PRS Performing Rights Gestapo

Subject: PRS Gestapo
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:51 PM

Hi Everyone,
Has anyones else's pub venue had a visit from the Performing Rights Society Gestapo, demanding many hundreds of pounds from an unsuspecting landlord against threats of court action which will cost thousands?

Our poor landlord was taken for over £700 on the pretext that someone at our folk sing-around might (repeat MIGHT) decide to sing a copyrighted tune. This is despite him already paying both the local council and PLL for the right to play music.
They said the money would go to the songwriters.....ha ha! I have written a number of songs that are sung at folk sessions round here and never received a penny piece from the PRS.

It is the big record companies that are behind this, trying to recoup the revenue lost through illegal downloads.

Has anyone else been able to successfully fight this self-appointed police force?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:58 PM

You won't get PRS royalties unless you are a member and your songs are logged for collection.However your Ralph McTells and John Tams etc are members and will get a very small % of whatever is collected.
That should make you feel better, knowing that the creative people are getting a penny or two for the pleasures they provide.(and that's not irony!)

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,windy
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM

Ok,then Wordy-PRS might reasonably assume that Streets of London might be attempted and bung McTell(via his publisher)a few pence out of that 700 nicker in return for his £100+ pa membership,but who is going to tell them someone warbled a Tams ditty?
Are you sure that they won't simply assume the pub is playing pop stuff like all the others and split the dosh up between Northern Songs,Chappells etc etc..after,of course,taking a generous consideration for their own valuable services-including a commission for what may have been a self-employed nark?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: oombanjo
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 04:23 PM

Bring back the stocks. If they appear you know where to put em. The songs I write are For the pleasure of singing

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: The Vulgar Boatman
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM

As far as I'm aware, English civil law is still based on the concept of the reasonable man. And that reasonable man would tell 'em to arseholes...
To win any action, PRS would have to prove, repeat, prove, that copyright material had been performed. They're also plaguing festivals. The fact is that live music in small venues is incredibly inconvenient for the profiteering establishment. They would prefer arena gigs and a strictly controlled world of recordings. As an MU member I fully appreciate how difficult it can be to make any sort of living, but this is not only bullshit, it's dishonest.
KYBTTS

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Geordie-Peorgie
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:08 PM

When aah've come across the PRS 'spooks' they've aalwez introduced themselves to US as a band and noted what WE sang and confirmed details at the end - It wez doon te us, NOT THE LANDLORD.

As the landlord has nee control over what a band/performer plays aah don't see how PRS could do him - Unless he has a Juke Box an' aall.

Am aah out of touch wi' this?? Can the PRS really dee this to a landlord?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:14 PM

that would be the PRSS then

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM

I think that any music used for reward of some kind ought to have remuneration for the writers, however, as with another thread about Dylan, I get hacked off with people laying claim to traditional tunes and lyrics and copywriting them, as for PRS, if the money was distributed to the correct people then good on them but it isn't and is a bloody bare faced scam. I have no problems in providing lists of songs at gigs and giving a percentage of the earnings, after expenses, 10% of next to F. A. is sweet F.A., to shift the burden onto venues is another nail in the coffin of live music in small venues, shall I rabbit on, nah, where's me coat!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:44 PM

With respect, this is a little more complicated than some of the above posts would suggest, and as misinformation can be unhelpful in the greater scheme of things, with your permission I'd like to set a few things straight.

As their website says; PRS is owned and run by its members; the creators of music, not some government quango. I've been a member for a long time and always found them approachable, helpful and willing to take ideas and complaints on board.

It doesn't cost £100 a year to be in PRS. There is a one off joining fee of £100, and thereafter a percentage system operates, so members are soon into profit. Your music does not have to have been published or recorded for you to be eligible for PRS writer membership, so all UK Mudcatters who write or perform (ergo 'arrange') trad material may join.

