Performing Rights Society anomalies

[Rogerb]

I just heard that the PRS have told a man who plays a tranny in his 4-man workshop that he needs a $240 licence 😱
Needless to say, he just turned it off!

With all due respect to Pete and other professional performers, the PRS does seem to come up with some very strange judgements..... they told the owner of a music shop that he needed a licence in order that people could try-out instruments....... unless, like me, what they played could not be identifiable as 'music' 😀

 

[Pete Thomas]

I think that's a bit absurd. Of cousre I wouldn't mind if the licence went directly to me. I heard about that music shop, really daft.

 

[mfox]

this is a money grabbing situation.. i had them into my buisness 2 years ago .. i employ 2 people..told me i needed licence to play music. so i just told them i play classical stuff, they still said i needed it but never pursued it...its a very crazy world.. guy next door paid it, hes a little workshop, he employed 1 person , they scared him into paying it. he now works alone, no cusomers in the workshop, but they still make him pay it incase a customer hears the radio when they drop of jobs....CRAZY..

 

[Bobby G]

Is that the sound of collective hair-tearing-out I can hear? crazy, I calls it.

Does that mean, if I am driving in town with the windows down and the radio on I should have to pay for some sort of license in case someone hears it?

 

[mfox]

basically yes..

 

[old_git]

Writers get a small repeat fee from libraries which is somewhat akin to a radio licence for a shop if the general public or the clientele can hear the output.
The problem comes when I buy a second-hand anything, should I pay a repeat fee to the original manufacturer? Maybe it boils down to a big profit originally or many small payments spread out over a long period.
Blame J.S. Bach and the other jobbing musicians, they made it seem so easy.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I'm on both sides of this fence. As a composer of TV music, the royalty from PRS is what I make my living from. When music is played on any significant TV or radio station, the royalty that they pay goes to PRS and then the composer. Obviously PRS need to take a commission for administrating this. With smaller TV and radio stations, the payments are often based on a one day a month "sample" of what gets broadcast so that's a bit like a lottery for the compser.

And of course with smaller eneterprises such as hairdressers, garages, it seems fair that there is some kind of licence as the music they play from the radio or CDs enhances the "customer environment". In this case the licence money goes into a general pot which i guess helps with admin fees for PRS.

The issue to me is what is a reasonable threshold, ie number of member of public being broadcasted at, and the cost of the licence relative to the type of business. It appears to me from the cases cited above and others I've heard about that they haven't got these figures very realistic.

I would have thought we all agree that musicians and composers ought to be paid for their work - one argumant would be that the royalty idea is wrong and that it should be a one-off payment to the composer for a piece of music, ie a "buyout".

If this was the case (which it sometimes is for certain aspects of the process), I can imagine the quailty of music deteriorating as people go for the cheapest available. One advantage of royalties is that the quaility (or at least popularity) of the music has some chance of being kept at a certain standard.

 

[frankb]

Hmmm.... I'm not sure I agree.

The radio station pays to broadcast it and then the hairdressers / garage pay to play it? So the performer (in theory) gets paid twice for the same broadcast (assuming only one listener)?!

I can see the argument for (and have no issue with) the radio broadcaster paying to broadcast a piece of music. That is their function and is (IMO) from where the revenue should come.

For a business that has the radio on in the background, though... Well, I'm not in the habit of stopping by Kwik Fit to catch a performance! 😉 That isn't their function, it isn't a formal performance and collecting money (and enforcing that collection) from a myriad of outlets probably costs more than it gathers.

I think it would probably be better, more effective and easier to collect all the revenues from the radio stations and CD makers. (Mind you, that would probably put a load of bureaucrats and jobsworths out of work so it'll never happen! 🙂 )

Just an opinion and, as someone who is not a professional musician (or a bureaucrat!), probably not a terribly relevant one! 😉

 

[Thaumaturge]

Pete,

I am all in favour of musicians/composers making a living and I think it is right that they should get royalties from the broadcaster (radio or TV station). However I think that if the broadcast is 'passed on' by being played in a private environment such as an office or workshop where it is incidental to amuse the workers a licence should not be necessary - in this case there is no difference between a group of people listening individually or together.
If it is played in public to the public then yes, a licence should be reqired (or in some cases ban it!!).
My comments also apply to the playing of music via tapes, disks or whatever.
Incidently whether the environment is enhanced is a matter of opinion/taste.

Colin

 

[Rogerb]

Just a small can of worms, then, anyone ? 😀

 

[Pete Thomas]

FrankB wrote:
I think it would probably be better, more effective and easier to collect all the revenues from the radio stations and CD makers.

Theyr are various different sets of royalties.

Mechanical royalties are paid by the CD producer per CD manufactured OR sold. (MCPS in the UK)

Performance royalties based on per broadcast. (PRS in the UK)

There are also royalties to artists and musicians for playing and/singing. Again these are paid per CD by the producer/manufacturer and per broadcast (collected by PPL in the UK).

I'm not sure of the exact rationale behind charging for "rebroadcasting" a radio prog at a public place, but maybe it's because it is widening the audience. A bit daft I agree if you don't want to listen to Britney while having your blow dry. If there is a licence required for this then I believe it should be very much in line with what is a reasonable cost for small businesses. In the case of the BBC there may be an argument that it is a service to licence payers, and never meant to be broadcast at public events. However that's another argument about the purpose of the BBC annual licence, of which there are many other worms in the can.

In the case of commercial stations that doesn't make sense though because they are getting their ads to a wider audience.

 

[frankb]

It's an area I know nothing about. It does seem like a complex system with a lot of interfaces, though.

My day job is advising on best practice for testing computer software. The first things I look for are... ...complex system areas with lots of interfaces! Modules that work well on their own often have problems working with others. Modules that don't work well on their own are usually worse! 😉

In my experience as a tester and a process quality auditor (another hat!) there are a lot of parallels between software and organisations (and between bugs, bureaucrats and where they can each be found!).

Don't get me wrong; I think you earn every penny you get, Pete! But by the sound of it, the way it is collected could be be made much more simple and efficient. And fairer.