PRS Performing Rights Gestapo

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Rasener
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:50 PM

Well I spoke with the Chairman of our Village Hall who is very particular in having all the licenses that are required to provide entertainment.
However when I mentioned to him PRS, he said "What's that"
So I explained it all to him, and on Monday, he is going to ring PRS and pay a yearly fee, which IMHO shouldn't be more than £60 for the year.
He is very upset that nobody from authority mentioned it to him.

I personally think that not enough communication is going on from PRS.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: alanabit
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 02:08 PM

I am grateful to Tom Bliss for his lucid and patient explanations of his views. However,over here in Germany, the situation is similar to the one Stallion describes. Most small venues nowadays simply refuse to use musicians, who claim GEMA royalties. They simply can't afford to pay. In particular, musicians, who play their own music, are a considerable risk to those landlords and cafe´owners, because songwriters are more likely to deter regulars from attending than they are to draw people in. So the venues are taking a considerable risk in allowing live music anyway. What they usually do is to make the musicians accept the responsibility for being the "Veranstalter" (organiser) of the gig. This puts the onus on us to apply for and pay for the GEMA licence. In reality, I have never done this, although last summer I actually had to sign a contract, which bound me to accept the responsibility. So far I have not been caught - and I feel I am harming no one. We play original material anyway.
I can see the landlords' point of view. They are already doing us a favour by taking a chance on us. The entrance money alone is enough to put the backs up of those, who would usually enter the premises for no charge. In addition to that, not many people are prepared to go to their local pub/cafe´when live music is on, because quite simply, they do not like live music.
To date my own band has been fortunate, in that we have attracted good audiences and we have filled the venues. However, I think it would be a little cocky for us to expect landlords to start gambling with their livelihoods on our behalf. These days I am grateful for the chance to play at all!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: henryclem
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:41 AM

I reckon a major opportunity was missed when the new Licensing Act came in. Local Authorities collect off every licensed outlet; our Social Club, for instance, even has to pay extra for the privilege of putting on a (non profit-making) Panto once a year so needs a licence for dramatic performance. The licence we pay for music (of all kinds - juke-box, TV, discos, live bands etc) is not exactly peanuts but in the general scheme of things is not excessive. I wouldn't have thought many pubs and clubs have no music licence because they feel the charge is onerous. Now, what if the (music) licence had included a PRS contribution, collected by Councils on their behalf?   You'd have comprehensive coverage for PRS purposes, and consequently both a greater sum collected for distribution to members and a lower cost per venue.

As things stand there seems to be a temptation for landlords to expect (or demand) the full PRS cost to them from the most readily identifiable coherent group using their premises for music (Folk Club or regular session eg) when they may well be promoting live musical events themselves on other nights, and indeed playing recorded music all the time otherwise.

Just to clear up one other point - about the "big" players making hay at the expense of us minnows. I don't get a lot from PRS but what I do receive does include an appreciable chunk for karaoke, juke-boxes etc even though there is no way any of my songs would ever feature.

PRS could only ever achieve absolutely fair and accurate distribution
if every performance of every song was noted down and that is patently impossible. I am sure the technology exists for (say) every juke-box play to be collected automatically and were that to happen (a bit like public lending right) that part of the quarterly distribution would no longer be shared out across the membership as a whole.

The PRS does exist for its members and as Tom Bliss has pointed out if we are unhappy with its activities we should use whatever forums are available to us to try and change its ways.

Henry

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:35 AM

I think he has the Juke box thingy but, apart from the session you can count on one hand the other live music events that are on in a year, anyway I will ask tonight, discretely.

peter

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:34 AM

Hi Tom,
Many thanks for your interesting comments on this thread.

The one that interests me most is your latest, saying that the PRS "fee for a planned free-entry session is £7.62" and your very helpful link to the PRS tariffs.
Our pub has a planned free-entry session every 2 weeks (26 per year)
which means a modest and acceptable fee of £198.12 should apply.

Yet they demanded over £700 on the "basis of the square footage of the property" (i.e. the bigger the pub the more money) I am not privvy to the exact calculation, but it is totally at odds with the PRS website which does not mention square footage and we are certainly nevr more than 50 persons (let alone 100).