Even small-time writers like me do well out of PRS. Apart from royalties from radio plays and larger concerts and festivals, there is a system called the 'gigs and clubs scheme' which does not require lists of songs to be submitted by the promoter (as is the case with designated 'concert' venues such as folk festivals, arts centres and the larger clubs) , but rather a 'standard' set list submitted by artists for every the pub or club gigs that we do which is not covered by 'concert' sales. This pays out many hundreds of pounds per annum to an artist like me who mainly does his own material - a useful part of my income, so the money does get to the right people at least some of the time.

I'm not sure where the demand for £700 came from. Since the demise of the old two-in-a-bar rule the PRS licence is now, I believe, collected with all the other licences that a pub has to have to operate so either a pub is licensed for music (of any type; live, muzac, juke box or kareoke) or it isn't. But I may be wrong about this.

As for whether people should (through beer sales, in this case) pay a tiny amount for the right to enjoy performing someone else's copyright material in a public place, well, that's a different debate, but as we usually do have to pay in one way or another for the use of anything at all made by some artisan as part of his living, I for one think it's fair.

Paying to play you own songs seems a bit much, of course, but as its really impractical to split the music played in sessions and clubs down to the constituent categories of 'own copyright/unregistered,' 'copyright/registered,' 'copyright arrangement' and 'out of copyright' I don't have too much problem with the PRS's catch-all system. Even if it does cost £700 a year, £2 a day doesn't seem so very steep to me given the profit that pubs make on beer (which is only fizzy dirty water after all!)

The suggestion that people lay claim to traditional tunes and lyrics is also erroneous. It IS possible to register an ARRANGEMENT of an out-of-copyright work, ONLY - in which case the arranger will receive royalties for performances of that arrangement only (in other words usually for his own performances of that work, ONLY). Everyone else is still free to perform or record that song or tune, for free, or if they chose make their own arrangement - for which they will get - if they join PRS - a fair fee.

There is of course a debate to be had over whether this is fair or not, but when you start to examine the options seriously you soon realise that you need to draw a line somewhere, because not all publicly-owned material is what we folkies call 'trad' and some arrangements really are very original and do deserve a royalty. The most logical place to draw that line seems to me where it is drawn now: IE arrangements are copyright, while the works themselves remain free to all.

Hope that's helpful

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:00 PM

Oh I forgot to mention that the PRS also fund festivals and do many other things to help promote and develop music, writers and artists, so some of the money does find its way back one way or another.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:59 AM

Had an experience for a number of years where SOCAN (Canadian performing rights equivalent) was making themselves known at my most regular venues and making life miserable for the landlords.
Took a long time to figure out who the source was but in each case it looked like a disgruntled Musician's Union member was setting the dogs on any business that turned him down for a gig.
They are Mafia. Pure & simple.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: s&r
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 03:09 AM

We yielded with some reluctance at the local festival to the bizarre demand that we should tell the licensed premises in which we operated to suspend their licence for the period of the festival, and we should pay a percentage of the overall ticket price to the PRS. The PRS fee was being paid previously, but that was not good enough.

Stu

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST, on purpose this time
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:14 AM

Tom wrote a great deal of sense and useful info there....but I would take up one point he wrote...

'Your music does not have to have been published or recorded for you to be eligible for PRS writer membership,
so all UK Mudcatters who write or perform (ergo 'arrange') trad material may join.'

I was 'accepted' for membership only a few months ago - after a handful of attempts over a good few years!
I had been 'turned away' as they did not seem to want accept (I assume) any 'little fish' that would cost more
in admin than they could collect for.
I had to submit PROOF that my 'works' were being broadcast and/or performed over the previous year.
It did feel very much like - 'come back when you're big enough'
and a definite feel of - 'we will decide if and when you pass the test'. - Not a very nice feeling! - but I do understand why they take such a stance.

