jakenewmanbass

Very talented lady.

Unless employment is being offered then employment law does not apply. Being asked in an advert whether you want to join a band is not (AFAIK) an offer of employment subject to contractual agreement, so the points raised about whether it's 'right and proper' to advertise in that fashion are indeed without relevance. Also to reiterate what has already been said... c'mon... let's let common sense prevail! Anyway, the band is getting their thread bumped up, and I hope they find their guy who is suitable in whichever categories they decide. I'm off to email my manager to see if he knows of any rulings around this issue... back in a while.

I've had a bass in a micra... with a piano player with his kbd and amp Let us know what sort of cars you're talking about and how much gear/persons are being carried and I'll describe how to get it in.

Sad loss January seems to take it's toll.

[quote name='oldslapper' post='1076159' date='Jan 3 2011, 11:48 AM']Did these sell Mr Clarky sah? Would like to buy, if Jake's not interested, been promised them, or bought them. Ta John[/quote] I'm out... Christmas has taken it's toll

I arrived at a gig on the Isle of Wight to discover that the fingerboard and neck had been snapped off the double bass that lives in my main gig's van. frantic phone calls produced a local chap with an EUB who very very generously lent me for the gig.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1074286' date='Jan 1 2011, 12:24 PM']Which one is that then?[/quote] It's the one with demolished, and squeaky gate notes He probably means the Jazz melodic minor.

My practice has come to a complete standstill. I'm not concerned it has happened before and I will get back on the train.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1072374' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:45 AM']This is beyond the norm, even for Basschat OT. Is it so important to 'win' this argument?[/quote] This PAL is not OT it's GBD... so take your blood sucking inexactitude and peddle your unstinting dedication to winning pointless arguments elsewhere i mean i mean *hangs head in shame* I'm sorry I couldn't resist. I feel dirty

Interesting that in both the cited cases of PRS being over the top that they have gone on to admit over zealousness and withdrawn their case. That looks like responsible management of policy to me, it also shows humility, which I would seek from a representative body. I suppose we just see what we want to see in these things. I tend to look for the best examples and work from that point. I'm probably a bit idealistic It's a shame that the same sort of humility cannot (it seems) be shown by those with slings and arrows.

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071620' date='Dec 29 2010, 12:01 PM']If the licensing model is based on the broadcasters paying to transmit stuff to the entire listening public then it's clearly unreasonable (or anomalous at best) to double-charge a portion of that listening public just because they happen to be listening to the broadcast at their workplace. It's precisely this sort of anomaly that generates bad feelings of unfairness in the first place. And once such feelings take hold it certainly won't be changed by laws and prosecutions.[/quote] I agree, and I'd go further and say this illustrates why these conversations are worth having between thinking individuals in whatever format is available. I just don't see any worth in complete character assassination for the purposes of holding up a point, not least because the integrity of the (entirely possibly) correct observation can be lost in the ensuing to and fro. Again I'm not directing that at you specifically but to the tone that is so often held by so many in these threads.

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071560' date='Dec 29 2010, 11:09 AM']If the broadcasters are charged "for the purposes of licencing a public performance" then why are shopkeepers and factories also charged for having a radio in the workplace? That seems like multiple charging to me. The franchising and charging-for-shelf-space examples are interesting but are really only voluntary commercial arrangements, whereas my multiple charging example seems to be enshrined in law.[/quote] Because they have to hold a license for a public performance of IP, I agree there is an overlap (now I understand your point, my fault not yours) the vast majority of broadcast material has been received, to all intents and purposes, privately. The licensing situation says that if you want to take that broadcast and make it public then you need to license yourself as a venue. Let's not forget why retailers use music so readily... The smaller concerns, and workplaces can fall into the gaps between those exploiting performances for increased profit (often on a massive scale) and the private performance. Perhaps there should be a category where if it's not a 'not for gain situation' and if fees (as you point out) have been levied then it should be left at that. I think what this conversation illustrates is how difficult it is to cover all eventualities when formulating policy in these matters. Which is broadly why I will defend 'any action' as opposed to 'no action' as long as the bodies involved are able to update and take on board anomalies. What I find a little frustrating in the general view that seems to prevail here and at large is the first response to most things seems to be along the lines of an expectation of crookedness and shouting akin to, 'burn the bastards'. When one digs a little deeper into peoples polemics it's often to find that they know very little about the subject and have got up in arms over a daily mail article. (I'm not specifically referring to you there FF just a general feeling)

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071528' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:34 AM']I disagree. The recipe for a loaf of bread can embody IPR as much as a piece of music. Of course IPR should be protected and remunerated, but you're missing (or evading) my basic point - the fairness, or otherwise, of charging [u]multiple[/u] royalties.[/quote] I don't see in your post where you have pointed to multiple charging. you say that it's wrong that broadcasters are charged "as well"... as well as what? The payment is made by broadcasters for the purposes of licensing a public performance. I don't think you have demonstrated to any reasonable degree that this is multiple charging. Consumer purchase of a product is an entirely separate transaction and just like other forms of IP is charged for accordingly. I agree that bread recipes can be IP and I'm sure in certain cases they are. The bakers rights society is still a spurious point excepting the fact that the business model you describe in that example is alive and kicking.... it's called a franchise. Eg it can be quite expensive to earn the right to sell McDonalds products. (a bit OT I know but interesting nonetheless) The clue is in the name BTW. Performing rights... not Purchase rights. PRS deal with the live side.

