The right to sing?

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: jeffp
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 08:54 AM

No

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 12:09 PM

As I am getting increasingly tired of pointing out Roger - the point is not about regulated entertainment but that the landlord has asked for no publicity.

Others may not be aware that you have also pointed out to me that this 'no publicity/advertising' was also one condition imposed by the local authority for seemingly NOT considering the event to be Regulated Entertainment and insisting on the required licensing being obtained.

You are well aware of why I consider the circumstances of the licensing of this particular event to be the result of unique circumstances and you are well aware I believe that the licensing of it could be ultra vires.

How can the licensing of the event be ultra vires? It is not licensed and seemingly the local authority somehow consider that it is not required to be - until next year when then they most probably will.

So much for these events being free from exactly the same threats posed to social music making gatherings everywhere else in England and Wales.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 12:29 PM

If pub owners choose to allow live music, they can tick the box and pay not one penny extra to do so. If pub owners choose not to allow live music so don't tick the box, and then later decide they messed up, then they can choose whether to pay the extra for changing their minds.

The point is that according to our Government - the kind of social music making in pubs that we are talking about (as oposed to conventional paid performance to an audience) does not now need the owners to apply for entertainment licensing permission........A fact that the local licensing authority in Sheffield seem to have accepted. This should be received as good news - I would have thought?

Minister says jamming OK

Some of those who seem to think that we do have the right to sing or that we are not danger of beng limited even more should perhaps recognise that when they see reference to an 'unpublicised event' that this is usually just another way of saying it is an illegal one.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Grab
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 01:20 PM

But why have you shifted this to the UK licensing laws, when the UK licensing laws have nothing to do with copyright or whether you're allowed to sing someone else's songs?

As for jamming, you must know that the law has an exception for small premises with acoustic instruments. Any reasonably smart landlord though would copper this with ticking the box for music, so that the question of whether his pub is small enough or whether anyone has a small amp stashed under a chair doesn't come up.

Graham.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 01:47 PM

Others may not be aware that you have also pointed out to me that this 'no publicity/advertising' was also one condition imposed by the local authority for seemingly NOT considering the event to be Regulated Entertainment and insisting on the required licensing being obtained

Roger, your obsession with this particular event is becoming tedious and I would prefer to let it rest.

I have said the landlord has asked for no publicity and I took the trouble to point out to you privately that this probably had more to do with his relationship with the brewery who employs him and that publicity could even cost him his livelihood. But by all means tell me which part of "lose" and "livelihood" you are not clear about and I will do my best to explain them more fully.

You do not know the facts of this case Roger - and you are relying on what people have told you - one of those people is me and I have pointed out that what I knew was also hearsay. And that includes any conditions that the authority made and those have included no advertising.

Roger your obsession has led you to refer to this event as a "cockney knees up" which will give people reading this thread an idea how much you respect this traditional and world-famous event; it has led you to refer to the carols in Sheffield as "being threatened" when all the evidence points to exactly the opposite; and you have referred to my description of the circumstances of this event as "unique" as an "assertion", with absolutely no concrete evidence to the contrary.

You have suggested that the council was wrong to allow this event to go ahead in the way they have and I have agreed with you.

You have done all this from 280+ miles away from the event having never visited it.(As far as I am aware).

Having so clearly demonstrated to the readers of this thread that you really don't know what you are talking about in relation to this particular event, please leave it alone now.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:12 PM

Aww, c'mon guys, didn't you cotton on from the start? Go back to the top and read Roger's initial posting. Anyone who knows him from his Mudcat (and internet) history over the last 3 years would have guessed that this was never about the "What song" and copyright, but about the "where" and licencing - that's the bee in Roger's bonnet. In fact, he alludes to that himself just a few posts later when he states that the "where" concerns him more.

The read my first post on this - sequenced and phrased exactly so as to draw out of Roger the real issue he has: pubs and licencing.

Note also that he did not rise to the suggestion that he should start an organisation to promote the causes he espouses - he knows better than that, of course! His ego is fed much better by the single-voice-in-the-wilderness approach, and any team effort would dilute that.

