Mornin'!.

Anyone on here know anything about PRS???

the more I read the more confusing it gets!

Jayne.x.

Mornin'!.

Anyone on here know anything about PRS???

the more I read the more confusing it gets!

Jayne.x.

All horribly complicated Jayne. All the details are here: www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk.

I've always thought it's a little bit cheeky for the PRS to charge for Northern Soul stuff since none of the money will ever get back to the original acts in most cases as most of 'em aren't registered in the UK!

I think it's fair to say that most U.S, acts from the 60's and 70's wouldn't have a clue about registering for PRS/PPL/MCPS in the UK. Musicians in 60's Detroit, Michigan just didn't think like that.

Anyway, hope it helps.......

Ian D

All horribly complicated Jayne. All the details are here: www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk.

I've always thought it's a little bit cheeky for the PRS to charge for Northern Soul stuff since none of the money will ever get back to the original acts in most cases as most of 'em aren't registered in the UK!

I think it's fair to say that most U.S, acts from the 60's and 70's wouldn't have a clue about registering for PRS/PPL/MCPS in the UK. Musicians in 60's Detroit, Michigan just didn't think like that.

Anyway, hope it helps.......

Ian D

Thanks Ian,

Thats the website causing the confusion. . Unless the venue's request a list of every single song played at every event that is open to the public and charging admission, I dont understand how it can work. Maybe I'm being thick.

PRS are charging venues for a licence. They then send forms at the end of the licence term and request details of what's been happening and charge the venue accordingly?.. well thats my understanding.

Hmm..

Jayne.x.

Hi Jayne,

I haven't got a clue... but I seem to remember Ged Parker knowing a bit about licences etc... maybe worth a try?

Anyway... Good luck with it

Edited April 10, 200817 yr by jumpinjoan

Thanks Ian,

PRS are charging venues for a licence. They then send forms at the end of the licence term and request details of what's been happening and charge the venue accordingly?.. well thats my understanding

no venue pays anything on top of the licence

Thanks Ian,

Thats the website causing the confusion. . Unless the venue's request a list of every single song played at every event that is open to the public and charging admission, I dont understand how it can work. Maybe I'm being thick.

PRS are charging venues for a licence. They then send forms at the end of the licence term and request details of what's been happening and charge the venue accordingly?.. well thats my understanding.

Hmm..

Jayne.x.

I thought it was the venue's responsibility to cover the PRS licence - most of 'em pay an annual fee for the priviledge of playing music. It doesn't make logistical sense to have promoters paying seperately........

Ian D

Its a bloody nightmare trying to work it all out, I've always paid the venue and have pointed out the records we play are all from obscure sources etc and when pushed have suggested Kent, Grapevine etc as being the ones who should recieve anything.

Hi Jayne,

I haven't got a clue... but I seem to remember Ged Parker knowing a bit about licences etc... maybe worth a try?

Anyway... Good luck with it

Jayne,

No simple answers I'm afraid. It is a bit of a mine field:

Firstly there is the Public Performance Licence (PPL). This covers the royalties which are paid to the performers for the music.

The second licence that you require is the Performing Rights Society Licence (PRS). This covers the royalties which are paid to the composer of the music and the lyrics (for example the song writer).

Mostly these are covered by the venue but sometimes PRS and PPL come after promotors / DJ's particularly where a venue can't or won't quantify what venue users play.

GLD01.pdfLicensing_Royalties.pdf

These two documents may help but I would caution you to make every effort to get the venue to take responsibility for this not only because it can be costly but also because it is very very time consuming.

It has taken a colleague of mine 18 months to gain a settlement from PPL for Students' Unions (most of whom had been exempt as regisetred charities until PPL successfully lobied the Gov't for a change in the law.)

Tariff20D.pdf

Jayne this is the tarrif and is about the clearest info we have on file. The clear view of my colleague, whose area of expertise this is, is that the venue should pay and he (as the ex entertainments manager at Keele) used to add this into the cost of hire of the venue.

He also doubts the amount or music played at a northern event would be within the PRS's "repertoire" would be significant. Their repertoire is the range of music they have an agreement to collect royalties for. Obvioulsy this will cover the main UK lables and some of the US majors on a reciprical agreement. So another reason only to play the rare stuff .

I thought the tarriff for the Public performance licence was based on square feet of flooring and is paid annually

P.S you would not believe which Northern records are registered - Its amazing that so much is.

I forget the tel number but you can ring them up and they will tell you if the 45 is registered and who has the rights to it.

EG: Larry Birdsong - Help me on Sur -speed - is owned by Universal

Hi Jayne

Welcome to the wonderful illogical world of PRS.

My company promotes and produces concert all over trhe UK, mostly outdoors, for which we have to apply for a range of licenses and also advising the PRS about our concerts.

