 sj |
||
|
||
PRS call for a Busking Day
|
|
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 14 Jun 10 - 07:06 PM Could it be because not enough people are prepared, as Dan and I have been, actually to engage with PRS - and too many remain content merely to snarl at them from the undergrowth, and often in ways which completely miss the rights, legal issues and practical costs of the situation, while promoting misinformation and encouraging misunderstanding and conflict? I'm sorry but this is 'them and us' nonsense. I do tire of the defence that anyone who may be critical of PRS cannot be well-informed. The public who are not PRS members have to rely on those who are members to use their voice to effect any practical change. PRS members have responsibilty to the public but often some members think that the best defence is to continue to simply mock their concern. The fault here is plainly with the failure of PRS to actually engage with the public and especially in their many attempts to broaden what is performance in order maximise revenue for their members. It is this which is promoting misinformation and encouraging misunderstanding and conflict. As you say: The PRS system is flawed, for sure, and some of their initiatives have been wrong-headed, and we have to correct them all the time. The PRS is its members. The tail is wagging the dog if you (its members) feel you have a system where you are embarrassed by and have to be constantly correcting the initiatives those who are employed to collect and distribute the fees. Do you not understand and accept that the damage is done, both in real and in PR terms, long before any of these initiatives can be corrected? I suggest that it should be the PRS members who dictate any initiatives and the extent and areas where revenue is maximised and the employees are left to the collecting and distributing. Do you think that there is really any comfort to be had for the public in the fact that some PRS members may not like the damage that has already been inflicted by initiatives undertaken on their behalf? Would you not accept that the public may expect PRS members to prevent the damaging initiatives before the damage is done? |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Jun 10 - 07:16 PM ""From all I know, PRS does more good than harm,"" That still begs the question,.....For whom? Maybe one day a folkie somewhere will get a couple of quid, but I don't intend to hold my breath waiting. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Jun 10 - 07:29 PM ""Informed criticism, wherever it comes from, can even now help those who might otherwise not be able to see "outside the box""" It's not about seeing "outside the box", so much as being outside the box when the cash is being split up between bigger "names". I'd need something more than the word of one individual before I'd believe the statement that guys like me do get paid out. Amongst the many semi and full pro composers I count among my friends, I do not know of a single one who has ever received anything from PRS. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 14 Jun 10 - 08:03 PM i agree with all you say, Roger. But there is only so much one member can do. I tried to involve the MU but they have a different perspective. But at least I tried, snd people getting angry about the things that are not wrong is simply not helpful to people trying to effect change. Don, do your friends complete gigs and clubs scheme returns? If they are not playing many concert venues or getting radio plays its the only way PRS can know about your performances. They don't just pay out because of the existance of a song, and nor should they. This the Performing RS remember. Obviously you need to get over the sdmin cost threshold, but again that's completely fair and reasonable. Members who gig will get money IF they do the paperwork. tom |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 15 Jun 10 - 03:20 AM Tom, you misunderstand me. I am not a composer (apart from writing the occasional tune) and I am not a member of PRS. I am not concerned about receiving royalties for my music. However I would like to be reassured that the royalties my performances should be generating actually reach those composers whose music I play. The small gigs scheme is for PRS members - it may work well for you to record your own performances and generate income from them, but it doesn't allow me to record my performances of your music, or that of other composers. Let me repeat, as a musician who has performed semi-professionally for 40 years in folk clubs and festivals, regularly plays for ceilidhs in village halls and hotels, and plays weekly in informal pub sessions, I can count the number of times I have been asked to provide a PRS return on the fingers of one hand. As you say, the amount of the licence for a small club or session is not large. However for a landlord who does not see allowing a few customers to play music as generating significant income it is an imposition, especially when faced with an aggressive approach by PRS. I know from my own experience that this can happen, and the reaction of the landlord was to tell the PRS to f*** off and to close the folk club. And even although the fee is not large, a good proportion of it is claimed under false pretences since a large proportion of the music being performed is not owned by PRS. I am not opposed to PRS in principle and I fully support the idea of composers being rewarded. However I feel that the impact of PRS on folk music is