PRS and sessions

Subject: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:51 AM

This from Pete Coe on uk.music.folk. Which is bad new but does at least make it clear what the PRS position is towards sessions.

I suggest that (in line with the 'Killed by the PEL system threads') this thread is used to collect any evidence that PRS etc are having a adverse effect on sessions / sing-a rounds etc and the pubs that hold them.


I had a long conversation with Barry Lane, PRS Tariff Development Dept. about sessions. It seems I was given wrong information a week or so ago from someone else in his dept. Sessions are liable after all. For numbers attending up to 100 in licensed, commercial premises the charge would be £7.27 per session, whatever the music played.

It's the premises that are liable. As a member of PRS myself, I don't like this anymore than most of you. Believe me, I made all the relevant points...
1.No admission charge.
2.No payment made to musicians by landlord/management.
3.Session organised by the musicians themselves, for their own musical
benefit, not as part of a commercial performance for an 'audience'.
4.Most music played being non-copyright.
5.Very few participants being members of PRS.

Barry made the point that it's PRS's job to earn money for it's members from all commercial premises, whether the music is live or recorded & that this music is of commercial benefit to the 'management'. So the management should pay up.

I pointed out that in some cases the management (e.g. Sam Smith's)
wouldn't pay up & that either the musicians would end up 'paying to
play', as well as for their beer or that the sessions would shut down.
Thus, many musicians, who learned tunes/songs in sessions , then went on to record their arrangements, registering them with PRS & earning money for both parties would lose out on this source of material & PRS losing out on grassroots potential. I added that this was what sessions are & they're not what PRS want them to be.

I haven't given up on this yet. There's a few options possible. These
could include...
1. Every session filling in PRS forms & swamping them with paperwork.
2. Nominating one regular member & joining PRS & fill in PRS forms
saying that all traditional arranged material is copyright to that
person who then, eventually gets paid most of it back to PRS.
3. Or register all trad. arr. material to EFDSS or a charity (they'd
have to be PRS members)
4. Keep that session moving.
5. It's a 'rehearsal'.

In the meantime, the sessions I go to locally will remain free of PRS & I'll deal with them if the landlord is asked. If you want to contact PRS [e-mail]

He seems a decent bloke, so no abuse needed, informed facts & opinions only.

--
Pete Coe : http://www.backshift.demon.co.uk/petehome.htm
http://www.ryburn3step.org.uk

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:53 AM

Obit Sam Smiths and LIVE muisc

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,Sally M
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:11 AM

I had a rant about this in July last year in a thread I started called "Performers Rights Society (PRS)Pedants" - if someone could do the blue clicky bit for me ?! We had to move a session because the landlady did not want to pay the PRS fee.
I seem to remember some very informative links were given with more info on this.

Sally M

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:24 AM

PRS Pedants

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:27 AM

The following from the Government's PR on the new Licensing Act, states:

Unamplified live music in small venues to be treated exceptionally to ensure traditional and amateur folk music thrives.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:45 AM

But, unfortunately, the government does not control the PRS.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,Sally M - at work
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:56 AM

If the PRS is not controlled by government, then surely no "law" is being broken if venues do not pay a PRS fee. Is it then questionable as to whether PRS fees for venues are legal? It certainly has all the appearances of an extortion racket, when fees are paid to a private company and not a public body/department/etc.

Sally M

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:29 AM

It won't stop the PRS involving you in all sorts of legal wrangles. It won't be cost-effective to contest them.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,Fritz The Cat
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:37 AM

It won't be cost-effective for PRS to take-on hundreds of session musicians either, all for the sake of very little money.

PRS have also tried to extract fees from 'free admission' concerts and sessions at folk festivals as well. I think some festivals pay up and some do not.

Does anyone know of any folk singer, musician, club organiser or session participant who has ever been prosecuted by PRS for non-payment of fees?

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: pavane
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:40 AM

Under Copyright law, fees are payable to the owner of the copyright. PRS collects these fees on behalf of its members or their estates, and distributes them according to its rules.

Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to establish whether any fees are due in many cases, and their approach is to claim unless you can prove it isn't due.

Fees are not necessarily due if

a) the item is in the public domain OR
b) the owner of the copyright is not a member of the PRS or its foreign equivalents (PRS administers the fees for corresponding societies abroad)

The idea of swamping them with lists of (public domain) tunes played at each club and session might work, but would have to be well-supported, and might just backfire by raising the visibility.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,Tigger
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:39 PM

If the fees are supposed to be returned by PRS to the copyright owners and composers of songs, why don't we all just fill-in the PRS forms with Steve Knightley or Cyril Tawney compositions and make them rich?

