m800afc Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Alan Hardy on BBC Radio 4 today, disscussing the PRS tarrif increase http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Good for him! Get the word out. The PRS can rot in hell for all I care... you wonder why people are so willing to download illegal music? It's idiots like this who are too short sighted to see the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Good for him! Get the word out. The PRS can rot in hell for all I care... you wonder why people are so willing to download illegal music? It's idiots like this who are too short sighted to see the future. think thats the BPI you mean... PRS just salvage money from you to be able to listen to your music at work/in a pub/in a public place. sentiments correct though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 think thats the BPI you mean... PRS just salvage money from you to be able to listen to your music at work/in a pub/in a public place. sentiments correct though Yes and No . If I run a night at a low profile club or whatever am I going to pay the PRS? Nah am I hell. Then they wonder why and it's because they want £300 for Come On Eileen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddy the owl Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 We have just had a letter at work the other day from PRS saying we had to pay to listen to the radio. It would cost £140 a year so obviously the director said no. This place is like a morgue now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) We have just had a letter at work the other day from PRS saying we had to pay to listen to the radio. It would cost £140 a year so obviously the director said no. This place is like a morgue now. There is an irony to all this. How many times have you spent a tenner on a CD after hearing something on the radio at work? I'd actually not bought a CD for over 5 years. Then started downloading via Napster (when it was norty, a few years ago) and my music collection has more than doubled in the 8 years since, as the illegal downloands re-awakened my interest in music and I returned to buying CDs again. Edited March 20, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 We have just had a letter at work the other day from PRS saying we had to pay to listen to the radio. It would cost £140 a year so obviously the director said no. This place is like a morgue now. pretty much how they operate. is a legal racketeering company. you'll be ok to listen to bbc radio 5 or talksport though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 We have just had a letter at work the other day from PRS saying we had to pay to listen to the radio. It would cost £140 a year so obviously the director said no. This place is like a morgue now. thing is though if you listen to any of the bbc channels you shouldnt have to pay,as its covered in the tv licence i think. you should only have to pay for commercial radio stations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 How many times have you spent a tenner on a CD after hearing something on the radio at work? pretty much how the majority of folk hear a tune and go on to buy it. the PRS have thought that one out yet. then in a few years,when lots of its members stop being musicians because of the above reason,the PRS can heartily slap themselves on the back for killing new music. "grab now..think about the repercussions" later seems to be their way of thinking. with a bit of luck ,google/you tube will drag this on and on,exposing the PRS for what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 thing is though if you listen to any of the bbc channels you shouldnt have to pay,as its covered in the tv licence i think. no..PRS are in it to get their members(musicians) money for their work to be presented to the public.. i thought that was the whole feckin point!!! you set up a band,people like your tunes,people buy your tunes and you take profit from them sales. now the PRS want profit everytime more that 4(i think)people hear it together. legally,they can ask you to pay for a PRS license if you hold a party at home and you spin some tunes. funny innit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I'd actually not bought a CD for over 5 years. Then started downloading via Napster (when it was norty, a few years ago) and my music collection has more than doubled in the 8 years since, as the illegal downloands re-awakened my interest in music and I returned to buying CDs again. I don't buy music without trying it first... this, as you rightly say can be from hearing it on the radio or downloading it in a 'questionable' manner. Last week I downloaded two albums. One was gash and I deleted it. The other was good and I bought it off Play.com... if it wasn't for the download I'd never have bought it as I had no real interest in the band up until that point. As JP says, the PRS are so short sighted that they just see 'musicians not getting the money they deserve' - well in 10 years when musicians can't get any money full stop that'll be ok will it? It's pathetic and embarassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 no..PRS are in it to get their members(musicians) money for their work to be presented to the public.. i thought that was the whole feckin point!!! you set up a band,people like your tunes,people buy your tunes and you take profit from them sales. now the PRS want profit everytime more that 4(i think)people hear it together. legally,they can ask you to pay for a PRS license if you hold a party at home and you spin some tunes. funny innit! in that case then how much are the licenses,and would it be a viable option for the club to purchase a license for the home fixtures each season???