Finally, his insistence on pushing Folkiedave to disclose information that Folkiedave honourably wishes not to, indicates the streak of bloodymindedness and malice that I referred to in past threads. Not a simple troll, Roger, not just a simple martyr for his cause; he also wants to hurt others.

I agree with Folkiedave, this thread has run its course. Open another one, Roger, we'll see you there. I wonder what the next pretext will be...

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:21 PM

As for jamming, you must know that the law has an exception for small premises with acoustic instruments.

I do know that there is not an exemption to the requirement for Premises Licence entertainment permission in small premises and non-amplified music - either social jamming or in conventional performance. There is a rather nonsense S177.

For S177 the premises first have to apply for entertainment permission and then the conditions that can be placed upon the non-amplified music between 8pm and midnight are then only limited to two of the main objects of the Act; the prevention of crime and the protection of children from harm.

This very limited provision only applies when the local authority has imposed a safe minimum capacity of 200 people or less and S177 can be very easily avoided by them altogether (as I have found locally) by the very simple process of the local licensing authority not imposing any safe capacity.......For S177 only applies when a safe capacity is imposed.

Perhaps we are less free to make music than we are led to think we are?

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:28 PM

Roger.

You were right and I was wrong. I should apologise. Trotsky said it to Stalin and I am happy to repeat his words.

Dave

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:37 PM

But why have you shifted this to the UK licensing laws, when the UK licensing laws have nothing to do with copyright or whether you're allowed to sing someone else's songs?

All roads lead to Rome - well they seem to in this country. Well all roads lead to your road and tend to complicate our lives.

If you had read this thread - you would understand. I will explain

The original decision of a pub chain (Sam Smiths) not to pay for an increase in PRS/PPL fees meant that they were going to have a non-music policy. Dave's pub in question being one of these.

So quite sensibly this followed that with a non- music policy there was no need for any of these pubs to apply for entertainment permission when they applied for their Premises Licence.

So if/when they solve or avoid the PRS/PPL problem - the pubs will not be able to provide any Regulated Entertainment without re-applying for entertainment permission.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:42 PM

Keep up - you're three messages and 1 hour 18 minutes behind...

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 06:47 PM

Come on Roger.it's been ages..........

Ok go on.........start another thread.................

Dave

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Grab
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 10:51 AM

FWIW Shambles, I've read every post on this thread, which is why I mentioned your consistently off-topic posting re the PPL in a thread which doesn't have any relevance to the PPL.

Original post quote:-

Is there a danger that protections in place to protect the composers, publishers and performers of songs - are in danger of generally preventing us from being able to sing or of seriously limiting what we can sing and where?

Good question, and well-answered by earlier posters for US and UK laws.

Later quote:-

PRS/PPL

OK so far, *IF AND ONLY IF* later posts are relevant only to the PRS part of that "PRS/PPL" pairing. The PPL has zero relevance to copyright.

So quite sensibly this followed that with a non- music policy there was no need for any of these pubs to apply for entertainment permission when they applied for their Premises Licence.

Yes, that's sensible for the pub. But the fact that they've chosen not to apply for a music license is indicative of a general position against performance of live music in their pub. Whether the licensing laws require them to apply for a change to their license is totally irrelevant to their position on this. And note that it's an increase in *PRS* fees, not PPL fees (see Dave's quote for costs of a new PPL versus costs of an old-style license).

All roads certainly seem to lead to Rome in threads you're posting to - even if the signpost said it was going to Outer Mongolia, your roads seem to inevitably head off Rome-wards...

Graham.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 10:58 AM

Whoops - unfrocked again.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:02 AM

OK so far, *IF AND ONLY IF* later posts are relevant only to the PRS part of that "PRS/PPL" pairing. The PPL has zero relevance to copyright.

Graham if you read the following you will see that you do not know what you are talking about. You could apologise - but I do not suspect that you will.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/management/pplp03.shtml

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:09 AM

http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_cd.nsf/News20041020?openpage

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:43 AM

See also.

Affected by The Licensing Act 2003

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM

Roger, having been unfrocked, do you really need to parade your nakedness in front of all and sundry? Two posts back (yours of 11:02 AM) you told Graham that he doesn't know what he is talking about, when he claims that PPL has zero relevance to copyright, and post a link to make your point.