The easiest comment I would make is that if it is a bona fide venue you are booking they will (and should) have a PRS annual license, so in which case they will pay an agreed annual fee which would have taken into account amount of events held, size of venue V dancefloor.

To show the illogicality of it all, we promote a range of concerts, so this year we will promote Diana Ross and will have to pay 3% of ticket turnover to PRS, yet when I promote classical with a live orchestra it raises to 4.7%! Except if we use out of copyright (over 80yrs) pieces, which then reduces those pieces out of the formula.

So, as you can see quite complex, but I'm sure you're fine if a regular hiring type venue, and if unsure just ask to see their PRS sticker.

Hope this assists.

Mark

no venue pays anything on top of the licence

yeh, that's what got me - so if a venue only has to pay for a licence, how does any additional funds go back to the artists or to whoever owns the music. ?

Hmm - thank you all very much for your help, very much appreciated.

I started looking because a venue I work for has just decided to charge extra on all venue hire charges and they're using PRS licence as the reason for the increase.

My understanding is that they already had the licence, and they're claiming they are just now passing this cost onto clients who hire the hall.

I'll read a bit more... Thanks Ged. love u to bits!

Jayne.x.

Hi Jayne

I am a researcher for PRS - employed by a market research company. I go to venues and do a random sample of what music is being played. It can be any sort of music - this week an open mic night (some very good blues) and sequence dance music (worryingly I knew all the tunes!). I think they then allocate royalties on a proportional basis

there are researchers like me all over the country. In fact they are looking for more if anyone is interested. You don't have to supply a list of what you play. Radio stations DO as far as I am aware.

There is not a specific category of music that is included or excluded from royalties as far as I know unless the music is out of copyright maybe?

If the venue are charging you extra there's not much you can do although it is a bit of a cheek as they have to have it anyway. It is the venue's responsibilty NOT the DJ or performer.

last year at the iow festival each DJ that played in our marquee was asked to list the records they'd played. not a huge deal to be fair.

May I mention it is all about intelectual property rights and legalities. There are two copyrighs in a sound recording. The record label owns one, and the other is owned by the writers of the songs. So a record played on the radio would generate PRS and PPL residuals that would go back to the publisher/writer and the record label and even the performers on the record (depending where they are from). The reason for this is because it is a business and that is how things are done correctly. By definition of buying a recorded work, you are merely given a licence to play it at home etc and you do not own the copyright in the recording or have any rights about duplicating the work (apart from a back up copy for personal use - fair use). There are blanket agreements covering all sorts of public performances live and of recordings and it is very confusing. But did you know that everytime you copy a recorded work for somebody else who would have bought it anyway, you are denying a residual to the record label, performers and writers? These legal residuals help fund future projects and keep the creativity going for new works, that eventual become old and collectable hopefully. Imagine writing a song, producing it in a studio, releasing it on a recorded media, to find out that everyone is copying it, and worse still selling it without proper credits etc! Would these people steal a Mars bar from a sweet shop, or not pay for a round of drinks in a pub? Yet, when it comes to music and films.......

I was speaking to an American attorney who came across a Northern Soul website where an individual was compiling CD's of songs and selling them for 'cost' being the jewel case, blank stock, labels and postage. There was a disclaimer on the site saying that these duplications were legal if the purchaser was going to use them as a 'back up' copy for the original they had, and if any action was taken it would be them breaking the law because they did not own an original, and not him/her the duplicator. The response was:

"The guy with that Northern Soul site loves the music, he just doesn't care much about the people who made it. He knows better than to claim that recordings from the 60s are in the public domain. Guys like this believe he has a greater right to the music because he loves it than the people who created it."

Please don't think PRS residuals do not get back to the writers. Today at Tottenham Court tube station, the busker who plays the harp there was telling me he recieved his PRS residuals for something he performed on in December. The system works, but is ambigous sometimes. So any illegally duplicated CD, mp3 or other media from a friend that you have been given and would have probaly bought anyway has denied somebody a residual. Because the technology can do it, it is done without any respect for the creative process in the first place. There is a Swedish torrent site who are having action against them from Hollywood film companies for hosting sites that illegally infringe copyrights by allowing downloads of music, TV programmes and feature films. They claim for example, the movie manufactures 'make enough money and can afford to loose the DVD revenues because they make enough out the merchandising'. Can you beleive that?

Edited April 11, 200817 yr by Carl Dixon

Let's hope that some of the money does actually get to the Artist/Family/Dependants.

Anyone know what the deal was in the 60's regarding Promotional records sent to the Various Radio Stations.

As we know, Various White Label, Multicoloured, Single Sided, Double A Sided records were sent out as promotional material in the 60's.

Various stories of how companies achieved airplay .

Did they then receive royalties from the Radio Station that helped to make them a hit record.

Edited April 12, 200817 yr by 45cellar

last year at the iow festival each DJ that played in our marquee was asked to list the records they'd played. not a huge deal to be fair.

