# yet another global law gone wrong



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

I was sitting in a bar, enjoying a beer, and listening to the music played from a cd. Then in walks a girl, who DEMANDS that the bar owner either turns off the music,or pays her...... She is an admin for the "perfoming rights society" and has a legal right right to demand payment for "THE ARTIST"..... any artist...that anyone wants to hear......


Now look at the point of view from the bar owner.... he went and bought the cd, which meant he paid the artist and now, because he wants to listen to what he paid for,(to make his workplace less of a burden) someone demands he pays for the right to listen to what he paid for....... where is the sense in that?


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

dunmovin said:


> I was sitting in a bar, enjoying a beer, and listening to the music played from a cd. Then in walks a girl, who DEMANDS that the bar owner either turns off the music,or pays her...... She is an admin for the "perfoming rights society" and has a legal right right to demand payment for "THE ARTIST"..... any artist...that anyone wants to hear......
> 
> 
> Now look at the point of view from the bar owner.... he went and bought the cd, which meant he paid the artist and now, because he wants to listen to what he paid for,(to make his workplace less of a burden) someone demands he pays for the right to listen to what he paid for....... where is the sense in that?


 As the young lady was exiting the bar , I decided to question where the payment went and wehn pressed, she admitted that a whole lt of cash, goes to people like her..... in the form of "just doing a job"


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

The PRS have a presence in the UK and there are rules and regs. Bars have to pay them a fee to be allowed to have music, including live bands. I dont know where it stands with regards to tvs or radios playing in bars and public places? - you're right tho its a bit of a con from what I can see

Jo xxx


----------



## nigele2 (Dec 25, 2009)

jojo said:


> The PRS have a presence in the UK and there are rules and regs. Bars have to pay them a fee to be allowed to have music, including live bands. I dont know where it stands with regards to tvs or radios playing in bars and public places? - you're right tho its a bit of a con from what I can see
> 
> Jo xxx


The PRS UK situation is very clearly defined. No one likes paying money but if it is a fair, easily understood and logical system which allows artists to create then I think most people accept it. In the UK the objective is to give 90% of all collected money to the artist. The fees that I have been involved with are either small or based on percentages.

I think the frustrations in Spain are very different and do not actually relate to recovering money for artists. My friends in Madrid see it as just another corrupt money grab


----------



## Stravinsky (Aug 12, 2007)

When you buy your CD it is for personal use only, not for broadcasting. Thats why in some places you hear peoples songs performed by other artists rather than the original.

The drummer in Metrallica, Lars Ulrich, made a personal crusade against Napster for the same reasons and was instrumental )) in launching law suits against them


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

it's really stupid law........how can you have the right to charge people money to listen to music.
think about it, "I bought the cd, paid you your duesand can listen to it with freedom" but if I play it at my place of work, where I have no choice than to let others hear it.......... monry must change hands? The customers don't have a choice (well they do... listen...like and go buy it for themselves.... or ignore it) BUT I BOUGHT AND PAID the artist once.... I can't stop people listening to what I paid for and want to hear!

Maybe every cafe/ bar owner should tell the customers to get lost when they want to, as a personal choice hear the music they paid for. Or perhaps Dumb ass laws like this should dismantled and let ordinary people enjoy an cheerful enviroment (and perhaps go and find a recording of an artist they didn't know, Buy it thereby paying the artist and finding more music the artist made) or give a lot of "KillJoys" a certain amount of satifaction, knowing that they deprived people from hearing the artist's work?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

What about buying a video and broadcasting it publicly? Or showing Sky matches in bars?


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

Stravinsky said:


> When you buy your CD it is for personal use only, not for broadcasting. Thats why in some places you hear peoples songs performed by other artists rather than the original.
> 
> The drummer in Metrallica, Lars Ulrich, made a personal crusade against Napster for the same reasons and was instrumental )) in launching law suits against them


that is wrong on so many levels........I work in a place...and because I'm working, Iam denied the right to listen to music? I own a place, but I have to pay to listen to what I already bought? in either circumstance you can't tell people not to listen.... what do you do to make a humdrum job acceptable? 

