Heavy Handed PRS

Subject: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 12:51 PM

A friend of mine runs a dance school for children and has done so for at least forty years.She received a phone call (not a letter) from a person representing this organisation who told her that from
November 1st her school was liable to pay fees to the society for music played for these young children to dance to. A record player and a piano player. When it was understood that the business had been running
for some years he implied that the payment could go back five years.
This is heavy handed to say the least, the costs to her school could amount to £2-300 per annum. This organisation should be promoting children to be interested in Music and Dance.
I would appreciate your views on this subject. I am appalled that they have to sink so low to get their money.
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 01:29 PM

Typical of the bullying tactics of the PRS

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Andy Jackson
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 02:04 PM

Quango mentality I'm afraid!
They don't understand "...This organisation should be promoting children to be interested in Music and Dance."

For an organistaion that in theory is supporting singer songwriters they seem to cause nothing but hassle in the folk scene.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 04:22 PM

Since she is using licensed music and performances of same for a commercial purpose, namely operating her business, she should pay a royalty and the amount should be reasonable.

200-300 pounds annually is about one pound per business day, more or less.

That doesn't seem excessive to me. How much does each student pay per hour of instruction?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: SharonA
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 04:50 PM

Alan: Beware of phone calls demanding money! Your friend could be the victim of a scammer who has no connection to the PRS but who is just trying to bilk money from people by frightening them. I recommend contacting the police and consulting with them about this phone call, just in case it's bogus.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 05:07 PM

Northumberland County Council libraries were obliged to fill in PRS forms for a recent series of nursery rhyme workshops - intended audience 2-4 year olds.
Whether or not the titles used were "anon."

As a result any suggestion of musical activity in libraries causes staff to go into meltdown....

Helpful lot, the PRS. Not.

Paws

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 05:46 PM

C'mon beeliner. You don't know what the music was. Now what about Kwik Fit mechanics entertaining their exhaust customers with Radio 1.ncellation of the licences during thr duration of the festival

Or what about the festival operating in licensed premises who were told to arrange the cancellation of the licence for the duration of the festival, presumably to charge a higher rate

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 06:12 PM

Well, I am in the US, here there are are two main organizations, ASCAP and BMI, they exist in order to serve their members, the composers and publishers, in collecting royalties. They are both fine organizations.

If the muffler - excuse me - silencer shop pipes in commercial-free music they pay a fee to the supplier who in turn pays the licensing fees.

I have never heard of ASCAP or BMI accused of gouging, their rates are quite reasonable.

If you dance to the jig you pay the piper.

If the lady doesn't want to pay she can use public domain music or write her own.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 06:27 PM

The point, beeliner, is that PRS won't accept that any gig consists of public domain music.

They require payment whether there is copyrighted material or not.

Secondly, unless your name is Paul Simon, or Stevie Wonder, or similar, you have sod all chance of ever getting a payout for your own songs, but if you sing NOTHING BUT your own songs they will still hound YOU for payment.

Don T

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 06:54 PM

The payment is in case the mechanic turns on his own portable radio while he works

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Bernard
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 07:00 PM

This tactic is typical of the PRS these days - they go for the easy targets. There are plenty of places flouting the law, but it isn't obvious from their Yellow Pages entry.

I work as a sound engineer, and we have to pay PRS because we use a music source to test equipment in our warehouse...! This has nothing to do with public performances, or even whether there are people actually listening. As we are listed in the Yellow Pages, we had a call a couple of years ago from the PRS - and now the MCPS have jumped on the bandwagon.

We cannot escape, because we need to know a CD player (for example) works before it can go out on hire...

A bit like we have to pay a TV licence because we have TV receivers on our premises... even though we don't use them for watching TV - and neither do our clients. It's just that a VHS player has an analogue TV receiver in it... aah! After December 2nd they won't have a case, will they?! Methinks they haven't realised that, yet...!

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 07:08 PM

I defer to your knowledge of the situation in th UK.

Our licensing bodies don't work that way. Their aim is to get their members' material used - fee gouging would defeat that aim.

But my question remains unanswered: How much does the school charge each student per hour of instruction?

It doesn't seem to me that one pound per business day would be an oppressive fee. Last time I was in London that was about the price of a Cadbury bar.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Bernard
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 07:25 PM

It's not the amount, it's the fact that it's the thin end of the wedge. A few small amounts can kill off a small business!

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 07:46 PM

Well, OK, Bernard, I'm sure electricity is a considerable expense for a small business too.

Why not just shunt around the meter, or tap into the supply of the building next door?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 08:36 PM

What's PRS?

Please consider this a rememder to use thread titles that are universally understandable. Usually, words work better than acronyms.

Thank you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 09:18 PM

Originally 'Performing Right Society', but now known simply as 'PRS for Music'.

From Wikipedia:

PRS For Music has reciprocal agreements with similar organisations in other countries and is able to grant licences to "perform" around 10 million pieces of music.[citation needed]

PRS For Music attempts to distribute the licence fees collected from music users to its members in a way that matches the actual distribution of performances made. Users such as large venues (for example Wembley Arena, the Royal Albert Hall, large provincial theatres) and broadcasters (for example BBC Radio 1) submit "returns" or playlists. PRS for Music samples smaller venues that host live performances or use piped music, and extrapolates the sample to determine the distribution of all licence fees from similar venues.

PRS For Music is a non-profit-making organisation. After operating costs are deducted (which in the past have averaged about 12% of turnover) the remaining money is distributed to the copyright holders (in the case of PRS, these are the songwriters or the publishers with whom they have agreements). The owners of the copyright in the recording itself are served by an unrelated organisation (the PPL). So if a cover version of a song is played on BBC Radio 1, the PRS collects a fee on behalf of the writer and publisher while the PPL collects a fee on behalf of the record company whose recording is played.

The PRS exacts a range of tariffs from organisations (businesses, government organisations, educational establishments, and so on) dependent on their size and the extent to which they are using music, and whether they are commercial premises or not.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 05:16 AM

'After December 2nd they won't have a case, will they?! '

How so?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 05:41 AM

Surely the performers are not so tight as to want payment of Performing Rights charges to little children learning to dance from their music.
So every school that has a teacher playing the piano and using CDs for teaching should also be charged ?
What is the World coming to?
I have received PRS cheques in the past (Don't get excited Taxman ) they amounted to about £3.50 a Year they can have my donation back and a little note as to where to put it.
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 05:54 AM

This old chestnut is running again, why shouldn't electricians get royalties every time someone switches on or uses something you have installed? So when a track from one of our cd's was used for a theme tune for a radio programme why didn't we qualify for any money.............anyway..............my beef is that many of the small dancing classes are really living on the margins with as much profit in it as folk singing and by and large are performing a public service, my daughters and now grand daughter go to the same dancing class in the same church hall with the same teacher who does it for the love of it and scratches a living, they don't own a car, live in social housing and the majority of the recipients of the PRS money live in F***ing mansions and own fancy cars, and if this can be defended by the odd person being thrown the scraps from the table then shame on you all. Music should be a joy and should reach as wider audience as possible if there are mega profits in it then sure tax them and re-distribute the wealth not screw the little people to give the rich more money. To the carping wannabees that think by defending the PRS gestapo it might somehow benefit them, dream on. This is really annoying me, I get the impression that the PRS would like to see just the plastic Simon Cowell creations and the rest taxed for listening to the crap.................I have to stop my blood pressure is off the scale............