I DO feel they perform a useful and very neccessary function though, collecting and collating royalties that are rightfully due,
distributing them to their relevant member artists.
That is why (as a performer for several years at clubs, festivals, with airplay on radio and even TV!)
I persevered for so long (and, thankfully, was finally accepted).
So be aware - 'all mudcatters may (attempt to) join' - not all will be readily accepted.
But, if at first you don't succeed....

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Cats at Work
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:18 AM

Thanks for your sensible explanation, Tom. As I live with a songwriter and know how little they get back for their work I can only support what PRS are trying to do. All songwriters want their songs sung and that has to be the bottom line. That's why they do it. If someone is performing them in a concert or festival and they let PRS know then the songwriter might get back the small amount that is their right. I suppose it's a bit like saying that someone who writes a book and publishes it shouldn't have the money from the sales. Other types of music applaud their writers and are willing to pay the small amount for royalties, so why not folk music as well?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: pavane
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:22 AM

And don't forget there is a lot more in copyright than you may think.

Such as Happy Birthday to You - still in copyright.

But I believe that they certainly shouldn't be able to get a penny without proof that copyright works have been performed.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:29 AM

To make a blanket claim on the basis that somebody 'might' sing a copyrighted song is offensive to the extreme and should be resisted. If it is general practice, it is yet another nail in the coffin of folk clubs.
Similar moves were afoot some time ago here in Ireland with the Irish Performing Rights Organisation IMRO.
They decided to move in on venues were traditional music was played; at first their moves were strongly resisted by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Eireann, but when IMRO offered to cut them in on the deal it became a case of 'about turn - quick march'.
Don't know how things stand at present, but wheels tend to grind slowly here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:47 AM

I have a lot of sympathy with musicians and the radio station I work for is very strict on filling in the form.

My problem with PRS in the past was with a festival when they wanted a percentage of turnover. Since we were filling in PRS forms we objected to paying PRS on camping and so on....

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:50 AM

One of my regular clubs had one of the PRS gestapo turn up and DEMAND that all performers filled in a PRS form - Oddly enough , every thing performed that night was either 'Self Penned' or Trad - Arranged by !!
Never heard from them again .

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:53 AM

Yes, I was turned down many times in my youth, even though I was writing music for TV and publishing songs with Pete Waterman. I never seemed to manage to make my application the right way at the right time. But it's reasonable that PRS should ensure that only bona fide writers join, otherwise the system would soon collapse.

The issues of copyrighting trad arrangements and making blanket collections for sessions are both thorny, and I'm not as sure of my views in this area as I am over written pieces, but rest assured that there is plenty of healthy debate at the upper levels, with the MU folk section and various UK folk organisations keeping a watchful eye.

Obviously there is a school of thought among folkies that all 'folk' music belongs to the people, and that to licence it is some kind of theft. But in truth many many common session tunes are still very much in copyright, as are a great many supposedly trad songs.

The sums involved for pubs are tiny compared with turnover. The PRS do operate within the law, and mainly tend only to 'hassle' landlords who are trying to avoid their legal responsibilities.

It can be more of a problem for festivals, but the money should be there if basic financial principles are being followed.

There have been two recent changes re folk festivals which may explain some of the confusion. The PRS festival tariff was actually introduced to help reduce the costs to trad-orientated festivals, but has I think now been abandoned as unnecessary and unworkable (I may be wrong - but that was the way it was going last time I looked). Others can probably give better info on this than I can.

People who feel there should be no licences involved in folk music might like to consider what would happen if we scrapped the TV licence, for example. There'd be no BBC and commercial interests would be even more in control.

Like it or not, all the music we call folk was written by someone some time, and money or other remuneration has always been a factor more often than not. It's just the way the world goes round.

PRS is not perfect, but it's better than nothing, and I do know they actively seek ways to make their systems fairer and more accurate all the time.

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Dazbo at work
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:03 AM

I read, on a message board - was it Mudcat?, a few years ago that in Italy the equivalent of a "pub session" had to supply a list of tunes/songs played to their licensing authority.