The personal use thing is rubbish.... let's say I bought a DVD of a film and invited a few friends to watch it with me. Should I charge them and donate to the performing rights people... and even if I do that, what guarntee could they offer that, the money gathered would go to the artists and not just fund the "jobsworth"


BY the time the artist gets what was paid..... the value has decreased to less than 0.0001% of what some poor schumck, trying to make a living by opening a cafe/bar and giving people a pleasant place to be, paid the enforcers


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

According to my friends husband (a retired song-writer/musician). Its been like that since time began. Musicians are entitled to royalties for when others listen to their music and anyone who plays music to the public has to pay that!!

Apparently even TVs and radios played in public places need a licence and sky sports is particularly expensive, and I'm not sure many pay that one in Spain - well they try not to???

Joxxx


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

jojo said:


> According to my friends husband (a retired song-writer/musician). Its been like that since time began. Musicians are entitled to royalties for when others listen to their music and anyone who plays music to the public has to pay that!!
> 
> Apparently even TVs and radios played in public places need a licence and sky sports is particularly expensive, and I'm not sure many pay that one in Spain - well they try not to???
> 
> Joxxx


Agreed... but once the royalties have been paid, (When the recording was bought) should it not be the right buyer to enjoy it when and where they want? if others listen... so be it


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

dunmovin said:


> Agreed... but once the royalties have been paid, (When the recording was bought) should it not be the right buyer to enjoy it when and where they want? if others listen... so be it


Thety can, but if they're going to play it publicly in a public place, then its being listened to by people who havent paid to listen to it. Its that which creates the royalties!

My friends husband still gets royalty cheques from the PRS - not because anyone is buying his "records/cds anymore, but because they still get played publically

Jo xxx


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

...... thats why musician and recod companies dont like sites such as Napster, Limewire etc cos they dont pay the PRS and no royalties get paid 

You can see I've had a lesson from a "pro PRS" person lol!!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

try the thought.... I invented an better lawnmower..... you bought it....paid for by your earnings.... end of story... yes... NO every time you use it you have to pay me... and if you lend it to another and they use it, they are stealing from me and you are an acompalce. An act of goodwill (by lending a friend, something you bought and paid for) now makes you criminal?

you are in your car.... listening to a CD you bought, you stop at a junction...... someone else hears it..... do they have to pay

You are in your car, with 3 friends .... you play the cd.... should they pay?


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

And with No disrepect to your hubby..... it only got like that when the leeches got a hold......they turned music and enjoyment into a constant legal battle, where they are the only winners.


----------



## nigele2 (Dec 25, 2009)

dunmovin said:


> And with No disrepect to your hubby..... it only got like that when the leeches got a hold......they turned music and enjoyment into a constant legal battle, where they are the only winners.


Dunmovin I think the capitalist system gets on top of us all at times but I'd be interested to know if you feel music should be seen as a pasttime, funded by generosity of benefactors, based on a much lower economy where musicians (as a whole) earn much less than now, that they charge a much higher price up front, or some other economic model?

I was thinking internationally as I do not believe PRS functions in spain 

I'd personally like to see much greater tax breaks for the performing arts, especially live art, as without it I'm not sure what the millions of unneeded workers are going to do and more importantly I think it contributes to a much better world


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

dunmovin said:


> try the thought.... I invented an better lawnmower..... you bought it....paid for by your earnings.... end of story... yes... NO every time you use it you have to pay me... and if you lend it to another and they use it, they are stealing from me and you are an acompalce. An act of goodwill (by lending a friend, something you bought and paid for) now makes you criminal?
> 
> you are in your car.... listening to a CD you bought, you stop at a junction...... someone else hears it..... do they have to pay
> 
> You are in your car, with 3 friends .... you play the cd.... should they pay?


But there are copyright laws in place which I dont understand that are similar I believe to an inventor and inventing something means you have a tangible, saleable product????

