TelBoy

Thing is, Ali, they're trying to cover instances where companies might be using music to make the public workplace a better environment, or attract additional business. And i can sort of understand that rationale - one that doesn't apply in a private car. So they could either say (on behalf of all music artists) - sorry, but once you've recorded it, it's public property and you earn diddly squat from it, or, do they preserve some sort of income stream for musicians? Not all of them earn billions out of the industry, or is that the perception and therefore the resistance against this legislation?

TelBoy

Yeah but the understanding is that they pay to broadcast to private locations. If the radio stations had to pay for all the PRS charges too then many of them would be out of business. I can understand how it all seems a bit arbitrary, but i can also see why it's done the way it is. It just feels odd paying for public noise i guess.

ScoobyDoo555

The PRS & PPL are a collection agency for the ARTIST. The workplace is merely catching up with all other areas that have to pay.

If you go into any public area, bar, club etc, you will see a PRS sticker - they pay. The definition of public area is a collection of people.

IMHO, there is no difference between a bar etc and a factory.

The fees are on a sliding scale, so your small-business won't be paying the same as a corporate shop floor.

But for what it's worth, the PRS are anything BUT "jumped up little hitlers" - quite the opposite, very supportive actually, and will do their best to allocate a fee on the size/circumstances.

And yes, I'm a musician who gets royalties from this type of revenue.

Without them, there would be a LOT less music for you to hear.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The income streams for musicians is an interesting point Tel; granted lots don't earn that much. But then on the flip-side the industry not the artists themselves do make billions out of it.

Its no wonder that retired artists turn into record producers and publishers, setting up their own labels - as its far more lucrative that being a musician.

No doubt the money is there, its just going to the wrong people. Forcibly subsidising it via an alledged "not for profit" (yeah right, I'd like to see their "expenses" ), isn't the way they should gain extra income. Of which if I'm correct, artists already get revenue from the broadcaster for playing it on air. Surely its unfair to charge the broadcaster AND the listener or their employers just becuase of where that radio just so happens to be.

The way I see it is like adding VAT on top of VAT. The broadcaster is paying to play that music, then inturn the PRS expect private companies to pay again for allowing it to played in a workplace.

Ok, one could turn round and say the company is "broadcasting" said music, but if so, they should be entitled a rebate off the people who charged the broadcasters (radio station) to transmit to private indivuals. Like VAT its should be the end broadcaster thats paying to get music to the listener, not every person inbetween.

ScoobyDoo555

There are also a great many studies that demonstrate that music played in the workplace has a positive effect on workforce and generated revenue.

This is also why the businesses are being targeted, as the business is reaping the benefits from the music's impact of workflow increase.
Anything from the type of hold-music used to what you're listening to whist waiting to order a beer.

YOU, the consumer don't pay. Only the people who are in some way benefiting from the use of music in the workplace.

StickyMicky

My mate was hassled by these, he has a small hifi at work and he puts one speaker ouside during the day with various music playing, he just removed his hifi for a bit and they left him alone, another was hassled really bad by them, so threw his ghetto blaster in the skip LOL!

The lad apparently just switches the radio on in whatever car he is cleaning now.

The large car dealer next door to us had a refit last year and they installed proper outdoor speakers on the sides of the building to play music outside to the customers, it works a treat for us, as we don't have to pay anything, although i am now sick to the back teeth of feckin Michael Jackson tunes

I think another way around it is to use royalty free music, although you don't tend to get what you want, plenty of royalty free stuff online?

ScoobyDoo555

This is what the PRS do.
There are also other collection agencies around the world collecting from other sources.

The record company ALWAYS gets paid first They're not overly interested in the royalty aspect. They get their revenue from the UNITS sold (CDs, digital downloads etc)

StickyMicky

Royalty Free music station ?

:: Royalty Free Music Radio - Quality Entertainment with NO Recurring Fees

TopBanana

BBC NEWS | UK | Britons 'admit claims' in Brazil

StickyMicky

The Chief

I accept your point but remember you are a musician benefitting from the PRS - but the experience i have had is very different and i stand by my original comment.

I know someone who has a barbers, its a pokey little place and it barely pays them a wage, yet she was livid when they came in like the feckin' gestapo.

I understand they have a job to do but bullying small companies who pay enough bloody tax as it is is not the way to go about things.

ScoobyDoo555

Sadly, as your friend has found out to her detriment, there are ALWAYS the few power-crazed individuals who taint the image of an organization (not heard that before, have we? )

There's a right and wrong way to do it imho - this seemed like the wrong way. But regardless, the copyright law has must be adhered to. After all, with all due respect to your friend, why shouldn't she pay like everybody else? The people who provide the material in the first place need to earn too.

Dan

Luan Pra bang

I think they are a complete bunch of *****, why should I pay for a CD then have to pay again to play it at work ? A friend of mine has a restaurant that plays turkish folk music (its a turkish restaurant) and they lied to him about the prs and pps covering payments to the artists he played despite that being complete bollocks. He told them to **** off. They also tried to tell me we needed a prs license to have televisions in bedrooms for the hotel which is another complete fabrication so in my mind they can all get stuffed.
The record companies still get paid out form the PRS as well as the artist and how they alocate the money is a mystery. Why should a person pay money to artists whose music a business has never played ?

