PRS vs SoundCloud

[lowdown]

Looks like PRS and Soundcloud are having a domestic.
Just received this Email.



"PRS for Music
to me
24 minutes agoDetails


Dear Member,

PRS for Music begins legal action against SoundCloud


After careful consideration, and following five years of unsuccessful negotiations, we now find ourselves in a situation where we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings against the online music service SoundCloud.

When a writer or publisher becomes a member of the Performing Right Society, they assign certain rights to their works over for us to administer, so it’s our job to ensure we collect and distribute royalties due to them. SoundCloud actively promotes and shares music. Launched in 2008, the service now has more than 175m unique listeners per month. Unfortunately, the organisation continues to deny it needs a PRS for Music licence for its existing service available in the UK and Europe, meaning it is not remunerating our members when their music is streamed by the SoundCloud platform.

Our aim is always to license services when they use our members’ music. It has been a difficult decision to begin legal action against SoundCloud but one we firmly believe is in the best, long-term interests of our membership. This is because it is important we establish the principle that a licence is required when services make available music to users. We have asked SoundCloud numerous times to recognise their responsibilities to take a licence to stop the infringement of our members’ copyrights but so far our requests have not been met. Therefore we now have no choice but to pursue the issue through the courts.

We understand SoundCloud has taken down some of our members’ works from their service. With our letter of claim, we sent SoundCloud a list of 4,500 musical works which are being made available on the service, as a sample of our repertoire being used, so that they understood the scale of our members’ repertoire and its use on the service. We asked them to take a licence to cover the use of all our members’ repertoire or otherwise stop infringing.

SoundCloud decided to respond to our claim by informing us that it had removed 250 posts. Unfortunately, we have no visibility or clarity on SoundCloud’s approach to removing works, so it is not currently clear why these particular posts have been selected by them given the wider issue of infringement that is occurring. Ultimately, it is SoundCloud’s decision as to whether it starts paying for the ongoing use of our members’ music or stops using these works entirely.

If the streaming market is to reach its true potential and offer a fair return for our members, organisations such as SoundCloud must pay for their use of our members’ music. We launched our Streamfair campaign in June to raise awareness of this issue and highlight how music creators need to be properly remunerated from streaming. We believe that all digital services should obtain a licence which grants them permission to use our members’ music and repertoire, in this case the works of songwriters, publishers and composers.

The streaming market cannot fairly develop unless this happens. We have always been pro-licensing and pro-actively work with organisations in order to propose an appropriate licensing solution for the use of our members’ works.

We remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved without the need for extended litigation. Members will appreciate that this is now a legal matter and our ability to communicate around it is therefore limited by the legal process. However, we will try to share information and updates whenever we can.

Please visit our website to read our frequently asked questions.


Yours faithfully,

Karen Buse

Executive Director, Membership and International
PRS for Music

PRS for Music is the trading name for PRS for Music Limited which is a limited company registered in England under company number 03444246 whose registered office is at 2 Pancras Square, London, N1C 4AG. If you are no longer affiliated with PRS for Music and wish to stop receiving our communications please click here."

[ras52]

I'm saddened by this... a bit like watching one's parents fight

Lots of PRS writer members use SoundCloud as a means of pitching demos, so I hope this can be settled.

[Leonard Smalls]

Aye...
It'll probably end with with no more free soundcloud for users and listeners. And a number of far richer lawyers!

[skankdelvar]

Or it could simply end with Soundcloud paying over such money it can be legally proven to owe working musicians (a principle we all might support).

In any case, m'learned friends are on the case which means complete stasis for a year or two.

Edited August 27, 2015 by skankdelvar

[ras52]

I'm optimistic... SoundCloud are already licensed with the US rights societies, but seem to need a bit more pressure to comply in Europe.

[heminder]

Ugh, freaking publishers. They're modern day dinosaurs. Parasitic dinosaurs.

This is the kind of crap copyright trolls pull. From PRS' Wikipedia page: "In 2007, PRS for Music took a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees were allegedly "listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers.'" In June 2008, PRS for Music accused eleven police stations of failure to obtain permits to play music, and sought an injunction and payments for damages. In one case it told a 61-year-old mechanic that he would have to pay £150 to play his radio while he worked by himself. Plenty more stuff like this at [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRS_for_Music"]https://en.wikipedia...i/PRS_for_Music[/url]

EDIT: On further reading their page, they're not even publishers. All they seem to do is be a troll and collect fees when they feel entitled to. They're the lowest of the low.

Edited August 27, 2015 by heminder

[BigRedX]

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1440694069' post='2853072']
Ugh, freaking publishers. They're modern day dinosaurs. Parasitic dinosaurs.

This is the kind of crap copyright trolls pull. From PRS' Wikipedia page: "In 2007, PRS for Music took a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees were allegedly "listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers.'" In June 2008, PRS for Music accused eleven police stations of failure to obtain permits to play music, and sought an injunction and payments for damages. In one case it told a 61-year-old mechanic that he would have to pay £150 to play his radio while he worked by himself. Plenty more stuff like this at [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRS_for_Music"]https://en.wikipedia...i/PRS_for_Music[/url]

EDIT: On further reading their page, they're not even publishers. All they seem to do is be a troll and collect fees when they feel entitled to. They're the lowest of the low.
[/quote]

I take it you are not a songwriter?