I will try taking this up with the PRS directly.

Thanks again everyone.
Jon

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:27 AM

Aren't there different PRS licences, some for recorded music and some for live? I'm pretty sure that the British Association of Juke Box Operators (or whatever it is called) has a blanket licence from teh PRS for its members, cos I think its terms were referred to the Copyright Tribunal about 10 years ago.


Don't forget that those who put money in the juke box are actually direclty paying for the music....

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:22 AM

Well, you make a powerful point Stallion.

My first question would be to ask whether your man does in fact already have a PRS licence, which of course he should by law.

If you're right that he doesn't, and having to make an application really would be the last straw for the session, then the next step would be to try to convince PRS that there is indeed a golden goose in trouble here.

But they would want facts and figures on similar situations from across the whole UK if they were to rethink their policy. And getting that information would require a dedicated effort by someone with the resources to do it.

I'll think on.

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 10:21 AM

I have just wiped out several paragraphs cos, cos, pointless diatribe.
I give in.

I can't shake off vested self interest, if the landlord at the Tap & Spile was asked to stump up £7.50 a session we would be out on our ears, the pub is always packed on Friday nights and a fair few of them are slow drinking musicians, if they were not there it would be heaving with people in for drinking. If truth be known he is actually losing money and many of the regulars barely tolerate us for being there, some don't come in on Friday nights because we are there, so the argument about attracting extra business is bollocks, sad fact is if he turned the juke box on and up a couple of notches he would get more people in spending money necking booze instead of people taking a sip between tunes and songs.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 08:46 AM

"If all folk musicians and all folk events were exempted from involvement with PRS, one major result would be that whatever earnings are currently accruing to folk PRS members would stop."

Yes, Anne - if we only we could tell them what the word 'folk' actually meant! That's one of the reasons why I always say we should all try to be aware of the difference between copyright and non-copyright material and know which we're playing. The business of having both lumped together and jumbled up in our minds is very unhelpful when it comes to issues like trying to persuade PRS that they're charging too much for the wrong material, for example.

Perhaps we need a third category. Music which is technically copyright (see Richard's very good point above) but which has been let loose, so to speak, but without formal abandonment of copyright. Could it be free to perform when no money's changing hands, but chargeable when it is, or something? That would then cover 99% of session tunes, and a fair number of popular non-trad songs. Maybe 'In public use?'

But finding a definition and a system of accounting which the beaks would accept... Now there's the rub!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Bee
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 08:35 AM

This is a very interesting discussion. I've only ever observed one interaction with SOCAN, and that one was eyebrow raising in that the SOCAN rep was very agressive in tone and the 'venue' they wanted fees from is a barely surviving community supported heritage museum. The music they wanted fees ($30. a month, if I remember rightly) for is a single recording of 1940s era music, about ten songs, most of them instrumental, played for atmosphere in the cookhouse.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:44 AM

Guest Jon - technically, yes, and many lyrics sites have been closed down by the music publishers, but happily the Mudcat is in the USA where there is a better chance of running a "fair use" defence and if push comes to shove it could take down all truly copyright lyrics leaving only folk songs.

There might be an argument about the pernicious practice of US interests seeking to "copyright" works in which copyright has expired by registering them with some foolish variation at the Libarary of Congress.

To be accurate, however, since copyright arises automatically upon creation, it is not truly possible to "copyright" something, although it is possible to dedicate something into the public domain (or abandon the copyright in it) (as, arguably, Ghandi did when he said "I have never copyrighted anything").

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Anne Lister
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:28 AM

Just a thought which has been hovering in the back of my brain as I read this thread - it's odd at the same time to moan that PRS is guilty of giving too much money to the big names AND say that somehow folk music events shouldn't be paying anything. If all folk musicians and all folk events were exempted from involvement with PRS, one major result would be that whatever earnings are currently accruing to folk PRS members would stop. I'm really not sure why we would want that to happen.

Anne

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:18 AM

Hi Simon,

Well it's my intent to make a living at this and as such it's better to be 'inside the tent...'

PRS (rightly or wrongly) collect the money anyway. The only way to get some of it back is to become a member, and royalties do form a substantial part of my income - without which the rest would not be viable and I'd need to get a day job again.