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:54 PM

I sort of sympathise. But the PRS has been up its own arse so long - really who gives a tinkers turd.

You don't get paid for radio play unless you're Paul MacCartney, it sends you bloody silly magazines/books about sod all, it gives scholarships and bursaries to people whose music is virtually never played whilst folk musicians who write folk club standards make bugger all.

This has been going on so long.

If you are a writer/musician you have to make a living without any help from the largest collection agent in the country in an age when computers shou;ld be able to log every radio play that you get and see that you are recompensed for it. Either that or get your radio play in countries where things are a bit more efficient. And that doesn't always work.

I don't know what the answer is.

However I've been talking to Irishmen on another thread and they have convinced me I don't know that of which I speak. So perhaps they are right, along with the PRS and I am wrong.

all the best

Big Al Whittle

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:59 PM

I can't see the PRS having the time and people to chase round to informal sessions, and then work out what the name of the tunes and songs are, and whether they are public domain or not.

I suppose it might push us towards sticking to traditional material, and home-grown stuff.

I imagine some time the PRS are going to get their act round to trying to collect royalties on jokes people tell in public.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:42 PM

The whole point, McGrath of Harlow, is that the PRS don't have to sort out the tunes and songs that are copyright. They are saying that all sessions have to be paid for, whatever the material used, and further, that the onus is on the performer to prove that there is no copyright. So, even if I go to a venue, and perform solo all the songs that I have composed, I would still have to fight them in court to avoid payment, and if they found one note sequence, or word sequence which corresponded to a copyright piece, I would lose.

Any folkies out there got £5 - 6,000 to spare for costs? I kmow I haven't.

In the hypothetical case I have quoted, the PRS would not pay me back 1p for the use of my material. The money they collected would, in the fullness of time, end up in the already well stuffed pockets of some pop celebrity, because they are the only people the PRS serves, apart from itself.

Comes the revolution........roll on the day (oops! sorry, that's copyrighted innit?).

Don T.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:43 PM

bear in mind PRS fees only apply if there is a PUBLIC performance.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:18 AM

This from Pete Coe - posted on uk.music.folk

I sent this Email to PRS Tariff Licensing Officer, Barry Lane, earlier
today. I hope I've enclosed the main points. If you contact him, feel
free to use any of the following & add your own. As you'll see I've
concentrated on the traditional non-copyright material. You do have to
bear in mind that whilst many songwriters would be happy enough to waive their fees for sessions, even though their songs are registered with PRS & they receive royalties for recordings & big venue gigs, their publishers want to extract every penny they can from wherever.

Dear Barry,
Following my phone call on Monday. Thanks for your time & information
about PRS licenses for informal folk sessions. As a PRS member myself
I've been asked by various musicians, organisers & organisations to get
down the facts in writing, hoping to answer their concerns.

Folk sessions are informal, acoustic & amateur sessions for sharing &
learning mainly non-copyright traditional (arrangements) tunes & songs.
They are organised by the musicians themselves not by the management.
A session is not a performance for an audience, more a rehearsal.
There is no audience, only participants.
Musicians are not paid & there is no admission charge.

Most of these sessions of course take place in pubs, usually in a
separate room, reserved for the session that night. Some are weekly,
others monthly. Most are small, maximum 20 musicians, many even less.

It's my experience that most landlords will pass on PRS payments to the
musicians. Thus, in effect, the musicians will be paying to play.
As you are aware, the licensing trade is in chaos. Property companies &
breweries are pushing pubs to make food the only way to make a profit
for their managers & this means that space for music is being squeezed
out. We've just had to move our folk club (which pays PRS License) from
a pub owned by Enterprise Inns (who, according to today's Guardian, own
9000 pubs) because we've had something like 10 managers in the last 7
years. At the moment the old pub's shut 'til they find some other mug to
pay an extortionate rent. So we lost a great function room because we
never knew whether the pub was going to be open. As a professional
musician I hear this story from folk club organisers all over the
country 'can't book you at the moment 'til we meet the new
landlord/manager' or 'we're looking for a new venue because the new
landlord has turned the function room into a restaurant'.