Well, I read the article pointed to by the link, and guess what it says: that PPL has zero relevance to copyright; that copyright owners get paid by PRS, and that PPL pays performers (not copyright owners).

We know you cannot write properly. But comprehending a simple 20-line piece of text shouldn't be beyond someone who writes so prolifically.

Go back and read your own references, you dolt.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:04 PM

Graham said.

And note that it's an increase in *PRS* fees, not PPL fees (see Dave's quote for costs of a new PPL versus costs of an old-style license).

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:13 PM

That's not the line you quoted in your 11:02 AM post, Your Slipperiness.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:16 PM

And fruthermore your link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/management/pplp03.shtml ) does not address the issue of prices form PPL/PRS, Oh Befuddled One.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:17 PM

George, that lack of comprehension may be the reason why he seems to hate certain people in as dedicated a fashion as he does. Just cherished misunderstandings.

My apology for posting a message I'd thought was on-topic, based on the title and first post. Roger started the thread and I should have known better.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:18 PM

Now you got me doing typos! Something about the company one keeps...

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:21 PM

Had I maintained that PPL were to do with copyright - perhaps demonstrating the technical point that this body does not deal with copyright may give some justification in your eyes to call me yet more names.

However and as you well know - I made no such claim. I do claim and provide the evidence that Graham does not know what he is talking about and I suspect that he may now agree that he was mistaken?

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:22 PM

Jeri, it's precisely that hate and those "cherished misunderstandings" that set Roger apart from ordinary trolls. It's not in my character to goad - not normally. But I cannot let pass that malicious streak.

I treat it as an exercise in self-control: How far can I go without breaking out in four letter words...

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:24 PM

Say what you will - your post of 11:02 AM is so masterful in contradicting itself, that no further evidence is needed, and no screenfuls of text can mask it, Your Inability-to-admit-wrong-ness.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:26 PM

Folkiedave and Grab make sense. You make believe.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:28 PM

El Gekko, I sort of like it. It's approriate to Rogered threads as it's sort of a combination of 'frustrated' and 'furthermore'. It's when one thinks perhaps one more try might get through when all the other attempts have proven fruitless.

I'm sure the copyright issue is as important in the UK as it's been in the US, and deserves serious discussion. Somewhere.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:40 PM

He he! :-)

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:40 PM

George, the 'El Gekko' thing was supposed to be funny, as many people misspell your handle. You hopefully know I have the utmost respect for you. Now...

Shambles contradicts himself all the time. It's a very effective trolling technique, as people feel an overwhelming urge to expose it. I also have come to the conclusion that most people can see it without having it pointed out. If they can't, they likely have worse problems.

Thing is, I think he might have started a good discussion if he'd just LET people discuss the copyright thing.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:49 PM

He won't though, Jeri. The copyright issue is always worthy of discussion, but this is HIS thread.

Perhaps if we can start athread and request that Roger refrinas from posting there, or we request that he is blocked from participating (let's see if he bites on that)...

But he's beyond redemption,
He won't accept the facts.
Without one exception
His mind a single track.
And you may try so patiently
To prove that you are right,
But he'll declare a victory
When he has lost the fight.

As for El Gekko - you should see the misspellings list I have of my surname!

regards
Al Gurko

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:50 PM

refrinas= El Grekese for "refrains"

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:59 PM

Nice try, Ol' Geeko.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:17 PM

try MAX'S PERSONAL MESSAGES

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: jeffp
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:29 PM

Welcome to the lovely land of Nonsequitur

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:41 PM

Dave said in this thread (some time ago).

We all need licences for all sorts of things. I am about to renew my Road Fund Licence. I need that to drive my car legally along the road. If I had a TV I would need a TV licence. I may not like paying for any of them and there are conditions attached to the Road Fund Licence as well, like insurance and MOT certificate. I need it. I may not like it but it makes me legal.

I refer to third parties as the case here is one where two parties may be in agreement and are willing to or have obtained what they need to undertake their choice but where the final say is up to a third party and out of their control.