Back to the bad old days of the 70's when I was club DJ you had to list each record you played, reality was you just filled it in when pushed by the manager and then you couldn't remember half the tracks you had played so just wrote things off the top of your head, also remember the time my local record shop was being hassled for actually playing records in the shop to me, to see if I wanted to buy them, were was the logic in that.

May I mention it is all about intelectual property rights and legalities. There are two copyrighs in a sound recording. The record label owns one, and the other is owned by the writers of the songs. So a record played on the radio would generate PRS and PPL residuals that would go back to the publisher/writer and the record label and even the performers on the record (depending where they are from). The reason for this is because it is a business and that is how things are done correctly. By definition of buying a recorded work, you are merely given a licence to play it at home etc and you do not own the copyright in the recording or have any rights about duplicating the work (apart from a back up copy for personal use - fair use). There are blanket agreements covering all sorts of public performances live and of recordings and it is very confusing. But did you know that everytime you copy a recorded work for somebody else who would have bought it anyway, you are denying a residual to the record label, performers and writers? These legal residuals help fund future projects and keep the creativity going for new works, that eventual become old and collectable hopefully. Imagine writing a song, producing it in a studio, releasing it on a recorded media, to find out that everyone is copying it, and worse still selling it without proper credits etc! Would these people steal a Mars bar from a sweet shop, or not pay for a round of drinks in a pub? Yet, when it comes to music and films.......

I was speaking to an American attorney who came across a Northern Soul website where an individual was compiling CD's of songs and selling them for 'cost' being the jewel case, blank stock, labels and postage. There was a disclaimer on the site saying that these duplications were legal if the purchaser was going to use them as a 'back up' copy for the original they had, and if any action was taken it would be them breaking the law because they did not own an original, and not him/her the duplicator. The response was:

"The guy with that Northern Soul site loves the music, he just doesn't care much about the people who made it. He knows better than to claim that recordings from the 60s are in the public domain. Guys like this believe he has a greater right to the music because he loves it than the people who created it."

Please don't think PRS residuals do not get back to the writers. Today at Tottenham Court tube station, the busker who plays the harp there was telling me he recieved his PRS residuals for something he performed on in December. The system works, but is ambigous sometimes. So any illegally duplicated CD, mp3 or other media from a friend that you have been given and would have probaly bought anyway has denied somebody a residual. Because the technology can do it, it is done without any respect for the creative process in the first place. There is a Swedish torrent site who are having action against them from Hollywood film companies for hosting sites that illegally infringe copyrights by allowing downloads of music, TV programmes and feature films. They claim for example, the movie manufactures 'make enough money and can afford to loose the DVD revenues because they make enough out the merchandising'. Can you beleive that?

Hi Carl,

I still maintain that it's the venues responsibility to purchase the appropriate license from the PRS in the first place. If a venue is in the business of hosting musical events and even just playing music, then surely the onus is on them to make sure the venue is PRS licenced is it not?

Off course, everything that Carl says above is true in a fashion. However, as per usual, with Northern Soul, there's numerous anomalies. Very, very few of the fly-by-night U.S. labels that we treasure would have had either the infrastructure or forsesight to register with a foreign performing rights society back then. It just wasn't on the radar in Buttf*&k, Indiana at the time. They were too busy figuring how to sell records in the next town leave alone another continent. Plus they'd more than likely go bust a couple of months later anyway LOL...

So consequently, they didn't spend much time dealing with any adminstrative stuff in any other country. Why would they? Nobody knew that the records would ever make it outside the state, leave alone the country.....

So, apart from the U.S. majors and a few very sussed independents from the 50's, 60's and 70's, the majority of Northern Soul copyright owners simply aren't registered in the U.K. period. Hence they're not collecting any income which is derived from their copyrights being aired in PRS licenced UK venues. Sad but true. There's a million horror stories and I don't want to air them here but suffice to say that 90% of the artists and record companies I've interviewed or talked to have never derived any benefit from the play of their records from venues in the UK.

They just didn't know the system.

Still don't in most cases unfortunately.

And before you can draw anything, you have to sign up and get registered etc, etc...

And let's not forget that they're not getting any younger either!

A few people on here know about this scenario - it's not exactly fresh news.

It's basically a major administrative process to get the right people registered so they can collect their rightful dues. In Northern Soul's cases many of these people are now dead, messed-up, not in great shape or their estates are under the impression that's there's millions of dollars at stake from a play in Burnley on pissing-down Tuesday night in February. Y'know, not easy........

Funnily enough, you'd think that'd more or less be the perfect job wouldn't you, i.e. contacting a singer you worship and saying "hey, want some free dosh? Then just sign right here on the dotted line on this and this and this".....etc, etc, etc....

