[cma-l] PPL & PRS for Music Joint Licence for Community Radio

[Bob Tyler]

> For the industry as a whole, this is the first positive step towards having a single body to have to deal with.
> 
>  
> 
> It has been the Holly Grail for years and always came up at Tribunal hearings. When making a comparison to the 1970’s and 1980’s - he majority of the modern world, which had single or a joint body. The UK had THREE bodies, all dealing with separate elements of the recording and intellectual property.
> 
>  
> 
> At that time comparisons were regularly made about the systems in North America and some European Countries. These territories operated a much more integrated system of Rights Collecting (PRS), Phonographic Performance  (PPL).
> 
>  
> 
> I suppose we were very much wedded to a 100 year old system that had grown up from Sheet Music and the Cylinder Wax recording. In fact the third body was the Mechanical Copyright Society. They I believe, had their origins in the paper piano rolls from the turn of the last century.
> 
>  
> 
> I believe this was more or less the case but feel free to correct me, that when you purchased a vinyl record you only owned the unprinted platter. MCPS owned the groove; PPL owned the recording and PRS managed the actual Intellectual Rights of the song and its composer/s.  From the cost of the 7/6d  7” single, money was apportioned to each body to grant a licence to the owner of the record.
> 
>  
> 
> Technically if I wanted to play my 7” single at a party in a church hall (therefore in public) I would be infringing my granted rights. Similarly if I wanted to play it on my radio station I would have to seek further rights to broadcast it.
> 
>  
> 
> At the time when ILR started, radio stations were dealing with at least two data sets. PRS would require a one format and PPL another. These would have been typed sheets for every piece of repatoir . It was not that long ago (about 20 years) both bodies agreed to accept data in Excel form.
> 
>  
> 
> There are other reasons too as to why this has taken so long to modernise.
> 
>  
> 
> However, Community Radio has helped bring about these changes and they will be welcomed by all of broadcasting.
> 
> On 11 Dec 2016, at 16:55, tlr at gairloch.co.uk wrote:
> 
> Bob Tyler wrote:
> “The deal offered by the joint licencing bodies is a very good deal and commercial radio would bite their arm off to get a similar arrangement. “
> 
> I can’t see that it would hold any huge attraction for them Bob, unless I've missed something major. 
> 
> The for-profit commercial stations are on exactly the same 2%/3%/5% (PPL) or 3%/4%/5.25% (PRS) scales as offered by the CR licence, and are unaffected by the £1798+VAT minimum fee as their NBRs are mostly over  the ~£32k at which the percentage scales take over. Most of the stations are not within the terms of Small Scale DAB, so that wouldn't help them.
> 
> The consultation didn't say anything about music reporting requirements, but most larger stations use automation/assist systems that produce music logs automatically, so any reduced reporting that there might be in the final licence would be a marginal benefit, and reduced reporting requirements by negotiation have been in place anyway for small stations for a long time.
> 
> So, what are the particular aspects of the agreements that make you feel the commercial stations would be so keen as to bite off their arms for?
> 
> I agree that less than a few days over a major holiday period, is inadequate time to consider any new licence agreement properly.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> On 10 December 2016 at 22:02 Bob Tyler <bobtyler at btinternet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The deal offered by the joint licencing bodies is a very good deal and commercial radio would bite their arm off to get a similar arrangement.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I have only two concerns.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> The ‘Top Line’ details I saw posted recently are what they say they are, top line/main points. It is not the actual contract. I do not know if a proposed contract has been disclosed for further approval?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I am not a current licence holder, so I would assume that as with most of PPL/PRS contracts they are confidential. Therefore any broadcaster wishing to sign should seek to have the agreement checked and explained by a solicitor before signing.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Thereby lies another tale. The agreement is probably offered to all and therefore PPL/PRS cannot alter the agreement to favour a particular licensee. So if two or three sign,  it’s done deal, everyone gets the same.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> In other words, the devil is in the detail and I am surprised that they are suggesting this agreement commences next month (less than 3 weeks away).
>>> 
>>>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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/20161212/47ca1a01/attachment.html>