Further on this, I have a John Kirkpatrick tune book - which I payed for and I assume JK got his cut from the sale. To me this implies that I have, through the purchase of the book, got the right to play these tunes as long as I don't earn anything from the playing (in cash or kind) in a public place such as a festival campsite. Is this so?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:57 AM

"People who feel there should be no licences involved in folk music might like to consider what would happen if we scrapped the TV licence, for example. There'd be no BBC and commercial interests would be even more in control."

In Australia the 'license fee' was scrapped MANY decades ago - and Govt money still flows to the ABC (Radio & TV & Radio Australia - the overseas service) and SBS Radio & TV... The ABC costs each taxpayer 8 cents a day, they keep telling us... :-)

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: johnadams
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:45 AM

While I'm in agreement with most of what Tom Bliss says and firmly believe that artists should get suitable recompense for their creativity, the original poster and Dazbo at work rightly point out that self entertainment in the form of a singaround or session, where no fees are paid, really should be left alone.

I've got no problem with folk clubs, who are part of the 'entertainment industry', paying a small fee to PRS and the 'gigs and clubs scheme' sounds just the job.

But when we sessionaires gather in the pub and ask the question "Have you heard this one?" does it make a difference if we play a tune or tell a joke? Both are non income generating and should be toll free.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:53 AM

"does it make a difference if we play a tune or tell a joke? Both are non income generating and should be toll free."

Well, they won't touch you when you do it in your private home.... yet...

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:05 AM

Hi John

Yes I agree, and would prefer sessions to be licence-free - but there are three points to be remembered.

First off is that its not unknown for landlords to pay a few of the session leaders (even if only in beer) to make sure the thing happens and happens well. Plus a session is, from the landlord's point of view, an event which does generate revenue in terms of drinks sales. I wouldn't say that means it's right to demand a licence, but it is I believe one of the arguments put forward by PRS.

The second issue is that as I said earlier a great number of the tunes that are commonly played in sessions are in fact in copyright. Now, getting royalties to the estates of the writers is a different matter (assuming they even care - which many probably don't), but the licence money from sessions does at least go into the pot and some of it comes out again to deserving causes - so again it's not as straightforward an argument as one might think.

The third is that there is no clear definition of a session as opposed to a club meeting, or a singers night, or a proper gig. Musical gatherings take place in many forms and may contain any percentage of copyright material, from 0 to 100% - and you might not know which till after the event (if anybody was bothering to keep count - assuming they even knew who wrote what and when). That's why PRS aim to collect on all gatherings, but keep the price very cheap (which it is, whatever grumpy landlords may say) and hope to share the money out as fairly as possible in the right general direction.

As I say, not perfect, but probably better than at least some of the alternatives.

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:17 AM

Dazbo, if I understand the position correctly, the copyright on a book covers only the publication itself ie you cannot copy the book without the permission of the publisher.

The public performance of the music contained in the book is an entirely separate copyright, and it is this which is administered by PRS. It makes no difference whether or not the performer is remunerated, it is the right to perform which is paid for, although this is made by the venue owner rather than the performer.

I am with John Adams when he queries whether non-income generating sessions should be covered. But both copyright law and the Licencing Act appear to have difficulty with the notion of someone playing for nothing but the fun of it.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:19 AM

My gripe is that if I go and sing trad songs, or my own - in theory PRS has to be paid. But they won't pay me unless the venue is big enough. As if I am going to do floor spots in the Royal Albert Hall........

What really annoys me is that the Stroud Ceilidhs have to pay 40 GBP to PRS for the right of bands to play traditional dance tunes that they personally have arranged because it is a local gov venue. And it can't make a profit. I don't care who claims copyright on 400 year old tunes - they didn't write. But then stealing the ownership of other peoples' tunes goes back to Henry the Eighth's green sleeves (allegedly).