Possibly like paying for your driving and road fund licence but finding out that licensing the road needed to be a choice exercised by a third party and a licenced obtained by someone them before you were allowed to drive on it.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:42 PM

Like others that have posted I am not one to goad (except Sheffield Wednesday supporters but that is a different kettle of fish) and there is no doubt Roger brings out the worst in me.

Your Inability-to-admit-wrong-ness

Shouldn't that be wrongfulness?

Just asking you understand.....

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: MMario
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:54 PM

Anyone can sing what they like if they're not recording and distributing it.

technically not true under US law for public venues or for private venues catering to the public.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM

Roger, I take it that your reference to Max's Personal Messages is an invitation to PM you instead of writing openly. But

a) you may remember some time back I said I would never again open a PM from you and asked you to say anything you want to/about me in public, and

b) I intend to do the same; I may not be always proud of my postings, but they will be in the open. No secrets. Until 1st April.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 02:38 PM

MMario,

is there a difference in the US? In the UK, nobody limits what I want to sing in public, with the only possible exceptions being due to the relevant laws on libel, inciting hatred etc. But copyright does not play a part in this. And this is true whether I sing my oen stuff or someone elses's, copyrighted or public domain.

The onus is on the venue to be licenced by PRS (ASCAP or MBI equivalent); but once licenced (or exempted from such licence), the choice of material is open. The venue may be paying a flat fee for its licence, or it may pay "by the song" (some festivals do that), in which case the performer has to fill in the PRS form afterwards noting the songs he/she has performed, so that copyright owners can get their due and the venue charged appropriately.

But once a song has been published, one cannot prevent its being performed live (always assuming the venue is licenced). Indeed, if I wanted to block singer X (or every other singer) from performing one of my songs, I couldn't. He/she has the right to sing it, and I just get my few pence for it.

Neither can I block anyone from recording one of my songs (the relevant organisation here is MCPS, sister to PRS but for mechanical rights). Whoever wants to record it, can fill in the licence application for MCPS, declare my song, pay the appropriate royalties (some 15 pence per copy or thereabouts) and go ahead. Only one exception to this: I can withhold first recording rights (i.e. not letting anyone record the song before I do).

The point is moot anyway - I'm chuffed if anyone wants to sing or record one of my songs anyway. When Vin Garbutt politely asked, my response was "what do I have to pay you?".

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 02:39 PM

oen = Al Gurkese for "own"

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: MMario
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 02:54 PM

assuming the venue is licenced That's the kicker.

many, maybe even *most* public spaces aren't licenced.

And though the onus is normally on the venue to pay the performance fees - the agencies have been known to take issue with performers. and win.


You will notice I have been saying "technically"; in practice unless it is a top hit song and a widely successful performance one wouldn't have to worry about it. But under the letter of the law it is illegal to perform a copyrighted song in public unless *someone* has paid the performance fee. On the other hand "the mouse" (hack, spit!)has at least threatened lawsuits against individuals that were overheard singing one of "their" songs on public transportation.

Public domain songs of course are public domain - and thus not subject to such restriction.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:03 PM

I guess this is the difference - in the UK the responsibility is always with the venue, never with the performer. A performer could not be sued for singing someone else's song.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 05:44 PM

I refer to third parties as the case here is one where two parties may be in agreement and are willing to or have obtained what they need to undertake their choice but where the final say is up to a third party and out of their control.

Possibly like paying for your driving and road fund licence but finding out that licensing the road needed to be a choice exercised by a third party and a licenced obtained by someone them before you were allowed to drive on it.

I really think you have excelled yourself this time Roger.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 02:25 AM

I guess this is the difference - in the UK the responsibility is always with the venue, never with the performer. A performer could not be sued for singing someone else's song.

The Licensing Act 2003 has changed a lot of things. If you or I organise a gig or session or play some part in organising such things in venues where the premises have not obtained entertainment permission - you or I will be liable (along with the premises) to criminal prosecution - whatever song we performed.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Grab
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 06:39 AM

you or I organise a gig or session

Actually it's the owner of the venue who's liable, but anyway.

whatever song we performed

So now you're saying that liability to prosecution via the new Licensing Act *is* independent of copyright on songs...? I thank you...

