PRL- Whats this about

Subject: PRL- Whats this about
From: stallion
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:57 PM

A friend , who has a small shop and has been hit by the PRS for playing a radio, has now been asked for £400 from an organisation calling themselves PRL, and purport represent the recording companies, someone tell me this is a scam, I told her it was a scam since I hadn't heard a breath in this place. Her reaction will be to remove the radio, ask for a rebate from PRS and stuff the gravy train, please someone tell me this is a scam and not for real,
Pete

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:17 PM

stallion

Check if he means PPL rather than PRL, in which case it may well be genuine. See information on PPL on the BBCs site here: PPL

(On the other hand if it is PRL that might be a con trying to confound PRS/PRL initials).


Mick

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: stallion
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:14 AM

Yup, it is PPL, thanks for the link Mick. MMMMMM I suppose it's been a long time coming, however the consequences of the vigour with which PRS and PPL is that companies policy is to cease with the music where it doesn't add to the ambience, two of our local wholesalers have removed the radio from the front counter and stores because of the PRS application. My friend will be removing her sound system because it doesn't cost in, times is 'ard. PPL sounds a better deal than PRS for performers although I did see that it wouldn't help us. One of our tracks was used as a theme song for a short radio series, which apparently have to be negotiated separately between artists and radio company, since non of us can be arsed, and they probably have/afford better lawyers, doesn't seem any point wasting energy and money!
Pete

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:35 PM

NOTE;

PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd) and PRS are two different organisations collecting royalties.

PPL collects for the public use of commercially issued recorded work and collects on behalf of the record companies and the performers contributing to the finished recorded work which is being used publicly i.e; brodcast on radio or television, played in discos, pubs, restauarants, shops etc.

PRS (Performing Rights Society) collects on behalf of songwriters and publishers.

I am sure that PPL still has it's own web site.

Hoot

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 09 - 07:40 AM

So does this mean they have to pay twice for using the same song?

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Darowyn
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:31 PM

Not if you sing it yourself.
Then it's just the PRS.
If it's a commercial record with no music on it that anyone wrote (whale song for example) then it's only PPL.
Otherwise, yes.
I make no comment as to the wisdom of pricing music out of our ears, or on the desperate problem that music is now worth next to nothing to the writer or performer.
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: treewind
Date: 02 May 09 - 01:05 PM

"The wisdom of pricing music out of our ears, or on the desperate problem that music is now worth next to nothing to the writer or performer"

Well you can't have it both ways. Where do you think the PRS money goes?
I think you are mixing the charges made by PRS etc now with their poor and widely criticised performance in rewarding writers (unless they were superstars) over 10 years ago.

To join the PRS you now only have to pay £10 and produce a signed statement that at least *one* token song or other work has been performed in public or broadcast, and then as long as you keep up with the paperwork they do pay.

Anahata

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 May 09 - 01:34 PM

If the radio station is already paying to play the material, that should be the end of it. Why should the store with a radio in the background pay again? (Around here, in the U.S., everyone has radios--nice for casual listening, but essential during tornado season in Texas and other parts of the Midwest. I'm sure every region has these dual considerations.)

It's not like the U.S. doesn't have it's own junkyard dogs guarding the till for the record companies (who seem to be pretty bad about paying their obscure artists, but that's another conversation). But it sounds like the U.K. has taken it to that "Nth" degree one hears about.

SRS

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Art Thieme
Date: 03 May 09 - 12:49 PM

This makes me glad I'm ill and had to bow out of the music biz before this came to be the way of the world. It's sickening--absolutely wrong and insane.

Art

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 09 - 01:01 PM

Since the fees are paid by the people who are playing the music, it seems to me that it's the radio stations who are playing it, and the shop owners are the ones who are listening to it. Do people also have to pay a fee to listen to music that is being played by others?

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: open mike
Date: 03 May 09 - 04:37 PM

what?
does this mean that the person is playing the radio is a public place?

and if so,.does that mean that the ads also are being heard by the
public? if so...wouldn't that be to the advantage of the advertisers?

they should be happy to get the covereage...as should the musicians..

and their labels...

