Slashdot Mirror

I would be a Pandora listener but they aren't available in the UK anymore. They used to be, until the PRS jacked up the streaming prices then published an open letter bitching that it wasn't affordable in the same month that Spotify launched over here.

We've now got several competing streaming services that all turn a profit, but none of them are as good as Pandora for discovering music.

In the UK there is the PRS.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRS_for_Music

In 2007, PRS for Music took a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees were allegedly "listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers.'"

Yes, I have been a freeloader and a parasite for years, long before the Internet turned up in fact. Many a time I would sit listening to the radio and not pay a penny for the privilege. Since a lot of my listening was on the BBC, I wouldn't even have to listen to some boring adverts to somehow atone for my sins.

Of course I would occasionally hear something I liked enough to go out and buy a CD.

I was aware that in doing so I was most likely supporting the operations of a record company that, due to some one-sided contract they had convinced them to sign, was in the process of extorting work from the artist involved, but it was the only way I could get access to the music, to play where and when I wanted to listen to it.

Sometimes I would find that I had effectively paid well over the odds for a single, as the rest of the stuff on the CD was just filler. Occasionally however, I would find that I actually liked everything on the CD and would look out for other stuff by the same artist. I might then check if they were playing live somewhere nearby and get tickets to their concerts.

Now I can no longer listen to the radio at work without paying the PRS a licence fee to do so http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/officesandfactories/Pages/officesfactories.aspx. I can listen to my MP3 player though, but the question is where to get the content?

I could go on iTunes and randomly buy loads of tracks in the hope that some of them might be something I actually like and that the DRM will allow me to play it where and when I choose, or I could go over to the dark side and download stuff for free.

Of course the end result would be the same as 20 years or so ago; I would be sitting, listening to free music and occasionally finding something that makes me want to go and see the artist live, but somehow with all the advances we have made in the meantime, what I am doing no longer supports the record companies and may well be illegal.

The original paper is available online.

In a discussion with one of the authors, he makes it clear that they are not advocating a Levy, just considering its implications. Read the paper, and draw your own conclusions.

I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing. The types of punishment being proposed are also completely out of proportion. Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking? Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change? Our futures are at stake, yet the biggest problem seems to be people exchanging bits on the Internet.

What is also particularly impressive about this legislation is that it is entitled the "Digital Economy Bill" and followed on from the Digital Britain report. The original idea behind this process was to put into place any laws that would help boost the UK's digital sectors and make sure the country was at least 'up to date' with the rest of the western world if not ahead. However, rather than pushing for high-speed broadband, establishing tax incentives for tech firms or anything else that might actually help the UK economy, we have this badly-written piece of legislation.

The Bill itself contains 44 main clauses of legislation, of which the first 17 are just about online copyright infringement. The government didn't even attempt to hide their (controversial and most likely pointless) anti-file sharing policies behind anything that might help the economy. While there is a section in the middle about TV and radio broadcasting rights (i.e. the government wants to push digital radio so it can sell off the rest of the radio spectrum), it then returns to Video Game censorship/classification (essentially out-sourcing it to PEGI) which adds an extra burden on video game producers.

Then there is a fun section where the government helpfully demonstrates that it doesn't care at all about the "artist" or "content creator" (neither of which appear anywhere in the draft text). Clause 42 effectively creates a public licensing body for orphan work - which itself is quite a good idea (although a better way to make orphan works more available might be to reduce the duration of copyright) - but then they tag on an extra section that allows the body to

to grant copyright licences in respect of works in which copyright is not owned by the body or a person on whose behalf the body acts. - Clause 42, 116B, (1)

It seems that it is OK to take powers away from artists provided it is some large organisation (such as the RIAA-controlled PRS) that is benefiting (the PRS kept a "small administration/commission fee" of £67m in 2007 or about 12% of their revenue) rather than the general public.

This Bill works out as a bad deal for internet users, content creators and even radio station operators. The bulk of the bill concerns adding further restrictions and costs on the digital sector; rather than helping the UK's "Digital Economy" this Bill seems to be doing all it can to hinder it. I guess that's what we should expect from an out-of-touch government and parliament full of politicians who care more about winning votes rather than doing the country any good.