For that reason, you're absolutely right on one thing - I don't think I'll apologise, thanks all the same.

MMario, re your last, it's not "illegal" to perform a copyrighted song - "illegal" requires criminal activity to have taken place. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and you get sued as a result. Different set of laws in the UK, and I'm pretty sure in the US as well. Hence the possible confusion between the two very different licenses for PRS (copyright) and entertainment license (license to perform at venue), which has been used by Shambles in his posts to divert the thread to the UK Licensing Act. Normally I wouldn't be this picky, but the difference is significant in this case, thread-drift-wise.

Graham.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: GUEST,Vicky Pollard masquerading as Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 06:51 AM

But no - but yes - but no - but I never said that one would be liable to prosecution via PRS and you're just putting words in my mouth because I know what I meant and you don't understand is it so hard to get your brain round it or are you just trying to silence me which would be censorship and anyway I went to a pub once and I was chucked out as soon as I opened my mouth I'm sure that was to do with the lcencing and nobody is free anymore and it's all right for some but we poor upholders of the last vestiges of human rights and decency get ridiculed by the elitist faction of the folk Gestapo and I just want to be understood and hailed as a hero of the folk masses nothing more than that and there you go taking the piss.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:11 AM

Graham said - Actually it's the owner of the venue who's liable, but anyway.

Minister says jamming OK

The following from the above thread. It is rather complicated as you can see from that debate - but it is pretty clear that Graham's claim that it is only the owner who is liable under The Licensing Act 2003 - is quite clearly incorrect and misleading.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall - PM
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:31 AM

I am responding to Richard P's comments concerning potential culpability of musicians under the new Act.

When I am contacted by the charity that sets up hospital and nursing home performances, it is my responsibility to organise the other musicians in order to make up the trio or quartet that has been requested. That means phoning the other musicians, booking them if they are available, telling them where and when to turn up, and afterwards forwarding their fees. I also have to liaise with the hospital in advance of the performance, checking musicians' access and other logistical details.

This activity on my part clearly falls outside the potential culpability exemptions in Schedule 1, para 1(6). Significantly, such activity is the norm for any musician/bandleader when approached by an entertainment agent, or directly by a potential customer, intent on organising a professional performance.

Significantly also, where private events are concerned, ANYONE concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment who makes a charge (with a view to profit) is caught, provided the charge is paid by or on behalf of some of those for whom the entertainment, or entertainment facilities are provided.

No distinction is made between agents, bandleaders, marquee hirers, DJs, dance floor providers etc etc: if any one of these were to make a charge in this context, they are caught.
>snip<

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:31 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/management/pplp03.shtml

03 Difference Between PRS and PPL

Let's look at a case where two different bands record and release versions of the same song. Both records are getting airplay from Radio 1. As a national broadcaster with a large audience, Radio 1 pays huge license fees to both PRS and PPL.

Whenever Radio 1 plays band A's version of the song on air, a share of the PRS license money is paid to the writers of the song. At the same time, a share of the PPL license money is paid to members of band A (and anyone else who performed on the recording) and an equal amount goes to band A's record company for the use of the recording.

When Radio 1 plays band B's version, the PRS royalty is still paid to the same people, because it's still their song that's being performed. But this time, the PPL royalty is shared between the members of band B and their record company.

If either band plays the song live, the writers of the song will still be due a PRS royalty because their song has been performed in public. But because it's a live performance and not a recording, the PPL doesn't get involved at all. The PPL only collects royalties for the use of specific recordings of music in public places.
ENDS

---------------------------------------------------------------
Neither of the above should be confused with the requirement for Local Authority entertainment licensing. Up to last month this licence was a Public Entertainment Licence or PEL. It is now not referred to by intials as it is entertainment permission applied for as part of the new Premises Licence as the local authority now also cover alcohol sales.

Graham could clear-up the issue and accept that he confused my reference to PPL as a reference to the new entertainment permission - but it does not look as if he will.

The important issue is that folk are not even further confused by what is already a complicated subject....

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:38 AM

I have the right to say that 99 is the new 100.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: jeffp
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:22 AM

But 100 is still 100.