Performance Royalties, Song Royalties, Gripe.

[mr]

Hi
I have received a couple of letters from the PRS telling me I am breaking the law, I binned them. I work on my own in my workshop with the radio on.


Chris

Ive had two letters from th PRS in the last fortnight. Day before yesterday I rang them to query and they said to forget it as it was a mistake. It appears to me that they're sending these letters out to all business as a means of revenue generation and if the sending department as identified on the foot of the letter is anything to go by "client acquisition".

With regards to Software and books you can sell or lend a book because you have purchased the copy, with software you have licensed it for use under certain conditions (obviously not all software is released under the same licenses and some grant more freedoms than others). Whether one believes that one owns the media therefore the content are irrelevant - it simply isn't the case.

Cheers Mike

 

[tnimble]

And I've yet to see anyone prosecuted for selling on software? you can always lend software to a friend, as long of course as you uninstall it from your PC.

That is not the point and often even technological impossible. With software (and some music, movies, etc) even when all legally claimable rights have expired (currently 70 years after authors death, publication or publishers went out of business) it is still impossible to use, resell or lent without breaking the copyright protection of the work. Breaking this protection is illegal independed of is the copyright has expired or not. Effectively the copyright enforced by these certain software and media publishers is indefinte and illegal. being it not that trough years and years of pressure from these compaies change after change to the laws has been made making this legally possible to enforce non-expiring copyright and prolonging copyright time way beyond anything effective for the sake of protecting intellectual properties and become a means to monopolise technique, knowledge and ideas.

 

[Smudger]

I don't see the logic here.

The BBC plays a song on the radio. They pay PRs to do so.
I listen to the song being played by my boss. He is expected also to pay PR fees.

Why? They have already been paid by the Beeb. How can you expect to charge twice for the same item?

 

[RogerS]

Classic FM for ever!

Roy.

What..you mean..music to slit your wrists by? Gawd.....whenever I try listen to it, it's a toss-up which makes me turn it off first. The horrible bass boost that they put on all the presenters voices or the turgid music they select. Why can't they play a complete work during the day? And why are they so fixated on Karl Jenkins and that execrable piece of tosh wot he wrote .... :wink:

 

[RogerS]

Hi
I have received a couple of letters from the PRS telling me I am breaking the law, I binned them. I work on my own in my workshop with the radio on.

A few weeks ago I had a phone call from the PRS telling me I needed a licence. I explained my situation and that I only play radio 4 (not strictly true, I do occasionally listen to radio 3 when feeling cultured).

She said that did not matter, I still need a licence. I replied that there was no way I was getting a licence. She said she would refer me to her legal dept.

Havent heard anything since. But this seems to contradict the gent on the radio from the PRS saying the lone mechanic was OK!

Chris

Mmmm....I wonder what would happen if you were a musician and only played your own music !

Anyway....up the revolution and man the barricades...time we started kicking off in this country....Still waiting for the 'Herefordshire Enforcement Officers' to come round to see if I'm using a TV as I don't have a licence. Seeing as how the cottage is gutted and I'm up to my knees in building material the chance of watching a TV is a luxury...even if I had one here.

Herefordshire Enforcement Officer 'Can I come in and see if you have a TV?'

'Do you have a search warrant? No....then ta-ta..and when you do come back with one, this is a building site and you;re not coming in without a hard hat, workboots and a Hi-Viz jacket :twisted: '

 

[andrewm]

'Do you have a search warrant? No....then ta-ta..and when you do come back with one, this is a building site and you;re not coming in without a hard hat, workboots and a Hi-Viz jacket :twisted: '

Forget the search warrant. It would be worth letting him for the fun of making him change into work clothes on the front lawn. :twisted:

 

[Digit]

But a better class of adverts Rog! :lol:

Roy.

 

[tnimble]

Mmmm....I wonder what would happen if you were a musician and only played your own music !

You would have to get a licence from the council to have your workshop approved as an performing area and pay the necessary fees or you would be required to get a licence from the council for each time you plan to 'perform' and pay those fees. When that is all applied for you have to register with the performing rights organisations and for each 'performce' notify them afterwards with the detail of when, howlong and what you 'performed'. They will bill you for their royalty protection services per time unit plus an amount per performed work to pay any royalties due.

 

[Lord Nibbo]

I don't see the logic here.

The BBC plays a song on the radio. They pay PRs to do so.
I listen to the song being played by my boss. He is expected also to pay PR fees.

Why? They have already been paid by the Beeb. How can you expect to charge twice for the same item?

