PRS at it again!!

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: woodsie
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:24 AM

I have been told that the PRS charge is the same as an "estimated" bill that the gas people send out. Clubs can send their own weekly/monthly returns to get an amended bill!

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:11 AM

The difference is that the utility companies will have to give the money back if they have over-estimated - without to onus being upon you.

PRS seem to work like a estimated tax demand - it is up to you to prove to them that their demand is wrong. You can see why such an approach is attractive and I am sure that many other bodies would like to work like this.

It is clear from the 30% discount PRS offer to any music shop who complies with their demand that they will try and take any cut of anything rather than have nothing at all.

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: treewind
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:12 AM

The story about the rate reduction is very nice but it doesn't alter the fact that trying out an instrument in a shop IS NOT A PERFORMANCE, unless the PRS can prove that folks come into the shop for the purpose of listening to musicians trying out instruments.

A 30% reduction on stealing money you're not entitled to has no merit.

Anahata

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: woodsie
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:14 AM

I agree with you Anhata it is robbery.

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,BazT
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:39 AM

Woodsie, I'm confused about this PRS set-list thing. If someone from the PRS comes to our pub to list the songs played, she's need a pretty encyclopaedic knowledge of music from all genres in order to corectly identify the set list. What's to stop me playing something by some fairly obscure artist, and if asked about its orgins, saying saomething like, "oh, I don't know where that one comes from - its something my old Uncle Charlie used to sing, so I guess it's traditional, or maybe he wrote it himself...."

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM

Keith Gilbert, PRS Performance Sales Director said: "Music shops pay like everyone else, but get a 30 per cent discount if their only music use is for demonstration purposes."

Perhaps Mr Gilbert could explain which it is - demonstration purposes or performance? He appear to what it both ways.

I am sure he would not offer his generous 30% discount on a venue who claimed their entertainment was not performance but for demonstration purposes.

Why is the PRS so-called? Why is it not called the Demonstration Purposes Society?

The starting point for all of these things is the performance of entertainment. Every damn fool knows that the starting point to this defines itself as someone paying someone else to perform to an audience.

All of these problems to activities that are not this - occur because this common sense definition is ignored by those who are empowered to enforce these things and who try to stretch these definitions - whatever the effect of this may be. In the case of organisations like PRS - to the long-term damage of the very thing they are supposed to be protecting.

A needless try-out to squeeze music shops where there clearly is no performance involved could result in a situation where instrument makers have no outlets and established performers will not be able to (cheaply) obtain the instruments they need to ply their trade. Less instruments and less shops means less opportunities for people to get started and all of this will be bad news for PRS - who will have less members as result.

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:30 AM

Do PRS really want to encourage the public to by their instruments and spares online?

They manage to do this and even their inventive minds would struggle with a means of extracting performance fees from online music shops.

I would imagine that many high street music shops already find it hard to compete with online shops. Many of course also sell online but it would be a sad day if there were no music shop windows for aspiring youngsters to press their nose up against.

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,anon
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:58 AM

I've just found out PRS have stopped charging music shops for demonstration music. A friend of mine is a member and called up to complain - it seems they've changed their tune after the press picked it up.

Common sense prevails!

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,Beezzz
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:31 AM

I've just read through this thread with a feeling of disgust at the actions of the PRS.

Sorry anon, I have to disagree about 'Common sense prevails'. Ending the dubious practice of stretching the definition of 'Performance' to this level, just because the press have picked up on it, is not common sense. It's more a matter making a hasty retreat now they've had a shot up the a**e and got egg on their face. Common sense, would have been to avoid going down this route in the first place. I trust that all the music shops that have paid up in the past can expect a full refund! Yeah, right!

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:34 AM

The following was posted on uk.music.folk

"Hobgoblin Music" wrote in message news:[e-mail]...

Had this from the Music Industries Association today:
"Following a week of negotiations.....I am delighted to inform you that demonstrating an instrument or a
customer trying one WILL NOT (now) require a license."

Good news!

Nicola

ENDS

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,anon
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:09 AM

Come on, Beezzz. Its been sorted out through people power... I'm sure they'll learn from this to think about the exact scenario before licensing in future.

Also, my friend who called was informed that all shops would receive a full refund.

I think, as I mentioned before, that their interpretation of the law was incorrect, but this has now been rectified.

Also, I agree with the above statement that premieses with unpaid performers should not be licensed in the same way as premises with paid or professional performers.

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:50 AM

Right now all we have to do is to get people power (whoever they may be) to sort out the Licensing Act for us.

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,anon
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 AM

well, we can all but try. Thats what people are there for.

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: folktheatre
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:53 AM

"their music *is* their livelihood, whereas for you it's bunce on top of your livelihood." I agree!

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: folktheatre
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:54 AM

Aw bum sorry didn't mean to post that! Duh. I agree with shambles I mean! How did I do that..... How embarassing.....

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,anon
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:27 AM

My question is, what would Woody Guthrie have thought?

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,anon
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:07 PM

I'm serious, what would Guthrie have thought of all this?

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don't give a darn. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

Woody Guthrie

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:10 PM

My question is a bit more basic than that. How many folks have downloaded music from the internet--music from which the writers and performers will not receive royalties?!

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: GUEST,anon
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:10 AM

If people are downloading from illegal file-sharing sites, then obviously the writers receive nothing. From I-tunes or any other legal site, the writers get their due. There is actually a disagreement at the moment between i-tunes and other sites who argue that the musicians are getting too much!