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 May 09 - 04:48 PM

Are there advertisements on the radio stations playing these songs?

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Peace
Date: 03 May 09 - 05:07 PM

Radio stations pay for the playing of various songs that are listed with various 'collection' agencies. The stuff in the first post is sheer bullshit, imo, with NO offense meant to Stallion.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Peace
Date: 03 May 09 - 05:08 PM

I wonder when the various dictionary companies will charge writers for using words found in the dictionaries?

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 03 May 09 - 06:07 PM

I hope that PPL and/or PRS start screwing every shopkeeper for money. Then the shopkeepers may do as stallion's friend has and switch the music off. I enjoy listening to my choice of music when I wish to listen. I am driven round the bend by having someone else's choice inflicted on me when I'm trying to choose what to buy in a shop.

Richard

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: stallion
Date: 04 May 09 - 06:48 AM

Peace, I had to read the first post again, oh and no offence taken. My view is that there should only one body collecting the dough not several and not lots of people biting off chunks akin to piranhas, lots of tiny fish nibbling off enough bits to kill. We paid a sum of money calculated on the number of copies x the number of minutes, for a licence for our first cd, Radio pays for playing it, shops pay two bodies for playing it and customers don't want to listen to it!(Richard!) That's it, one payment covers all and make it fair.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 04 May 09 - 07:24 AM

I believe that much of this is being misunderstood. Can I just make one point here.

You write a song and copyright it or maybe not. Another person/record company hears your song and records it, it sells millions perhaps. Two questions?

1.Would you as the writer/composer expect to earn some reward for your effort?
2.How would you go about getting your just reward?

I am not defending any one or any organisation here but as a matter of fact did work for a while for one of the organisations mentioned.

Hoot

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,JM
Date: 04 May 09 - 09:07 AM

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/2009/04/22/bob-jackson-dementor/

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 09 - 02:14 PM

""1.Would you as the writer/composer expect to earn some reward for your effort?""

If you're waiting to get it from the PRS, and your name isn't Paul Simon or equivalent, just DON'T hold your breath while waiting.

Don T.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 May 09 - 04:45 PM

There is a copyright in a tune (or arrangement).

There is a copyright in the words.

The performing right in both is administered by the PRS.

There is a copyright in a sound recording. IT IS NOT THE COPYRIGHT IN THE SONG OR THE WORDS, OR THE PERFORMANCE. IT IS THE RECORDING. PPL administers the performing right in it.

See Section 72 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended). Once it made some sort of sense, but our masters in Brussells have totally screwed it up. Now PPL can screw people who play radios in public, as well as the PRS.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: stallion
Date: 04 May 09 - 05:36 PM

cheers Richard for clearing that up

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 May 09 - 05:59 PM

People who play radios in public should be prosecuted under noise abatement bylaws.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: s&r
Date: 04 May 09 - 06:08 PM

Richard - re your post above:

is the copyright payment administered on all recordings/performances by these bodies, or only those which have been written/performed by members of said organisations?

Stu

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 09 - 06:34 PM

Members only I beleve, certainly with the PRS, and only SOME members, as per my comment re Paul Simon or equivalent.

Don T

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 09 - 06:36 PM

"People who play radios in public should be prosecuted under noise abatement bylaws."

LOL

Boomboxes, too, Q?

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 04 May 09 - 07:30 PM

If it is any help; It does not cost anything to register with PPL. If you have contributed to a sound recording that has been issued commercially you are entitled to a share of the royalties collected by PPL if and when the recording is played in public performance. It is therefore in your own intereset to register but do bear in mind that returns can be very small or in some case very large. However if they are very large then you would already have a manger or somesuch collecting for you and taking their "share" too.

If you really want to know more then contact the organisations direct.
Don't just sit there and gripe.
Hoot

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 May 09 - 08:05 PM

Although much of the stuff played on boomboxes isn't music, yes, bylaws
should apply.
In Calgary, Community Standards Bylaw 5M2004 may apply; as it reads, it applys only between 10pm and 7am- prohibits use of a speaker system within 150 meters of a residential development. The bylaw also specifies maximum decibels exterior to a house, separate figures for day and night (65 and 50).