As for listening to someone elses music - privately - friends listening to each others cds, well that was the argument put forward by Napster about their site when they were fighting the PRS. Napster claimed they were simply "friends" and ordinary people sharing their stuff - but they lost! But if you won a public place and play music, then you are subject to paying the royalties to the PRS. In some cases its the only way that the songwriter/musicians earn any real money from what they do. Record sales dont always bring them very much. As we all know, the music industry is/was big business and they were put in a difficult situation with the arrival of the internet.


Jo xxx


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

nigele2 said:


> I was thinking internationally as I do not believe PRS functions in spain


Apparently it does, its international

Jo xxx


----------



## nigele2 (Dec 25, 2009)

jojo said:


> Apparently it does, its international
> 
> Jo xxx


Jo I meant correctly and legally function as in the money is collected and the due amount paid to artists


----------



## Stravinsky (Aug 12, 2007)

dunmovin said:


> that is wrong on so many levels........I work in a place...and because I'm working, Iam denied the right to listen to music? I own a place, but I have to pay to listen to what I already bought? in either circumstance you can't tell people not to listen.... what do you do to make a humdrum job acceptable?
> 
> The personal use thing is rubbish.... let's say I bought a DVD of a film and invited a few friends to watch it with me. Should I charge them and donate to the performing rights people... and even if I do that, what guarntee could they offer that, the money gathered would go to the artists and not just fund the "jobsworth"
> 
> ...


Unfortunately its not wrong on so many levels .... not saying I agree with it, but this has always been the case as far as I know. It's nothing new. If you own a bar and you are playing music then its deemed that you are providing entertainment by broadcasting other peoples music. Same way as Napster etc have been under pressure because of allowing people to download. Look at Piratebay! Download free software, some of which cost hundreds of pounds when you actually buy iy.

In response to the other question, if a bar is broadcasting SKY then they have to have a special licence off sky to do it. If they broadcast without that agreement (as many do) then they will be in trouble if SKY find out


----------



## Stravinsky (Aug 12, 2007)

dunmovin said:


> try the thought.... I invented an better lawnmower..... you bought it....paid for by your earnings.... end of story... yes... NO every time you use it you have to pay me... and if you lend it to another and they use it, they are stealing from me and you are an acompalce. An act of goodwill (by lending a friend, something you bought and paid for) now makes you criminal?
> 
> you are in your car.... listening to a CD you bought, you stop at a junction...... someone else hears it..... do they have to pay
> 
> You are in your car, with 3 friends .... you play the cd.... should they pay?


I think you're taking it a little far  We are talking commercial premises.

And I quote:

_Who has to have a music licence?

Any location or premises, outside of home, where music is played from clubs to concert halls, from discos to dentists’ waiting rooms and from trains to takeaways. The owner/proprietor of the premises is normally responsible for obtaining a Music Licence for the public performance of copyright music._


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Not for nothing to people refer to the 'entertainment industry' or the 'music business' because that's how it is.
Done to make money not for love.


----------



## Stravinsky (Aug 12, 2007)

You might find this interesting.

I dont know how true it is, but it does make you wonder

PRS: Performing Rights Scam!

_In fact the PRS are only a small organisation here in the UK which musicians and record labels sign and pay a membership fee too, and then the PRS are supposed to actually just collect those public performance royalties for their members only!_


----------



## nigele2 (Dec 25, 2009)

Stravinsky said:


> You might find this interesting.
> 
> I dont know how true it is, but it does make you wonder
> 
> ...


Just one real story that proves nothing but might be interesting.

A few years back we employed a keyboard player of an 80s group. They had a number 2 UK hit and several European number ones. He was a trained classical pianist. He then went on to be a very good session musician and composer. However he didn't ever accumulate very much dosh. Eventually he took an IT course and we were offered him for a nominal fee of £10 a week for 3 months - work experience.

One day a mate of his called to say he had seen on TV an advert where our man did voice over and played keyboards.

Being broke he spoke to PRS and they did an investigation. They came back with a list of where his voice and music had been used and paid him I think just under £4000. It made a world of difference to him and his family.