I bet you both have TV Licences as well :lol: I'm not really trying to stir things up honestly

My original gripe is nothing to do with software thats another world for debate so getting back to the original gripe about song royalties and Performing Rights Organisations, the truth is if a recording has been purchased it's mine, I can play it as many times as I like. So why should these thieving money grabbers get more money if someone was to overhear the recording I've purchased?

To add extra petrol to the fire either the Performing Rights or certain recording labels and performers I'm not certain which, are suggesting or looking into the possibilities of recouping lost dues from the sale of second hand recordings :evil: now like I said they are nothing but thieving bastards. Just how far will these overpaid sh;ts go? ](*,)

 

[Digit]

I can only imagine the qualifications and the man hours spent in producing a system that is obviously intended to prevent anybody obeying it.
Olly Cromwell would have been proud, he was a killjoy as well!

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

Why don't you write to them and ask them to charge all those boy-racers who drive around with their windows wide open and some grotty sound track polluting the air :lol:

 

[Digit]

My Council is too busy to deal with Joe public.
They're busy working out ways to spend even more of rate payers money.
For example, one wall of the Council office is decorated with a poster in 'glorious technicolor' illustrating how to wash your hands!
It is too high up the wall to be aimed at children so its position either shows a complete lack of imagination or it is intended for adults.
Step forward anyone on the forum who feels that this might be of assistance to them!
Can't wait for the one on how to use a lavatory!

Roy.

 

[mailee]

Why don't you write to them and ask them to charge all those boy-racers who drive around with their windows wide open and some grotty sound track polluting the air :lol:

Well under no circumstances can you call that rubbish issuing out of the windows 'music' As to all the rest I agree completelyh that they are all greedy B*%**$. And the BBC don't even go there, I even sent them a letter once complaining about the TV licence! Fell on deaf ears though. :twisted:

 

[tnimble]

My original gripe is nothing to do with software thats another world for debate so getting back to the original gripe about song royalties and Performing Rights Organisations, the truth is if a recording has been purchased it's mine, I can play it as many times as I like

Unfortunately the discussion about software copyright and licensing is very related to song royalties and Performing Rights Organisations. Just as they started to do with software some years ago the record label companies are heading the same way. You don't buy the album, you only buy a licence (bussword: DRM) to listen to the album. New technology and legislation is devloped and implemented. Curently already the record label companies and some software houses control how portable media platers work, how they need to play the album and how the album get on and off the media player. CD's are phased out (actively by the record companies not only market driven) and replaced by digital download.

The songs and album in digital download format have strictly controlled and managed protections build into them. The record label companies have control over how to release the digital download but also have control over how and when they can be played. When a record label company releases an album they can enforse how many times a song or album can be played and for how many years after release.

They also control that the software of the player. The only software or music playing device that can play the song is the software / music playing device they have verified that honors these restictions.

Besides digital download you can nowadays buy an album on a Memorycard / stick instead of a CD. The record label companies have made it possible to ultimately have the device you pay the album on modify the album each time played. The player writes the latest date of playing and the number of times played onto the album.

When the album has been played more than a sertain number of times or the current date or date of last playing exceeds the number of days / weeks / years playable the plater refuses to play the album.

A other move is for audio playing equipment to have a wireless internet connection build in. Each time a CD, a memory stick etc is inserted the devices contacts the publisher over the Internet to check if you still may play the album.

It is not that only that the device reading the media carrier is the device controlling the playback. The companies are pushing forward to control everything (related to Hollins act) from the media that carries the music up to the speakers with a building decoder into the actuator coils. Making it impossible to pick up a usable signal from anywhere to copy the content.

The same as with the problem with software is that as soon as a record label company goes out of bussness or refuses to re-release material the creative work is lost to the public and to other artists. Re-performing a work that is technological impossible to listen to is not possible. Also if a record label company refuses to re-release a work and the public is not able to play the work any more due to the expiration of the sold albums the record label company can claim rights for any work they feel like. Since they are the one controlling the evidence that the work they try to claims rights for is or is not related to the work of which they own the rights.

So why should these thieving money grabbers get more money if someone was to overhear the recording I've purchased?

To add extra petrol to the fire either the Performing Rights or certain recording labels and performers I'm not certain which, are suggesting or looking into the possibilities of recouping lost dues from the sale of second hand recordings :evil: now like I said they are nothing but thieving bastards. Just how far will these overpaid sh;ts go? ](*,)

It are the record label companies who are behind this. The performing rights organisations are happy to back them up towards governments since they also benefit finacially from this. In the past the people behind the record labels where walking around with guns (and where involved in drugs smuggling operations) to enforce their rights, nowadays (there are still some exceptions) they have organized themselfs together with software houses into political organisations, think tanks and consortiums like WIPO.

 

[Tusses]

there was a russian mp3 online distributer -allofMP3- that used to offer about 6p per download. I downloaded many albums

There argument was they paid the radio royalty fees and then 'broadcast' to whoever wanted to listen on the internet !

remember the old days when we recorded the top40 !

They got shut down, but opened up again under a different name. Last I heard they are still going.

 

[Jake]

now like I said they are nothing but thieving bastards. Just how far will these overpaid sh;ts go? ](*,)

The real problem is that a massive proportion of the public at large are now 'thieving bastards' and the labels are desperate to protect their businesses.

 

[Tusses]

I do have sympathy with the artists - not the labels.

the labels should have been ahead of the game and kept up with the times/technology.

then there is the price ! how much of a £12.99 DVD or album goes to the artist ! - then you can understand the public trying to get it cheaper !

I would/do happily pay £20 £30 quid to see a band live and listen to the tracks once, but I cant remember the last time I bought an album ! - the radio will do for me, along with all my oldies inc vinyl

 

[Jake]

I have more sympathy with artists too, but theft is theft, even if the property is intangible, so I have a little empathy for the labels' position (especially the small ones, who take massive risks to bring new music to the public). I don't think this is the right response to their plight, but I can understand why they are so desperate.

 

[tnimble]

The real problem is that a massive proportion of the public at large are now 'thieving bastards' and the labels are desperate to protect their businesses.

That is what the couple of big labels have as their statement for their huge 'losses' which they have to account to their stockholders.

Dropped sales are only part of the problem in their inductry. It is the whole way they work. The big labels are not a place where an artist can go to to have an album published. The big labels contract a popular artist (mostly a singer) to perform a certain song for them. Begging that artist to do that song for them and not that one of the other label. They make big promisses and undertake huge risks. "Sing this new Xmas song for us. We let you make a full album. You get $700.000. You must choose us, we are the only one capable of selling at least 2.000.000 copies within 2 months. If we don't succeed you'll get $47.000.000 in compensation" etc etc etc just to top the offers of the other big labels. Then the album sells only 1.500.000 copies in the first 2 months , they are short on income because they actually planned on at least double the copies they promised in half the time and they have to pay the compensation. And on top of that the advertising did cost more than planned, the merchandise did not sell as planned, invester took out their money etc.

The big record label companies try to have a few big world wide super selling top 5 hit singles each year. A big summer hit a December holidays hit and maybe one or two during the rest of the year.

This is different for the medium and small labels. But here the artists do get very little.

I do buy quite some albums each year. Mostly I buy them directly from the artists no record label companies involved. Except for the cost of pressing the CD and having a jewel case booklet or digipack printed and soetimes the cost for postage my 20 to 100 euro are directly their income and for them to invest in new creativity.

 

[BradNaylor]

Whatever technical tricks the record companies use to control the playing of music as outlined by tnimble, once the music has entered the public domain I doubt that in the future people generally will be prepared to pay for it. Ways of bypassing the security measures will be developed faster than new measures can be put in place.

Eventually the music industry will just have to accept that recorded music no longer has a financial value, other than as a means of projecting an act into the public arena. Via radio plays and free downloads acts will be able to build a public following, to be exploited by live appearences.

This is already happening. The best example is that of Prince, who's fading career was given a kick-start by giving away his new album free in a sunday newspaper to coincide with a residency at the Dome where he proceeded to pocket money by the shedload.

Record companies as such are becoming obselete. The whole process of pressing and distribution will disappear completely in the next few years. Record shops will vanish.

Music can be recorded very cheaply these days. There is no need for a band to take a huge advance from a record company and then sit in a studio for months. A few songs can be recorded to a high quality in a day for a few hundred quid.

The function of the 'record company' that will survive is that of promotion and marketing. It will vital for any new act to develop a presence on the internet and to get plays on the radio. On the back of this they will be able to sell more tickets to gigs, which will be their main source of income. CD's or their equivelent will merely take the form of a souvenir purchased at a concert.

The days of the multi-millionnaire rock star languishing by a pool with a bevy of blondes while the money rolls in from record sales are over. To make any sort of living they will have to be out on the road, grafting.

This all sounds like a step forward to me.

Cheers
Dan

formally lead singer and harmonica player in The DJ Kane Blues Band!