[cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials

Tony Bailey ravensound at pilgrimsound.co.uk
Fri Mar 13 17:50:10 GMT 2015 

Just so, they rely on the fact that you can't afford to challenge their 
legality.

Tony

On 13/03/15 16:50, Canalside's The Thread wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <david at theradiopeople.co.uk> 
>>> <mailto: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 <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:
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>   
>> Reply -cma-l at commedia.org.uk  <mailto: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 athttp://www.ravensound.pilgrimsound.co.uk
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>
>


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150313/c01d5b19/attachment.html>

More information about the cma-l mailing list