Reply to: Performing Rights Society - SOHO?

[centurian]

I suppose the artist/writers could be paid on the same basis i.e. one-off fee and no residuals, but each CD would cost, say, $10,000 each.

That's perfectly fine by me. It's a market and people would either pay for it, or not.

I suspect no-one would pay that price. So when artists were getting zero income, then would bring down their prices considerably and find a happy medium.

[centurian]

You could have negotiated a contract with ClientCo that you get paid 1p per 1,000 transactions that go through the system. Sotware systems can be licensed that way.

And my chances of being successful in that would be very low... unless I had a law which basically meant that I got it without having to negotiate a contract - basically what the record industry has.

If the law doesn't support me in getting royalies without any negotiation, why should it support the record industry

[HairyArsedBloke]

I don't expect ClientCo to pay me an extra 5p for the next 50 years every time sometime starts an application I wrote (would be nice though), so why should recording artists get extra every time their work is used.

I suppose the artist/writers could be paid on the same basis i.e. one-off fee and no residuals, but each CD would cost, say, $10,000 each.

[RichardCranium]

I don't expect ClientCo to pay me an extra 5p for the next 50 years every time sometime starts an application I wrote (would be nice though), so why should recording artists get extra every time their work is used.

That's because of the contract you agreed to.

You could have negotiated a contract with ClientCo that you get paid 1p per 1,000 transactions that go through the system. Sotware systems can be licensed that way.

Recording artists get paid extra every time their work is being broadcast, not used. That is, if you want to give the artist's work away to lots of other people, you have to pay the artist.

Now let's see you use one Microsoft Office installation CD on 1,000 PCs without a special licence to let you and see what comes of that.

[sweetandsour]

The solution is simple.

Write and record your own music to be played in your office.

You will still have to pay the PRS fees but eventually you will get some of it back.

I don't have an issue with this. In my mind there is a clear distinction between being an end-user of the music and commercially exploiting it.

If you are going to commercially exploit the music (which includes using it to enhance your commercial environment) then I think it is reasonable to have to pay. This money goes to the people that write the music. Not the record companies and not necessarily the artiste.

[centurian]

YOU have paid so that YOU can listen to that one CD. You now want to broadcast that CD's contents to a number of people; they haven't paid anything. Therefore, YOU have to pay something to the PRS for them.

I can understand that CDs are a different scenario. You don't own the work outright, you are merely licensed to use it for personal use, not at a nightclub etc. A bit like Office Home edition and Office Pro are licensed differently.

I don't recall signing a contract the last time I bought a CD.

Now I fully accept that what you describe is the way it does work, and that the law supports the industry in that respect. I'm merely stating my opinion that it shouldn't work that way.

I don't expect ClientCo to pay me an extra 5p for the next 50 years every time sometime starts an application I wrote (would be nice though), so why should recording artists get extra every time their work is used.

Clearly the recording industry wants to protect this "special" arrangement, so I have nothing against their motive, but the industry shouldn't get special treatment in law - as seems to be the case.

If the industry feels they would miss out on revenue, then they should charge more for tracks in the first place - or make a licensing agreement an explicit part of a purchase - just as every other industry would have to do.

And yes, software licensing has been slowly crawling to ever tighter restrictions on usage (at least they have an EULA which you have to accept - something CD's don't have). But when you buy Windows, you don't have to pay extra every time you click the Start button (not yet anyway).

At least we've now met CyberSquatter's expectactions of by cynical in this matter

[RichardCranium]

However I don't get why anyone needs to pay PRS to 're-broadcast' songs played on the radio when the radio station has already paid to broadcast them UK wide at the same moment in time.

The radio station has not paid for a licence to broadcast them to the entire UK but to the estimated number of people tuned in to that station. You are but one of that number.

You, as one of those listeners, choose to broadcast it on to another x people. You are now in the position of the radio station and so need a licence according to the number of people listening to your broadcast.

[George Parr]

Radio broadcasts are being used as one example, but if you played CD's that you had paid for, you still need to pay PRS to have them on in the office.

So the point still stands. The recording ariste has already been paid for their work in the form of the CD you've bought and paid for.

I can understand that CDs are a different scenario. You don't own the work outright, you are merely licensed to use it for personal use, not at a nightclub etc. A bit like Office Home edition and Office Pro are licensed differently.

However I don't get why anyone needs to pay PRS to 're-broadcast' songs played on the radio when the radio station has already paid to broadcast them UK wide at the same moment in time.

[RichardCranium]

The recording artist has already been paid for their work in the form of the CD you've bought and paid for.

YOU have paid so that YOU can listen to that one CD. You now want to broadcast that CD's contents to a number of people; they haven't paid anything. Therefore, YOU have to pay something to the PRS for them.

[centurian]

You pay the PRS to further broadcast the radio transmission to the staff / customers on your premises.

Radio broadcasts are being used as one example, but if you played CD's that you had paid for, you still need to pay PRS to have them on in the office.

So the point still stands. The recording ariste has already been paid for their work in the form of the CD you've bought and paid for.

[RichardCranium]

how do they know if I'm listening to Little Boots, Little Richard or Stiff Little Fingers?

Wikipedia says "complete records of music performances are collected from its largest licence payers and statistical estimates are made for other license payers."

[RichardCranium]

My point is that the radio station pays a fee to broadcast (AFAIK the BBC pays per track) so why the need to pay additional PRS to listen?

broadcast

You pay the PRS to further broadcast the radio transmission to the staff / customers on your premises.

[George Parr]

It's to protect copyright and ensure the originator gets a fair fee for their work. Basically PRS charge a standardised fee that eventually gets paid back to the owner of the copyright, proportional to some esoteric formula. It is entirely legal and perfectly justifiable: would you be happy to work for free?

No, neither do I expect a recording artist to. My point is that the radio station pays a fee to broadcast (AFAIK the BBC pays per track) so why the need to pay additional PRS to listen? And how do they know if I'm listening to Little Boots, Little Richard or Stiff Little Fingers?

[BolshieBastard]

A lot of businesses are having to pay PRS charges to allow them to play the radio at work. Its daft, but that is apparently the law.

Does anyone know the legal position for working at home and playing the radio / music / dvds while working?

******* hell. I've read some tulip threads in my time here but this, this takes the prize!

Makes me seriously wonder how some people ever mange to take \ make a business decision at all. Utterly incredible.

[malvolio]

It's to protect copyright and ensure the originator gets a fair fee for their work. Basically PRS charge a standardised fee that eventually gets paid back to the owner of the copyright, proportional to some esoteric formula. It is entirely legal and perfectly justifiable: would you be happy to work for free?