The new Licensing Bill which comes into effect from November has the
potential for hidden costs to pubs (wiring, additional toilet provision
etc)

The point of all this is that there are too many straws which threaten
live music at grassroots level. I don't think too many would object to
paying PRS at folk clubs which charge admission & pay guest artists a
modest fee. But, as a PRS member, I'm aware that PRS could be shooting
itself in the foot by insisting on payments for informal sessions. Most
professional recording folk musicians have learned their trade & been
introduced to songs & tunes which they've then gone on to record in
specific arrangements, then registered them with PRS & earning money for
both parties. The government is trying to encourage grassroots music, I
think PRS should be removing this specific barrier. No eggs, no
chickens, no eggs.
--
Pete Coe http://www.backshift.demon.co.uk/petehome.htm
http://www.ryburn3step.org.uk

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 05:42 AM

PRS response to Pete Coe's letter:

Dear Pete,

I found our chat on Monday very worthwhile and informative.

PRS is keen to encourage the use of live music and is taking a very active role in the Live Music Forum, set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in order to help grow live music and to monitor the impact of the new Licensing Act 2003. However, this fostering of live music has to be understood within the framework of a licensing obligation, rightly expected from us by both PRS members and the context of copyright legislation within which we operate.

At the core of these obligations is the need for PRS to license all performances of our members' works, however performed, outside of the domestic circle or home life of the composer's audience. Clearly this means that any performances that take place in a public house, to which members of the public have access, need to be covered by the PRS licence and charged accordingly.

I can think of many instances where musicians are not paid by the proprietor of a public house, either directly or indirectly, which need to covered by a licence. The only exception to this are strictly family events. So, for example, a wedding reception in a privately booked room of a pub that was closed to all but personally invited family and guests, with no financial gain to the organiser or host, would not fall to be covered by a PRS licence.

While not a statutory exception, PRS has not sought to license bona fide rehearsals of musical works held in a room accessible only to those rehearsing. However, from my understanding of our conversation and your e-mail, neither of these scenarios applies here. From my understanding, these sessions do take place in a public room of a public house, during normal opening hours with the music audible to other customers in the pub and with the agreement of the proprietor.

In these circumstances a public performance of our members' works, probably including your own, does indeed occur. I understand your view of the difference between what you would consider a performance (when you are booked and paid to play at a venue) and what happens in the circumstances outlined. However, these differences are not relevant as far as the requirements for a PRS licence are concerned.

I understand very well the difficulties of the hospitality industry generally and the pub trade in particular. PRS is at the forefront of encouraging the use of live music in pubs in order to attract customers who will spend money at the bar, as no doubt folk musicians and those customers who come to the pub because of the rehearsals-cum-gigs will. I would suggest that by the proprietor promoting the fact that these 'jam sessions' are taking place they would increase the business on those nights. Alternatively, if the 'rehearsal' truly takes place in a private room, not audible to the
customers, no PRS royalties will be charged.

PRS cannot pick and choose which events it will license. We have an obligation to treat all of our customers in a similar, non-discriminatory manner. This means that we cannot turn a blind eye to Folk events while charging other music genres. Not to charge at all in these circumstances would be to neglect the reason for PRS's existence, namely to maximise the income of our members who have exclusively vested in us the performing rights in their copyright
musical compositions (or arrangements).

Finally, I take this opportunity to attach a copy of a PRS letter sent to you on 7 March 2003 which outlines PRS' control of folk music and several other matters.

Kind Regards.
Barry Lane
Head of Business Development
Public Performance Sales

E-mail: [e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]
Web site: www.prs.co.uk/musiclicence

Performing Right Society Limited
29-33 Berners Street
London W1T 3AB

Registered in England No: 134396

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 06:42 AM

This really burns me up. This smug clown thinks that the way to encourage live music is to tax it out of existence. Between him and this raving lunatic government, there soon won't be much left that we can do, except in our own homes, with the doors and windows locked.

He says the PRS is very keen to encourage the use of live music, and is active in the forum set up by the DCMS. This is like curing the baby's teething pains with a dose of cyanide.

I know that there are many stupid people in the world, but how did so many of them manage to gain control of the future of my right to sing if I bloody choose to.

And to cap it all off, this eejit says he has an obligation to collect royalties for his members. Missing word there pal...SOME of his members.......the RICH ones......The ones whose material is quite unlikely to form part of a session. And does that dedication to seeing that everybody gets what's due extend to the authors of works, well known in the folk world, which have not gained the attention of RADIO or TV?........DOES IT F**K! Folkies can't prevent their work from being pinched by others (Martin C and Scarborough Fair), and most of them will never get a penny for it, as the PRS doesn't want to know you unless you are already a big name. I pity the guy who writes the next "Fiddlers Green", unless of course it's Paul McCartney.