[lowdown]

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1440694069' post='2853072']
EDIT: On further reading their page, they're not even publishers. All they seem to do is be a troll and collect fees when they feel entitled to. They're the lowest of the low.
[/quote]

That's a bit unfair.
Are you aware of what PRS do for Musicians and Composers, or why?
It might be worth having a look here, it's part of what they do, and try to achieve.
[size=2][url="https://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpressreleases/Pages/pressarchive.aspx"]https://www.prsformu...essarchive.aspx[/url][/size]


[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1440692424' post='2853059']
I'm optimistic... SoundCloud are already licensed with the US rights societies, but seem to need a bit more pressure to comply in Europe.
[/quote]

Yes , promising.

Edited August 27, 2015 by lowdown

[heminder]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1440700405' post='2853149']
I take it you are not a songwriter?
[/quote]

Yes. What's the significance of that? It's their practices that are highly questionable, not mine.


[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1440701457' post='2853156']
That's a bit unfair.
Are you aware of what PRS do for Musicians and Composers, or why?
It might be worth having a look here, it's part of what they do, and try to achieve.
[url="https://www.prsformu...essarchive.aspx"]https://www.prsformu...essarchive.aspx[/url]
[/quote]

Had a brief read of that link. So it appears that they also work with other copyright trolls like GEMA, and lobbied against the [url="https://juliareda.eu/copyright-evaluation-report-explained/"]Reda Report[/url] in the EU which called for sane copyright laws. They also lobbied against peoples' rights to private copying in UK court. I see very little that they do [i]for musicians[/i]. They are lobbyists with a jurassic mindset and verified trolls through and through.

It's exactly these kinds of organisations that welcome internet censorship, DRM, and the policing of everyone's connections and in doing so invading the whole public's right to privacy, all in the name of "copyright enforcement".

I do hope SoundCloud outright wins the legal action against them.

Edited August 28, 2015 by heminder

[mybass]

Not everyone is a writer or has published music so it may be a little difficult to really comprehend that it can be a nightmare to collect monies due IF you do not have a publisher or have assigned works to PRS and without either, your music may therefore be 'used' by people like soundcloud etc. and you would never know that they are making money from your writing while you the writer is not.
PRS collects exactly as a publisher would when your music is used.
Some publishing deals are good, others are not quite so good. If you decide to assign your music to PRS you would be expecting them to do exactly what they are attempting to do with Soundcloud or else, what is the use of any collecting agency.
The reason to write music is usually to make/ add to your income as a professional musician. If you are a part time player this may not be important. If you make money fully from playing, writing etc, you need every penny due to you to survive, pay the mortgage etc.
There are many people who study for years at composing so why should they allow Soundcloud or others to use and abuse their music and therefore take away a part of the writers income?

[smaz]

Two sides to the story, I guess:

'[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]This is because it is important we establish the principle that a licence is required when services make available music to users.'[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]This is true, I can understand that.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]However (unless I understand wrongly), everyone chooses to upload their music to SoundCloud, knowing that it's a free service with no return. If SoundCloud were taking music & streaming it without permission/license, I can understand PRS but as musicians choose to upload their music that's surely agreeing to SoundCloud's terms? Surely PRS aren't the only copyright holders for the music - the musicians themselves should be allowed to make this choice?[/font][/color]

[Skol303]

Am I right in thinking this concerns people uploading commercial/licensed music to SoundCloud that they don't own the rights to?

This is prohibited in SC's terms & conditions of use, but of course very difficult to police in practice.

The very same issue applies to YouTube and I'd guess that PRS are having - or have had - a similar discussion with Google (YouTube's owners) about such matters. Just had a quick search in they do in fact have some info on it here...

http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/helpcentre/pages/youtubedealhelp.aspx

[Roland Rock]

I have mixed feelings on this too. My main uses for SC are to listen to DJ sets, and to showcase my band's music.

SC plays our music for free, but if SC complied, then we would see some return for each listen, which suits me fine.

However, the DJ sets I listen to have countless samples and remixes which I love. I'd hate it if all of this great content was pulled because it was prohibitively expensive.

[chriswareham]

I doubt that most people would see money from PRS for their tracks played on SoundCloud. Any monies collected would just be divvied up amongst the big publishers as usual. At least that was my experience of them - people like Elton John or whoever owned The Beatles publishing rights would get a percentage, smaller bands like mine would get nothing despite airplay on commercial radio and Channel 4.

[xgsjx]

My thinking is the same as Skol's.
I put my music up there for people to hear. Some songs I make downloadable, some I don't (such as remixes where the owner of the original content has not given me permission to make so).
I can see where PRS are coming from, but sometimes it can be a bit strict for things like an amateur band cover a song & stick it on soundcloud. Would a band that's already earning money really want to pursue an amateur band starting out?
Bands that are already gigging should have a license if they're covering songs & uploading them & it should be those that PRS pursue.
I think PRS are trying to do the right thing by the musician, but I do think there are some jobsworths working for them.

