS send him a bill for £100 / 20 * 4 = £20. £20 * 5% = £1.

Next scenario. Dopey Daves Disco is at our local pub. Dopey Dave plays 50 songs over the course of the night and gets paid £100 by the landlord. 100% cover stuff of course. £100 * 5% - DD gets a bill for a fiver!

Easy init? Any problems so far?

Back to the issue though. Is it worth making some kind of stand or protest about this just like we are over the proposed new PEL's? Any legal eagles out there care to comment?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: PRS license problem
From: Joan from Wigan
Date: 29 May 03 - 04:05 AM

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

Subject: RE: PRS license problem
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 03 - 08:15 AM

Good points, Joan. Mr O'Ear in my scenario above would of course receive the 5% LESS PRS cut of his own songs so...

He pays 5% on the 4 songs (£1 if we remember rightly) and gets back, say, 2% on his 10 songs (£2)

PRS win (£5 from Dopey Dave, £1 from Finger O'Ear LESS £2 to Mr O'Ear = £4) Finger wins by £1. The only loser is Dopey Dave and do we care? NO - he runs a bloomin' disco for heavens sake...

Bingo! Another winning idea from Gnome enterprises.

Eeeeeh. If only I was running the country...

DtG

Subject: RE: PRS license problem
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 29 May 03 - 09:50 AM

Who exactly are the PRS and are they really an official body? They seem over zealous and totally disorganised to me.

Subject: RE: PRS license problem
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 03 - 10:31 AM

Not an official body at all Mrs L. Officious yes. Official No. They are the Performing Rights Society. Set up, as Joan said, with the best of intentions, to distribute royalties to writers whos' works were being performed in public with no recognition. They were, and I think still are, a non-profit making organisation with all profits being distributed amongst members.

However if you look at their web site (www.prs.co.uk) you will find that the members include people like Mis-teeq, Daniel Bedingfield and Darius have joined the ranks of Paul McCartny and Elton John. These people get a cut of what we as folk event organisers have to pay whether we like them or not! What is more the cut is proportional to how often their songs are aired. In other words the more popular they are the more they get. Being an old cynic I could say the more crap they produce the more money they make but I wouldn't do a thing like that.

Little wonder though that the likes of Joan and many other excellent songwriters get very little of the cherry!

Hope this explains. Nothing can justify...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: PRS license problem
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 30 May 03 - 07:02 AM

Separate the licences and redistribute the dosh?