It's not that easy believe me. It takes a TON of time, a lot of resource, a lot of admin, a lot of headache, a lot of heartache and a large degree of compassion for a hero that has been somewhat shortchanged from the system.

I'm sure we all remember the fact that James Fountain received the princely sum of $8 for recording "Seven Day Lover". Ask him what UK residuals he's picked up lately.....?

Essentially, the PRS does a wonderful job for it's members and I don't think anyone would blame 'em for taking their responsibilities seriously. Certainly not me. A good team to have on your side believe me - I'm mates with the chairman and he runs a whippersnapper ship.

But I think we need to be realistic here. I'm pretty sure that Northern Soul isn't the PRS's No.1 target - especially for promoters who book a venue for a Northern night in good faith and who suddenly get stuck with the dilemma of the venue using the PRS as an excuse for hiking the price!

Switch venues Jayne. They don't deserve you.

Ian D

Edited April 11, 200817 yr by Ian Dewhirst

Hi Jayne

I am a researcher for PRS - employed by a market research company. I go to venues and do a random sample of what music is being played. It can be any sort of music - this week an open mic night (some very good blues) and sequence dance music (worryingly I knew all the tunes!). I think they then allocate royalties on a proportional basis

there are researchers like me all over the country. In fact they are looking for more if anyone is interested. You don't have to supply a list of what you play. Radio stations DO as far as I am aware.

There is not a specific category of music that is included or excluded from royalties as far as I know unless the music is out of copyright maybe?

If the venue are charging you extra there's not much you can do although it is a bit of a cheek as they have to have it anyway. It is the venue's responsibilty NOT the DJ or performer.

Hi KathDJ,

Dead right. The venue's responsibily for sure.

And yep, I'm dead interested in being a researcher for your company! I'm the living expert in these arenas.

Seriously, PM me 'cos I know this stuff backwards as a result of me being around forever LOL....

Ian D

Mornin'!. Anyone on here know anything about PRS???

the more I read the more confusing it gets! Jayne.x.

Had to pay for PRS @ Various Venues That I Have Used, But Always Argued That The Music We Was Playing ie The Northern Soul Artists Never Gained Out Of It, I Always Saw The Likes of The Rolling Stones & Other Big Names Benifiting From This, & They didn't Really Need The Dosh, Only a Few Times Have We Been Asked For a List of Music Played, But Never Got a Refund Due to The Artists on Our List Not Being Connected to PRS ????

Jon Buck

Switch venues Jayne. They don't deserve you.

Ian D

Hi Ian,

Just a quick reply because I'm still reading through the great posts on this thread. wish I'd saved loads of time in the first place and come straight on here!.

It's not a venue I hire, it's a venue I work for. We're losing customers though because the rent's going through the roof with the extra PRS charges, although it wouldn't surprise me if Bury were next!). bloody council!!

back shortly...

Jayne.x.

Had to pay for PRS @ Various Venues That I Have Used, But Always Argued That The Music We Was Playing ie The Northern Soul Artists Never Gained Out Of It, I Always Saw The Likes of The Rolling Stones & Other Big Names Benifiting From This, & They didn't Really Need The Dosh, Only a Few Times Have We Been Asked For a List of Music Played, But Never Got a Refund Due to The Artists on Our List Not Being Connected to PRS ????

Jon Buck

oh dear that's depressing - so venues are already doing this.

so they'll recoup the cost of the licence and a stack of income on top.

Thanks Ian, Carl, Kath & everyone for the info, it's got me interested now... I'm sure I'll be back for more info later...

Jayne.x.

Ian - I agree. The guys wanted a local hit and never saw the bigger picture. This is why I feel it is omportant that Kent records continue their sterling work with re-issues. It gives worth and credence to projects from yesteryear that would otherwise be gone forever. I am sure Kent's payments to recording owners are a nice surprise, and for them to get their work acknowledged 40 years later must be a thrill.

Also another point mentioned from 45cellar. Without the piarates in the 1960's, who would ever have heard of Motown. Thanks to the likes of Tony Blackburn and Dusty Springfiled, who were instrumental in getting the sound heard! I guess it is a paradox. I just wish that some of the high prices paid for records could filter some cash back into the music business to fund new creativity. However, on saying that I understand there is a massive specialist industry financing all sorts of positive things, like memorabilia, flying the guys over here to perform etc.

Had to pay for PRS @ Various Venues That I Have Used, But Always Argued That The Music We Was Playing ie The Northern Soul Artists Never Gained Out Of It, I Always Saw The Likes of The Rolling Stones & Other Big Names Benifiting From This, & They didn't Really Need The Dosh, Only a Few Times Have We Been Asked For a List of Music Played, But Never Got a Refund Due to The Artists on Our List Not Being Connected to PRS ????

Jon Buck

And there lies the problem John.

The system works like a dream for George Michael but not at all for George Blackwell.