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 07:27 AM

Alan: "I have received PRS cheques in the past (Don't get excited Taxman ) they amounted to about £3.50 a Year they can have my donation back and a little note as to where to put it."

GUEST: "...the majority of the recipients of the PRS money live in F***ing mansions and own fancy cars..."

Al, meet GUEST.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,stallion sans cookie
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 08:16 AM

that post from guest was me

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,stallion
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 08:19 AM

it should have said the majority of the money, £3.50, I rest my case

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 08:33 AM

.........so what's the significance of 2nd December?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Leadfingers
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 08:39 AM

Most of the money cllected by PRS is paid to a VERY small group of BIG wheels in music and Publishing , and a VERY small part is paid out to the VAST majority who have managed to jump through all the hoops and filled in the acres of paper to actually get PRS membership for their dozen or so pieces of music .
Alan says he has received £3.50 in a year - What does Michael Jackson's estate get per annum ? Or Sir Paul McCartney ?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 08:42 AM

I'd love to know the proper ins and outs of the PRS's legal position. What happens if, say, one were to state categorically that only public domain music was used, and that you have no intention of paying, and that you'll be seeing them in court?

But, on a side note, if it's a business, can't she just claim it back as expenses when she fills in her annual tax return? Obviously, she'd have to stump up the money in the first place, which might be a struggle, but if she gets it back eventually, that's not ultimately such a big deal.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 09:24 AM

I raised the question before on here regarding the status of these bods who do the phoning up and threatening.

My guess is that they are self-employed, a bit like vacuum cleaner or double glazing salesmen, getting paid only by results.

I remember looking up the Companies House annual report for PRS and pasting it on a previous thread. They spent millions on "staff salaries" but only had about five bona-fide employees IIRC.

They do a necessary job in some respects, but their tactics stink IMO.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 09:46 AM

"Alan says he has received £3.50 in a year - What does Michael Jackson's estate get per annum ? Or Sir Paul McCartney ?"

Well, if Alan's songs sold millions of copies he would be getting big bucks too. No offense to Alan, I'm sure he's a talented musician and hopefully his day will come.

Michael Jacksom certainly had something that the public liked. The fact that his music is not my personal cup of tea is beside the point.

Regarding Sir Paul, I personally think several of Neil Innes' parodies are better than the originals, "Another Day", "Get Up and Go", and "Doubleback Alley" are the first that come to mind. But Paul's sold a lot more records.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 12:38 PM

Beeliner... Well, OK, Bernard, I'm sure electricity is a considerable expense for a small business too.

Why not just shunt around the meter, or tap into the supply of the building next door?

A rather lame argument deliberately avoiding the point.

If someone is using someone else's efforts in order to make money (mobile DJ, for example), then the PRS have a case. However, when someone is using their own, or public domain sound sources, then they are merely parasites going for the easy target.

To take your unfortunate parallel with electricity, a business has a choice - they can cut down their consumption, and therefore their expenditure. They can even choose a cheaper supplier.

Just supposing your electricity bill was based on some arbitrary figure dreamed up by the electricity company. Would that be fair? But that is how the PRS work, and the people who matter rarely receive a fair 'cut' of the earnings - a seriously high proportion simply goes to administration.

Sorry, I don't wish to continue with this pointless argument... I'm out.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 12:56 PM

From Wikipedia, quoted previously:

"PRS For Music is a non-profit-making organisation. After operating costs are deducted (which in the past have averaged about 12% of turnover) the remaining money is distributed to the copyright holders (in the case of PRS, these are the songwriters or the publishers with whom they have agreements)."

I don't consider 12% 'a seriously high proportion'.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: The Vulgar Boatman
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 01:49 PM

What I would really like to know is, does PRS have a special legal position which enables them to send out bills (which would otherwise require a contract of some sort between PRS and the organiser) and require people to fill in forms without first demonstrating that their members' music is being used, or can they actually be required to provide the same standard of proof as anyone else in English civil litigation? Oh yes, and does the old criminal offence of demanding money with menaces still exist? Just thought I'd ask.
Come to think of it, I've been playing live music for something over 40 years from pubs to the Royal Festival Hall, and the PRS seems consistently to have been the most universally loathed organisation that I can think of in connection with the music business during that time. If it was so vital to us all, you'd think it would have generated a bit of respect in forty years...

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,stallion
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:09 PM

So Mr McCartney gets the bucks from the millions of sales and gets another bite of the cash on the probabality that anyone owning a music device audible to more than one person will be playing his songs? so cos we only sell a couple of hundred cd's we get nowt when a track is used as a theme song for a radio program, that really does whiff a bit it isn't as though he needs the money, idea, why don't the PRS distribute the cash inversely proportional to the ammount of cd one sells, that way struggling artists can be supported, a sort, performers in need society, it would also free up some jobs since they may be able to persue a musical career full time and give up their day jobs.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 03:04 PM

There is a subtle difference here
If music is being played for people attending an event which charges for people to listen to music,pay for music on a CD etc then a proportion of that money going to the artists I can see is fair and correct.
If music is being played for teaching purposes I do not consider that that should be subject to PRS,the children/students are going to learn to dance,the music plays a very small part of their entertainment, most of the evening taken up with dance instruction.
What was the significance of DEC 1st mentioned earlier? Is there some rule change?
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 03:44 PM

Just tying up some loose ends:

1. Bernard says that he refuses to continue a 'pointless argument'. I was under the impression that our exchanges were part of a friendly discussion. Funny how perceptions differ.

2. Alan, it is not a matter of 'music being played for teaching purposes' but of the owner of a commercial establishment using licensed music for commercial purposes. If she told the owner of the building where the business is located that she should not have to pay rent because her accomodations were being used 'for teaching purposes', what do you think the owner's response would be? Also, isn't the music an essential part of the instruction? I understand that there are some forms of dance that do not involve music, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

3. I am neither a composer nor publisher of music and am therefrore not a member of AFTRA nor of BMI. I know LOTS of musicians who are and I must say in all honesty that I have never heard a negative remark about either of those organizatioins. It's too bad that the situation in the UK is different.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 04:29 PM

I don't think there should be a charge for any music used for educational purposes... EVER! I don't care whose music it is or what educational establishment.

It is disgusting to require schools to pay for their choirs and bands and drama groups to learn and perform anything not in the public domain. I remember (when I lived in US) being stunned how much a tiny county high school had to pay for the privilege of using popular music in the marching band. And $500 to put on the play The Mouse That Roared.   I know for a fact the school did not make enough in ticket sales to pay for the rights to perform it. That was 1996 or there abouts. No wonder there are constant fundraising events to keep music and drama programs from crashing. No wonder schools are removing them from the curriculum.

My work has me sometimes involved with Arts Development for a large county council in the UK. Loads of dance, music, and drama groups are going under thanks to the current financial crisis. The members of PRS and other like organisations would do well to offer amnesty for a few years until the economy recovers. Especially as it appears that only the huge names benefit from it anyway.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Simon G
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 04:32 PM

Firstly PRS is a cooperative, its actions are as representatives of all those friendly song writers you know who are members. Nobody has to join, although PRS effectively have a monopoly. PRS is not an arm of government nor a quango.