Restaurants here do not play music; I believe a cabaret or other business license is required.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 09 - 02:57 AM

Both PPL and PRS only represent "members'" works. A PRS member is a generally understood concept. A PPL member is a bit more complicated, as it also collects (as set out above) for PAMRA which administers the performer's right.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: treewind
Date: 05 May 09 - 03:15 AM

"If you're waiting to get it from the PRS, and your name isn't Paul Simon or equivalent, just DON'T hold your breath"

That is SO last century.
It really isn't true any more.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:04 AM

PPL and PAMRA are now one and the same. Even when they were two different organisations PAMRA received payments on behalf of their UK members from PPL THE collection agents for the UK.

Some performers might not realise that in the USA a recording could be played over radio stations without incurring any kind of PPL type costs and therefore the performers on the recordings received zilch apart from exposure. I don't think things have changed in the last few years but I could be wrong.

Incidentally I think that Paul Simon probably is a member of ASCAP in the US and not PRS but again I could be mistaken.

Hoot

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Edthefolkie
Date: 05 May 09 - 11:07 PM

I'm with Richard Mellish on this one. Twice now I've been in the local Co-op and bloody Mariah Carey or a similar yodelling contest has been inflicted on me from the ceiling about 3 feet away. Send the PRS and PPL men round boys!

Seriously, there is a difference between that sort of noise pollution and some poor bored person in a knick-knack shop listening to Radio 2. I suppose as usual the enforcers will "do" the easy targets while ignoring T*pSh*p et al blasting bumcha bumcha bumcha right across the street.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 05 May 09 - 11:36 PM

These laws are put into action, because the music you're playing might
influence your business. It creates an atmosphere that customers like,
and makes them more likely to spend more on you, and sometimes return
to buy from you. Therefore, the artists' music would have contributed to your business.

This is similar to independent television programs which blur out brand name logos if they don't have an advertising deal with those companies. "The Trailer Park Boys" (a Canadian show)
for example, have blurred out many logos in their series, such as the Lay's potato chips logo when one of the characters was eating them in one scene, and blurring out the signs on certain chain-stores. Fans who saw it on the show might be influenced to purchase those brand names, or shop at those stores. If they don't have an advertising deal with those companies, and they don't blur out those logos, the t.v. show can ask those companies for a cut in their profits, if sales go out. If the logos are blurred out, they can't go after those companies for money unless they have a deal with them.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 May 09 - 02:12 AM

The next chapter?

Music rings it's own death nell! But the funeral will cost them, they'll be paying through the nose, the mouth will no longer be of any use, you'll have to pay to have a voice that no one will afford to listen to.

This seems like it's the dog wagging it's own tail. Once it bites down hard it's really gonna howl.

It bad here in the US but you guys are really in the shit. Good luck
every where you turn some one's nailing somebody for something if it's music. Bars, sessions, street singers, parties (unless they're held indoors at someone's house?). Sorry, didn't mean to let on & give the bastards another arena to choke out the life.

When's it gonna come to an end, when will it be enough, where's the balance. Seems like it'll be all washed up before it's all figured out.

Barry

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Wotahoot
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:34 PM

Treewind:Are you saying PRS No longer distributes royalties along these (administratively convenient)lines:

Total royalties: £ x mil.

To P.McCartney e.g. 15% of x
   P.Simon (via ASCAP mutual) say 4.7 % of X
   H.Carmichael estate of   say 5% of x
etc
etc
etc
eg Anahata    say 0.00000005%of x
eg Wotahoot   say 0.000000000001 of x

Cheers

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: treewind
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:55 PM

Yes - they now have a system for dealing with the small stuff, and it works.
We won't get rich on it, but it probably covers the cost of the drinks at a gig... (based mostly on own performances of own arrangements of trad material) and once a payment of over £30 for one track played on Late Junction (BBC R3) a couple of years ago. Don't ask how they work the amounts out...

