musicians ripped off

[phantasm777]

i agree bruno, music, tv, movies - popular types are lame, uninspired, and not very creative (so many remakes and too many 3-d's) the music revolution will take place online. cause record co.'s (movie, tv co's) have no clue and are robber barons. they assembly line thier products, and often just copy indirectly off what is currently popular.
to have to have a permit or something just to sing a song, or recite a lyric - poem. is ridiculous, dont they realize it is free advertisement plus its isnt going to be as good as the original artist in most cases. plus it can turn people on to some things they never heard or saw before, and they go out and buy it. dumb fucks!
the real music revolution will be online. it might branch out into records - cds, but not till it gains it's own steam. popular music hasn't been relevant nor inspiring since mid 70's. there is good stuff not getting airplay but thats another story. they dont want real talent they're afraid it wont sell as good as the pablum they have out now. i only hope im still alive to see popular music regain its creativity and experimentation.

[Speed Demon]

ORH, what happens of the PRS people catch a deaf person turning on a radio?
Does that person still have to pay even though they cannot actually hear the music?
Turn it up loud and just feeling good vibrations.

Those cheap rat-bastards will probably call the vibration police and file a charge.

[phantasm777]

here they are trying to get laws passed to get thier money, and they always say it is to pay the musicians who made the song. right! we all know it is for YOU and not the musicians. just look at the chambers brothers guy, he is a majority in the music business in that he has little to no rights of his own music. thats BS! you should own most if not all of it if you wrtoe and recorded it. this is where there should be new laws - musician - writer laws against the record co.'s highway robberies.

[Oldrottenhead]

prs is not connected to record labels i think it is run or set up by the musicians union, the money the prs collects should go to the writers and peformers. unfortunately back in the day it was common practice for record executives to claim or buy the copyright from unwitting musicians. i think thats what has probably happeed to the chambers brothers guy. so hi royalties probably went to the man.

[Speed Demon]

Another fix for this problem, although a bit drastic. Let them wake up to find a horse's head in bed with them, instead of their wife. Then we will see how much money these leeches want to continue to steal from the "geese that are laying their golden eggs".

Or a fish wrapped in chain.

[AndyR]

The PRS is (or was a few years back - might have changed and I don't know...) the UK's body for collecting and distributing songwriting royalties, not much else.

It's nothing to do with performers on recordings or in gigs. It's all to do with collecting and distributing songwriter income.

The publisher of a song registers the song with the PRS.

Users of music (venues, radio stations, the hair-dresser if they are playing music in a public place) pay a licence to use music.

Radio station playlists go to the PRS. Venues get audited occasionally (I did a gig once where the owner of the venue was having to fill out PRS forms for a week, I had to tell him which cover songs we were doing that night). Record/CD sales get tallied up - I assume the record companies pass the songwriting royalties per unit sold to the PRS? (don't know this for certain, but otherwise, how would you get your royalties for record sales on that song of yours that Celine Dion sang on her hit album?)

Btw, PRS can only sample venues and then extrapolate to an overall "number of plays per song".

All these stats and the income (including the licence fees) go in a pot and the PRS works out a pecking order for all the songs over a year.

Then the big pot of money gets divided up between those songs, based on how each one scored.

PRS then sends the royalties that a song has earnt to the song's publishers.

The publisher divides it up according to the deal the songwriter originally struck with them. Publisher gets their share for doing their job, songwriters get their share for doing their job.

That's why songwriting royalty cheques take a good year or two to arrive. But when they do, they're a lot fatter than the cheques for just performing on the same recordings.

The link for U2 above is dead... but I suspect they were being a little disingenious. One assumes that Bono and The Edge receive their songwriting royalty cheques?? That's how they get the money back (if indeed they did have to pay - it's the venue that pays the licence usually).

Anyway, the PRS is the songwriter's friend. Or the successful songwriter's friend, anyway . Without the PRS, songwriters in the UK wouldn't get paid for the use of their songs...

Don't know about all the other bastards involved.... but the PRS is a good thing if you want to make a living out of writing songs.

[Farrell Jackson]

I was outraged to find out that you need a permit for an open mike in the UK, in a friggin pub!

in scotland that's been the case for years, all pubs must have an entertainment licence if they want to have music in their premises be it live or recorded, even my local hairdresser has to pay to the performing rights society for having the radio or cd on. just to clarify not the performer but the venue or business.

i'd be surprised if the same doesn't apply in the us. but i don't know.

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/pages/doineedalicence.aspx

In the U.S (California) music venues like restaurants and pubs that play cover music, live or canned, have to pay a yearly fee to do so. It goes to ASCAP or BMI, which sounds similar to PRS in the UK. It's then supposedly distributed to the publisher, songwriter, and artist.  

A real case scenario: The cover and originals band I used to play with once got a 13 week gig at a brew pub/restaurant to just play original music only while the owner sorted out the permit fee. There's no permit required for playing original music. A hired scout went around looking for venues that played covers without the permit and enforced it. The owner eventually paid it and we went back to playing covers there rotating with other cover bands.

It seems unfair to me. I know it's the law but a major chunk of the fee goes to administration of the program and not the artist.

Farrell

 

[Hilary]

we need to talk about kevin

a fabulous film!

[Hilary]

I'm gonna stay out of this one, but I agree with AndyR about PRS and as an artiste (hate that word) you can submit your own schedule of performances etc that they can cross-check and there are schedules on PRS you can check what's owing to you.

[AndyR]

I'm gonna stay out of this one

I thought that myself... after I'd posted

What sums it all for me is this from "About a Boy":

"So do carol singers have to pay you everytime they sing it?"

"They should do, but you can't always catch the bastards..."