largely negative - the fees (and PRS's attitude even more so) are a disincentive where the music is not provided on a commercial basis, and I am convinced the distribution does not get to the people whose music is played, because the information-gathering on which the distribution is based is inadequate. If the PRS's response to the non-copyright music issue is to sponsor Cambridge Folk Festival, I feel that is completely inappropriate and that it should make donations to EFDSS and similar organisations instead. At the very least, PRS needs to do some PR work in the folk community, and it really needs to look more closely at how it gathers the information. Sampling events may work for popular music, but is not representative of folk - what is performed at one folk club or session may be completely different from that performed at another club or session just down the road. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 15 Jun 10 - 04:14 AM But at least I tried, snd people getting angry about the things that are not wrong is simply not helpful to people trying to effect change. Any efforts are appreciated and perhaps you would accept that not every critic of PRS is in fact angry and where there is any anger it arises out of concern? And that it is equally unhelpful if those PRS members who claim to be trying to effect change, dismiss that concern as promoting misinformation and encouraging misunderstanding and conflict (or worse). It is also a cause of great frustration which could lead to anger when the few PRS members who do accept that the system is flawed continue to defend it (as if it were not) whilst still accepting their cut along with the majority of PRS members, who do not seem to care about the damaging initiatives undertaken on their behalf. No one is owed a living and those who choose to try to make music their job, especially in folk music, are aware of the difficulties. PRS, the MU and other organisations are there to look after the interests of those who make this choice, which is fair enough. However, they do not have a monopoly on every aspect of music making and there are many initiatives and restrictions taken by these organisations which have and continue to act against the interests of music. If this makes some people who care about music angry, perhaps this anger is at least understandable? |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 15 Jun 10 - 04:28 AM Ah - yes, in that case I agree with you entirely - and I've just banged off another letter to PRS. Maybe you, and other musicians who feel the same, should write to the MU FRTM section (I assume you are a member if you're doing all those gigs). I they alone have the clout to do something about this, but they need input and ideas that deal with the real problems, not the imagined ones that we mostly read here on Mudcat. As for those landlords who baulk at paying the (small) licence fee - well that's a shame for the club, but landlords are struggling for all sorts of reasons, and in my experience it's often not only the licence fee that turns out to be the issue in situations like this. If there are not many wanting to play music, and the landlord is unsympathetic, then maybe the club / session is in the wrong pub? Other licensed premises are available. We do need this transferrable PD/free licence, though. Dan - do you know what's holding it up? As for sponsoring Cambridge, that's not all they do by any means as you can see here . Tom PS sorry about the 's's in my previous post, the stylus slipped on my phone - I meant 'admin' threshold, obviously. Collecting royalties that are calculated in fractions of pence, from hundreds of thousands of premises costs a lot. It is completely unreasonable for people who don't have their music played very much in public to expect a lot of money from these performances. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,TB Date: 15 Jun 10 - 04:29 AM Sorry Roger, I was agreeing with Howard and we crossed, but I agree with you 100% too. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 15 Jun 10 - 04:42 AM While I'm being contentious, I might as well share this thought. I personally agree that PRS PR is appalling and that their aggressive collection policy is counter-productive. But in the interest of mutual understanding I would like to remind everyone that historically it has been writers who've been taken for granted, disenfranchised and not paid their legal dues. PRS actually see themselves as champions of the underdog. Yes, they do, and when you hear people demanding that all music should be free for all to use, you can understand why. The vast majority of PRS members are small fry like me. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Bloke from Poole Date: 15 Jun 10 - 07:49 AM I was asked to fill in a questionnaire about radio listening a while ago. I don't listen to music radio (even folk!) at home, but I used to hear it at work, in shops etc. I realised, filling in the form, that I hadn't heard a radio in a shop or garage for ages. Workplaces are not allowing people to have radios on. I know at least one where staff are permitted to use (their own) MP3 players because the company didn't want the hassle (probably more than the cost) of getting a PRS licence, therefore banned the radio. So musicians - admittedly, probably the bigger ones - are losing the shop window in which their wares were displayed. Malcolm not a musician. Nor a composer. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 15 Jun 10 - 08:15 AM Are we in the wrong pub? Perhaps, but finding suitable premises isn't as easy as you seem to think. Many pub landlords still take the view that the pub should provide a facility to the community, which is why they provide dartboards, hold quiz nights and in some cases allow music. Sometimes these activities will attract customers and sell more beer, but not always. My local session was very quiet last week - only half a dozen musicians, each nursing our pint because we had to drive home afterwards. The other customers seem to enjoy it, but its doubtful whether we actually attracted customers, and we have to recognise the possibility that some may actually stay away if they don't like the music. I don't know whether the landlady made any profit out of the session after paying the PRS fee - it's probably marginal. She certainly doesn't see it as part of his commercial operation and I doubt the session makes any real difference to her in commercial terms. It's this sort of informal, non-commercial music which is most threatened when the PRS comes storming in with an insensitive approach, but it's at the very heart of folk music. In the other case I mentioned the landlord did make a small charge for the room as well as attracting extra customers for his beer. However the fee the PRS demanded was out of all proportion to the money he made from hosting the folk club. What really pissed him off was the PRS rep's attitude, and he was quite prepared to give up earning a few extra quid a week rather than submit to what he saw as bullying. We eventually resolved the issue and the club continued, but it was touch and go for a while. I haven't been a member of the MU for many years, as I found that its activities weren't relevant to me, indeed completely failed to take account of the environment in which I was playing. I see that it now has a folk music section but the benefits of joining are still not clear to me. Perhaps that's another organisation which needs to do some PR. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Dan Plews Date: 15 Jun 10 - 09:28 AM Tom I didn't know about the PD licence possibility, less still what might be holding it up Shambles "it is equally unhelpful if those PRS members who claim to be trying to effect change, dismiss that concern as promoting misinformation and encouraging misunderstanding and conflict (or worse)." What we PRS members (i.e. Tom and I) are doing is to dismiss misinformation, and in the process encourage understanding, thereby minimising conflict. Those people who are spreading ill-informed misinformation are the people who make meaningful discussion in an open forum impossible - the "I don't know anyone who's ever got anything"s, the "_IF_ you're Paul McCartney"s - it's utter crap, which some people continue to spout as if unable to see anything beyond their keyboards. Anyway, Tom, thanks for your far more reasoned contributions to this discussion, you have the patience of a very patient thing, but I don't have quite so much, time still less, so I think I'll bow out until I have a chance to re-post all that research somewhere for people to chew over. Cheers and good luck to everyone Dan |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Dan Plews Date: 15 Jun 10 - 09:30 AM PS Tom It's probably also worth noting that anyone can fill out the small gig returns - landlord, promoter, sessionista, whoever. Anyone who wants to make sure "folk money" stays "folk money". Cheers Dan |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 15 Jun 10 - 10:19 AM Yes, Dan - I'd briefly forgotten that. You don't have to be a member to do the GACS forms, so, Howard, there's your answer. Me, I'm of the old school (ok, old public school) that you join the union when you 'get your start,' and if they're not doing what you want you get involved and change things for the better. The MU is an excellent organisation - cheap insurance, training, support if you're ill, plus clout with people like PRS and Westminster. Can't understand why any semi-pro wouldn't join. The subs are not that dear - and insuance alone makes it worthwhile. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 15 Jun 10 - 01:21 PM What we PRS members (i.e. Tom and I) are doing is to dismiss misinformation, and in the process encourage understanding, thereby minimising conflict. Those people who are spreading ill-informed misinformation are the people who make meaningful discussion in an open forum impossible - the "I don't know anyone who's ever got anything"s, the "_IF_ you're Paul McCartney"s - it's utter crap, which some people continue to spout as if unable to see anything beyond their keyboards. Tom to his credit has turned this discussion onto a more positive path. Dan you may, perhaps understandably, have fallen into the ways of those who you scorn. This will have the same effect on others and will certainly make meaniful discussion impossible, as it was before Tom posted. Where a statement is made here that is not accurate it should be fairly easy for you to counter this with a more informed view. This may not change the view of those who will hold their view whatever facts are presented to them, but others may change their view. You may tire of this but I can see no other way. Simply to post only to mock will only prove counter-productive. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:38 AM Tom, I'm afraid you're wrong, the Gigs & Clubs scheme is only for PRS members. This from the PRS website: You must be a member of PRS for Music to make a claim. Alternatively, if you are a member of or an affiliated performing right organisation, that organisation can use the scheme on your behalf. If you have performed at a pub, club, bar, community centre or hotel in the previous year (based on the date of claim), submit a representative set list to us online and we'll pay the songwriters/publishers of the works performed. This includes touring performers, resident performers and DJs. To make a claim please log into your online account and click on Report My Live Performances and then Gigs and Clubs Scheme. PRS Gigs & Clubs scheme It appears that "customers", ie PRS licence holders, can also have an online account, but it is not open to anyone else. It might well be better if non-members could report their gigs as well. However the requirement to submit a representative set-list, rather than reporting actual performances, isn't really appropriate for someone who is not performing formal sets but is playing in casual sessions. In fact it might be better if PRS made a lot more information available to non-members - for example, why can't a non-member check the PRS database to find out who owns the copyright to a particular piece of music? One of the reasons PRS (and the Licensing Act for that matter) is out of line with the folk world is an underlying assumption that the licence holder is promoting the music, whereas the reality in the majority of cases is that they have no involvement, and no real interest, beyond providing premises. As for the MU, one of the reasons I let my membership lapse was that I did not feel it was appropriate to belong if I could not observe its rules - in particular I was not in a position to demand MU payment rates, neither could I comply with the rule not to perform alongside non-members. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:04 AM Hmm, must be that customer account thing I was thinking of. Though you could fill it in for the landlord if you wanted, I suppose. If you wanted to influence change you could bombard the PRS with set lists for every gig - in fact why don't we start a campaign now. Everyone who does paid gigs but is not a member of PRS should email their set list, with writer/arranger details to GigsClubsScheme@prsformusic.com. If they are being advised of public performances of members works they have a duty to act. They should add a footnote at the bottom of every email requesting immediate implementation of the proposed free transferrable Club Licence, in which Public Domain works can be played without royalty (hah!) as long as the event is free entry. (This was about to be launched about this time last year, but I was asked to keep mum about it for a while longer, but as I have written to Debbie Malloy three times asking for an update without reply I now feel I can absolve myself of this purdah). Yes, I've asked for the database not only to be available for all to view, but even more importantly for it to be a) policed by PRS (at the moment you'll see lots of erroneous 'attributions' which have got there because reports have been made by people who don't know who the writers are, as well as a few scallywags either having a go or genuinely 'confused' about arrangements) to show only the correct legal owner/s of the right. b) to include sound clips, first to differentiate between, say, Fiddlers Green by JC, and, possibly, another totally different goth/death metal track of the same name, and secondly so that we can have some reference for arrangements of trad works. Tom |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM Tom, that's an excellent idea. Why don't you start a new thread to promote it? If the set list were to include all the traditional material as well as copyright stuff it might get across to PRS how much music is being played which is outside their jurisdiction. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:12 AM Ok, but I'd like to give PRS time to respond first. I have alerted them to this thread. Tom |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:36 AM http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28535/prs-call-for-national-busking-day There now seems to be a problem with the original link to this story. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: s&r Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:43 PM "Public Domain works can be played without royalty (hah!) as long as the event is free entry." Wow 13.5 million over ten years? Surely the total money collected that should not have been collected would be well in excess of that paltry sum... Stu |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Dan Plews Date: 19 Jun 10 - 04:39 PM Howard: "You must be a member of PRS for Music to make a claim. Alternatively, if you are a member of or an affiliated performing right organisation, that organisation can use the scheme on your behalf." Without reading on to the responses (sorry) There's a difference between reporting what's played and making a claim. There's no contradiction between my post and this, so unless they specifically exclude this possibility either verbally or written(and I have heard them explicitly include this possibility) I'd probably stand by my earlier comment. This practice pre-dates the small gigs and bars scheme too - as far as I know, it's been an obligation on them for a while. Membership now costs £10 by the way - just more than the price of a licence. Shambles "Where a statement is made here that is not accurate it should be fairly easy for you to counter this with a more informed view. " Hey, that's what I