[cybertect]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1440750600' post='2853451']
Am I right in thinking this concerns people uploading commercial/licensed music to SoundCloud that they don't own the rights to?

This is prohibited in SC's terms & conditions of use, but of course very difficult to police in practice.

The very same issue applies to YouTube and I'd guess that PRS are having - or have had - a similar discussion with Google (YouTube's owners) about such matters. Just had a quick search in they do in fact have some info on it here...

[url="http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/helpcentre/pages/youtubedealhelp.aspx"]http://www.prsformus...bedealhelp.aspx[/url]
[/quote]

Because this is about publishing rights, rather than mechanical copyright, the one example I've seen is that of a composer of music for brass bands on a site dedicated to the topic.

http://www.4barsrest.com/news/detail.asp?id=18080#.VeBCerRiD9M

[quote]The ‘Piracy Unit’ also confirmed that it had been contacted following performances placed on Soundcloud from the recent Butlins Mineworkers Championship at Skegness.

"In general, unless specific and very clear written confirmation has been given from the venue, organisers or the composer, then any individual recording a performance for this purpose from a brass band contest is doing so illegally," they said.

"It is a form of recording and broadcasting piracy.

Although Soundcloud and other digital platforms are not yet licensed within the PRS framework, we would reiterate that it is still illegal to record music in this manner.

If it is reported to us we will contact the appropriate people to get it removed - and we will strongly consider taking further action."

[b]Theft[/b]

They added: "This is simply a form of theft - and many composers are losing out of what should be their legal entitlement for a performance payment.

Brass band contests, concerts and general performances are not exempt - and we are aware of a growing problem in this area."


[b]Sparke's view[/b]

Composer Philip Sparke certainly has strong views on the matter.

"Although I’m aware there are mixed opinions about the issue, I feel strongly that these illegal recordings are having a very damaging effect - and not just financially for composers.

I’m certainly unhappy that many of my works are illegally recorded at brass band contests. But it also means that it denies the composer the opportunity to have their work properly commercially recorded, especially on CD - and that damages the future of the whole of the brass band movement."[/quote]

Given the specifics of the wording, I'm guessing it's the performers who are uploading their performances of the composer's work without his permission, but I suppose it could also be member of the audience.

[BigRedX]

I think some people on here are unclear about what royalties the PRS actually collects. They act on behalf of songwriters and publishers. Now a lot of the time in rock and other modern forms of music the performers are also to writers but that isn't always the case.

When a covers band upload their version of a song in order to promote (advertise) themselves is it not fair that the people who wrote that song benefit financially from it? Also it's not the bands that have to pay for the privilege of covering a song so it's not actually costing the musicians performing it anything. What's wrong with that?

The people who are directly benefiting from using music and who have to pay the PRS licence in order to use the music (like Soundcloud and other streaming sites, Pubs, Shops etc.) are all enhancing their business through using music, so why shouldn't they pay for that?

Soundcloud are not a charity. They exist to make money. If their business model is built on not paying the composers of the music they supply what is due to them then Soundcloud deserve to go out of business. Otherwise their shareholders can take a small cut in profits pay up.

Also these days there are increasingly fewer instances of unlogged performances. Especially on-line. Soundcloud will know exactly how many times each individual track they host has been streamed. With cumulative micro-payments it is easy to work out exactly how much each songwriter whose works appear on Soundcloud is due.

[jonnybass]

I have to say that I think soundcloud should be made to buy a licence, but also I think that the PRS needs to change. There should be a ceiling on payments out, to allow smaller scale songwriters and composers to get paid,rather than the likes of Elton John or the current owners of the Beatles works to get what must be to them a relatively small payment.

[Skol303]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1440761486' post='2853587']
Soundcloud are not a charity. They exist to make money. If their business model is built on not paying the composers of the music they supply what is due to them then Soundcloud deserve to go out of business. Otherwise their shareholders can take a small cut in profits pay up.
[/quote]

Therein lies the rub... their business isn't based on not paying composers the money they are due. Their T&Cs state that anyone using SoundCloud must own the rights to whatever they choose to upload; they make money from people subscribing to premium accounts that give additional privileges.

As I understand it, PRS is - quite rightly - taking issue with material on SoundCloud that has been uploaded in breach of the site's T&Cs. This means that liability lies with SoundCloud, for sure. But it [i]doesn't[/i] imply that it's an intentional aspect of their business model.

YouTube has algorithms that deal with this sort of thing and I imagine that the solution will be for SoundCloud to use the same. For instance: I've uploaded remixes of commercial tracks to YouTube - tracks that I don't own, thereby in breach of YouTube's own T&Cs - and in time they've been slapped with advertising, often linking to where the original track(s) can be purchased - rather than my remix being wholesale deleted.

EDIT: I should add that I'd hate for SoundCloud to become plastered in advertising! Its absence of adverts is one of its biggest charms. But that may end up being the result of this lawsuit, and so be it if so. The alternative may be to apply the music ID algorithms at the point of uploading - prohibiting the addition of music that isn't owned by the user - but that would put a stranglehold on any DJ sets and non-sanctioned remixes.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Skol303