I have in fact spoken to PRS this morning, and hope to have more info soon, but in the mean time people might like to look at this.

PRS rates for sessions etc

The fee for a planned free-entry session is £7.62, and the charge for a club gig is 3% (say £5-7 for a typical guest night?) which doesn't seem like a huge amount to me, but others disagree and they may be right.

If so, and the charges are damaging live folk music then obviously we need to make a case to PRS for a reduction. What's needed is attributable information about sessions and clubs closing specifically because of PRS charges - exactly as we needed for the PEL campaign. (The last straw syndrome)

The FCO forum might be a good place for the collection of that info, so thanks for mentioning this issue there Simon. (Anyone who runs a club or session or who has any other business interest in live folk music can join that group, so may I again urge interested parties to take part).

The moral and legal debate around licencing and collecting on traditional works and arrangements thereof remains important too.

There is obviously a mismatch between the views of the PRS and the views of many folkies on this. I wouldn't say I was on the fence, but I can see both sides, and am open to persuasion either way. But if folkies want to change PRS's views, to get perhaps a special even lower tariff for 'mainly trad' gatherings, then they'll need to make an argued case for it - as the festival organisers did. That means getting EFDSS or Folk Arts England or someone similar on board as negotiators - or possibly starting a Folk Club/Session Association - again possibly through the FCO Forum.

When you stop to think about it, finding a fair and reasonable way to monitor, measure, police, account and distribute all the gazillions of outlets for copyright music is not an easy task. The system is far from perfect, but it is better then nothing most of the time. Folk music may be a special case, but if so it must make that case coherently and maturely.

Over to you guys

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:58 AM

Just another thought/distraction.....

Mudcat publish copyrighted lyrics in the DT archive.
Do they have to pay anyone for that?

Jon

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:56 PM

Folktrax no longer exists.

Peter Kennedy's archive recordings are deposited in the National Sound Archive and it is intended that a selection will be put out on Topic - eventually.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:07 PM

You also need tolook up "performers' rights" and "performers' property rights".

Back then it was the Performers Protection Acts 1958 to 1972 and the Rome Convention, but some of the wrinkles of teh law and whether it conferred a civil right of action were not really sorted out until Rickless -v- United Artists. Elwood Rickless was Peter Sellers Executor, adn some of Sellers outtakes were used by UA to make a new Pink Panther film. Elwood won, UA lost.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Simon G
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM

Tom - the law doesn't say you have to charge for performance of your songs, nor does it say you must use PRS to collect the royalties. If your songs are performed a significant number of time by others it makes sense to use this monopolistic organisation to collect your royalties. It is almost certainly crazy to use them to collect royalties from your own performances -- as long as all the songs you sing are not licenced to PRS. If just one is licenced to PRS they are going to demand the whole of their fee for the evening so you may as well collect your royalties. This must be illegal (PRS not you) as it is anti-competitive and monopolistic. Their venue licencing policy is very distasteful at the very minimum

One assumes that this policy should reflect the requirement of their members -- after all they promote themselves as some sort of co-operative/members club.

Are the PRS members reading this happy with the venue licencing policy of PRS? If your not it is your duty to get in contact with them and tell them you are unhappy -- PRS will take more notice of you than us whinging club organisers or venue operators.

BTW the other thing that stinks is if people pay to come in you pay 3% of the gate, if they don't you pay 6% of cost. This implies the margin on a music performance is 50% --- can't stop laughing at that idea.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:01 PM

Jim says

"If a previously unknown song turns up in the tradition, falls into the hands of a musician or singer who then makes minor adjustments to it so it still remains recognisable as the one collected, does the source have no rights to the song - legally or morally - if not, why not?"

The source still has exactly the same rights to the song as he did before it fell into the musician's hands. Namely total rights - the same as everyone else has to that song and to to every other work in publc ownership. That is; both legal and moral rights, to perform and record the song, and, if he so chooses, to register and collect on his own unique version - i.e. his own interpretation of a version that he learned from his own source.

The musician who 'makes the minor adjustment' will also only be able to collect on HIS own version - which even in the case of an unaccompanied song, where neither tune nor words have been changed, can be defined merely by subtle differences in singing style.