You are only require a licence from them if you play music in your premises which is copyright by one of their members. Play music licenced using say Creative Commons or that is out of copyright and you owe them no licence fees.

I just wonder how many folk clubs are in premises that are paying the £10 PRS fee per musical event (if its a pub) -- even if only a handful turn up it is still £10. By way of comparison, here in Canada, SOCAN charge a fee per annum of $60 - £34 or 3% of revenue which ever is higher. For 50 events that is $1.20 (£0.68) per event.

The PRS and SOCAN agree on the 3% of revenue for larger premises. The PRS is very heavy handed with small premises and events, I suspect a large proportion of that they collect from this activity goes to pay for sales work - all those salesman trawling through yellow pages and local adverts.

I would suggest SOCAN collects no less money for its members it just doesn't employ an army of salesman to pester small premises.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 05:24 PM

We are in total agreement Virginia.
A percentage of the yearly turnover I think is being mentioned, I am sorry to be so vague as the person concerned is just a friend who was worried about this approach for money,over the phone. It is difficult to obtain full minute details from a conversation with somebody but this is how it was passed on to me.I cannot understand the significance of Nov 1st it must have been a new ruling regarding PRS in Schools.
Remember that in the course of an evening or days instruction one record or a pianist playing one piece could only be involved.
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 05:58 PM

Mr Happy, that's the date from which an analogue receiver will have nothing to receive, I imagine (from the context), and therefor no licence fee should be incurred for that component of a VHS recorder.

Don T

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 06:01 PM

""I'd love to know the proper ins and outs of the PRS's legal position. What happens if, say, one were to state categorically that only public domain music was used, and that you have no intention of paying, and that you'll be seeing them in court?""

I believe their case would revolve about the fact that even public domain material may be subject to arrangement copyright, so no music can be claimed to be exempt.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Kev Boyd
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 06:24 PM

Mr Happy / Alan Day: "what's the significance of 2nd December?"

As Bernard was discussing TV licencing I assume he was referring to the upcoming digital switchover that's due on December 2nd in the North West of England (and quite possibly elsewhere). After this date it won't be possible to receive analogue TV signals so in theory his VHS player with an analogue receiver won't require a license. It'll be interesting to know how the TV licensing authorities take to this theory!

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 06:27 PM

I continue to find it extraordinary that on a site dedicated to music so many contributors seem to be opposed to the idea that composers and songwriters should have no rights to their work.

Education may be important, but does that mean schools shouldn't pay for their textbooks? Perhaps they shouldn't pay the teachers either? Why is music different? If they're going to use the results of someone's efforts, then that person should be rewarded.

Presumably VirginiaTam expects to be paid for her work in Arts Development? Why then shouldn't the actual artists be paid?

There are real questions about whether PRS's charges are proportionate, whether the money they collect gets to the right people, and the attitude and behaviour of their agents, but if you love music you should be supporting the rights of composers to their work.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: beeliner
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 07:48 PM

I believe that a 'gremlin' snuck into Howard's first line and it should read:

"I continue to find it extraordinary that on a site dedicated to music so many contributors seem to be opposed to the idea that composers and songwriters should have THE rights to their work."

Apart from that, I agree completely.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 02:52 AM

It is not the composer's rights we take issue with, it is the organisation's targets (small struggling education establishments) and tactics (which has been described as thuggish).

Do you think it is fair that small schools are priced out of being able to use popular music or new arrangements of classical music in their orchestra, marching band, and choir repertoire? Sad, because it is the popular music which attracts students to the curriculum, where they learn other music which is in public domain.

This practice is going to return us to the days where culture is only for those who afford it.

There has to be a fairer way of collecting and disseminating those fees.

Sorryy, my back gets up whenever there is a mention of Paul McCartney because I know what his performance contract is like and is likely to be same for other big names.

No members of trade unions permitted to work his gigs. Why? It turns my stomach.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 03:22 AM

I think it is the way it is collected and distributed is the problem, Pound for pound the PRS money paid by the venues and concerts i attend are not proportionally distributed to the peoples who's music i am listening to, if only 5% (arbitary hypothetical figure)of the income of PRS goes to the folk industry they should only pay 5% of the fee. A fairer way would be to charge per song and distribute accordingly, at first it would seem to be an administritive nightmare but on line tax returns seem to work so why not on-line PRS returns.
I don't write songs but I do significantly "tweak" them,occasionally I do hear my tweaks being repeated by others but I don't expect to get paid for it. The one to ask would be John Connoly the writer of that fine old traditional song Fiddlers Green, it's personal info, but you once saw a version of it on most juke boxes, I wonder if he got his fair share of the PRS pot.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 04:46 AM

Beeliner, thanks for pointing out the mistake in my post.

I'm no supporter of PRS's methods, as opposed to its aims, but it seems probable to me that they are now targeting smaller users because they have already got the bigger users signed up. Anyway, it's nothing new, they've always gone for smaller users as well as the large ones, and their attitude has always been agressive and objectionable.

Some replies have suggested that schools and other educational establishments should not have to pay for music at all. As VT says, the issue is more about how much they should pay. If schools are being priced out of using music that is because PRS's pricing structure is wrong. But you could say the same about other essentials like textbooks, or teachers, or toilet rolls. Schools, just like everyone else, should expect to pay for what they consume.

There are two big problems with PRS. The first is that it is a monopoly (worse, one with statutory support), so it can set its prices and if you don't like you've no alternative other than not to use any copyright music (and even then you'll have an argument). The other is that it is an inefficient bureaucracy. Since there isn't really a workable alternative, most of its members are probably glad to get whatever money finally filters its way down to them. However if the PRS pricing structure is actually deterring people from performing their music, are they really acting in their members' best interests?

Another problem is one which also crops up with the Licensing Act - both seem in capable of recognising that there is a world of public performance outside the "music industry" and which is not run on a commercial basis. To apply the same scale of charges to these and to commercial operations is inappropriate - PRS's charges should pay some regard to the economics of the venue.

I know of at least one folk club which was threatened with closure after the PRS visited, not least because of the PRS rep's obnoxious attitude. So far as the pub landlord was concerned, hosting the folk club was part of the pub's role in the community, not a commercial operation - OK, he'd sell a few extra pints but he was quite prepared to lose the music and the small profit on these rather than pay the PRS.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 04:54 AM

Just for the record
______________________________

""I'd love to know the proper ins and outs of the PRS's legal position. What happens if, say, one were to state categorically that only public domain music was used, and that you have no intention of paying, and that you'll be seeing them in court?""

I believe their case would revolve about the fact that even public domain material may be subject to arrangement copyright, so no music can be claimed to be exempt.

Don T.
______________________________

On the contrary. If you state that you are only playing public domain material, the PRS will happily leave you alone.

Also they accept that if you are playing a work in the public domain of which arrangements have been registered, you are usually making a different de facto arrangement unless you are, yourself, the arranger and claim so, or you, yourself, report that you are playing, or trying to play, someone else's arrangement. Remember that PRS do not operate under criminal law, but civil. They are working on behalf of their members so are following - and have to follow - prior case law. Essentially, if you play a traditional song or tune and say it's your own arrangement, you are in the clear - unless it's obviously very very similar to a registered arrangement and/or the copyright holder decides to take issue with you.

The registration of arrangements is only about making sure that a better percentage of the blanket licence collection goes to the folk sector, NOT about taking songs or tunes out of the public domain. Once a work is PD nothing, repeat nothing can make it private - whatever it may say on the record sleeve or in the song book.