TelBoy

Don't often see as much ignorance in one post. Nice.

How about you at least read their website before making yourself look stupid?

The Chief

Because in a roundabout way we've already paid for it.

We buy a CD - the artist and record company get paid

We listen to Radio One - we pay through the License fee.

We listen to an independent radio - they pay the artist record company whatever and they get paid by us who buy off the advertisers who advertise on the station.

The thing is small companies have suffered more than anyone and yet again another stealth tax is implemented on firms that are on their *****.

So do you think that is justified?

Record companies have been lording for years quaffing champagne and now they suffer a little bit they spit their dummies out.

Jonnys3

I appreciate what you're saying Tel but we're talking about the office and the workplace, for which there was never a problem before the license was extended to cover these environments. I pay a TV license which covers me for listening to radio broadcasting and once I've purchased published copyright music (whether it be on CD media or other digital media) I should be able to play that on a personal CD/MP3 player where and when I like. I don't have to have a PRS license to play the music in my home or my car where there are frequently 3 or 4 of us listening to that music, so why should the office environment be treated any differently when the music is coming from a radio (for which the organisation already has valid TV licenses) or from a personal cd/mp3 player? Granted if it's being played over a PA system in a pub/club/venue/public event then it's a different case but in my case we're talking personal cd players with an output of say 5W max.

I also think the PRS are shooting themselves in the foot somewhat because it restricts the listening audience. I'm sure many of us have (or had) a habit of listening to a song on the radio (or other media) which catches our attention and then go onto purchase the corresponding album. With the PRS licensing requirement in the office this buying trend can now only be lessening, thus reducing sales perhaps?

Furthermore I am a musician myself (checkout some of our tunes - The Something? Music Player ) and I want as many people as possible to hear the music; I don't want the potential audience restricted by legistlation.

Luan Pra bang

Hope that was not addressed to me as I did read their website before posting.

TelBoy

The problem though, Jonny, is that the difference between private and public is obviously very difficult to determine. So they have to take the watertight line and deem that anything that more than one person could hear, in a public place, requires a licence (not license, fyi). They must face the same opposition as traffic wardens i guess, but if we want more music, in the same way we don't want cars parked all over the place, it's the price we have to pay isn't it?

TelBoy

It was addressed to you, yes. Then you obviously don't understand their mandate. Reactionary crap is probably what they encounter day in day out. Doesn't really get anyone anywhere, does it?

The Chief

Music has suffered lets face it due to illegal downloads, this is really down to the expense of the CD which production costs have fallen massively in recent years but not reflected in the end cost.

I personally believe had record companies taken steps and reduced prices of CD's and lets face it i'm sure cut backs could have been made like most companies have to then this would have killed the illegal download and dodgy CD market stone dead.

I'm one of those still stuck in the dark ages who still listens to CD's if i see one i like on offer i will buy it.

Its a shame whats happened but like many firms the forward march of technology has caused this downturn.

Being in broadcast myself i know that this is the case.

TelBoy

You're missing the point on several levels, Chief. You're failing to distinguish between what you pay for to use privately, and what artists deem to be acceptable recompense for having their music used to increase business or improve the environment in public places.

Yes you could include the public performance bit in the initial cost of the music, but do you want to pay more for your CDs if you're not going to play them publicly? No, probably not. Likewise the radio stations only broadcast for "private use". If they had to pay the public broadcast cost there would probably be far fewer radio stations. That what you want? And it's not new legislation, so nobody, least of all the record companies, are spitting their dummies out!!

It's not easy to legislate this stuff, but i think the alternatives are less desirable than what we have now, imperfect though it might seem.

The Chief

But Telboy reffering to an earlier post do you honestly not agree that we have in a roundabout way already paid for it?

hodgy0_2

i might be a bit of a pedant but i'm not sure

is correct -- BBC radio maybe funded by the licence fee but I don't think you need a licence to listen to it.

the bottom line is the copyright law as it applies to music is out moded and needs a re-visit.

Jonnys3

Cheers Tel, everyday's a school day.

How could I be so careless as to use a verb instead of a noun? A-level in English hasn't served me very well has it?

TelBoy

Yes i see where you're coming from, Chief, it seems absurd to pay to play something you've already paid for. But like i say, if you only ever played your music within your own four walls or in your own car, this legislation wouldn't touch you at all.

It must seem especially unfair if music is played in what they define as a public place when only one person can hear it, but then you open up a whole raft of loopholes. It's a tough one, no doubt.

Luan Pra bang

Your complete arrogance is pretty outstanding, I understand their mandate perfectly but when they try to claim with absolute certanty that they are paying money to the writers of cypriot and turkish traditional songs then I think it weakens thier position. When they tried to tell me that I have to by a license for music that may be played in hotel room tv's even though a TV license covers all legal responsabilities in this area it gets my back up.

TelBoy

In America they interchange the words freely, it makes my teeth itch.

Jonnys3

Radio licenses were officially abolished in 1971, and now we have the comined TV/Radio license so I was just covering my back in case the spooks are monitoring us.

TelBoy

I'm not being arrogant at all. I'm saying that having doubts about who gets the cash is no reason to tell them to "**** off", to determine that they're all "*****" and whatever else you said. If you don't like the system, don't play public music, it really is that staggeringly simple. It's the basis on which all laws are made - they aren't only there for those who agree with them.