The song itself will remain in public ownership regardless. No theft takes place. No rights are lost. No harm is done.

The song never belonged to the source in the first place. Is that where you're coming from on this? Granted, some communities have conventions about singers 'owning' and 'giving' songs to each other, but that never had any legal weight - and anyway it only ever worked within a small community. Just down the road some other people were busy 'owning' and 'giving' the same song.

The only person who ever owns a song is the writer (or writers) - who I presume in this case have been long long dead.

"If I have the thrust of this threas right, the singer/songwrters out there are prepared to throw traditional music to the PRS jackals in order to protect their own work."

That is quite the most extraordinary thing I've ever read on Mudcat, Jim. No-one is throwing traditional music to the PRS. The PRS don't own it any more than you or I. They just collect and distribute royalties according to copyright law.

There is a legal difference between a song (known as a 'work') comprising words and tune, and the arrangement of a song; namely the insubstantial changes to words or tune, arrangements, accompaniment, harmonies, decoration etc which most performers effect to the work either deliberately or by natural evolution, which still leave the song recognisably the same.

I don't know how many arrangements PRS have registered of John Barleycorn, for example, but I bet it's hundreds. The point is it could be millions - there is no upper limit. And each of those million arrangers will only collect on their own performances of their own arrangements of that song.

Personally i wouldn't mind if the arrangement arrangement was scrapped. But as long as the rule stands, and as long as I'm as strapped for dosh, I'll take my few shekels thankyou - and it has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to protect my work anyway.

I don't actually want to protect my work - I want people to sing my songs and if there was no royalty system I'd be happy for them to fly on the breeze. But if the law says people must pay to use them, and someone's out there collecting money on my behalf, I'll have that too - though 90% of my royalties on my own song are from my own performances of them.

I'm not a bad person and I"m not doing anything wrong :-)

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:57 PM

John Reilly/Munnelly/Kennedy

Look, distinguish the copyright in the music ("musical work" under the CDPA 1988)and words ("literary work" under the CDPA 1988), on the one hand, from the copyright in the sound recording ("sound recording" under the act). Much the same under the UK 1956 Act. Not very different under the Irish 1963 Act. The Irish law was updated in 2000 and is something like the UK 1988 Act now

Assuming Munnelly made the recordings (or rather in the words of the acts, "made the arrangements for the making of the recordings" he would have been the owner of the copyright in the recordings.

In all likelihood the copyright in the songs and the words would have expired and it would be an interesting discussion whether Reilly's input to the way the words and tune were were enough to amount to an "arrangment" (which could have a copyright). I reckon not.

So the only copyright of relevance was that in the recording. It belonged to Munnelly until he assigned it, and if he didn't assign it it belonged to his personal representatives, until they assigned it - or the copyright expired which would have been 50 years from the date of making therefore won't be until 2019.

So (if the above facts are all correct) Kennedy may have been infringing the copyright in the sound recording for years - but the limitation period for copyright is 6 years so if the rightful owner of copyright in the sound recording wants to sue he'll only get a sum equivalent to a ryalty for the last 6 years and a possible injunction.


There are special provisions permitting some uses of recordings of folk songs deposited in designated archives - I don't know if these are in play.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:34 PM

I have this nightmare of a world where at each session someone is going to have to note the name of the tune, it's author/copyright holder and post the form off to the PRS. How to kill a session in a hurry :(

Now is that version of St Annes Reel the one from the Cato book, Mally's Session book, Simon Mayor's or......?

All the best

Steve

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

When John Reilly died, the collector, Tom Munnelly decided that any proceeds from the recordings should go to a school for Traveller children. Peter Kennedy acquired a copy of the recordings and put them in his catalogue, and despite requests to either remove them or pay the Traveller school, he continued to sell them without payment or permission right up to his death.