It might require an expensive lawyer to prove it, but the chances are you'll be meeting the arranger or 'writer' in court - not the PRS.

Also - PRS do NOT set the tariffs. They are set by in independent body whose name escapes me for the moment.

Tom

Agreed about the counter-productive tactics, however, and I have written to PRS many times about this,. Sadly my meeting with the Chief Exec never happened - nor has the promised low rate/movable licence for folk clubs, about which my lips are still supposed to be sealed. I'm up to my eyes with climate change now - someone else will have to take over.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 05:04 AM

I recently got a speculative letter from PRS to suggest that my workplace should be registered in the event of providing background music to 'my workforce'

My workplace happens to be my flat, and my workforce is me!!!!

As an aside, if a builder, or any other type of worker, whistles while working whether that would be a public performance?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 05:42 AM

Tom, I don't doubt what you are saying is correct. However, PRS does not charge by the song, neither is the charge made direct to the performer. It is the venue which must obtain the PRS licence. The PRS argues that it is impossible to guarantee that a copyright piece or arrangement will never be performed, and a single performance is sufficient to trigger the need for a licence. This assumption is probably realistic, especially for folk clubs where there isn't a fixed set-list and anyone can stand up and sing, often without knowing the copyright status of the song.

I'm not sure its good news that the tariffs are set by an independent body, as that appears to remove any possibility of negotiating in individual cases.

The PRS's tactics have not only been discussed many times on here and other music-related forums, but stories appear from time to time in the national press. They seem to be oblivious.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 05:56 AM

Can't speak for PRS but the Irish counterpart IMRO is predatory to the point of destroying public performance (or would be if it was allowed to).
One of the issues yet to hit the fan here is the plan to demand payment from individual cinemas each time a song or tune is played on screen during a performance (despite the fact that film-makers have already paid for the use of these during the making of the film).
Irish cimemas, thanks to falling numbers, are running on a shoestring basis. There is one cinema in this county (Clare) which will almost certainly close if such a policy is enforced, leaving us with the propect of a 120 mile round trip to see a film. Our local arts centre occasionally shows films - presumably this practice will cease too.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Sailor Ron
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 06:02 AM

Our local folk festival only uses venues that are PRS registered i.e. they have already paid PRS, yet we are landed with a demand from PRS for a % of our 'take'. We challenged as to 'by what right can you do this?' The reply is, more or less, 'we can do what we like'.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: s&r
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 06:09 AM

Debbie Mulloy of the PRS said at the AFO (Association of Festival Organisers) conference that the charging structure is currently up for review. The AFO is one voice that will put a case for Folk music. Debbie suggested that if you had problems with or caused by the PRS charges then you should get in touch and explain what the problems were.

Two of the problems mentioned were festivals which had a large non music content as part of their programming and so felt that a blanket fee of 3% of total ticket sales led to a disproportional charge on the music content, and festivals and clubs where a large proportion of their musical content was not PRS music, and so the PRS content was disproportionally loaded. Their are other problems I am sure, so tell the PRS.

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 06:14 AM

Agreed - it's far from ideal, but to effect change rather than just whinge, people must start from the status quo, rather from some imagined situation.

I know a number of people who have successfully avoided a demand for a PRS licence by stating firmly that only public domain material is being performed at their venue. This is easier to claim for a tune-session than a song-gathering of course, but the principle is sound, and the distinction is critical.

I have also been agitating for a 'creative-commons-style' tick box for PRS member registrations of both original works and PD arrangements - the idea being that we can choose to have our works treated as PD when no money is changing hands. PRS are not agin such a scheme, but it needs a lot of members to demand it before they go to the trouble of changing their already complicated system. If enough members ticked the box, this would then make it possible for most clubs and sessions to opt out - but it won't happen overnight because PRS like everyone else are locked into the existing laws of the land and a legacy of former decisions.

Meanwhile, the 'soon-to-come' club tariff would be a good if tiny start. I should clarify that it could (would) apply only to amateur clubs/sessions - not fee-paying/door-charging events, for the legal reasons alluded to above.

Yes, the blanket charge system is a sledgehammer - but the alternatives are all so expensive that there would be no money left at all for writers.

If PRS remain habitually recalcitrant, it is only because insufficient numbers of MEMBERS have campaigned for change (that's the only pressure they're supposed to respond to - because they represent us, not the users/public). I delayed my meeting with Steve Porter because I wanted to run a survey of members and users first.

I also wanted to set up a folk club organisers group (that's the main reason I wrote the living tradition article), so that PRS would have a 'proper' body to work with, instead of a medium-weight singer-songwriter from the Channel Islands.

But then Steve resigned and I retired - and I'm still waiting for the club organisers to see the merits of such a plan (I mentioned it again on the FCO forum only last week).

As I say - over to you.

Tom

Can you tell I'm having REAL trouble starting my next essay?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 06:15 AM

Yes - Debbie has been one of my main corespondents - I've just emailed her again for an update.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 06:19 AM

Bother - and I should add that AFO and FAE tend to represent festivals and larger venues (who can better afford the - almost free, if you compare it with other costs - licence). They tend not to be so bothered about small clubs, singarounds and sessions because they have their own equally important agendas. Hence the need for a Small Folk Gathering Organisers Group - or whatever you want to call it.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Bloke from Poole
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 07:26 AM

Somebody said:
"But, on a side note, if it's a business, can't she just claim it back as expenses when she fills in her annual tax return? Obviously, she'd have to stump up the money in the first place, which might be a struggle, but if she gets it back eventually, that's not ultimately such a big deal."

It doesn't work that way - as a small business she would only be claiming it back from herself, not much gain.

By claiming it as an expense a small business could get tax relief on it, which might reduce her net cost by around 25-30% or so but the rest comes off the bottom line.

The actual tax payment will be made in the year following that trading year so it would be a case of pay now, get the tax relief maybe one to two years later.
Obviously this applies for all expenses.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 07:55 AM

The only real benefit for claiming expenses is the VAT that you can claim back if you are VAT registered ,A small dancing school would not be VAT registered.
I cannot understand this across the board percentage of the company turnover. The business is not based on people paying to listen to music but to dance. The music is a small factor. It's like the Water Board saying all your dancers must use the toilet at some time whilst they are there so give us a percentage as well and so on.The PRS have got to be fair on these matters.
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 08:25 AM

I don't understand either of the last two comments.

I've never had to make any PRS payments. (Never received any either, despite the fact that I've had music of mine played on BBC radio...)

But I claim for plenty of legitimate expenses on my company's annual return that are similar to this. These expenses are all deducted from the amount of tax my company has to pay.

Why is a 200 quid payment to the PRS any different to, say, travel expenses?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: s&r
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 08:47 AM

Matt - you don't get your travel expenses refunded by the tax man. You just don't have to pay tax on them. If you pay tax at 30% you pay - say - £1000 travel expenses, and the tax man effectively gives you back £300. So your travel costs you £700.