He stayed with us for almost 2 years 

I note on Wikipedia it says "and it is rumour he joined a software company in 2000". That's us; fame indeed


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Stravinsky said:


> _In fact the PRS are only a small organisation here in the UK which musicians and record labels sign and pay a membership fee too, and then the PRS are supposed to actually just collect those public performance royalties for their members only!_



Apparently the PRS in the UK isnt small at all. They are the governments appointed organisation and are responsible for overseeing the coprights of song writers and artists. They have the power to close pubs, bars, shops..... down and prosecute if they are found to be playing music without a licence. ...... This is all according to my friends husband (these are the friends who got mugged in Barcelona the other day), personally I havent a clue!?? 

Jo xxx


----------



## country boy (Mar 10, 2010)

Dunmoving; I am in no way defending the situation in Spain because I know nowt about it. However, as an ex. Hotelier/Publican in UK I can assure you that a public entertainments licence (dancing and singing), piped music (background music), Tv's in hotel bedrooms or in a communal lounge etc all have to be paid for to the PRS in one way or another, and in some cases a licence also has to be obtained from the local authority. Pain in the rear end I know but fact of life...end of story! It's always been like that.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

jojo said:


> Apparently the PRS in the UK isnt small at all. They are the governments appointed organisation and are responsible for overseeing the coprights of song writers and artists. They have the power to close pubs, bars, shops..... down and prosecute if they are found to be playing music without a licence. ...... This is all according to my friends husband (these are the friends who got mugged in Barcelona the other day), personally I havent a clue!??
> 
> Jo xxx


here's their website

PRS for Music

I can't see any reference to them being govt. appointed, though I haven't read the whole site

they say they have 75,000 members & collect royalty money & distribute it to the owners/creatorsof the music


----------



## MaidenScotland (Jun 6, 2009)

Stravinsky said:


> Unfortunately its not wrong on so many levels .... not saying I agree with it, but this has always been the case as far as I know. It's nothing new. If you own a bar and you are playing music then its deemed that you are providing entertainment by broadcasting other peoples music. Same way as Napster etc have been under pressure because of allowing people to download. Look at Piratebay! Download free software, some of which cost hundreds of pounds when you actually buy iy.
> 
> In response to the other question, if a bar is broadcasting SKY then they have to have a special licence off sky to do it. If they broadcast without that agreement (as many do) then they will be in trouble if SKY find out




Yes SKY are always looking for establishments that are showing SKY and have not signed up for public viewing (the price is horrendous). I had SKY in my private quarters of my hotel and without fail every time a big football match was to be shown I would get a phone call saying " I am thinking of coming out to your bar this afternoon if you are showing the match" I of course said no I don't have television in the bars. I lived in a village with a population of 125, 13 miles from town and no one from town would be coming out to me to watch football and the villagers knew there was no television.


Maiden


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Dunmovin, could you confirm whether the event you described happened in the UK or in Spain? (Sorry if you already have, but this thread has got rather long!)

This is an issue close to my heart as I believe that the PRS legislation is actually helping to kill off live music in England.

I have a friend who ran a pub and went bankrupt because she challenged a £3,000 PRS bill in court. They worked out this amount on the basis of the floor space of the pub and the fact that she had live music four nights a week.

You might think this is fair enough, but the calculation took no account of the fact that 90% of the time the music was either traditional Irish folk, or young singer-songwriters doing their own material. Nobody paid to get in, and nobody was making money out of other people's copyright.

The result was that Oxford lost an excellent live music venue where musicians could practice and learn from each other. The same sort of thing has happened all over the country.

This legislation, although well-meaning, is far too blunt an instrument (pardon the pun) as takes no account of the circumstances in which music is performed. Most of the money raised goes to people like Paul McCartney who are hardly in need of it.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> Dunmovin, could you confirm whether the event you described happened in the UK or in Spain? (Sorry if you already have, but this thread has got rather long!)
> 
> This is an issue close to my heart as I believe that the PRS legislation is actually helping to kill off live music in England.
> 
> ...


Most of the money doesnt just go to Paul McCartney - and even if it did, it would be because the music he wrote is played so much - Altho I thought that Michael Jackson bought the rites to the Beatles back catalogue of songs!??

