[cma-l] PRS PPL and DAB trials
Ian Hickling
transplanfm at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 22 13:07:01 BST 2015
No GaryThe people with the money can manage to work around the Law, but the people with right on their side make the Law - and that's us, the currently downtrodden.
PPL are not "a law unto themselves" - although they like to think they are.You don't need funds to mount a well-founded objection.Refuse to pay and say why.See how they react.Ask them how many successful Court cases they have had for this type of action.Incidentally - while you're talking to them - ask them how many Ramadan stations for instance pay them?
And how many of the current religious conference RSLs do?
I'm not a station owner and hence not a Royalty payer, but those of you who are should get some action via your MP - that's what you put him there for.
Ian Hickling
Partner
Office: 01635 578435 (7am-11pm UK time)Carphone: 07530 980115 (only responds when driving)6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS
To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk
From: gary.jackson at my-generation.org.uk
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:51:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PRS PPL and DAB trials
Absolutely but as with many things, the people with the money get
the law.
The PPL are a law unto themselves simply because they have the
financial clout. Even a group of community stations would have
trouble raising sufficient funds to mount a serious challenge. Last
time I checked they were even run by a lawyer.
I had an interesting conversation with a commercial radio station
owner in California a couple of years ago. He had heard that the PPL
had been haranguing American stations for money because their online
streams could be heard in the UK. Basically the PPL was demanding
hundreds if not thousands of pounds each year to cover the tiny
number of listeners that may stumble upon their stream here in the
UK.
Of course they did it in the name of those poor exploited musicians
who's music was being heard and not receiving any royalties. They
make themselves sound like Guide Dogs for the Blind!
However, as this guy pointed out, the large stations would never
play a British artist who was so unknown that they wouldn't already
be covered by the American royalty agencies.
Which means that these stations would have to pay blanket licence
fees to cover a tiny number of listener hours. Something like a
total of £10 could be passed to perfomers to account for these
listeners, and, as has already been said draconian reporting as
well.
That leaves hundreds if not thousands of £s not passed on to
perfomers, but included in the licence fee. Where does that
go?..........
Gary
On 21/07/2015 20:30, Ian Hickling
wrote:
So isn't it high time for a concerted legal
challenge to what are seen as the Royalty sharks?
Why on earth do otherwise sensible people shell out these
exorbitant fees without ever asking exactly why and what for?
Ian Hickling
Partner
Office: 01635 578435 (7am-11pm UK time)
Carphone: 07530 980115 (only responds when driving)
6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS
From: tlr at gairloch.co.uk
To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:37:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PRS PPL and DAB trials
Well, that will come as no surprise to those who have in
the past tried to see rationality in PPL's other fees for
small-scale broadcasters.
But of course, the issue of charges for pilot broadcasts
is only a reflection of the situation for long-term
broadcasters. PPL charges a lot extra for any form of
simulcasting, even though any additional value derived
from using its repertoire to increase overall audience is
already be reflected in and properly recompensed for by
the percentage royalty it levies on Net Broadcasting
Revenue.
In truth, PPL already uses a mechanism of sky-high minimum
charges to jack up the royalty charges for very small
operators way above the levels settled by the Copyright
Tribunal, and by insisting on separate licences for each
simulcast medium, each with its own minimum fees, it
manipulates the system to boost these levies even further.
Alex
----- Original Message -----
From: James Cridland
To: The
Community Media Association Discussion List
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PRS PPL and DAB trials
"PPL alone in charging broadcasters for DAB
small-scale tests"
PPL, the body that collects music royalty payments
on behalf of record companies, has re-affirmed that
it plans to charge existing stations an additional
fee to simulcast on a nine-month technical trial of
small-scale DAB.
Ofcom is currently testing small-scale DAB
multiplexes in a variety of places in the UK,
designed to discover whether the technology is
suitable for community radio broadcasters. It has
waived any licence fee for the tests, which are
planned to take nine months. The tests are technical
pilots for small local services that may become
permanent in future....
Read the rest of the story at... https://media.info/radio/news/ppl-alone-in-charging-broadcasters-for-dab-small-scale-tests
You might wish to comment on the story on the
website...
//j
--
http://james.cridland.net
- get my weekly newsletter
https://media.info - the media
information website
Tel: +44 7941 251474 | @jamescridland
_______________________________________________
Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by
the Community Media Association -
http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video:
http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Mailing list guidelines:
http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list
subscription please visit:
http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
_______________________________________________
Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the
Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video:
http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Mailing list guidelines:
http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list
subscription please visit:
http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
_______________________________________________
Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Mailing list guidelines: http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
_______________________________________________
Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Mailing list guidelines: http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150722/623292ab/attachment.html>
More information about the cma-l
mailing list