[cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials

Fri Mar 13 16:50:15 GMT 2015

They’re not a revenue collection agency, they’re a half legalised money
making racket 

.. as not-for-profit charitable groups in this instance our
reports are actually   NOTHING TO REPORT          or    n/a     not
applicable.

It has no bearing on what we are doing whatsoever except to create a
bureaucratic pain in the butt, and I am sick to the back teeth of all of em.

I do not know what you guys are doing, but I shall fight our corner and I am
making things as awkward and as inconvenient as they make my life

Period

I’m actually more annoyed with the reporting than the actual payments.

I think some in our organisation need to grow some        ???????????????

Nick

  _____  

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
[mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Tony Bailey
Sent: 13 March 2015 15:01
To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk; tlr at gairloch.co.uk;
david at theradiopeople.co.uk
Subject: [cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials

Revenue collection agencies would be falling down on the job if they agreed
to collect less cash.  You can't argue with them, unless you have a cheaper
legal team than they have!  I don't know if the Tribunal route is viable for
similar reasons.  One other possibility, which might be worth a look is the
ex-competition regulator, now re-born as - the CMA!  Only this time it means
the Competition and Markets Authority.  As new boys on the block they might
be worth asking since the collection agencies are effectively monopolies and
have to act in the public interest under the 1973 Fair Trading Act (as
amended by the 1998 Competition Act).  The CMA will hear complaints from
business as well as consumers.

Tony Bailey

On 12/03/15 21:06, tlr at gairloch.co.uk wrote:

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  <mailto:david at theradiopeople.co.uk>
<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 

www.theradiopeople.co.uk  

On 12 Mar 2015, at 16:38, Canalside's The Thread < office at thethread.org.uk>
wrote: 

_______________________________________________

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

-- 
Local Reports at http://www.ravensound.pilgrimsound.co.uk

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150313/9f14cc7c/attachment.html>