I'm really amazed that in 2008 there's not more clarification on many things like this. It's obviously patently unfair for a scene which plays predominently unknown U.S. black music from 40 years ago to further line the pockets of Paul McCartney, whilst making no real effort to address the problems of compensating the original artists. It doesn't make sense to me, unless of course, you're a fee paying member of the UK PRS, which most of our 70-80 year old heroes aren't.

If somebody approached me tomorrow and funded me to set up a 'rights clarification' agency and get hundreds of artists registered in ALL the appropriate areas (MCPS/PRS/PPL) I'd do it in a flash. But whilst I've suggested it to various people in the past, no one's beaten down my door with enthusiasm as yet. It's simply not in their interests.

Unfortunately though, this is just the tip of a rather large iceberg.

I'd like to see a damn sight more transparency about some of the murkier stuff that still goes on to this day, especially in the Publishing arena. For instance, unless the law has changed, it's still perfectly legal for a UK publisher to claim UK publishing for a song that 'they haven't been able to trace' (or probably don't want to trace in all reality). The money is then collected from that song and put in an escrow account for a 6 year period. If, at the end of 6 years, the original writer has still not been traced, then the UK publisher gets the money. Simple ay? And legal.

No, I don't get it either.

It certainly doesn't constitute what I would consider to be fair and equitible practice. I'd put it more strongly but I don't want to break the law LOL!

The reason why I feel so emotive about this is because I got conned myself by one of the great and good in that world and, to this day, whenever I speak to the artist in question (who luckily still trusts me), he always tells me how ripped-off he feels about that particular situation. Never again. One bitten, twice shy.

Like many large institutions in the UK (the National Health service, the Post Office, The Tax Office, The Civil Service etc) I think the Music Rights organisations seem to act like quasi goverment quangos (which they are of course) and, therefore, are somewhat innured to change or common sense.

But we are now living in the digital age where I can download anything I want in a second, so it would make sense to me to re-design all these daft systems which are based on a world which no longer exists and are patently outdated in this day and age.

But, hey, I forgot! We're living in the UK where councils are spying on tax payers over school places whilst kids are stabbing each other every week on a road near you.............

Ian D

Hello,

It's worth remembering that it's writers and publishers, not artists, who get income from PRS. And only if their works are registered in specific territories of course, as Ian pointed out.

These days the PRS system is pretty good for broadcasting (for the bigger stations at least) and is far more accurate than the systems used by BMI and ASCAP in the USA. But the public performance side of PRS is based on "sample surveys" which can't be very accurate so major writers benefit at the expense of less successful writers.

I suppose they have to use blanket licensing for public performance royalties until something more scientific can be devised. It's a bit like the TV license you pay for the benefit of the BBC but you could be watching other channels most of the time.

In the USA at the moment ASCAP are taking legal action against many small clubs and bars who refuse to buy a license. Most of the club owners claim the only music performed on their premises is by unsigned bands who play their own songs, therefore they shouldn't have to pay a license fee which will benefit the Michael Jackson's and Paul McCartney's of this world. It isn't always as simple as that but they have a point.

Things get even worse when some club owners try to pass portions of their license fees on to the artists and DJs or promoters who use their premises. That's out of order and probably illegal in some cases.

Paul

Ian - I agree. The guys wanted a local hit and never saw the bigger picture. This is why I feel it is omportant that Kent records continue their sterling work with re-issues. It gives worth and credence to projects from yesteryear that would otherwise be gone forever. I am sure Kent's payments to recording owners are a nice surprise, and for them to get their work acknowledged 40 years later must be a thrill.

Also another point mentioned from 45cellar. Without the piarates in the 1960's, who would ever have heard of Motown. Thanks to the likes of Tony Blackburn and Dusty Springfiled, who were instrumental in getting the sound heard! I guess it is a paradox. I just wish that some of the high prices paid for records could filter some cash back into the music business to fund new creativity. However, on saying that I understand there is a massive specialist industry financing all sorts of positive things, like memorabilia, flying the guys over here to perform etc.

Thanks for coming back Carl.

One thing which I think the agencies could do which would re-align some of the present inequities, would be to maybe set up something like an 'unpaid' artists benevolent fund where a small percentage of PRS income or MCPS Copyright Control income could go into a pot and maybe help out some of those artists who haven't fared so well over the years. We know most of 'em so tracing 'em won't be so much of a problem LOL...

This would be similar to the Rhythm & Blues Foundation which was set up to address the problem of royalty payment inequities in the U.S. in 1988. For further information please check https://www.rhythm-n-blues.org/

I mean it's all very well the agencies doing what they're paid to do but I'd be much happier with it all, if I knew that the payments were going to the people who deserve them the most - especially in the world of Northern Soul. I'm sure Paul McCartney would be fine with that.

Let's face it, the Beatles owe a lot to the Isley Brothers, Smokey Robinson and the Marvellettes.