did. Leadfingers and don wysiwyg posted rubbish, I stuck up my hand and said "hey, look at me, I'm living proof that what you say is bull!" To which he replies: "A good friend of mine spent a lot of time jumping through the various hoops to get PRS registration for his compositions and now wonders why ! He gets Damn All and PRS let any T D OR H do what they like wih his songs , and pay him nothing ! As stated previously , its ONLY the Big Boys and Major Music Organisations that get any benefit " So, pretty easily done, then. No recourse to mocking or sarcasm, certainly. But if I did resort to it, that would certainly justify discussion of my manners, which is far less embarrassing for all concerned than climbing down off their high horses, don't you think? Tom "Finally (and I'm aware this sounds arrogant) I have yet to meet anyone online, professional or amateur musician, who has done as much as I have on behalf of people on forums (fora?) to clarify the relationship between and legal and moral issues surrounding copyright and traditional music (as it exists in the UK legal framework anyway)." Apart from you of course, and probably a few dozen others xx How's that for humble, Shambles? ;-) Dan |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Bonzo3legs Date: 20 Jun 10 - 01:42 PM A highly despicable organisation. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 20 Jun 10 - 04:27 PM Dan, you may well be correct, but it's far from clear on the PRS website. The small gigs and clubs scheme specifically says claims must be made online, and only members can have an online account. "Customers" ie licence holders can also have an online account and are presumably advised by their point of contact on what to do. There is nothing to suggest that third parties can submit returns, or how they should do so. If it's possible, it's not exactly encouraged. I disagree with bonzo3legs about PRS being a "despicable organisation". It may not be very efficient but I'm struggling to think of a better way in principle (the actual processes could be improved) of sorting out copyright permission, and as a performer I'm glad I don't have to pay for it myself. However it is based around the "music industry" and causes real problems for low budget not-for-profit community music activities such as folk clubs and sessions. For people trying to play music and run folk clubs, PRS is an obstacle, which is particularly galling since it does not own the rights to much of the music being performed there. The obstacle is not so much the cost as the aggressive way PRS polices venues, so that where the economic benefits of allowing music are small, the venue may prefer to do without the music. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Dan Plews Date: 21 Jun 10 - 08:47 AM Howard: Agreed. In terms of the reporting of what's played, it's long been the case AFAIK that people can report it. With membership being £10, there's the opportunity to work within the existing framework at very little expense in terms of time or money, through the small gigs and bars. It might require the host to make notes sometimes (not _all_ the time - so not exhaustive, but representative) and copy and paste into an excel spreadhseet to send off every 6 months/year. There are special rates for not-for-profits, but since the typical session (however community-music-making it may be) occurs in a pub, it's easy to see why these don't apply. The fee for spontaneous music-making (don't ask me for a definition, ask them..) is much less than a standard live-music fee - about £3 IIRC. As far as your contention that it "does not own the rights to much of the music being performed", that's clearly a potential issue; in practice the content of sessions is as multifarious as the participants themselves, and gig situations are also varied, and the range of licences the PRS administers attempts to reflect that. It's all bureaucracy for the profit-maker of course, which is to be lamented, but we insist they put people serving drinks on payrolls with minimum wages and I'm sure there are some who moan about that too. Cheers Dan Plews |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 21 Jun 10 - 02:59 PM Dan, I've just searched the PRS website for "reporting gigs" and the results all seem to require me to be a member at to log into an online account. It is far from clear whether non-members can report performances and if so how they can go about it. You also have to be a writer or publisher to join, so someone who is only a performer would not be eligible. PRS is seen by folkies as an obstacle rather than as supporting music, which is it's own image of itself. The biggest obstacle to running a folk club or session is finding suitable premises. This usually means a pub, which must be accessible, have parking, be in a safe area, have the right atmosphere, good beer, etc. Having found one which meets the criteria, you then have to persuade the landlord. Usually the economics allow only a nominal room hire fee to be paid - for sessions there's usually no fee. The landlord might sell a few more drinks, but in most cases it probably doesn't make a lot of difference to him financially whether or not the music takes place. Some of them enjoy the music, while for others I sense that they're not really bothered but see it as part of the pub's role in the community. Then there's the need for a music licence under the 2003 Act and an appropriate PRS licence. The cost of a licence at about £7 a time is probably not an issue for the landlord (in most cases the club would probably reimburse it if necessary, although my point about non-copyright music rubs salt in the wound). The perceived hassle of applying for one may be. Getting aggravation when a PRS rep turns up definitely is. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have experienced situations where the landlord would rather stop the music rather than submit to bullying tactics. The PRS structure is based on a model which expects that the licence holder has an interest, probably a commercial one, in putting on music, or at least in hiring out premises for it to be performed. It doesn't cope very well with the typical folk situation where the returns to the licence holder are negligible. I repeat, in most cases it's not the level of the fee which causes the problem but the manner in which it is demanded. I take your point about the mixed nature of the folk repertoire. In my own experience, about 80% of the material is traditional, about 10% self-composed or performed with the composer's direct permission, and the remaining 10% comes under the control of PRS. Of course the balance will vary at other events, but perhaps you will understand why many people think that the PRS has only limited grounds for making its demands. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Paul B Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM Why dont you guys just join the PRS then? you know its free don't you? it went free about 6 months after I paid the membership fee of £100.(but thats just my bad luck) then you can report all your gigs yourself. Plus getting loads of hits on youtube gets paid now also, I wouldnt have thought very much but it all adds up |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:10 PM You don't have to be a writer to join - just an arranger, and anyone who performs traditional material is de facto making unique arrangements, which they can register and, if they wish, claim upon. You could claim on your own material too, so that would be 90% of your stuff coming back to you, and the 10% going to the right person. You might get even more than me! No word from PRS yet - I've told them I'm running out of patience. Tom |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:12 PM Paul B: to join PRS you have to be a songwriter or publisher. The small clubs and gigs scheme allows them to report their own performances. The debate is whether/how people who are not songwriters but who simply perform other people's songs in environments which are unlikely to get reported by the PRS licence holder or sampled can report them, so the royalties get to the right people. It's not free, but the £10 is deducted from royalties. I suspect if I were to join on the basis that I've written a handful of tunes then the PRS would wait quite some time to recoup this :). However when I looked into it before I'm sure I read that by joining you assign all control over your compositions to PRS to administer, and I'm not sure I want to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: Howard Jones Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:42 PM Tom replied while I was composing my response to Paul B. I'm interested to see that arrangers can join, that's certainly not clear from their website (but that could be said about most of its content, which is bloody awful). |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:08 PM I agree that the website is a complete disaster - and I've told them that too! Essentially an arranger IS a writer as far as PRS is concerned. When you make an arrangement of a PD work you are creating copyright on that arrangement, and only on that arrangement. Effectively you can only easily prove your own performances are exactly of that arrangement (though Carthy might have had a strong case against Simon, for example), so you claim 100% of the royalty on your own performances of that PD work - because the percentage which would have gone to the writer is up for grabs. People in the past have gone so far as to credit PD works to themselves under this principle (which, legally, they may) and some folksters therefore think this means they have acquired (stolen) ownership of the copyright of the work itself (which they have, in fact, not done) and got all cross and sulky about it. But in law a PD work remains PD in perpetuity, so anyone else can make their own arrangement, and claim 100% on their own performances of that arrangement. And lots of folk people do this. It's a good thing, because it keeps the works in currency and gets PRS licence money back to the folk world, without doing any damage at all - though obviously the work should always be attributed as Trad (arr Jones/Bliss), so everyone else can have a go. I've had the devil of a job persuading a chum that Van Dieman's Land is trad, because he learned it from a CD which implies on the back that it was written by some chap called Wilson, or Waterbottom or Weeebil or MacDonalds or some such - and he's convinced this means it's a new copyright work. Sigh. Tom |
|
Subject: RE: PRS call for a Busking Day From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 11 Jul 10 - 05:53 AM I've started a thread on the fRoots website about this. fRoot forum (members only) I've done it there not here because that site is moderated, and I'm afraid that if I did it here the discussion would soon get a) lost among other discussions, and b) swamped by people just having a pop at PRS and not trying properly to understand the issues and offer solutions. Tom |
| Share Thread: |