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 08:48 AM

So if someone approaches your business and wants a percentage you just hand it over thinking that it will be OK because you can offset it against your tax ?
A business has to make a profit to exist if it makes a loss it will be pointless thinking Oh well that's good the Tax man owes me a few quid.
Getting back to the subject ,surely if a pianist is playing music for children to dance to, it could be nursery rhymes then how can an across the board tax be fair. It just cannot!!
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 09:10 AM

Apart from having different agendas, festivals differ from small clubs etc in being directly responsible for obtaining a PRS licence. Folk clubs are usually located in pubs where the venue, not the club, is responsible for getting a PRS licence. Clubs are dependent on the goodwill of the landlord, and if the landlord falls out with the PRS there's not much the club can do.

As a performer, I have no involvement with PRS licensing, since that is the responsibility of the venue, but it has a direct effect on what I do. I should have been providing set details for PRS returns, but in more than 40 years of performing, both as a floor singer and semi-pro band member, I have only been asked to do so on a handful of occasions - at the larger festivals and by the BBC. I many cases I would find it difficult, since I don't always know what is traditional and what is copyright, and it is very difficult to find out if you haven't learned it from a printed or recorded source (and those are not always correct).

As the organiser of a series of ceilidhs, again I have no involvement with PRS licensing, since that is still the responsibility of the venue, but again it has a direct effect on what we do.

The problem the smaller clubs and similar events face is that they depend entirely on having a PRS licence in place but are excluded from the process. I suspect that they are also effectively excluded from the Code of Practice and complaints procedure (including referral to the Ombudsman) since they are not themselves the licence holder.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 09:12 AM

I think, Al, that if your friend was to tell PRS that she was only playing public domain music on a piano then they should, repeat should, leave her alone. But she may need to take it to a higher level within PRS because the person on the phone may not understand the issues.

If, however, she is using recordings then the counter arguments above apply - as they do with any business (it's not PRS's fault that her business is small - they have a duty to be even-handed (ha!) across the board).

The only way to change things would be to apply/lobby for a special opt-out for educational use. I'm not sure what the rules are for schools at the moment, there may be an existing loophole for education, but if not, then there would be a case for trying to make one.

PRS are not going to do it themselves though.

Someone has to actually take on the battle and try to effect some change.

That's the only way things ever get better

Tom

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 09:20 AM

Tom, I'm interested that some sessions have apparently been successful in persuading PRS that only non-copyright material is performed and that they don't need a licence. The impression I'd got from other discussions was that PRS usually took the view that this could not be guaranteed, especially since many pieces often assumed to be traditional are in fact copyright, and insisted on a licence in most cases.

I think people in the folk world would be more receptive if we could be assured that the licence fees actually went to the people whose music we perform, rather than just enriching the megastars as we cynically assume. The "Gigs and Club Scheme" is aimed at singer-songwriters and doesn't seem to cover this situation.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 09:23 AM

Howard - I've suggested that the new club tariff could be held by the club not the venue, so they can have control, and can move venues when necessary without licensing becoming an issue with the landlord. I think that's now in the scheme. (Clubs can still operate under the landlord's licence too).

PRS divides the world up into a) Concert Venues and b) Gigs And Clubs. At Concert Venues you fill in a specific 'green sheet' with your set list. PRS will add the copyright details if you leave them blank. The rest are collected under the Gigs and Clubs scheme. You won't see any paperwork because artist members send a generic set list to PRS every 50 gigs or so. But those gigs are within the PRS remit, and will appear on their system - even if the promoter is not aware of it.

Yes, it's not easy to work out who holds copyright on 'folky' material. The PRS database is a hopeless mess (as I keep telling them). You'll find 'Dirty Old Town' credited to dozens of 'writers' and 'arrangers' and you can't even prove it's Ewan's song they're talking about because there are no sound files or music sheets. (Something else I've tried to have introduced). But if you're playing tunes you probably have some responsibility to know where they came from - not least because the writer may be living (nearby?), and may not feel as most of us do about creative commons!

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 09:31 AM

"just enriching the megastars as we cynically assume."

Err, it's a pro-rata system, so I don't think this really applies (although I know folkies love to believe it)!

I've done very nicely out of my modest scribblings. I'd have hit the buffers years earlier if it wasn't for PRS. I think I get a fair cut for my endeavours. The megastars are performing to, and recording for, millions, so they get commensurably more. That's fair, I think.

And yes, the GACS scheme applies to arrangers as much as writers. You get 100% for your own performances of your own arrangement (it's split with Anon, who doens't bother to collect his share so you get the lot), just as song and tune writers do.

Tom

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 09:48 AM

Thanks for the advice Tom I will pass it on
Al
PS thanks for the Duet recordings

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 10:08 AM

""On the contrary. If you state that you are only playing public domain material, the PRS will happily leave you alone.""

Not the experience I've had, I'm afraid.

I've had two venues closed out from under me, which were wholly traditional, because the PRS hounded the licensees.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 10:35 AM

Don, I believe the method involves handing in a series of 'set lists' showing all the songs and tunes 'performed' in the session, together with a statement that these must be de facto new 'original arrangements' because the instrumentation and variations were unique to the night.

The new tariff will remove landlords from the equation. I'm not disputing your suggestion, and I know it's happened elsewhere, but sometimes landlords have not been given the necessary information by the musician. There have also been times when landlords have used PRS 'hounding' (yes, I know they do hound - and have complained about it to the PRS board, unlike most people) as an excuse to get rid of an uneconomic activity. So it's not always clear cut.

When claiming that a session is 'wholly traditional' it's necessary to know the copyright status of everything played. (No Dusty Windowsills, Spoota Skerry, Ride On or Fiddlers Green for example).

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 11:28 AM

I'm pleased to hear the distribution system works for folkies. Since PRS seem to have moved away from returns from every gig to a system of random samples I had wondered how many folk venues were actually getting sampled. However I still have doubts whether smaller sessions and singarounds feature on PRS's radar. It would be interesting to know if anyone has direct experience of PRS sampling such an event - I've never met anyone.

My point about the Gigs and Clubs Scheme is that it is aimed at performing writers and arrangers. If they're performing their own songs or arrangements they can put in a set list and get paid. However there no longer seems to be a system for submitting returns from small events which don't get sampled (although in my experience very few folk venues ever seemed to use them - possibly because the club wasn't the PRS licensee and the landlord wasn't interested)

I agree that a performer should try to find out the origins of material they perform. However in practice this is very difficult. It doesn't help that the PRS database is only accessible to its members - another example of their muddled thinking, since surely they should be making it easier for the people actually using the music to find out what the copyright position is.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 11:56 AM

Yes, the inaccessibility of the database is another beef. I've suggested that there should be an error-free public version. The trouble at the moment is that it's a DIY input - people just put in whatever they want, hence the 59 writers of Ride On (not that PRS pay out on that - they pay out on what they believe to be the legal case).

But in fairness to PRS they don't technically need to police the database - just keep a record in case of a legal claim. Then it'd be down to the performer and the writer/arranger to sort out the deal between them.

You're wrong about GACS being just about writer/arrangers though - any member who plays a non-'Concert Sales' gig can claim, and most do. There are loads of (trad) arranger-only members of PRS, who do quite nicely out of reclaiming their own performances of trad works that they've registered. If you do lots of gigs maybe you should join up and do the same. The more folkies the better.

"However there no longer seems to be a system for submitting returns from small events which don't get sampled (although in my experience very few folk venues ever seemed to use them - possibly because the club wasn't the PRS licensee and the landlord wasn't interested)"

See my post above. ALL gigs EVERYWHERE are covered by GACS (including sessions and singarounds - though I don't think many PRS member would include them - hope not anyway!) - it's just that it's up to the PRS members, rather than the promoters, to send in a claim (of which both promoter and landlord may remain in ignorance if no-one's explained the process to them).