And after letting off all that steam, I'm still bloody fuming
Don T.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 06:56 AM

"They are saying that all sessions have to be paid for"

I can't imagine any court accepting that kind of blanket approach. There would have to be some kind of evidence about material being used which is the intellectual property of PRS members, rather than being traditional, or copyright of non-PRS members.

Would it be worth writing back to the buffoon asking for a list of all PRS members to make it easier for people to avoid using their material?

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 07:44 AM

You wouldn't have time for music after sorting out what was legal.

Besides, they are saying even traditional songs need licensing, because you may be using an arrangement by one of their members. The bastards want it all, and they'll kill it in the process. Then they'll sit back and say "We have stopped all copyright infringement now nobody is singing, aren't we clever? Oh! hell, where did all our members go? We're bankrupt...How did that happen?"

Don T.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,Fritz The Cat
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 08:27 AM

I asked on 08 February "Does anyone know of any folk singer, musician, club organiser or session participant who has been prospecuted by PRS for non-payment of fees?"

No-one on this Board has answered in the affirmative so far.

I guess that the cost to PRS of prosecuting small and informal pub sessions would not be worth their while.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 08:54 AM

Because the effect cannot be measured in terms of prosecution - does not mean the problem (presented in particular to sessions and folk clubs) does not exist. The same was and is still true with the current PELs. It is the threat from PRS/PPL etc (and local authorities) etc - to a third party (i.e. the licensee) - that is so effective and results in the constant hunt for altenative venues.

The PRS/PPL licence was less of a problem but with the increase in this fee set for 2006 - it is now a problem (as demonstrated by Sam Smith's 200 pubs).

The cost of prosecution over small informal pub sessions etc would not be worth their while but the problem is getting a licensee to be prepared to hold firm in the face of the threats. We can see the principle is worth fighting for but licensees have other concerns.

But the fact remains that it is not in anybody's interests that music making is prevented - especially PRS/PPL etc and their members. Perhaps we should be insisting that our Government pay PRS/PPL this minimum fee to enable sessions to freely take place in every pub?

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 08:57 AM

It's their job to sort out what's illegal. In my experience most stuff people play or sing in sessions is non-PRS related, it's either traditional or created by people who are not PRS members.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 11:10 AM

I repeat, McGrath, that THEY assert that the onus would be on us to prove "no copyright", a procedure requiring that we litigate. They may be wrong, but which of us can afford to risk the cost of a court case? Certainly not "low income" me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: LesB
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 11:57 AM

This clown seems to be missing the point. That most of the songs sung or tunes played are Trad. Now if he can tell me how he is going to pay the royalties to Mr/Mrs/Ms Trad????
Cheers
Les

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,woodsie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:13 PM

Nearly every pub that I use already pay PRS it's bog standard because they have juke boxes. This should also cover any sessions. The money from these fee do not go to artistes but are swallowed up by administration costs!

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:38 PM

That may be the situation now but if theses pubs decide not to pay (for the increased fee) for the jukebox etc (as 200 Sam Smiths pubs have just done) they are under (or given) the impression that no music at all can take place without this licence.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,woodse
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:43 PM

The outlook is bleak!

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 01:14 PM

The question is what can be done about it. Contacting PRS direct to inform them of the problems (especially the specific case of Sam Smiths) and asking them to solve them is possible - if unlikely. But it may alert them to real size of the problem and the strength of feeling that many people hold on this matter. I suspect this is not thought by them to be of concern to many and the usual 'spin' will suffice. A few detailed but polite letters from us may change this..........

E-mail: [e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]
Web site: www.prs.co.uk/musiclicence

Performing Right Society Limited
29-33 Berners Street
London W1T 3AB

But perhaps the best method is via writing to our our MPs and to get Feargal Sharkey's Live Music Forum (on which PRS sit) to put the pressure on these bodies to find the solution?

PRS is keen to encourage the use of live music and is taking a very active role in the Live Music Forum, set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in order to help grow live music and to monitor the impact of the new Licensing Act 2003.

They could perhaps claim that this aspect is not directly connected with monitoring the impact of the Licensing Act 2003. But there is no doubt that the increase in the overall operating costs for pubs will impact on the money that these premises will have left to spend on providing live music - both in obtaining licenses and paying for musicians. Preventing sessions through stupidity - rather than design - can not be in anyone's interest - espacially those on this Live Music Forum.