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071500' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:06 AM']Imagine a 'bakers rights society' that collected a fee from shops just for the privilege of stocking their products in the first place, in addition to collecting a portion of the actual sales [u]as well[/u]. I suspect most people would think that rather unfair.[/quote] You're ignoring intellectual property rights, which can be found being protected and remunerated in all walks of life, from product patents to literary publishing to advertising copy etc etc. It's everywhere, why should it be any less protected for music? Your bakers rights society example is not comparing like with like.

[quote name='icastle' post='1071177' date='Dec 28 2010, 07:02 PM']Well that works both ways it seems. I suppose in 'recourse to fairness' they did eventually stop chasing the 56yr old granny (cogent presentation of factual evidence supplied earlier) for £2000 because she was singing in her shop - but then I suppose that was 'fair' because she isn't your granny eh?[/quote] You simply should not have openly accused them of this: "I suspect they just take the money for any unidentifiable songs it and just keep it" That is not a fair minded position to take, it's making assertion on suspicion and I will always point it out when I see it.

[quote name='lowdown' post='1071147' date='Dec 28 2010, 06:25 PM']All this......and very well said. Garry[/quote] +1 Garry... notice how the cogent presentations of factual evidence are studiously ignored by the naysayers? Views are held to suit complainers with little recourse to fairness.

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1070681' date='Dec 28 2010, 12:22 AM']It's, not it [/quote] typical

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070497' date='Dec 27 2010, 08:40 PM']I don't really understand this. Even if an originals band is on a big tour, why the need for PRS at the venues they play? Presumably they'll be getting their cut from the ticket price anyway, so what is the point of the PRS taking another cut of the ticket price which they would, presumably, have to hand over to the band anyway?[/quote] It's a stream of revenue, that is all, widen your pool of who might be the recipients and you might see some worth in it.

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1070477' date='Dec 27 2010, 08:23 PM']I suspect many see the PRS as part of the system that is killing off live music through draconian licensing. I'm not suggesting this is a correct view, but I can certainly see how this might arise. The UK seems to have become increasingly unfriendly toward live music.[/quote] I think if a few more people here made a living from music their views may well be tempered.

It surprises me that the tone of so many views on here is so suspicious of PRS, it is basically a collection service for musicians, and to that extent is a service that deals with an area that is fraught with difficulty: the collection of monies arising from the usage of intellectual property, I think that perhaps some of the less generous commentators should have a look at the service that PRS provide for the industry before posting on here with tales of what demonic oligarchs that sip champagne from the bellies of virgins whilst draped in swan feather nightgowns run the organisation.

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070388' date='Dec 27 2010, 07:12 PM']Is a PRS licence required when a band plays a gig consisting of only original songs? And if so, why?[/quote] Only if they are registered as PRS members, (although it's not the band, but the venue that has the license) and the purpose would be for them to receive payment through the licensing system for a public performance of their material. Probably not worth it for a one off, but if you are touring regularly then it can result in some reasonable cheques coming through.

[quote name='icastle' post='1070189' date='Dec 27 2010, 03:28 PM']Hey - if they want a squeaky clean reputation they shouldn't go chasing after 56-year-old shelf-stackers who sing to themselves should they? I am realistic enough to understand that being a 'not for profit organisation' does not automatically give them instant 'saint status' however much people would like that to be the case. It is extremely easy to run a 'not for profit business' - ask any MP.[/quote] You are clearly, on this evidence, keen on totally unfair appraisal, so I'll leave it there.

[quote name='icastle' post='1070153' date='Dec 27 2010, 02:56 PM']I suspect they just take the money for any unidentifiable songs it and just keep it.[/quote] That's a very strong accusation against a not for profit organisation, I think it's a real shame that you would make that assertion (I imagine) without recourse to any degree of substantiation, remember that your words are instantly published here and that it's very easy for people to go away thinking that because you said it... or they read it somewhere..., that it's true. More likely that your suspicion is total rubbish, and, I have to say, very poor form.

[quote name='wotnwhy' post='1070112' date='Dec 27 2010, 01:51 PM']Both (in my view), much MUCH better ways than signing your creative life over to a company who just see's you as a commodity.[/quote] That you think about it at all gives me hope, I don't think I have sole access to the answers on this or anything else for that matter, but I do think that having the debate is worthwhile.