And lots of us do - every gig I've ever done (apart from sessions, singaround and benefits, obviously, or any where I've been asked to keep schtum for some good reason) have gone into GACS. And it brings in a nice little sum without which I'd have gone bust in about 2002!

Sessions do get sampled. That's when you whip out your 'trad-only' set list - and it does work.

Tom

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 01:08 PM

TOm, with respect, you're missing my point. Why shouldn't singarounds and sessions be included? They should be in premises with a PRS licence (obviously if they're not it's better not to draw it to their attention). If I play a copyright tune or sing a copyright song at one of these, why shouldn't the composer receive their share of the licence fee?

The GACS is for PRS members - essentially it is for composers and arrangers to report performances of their own material. If I understand PRS's website correctly (and its very difficult to find information on there), they now only take returns from larger concert venues, and for smaller ones they rely on sampling. This means there's no facility for non-members to reporting performances of someone else's work.

If sessions do indeed get sampled, I wonder how representative they are? What is bog-standard at one session may be unknown at one just down the road.

I'd like to think the folk world would be receptive to PRS. What it needs is a tariff system which reflects the economics of small-scale events, and a distribution system which gives people confidence that their licence fee will actually go to the artists whose work they perform, which in turn means an accurate system of reporting what is actually performed. Perhaps this already exists - if so, the PRS is doing a very poor job of informing people.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 01:15 PM

To keep this on topic, there seems to be a specific rate for dance tuition:

Tariff "DS"

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 02:10 PM

Sorry, Howard - yes, I see what you mean. Agreed it's not a very perfect system in terms of copyright material being performed at sessions with no sample being taken to get the royalty to the right writers (but not arrangers, by definition).

PRS do accept this, and they suggest that they redress the balance using the PRS Foundation, with funds festivals and other good works - including some in the folk field.

I think they could do more, and once tried to suggest a fairer system, through the FRATS sections of the MU (who I support). But they'd only recently fought hard to get the current system in place, and as it's a huge improvement on its predecessor my suggestions rather fell on deaf ears.

One solution would be for one member of the session - someone who has, perhaps, put out a CD or a song/tune book (i.e. published some arrangements) - to join PRS and then regularly submit set lists to GACS as 'musical director' of the session. The royalty could then be used to buy a pint and a bag of crisps to share between all the players!

And yes, the PRS website IS one of the worst I have ever encountered, from a design point of view, and I've told them that too - lots of times!

The key is in this phrase from the notes on the DS tarrif in your link:

"repertoire means all and any musical works (including any
words associated therewith), the right of public performance in
which is controlled by the Performing Right Society Limited"

That does NOT include public domain material.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 02:49 PM

Many thanks Howard for the Tariff "DS" Link
I will pass this information to my friend so that she has the full details of what the phone call was about.
If she had received this properly through the post on official notepaper, there would not have been any concern on her part and that the person asking for details of her turnover and business details on the phone would not have been necessary and caused her distress and concern as to whether it was a scam or not.
I can now put her mind to rest, it still does not alter my feelings on the charges however, where small children are learning song and dance.
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 04:37 AM

How do PRS separate a payment to specific artists from a lump sum payment?
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 04:40 AM

The law in the UK is changing.

See HMG response to consultation

I have no further information.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 08:13 AM

An article I have just read.

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/FundraisingBulletin/968885/Fees-playing-music-charity-shops-will-excessive-Association-Charity

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 04:51 AM

The simple solution would be for them to stop playing music in their shops.

Anything which stops shops playing background music has my support!

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: sapper82
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 12:14 PM

Was chatting to Una, of No fixed Abode on New Years Eve when they were performing at the Rising Sun at Middleton.
She told me that the Landlord of The Three Stags Heads, at wardlow Mires, has had to stop sessions there because PRS is demanding £1000 a year for a license.

That is another venue they have killed off.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 02:32 PM

£1000 sounds a lot, if it's just for the sessions and doesn't also cover recorded music. According to PRS's Tariff P, for up to 100 people the charge should be £7.92 per event - £411.84 pa for a weekly session. Still too much if much of the music is not actually controlled by PRS (usually the case at a folk session), but a lot less than they're quoting.

The problem is, in situations like this the landlord often isn't interested in getting into prolonged negotiations with PRS for something which probably doesn't bring in very much extra business, and so they stop the music. Everyone loses out, including PRS's members.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: s&r
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 07:05 PM

Or nearly £1000 if there are twice weekly sessions...


Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Mr Happy
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 10:34 AM

Who is PRS? Are they part ofgovernment?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 10:38 AM

But that's still a tiny fraction of the likely pub turnover of £2-400k.

If The Three Stages Heads was running a purely traditional (public domain) tune/song session, then it was up to the musicians to provide the landlord with the information needed to negotiate with PRS - (assuming the landlord actually wanted the session to continue, and wasn't using PRS as an excuse, as has been known to happen elsewhere).

If it was a mixed session - with copyright material being used - then it's right, both morally and legally, for a licence to be required. Just because you choose to call music 'folk' doesn't mean it's actually public domain. You might just as well expect free beer.

It would be better to concentrate on the areas where PRS are out of order, and try to avoid knee-jerk reactions to activities which may in fact be both legally and morally correct.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,woodsie
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 11:02 AM

The unfair thing is that no matter what music is performed at the venue the fee of ... say £300 is divided up amongst the current most performed composers nationwide. This % is estimated from field officer's returns from random samples of music played up and down the country. I know this because we regularly have samples taken at one of our clubs. So if the venue plays all public domain music then Paul McCartney and the other ultra-rich fat cats are guaramteed a % of money paid by that venue! There was a case several years ago when Bono challenged the PRS for chargeing his band U2 several £1000s, on the grounds that they were performing all self penned material and by the time the PRS royalty came back to him from that gig it was less than 1% of what they had paid! The reason for this was COSTS - also did you know that PRS is a registered charity!!!

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Simon G
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 12:17 PM

Your correct Tom the charge is a small charge compared to the annual turnover of a pub, however margins are very low in tenanted pubs so its a significant additional cost off the margin.

In my experience landlords rightly see it as a cost associated with that particular event and quickly realise that they need to sell a lot of beer to recoup £7.92 for the session. They quickly look for other less costly groups to invite into the pub.

Clearly the PRS aren't interested in changing their policy. We should be considering lobbying the government to exclude participant music events from licencing. My suggestions is that events where 30% or more present participate in music or dance can perform any published work without requiring a licence.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Tootler
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 06:13 PM

She told me that the Landlord of The Three Stags Heads, at wardlow Mires, has had to stop sessions there because PRS is demanding £1000 a year for a license.

Does the pub play recorded music at other times? If so then surely the landlord will still be liable to pay a fee to the PRS as there are royalties to be collected.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM

My suggestion is probably idealistic and impractible but since we know that advertising works, why not require that each song and tune that is royalty-vulnerable be listed and posted on the premises, giving the artist, the format and CD in which it can be found?