But it was that bloody Berry Gordy Jr that steered 'em the wrong way with "Money (That's What I Want)"!

Boy, this thread started off with a simple question from Jayne LOL...

Jayne - one other thing you could check is: what is the actual fee that the council pay the PRS? Has it mammothly ramped-up just lately or something? Maybe the PRS has become even more complicated then it was? I thought it was a one-off annual fee in most cases unless someone can tell me any different.

I'd look into it myself but I hate all this stuff - I can't be arsed with filling in forms and studying small print which I seem to do on an almost daily basis these days. Life's too short for all this LOL.........

Ian D

Hello,

It's worth remembering that it's writers and publishers, not artists, who get income from PRS. And only if their works are registered in specific territories of course, as Ian pointed out.

These days the PRS system is pretty good for broadcasting (for the bigger stations at least) and is far more accurate than the systems used by BMI and ASCAP in the USA. But the public performance side of PRS is based on "sample surveys" which can't be very accurate so major writers benefit at the expense of less successful writers.

I suppose they have to use blanket licensing for public performance royalties until something more scientific can be devised. It's a bit like the TV license you pay for the benefit of the BBC but you could be watching other channels most of the time.

In the USA at the moment ASCAP are taking legal action against many small clubs and bars who refuse to buy a license. Most of the club owners claim the only music performed on their premises is by unsigned bands who play their own songs, therefore they shouldn't have to pay a license fee which will benefit the Michael Jackson's and Paul McCartney's of this world. It isn't always as simple as that but they have a point.

Things get even worse when some club owners try to pass portions of their license fees on to the artists and DJs or promoters who use their premises. That's out of order and probably illegal in some cases.

Paul

Agreed Paul.

I think it probably is illegal to pass on a portion of the licence fee to promoters - the PRS annual fee should be part of the venue's fixed overhead surely?

But I don't think the 'one size fits all' template works any longer. The whole music biz is changing almost on a daily basis, so I guess it's only a matter of time before the collection agencies will have to update anyway.

Can't be soon enough for me.

Ian D

Got a letter at work from the PRS a couple of months ago asking for £288 yearly as we have a radio on in the workshop.

Our firm only employ 4 people & 1 of those is deaf!

It's a welding/fabrication factory & is not open to the general public.

Who the f##k do they think they are when they try to stop folks just listening to the radio at work.

Got a letter at work from the PRS a couple of months ago asking for £288 yearly as we have a radio on in the workshop.

Our firm only employ 4 people & 1 of those is deaf!

It's a welding/fabrication factory & is not open to the general public.

Who the f##k do they think they are when they try to stop folks just listening to the radio at work.

Which is patently ridiculous Cunnie!

They're really scraping the barrell if they're targeting workplaces. What on earth is going on in this world? It's just money, money, money and it makes me sick.......

Ian D

The reason why I feel so emotive about this is because I got conned myself by one of the great and good in that world and, to this day, whenever I speak to the artist in question (who luckily still trusts me), he always tells me how ripped-off he feels about that particular situation. Never again. One bitten, twice shy.

Ian D

HI Ian

I for one are glad you have become a member, great threads and very informative .

I have been swapping stories with a few artist recently who have worked with producers and never got what they were promised . Wont name the artists or producers for obvious reasons but all similar stories , not getting performing rights on records , so on so on..

The artist are seeing bootlegs on ebay and how much the original records are selling for and have started to look into and to follow up on who owns the rights .

So we could see more threads like the other the one .

Right back into my shell.

Andy

Hello Ian,

These days MCPS don't actually charge royalties for mechanical reproductions of songs that aren't registered, can't be traced or are published by non-members. No money is collected and no licenses are issued in those cases. In theory it means the manufacturer doesn't actually have permission to reproduce the song.

So there isn't a pot of undistributed money these days, just a list of unlicensed works which have been manufactured without anyone paying mechanical royalties.

If a belated registration is made it can trigger off a retroactive claim but it has to be within six years.

With PRS, by the way, it's worth noting that each songwriter needs to pay £100 to join the society. Many obscure writers might feel there isn't much point because they might only earn a few pounds each year - if anything.

Publishers pay £400 to join PRS and of course some small publishers may not see the point. It's sometimes better for them to get the benefits of PRS membership by being administered by a bigger publisher.

We have six MCPS memberships and two PRS memberships because we have several catalogues and also represent other publishers. But I can see how frustrating it is for anyone to think their royalties are either being uncollected or are ending up in the pockets of bigger players.

Things are better than they were but there's a long way to go.

If anyone knows a writer who feels he has unclaimed royalties I might be able to help.

Best regards,

Paul

www.millbrand.com

Hello Ian,

These days MCPS don't actually charge royalties for mechanical reproductions of songs that aren't registered, can't be traced or are published by non-members. No money is collected and no licenses are issued in those cases. In theory it means the manufacturer doesn't actually have permission to reproduce the song.