Then clearly that is wrong. But it isn't what you wrote - which was:

He [John Reilly] was posthumously given the dubious honour of becoming one of Peter Kennedy's victims.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Windy
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:20 PM

Sorry,that wasn't Wordy it was me,whoever I am.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Wordy
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:07 PM

Funny enough,BBC TV4 recently screened a photo taken about 1957 at a church fete in Woolton(I think)a district of Liverpool.It showed a bunch of teds with guitars on the back of a lorry including one check-shirted poser with an obvious Elvis fixation.It was accompanied by scratchy tape of them performing a pop song at the time-in clear violation of the Holy Laws of Copyright.

There was no mention of any stormtroopers jumping up and shouting'you can't do that there'ere without bunging us 50 quid to pass on to Mr Cochrane'

I wonder where we'd all be if they had....

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 01:39 PM

Dave,
When John Reilly died, the collector, Tom Munnelly decided that any proceeds from the recordings should go to a school for Traveller children.
Peter Kennedy acquired a copy of the recordings and put them in his catalogue, and despite requests to either remove them or pay the Traveller school, he continued to sell them without payment or permission right up to his death.
If a previously unknown song turns up in the tradition, falls into the hands of a musician or singer who then makes minor adjustments to it so it still remains recognisable as the one collected, does the source have no rights to the song - legally or morally - if not, why not?
If I have the thrust of this threas right, the singer/songwrters out there are prepared to throw traditional music to the PRS jackals in order to protect their own work.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Bert
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:28 PM

If the venue is not performing copyrighted work then, as Leadfingers said above, just give them a list of what IS being performed and they will go away.

Many years ago we had the same problem at a square dance club I used to go to. The caller just gave them a list of obscure American labels, and never heard from them again.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM

Wow.......didn't know what I had started here.

Thanks to everyone for their considered comments and interest in the subject.
Our solution has been to arrange a £1 a head whip round every session to give to the landlord. For heaven's sake don't anyone tell the Inland Revenue or they will want a cut of it!

I agree with copyright holders getting their dues, but also doubt that those at the bottom of the pile get their fare share.
However, if Paul McCartney gets nothing when some amateur wannabe warbles "Yesterday" (yet again) then I certainly will not lose a lot of sleep. Yet I fear it is the likes of him who get most of the money collected from our landlord, even though anyone attempting to sing "Yesterday" would probably be booed out the door!

I admit I chuckled at the advice "never to play Streets of London again"....please add "Amazing Grace" to that, particularly if bagpipes are involved. Important to keep our sense of humour always.

I do also agree with the sentiment that landlords who feel overburdened by licences and fees etc, may simply cancel the venue. This would be tragic for those of us who just enjoy a non-commercial sing-around in the convivial atmosphere of a country pub.

It is sad though that the "root of all evil" has to pervade every walk of life.

My thanks again to everyone.
Jon

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

If the PRS're into agressiveness, then they're heading for the Golden Goose egg analogy.

If the number of places where music & song is practiced gets reduced, it'll benefit no one, PRS either!

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:59 AM

The antonym of public for PRS purposes is "family".

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: stallion
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:08 AM

For what it is worth, bear with me this is not off topic, i used to play for the Tap & Spile cricket club which played Sundays and Tuesday evenings, when I asked the landlord for a donation to club funds on the grounds that two days a week we brought in twenty odd customers he told us to P*ss off on the grounds that we were taking up places that others drinkers could fill and cost him nothing, now the folk session is in the Tap & Spile and the space the session musos and singers take up could be filled three times over by drinkers, we do get a half dozen or so free pints and relations are extremely cordial but the bottom line counts and if the PRS got stuck into him then the session would end, he is a business man not a folk enthusiast. As I have already said earlier I wholeheartedly support the writers and performers of original work and the significantly original arrangements getting their due reward but I can't see for the life of me how throttling sessions like ours is going to benefit the music industry and in particular traditional folk music.
oh and i am no writer, I have tried and I am hopeless but one little adaptation wot I wrote I have heard two people singing it and felt quite chuffed, it's posted here somewhere! That's enough for me!

Peter

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Black Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:52 AM

George P 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.

I presume George that the answer to my ('inevitable' sorry) question is that buskers do NOT owe royalties even though they are receiving a commercial benefit?

Further, In theory, the PRS is only entitled to collect fees in respect of the PUBLIC performance of COPYRIGHT works …..
If a door fee is charged to allow entry folk club does this not then become a 'private' performance?