The artist(s) would be sure to profit from it, I would argue.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,woodsie
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 04:39 AM

I'm sure that you can request that PRS attend your premises and take a sample, although they will not give you a date - they WILL announce themselves on the day. I attend a Jazz/standards open mic session in a venue that also hosts private weddings and other functions with live music. This venue does not have any jukebox or such. After several samples being taken by PRS officrs the PRS fee was in fact REDUCED by a substantial ammount due to the balance and frequency (1 or 2 nights weekly) of Copywrite material and public domain stuff. I can't remember the exact ammounts, but it was something like from £300 down to £150 p.a. So it is definitely worth contacting the PRS. However, be wary and talk to/get permission from the landlord first as the PRS charge is likely to be stay high or even increase if there is a jukebox, radio, TV or other piped music source active on the premises. Also please do not confuse PRS charges with music/entertainment licensing costs as these are a completely seperate animal!

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 06:24 AM

Re: 3 Stags Heads - a unique establishment, open as a pub just 3 days a week, Fri, Sat, Sun + Bank Holidays, the rest of the week, it's a pottery.

There's no telly nor any canned music, just quiet conversation, superb food,fabulous real ales, [don't ask for lager!] genial atmosphere, cosy real log/coal fires.

The Saturday night sesh was at irregular intervals

A huge shame this has happened

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 06:26 AM

http://www.whitebeertravels.co.uk/stags.html

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 06:29 AM

Tootler, there are different tariffs for different types of entertainment. A PRS licence for playing recorded music won't cover a live session, and vice versa.

Mr Happy, PRS is not a government organisation, however it is established to manage composers' copyright interests, which are protected by law. Whilst one can be very critical of the manner in which it operates, the alternative would be that in order to perform a copyright piece you would have to get permission from the copyright owner, and negotiate a fee in each case. PRS is probably the most practical solution. A similar model is used in most countries.

More information is on the PRS website

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: s&r
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 07:11 AM

No-one minds the artist getting paid. Many people object to being bullied and blackmailed

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 08:35 AM

The more I read the excellent replies to this subject ,the more it seems that an urgent revamp of the whole system is required. It is just a mess with a number of people obviously working on commission for the amount of money they rake in.
I agree that artists should be paid for their recordings, but not at the expense of the venues where traditional music or teaching is involved. A proper form filled in by the DJ or organiser of the music played and then charged properly to the club,I am certain this used to be the old system, now changed to a percentage of the turnover where all music is played?
Something needs to be done!!
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Mark Powell
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 11:30 AM

Like many, my income from PRS is part of the income I need to make a living. (95% of the PRS's income goes to 5% of its members, and I'm amongst the other 95%.) I don't live in a mansion, but my PRS and MCPS royalties help keep me off the dole. I've worked ****** hard to get to this stage and, whereas I'm usually up for doing a charity gig if it's something that I think merits my support, I expect anyone who uses my music to pay for it!

If the PRS's tactics were a little heavy-handed in this case, that is regrettable, but if the dance school charges for its lessons, it is operating as a commercial concern and has to pay its expenses, like any other. Does it not have to pay for electricity, water, etc?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 04:23 AM

I tried to post yesterday but for some reason it hasn't appeared. I'll try again:

The dance school (which was the original subject of this thread) is one thing - as Mark says, it is a commercial concern and should be prepared to pay for all the resources it uses, including the music.

The situation with sessions is a bit different. In most cases, in my experience, these are not run by the pub landlord to promote his business, but by the customers for their own enjoyment. No one is making money out of the performance, and the landlord may or may not make extra money out of it from bar sales. In a number of cases, the the Three Stags' Heads being only the latest, the landlord has presumably taken the view that any additional bar sales are not sufficient to cover the extra cost of a PRS licence. This suggests to me that PRS has got its fee scales wrong for this type of performance.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 05:04 AM

Please re-read my posts above. There are changes afoot which (PRS tell me) should remove this problem once and for all (though, admittedly, they're taking their time about it).

We need to establish if The Three Stags Heads (isn't that too many words?) was a traditional tune session - in which case the musicians could and perhaps should have advised the landlord on how to negotiate with PRS for a lower or even no fee. It shouldn't have led to the session being stopped unless the landlord wanted it so.

If, however, the session played copyright material then the PRS fee is reasonable and legal - though (again, as above) I think we need a system which allows writers to waive their royalties when no money is changing hands. (That's up to us members to fix IF we choose - not for 'consumers' to impose).

In either event, there's no reason why the musicians at the Three Stags Heads couldn't have had a whip round for the £7.92. How many people went, on average? More than eight? And they wouldn't put a quid in a pot? I'm sorry but there's something wrong here.

The sharing out of the collected sum to the writers is a different matter - but that's purely between we members and our Society. I get three figures from PRS each year, and I'm just a two bit folkie. Like Mark it's an important part of my income, specially now that I'm a full time student and not earning.

Folk people need to understand: Copyright exists, immediately, in any work as soon as it's created - whether it be an industrial process, a painting, a song, or a book, and that's a core plank of society. If we had no such thing, we'd have no society because no-one would be able to develop any products.

All PRS is doing is, legally, collecting the rightful dues of song-writers.

Yes, they are sometimes heavy-handed - but they are operating in an environment where a lot of people seem to think songwriters have no rights. There is a lot of misplaced antipathy - and we've seen a lot of it here.

If people have a problem with PRS, they should write to the Society, not whinge on web forums. They do listen, and if enough people make a good case, they sometimes even respond - (but they don't read Mudcat - though I've told them to often enough).

PRS's biggest failure is explaining what they do and why. But I suspect they've given up trying. Plenty of people here have tried to explain, and yet still we keep reading posts from those who think that just because you call something 'folk' it means it's out of copyright and fair game.

It just goes to underline yet again the importance of attribution.

Anyone playing music should know if that tune or song is public domain or not, as a matter of manners and as a legal necessity. Not to do so is asking for trouble for someone at some point.

The culture of calling everything 'folk' is to blame here. We need to enshrine the word 'trad' and know if we're using it correctly or not.

Does anyone know: was the Three Stags Heads a (mainly) trad session or not?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: s&r
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 05:31 AM

I suspect that most complaints re PRS are to do with aggressive tactics rather than charges per se. The approaches to small businesses and such are frightening with the implication of costly court cases. Even Kwik Fit folded - their licence is required because the customer or other members of staff might overhear a personal radio playing. What a nonsense.

As to the OP I can see that the school in question should pay for performance of music once the children have learned the dance: the learning and rehearsal time is incidental to that performance and is hardly a public performance in itself.

In the case of a session, if one item is copyright and the rest aren't surely it makes no sense to fine the traditional players on the basis that someone had played a copyright number. Let's fine all drivers because some of them might exceed the speed limit.

There should be a PRS. It should be regulated. Fair use policies should be entrenched in the legislation. All of course IMHO.

I do believe that the copyright term is excessive - compare it with patent rights which last a fraction of the time if intellectual copyright, and represent often a much larger investment of time effort and money.

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 07:28 AM

Tom, first of all let me say that I agree with what you are saying. In particular, I agree there is no reason why the musicians shouldn't help the landlord to negotiate with the PRS, and indeed to contribute to the costs, which on a per session basis isn't much. However, I know from my own experience that an aggressive approach by PRS can be sufficient for a pub landlord to decide that he wants to have nothing more to do with them. And while the musicians may be happy to put into a weekly whip-round, the landlord will probably have to pay the full yearly amount up-front.

