More bad news? PRS Tariff on virtual events...

[Leonard Smalls]

21 hours ago, cetera said:

If you are a PRS member and gigging then YOU should report your live performances. If they were ticketed events in arts centre size venues or above then they should be licensed to pay out on the % of box office. If they are smaller pubs etc then you may be able to claim a small compensation using the 'gigs & clubs scheme'.

This does seem a bit weird...Why should a venue have to pay a %age of box office to the PRS in order that the PRS then pay royalties to a band for playing in a venue that has already paid them a fee? After all, if a band are getting paid to play their material why should the PRS get a cut? Sounds like tax!

And perhaps I should just play music by non-PRS members in my shop? Or perhaps my own music (though that would no doubt result in fewer customers, and those we did get would be generally odd)? No doubt I'd still be required to pay under some obscure loophole...

[BigRedX]

12 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

And perhaps I should just play music by non-PRS members in my shop? Or perhaps my own music (though that would no doubt result in fewer customers, and those we did get would be generally odd)? No doubt I'd still be required to pay under some obscure loophole...

I suggest that if you don't want to have to pay for a PRS licence then don't have any music on in the shop.

[Lozz196]

23 hours ago, Silvia Bluejay said:

My astonishment at how poorly organised this country is in getting setlists (from in-person or online gigs) registered with performing rights companies is undiminished since the last time we talked about this topic. 🤦‍♀️

Even if the music venues don't do that (they really should be obliged by law), all it takes is for one band member to spend a few minutes on the computer; in the case of a mostly unchanged setlist, copy and paste will take care of most of the work each time.

Yet most musos can't be ar$ed.

@Happy Jack and I helped Damo And The Dynamites' frontman sign up to Sentric, as opposed to PRS, mainly because they don't require payment of an upfront fee. They are mostly a publisher but also do royalty collection, and work out as slightly more expensive once you look at their cut on any earnings you get from your music. In our case, so far it would only be a matter of pennies, so we're not fussed.

Spot on, we always did this, why not get paid for performing your own songs.

[BigRedX]

44 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

Spot on, we always did this, why not get paid for performing your own songs.

Absolutely.

The Terrortones made enough money from PRS royalties (live and radio play) to pay for the bulk of our recording costs for 3 EPs and an album.

[cetera]

1 hour ago, Leonard Smalls said:

This does seem a bit weird...Why should a venue have to pay a %age of box office to the PRS in order that the PRS then pay royalties to a band for playing in a venue that has already paid them a fee? After all, if a band are getting paid to play their material why should the PRS get a cut? Sounds like tax!

 

I'm not sure you understand. PRS doesn't 'get a cut'. The songwriters of ANY music performed get the 'cut' after a very small admin fee for collection on their behalf.

Also, a lot of music performed live or on playback across the nation is written by composers who are NOT the band members. Should they not get their money?!

The small % of box office that PRS charges the venue to pay out the 'performing right' is suggested to be raised by the venue itself by e.g. adding a 1p to a pint etc but this is seldom done and couldn't be policed anyway. The venue are NOT supposed to pay this fee from the band's takings.... but who, honestly, can stop them? It's a no win.... PRS gets called the music police by the ignorant, but actually they have no such powers to enforce the way venues operate....

Want to blame someone? Blame the venue for passing their license costs back to the performers who keep them in business....

[Leonard Smalls]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

I suggest that if you don't want to have to pay for a PRS licence then don't have any music on in the shop.

Indeed... Even though it was music produced, written and performed by me I'm sure PRS would still want a cut of it!

 

12 minutes ago, cetera said:

I'm not sure you understand. PRS doesn't 'get a cut'. The songwriters of ANY music performed get the 'cut' after a very small admin fee for collection on their behalf.

It gets an admin or collection fee for every royalty varying from 10.5% for stuff played on BBC iPlayer up to about 23% for "other recorded" music playback and concerts. I can understand why there would be a collection fee for the PRS to collect royalties on behalf of one of its members, but what I don't understand is why would somewhere that is playing original music produced by a non-PRS member (with their consent) would have to pay a fee to the PRS?

Even the BBC don't charge you a licence fee if you have a TV that isn't capable of receiving broadcasts!

[cetera]

6 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

what I don't understand is why would somewhere that is playing original music produced by a non-PRS member (with their consent) would have to pay a fee to the PRS?

 

Again, who can police this? There will always be very occasional exceptions to any rule... and exceptions cost time and money to administrate.....

A venue isn't going to ONLY have music that is not registered with ANY royalty collection society.... and, even if they believe the writer isn't a member, they may well have a publishing agreement with someone who is....

[jonunders]

I'm a little confused. Is it the venue who has to have the licence or the band/performer that needs a licence to perform/record  other people's songs?

[stewblack]

We had to pay prs and some other crowd, is it ppl? I don't remember my partner sorted all that out. 

I remember he negotiated with prs each time it came up for renewal on the basis that we put on almost exclusively bands playing their own material. 

As far as my addled mind recalls, he always found them willing to accept this as a basis for a reduction of the cost. We paid but they worked out some formula  based around how many bands would actually throw in a cover or two. 

I never bothered to look into it , just used to feel that all the years of penury and hard work we put into creating a place for musicians to play and we had to give money to Macca and Madonna every year. 

I'm  fairly certain that was a poor caricature of was actually happening, and if I'd cared to learn the facts I might have felt differently. But I literally gave years of my life helping musicians and every penny that went out made that harder. So yeah, whether it is a tax or not is irrelevant. It felt like one. 

[cetera]

2 hours ago, jonunders said:

I'm a little confused. Is it the venue who has to have the licence or the band/performer that needs a licence to perform/record  other people's songs?

The venue has the license for live music.

A band can play almost any songs they like unless the original writers have a special injunction against their use outside of the intended purpose e.g. some of the songs from Grease may not be used outside of a theatrical performance of the whole show....

[cetera]

2 hours ago, stewblack said:

I never bothered to look into it , just used to feel that all the years of penury and hard work we put into creating a place for musicians to play and we had to give money to Macca and Madonna every year. 

Box office percentage from ticketed live events gets paid across the actual setlists performed. Other general license revenue gets spread far and wide... not just to the Maccas/Madonnas of this world...

[stewblack]

8 hours ago, cetera said:

Box office percentage from ticketed live events gets paid across the actual setlists performed. Other general license revenue gets spread far and wide... not just to the Maccas/Madonnas of this world...

That's good to know. As I say my thoughts were prejudice based not fact based. I'm way more laid back these days! 

[Teebs]

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/feb/01/prs-for-music-backs-down-on-livestream-licence-fee-plan