I was born into a family which still had the tradition of my mother playing piano & the rest standing around her singing. I learnt songs from my parents who had learnt them from their parents, radio, music hall, films, '78 records & sheet music. I still sing some of these songs along with others I have learnt from friends, guests at clubs, television, radio, 45's, L.P.s, cassettes, C.D.s, songbooks etc. etc.

This is why I agree with Jim – music is for sharing but I also agree that if money is forthcoming the originators should also be rewarded.

I rarely do 'gigs' & then only for charity but perform regular 'floor spots' at folk clubs 6 nights a week.
When a recording was made of my 'act' the recording studio paid royalties to the required body (presumably PRS).

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Anne Lister
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:39 AM

Again, a little note from the sidelines (and yes, thank you, George, I do know that the money comes from the pub licence and not individual performers - my point was a distinction between a session or singaround and a concert, which I also know isn't a possible distinction to make in real life) - on the subject of the "threshold" for joining PRS: When I first joined back in the 70s, the ONLY criterion for joining was a version of this threshold. There had to be a certain amount of activity with your compositions before you could be a member of PRS, and there were varying categories of membership to reflect this. So I didn't have to pay the £100 fee but did have to prove that my songs were being performed commercially (ie broadcast, on significantly sized stages or recorded). My guess is that a number of PRS members were reluctant to lose this element of "quality control" rather than have it as a purely "pay to join" organisation.
I'm with you, Jim, on the subject of traditional music. The problem is that the folk world has never only included traditional music - even reputed source singers would include songs from the popular musics of their area or their time within their repertoire.

Anne

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:27 AM

Jim,

I have to agree with much of what you say but there are two factual errors one of which can be seriously misleading.

If someone died of starvation someone who was already "living in deplorable conditions in a derelict house" - it is a bit rich to blame Peter Kennedy who was living in Dartmouth at the time. Despite PK's somewhat cavalier attitude to copyright and I agree with the majority opinion on that, it is a bit much to blame PK for John Reilly's death. Lack of a decent social welfare system in Ireland at the time might have played its part.

Phil Coulter does not "own" the rights to a traditional song (any more than anyone else does). If someone sings an arrangement done by Phil Coulter then rightly he gets paid on that arrangement. He does not own the song - nor does he own the rights to any other arrangements of that song - other than one he did.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:18 AM

Oh, and one other point re recording artists arguing about who should record a song. Most of us prefer our records to be distinctive and original, so if me and a folkie mate were both bringing out CDs, and we both loved a song we'd both recently learned, we might quite reasonably have a chat about whether it would be a good idea for both of us to record it or not.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:14 AM

Hi Jim,

I can see where you're coming from, but I personally don't see it that way.

We've been here before, but I personally believe writers still have exactly the same objectives as those you suggest, as do champions of traditional music. Everyone is hoping that the music they love will be widely appreciated and passed on and around. I don't think many modern 'folk' songwriters do demand permission or direct payment for the use of their songs (though I seem to remember you've told me in the past that I may be wrong about that). But if others are going to make money from the use of those songs - either as performers or as 'promoters' (and here I mean venues that may make money indirectly via door or drinks sales) then most of us would probably prefer to receive whatever percentage society has deemed fair for that activity.

The world has changed, but not necessarily for the worse. All that's happened is that society has decided that there should be some financial reward for our efforts (and don't you think it would have been nice if some of the people you mention had been in line for some dosh back then? I doubt many would have refused it if offered).

The collection of royalties does not in any way restrict the use or enjoyment of the material itself, in fact there's a case for saying that the current system may even assist in the dissemination of folk music, because it allows more people to spend more time making, recording and distributing it.

That said, the issue of whether current PRS collection policy may be having an adverse effect on 'folk music gatherings,' for want of a better catch-all term, is a different matter. It's really separate to the principle of whether it's right for writers, arrangers and performers to be receive recompense for their efforts. I'd suggest that the principle is sound, but that the method, as currently practised by PRS and the like, may be flawed and require improvement.

This thread has thrown up some questions for me, and I'd certainly like some clarification from PRS on what they're up to and why.