Anahata

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Mary Humphreys
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:56 PM

Dear Whatahoot,
The small gigs scheme distributes royalties to PRS members who perform in folk clubs, festivals etc. The return is considerably greater each quarter than the initial joining fee in my experience.
All it requires is that you have composed/arranged at least one song that has been recorded and registered as your work. Every time you perform that song ( or someone else does, based on your arrangement) a royalty is paid.You do have to complete some paperwork each quarter, but it is not an onerous task.
The returns are not of Paul McCartney proportions, but I wouldn't expect them to be as my fan club is minuscule in comparison. But I don't believe in throwing good money away when I have worked long and hard for it in research & musical arrangement. I think I deserve some rewards for my labours.
Mary

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: treewind
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:59 PM

P.S. I didn't realize Mary (sitting 6 feet away behind me) was answering the same question at the same time, referring to the same PRS membership...

Anahata

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Wotahoot
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:44 AM

Thanks Anahata and Mary for reply-really glad someone is making a bit out of it.
I should have used the term total 'licence fee'rather than royalties as they rake it in on public domain,cop con(see other thread)traditional stuff etc where the claim to represent authors does not hold water.
The thread is about PPL-I'm dismayed to find yet another private enterprise tax on playing a radio,I thought the MCP wotsit of PRS did that-Mr Bridge if you are still around can you point us to the Euro Directive? Yes,I know I could ferret it out for myself.

Re PRS though:On one reading perhaps every(UK)folkie or jazzer making any public performance should fork out their tenner and ask for a slice-even those of us who only play in sessions in PRS'ed pubs can claim to be arrangers of trad stuff,lots of it.

Apologies to worldwide members for being boring. Cheers

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 May 09 - 01:57 PM

Information about the small gigs scheme (and a lot of other information) used to be freely available on the PRS website. For some reason they've moved it all to a members-only area, which doesn't help non-members to understand the system or to decide whether it might be worth their while joining PRS.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:07 PM

09:47 | Friday November 14, 2008

By Robert Ashton

PAMRA, the performer collection society, has been wound up two years after merging into PPL.

In September 2006 PAMRA merged its operation with PPL to provide the UK with a single collection society for neighbouring rights. And as part of the merger it was required that PAMRA wind itself up as a company, a task undertaken by Baker Tilly this week.

PAMRA co-Liquidator Peter Souster announced that the last act of the collection society set up in 1996 would be to release in the region of £275,000 to PPL to be allocated to performers. He says, "PAMRA was a successful and solvent organisation which closed its affairs by allowing its final balances to be distributed to thousands of performers."


Peter Filleul, founding advisory council member and PAMRA director, says the final payment to PPL had been held back in reserve until it was sure there were no other liabilities from overseas societies.

In its 10 years of operation PAMRA accumulated over 17,500 members and Filleul says it distributed more than £4m.

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:11 PM

I think it's going to be UK SI 2003 2498 but I'd have to dig a bit more to get hold of the original Eurogook.

It was after 1997 (I have a consolidated text of the act at that date).

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:02 PM

I don't understand the bit about PAMRA paying money to PPL. Quite amusing to read that PAMRA released money to PPL to allow it to be distributed to performers. PPL had paid the money to PAMRA in the first instance so it should already have been in the hands of the performers if PAMRA were doing their job.

PPL have always been the collection agency for the public performance of commercially issued recordings in the UK. It was set up in the early days when radio stations began broadcasting records. The record companies thought they would lose sales so PPL was set up to licence the use of the recorded work.

As stated above any monies distributed by PAMRA to UK performers were originally collected by PPL and paid to PAMRA to distribute to their members.

I notice that no-one has yet mentioned AURA ????? but it's a pretty good bet that hardly anyone on the folk scene would have heard of them.

Hoot

Subject: RE: PRL- Whats this about
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:12 PM

Except me. You haven't looked me up, have you? If you have a little rummage into the history of performers' rights, James Wolsey was my partner, and Amanda Harcourt my employee. We started the spat with the PRS about collecting foreign revenues, and self-licensing. Naomi Moskovic was a former assistant of mine too. Later at another firm I was part of the driving force of the investigation of the lost PPL money that never got to the individual session musicians.