Frosty Jack Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Pretty weird that people who appear to play in bands seem to be against the idea of PRS!This is why people should never ever listen to Cloud...Any band that is even semi serious should be considering signing up. If you have any recordings being played anywhere, or are playing decent gigs then why would you turn down free money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Stax Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 This is why people should never ever listen to Cloud...Any band that is even semi serious should be considering signing up. If you have any recordings being played anywhere, or are playing decent gigs then why would you turn down free money?And then, if recordings are being made and produced the MCPS collect a royalty, on your behalf, for every copy made. Unless you have wee get of jail free clause for the small local label that cant afford the royalty. Its all good stuff and contrary to popular belief, weighted toward the musician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me and Parvati Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Or, a band or artist write songs (product) and the PRS collect royalties on their behalf for any public plays of said songs (product) belonging to the artist.They are maybe tightening up in order to provide the PRS members with the money that is owed to them.Im not sure of their definition of a public space and its will be a tricky argument either way. I had my run ins with them at Drakes but in hindsight it was all fair enough.Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with royalties being collected and paid to the artists. It seems however that the PRS has come up with a peculiar definition of a 'public performance' in that if someone is listening to music that others can overhear, deliberately or not, then that is a 'public performance'. Now if I was playing music in order to increase trade or to entertain my customers, I can see that they would have a clear case. Someone listening to his own radio at his work for his own pleasure does not to me constitute a 'peformance'.What if I buy a new cd, and have a few mates back to the house and say 'listen to this, it's great' - do I need a PRS licence?300 a year so that we can listen to free-to-air radio at work? I think not, so there are no radios on the premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Stax Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with royalties being collected and paid to the artists. It seems however that the PRS has come up with a peculiar definition of a 'public performance' in that if someone is listening to music that others can overhear, deliberately or not, then that is a 'public performance'. Now if I was playing music in order to increase trade or to entertain my customers, I can see that they would have a clear case. Someone listening to his own radio at his work for his own pleasure does not to me constitute a 'peformance'.What if I buy a new cd, and have a few mates back to the house and say 'listen to this, it's great' - do I need a PRS licence?300 a year so that we can listen to free-to-air radio at work? I think not, so there are no radios on the premise.As I say I don't know what they consider a public space, not a private play though but there will be a definition for you to read somewhere. Ask them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.