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:35 AM

Hi Cresby

As I said earlier, no-one can claim copyright on 400-year-old tunes, only on their arrangement of those tunes.

One solution to both problems might be to join PRS, and claim through the gigs and clubs scheme which covers small venues.

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:00 AM

I had no trouble joining as I wrote a minor hit record. But the bit I find very annoying is that they are very picky about who pays.

I heard Inter Milan footy club had bought up all the picture disc copies of my record and were playing it at their matches. Didn't get a cent there.   I pointed out that a major TV station had used a snatch of it for trailer for their show - I got an e-mail today, I'm not being paid for that.

And yet there are these horror stories of little pubs being turned upside down, til the change falls out of their pockets.

Better than nothing it may be Tom, but that's not saying much.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: johnadams
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:21 AM

Bugger! I wrote a long reply and Mudcat swallowed it! Here goes again.

Tom Bliss wrote:

First off is that its not unknown for landlords to pay a few of the session leaders (even if only in beer) to make sure the thing happens and happens well. Plus a session is, from the landlord's point of view, an event which does generate revenue in terms of drinks sales. I wouldn't say that means it's right to demand a licence, but it is I believe one of the arguments put forward by PRS.

That may be so but I don't think that undermines my standpoint. Lots of oiling the wheels goes on in life and it doesn't all have to be regulated. I go to more sessions than anything these days, and they are mostly populated by enthusiasts sharing. In a pub near me they share poetry and stories and nobody charges them. OK, music has more of a commercial element to it, but it's not difficult differentiate between what's done for fun and what's done for profit and if there's a grey area, so what? PRS has plenty of grey areas elsewhere.




The second issue is that as I said earlier a great number of the tunes that are commonly played in sessions are in fact in copyright. Now, getting royalties to the estates of the writers is a different matter (assuming they even care - which many probably don't), but the licence money from sessions does at least go into the pot and some of it comes out again to deserving causes - so again it's not as straightforward an argument as one might think.

The session movement, and it is a movement with hundreds of participants, generally accept that tunes go into the public domain and dissemination and performance of them is welcomed. If the tunes are adopted and performed or recorded commercially or even if they appear in the background of a tv doc shot in the pub, then there is a fee payable. If some hen party sings the Birdy Song or whatever the present equivalent is, in order to entertain themselves or their mates, nobody thinks of slapping a toll on them. Music can have a free cultural existence alongside its commercial arm. If I hum a copyright tune in the street I don't pay anyone. If I move across the threshold of a pub, I should still not have to pay anyone. If I charge anyone to hear me doing it, then there's a fee. And that should apply to my few compositions as well. Simplistic, yes - but common sense.

The third is that there is no clear definition of a session as opposed to a club meeting, or a singers night, or a proper gig. Musical gatherings take place in many forms and may contain any percentage of copyright material, from 0 to 100% - and you might not know which till after the event (if anybody was bothering to keep count - assuming they even knew who wrote what and when). That's why PRS aim to collect on all gatherings, but keep the price very cheap (which it is, whatever grumpy landlords may say) and hope to share the money out as fairly as possible in the right general direction.

While I agree that this can be a grey area, PRS appear to have an inconsistent attitude to grey. At the other end of the scale there seems to be a lot of big boys hoovering up the royalties that should accrue to some of those at the bottom of the food chain. I know some comes back via PRS Foundation but conversations with one of the officers who I know leads me to believe that not a lot comes to our neck of the woods.

I'm willing to be swayed by other facts but from where I'm standing, while I support PRS and its overall aims, it's not doing the roots of music, as practised by thousands who will never get on a stage or record a note, any favours with its present approach.

J

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Black Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:24 AM

It makes no difference whether or not the performer is remunerated, it is the right to perform which is paid for....

So should a busker be paying royalties?
Legally?
Morally?

I always understood that you can sing / play anything but when you record / print it you owe royalties.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:38 AM

As a fascinated observer of this discussion, I have a question that perhaps someone could address:

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:41 AM

Sorry...hit the wrong button...