I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing. The types of punishment being proposed are also completely out of proportion. Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking? Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change? Our futures are at stake, yet the biggest problem seems to be people exchanging bits on the Internet.

What is also particularly impressive about this legislation is that it is entitled the "Digital Economy Bill" and followed on from the Digital Britain report. The original idea behind this process was to put into place any laws that would help boost the UK's digital sectors and make sure the country was at least 'up to date' with the rest of the western world if not ahead. However, rather than pushing for high-speed broadband, establishing tax incentives for tech firms or anything else that might actually help the UK economy, we have this badly-written piece of legislation.

The Bill itself contains 44 main clauses of legislation, of which the first 17 are just about online copyright infringement. The government didn't even attempt to hide their (controversial and most likely pointless) anti-file sharing policies behind anything that might help the economy. While there is a section in the middle about TV and radio broadcasting rights (i.e. the government wants to push digital radio so it can sell off the rest of the radio spectrum), it then returns to Video Game censorship/classification (essentially out-sourcing it to PEGI) which adds an extra burden on video game producers.

Then there is a fun section where the government helpfully demonstrates that it doesn't care at all about the "artist" or "content creator" (neither of which appear anywhere in the draft text). Clause 42 effectively creates a public licensing body for orphan work - which itself is quite a good idea (although a better way to make orphan works more available might be to reduce the duration of copyright) - but then they tag on an extra section that allows the body to

to grant copyright licences in respect of works in which copyright is not owned by the body or a person on whose behalf the body acts. - Clause 42, 116B, (1)

It seems that it is OK to take powers away from artists provided it is some large organisation (such as the RIAA-controlled PRS) that is benefiting (the PRS kept a "small administration/commission fee" of £67m in 2007 or about 12% of their revenue) rather than the general public.

This Bill works out as a bad deal for internet users, content creators and even radio station operators. The bulk of the bill concerns adding further restrictions and costs on the digital sector; rather than helping the UK's "Digital Economy" this Bill seems to be doing all it can to hinder it. I guess that's what we should expect from an out-of-touch government and parliament full of politicians who care more about winning votes rather than doing the country any good.

Look. I don't want to argue with you, its just how The Law works in the UK (where the shop is).

Here's a link to lots of questions and answers.

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/Pages/havewecontacted.aspx

That's the terms under which music can be played in a business. That's just reality. Get used to it.

If they don't want to pay for a license then they are free to do that but then they can't play music.

If I don't like the price they are charging for apples at their shop then I don't buy apples. Simple as.

If I took the apples anyway I would be a twat.

If someone want to listen to an iPod on headphones they can do that because it's not a public performance (ie. no-one else can hear it).

I'm not saying that any of this shit is sensible or "right" but it's just the way it is OK. I personally think that the law telling me that I can't smoke ganja is stupid but that is not a defence when I get busted now, is it.

But leave my goddamn radio at my desk alone.

If anyone else can hear that radio, I hope you've counted the number of "employee units" within earshot, and the number of half hour increments during which you play the radio, and paid the appropriate tariff.

http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/I-2009-03%20Tariff.pdf

*shakes head sadly*

I wish I was making this up.

In the UK, most record labels have an arrangement with the organisation PRS, granting it power to legally pursue people who 'perform' the licensed music in a public setting. (This power comes from UK copyright law, not from some PRS self-derived magic mojo.) For businesses, this allows them to pay a single orgnaisation a single fee for a great deal of licensed content (a good thing if one considers the current state of copyright and performance licensing to be apt). For everyone else, they have kind of become a bogeyman who goes after anybody that performs 'any song ever', as most 'modern' music would be associated with PRS. Of course, they don't have any powers to pursue people who perform songs that aren't licensed to PRS. For example, if you wrote a song yourself. There's no reason why they would have any sort of power related to that song; they have no relationship with you. Same goes for most of the songs you see on Newgrounds, as another example. As far as I know, most of the folks on Newgrounds release their content under CC while retain full rights for themselves.* A lot of people don't know this though. PRS website: http://www.prsformusic.com/Pages/default.aspx * Although, God knows what Newgrounds attempts to appropriate in their sign-up terms.

And -- best of all -- it's money that the record label doesn't get to touch.

Only if you own the copyright on your music. Which writers initially give up to the publishers.