Venues and bars in the UK make money from playing music, thats why they have music and therefore the people who wrote that music should be entitled to receive something. If the bars dont want to pay then they dont have music!

There are a lot of struggling musicians who need the money - if they dont get it from writing songs then they would have to have a day job and their music writing would eventually have to make way to other things. If a song writer is good then people will pay to listen, radio stations will pay and the song writer is rewarded. Its an industry and a business

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jojo said:


> Most of the money doesnt just go to Paul McCartney - and even if it did, it would be because the music he wrote is played so much - Altho I thought that Michael Jackson bought the rites to the Beatles back catalogue of songs!??
> 
> Venues and bars in the UK make money from playing music, thats why they have music and therefore the people who wrote that music should be entitled to receive something. If the bars dont want to pay then they dont have music!
> 
> ...


You´ve sort of missed the point - the Paul McCartneys of this world have to start somewhere. These up and coming musicians need venues to play at, to perform their own songs and get used to playing to a live audience. Those venues shouldn´t have to pay the same fees as if they were charging an entrance fee to watch professional cover bands doing other people´s material.

Because of the way the PRS samples music, 90 percent of the money ends up going to the most popular artists who are played on the radio all the time - they aren´t going round all the pubs and clubs counting every performance. Your average unknown performer won´t get anything at all, at most a few pounds a year. A friend of mine who writes songs which are performed at folk clubs and festivals all over the country once got a cheque for 29 pence!


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> You´ve sort of missed the point - the Paul McCartneys of this world have to start somewhere. These up and coming musicians need venues to play at, to perform their own songs and get used to playing to a live audience. Those venues shouldn´t have to pay the same fees as if they were charging an entrance fee to watch professional cover bands doing other people´s material.
> 
> Because of the way the PRS samples music, 90 percent of the money ends up going to the most popular artists who are played on the radio all the time - they aren´t going round all the pubs and clubs counting every performance. Your average unknown performer won´t get anything at all, at most a few pounds a year. A friend of mine who writes songs which are performed at folk clubs and festivals all over the country once got a cheque for 29 pence!



Well that is an issue of taste. Some peoples music is more popular than others and therefore they receive more. I have to be honest, my husbands is in a band in the UK and they do an awful lot of folk music in their set list on a weekly basis and some of their own stuff a lot of the time too (they dont get any royalties as they havent registered their own stuff), but they get paid door money or the pub pays them simply because they bring an audience, which generates money for the pub. 
Big Yellow Taxi - About the Band - sad old gits I call them lol!!!!

Pubs and bars pay roughly 8 pounds per session to the PRS, which really isnt that much if having a band means that they get a good crowd in. My husband is quite happy with how it is

Jo xxx


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

nigele2 said:


> Dunmovin I think the capitalist system gets on top of us all at times but I'd be interested to know if you feel music should be seen as a pasttime, funded by generosity of benefactors, based on a much lower economy where musicians (as a whole) earn much less than now, that they charge a much higher price up front, or some other economic model?
> 
> I was thinking internationally as I do not believe PRS functions in spain
> 
> I'd personally like to see much greater tax breaks for the performing arts, especially live art, as without it I'm not sure what the millions of unneeded workers are going to do and more importantly I think it contributes to a much better world


well said. A balanced and well put arguement. But the PRS does function here as the young lady I mentioned will testify to.... albeit that she only functions when someone plays Gerry Raffety's " Baker st." at a volume where anything above bats hear it and the prickly pear someone shoved up her ass resonates. She gets paid and the late Mr Rafferty or his benefactors get ....... how much?


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

jojo said:


> Well that is an issue of taste. Some peoples music is more popular than others and therefore they receive more. I have to be honest, my husbands is in a band in the UK and they do an awful lot of folk music in their set list on a weekly basis and some of their own stuff a lot of the time too (they dont get any royalties as they havent registered their own stuff), but they get paid door money or the pub pays them simply because they bring an audience, which generates money for the pub.
> Big Yellow Taxi - About the Band - sad old gits I call them lol!!!!
> 
> Pubs and bars pay roughly 8 pounds per session to the PRS, which really isnt that much if having a band means that they get a good crowd in. My husband is quite happy with how it is
> ...