But this issue is really one of protecting our basic right to make music - free of these restricive practices. No one wishes to deny anyone of anything that they have a rightful claim over. But this should not prevent music making that these bodies may not have any rightful claim over. Sadly that is what is happening.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 03:56 PM

Can't members of the PRS who don't like what is being done in their name do something about it?

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 07:30 PM

That's a good way to approach it, McGrath. If their members disagree with their attitude, they will have to take notice.

Two points to think about:-

1. Is there a list of members that we can access, and would it allow contact en masse, as opposed to individually, which would take forever?

2. Is there a sufficiently large number of PRS members who would care whether folk music died?

Don T.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM

Performing Rights Society

A rapid skim through the site appears to indicate that the concept of traditional music and soing which is public domain does not appear to register on the consciousness of the PRS.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 04:47 AM

Summary of the law follows:

Most of what PRS said to Pete Coe is nearly right. Saliently, the PRS only controls PUBLIC performance, and the antonym of public is not "family" but "private" - so performances in members clubs to which the public are not admitted do not need PRS licences.

I am (wrongly) not going to discuss the words (which are a literary work) separately from the musical work.

Also, it does indeed only control the rights of its members - and, I add, those in which copyright subsists. It therefore does not control the rights of non-members, so if I choose to perform a song I wrote and arranged, the PRS has no say in the matter. Likewise if I perform a song not protected by copyright (Greensleeves might be a very obvious example).   But, if a person has arranged a song then he has copyright in his arrangement, if his work was substantial enough (and "original, which, in this context, means "not copied") then the arrangement will have a copyright, whether or not the song arranged had copyright. So if the arranger was a PRS member then PRS rights are engaged.

Copyright arises in most cases when a work is first reduced to a material form. In most cases the first owner of copyright is the author. If he is a member of the PRS then the performing right automaticaly and immediately passes to the PRS. Accordingly the performance of an extemporised work or arrangement cannot exercise the performing right in that work. Even if the work was being "simultaneously" recorded, the recording will always be a fraction after the performance.

So if you are performing (in public) ONLY works that are not in copyright, and so long as you are NOT reproducing (by performance) any arrangement that is both in copyright and controlled by the PRS, you do not need a PRS licence.

Members, however, can, under PRS rules "self adminster" their PRS rights - as U2 established after a considerable run-in with the PRS. I have not got the detail. The big boys do it to get their foreign revenues from their concert tours faster, and to get their domestic revenues without the deduction of the various deductions the PRS takes from money passign through its hands. I doubt whether there is any folk act big enough to make it worhwhile.

It does occur to me that a folkie who could get legal aid might seek some sort of remedy under the Human Rights Act - freedom of expression.

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 07:24 AM

If we assume that there is someone whose freedom of expression in the form of music making hs been prevented - (say in one of Sam Smiths pubs) who may qualify for legal aid - who would the claim be against?

The pub has a right to a choice to first allow/provide music. And to obtain or not to obtain the PRS/PPL etc licence. So perhaps not the pub.

So if you are performing (in public) ONLY works that are not in copyright, and so long as you are NOT reproducing (by performance) any arrangement that is both in copyright and controlled by the PRS, you do not need a PRS licence.

But PRS/PPL etc are publicly giving the impression to all-and-sundry that no music at all - can now take place in these premises without this licence. So the right of the public's freedom of expression - where non-PRS members playing their own non-published material (or other material not controlled by PRS/PPL etc) is currently being prevented in pubs without this licence - where as far as I can see - there are no legal grounds to do so......

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 07:33 AM

Article 10 says the following:

QUOTE

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

UNQUOTE

This bit - 'for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others,' is probably the defence - but this would surely only protect the prevention of material that was controlled by PRS/PPL etc and that they did (or could prove) have a valid right over?

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 12:56 PM

This from Stephen Kellet - posted on uk.music.folk.

Following on from Pete Coe's posting I contacted Barry Lane via email.

I found some of his answers very informative, although they aren't
directly relevant in this discussion. However when pressed about
out-of-copyright and very old music his answers got, I thought, rather
obscure - implying that just about everything was covered (well thats
how I read it) because of modern arrangements or someone would play a
modern tune in the same session. I don't think he was deliberately being
obscure, just answering in the widest possible catch-all manner to make
sure he didn't miss anything. I tried rephrasing the question several
times and eventually reduced the question to the following: (William
Dixon's tunes are from 1733).

