PRS / PPL Music licence issue for a small business.
Discussion
nath69uk said:
Top and bottom line is there legally aloud to shaft you.
The older and wiser I get the more I become to dislike "Great Britain" The country where the rich get richer and the poor get... well.... shafted!
In this particular case, the rich get shafted just the same as the poor.The older and wiser I get the more I become to dislike "Great Britain" The country where the rich get richer and the poor get... well.... shafted!
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Quick question then - how about if you don't have a radio, but install a TV and have a TV licence?
And then you have a normal TV channel on, and a song comes on in a programme, or Top of the Pops or whatever. Does the TV licence cover you in this case?
I very much doubt it. It all revolves around whether or not the performance is being played to the public. And then you have a normal TV channel on, and a song comes on in a programme, or Top of the Pops or whatever. Does the TV licence cover you in this case?
Miguel Alvarez said:
It would be a relative piece of piss to audit every track on mainstream radio. Each station submits their playlists in an excel format to PPL/PRS etc and they then pay out their recouperated costs to each artist who's been played at the end of the month/quarter.
You can export straight from the playout system which will tell you what track was being played and how long it was on air for.I've worked in both commercial radio and BBC local radio - my first job for BBCLR was using a stopwatch to time the music that was played, filling out the PPL form and faxing it off after every show.
sinizter said:
nath69uk said:
Top and bottom line is there legally aloud to shaft you.
The older and wiser I get the more I become to dislike "Great Britain" The country where the rich get richer and the poor get... well.... shafted!
In this particular case, the rich get shafted just the same as the poor.The older and wiser I get the more I become to dislike "Great Britain" The country where the rich get richer and the poor get... well.... shafted!
A good proportion comes from the PRS/MCPS licensing music. And of that all of it, minus the admin costs (of chasing non-payers mainly) goes to the artists that produced the music.
Disclaimer: Having not read 100% of this thread i accept im probably going to be beaten by the masses over this question. lol
Having read a 'fair bit', but not all of this thread i have a Q? - I run a jewellery repair workshop which employs 4 people on a 5 day a week basis. It also has a small shop front / retail area which is linked to the workshop by a door. We have been paying our PRS license for the past 3 years with no dramas and at the minimum fee, given the number of staff and the fact that any music playing cannot be heard in the shop front where the public might be. This has been checked by PRS.
Last monday afternoon i got a call from PPL. Id never heard of them before (even though ive been paying PRS for 3 years) and once they had explained who they were we got down to the topic of money and thier buisness of demanding it. Stupidly i had the radio on in the workshop and it was obvious to the plank on the other end of the line as i was only 5ft from it.
From the start it was clear they had obtained info from PRS about the shop size, number of employees and who can hear what and where and were swift in asking me to confirm details to that effect. I did make it clear that the public could not hear any music and this had been verified in the past by PRS visitors. When i asked why i needed another licence the person (i think it was human) on the other end of the line explained that 'the music rights were paid 50% by PRS and 50% by PPL'. PRS apparently pay the record companies and artists for thier work whilst PRS paid the background staff, authors and writers. Is this correct? Sounds like a lot of balls to me as the record companies pay the background staff, authors and writers as far as i am aware.
I did mention the subject of mobile phones and ringtones and was told that 'so long as i answered the call swiftly and the music wasnt in public earshot they could make certain allowances' - one rule for one and another for another?. On that i requested they send me details of exactly what they were licencing and why, and what the fee would be and who will be benefiting from it. There are plenty of scammers out there and we get many calling up in the jewellery industry.
So, this morning i recieved a letter from PPL and a request for approx £150. Now, we only pay PRS about £50 a year for thier licence so i was a little shocked to see 3 digits on the PPL one. I called up PPL and a conversation got underway with them effectively saying they could claim up to 6 years fees if they wanted, so 'it would be in my best interest to pay the requested amount promptly if i wanted to avoid further action'. Shocked by the threat I told them to stuff it and that i would no longer be playing music in the workshop. I then phoned up PRS and cancelled this years licence telling them also that i would not be playing any more music at work as i felt that this whole licencing thing is getting out of hand.
So, now i have no music at work! Winner! To me this feels like just another strain on the small buisness that we dont need. The querey i have is this: Is it right that i would have needed a licence from PPL given the public were not able to hear our radio? The radio stations pay the PPL for domestic useage which is why there is no need for a licence at home which is why im not convinced i need one in the workshop. Does this lot of crap mean i cannot even take an ipod into work, not that i think its a good idea given we are quite a social bunch? Where is all this going? They'll be licencing and regulating the air we breathe next!