If it emerges that what they're doing really is damaging folk clubs and sessions (and further complicating the situation around PELs - on which the jury is now returning) then maybe we need to get motivated.

And if we need to get motivated we have two choices. We can complain to each other here and elsewhere and continue to be ignored, or we can get organised and try to bring pressure to bear through channels that people like PRS would recognise and respect.

Now some might resist such moves as politicising folk music, and indeed it would be a huge shame if emerges that we can't just ramble on as in the past, but sometimes you have to accept the status quo and just get stuck in.

But 'twas ever thus in all matters of human endeavour - and I don't think it has anything to do with generosity of spirit or love of music.

Tom

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:26 AM

Once again I find myself not a little depressed by threads such as this one; not by the topic itself, which really doesn't interest me particularly, but by the effect the subject under discussion has on what does concern me; namely, the passing on of traditional songs and music.
It seems to me that the main issue raised by the activities of PRS and IMRO has to be the detrimental effect these will inevitably have on the running of folk clubs and music sessions, still, in spite of all the trials and tribulations, the principle venues for the dissemination of folk song and music. Yet once again this seems to have taken a somewhat minor role in the present discussion.
I suppose I really should put my depression down to my advancing years. I came into a scene where the success of a newly written song was judged by the number of singers who took it up and included it in their repertoires, and by the audiences that got to hear it, not by the size of the royalties' cheque, which, as far as I can make out, is fairly miniscule anyway.
The two songwriters I have had most to do with down the years have been MacColl and Seeger, both of whom took great pains to pass on their songs, either via typewritten copies they would hand out at club appearances, or through publications such as New City Songster, set up by Peggy in the late sixties and running into 20 volumes over fifteen years. Volume one comprised entirely of Ewan's songs (with the exception of one jointly composed by The Critics Group), but later editions were made up of songs by other writers equally keen to pass on the products of their creativity.
Sure, MacColl made a bomb out of 'First Time Ever' (a-decade-and-a-half after it was composed as a love song to Peggy), but in the interim period it was recorded by numerous professionals, many of whom neither asked permission nor paid for doing so. His attitude, as with all the songs he made was, 'at least people think it good enough to sing'.      
Discussions such as this, the unofficial recording of sessions, (which eventually became quite unpleasantly abusive) and numerous others on the copyrighting of 'arrangements' of traditional songs are, for me, an indication that 'The Times They Are A-changing' and the desire to 'pass it on' has long ridden off into the sunset. I have spent a fair part of my life recording songs and stories from people who have willingly passed them on and have taken pride in hearing them taken up by other singers; (in many cases from people who have been living on or below the poverty line), yet at no time can I recall the question of 'ownership' of those songs and stories having been raised.
While a few of these songs have been either self-composed or made by family or members of the singers' communities, most have been traditional – i.e. 'arrangements' of older songs.
Walter Pardon was once extremely puzzled at hearing two folk 'stars' quarrelling over which of them was to record one of 'his' songs - he told us "They're not my songs, they're everybody's".
For me, one of the most poignant examples of the 'ownership' of traditional songs is the case of Traveller John 'Jacko' Reilly.
John was discovered in the late sixties living in deplorable conditions in a derelict house in Boyle, County Roscommon. He was found to have a repertoire of extremely rare and important songs and ballads, which he gave unhesitatingly to the collector Tom Munnelly.
Many of John's songs were taken up by the revival, notable the never before collected 'The Maid And The Palmer' (Child 21) which nowadays is usually referred to as 'Christie Moore's, The Well Below The Valley' (not I hasten to add, Christie's fault; he is an enthusiastic advocate on behalf of the Travellers).
Tom Munnelly and others, recognising John's desperate situation, attempted to raise money by getting him bookings around Dublin clubs, most of whom responded willingly (with the notable exception of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, who refused to help on the grounds that John's singing wasn't 'Sean Nós' enough).
John died of malnutrition in 1969 in Boyle hospital, aged 42. He was posthumously given the dubious honour of becoming one of Peter Kennedy's victims. The rights to 'The Well Below The Valley' are at present owned by professional musician and broadcaster Phil Coulter.
I realise that much of what I have written here might be (quite justifiably) described as 'off topic', but for me, any attempt to claim ownership and financially benefit from traditional music is detrimental to its survival. The behaviour of PRS and IMRO are, I believe, a significant threat to the music many of us have spent a great amount of time and energy promoting, and some of the responses to that threat are an indication, to me at least, of the demise of a generosity of spirit that once fuelled the folk song revival.
I for one, mourn its passing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:11 PM