Myself:
"If my William Dixon appreciation society were to meet as a session in a
pub and only play William Dixon's tunes would a PRS fee be liable? If it
would, why would it?"

Barry Lane:
"Traditional music in its original form will fall in the Public
Domain (not be protected by copyright). If sessions consist exclusively
of such music, no PRS licence will be required."

Followed by the comment that in the PRS's experience most sessions, folk
festivals etc do include music that is licensable. Etc.

Regarding the "promoter" argument put forth by Dan Plews last year -
that the promoter is liable - that is a red herring - the promoter is
not necessarily liable. The PRS don't need to rely on the promoter to
get enforcement. The copyright act states that the owner of the premises
is responsible for a primary infringement of copyright. The owner need
not be the promoter. This is the principle reason the PRS go for the
public house - because its easier than the musicians (also primary
infringers in cases of copyright infringement) and the law allows it. I
had thought the landlord was possibly guilty of secondary infringement -
Barry clarified this - it is primary infringement.

Barry also stated that any waiver that is in a tune book (such as the
Blowzabella tunebook) does not apply to PRS fees as PRS members have no
right to waive the fees.

Barry Lane:
"I suggest that if any PRS member who believes they can waive
their rights in such circumstances should contact PRS member relations
for clarification. "

My conclusion is that PRS have no interest in ensuring any music
tradition dies or thrives, only collecting fees. Bizarrely a profit
driven organisation may realize that it is in their long-term interests
to except sessions from fees as it is a breeding ground for future
talent. Because PRS is not profit driven, that type of thinking doesn't
apply.

Three solutions:
#1 Hope they don't find where you are playing. Not a very good solution
- especially for the landlord if he gets caught.
#2 Pay the PRS licensing fee.
#3 Make a list of tunes which are guaranteed out of copyright or very
old and ensure the versions you have is the original and not a copyright
arrangement by someone else. The session only plays tunes from this list
(which should contain thousands of tunes).

If doing #3 I guess the "sin bin" will be required to pay the license on
the odd occasion a tune that is copyright does get played. Then you can
play all the modern tunes for the rest of the evening.

I think this PRS thing is very short sighted in terms of the damage done
to grass roots music making. That said, it does appear that the law is
stacked heavily in their favour (except for #3 which they cannot touch).

I hope you find this informative. I am not a PRS member.

Stephen

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 07:13 AM

In case anyone in S Wales is interested...

"Getting to grips with PRS and copyright


Motorpoint Arena - Exit 7
Mary Ann Street
CF10 2EQ Cardiff

Saturday, 11 January 2020 -
10:00am to 1:00pm
Ticket price:
FREE
About the event:
The topic we receive the most queries about is PRS. What is PRS, how do you pay it and just why is it so complicated?

In this session, we’ll clear up some of the mysteries and help you to understand how, when and where you need to make your PRS payments.

Who should attend this event?
Anyone is welcome to come to this event, but it will be particularly relevant to anyone who looks after your group’s finances, liaise with venues, selects repertoire or manages copyright.

We’ll talk about:

The definition of copyright
When a PRS fee is payable
How to find out if your venue has a PRS licence
The different types of licence and what they cover
How to make your payment
Anything else that comes up on the topic!

More reasons to come:

Hear from other leisure-time music groups about their experiences
Meet other groups like yours over refreshments
An update on new resources and services from Making Music
Meet your local Making Music team and ask questions


Cost: FREE for members and non-members"

https://www.makingmusic.org.uk/event/getting-grips-prs-and-copyright

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 11:20 AM

it's free but doesn't sound like much fun

Subject: RE: PRS and sessions
From: Howard Jones
Date: 15 Dec 19 - 02:51 PM

In my experience it is rare for a session not to include some copyright material, so in principle a PRS fee is due. £7.27 is a trivial amount when shared between a number of musicians, and whilst it is the venue which is liable surely the musicians shouldn't begrudge making a small payment if called upon to do so.

What I think people most resent is that they have zero confidence that any of the fee will make its way back to the composers of the music they have played. The only way for this to happen would be for someone to submit returns of the music played, which is problematic for both the session and PRS.

The other issue is that some PRS inspectors take an unnecessarily aggressive line with venues when they are found not to have the appropriate licence. Where a venue is not promoting music for commercial advantage but permitting (in some cases merely tolerating) it as part of their function as a community asset, such an approach can result in the music being cancelled rather than pay a fee. In those cases everyone - musicians, the PRS and PRS members - all lose out.