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 in that case then how much are the licenses,and would it be a viable option for the club to purchase a license for the home fixtures each season???? only alan and co know the answer to that! i think the fees are set to a number of criteria.. so different clubs,different work places etc etc would get a different bill for a new license. obviously,the whole issue about it regarding latics,google/you tube and other places is not that they refuse to pay it,but the crazy hike in prices for the new license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 in that case then how much are the licenses,and would it be a viable option for the club to purchase a license for the home fixtures each season???? I don't know what they pay, but the club have a licence for the music on the whole... it's the "special occasion" music which the PRS somehow can demand a higher fee for. They're scum of the earth and should be shot where they stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I don't know what they pay, but the club have a licence for the music on the whole... it's the "special occasion" music which the PRS somehow can demand a higher fee for. i think thats the whole issue with this .. companies who have been given these bills from the PRS want to know why the hike in prices and why the money is justified when ,in effect ,they are promoting these artists and creating a new potential market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 i think thats the whole issue with this .. companies who have been given these bills from the PRS want to know why the hike in prices and why the money is justified when ,in effect ,they are promoting these artists and creating a new potential market. Spot on. If it's financially viable Latics should invert the system they're talking about. Use well known songs for the goals/coming out music and have unsigned bands songs for the rest... great exposure for those bands and we keep a 'recognised' song for the key moments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Spot on. If it's financially viable Latics should invert the system they're talking about. Use well known songs for the goals/coming out music and have unsigned bands songs for the rest... great exposure for those bands and we keep a 'recognised' song for the key moments! so what is fanfare for the comman man classed as then,as joes back thats what we should be playing when they come out and onto the pitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 so what is fanfare for the comman man classed as then,as joes back thats what we should be playing when they come out and onto the pitch That's what I'd want to hear! But I think that would come under the PRS rule. Gits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookers87 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) The difference is under new PRS guidelines, all the tunes played before, halftime and after the match are counted as 'background music' so come under 1 set of regs. BUT PRS are classing the entrance music and goal music as 'special occasion' music which carries a higher premium, hence the huge hike in fees compared to this year. They are complete daylight robbers. When we moved into our new building, within 3 months the PRS (obviously getting new business/moving data) sent a letter (very harshly worded) warning me about playing music (despite not doing). 3 more letters followed within 4 weeks, plus 2 calls - and more annoying than anything the first question the operative asked (get this for phrasing) 'So how do you currently play music in your workplace' - to which I replied I don't, and how dare you phrase your question that way. They really are causing a huge amount of problems for businesses. And 1 thing I want to know is if a radio station has already paid a royalty to play the music on air - why should we the listener also have to pay a royalty? Surely that is double royalties on 1 tune! ...still awaiting an answer from PRS. Edited March 20, 2009 by lookers87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy_Fent Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Does Ken Bates work for the PRS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 heartwarming to see total agreement on this issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookers87 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Spot on. If it's financially viable Latics should invert the system they're talking about. Use well known songs for the goals/coming out music and have unsigned bands songs for the rest... great exposure for those bands and we keep a 'recognised' song for the key moments! Wouldn't solve the issue as the 'licence' criteria is based on the workplace and number of people as opposed to the type of music. PRS say they have calculated the level of the fees based on their knowledge of the tunes that are played and it is therefore a 'fair' reflection of the royalty fees to their members. In other words they don't keep a tally of the actual tunes played so there would be no difference if they were to use unsigned bands as the 'key moments' part is the most expensive part anyway. They could solve the whole thing by (as they've asked) playing nothing but royalty-free tunes both as background music and 'key moments'...then they wouldn't have to pay them anything!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 they can ask you to pay for a PRS license if you hold a party at home and you spin some tunes. So after the group Police we now have the Music Police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 One was gash and I deleted it. The other was good and I bought it off Play.com... May I ask what they were? Nothing sinister, just looking for recommendations/things to steer clear of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 We have just had a letter at work the other day from PRS saying we had to pay to listen to the radio. It would cost £140 a year so obviously the director said no. This place is like a morgue now. Sorry but thats a little short sighted from the director in question.... Unhappy bored staff seldom work hard... 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.