Had a letter from PRS asking if our business plays music via CD's, radio, computers etc. Whilst it's no issue for us as nothing is played by staff or for customers, I understand that under a certain Act from 1988 music played publicly in this way requires licencing so that royalties can be paid to performers to "support their livelihood".
I'll not rant about the type of livelihood some performers choose to have, but is this thing now something that is being rolled out across the UK? Bars, restaurants etc have been paying this for years no doubt, but I just don't like something that sounds like getting another fast buck out of honest businesses!
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
This was gone over in depth recently...
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/question/performing-rights-so...
Basic line is that between them the PRS/MCPS and PPL agents have been found to be rude and aggressive with "customers" (although victims seems a more appropriate definition) and to lie to make sales.
If you agree to pay one, they pass your details on to the other in the form of "Sucker Lists" they share between themselves. Their operations are a lot like TV Licencing.
The best form of defence is protection by banning any played music, radio or TV in the office and banning staff from responding to written or telephone surveys on the subject which are a way of obtaining admissions under false pretences.
Basically, these guys are scumbags.
Power of law - the "Profit Right Society"
Regardless of any issues about rights or wrongs the "Profit Right Society" as I think of them have the power of UK law behind them.
So take their threats seriously.
Yes, there are "rights and wrongs" issues (despite having prepared numerous musicians accounts never seen one receive money from PRS - they are no doubt too small to get anything - the PRS seemingly being mainly to benefit rich performers; Radio stations pay PRS yet this isn't enough for the rich beneficiaries of PRS).
It's maybe a case of the rich and powerful maintaining their status, PRS might just be a tool with the power of law to do this.
So many "moral" issues are undermined by the power of law (power of rich and powerful lobbying)...tenancies of pubs, playing of TV games in pubs, law of libel, to name several issues).
Anyone the first clue how the money is distributed?
Assuming I play music where the public can here it, how exactly is the fee I pay distributed to the musicians involved? How do they even know the medium I played the music on let alone narrowing it down to a specific band/performer/song/piece?
They make an educated guess
Assuming I play music where the public can here it, how exactly is the fee I pay distributed to the musicians involved? How do they even know the medium I played the music on let alone narrowing it down to a specific band/performer/song/piece?
"We calculate the revenue distributed to members through a variety of sources including set lists, play logs, sampling work and statistical models that we call analogies. Wherever possible – and cost effective – we get the most accurate data of what music is used and when. We can’t be everywhere and listen to everything so we sometimes have to base our calculations on samples of specific business types, such as factories, and review this on a quarterly basis."
http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/copyrightcampaignprspplanswers.html
The sort of clients I've had end up getting about £15 every 6 months. I'm sure Robbie Williams does a bit better, though ... as does the Chief Executive of the PRS £685k excluding pension contributions for 2012.
Con
PRS and the rest are just a licence to print money, check out their admin costs and overheads, its the profit that is shared between the musicians they are supposed to represent.
A self employed friend was told by PRS that if he played his radio in the van he used for work when he was stopped at lights and someone walking by could hear the music, he was breaking the law.
Its utter garbage and just another barrier us lowly workers have to bear.
Surely not, as it would be normal commuting, wouldn't it?
... A self employed friend was told by PRS that if he played his radio in the van he used for work when he was stopped at lights and someone walking by could hear the music, he was breaking the law. ....
Surely not, as it would be normal commuting, wouldn't it, especially if it weren't a company vehicle? And don't HSE discourage distractions on work sites, so ...
Van = place of work
Another group of zealots - Council workers enforcing workplace smoking ban - have adjudged that a van is a place of work and apparently succeeded in prosecuting a van driver for "smoking in the work place".
So it follows, the Profit Right Society might decide that playing a radio in a van is a work place and any sound to be heard from a radio in a van is a fee earning activity for the Profit Right Society to enrich (make Profit) for their rich (not poor) musicians. A sort of Robin Hood in reverse - like pubco robber barons.
PRS = take from the poor and give to the rich.