I would also like to pick you up on a couple of other points:

So far as your own income from PRS is concerned, I would hazard a guess that most of this comes from either your own performances or other musicians' cover versions performed at formal events, and notified to PRS via the small gigs and clubs scheme. However if I were to perform one of your songs at an informal session, I would be very surprised if you were to receive anything, because the PRS would be unlikely to learn about it.

On the question of attribution, I agree with you that ideally one should do this, and I try to do so when I can. However a lot of my material, particularly tunes, is stuff I have picked up by ear from playing it in sessions. I often don't know the title (perhaps the person I got if from didn't either). Even where I do know the title, it can be difficult to identify a composer, and songs and tunes are often incorrectly attributed to "trad" on albums or the internet. The ISWC database lists titles but there is no way of knowing whether this is the same piece of music, as scores or soundfiles are not included. In practice it can be very difficult to know whether a piece is copyright or not, or who composed it.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Alan Day
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 08:14 AM

I agree Howard how can an across the board charge for PRS be equally distributed ? How can Tom Bliss(and other musicians) receive the money he is entitled to if PRS havn't a clue who is entitled to the share of lump sum charges.Surely this could also lead to corruption IE large sums of money being dished out to musicians/ record companies not entitled to them.
Over the last few years I have written a number of tunes which I am very happy for people to play. I expect no money from my work only the odd thanks for a lovely tune ,or that tune you wrote was a load of rubbish. I do not rely on this money to live like professional musicians, I want to see them get their share. Children learning to dance however, have parts of tunes or songs played for them during a session,they may not even have one record played through in total.
Leave the kids and their teachers alone and go after the real culprits!!
Al

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 08:35 AM

On WikiP's ref page for PRS, there's a link to a press item about Bono [of U2] complaining to them about him & the band being charged several thousand pounds for membership to perform their self composed songs, yet receiving considerably less in royalties - did someone allude to corruption?

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 09:46 AM

Hi Howard and Alan,

Well the truth is that if PRS was to try to survey every musical event in the land, it would cost so much and take so long that no writer would ever get a penny. So it has to be a compromise. This is not a perfect compromise, but it's a MASSIVE improvement on the system of a few years ago when people like me got almost nothing, always.

I get a certain amount of generic dosh (it's labelled things like 'ringtones and jukeboxes' - neither of which I've ever featured on, I'm sure!) which is an attempt by PRS to recognise the imperfections of the system. When you consider how infrequently my songs are sung in singarounds compared to, say, Slade being played in shopping centres at Christmas, it's right that I should just be getting a few quid to show willing (and it's probably about right anyway).

PRS - as I've said here many times (but no-one seems to be listening) - also balance the books by dishing out huge sums through the PRS Foundation - which helps to pay for a number of folk festivals and fund other Good Works. Again, this is to help redress the limitations of not being able to sample every event and attribute every song.

The large sums go to the people who have large exposure - ie the hits. It's not corruption, it's a (slightly flakey) attempt at fairness. And when members like U2 spot an imperfection, then PRS usually respond. Room for improvement, certainly, but please let's deal with the reality and not lazily demonise a legitimate concern.

Agreed, PRS do need to rein in their staff and contractors - but the reason they've become so combative is because of the erosion of writers rights in the digital age, and attitudes like those we can see above. You reap what you sow.

Howard, I agree about the problems of finding the names of tunes you've learned aurally (I'm guilty too here) - which is why we need the creative commons opt-out - but the principle is sound.

Certainly people should know and, crucially, always state or quote the writer of any song they sing.

Tom

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: s&r
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 09:53 AM

The concept of PRS foundation balancing the books by charitable works is just a bit disingenuous Tom. If you are paid for ringtones that aren't yours, that's someone elses money. If fifty sessions pay for the club tent at Cambridge without anyone's agreement that's not the PRS money.

Robbing one group to give to another is romantic if it's Robin Hood, but he was still an outlaw

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 11:17 AM

So how would you do it, Stu?

Have every single play, of every single piece of music, everywhere in the country, be logged and recorded, then calculated and paid out?

Just stop and think about it for one moment. Imagine the man hours - it couldn't possibly be done.

Remember, the licence rates are not set by PRS, but by in independent body. They are fair and tested in law.

We do have an issue about 'accidental/incidental' collection of non-member copyright material and public domain material in folk clubs and sessions, but we're working on that - and it's a tiny teeny weeny fraction of the money collected on copyright works, so I for one at least understand why it's not PRS's top priority.

The only solutions are

a) opt-outs for majority non-member/pd events like folk clubs and sessions (working on it), or

b) requiring every song and tune always to be logged and submitted (would you prefer that)? here - borrow my pen.

Most folk-style writers like me don't actually want money from sessions and clubs (certainly not free-entry ones) - but people also sing and play material by people who jolly well do - and they have the power of the law on their side.

Personally I think less than a quid per person (or a few pence if it's a big gathering) to cover the legalities while we try to come up with something better, plus many thousands paid out in recognition of the flaws in the system is anything but disingenuous.

How the money is shared out among members is purely an internal matter. PRS is owned and run by it's members, and the small players like me may get the least money, but numerically we are in a majority. Some of us bother to agitate for improvements, some don't - but the division is down to us, not the public or the government.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 11:22 AM

BTW: The ringtone thing is because PRS can't marry up every penny they collect to individual works (see above). The balance is divided on a pro-rate basis. So it's not someone else's money - it's ours, just from a slop pot that it's impossible to separate out.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: s&r
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 11:53 AM

Tom

Giving away money that shouldn't have been charged isn't balancing books.

How would I do it?

Dunno really. Not how it's done that's for sure.

I think I'd start by ignoring places where music is not a significant part of the earning potential of the business eg Kwik Fit - no-one would have a tyre changed at KF because the mechanic had a particular radio program on.

I would cancel the ruling that forced our local festival to tell licensees that for the period of the festival the PRS licence that they pay should be voided, because we were to be charged 3% of turnover even though we used PRS licensed premises.

I'd ignore sessions where the organisers could and were willing to declare that atl least (say) 90% of tunes were PD.

I'd charge for profit making performances of course, and pay the copyright owners.

I'd look for reasonable negotiation instead of legal threats.

I don't know this but I suspect that the revenue collectors are of the same ilk as the cold calling salesmen we all love. I'd ban cold calls and send polite letters if necessary.

But it's all hypothetical isn't it?

Stu

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 01:19 PM

Tom is right, it would be totally impractical to submit detailed returns for every session. Nevertheless, the current charge for a live music session for less than 100 people with not admission charge is now £8.00. PRS deducts 20% for admin costs which leaves £6.40 for distribution. Based on the sessions I attend, at least 2/3rds of the material should properly attributable to "trad". Of the remainder, about half is unattributable because of lack of information. That leaves about a quid to be randomly apportioned between PRS members, which may or may not include those whose music was actually performed.

On this basis PRS is charging roughly 8 times what they should. The people who have to pay this are not the ones promoting the music, and may see little commercial benefit. Whilst I agree that the musicians should be prepared to contribute, by the time the landlord has fallen out with the PRS the damage is done.

The fact is that PRS is getting itself a reputation for bullying behaviour and for actually damaging live music. It is hardly surprising that it meets with a hostile reception, even from those who support its objectives.

Subject: RE: Heavy Handed PRS
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM

Howard, you should write to PRS in those terms - as I have done.