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.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM

No argument there John, we are aligned philosophically. I agree the barrier set by PRS is too low. If it were up to me, I wouldn't even want the pub to have to be licensed for the sake of a folk club either, on the basis that any commercial benefit from more pints pulled would be offset against the rent that the folk club has to pay anyway.

I'd like to see PRS or their equivalent try their tactics on Greek tavernas, they'd be lynched before they reach the exit. Or, more likely, they'd be lunched and things would be sorted out that way.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: johnadams
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:33 PM

Yes, George, I'm clear what the organisation does and who it is for.

In a sense, I'm posing a philosophical question. If you have to pay for playing copyright material to nobody for no fee then there is something wrong. (I like that comment about the lone folkie in the pub with no audience -does he make a noise!) By extension, we'll soon have to pay to play in our own houses. Will we have to pay if PRS hear us whistling in the street? It starts to get to be a ridiculous argument doesn't it.

There HAS to be a body of material in a popular 'vernacular' culture and some of it will be subject to copyright. The 'vernacular' (for want of a better word) culture is, in my mind, divorced from commerce and is an everyday expression and celebration of the arts in our lives. There is the freedom for a person to whistle a pop song in the street, or share a tune with fellow musicians at a house party. The difficulty comes when we cross over that threshold into the pub which is or was the traditional place to share music such as ours. Unfortunately, modern times have brought a commercial aspect to music in pubs. If it's a pub gig or folk club, no problem. Pay a fee.

My problem is that PRS want to draw the line between commercial activity and ordinary everyday music celebration lower than I want it drawn, thus curtailing what I perceive to be a freedom.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:30 PM

You're right there, Windy. I heard of a couple of other cases being refused membership, and cannot for the life of me imagine why or with what logic. When I joined them, back in 2002, I had only one or two covers, and indeed for the first year I never got any money because I didn't get a peep above the threshold, which was £30 a quarter if I remember right (I think it's £20 now). But they took my joining fee all right.

And their aggressive stance towards certain venue categories is indefensible, in my view.

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: GUEST,Windy
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM

Not many M/cat posters appear to disagree with the principle of paying writers&arrangers where their work is performed for gain,so we don't need to keep repeating it.Make a return of such works at concerts-sure,why not?

The issue raised in the original post is oppressive imposition of an annual fee by the PRS,to wit: at informal gatherings of funsters(IGF's).

The postings generally confirm the odium:
PRS adopt the legally questionable position that all music performance venues have to pay this'licence fee'regardless of origin to intimidate promoters,while straining to define the profit on a few exra pints (or coffees)as reward.
An intolerably large proportion of such annual fees finds its way by default into the pockets of those unconnected with and possibly hostile to,IGF's.
The arrival of a PRS rep hinting at litigation may well shape a landlords opinion that it would be less bother to entertain the few punters prepared to brave the smoking ban,driving,price of beer etc. with Murdoch's output(as loud as he likes,of course)than to permit freedom of expression in a few beardies.

Juxtapose the realisation(for me)that they actually turn down people proffering £100(ok,one-off,but plus a percentage)with their zeal re.venues and they really do look dubious.It certainly vitiates any claim to represent writers as well as their assertion that 'it is your organisation'(see previous threads).

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:07 PM

It does not matter if it is in fact of commercial benefit, I agree. But this is the rationale that PRS is employing, that's all I am saying. So, if one wants to defend their own case and avoid the license, this is the logic path they must follow (i.e. prove that it is not of commercial benefit).

Subject: RE: PRS Performing Rights Gestapo
From: Simon G
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:56 PM

I don't think it matters a jot whether the performance is of commercial benefit to anyone. It is the fact a work is performed that attracts the need for a licence. For example, PRS specifically waive fees for performances in religious services, but still require a licence.

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.

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

Ta George

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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