Does this organization pay out to non-UK songwriters? For example, if Mudcatter Alaska Mike has one of his songs performed (and I know that a few people over there have picked up Put that Budweiser Back in the Clydesdale), do they send him money? If not, what happens to the percentage of the take that originates with US/non-UK writers?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:03 AM

Good points raised since my last, and I don't disagree with any of them. I guess I just sometimes feel its all too easy to cast PRS as some kind of restrictive arts police, instead of looking at the challenge of copyright remuneration carefully, and trying to bring some constructive thoughts and solutions to the table.

Tom

Artbrooks - there are reciprocal arrangements between most of the rights organisations around the world. But I'm not sure how well they work.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:05 AM

Its a recprocal arrangement. GEMA and collecting sagencies like that abroad, pay the PRS to send the money for our work, and PRS pay their writers for their work and send it to their collecting agency to give them.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:08 AM

Art, i think the question is answered with the second post in the thread:

"You won't get PRS royalties unless you are a member and your songs are logged for collection."

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: the button
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:13 AM

I think that, to be on the safe side, no-one should perform Streets of London ever again.

You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:15 AM

........or Wild Rover, Duelling Banjos, Fields of Athenry & many more!!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: pavane
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:16 AM

The biggest gripe about all these licencing groups is that, as noted above, the little man gets nothing, and all his share goes to Madonna and co.

Technology could now solve this, for prerecorded music, by including a program and some addresses to which small payments could be made directly, but I don't see that as likely. The existing system suits the big players. Doesn't help with the PRS problem though.

I suspect that the 700 pounds mentioned at the start was for a blanket annual licence which the landlord was perhaps pursuaded to take instead of the PRS taking legal action (bluffing, I expect)

johnadams,
A little tip. If I have a long post, I write it in notepad and then paste it into Mudcat.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Simon G
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:11 AM

Just looked at the PRS pricing (tough to find it buried on their site)

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Price%20Guides/Pubs%20and%20Bars%20Price%20Guide.pdf

It substantially discriminates against small gatherings with a charge of 7.62+VAT for each event with up to 100 people. So if 1 person sings in the pub for fun with nobody else present the landlord gets to pay PRS £8.95. If 99 (or is it 100) are listening the charge is the same! If the pub capacity is over a 100 it is even more expensive, even if only 1 person is present.

Compare that to a paid ticket event with 50 people each paying £6 - revenue £300, PRS payment 3% = £9.00, but only if the music event revenue for the pub exceeds £15,500 pa.

This (I think new in Oct 2007) pricing if enforced would wipe out most folk clubs. Is it discriminating against small venues? Is it discriminating against small organisations? Why? Because the small guys ain't got any muscle.

Don't worry though the landlord can replace the live music with 24 hour a day muzak from the radio for 40p per day.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:17 AM

..........so, if a folkie is in a pub & there's no one there to hear him, does he make a noise?


Just gettin' me coat!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:19 AM

You do not have to pay these people from the PRS they come into your pub or venue and they make you think they are the governing body but there is other organisations that are cheaper that you can pay that covers you for your events.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:25 AM

"the little man gets nothing, and all his share goes to Madonna and co". Pavane, and others who have stated this belief at various times, it is incorrect. The little man will get something, if he (or she, in the case of the little woman) has registered his/her songs with PRS, just as long as it gets above a - pretty low - threshold.

Now, my name is not on everyone's lips, so to speak. Yet this little man has been getting every quarter since 2003 his little share of the loot, regulal as clockwork, backed with a full analysis of shows or festivals or venues or performances linked to it (I follow Roy Bailey's movements through that!). It's not much, I won't give up the day job yet, but it has never fallen below £40, and half the time it is in the low hundreds. And through the reciprocal arrangements I have seen payments from the Netherlands, Australia and Germany.

