[cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials

[tlr at gairloch.co.uk]

Re the question of profits, I gave my take on that in my reply to Nick. PPL's
position would be that it isn't concerned with your profits, it is concerned to
get a fair return on the value you get from their members in being able to run
the radio station at all, whether that is for social gain or financial gain.The
argument I have with PPL is in their approach and attitude, and the actual
amounts they try to levy.  Especially I see no true justification for the large
minimum charges under the licences (that just encourages them to have
inefficient admin with the costs covered by small stations). Nor do I believe
there should be additional fees for simulcasts. The strange thing is you could
treble your population coverage geographically (Ofocm permitting) and there
would be no change whatever in the licence other than reflected in increased
revenue, but if you add a different access method, even covering teh same area,
they want a huge increase in charges.
 
The trouble is that with annual revenues approaching £200m, PPL can rely on the
principle of 'might is right' to have it all its own way with small operators.
The present system denies justice to those who can't afford the barristers' fees
and risk the potential legal costs of arguing their case before the Copyright
Tribunal, which is the arbitration route offered by the law.
 
The only routes left for thise without thousands to spend on legalities are
either individual negotiation, which PPL says it won't do, a collective
approach, which is where CMA could really come into its own, lobbying the
legislators, civil disobedience, or a combination of all the above.
 
Sadly, CMA's track record of negotiating with PPL isn't very inspiring - they
have achieved tiny concessions around the edges of the licence, but no overall
rationalization or serious reduction in charges. The whole sector should long
ago have held out for a simple low percentage of revenue royalty - I would
propose 1% of NBR for micro/non-profit stations (eg turnover less than say £100k
or a similar threshold figure related to the current 2% and 3% bands). Full
stop. No minimum charges, no extra licences for simulcasts.
 
Alex
 

> On 12 March 2015 at 18:21 David Duffy <david at theradiopeople.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>  Hi Nick/Phil
>   
>  Just before I reply. can I ask. This email thread it’s missing other people's
> contributions on the subject of 'The Cost Of The DAB Trials’ that were made
> previously (including one from me). I don’t begin to understand how mailman
> works but my earlier response is still on the thread online but not in this
> email.  What’s that all about?
>   
>  Anyhow, I wholeheartedly agree.  I think there is a strong case for the CMA
> to talk to both copyright bodies on the grounds that as the use of their
> members material is on a not-for-profit basis, community radio stations should
> be exempt from fees.  Unlike a commercial radio station where ultimately the
> shareholders gain financially from the use of copyrighted material; or in a
> shop where the proprietor benefits commercially from playing copyrighted
> material; the use of the very same copyrighted material on a not-for-profit
> community radio station just contributes to the service perpetuating. There is
> no net financial gain. If anything, the playing of their members material
> contributes to sales, downloads, merchandise, concert tickets, etc. So their
> must surely be a zero sum argument to be negotiated here on behalf of the
> Community Radio sector?
>   
>  David<http://www.theradiopeople.co.uk>
>   
>   
> 
> 
>      > >      On 12 Mar 2015, at 16:38, Canalside's The Thread <
>      > > office at thethread.org.uk <mailto:office at thethread.org.uk> > wrote:
> > 
> >  > 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150312/afc84113/attachment.html>