Eddie
Having read a 'fair bit', but not all of this thread i have a Q? - I run a jewellery repair workshop which employs 4 people on a 5 day a week basis. It also has a small shop front / retail area which is linked to the workshop by a door. We have been paying our PRS license for the past 3 years with no dramas and at the minimum fee, given the number of staff and the fact that any music playing cannot be heard in the shop front where the public might be. This has been checked by PRS.
Last monday afternoon i got a call from PPL. Id never heard of them before (even though ive been paying PRS for 3 years) and once they had explained who they were we got down to the topic of money and thier buisness of demanding it. Stupidly i had the radio on in the workshop and it was obvious to the plank on the other end of the line as i was only 5ft from it.
From the start it was clear they had obtained info from PRS about the shop size, number of employees and who can hear what and where and were swift in asking me to confirm details to that effect. I did make it clear that the public could not hear any music and this had been verified in the past by PRS visitors. When i asked why i needed another licence the person (i think it was human) on the other end of the line explained that 'the music rights were paid 50% by PRS and 50% by PPL'. PRS apparently pay the record companies and artists for thier work whilst PRS paid the background staff, authors and writers. Is this correct? Sounds like a lot of balls to me as the record companies pay the background staff, authors and writers as far as i am aware.
I did mention the subject of mobile phones and ringtones and was told that 'so long as i answered the call swiftly and the music wasnt in public earshot they could make certain allowances' - one rule for one and another for another?. On that i requested they send me details of exactly what they were licencing and why, and what the fee would be and who will be benefiting from it. There are plenty of scammers out there and we get many calling up in the jewellery industry.
So, this morning i recieved a letter from PPL and a request for approx £150. Now, we only pay PRS about £50 a year for thier licence so i was a little shocked to see 3 digits on the PPL one. I called up PPL and a conversation got underway with them effectively saying they could claim up to 6 years fees if they wanted, so 'it would be in my best interest to pay the requested amount promptly if i wanted to avoid further action'. Shocked by the threat I told them to stuff it and that i would no longer be playing music in the workshop. I then phoned up PRS and cancelled this years licence telling them also that i would not be playing any more music at work as i felt that this whole licencing thing is getting out of hand.
So, now i have no music at work! Winner! To me this feels like just another strain on the small buisness that we dont need. The querey i have is this: Is it right that i would have needed a licence from PPL given the public were not able to hear our radio? The radio stations pay the PPL for domestic useage which is why there is no need for a licence at home which is why im not convinced i need one in the workshop. Does this lot of crap mean i cannot even take an ipod into work, not that i think its a good idea given we are quite a social bunch? Where is all this going? They'll be licencing and regulating the air we breathe next!
Eddie
PPL and PRS do serve different parts of the music industry.
When a track is made lots of copyrights exist, the lyrics, the music notation and the actual sound recording.
For example, the covers of Unchained Melody. The lyrical copyright will always be paid to the same person who wrote it. But the actual sound recording for different versions will be paid to different record companies.
PPL I believe pay record companies for the sound recording. So for 5 versions of Unchained Melody the money may go to 5 different record compaies.
PRs I believe collect money for the people who lwrite the music, so i nthe above exmaple, I guess only the writer of UC would get the proceed.
When a track is made lots of copyrights exist, the lyrics, the music notation and the actual sound recording.
For example, the covers of Unchained Melody. The lyrical copyright will always be paid to the same person who wrote it. But the actual sound recording for different versions will be paid to different record companies.
PPL I believe pay record companies for the sound recording. So for 5 versions of Unchained Melody the money may go to 5 different record compaies.
PRs I believe collect money for the people who lwrite the music, so i nthe above exmaple, I guess only the writer of UC would get the proceed.
dryden1407 said:
i'm sure i read somewhere else that Pete Waterman received less than 2 pounds from the prs/ppl for the Rick Astley song "never gonna give you up" back in the day,,one of the biggest selling/played songs from that era
I think you read this was the amount he got from the tens/hundreds of millions of plays on Youtube from the Rickrolling phenomenon. 
JustinP1 said:
Where do you think the investment came from to produce the music that you play?
A good proportion comes from the PRS/MCPS licensing music. And of that all of it, minus the admin costs (of chasing non-payers mainly) goes to the artists that produced the music.
From the radio stations buying the music. And from people buying their music. fA good proportion comes from the PRS/MCPS licensing music. And of that all of it, minus the admin costs (of chasing non-payers mainly) goes to the artists that produced the music.
k all would come from PRS/PPL.If I was playing from CDs or other bought music, I might agree with their presumptions.