"PRS for Music is a not-for-profit membership society. Music creators - writers, composers, publishers - join PRS for Music and give us permission to license to use of their music."

Which musicians making a living from selling music do not have publishers? They for example say things like:

"Collecting societies, like PRS for Music, exist to simplify the arrangement between the millions of music-users who require permission and the music creators who can provide a licence."

They define publishers as "music creators". On the whole very few professional music creators (the people who actually make the music) can provide a license. The publishing companies, Sony / Warner / EMI et al., own the rights and hence collect the royalty payments.

PRS think 1 person is an audience and that them listening to the radio constitutes a performance ( http://www.prsformusic.com/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/Pages/WhatisPRSforMusic.aspx ):
"There is no statutory minimum of people required to constitute an audience. However, in some cases, PRS for Music does not charge a licence fee to workplaces with a single (lone) worker."

Note that if that person listens to a CD instead they need both a PRS and a PPL license in addition to paying the price for the CD.

---
Why does ./ have to strip out whitespace and make this unreadable?

According to their commission rates, I guess this would come under 'broadcast blanket licensing' so the PRS gets 12.5% and the songwriter gets 87.5%. The PRS also takes a 1-off joining fee of £10, deductible from royalties.

Are they insane? Yes, they are.
These are the same people who claim that playing TV or radio in public requires a license, even when there is no charge to view or listen, despite that section 72 of the copyright, designs and patents act says otherwise. They then attempt to sue police stations among others for breaking their fictitious interpretation of the law.

What I don't understand is that PRS asks for 3-5% of your Net Broadcasting Revenue yet if you're an online radio they ask for 6-8% of your total revenue. Why aren't these figures closer?

Simple. While most web-based "radio" services have revenue, the majority don't make a profit and if they do it's generally a fairly small profit, so taxing their net revenue wouldn't make the PRS much, if any, money.

Comparitively, most over the air radio services have to make a profit to keep operating if they're commercial and if they're non- or not-for-profit such as student or hospital radio then they tend to come under fixed-rate tarrifs that are independent of their revenues.

What I don't understand is that PRS asks for 3-5% of your Net Broadcasting Revenue yet if you're an online radio they ask for 6-8% of your total revenue. Why aren't these figures closer?

Simple. While most web-based "radio" services have revenue, the majority don't make a profit and if they do it's generally a fairly small profit, so taxing their net revenue wouldn't make the PRS much, if any, money.

Comparitively, most over the air radio services have to make a profit to keep operating if they're commercial and if they're non- or not-for-profit such as student or hospital radio then they tend to come under fixed-rate tarrifs that are independent of their revenues.

What I don't understand is that PRS asks for 3-5% of your Net Broadcasting Revenue yet if you're an online radio they ask for 6-8% of your total revenue. Why aren't these figures closer?

Also confusing to me is that I thought YouTube reached a deal with these guys back in 2007? Did that just fall apart?

What I don't understand is that PRS asks for 3-5% of your Net Broadcasting Revenue yet if you're an online radio they ask for 6-8% of your total revenue. Why aren't these figures closer?

Also confusing to me is that I thought YouTube reached a deal with these guys back in 2007? Did that just fall apart?

>What do PRS for Music and MCPS do with the money collected?

PRS for Music and MCPS pay money collected to their writer, composer and music publisher members. Both organisations are 'not for profit' and only deduct a small administration/commission fee to cover operating costs.

Wrong. From here

Do I need a Music Licence to play music within the bar area?

Yes, if you use live or recorded background music in the bar, restaurant, cafe, or on your telephone system, then a Music Licence will be required. There is a relevant section on the review form where this music usage can be declared.

How does PRS for Music distribute the income it collects?

It is a condition of the Music Licence that, when requested, the licensee shall supply details of all musical works publicly performed. This information is needed primarily to assist PRS for Music to distribute royalties to writers and publishers. It also helps to identify performances which contain no PRS for Music controlled works for which no royalty is therefore due.

In other words, you still need the public performance license even if no royalties are due.

You'd need to join PRS first, which is a postal process. https://www.prsformusic.com/membership/join_us/Pages/JoinPRSasawriter.aspx

The page you linked to is the sign up form for members to get access to the web site. If you want to join the PRS, you want their online application form.