JO.... your hubby likes making music... he enjoys the fact people come to hear him do that, but I'll bet he doesn't want an army of "jobswoths" chasing down people who want to play his music to the public,let them hear how creative he is and then go legally buy his work



Years ago, i made a simple computer game a word game for a friend who taught children with "difficuties" Now that game is in 720 schools in China (last count..i have not spoken to her for a year) I don't want anything from it .


----------



## dunmovin (Dec 19, 2008)

I made that game to help a friend teach kids. It took nearly 100 hours of writing computer code. Didn't cost me anything other than time,which was well spent, which was well spent, learning how to do it,and then giving it away.

I didn't see cash going down the drain. What I saw, was two people sat down, one expressed a need...the other had the skill and the time ..




The game is open source, but I'll state now and forever, If anyone tries to earn from it, I will cherfully rip their throat out and hand it to themlane:


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

dunmovin said:


> JO.... your hubby likes making music... he enjoys the fact people come to hear him do that, but I'll bet he doesn't want an army of "jobswoths" chasing down people who want to play his music to the public,let them hear how creative he is and then go legally buy his work



His answer to that is If someone wanted to play his music then he would expect to be paid royalties, so he would register it - he would be furious if anyone did a gig, played his music, got paid and for him not to get anything!! In fact he did have a case a couple of decades ago when a particular "riff" he wrote was used in a fairly popular song. The PRS helped him to "claim" a percentage of the royalties.

There has to be some guide lines somehow and thats what the PRS decide and enforce - it may not all be right and fair, but is anything???

Jo xxx


----------



## Beachcomber (May 10, 2009)

Apparently, in the UK, it is illegal to listen to the radio in an office from which you work in your own home! How on earth they could prove you are doing so is anyone's guess.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Beachcomber said:


> Apparently, in the UK, it is illegal to listen to the radio in an office from which you work in your own home! How on earth they could prove you are doing so is anyone's guess.


If I dare mention the dreaded cigarette. Its the same situation 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Personally I think if somebody writes a nice song and somebody else enjoys singing it and/or listening to it, that is a compliment to the writer and not a financial issue. If I paint a picture and someone looks at it, or takes a photo of it, I wouldn't want to charge them. But if they then sold the photo on a birthday card and made money from it, I would of course appreciate some royalties. But art and music should be primarily about enjoyment, not financial reward.

Similarly, if a band is paid to perform, customers pay to listen, and they are performing other people's songs, the PRS has a role in redistributing funds. But NOT if that band is performing solely its own material, and not where no money is changing hands. This is where the blunt instrument that is the PRS falls down - the landlord has to pay a fee regardless.

The issue is that in the hard-pressed pub trade any bit of music that cheers people up has to be a good thing. Apart from anything else, those kids who are strutting their stuff at an open mic night aren't out on the streets getting up to mischief.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> Personally I think if somebody writes a nice song and somebody else enjoys singing it and/or listening to it, that is a compliment to the writer and not a financial issue. If I paint a picture and someone looks at it, or takes a photo of it, I wouldn't want to charge them. But if they then sold the photo on a birthday card and made money from it, I would of course appreciate some royalties. But art and music should be primarily about enjoyment, not financial reward.
> 
> Similarly, if a band is paid to perform, customers pay to listen, and they are performing other people's songs, the PRS has a role in redistributing funds. But NOT if that band is performing solely its own material, and not where no money is changing hands. This is where the blunt instrument that is the PRS falls down - the landlord has to pay a fee regardless.
> 
> The issue is that in the hard-pressed pub trade any bit of music that cheers people up has to be a good thing. Apart from anything else, those kids who are strutting their stuff at an open mic night aren't out on the streets getting up to mischief.


Quite and 8 pounds a night isnt much for a bar to pay when they should be making money by having live (or not) music!

jo xxx


----------