I don't agree with them when using a commercial radio station, which have paid all their dues already ...
Unfortunately, the law forces me to agree or choose not to use the music .... I am strongly leaning towards the 2nd options come renewal time. It must be better for all those poor artists when I choose the second option.
I also don't agree with the aggressive way they try to make you buy their so called licence. The f
king moron on the phone tried to tell me that just because a different person bought the licence for a year (for my practice), before I took over the management, I must buy a new licence. I told him to either be sensible or I am going to hang up ... At which point, he backtracks and offers to renew from the old date ... If I went along with his first effort, I would have lost three months of licenced time. That alone has made me seriously consider removing the music entirely....there are a couple of specific instances where a licence may not be required...
http://www.callcentrehelper.com/music-on-hold-do-i...
http://www.callcentrehelper.com/music-on-hold-do-i...
sinizter said:
JustinP1 said:
Where do you think the investment came from to produce the music that you play?
A good proportion comes from the PRS/MCPS licensing music. And of that all of it, minus the admin costs (of chasing non-payers mainly) goes to the artists that produced the music.
From the radio stations buying the music. And from people buying their music. fA good proportion comes from the PRS/MCPS licensing music. And of that all of it, minus the admin costs (of chasing non-payers mainly) goes to the artists that produced the music.
k all would come from PRS/PPL.If I was playing from CDs or other bought music, I might agree with their presumptions.
I don't agree with them when using a commercial radio station, which have paid all their dues already ...
Unfortunately, the law forces me to agree or choose not to use the music .... I am strongly leaning towards the 2nd options come renewal time. It must be better for all those poor artists when I choose the second option.
I also don't agree with the aggressive way they try to make you buy their so called licence. The f
king moron on the phone tried to tell me that just because a different person bought the licence for a year (for my practice), before I took over the management, I must buy a new licence. I told him to either be sensible or I am going to hang up ... At which point, he backtracks and offers to renew from the old date ... If I went along with his first effort, I would have lost three months of licenced time. That alone has made me seriously consider removing the music entirely.However, what you have mentioned about the radio is a common misconception. What the radio station have paid for is *their* use of the music - that is to 'broadcast' it. They are not responsible for how it is used after that point.
If you are decoding that broadcast, whether you do so to record it and/or make copies of it, or to play it in public, or to use it for commercial use, that use is entirely separate than what the agreement between the PRS and the radio station is. The radio station pay for *their* right only - they do not pay for all the reuses down the line by however many users.
With regard to the pricing structure, the prices are essentially set by consensus from the members. That is their choice, and their legal right to price their work at a 'take it or leave it' rate. And indeed in any business, including I am sure your own, you set your prices where *most* people can afford them to where you make the most money. Of course, that does mean that some people explore other options, that is understood as any business.
JustinP1 said:
Where do you think the investment came from to produce the music that you play?
A good proportion comes from the PRS/MCPS licensing music. And of that all of it, minus the admin costs (of chasing non-payers mainly) goes to the artists that produced the music.
and minus the 26.5% fee the PRS collect before giving anything to the artist who already paid them £100 to be a member.A good proportion comes from the PRS/MCPS licensing music. And of that all of it, minus the admin costs (of chasing non-payers mainly) goes to the artists that produced the music.
I got their letter this morning. Waste of time, I work from home and go out to visit clients.
Interestingly, I notice at the bottom of their letter that they mention "you do not need a licence .... music you play is out of copyright or is not controlled by PRS for Music".
It seems their tactics are tantamount to those of a rent collector who would bang at every door whether it's on his calling list or not.
JustinP1 said:
larry1977 said:
and minus the 26.5% fee the PRS collect before giving anything to the artist who already paid them £100 to be a member.
Did you just make that figure up?http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/memberresource...
larry1977 said:
JustinP1 said:
larry1977 said:
and minus the 26.5% fee the PRS collect before giving anything to the artist who already paid them £100 to be a member.
Did you just make that figure up?http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/memberresource...
I would suggest that this area naturally has the largest share of administration costs in auditing and collecting monies, compared to other royalty areas.
RedLeicester said:
Apparently so, particularly given membership is £30.
That's the minimum membership.If the hapless musician takes his guitar and a laptop to duplicate his CDs, then gets on his motorbike to do a tour of 20 European countries during the Summer, he'll be charged £ 2500 for RBS to recover royalties from foreign businesses who play his CDs.
http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/memberresource...
Extreme hypothetical case?
Not as extreme as when the RBS wanted to invoice a sales assistant thousands of pounds for singing at work
And no, I did not make it up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_ce...
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff