Illegal downloading

[jakenewmanbass]

[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)

Edited December 29, 2010 by jakesbass

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1071579' date='Dec 29 2010, 11:33 AM']I for one find listening to music on a PC uncomfortable. Sitting there for hours looking at Spotify or Youtube does not appeal to me one bit (and the sound on the Tube is not great.[/quote]
I tend to agree with you there, although if you record the YouTube audio and slap it into iTunes it can be included in any playlists in the usual way. If I'm practicing for a gig, I compile an iTunes playlist - mostly from CDs I already own, but usually with a few YouTube songs - and then play that via the PC through the hi-fi and play along.

But all that is just personal preference. The key point is that pretty much all music is legally available for free these days - and it's that very fact that is changing public perception about the value of music today. For better or for worse.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071591' date='Dec 29 2010, 11:40 AM']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.[/quote]
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.

[jakenewmanbass]

[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.

[pete.young]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1071408' date='Dec 29 2010, 12:39 AM']Frankly, it's a bit silly to go after them for this. It's clearly not a performance as we know it, but I suppose it counts as a performance within the narrow confines of the law.[/quote]

It's not the first time the PRS has been caught out by making clearly ridiculous demands. Remember the guitar shop told that they needed a licence to cover customers playing songs of PRS members when trying out instruments.

[url="http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/tm_objectid=16513231&method=full&siteid=50003-name_page.html"]http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/cove...-name_page.html[/url]

Although some of you might regard a ban on the likes of Stairway to Heaven as a good thing. We've already had a thread about that elsewhere.

[jakenewmanbass]

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.

[lowdown]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071678' date='Dec 29 2010, 12:51 PM']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]


Both negative cases told so far [In this thread] are old cases that are extreme and quite clearly silly[PRS-MCPS]
I am surprised the singing mechanic and his small repair garage has not appeared/been posted yet.
You get extremes in all walks of life, it does not make the entire population of the World idiots [ or maybe we are ]

Another thing that goes unnoticed with the media and PRS-MCPS, is the donations to charities, free workshops/seminars, donations and funds to under privilaged Musicians and countless other stuff. But hey, some of us are just greedy Musicians possibly represented by companies on the take, so stuff the lady shelf stacking.


As for spotify and You Tube - They pay Broadcast fee's to PRS-MCPS and possibly other countries from around the globe.



Garry

Edited December 29, 2010 by lowdown

[flyfisher]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071628' date='Dec 29 2010, 12:06 PM']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]
Well said. Intelligent, well-tempered, debate is rarely a bad thing whereas a personalised slanging match is usually just a waste of time.

[skankdelvar]

[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.[/quote]
The point is that the listening public is [i]not [/i]double-charged by the PRS. The listening public is not charged [i]at all [/i]by the PRS whether at their desk or in the comfort of their bijou suburban living room. Hence there is no anomaly.

Who gets charged?

1. The broadcaster. This is for the benefit of using the music to build an audience. Of course, record companies [i]could[/i] pay the broadcasters. That would be payola and has been illegal for some time. Doesn't stop them dropping off some Charlie now and then; occasional agreeable trip to the W.Indies with some nice lady mod-ells.

2. The employer / retailer, etc. This is for the benefit of promoting a cheerful (if slightly irritating) perkiness among their workforce. "No worries! Have a nice day! No problem!" And to soften up their gullible customers so they more readily part with their scratch.

So nobody is being double-charged. Two separate commercial entities are each being charged once for the (differing) benefits they derive from the musical performance.

The only double-charging anomaly I can think of would be if PRS charged a radio station both for playing the records [i]and [/i]for piping their on-air output through the office / reception area. At one time I probably used to know whether they do this or not, but it's too long ago and I don't care anymore.

And, afaics, no-one's proposed a detailed, workable alternative yet to the PRS. Mind you, it's the debate that counts.

Edited December 29, 2010 by skankdelvar

[Count Bassy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071678' date='Dec 29 2010, 12:51 PM']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]

Unfortunately, as in many walks of life, a good reputation can be lost very easily therough a few silly incidents like this.

While it's admirable to acknowledge when you've got it wrong it would be more useful if the PRS could recognise where they're being overzealous before they initiate any action and it gets into the press. The initial silly cases get remembered but the withdrawl and apologies are rarely noticed.

A case for clearer guidelines and more training for their staff perhaps?

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Count Bassy' post='1071942' date='Dec 29 2010, 05:39 PM']A case for clearer guidelines and more training for their staff perhaps?[/quote]
If all else fails they should ask themselves:

[flyfisher]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1071929' date='Dec 29 2010, 05:16 PM']The point is that the listening public is [i]not [/i]double-charged by the PRS. The listening public is not charged [i]at all [/i]by the PRS whether at their desk or in the comfort of their bijou suburban living room. Hence there is no anomaly.[/quote]

I don't believe I ever said, or suggested, that the listening public is charged. Clearly they are not (unless a portion of the BBC licence fee goes to the PRS, but that would be a slight digression).

And just because no body is double charged does not mean that revenues are not collected twice, only that they are collected from different bodies.

Charging one body to broadcast something and then charging another body to listen to that broadcast is, in my world, charging twice. Nice business if you can get away with it, which the PRS obviously can, and do, and all power to them in their quest for maximising musician revenues, which is their sole purpose in life. My issue is whether such a practice is fair by any reasonable interpretation of the word. I don't think so. others may.


[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1071929' date='Dec 29 2010, 05:16 PM']And, afaics, no-one's proposed a detailed, workable alternative yet to the PRS.[/quote]
Nowt wrong with the PRS, except for its unfair (IMHO) charging practices. No need to reinvent the whole wheel just for a broken spoke.


[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1071929' date='Dec 29 2010, 05:16 PM']Mind you, it's the debate that counts.[/quote]
Unworthy.

[Hamster]

IIRC there's a member here who works, - or used to work for the PRS - I'd be interested to hear their opinion, as a lot of us are clearly interested!

[Gust0o]

Spotify? Last.FM? Youtube?

[lowdown]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071961' date='Dec 29 2010, 06:09 PM']Charging one body to broadcast something and then charging another body to listen to that broadcast is, in my world, charging twice.[/quote]


Where does this happen ? I am not sure what you are saying.



Garry

[flyfisher]

The BBC pays a PRS fee to broadcast music and businesses have to pay a PRS fee if they use a radio to receive those broadcasts on commercial premises.

For example.

[Russ]

Back on topic, yes, I have downloaded music illegally. But, generally, if I've liked it, I've either gone and bought the CD or downloaded it from Amazon. As a musician, I have no desire to stiff other musicians.

But it can't be denied that the music industry has changed significantly, and, in many ways, this change is a very good thing as it has put the power back with the artists instead of the record companies. An artist can now record an album on their laptop, upload it to iTunes or Amazon themselves, and, if they can promote well via the channels available to them, they can get in the charts without ever involving a record company. This means more profit to the artists directly, more artistic control and a much wider variety of music for listeners. Everybody wins except the old guard at the record companies .

It's also true that, even back in the "old" days before downloading, most of the real money most artists make is from live performance and merchandising. If your music is being downloaded from The Pirate Bay, sure, that's a lost CD or download sale, but it's potentially another fan gained, another gig ticket or T-shirt sold, and that's where the real money is.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071620' date='Dec 29 2010, 04:01 AM']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]
If you don't look at it as double charging but sharing in the charges by all parties benefiting it seems more reasonable.

How would you feel if you were hired to play at a pub and they recorded your performance and played it over and over without paying you or even letting you know. Would you feel you have the right to double charge them for your work?

[jakenewmanbass]

[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

Edited December 30, 2010 by jakesbass

[lowdown]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1072204' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:15 PM']The BBC pays a PRS fee to broadcast music and businesses have to pay a PRS fee if they use a radio to receive those broadcasts on commercial premises.

For example.[/quote]


So Business A [BBC] pays to broadcast to it's public/customers/clients whoever,
Business B-Z does not pay to promote/sell/advertise to it's clients, just piggy backs/uses what Business A has paid for?
Business A might not be happy.

There is different rates for different business's, then take into account what usage, IE - looped music, CD's, DVD's,just occasional jingles, Radio etc etc...
It is a bit more complicated than "it's already been paid for once".

It would be ok for person[s] B-Z to illegally download music, because somewhere along the line person A has already paid for it then?

I am not trying to be Argumentative, just trying to get my head around it..
I have been a PRS member for over ten years, and i still dont understand it all...
If you go to the PRS-MCPS site you can get a detailed breakdown on why/how it works - well, in their eyes anyway.
And up to this point it's still the most workable option for the Musician.






Garry

Edited December 30, 2010 by lowdown

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1072376' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:47 AM']If you don't look at it as double charging but sharing in the charges by all parties benefiting it seems more reasonable.[/quote]
I see what you're getting at but I'm not entirely convinced.

The broadcaster pays a fee based on its listener figures. Fair enough. But a portion of those listeners (i.e the commercial ones) are also being charged a fee.

I suppose the PRS could argue that they remove the commercial listeners from the broadcasters audience figures, thus reducing the broadcasters fee (i.e the fee sharing you mentioned), but I'd be sceptical about how they could achieve that in practice.

I guess it's just too complicated to really define a performance, especially when it comes to radio listening, so the PRS just do whatever they can get away with. Thus, businesses are easy targets, but someone having a party and blaring out music to 100 guests is more difficult to target.

But, again, I'm not really having a go at [u]why[/u] the PRS do what they do - given their remit, their behaviour is perfectly understandable - my issue is whether what they do is fair. Many businesses do things that are legal and which they can get away with, but that's not the same as being fair.


[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1072376' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:47 AM']How would you feel if you were hired to play at a pub and they recorded your performance and played it over and over without paying you or even letting you know. Would you feel you have the right to double charge them for your work?[/quote]

I don't think that's the same thing because each replay would surely count as a separate performance. I've always understood royalty payments were based on each discreet performance - the more performances the more the royalties. But playing a recording once is a single performance of that recording regardless of whether the listeners are at home or at work.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='lowdown' post='1072621' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:13 PM']So Business A [BBC] pays to broadcast to it's public/customers/clients whoever,
Business B-Z does not pay to promote/sell/advertise to it's clients, just piggy backs/uses what Business A has paid for?
Business A might not be happy.

There is different rates for different business's, then take into account what usage, IE - looped music, CD's, DVD's,just occasional jingles, Radio etc etc...
It is a bit more complicated than "it's already been paid for once".[/quote]

Fair point. But a single broadcast of a recording is surely just one performance? The PRS seem to take the view that if someone listens to that single broadcast performance on a radio in the privacy of their home then there is nothing else to pay - which seems fair. But if that single broadcast performance is listened to by someone on a radio in a workplace then the PRS regards that as a separate performance, so a fee is payable by the owner of that workplace. That seems to me to constitute charging more than one fee for a single actual performance, i.e. the actual recording is only played once by the main broadcaster, however and wherever people listen to it.

However, I entirely agree that locally played CDs, DVDs etc are a difference case. Any business playing a CD/DVD in the workplace is, indeed, making their own single performance of that piece of work, so it would seem fair to pay a performance fee.


[quote name='lowdown' post='1072621' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:13 PM']It would be ok for person[s] B-Z to illegally download music, because somewhere along the line person A has already paid for it then?[/quote]
'Illegally' downloading music seems to be a whole different minefield altogether. It's already been mentioned that it's perfectly possible to legally download music (e.g. Spotify), so I confess to being thoroughly confused about what's legal and what's not. From an end-user perspective, listening to the radio isn't illegal so why should it be illegal to listen to something via the web?

OK, making a local copy of something, either by recording a radio broadcast or by saving a web file, might possibly be construed as 'stealing' something, but the ever-increasing number of "music on demand" websites (e.g. spotify) make it unnecessary to keep a local copy anyway.

So, to answer your basic question, I'd say yes, it's OK to listen to any music I choose via (say) Spotify for free because I presume Spotify has already made the necessary legal arrangements and payments.

And this is precisely the sort of mixed messages the music industry is struggling with. They want people to buy music yet they also do deals with the likes of Spotify that enable people to legally listen to their choice of music on demand for free. Who needs a personal music collection when they effectively have an infinite 'jukebox' at their fingertips?


[quote name='lowdown' post='1072621' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:13 PM']I am not trying to be Argumentative, just trying to get my head around it.. [/quote]
Me too. And the music industry!

[gjones]

Hmmmmmm, the good thing about acts not being able to make any decent cash any longer from selling CDs, is that they have to go out on the road if they want to make any money. Which means I've been to more gigs in the last couple of years than I have in the preceding 10.

Very few acts will receive the insane amount of money the likes of Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson received from royalty payments any longer. I don't lose any sleep over that, as it was way out of proportion to what they deserved for their labour. But it does concern me that other smaller acts may, these days, find it difficult to make ends meet and pay off advances because their music is being downloaded illegally. Personally if the band/artist is mega like the ones mentioned above then I'll download away! But if the act is less well known or trying to get established I'll always buy the cd or download it from somewhere like amazon.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1072644' date='Dec 30 2010, 04:42 AM']I see what you're getting at but I'm not entirely convinced.

The broadcaster pays a fee based on its listener figures. Fair enough. But a portion of those listeners (i.e the commercial ones) are also being charged a fee.

I suppose the PRS could argue that they remove the commercial listeners from the broadcasters audience figures, thus reducing the broadcasters fee (i.e the fee sharing you mentioned), but I'd be sceptical about how they could achieve that in practice.

I guess it's just too complicated to really define a performance, especially when it comes to radio listening, so the PRS just do whatever they can get away with. Thus, businesses are easy targets, but someone having a party and blaring out music to 100 guests is more difficult to target.

But, again, I'm not really having a go at [u]why[/u] the PRS do what they do - given their remit, their behaviour is perfectly understandable - my issue is whether what they do is fair. Many businesses do things that are legal and which they can get away with, but that's not the same as being fair.[/quote]
I don't think fair is achievable. And I agree with your points. Any solution will have a large group unhappy with it.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1072674' date='Dec 30 2010, 05:12 AM']Fair point. But a single broadcast of a recording is surely just one performance? The PRS seem to take the view that if someone listens to that single broadcast performance on a radio in the privacy of their home then there is nothing else to pay - which seems fair. But if that single broadcast performance is listened to by someone on a radio in a workplace then the PRS regards that as a separate performance, so a fee is payable by the owner of that workplace. That seems to me to constitute charging more than one fee for a single actual performance, i.e. the actual recording is only played once by the main broadcaster, however and wherever people listen to it.[/quote]
Are people getting charged for listening to personal radios at their own desk? Or do they just get charged when the business plays the music?

I could see charging the business in the same way they do a pub but a person at their desk sounds more ridiculous. If a broadcast on a personal radio at your desk is chargeable then an iPod with headphones during work hours should also be under the same argument.