So there isn't a pot of undistributed money these days, just a list of unlicensed works which have been manufactured without anyone paying mechanical royalties.

If a belated registration is made it can trigger off a retroactive claim but it has to be within six years.

With PRS, by the way, it's worth noting that each songwriter needs to pay £100 to join the society. Many obscure writers might feel there isn't much point because they might only earn a few pounds each year - if anything.

Publishers pay £400 to join PRS and of course some small publishers may not see the point. It's sometimes better for them to get the benefits of PRS membership by being administered by a bigger publisher.

We have six MCPS memberships and two PRS memberships because we have several catalogues and also represent other publishers. But I can see how frustrating it is for anyone to think their royalties are either being uncollected or are ending up in the pockets of bigger players.

Things are better than they were but there's a long way to go.

If anyone knows a writer who feels he has unclaimed royalties I might be able to help.

Best regards,

Paul

www.millbrand.com

Hi Paul,

Yep, you're absolutely right about the MCPS no longer charging for Cop Con these days - I stand corrected. However, in my experience it doesn't stop anyone manufacturing. In fact, I'm amazed at the amount of Cop Con's on many CD releases these days - ever checked many of Sanctuary's reggae releases for instance? They're ALL Cop Con LOL......

In fact the last forms I did for the MCPS when I was running Salsoul, I did by going through the MCPS database and duly noting everything which was on the system and putting either Cop Con or the US Publishers on anything which wasn't.

Cue a stampede of Publishing Houses which suddenly decided that they did own the tracks in question but 'forgot to register them' with the MCPS!

As per usual, when I complained that if a Publisher enters into a contract to represent a writer in the UK, then surely the very least they can do is make sure that everything is entered on the system it was put down to, yawn, 'administrative errors'!

What annoyed me, as a record company, is that we took all the risk in re-issuing piles of stuff at great cost, whilst the publishers merely sat back, looked at our packages and then decided that they did in fact own something which they'd never bothered registering in the first place.

Sloppy at the very least and probably in contravention of their contract with the writer at best.

Is it any wonder that we sometimes get frustrated?

We should have a natter mate. There's a lot of stuff to claim on since 2002. It's just very time-consuming and expensive to get all the paperwork signed by the right people for all these agencies but a bit of detective work would probably throw a few obvious ones up.....

Best,

Ian D

Edited April 12, 200817 yr by Ian Dewhirst

Which is patently ridiculous Cunnie!

They're really scraping the barrell if they're targeting workplaces. What on earth is going on in this world? It's just money, money, money and it makes me sick.......

Ian D

Too right Ian.

They seem to have targeted a large industrial area around our firm in Sheffield as several other factories have had a similar letter & we have checked them out through the local Chamber of Commerce.

If our firm is taken as an average from a payment point of view it works out at £72 per person.

I'm pretty sure the majority of employers are going to say sod that & if it gets followed up will just take the radio's out of the workplace.

Won't affect me personally but it will mean Joe Public will be deprived of hearing a hell of a lot of new releases so already low sales will be even lower thus affecting the whole music industry.

Too right Ian.

They seem to have targeted a large industrial area around our firm in Sheffield as several other factories have had a similar letter & we have checked them out through the local Chamber of Commerce.

If our firm is taken as an average from a payment point of view it works out at £72 per person.

I'm pretty sure the majority of employers are going to say sod that & if it gets followed up will just take the radio's out of the workplace.

Won't affect me personally but it will mean Joe Public will be deprived of hearing a hell of a lot of new releases so already low sales will be even lower thus affecting the whole music industry.

Sickening mate.

I've seen a lady friend of mine reduced to tears because she couldn't have the radio on in the basement kitchen where she slaves for hours on the basis that customers in the shop upstairs could hear it!

What next? If there's 4 people in a car listening to the radio on the way to work will that require a licence? Or similarly someone playing a radio in their own garden?

I would have thought they'd have bigger fish to fry. This country is just going down the tubes with all this ridiculous beaurocracy......

Ian D

Yes the reggae people have lost thousands over the years.

Many of the big publishers neglect their small songs because they're so focused on the big hits. In those cases it's the writers who suffer.

I understand your frustrations with publishers who just act like bankers. We also sign new British writers and do sync deals for movies so we're doing something for our clients.

I hate to see music companies turn into financial institutions. That applies to most of the majors these days.

Maybe the high street banks should start selling records.

Paul

Too right Ian.

They seem to have targeted a large industrial area around our firm in Sheffield as several other factories have had a similar letter & we have checked them out through the local Chamber of Commerce.

If our firm is taken as an average from a payment point of view it works out at £72 per person.

I'm pretty sure the majority of employers are going to say sod that & if it gets followed up will just take the radio's out of the workplace.

