[cma-l] PRS fees

[Trevor Lockwood]

Ed

I'll try again - the Red Pencil Demon at CMA struck out my verifiable statement about the salary of the CEO of the organisation - and so you didn't get the full message. Don't tell me that CMA allows free speech.

Anyway I said:

Ed: I
 fully concur. PRS are destroying the industry in several ways. In my 
small town we had persuaded many local shops to play our station. Then 
PRS appeared, demanding money - which were not far from menaces. Two 
cooks in a kitchen forced to pay because diners may be able to hear our 
station when the kitchen door opened!

We maintain playlists - 
which we can supply to PRS - noting that 30% of our content is speech, 
and a good quantity of the music we play is locally-produced, and those 
musicians receive no payment from PRS (forgive me I know they have a 
more complex acronym than PRS). Yet we are made to pay the full fee.

So, why can't they produce a 
piece of software that we can use to quantify our charges? Or recognise 
we are akin to charities, and allow us one basic fee - I thought that 
charity shops only paid £50 pa now - is that true? 

It can't be that difficult - we all
 use playout software, from databases, writing the linkages is not impossible.

It was at this point in the original email that I suggested that PRS executives should be able to pay for this software. What a naughty boy I was.
 
It's
 community versus commerce all over again, with community slumped in the
 corner like an undemanding pauper, cap at feet, being fleeced by 
threatening lawyers.

A  grant could save the problem, and create 
jobs. We could write our own version of PRS. The argument that's normally presented by the opposition against that 
is it's too complex - how would we include all the artists? That's a 
nonsense. We have the technology - we just lack the cash. 

Most of the artists I speak to would not register if we set up our own organisation to 
receive royalties from community stations - as they recognise that we provide a
 valuable service in promoting their music and serving the community - in addition, there's no reason why we couldn't all create (say) an Amazon 
affiliate account to create an online shop to sell copies of the music
 we play, or wouldn't iTunes (or similar) be willing to help us? Good 
publicity for an online music seller - helping the community. Google's just bought Motorola and want to build their audience - let's ask them.

I'm
 disgusted that we allow a bunch of litigation lawyers who rely upon a piece of legislation that was never intended for the purpose to stand in our 
way - of helping musicians whilst bringing pleasure to our listeners.

We need to take action. 

Trevor Lockwood
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20110924/18c40511/attachment.html>