I will not defend PRS' aggressive fee-collecting tactics. But at the other end of the animal, something does come out indeed.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:35 AM

Points taken about PRS not always listening to the views and requirements of the smaller end of the folk sector.

Maybe one solution would be for more folk club and session organisers to join the FCO Forum, and then - with that franchise behind it - form an organisation with a bit of muscle (as has already been debated on the list) which could lobby PRS on these issues.

The MU does a great job representing artists, but maybe there more to be said by club and session organisers.

We could discuss it at the folkWISE (The FCO and Britfolk's Kindly Uncle) board meeting on Sat. What do you think George?

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Anne Lister
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:36 AM

Just a sideline about the songbook query ... you can also buy copies of playscripts. But if you wanted to put on a performance of the plays in question you have to buy a license to do this, whether or not you're making a profit (hollow laughter there for most drama groups!). It's the way it is. On the other hand (and perhaps this is the analogy for the session/singaround) if you were using scenes from the plays for acting classes then no license fees are payable. So buying the songbook doesn't give you the right to play the songs in public royalty-free any more than buying the playscript gives you the right to put on a production of the play.

From my point of view as a songwriter whose songs have featured in the repertoire of other performers - I have no issue with them being performed in singarounds with no money coming my way. But if they feature in someone's repertoire as a guest (when they are being paid a fee) then I would hope the royalties would come my way. The trouble is, as someone has mentioned earlier, the question of payment in a singaround or session is somewhat complicated, and as the pub would need a licence for music for the session to take place in the first place (surely?) then it shouldn't be an extra cost to the landlord for each and every time it happens. It should simply be the cost of the licence for the pub, covering live music. Unless I've got this wrong, which is entirely possible.

Incidentally, although there are indeed reciprocal arrangements for the payment of royalties internationally I don't think I've ever seen payment for my songs when performed in the US. Did have one payment through from Canada. Once.

Anne

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Rasener
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:57 AM

So if you take a Village Hall that has the PEL, are they covered automatically for PRS?

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

Anne, I have to make a small correction to the above, before the argument strays: You say "if (my songs) feature in someone's repertoire as a guest (when they are being paid a fee) then I would hope the royalties would come my way".

In this case it is immaterial if the performer is being paid or not. The issue is whether the performances are of commercial benefit to the venue. That's why it is the venue, and not the performer, that gets licensed (that also answers the inevitable perennial query about busking). So PRS would argue that a regular session at a pub attracts business, therefore a license is due. An impromptu session would not, however.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:04 PM

Les,

PEL collects fees for the performers of music.
PRS collects fees for the copyright holders.
They are two different things, and yes, you, or rather the village hall) would still need a PRS license. The venue may have it already, or you may be able to pay a one-off (rather than annual) fee.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: johnadams
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:10 PM

Anne wrote:

Just a sideline about the songbook query ... you can also buy copies of playscripts. But if you wanted to put on a performance of the plays in question you have to buy a license to do this, whether or not you're making a profit (hollow laughter there for most drama groups!). It's the way it is. On the other hand (and perhaps this is the analogy for the session/singaround) if you were using scenes from the plays for acting classes then no license fees are payable. So buying the songbook doesn't give you the right to play the songs in public royalty-free any more than buying the playscript gives you the right to put on a production of the play.

Good point but there's still a difference in that if someone puts on a play, it's with the intention of having an audience and it is a 'performance'. Sessions aren't necessarily for an audience - they are usually for the participants. In my local session there's often nobody but the sessionaires in the room, although we can be heard in the next bar, not that they take much notice. We don't consider ourselves to be performing. (... and therefore shouldn't attract the attention of the Performing Rights Society). Phhhhhhhrp!

J

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Rasener
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:16 PM

Ta George

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:25 PM

John see above - the Performing Rights Society does not collect fees on behalf of performers, rather it licenses venues for the performance of works, on behalf of the copyright holders. It's a "license to perform" the copyrighted work, but it is charged to the venue.