Won't affect me personally but it will mean Joe Public will be deprived of hearing a hell of a lot of new releases so already low sales will be even lower thus affecting the whole music industry.

The PRS and PPL seem to have turned into complete ogres this last year, when I first bought my Pub it had no PRS or PPL licences, so I phoned them up and both were nice as pie and we got it sorted, in the following years renewals came up and I paid with not too much grumbling.

In June last year the Pub was up for sale so I spoke to them both and explained that I didn't want to renew for a full year as I was expecting an imminent sale (another story!). Both insisted I had to and said I would get a refund for any unused term.

I ummed and aahed and they both started phoning me repeatedly, at one point every day!

The imminent sale fell through in late July so I renewed the licences. I left in early september and wrote to them both, surprise surprise I heard nothing. After phoning every week I got a refund from PPL in December.

I am still being fobbed off by the PRS.

In my opinion both licences are a complete rip off - musicians writers etc get royalties from sales, playing music in public assists those sales. We should charge them.

Ta

Paul

Yes the reggae people have lost thousands over the years.

Many of the big publishers neglect their small songs because they're so focused on the big hits. In those cases it's the writers who suffer.

I understand your frustrations with publishers who just act like bankers. We also sign new British writers and do sync deals for movies so we're doing something for our clients.

I hate to see music companies turn into financial institutions. That applies to most of the majors these days.

Maybe the high street banks should start selling records.

Paul

Maybe they should LOL.

Hope the banks do better with records than they managed with mortgages!

About 10 years ago I had a plan to re-educate some of the major publishers about some of the unexploited gold that was sat in their vaults. The plan was for me to approach them and hand-pick a number of their unknown and unxeploited copyrights and then work the hell out of them in return for a small percentage of the income. I was in an excellent position to get some covers and some possible TV ads at the time.

None of 'em were interested. The songs in question remain unexploited 10 years later, thus not making any money for either them or the writers. So basically a dead loss.

It was then when I realised that most of the big publishing houses only actively 'exploit' maybe 1% of their catalogue at best - probably much less with the biggest of them. Which I think is a lazy approach to looking after the interests of their writers and keeping to the terms of a publishing contract. And that's the problem in a nutshell. They seem to have lazy unimaginative policies for the most part so there's very little incentive for 'em to work the deep catalogue.

As the late Hunter S. Thompson so lucidly pointed out:

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side".

Ian D

Maybe they should LOL.

Hope the banks do better with records than they managed with mortgages!

About 10 years ago I had a plan to re-educate some of the major publishers about some of the unexploited gold that was sat in their vaults. The plan was for me to approach them and hand-pick a number of their unknown and unxeploited copyrights and then work the hell out of them in return for a small percentage of the income. I was in an excellent position to get some covers and some possible TV ads at the time.

None of 'em were interested. The songs in question remain unexploited 10 years later, thus not making any money for either them or the writers. So basically a dead loss.

It was then when I realised that most of the big publishing houses only actively 'exploit' maybe 1% of their catalogue at best - probably much less with the biggest of them. Which I think is a lazy approach to looking after the interests of their writers and keeping to the terms of a publishing contract. And that's the problem in a nutshell. They seem to have lazy unimaginative policies for the most part so there's very little incentive for 'em to work the deep catalogue.

As the late Hunter S. Thompson so lucidly pointed out:

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side".

Ian D

That sums it up.

The PRS and PPL seem to have turned into complete ogres this last year, when I first bought my Pub it had no PRS or PPL licences, so I phoned them up and both were nice as pie and we got it sorted, in the following years renewals came up and I paid with not too much grumbling.

In June last year the Pub was up for sale so I spoke to them both and explained that I didn't want to renew for a full year as I was expecting an imminent sale (another story!). Both insisted I had to and said I would get a refund for any unused term.

I ummed and aahed and they both started phoning me repeatedly, at one point every day!

The imminent sale fell through in late July so I renewed the licences. I left in early september and wrote to them both, surprise surprise I heard nothing. After phoning every week I got a refund from PPL in December.

I am still being fobbed off by the PRS.

In my opinion both licences are a complete rip off - musicians writers etc get royalties from sales, playing music in public assists those sales. We should charge them.

Ta

Paul

Yep, it's the same policy as when you get a wrongly-issued parking ticket i.e. pay now whether you're innocent or not and argue about the money later. The arguing and chasing up generally costs more than the tickets, takes a lot of time and causes a massive amount of unnecessary stress which ultimately shortens your life and makes you die young. Is it any wonder that we've turned into a bunch of miserable bastards in the UK?

I had to laugh when I read about the Masai warriors who are visiting London this week:-

Official government advice to six Masai warriors on what they may expect on a visit to London: "Many of them work in offices, jobs they don't enjoy, so they don't smile as much as they should".

Is it any wonder, when people get sucked into things like this? You have my sympathy Paul. Best of luck with the refund....

Ian D