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

Mon Dec 12 16:52:53 GMT 2016

Oh Dear oh Dear ---- we have all been sucked into a discussion again looking at the situation from the wrong end of the drain-spout.

It’s all gobbledy gook I tell you              ‘’Bah Humbug !’’       and         all unnecessary, and signing on the dotted line will open up a can of worms and you’ll get your stove pipe Hat nailed on somewhere further down the line. Beware the Ides of March (Vehicle)

I shall not be signing up to whatever is coming out of HQ, and therefore we’ll be having our bottoms spanked, but alas, as always, we shall be paying the minimum/average fee as we have always done …….. this is the fee of course that appears to be another golden opportunity missed where this could have been put to bed once and for all. Consultation = no     process of going through the motions, ticking the boxes, paying lipservice = yes                           We shall be playing Rod Stewart and the Arctic Monkeys because we’ve paid for the music already. We’ve paid for ALL our music.

If we want a discussion on Piracy, then that’s a different matter.

There’ll be no reporting, as just like the last 10 years there’s nowt to report, as zero is zero and that will not change. Furthermore, whether we have a contra deal with the local Milkman or a barter agreement with the window cleaner is no business of Elton John. They might be cleaning the windows and delivering the eggs on the point of fact that they happen to like what we do for the Community and thanking them with a little mention is the polite thing to do. Oh I forgot, that’s why they do support us.

My suggestion to PRS/PPL would be tekk the lolly £££ and run.

We’d better start practising the spiel ……………… ‘’Your Honour, I was inside the closet minding my own business’’                   there’s another 2p for Pluto Shervington + 2p for 10cc (Good Morning Judge) …………………. The Pearls – Guilty

:)

‘’You boy, you little urchin !’’

‘’I sentence you Mr Dumpty to another 14 Years of peeing in the wind’’                       ‘’I yield your honour’’

Ho Ho Ho

Nick

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of tlr at gairloch.co.uk
Sent: 12 December 2016 13:36
To: The Community Media Association Discussion List <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL & PRS for Music Joint Licence for Community Radio

Bob

PPL and PRS already indicated that there would be no changes to the basic terms and definitions, though of course that remains to be checked when the licences are sent out. So at present the answers to your specific questions would be:

The chances are many stations will only pay the guaranteed non-refundable minimum. But let’s not be negative, what happens if revenues change? It is possible you might regret agreeing to something in the contract?

The total payment is based on the final out-turn of the year, so automatically takes into account any changes in revenue that might occur. It has always been thus.

If on a higher tariff and paying above the minimum, what discounts are applied to the cost of sales?

The same discount applies regardless of the level of sales or tariff. There is a fixed allowance of 20% of gross revenue deducted as cost of sales to arrive at the net revenue figure used to calculate royalties. It's been like that for 15 years at least. (There are further possible allowances regarding the cost of staging sponsored OBs.)

Is there a possible impact on revenues obtained from web site and on-line activities? How do these figure in the revenue pot?

Any income received directly as a result of online streaming of output is counted as broadcast revenue along with regular airtime sales. Other non-broadcast derived income is discounted.

Can a discount be applied to NON PPL repertoire?

Not unless the proportion of PPL repertoire used is less than 15% of the total music played, in which case a discounted royalty rate of 1% applies.

Some clarification or amendments might include the duration and whether a review can be built in after an initial period.

The duration is one year, with no formal provision for review during the period.

As I said, these are all status quo, and PPL/PRS proposed no changes to them.

Alex

On 12 December 2016 at 13:06 Bob Tyler <bobtyler at btinternet.com <mailto:bobtyler at btinternet.com> > wrote:

Judges are very aware of how these bodies can abuse their powers. PPL and PRS tend to get very short thrift over their miss use of the Tribunal system for example. Even Judges consider that hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs to be a waste of money and time, especially when the underlying argument is if a charge should be 2.15% or 2.75%. The Judges argue that such a point should be resolved without the expense of a Court.

PRS and PPL do spend a lot of their member’s money on legal costs. Their Annual Reports are always on line and generally show monies allocated every year. These days the sums allocated are more likely to be used to peruse global streaming companies and various downloaders and not Radio Chipping Sodbury.

I was fascinated to see at the last CMA Conference the two ladies from PPL and PRS. Why? Because they were in the same room and actually agreeing with each other. Even more fascinating was that they trying to help. Only once before have I seen both of the organisations sitting together and agreeing. That was about 10 years ago at Radio Academy event when both bosses said that they should and would start to work together.

My point being, this is a breakthrough and a change that has taken many years during which both bodies had hardly recognised the existence of the other. The two representatives would not have turned up if they didn’t want to do a deal. I see it as very positive and I guess that this scheme is a test bed to roll out similar Joint schemes across the sector.

I am not party to any agreement, as I am not a broadcaster.

My feeling is that seeing a summary of points just represents an indication of the main purpose of the contract.

Most important are the terms and definitions of the entire contract.

The chances are many stations will only pay the guaranteed non-refundable minimum. But let’s not be negative, what happens if revenues change? It is possible you might regret agreeing to something in the contract?

I am sure we can all agree, there is a contract on the table and PRS/PPL want to conclude it. In my personal opinion, I feel it is a reasonable and accommodating proposal.  I do not think it is unreasonable to request and extension to take time to seek advice. The commencement of the contract can still be January 201, it would simply be back dated.

Some clarification or amendments might include the duration and whether a review can be built in after an initial period.

If on a higher tariff and paying above the minimum, what discounts are applied to the cost of sales?

What is the relationship between spot sales and sponsorship, are they both counted as revenues? Can a cost of sale be deducted for sponsorship?

Is there a possible impact on revenues obtained from web site and on-line activities? How do these figure in the revenue pot?

Can a discount be applied to NON PPL repertoire?

It could be the case that what isn’t written in the contract is more important than what is. You are perfectly entitled to put forward an amendment or addition.

It might be worth trying to get advice from one of the large London Solicitors that deal with Copyright and Entertainment.

BT

On 11 Dec 2016, at 14:11, Ian Hickling <transplanfm at hotmail.com <mailto:transplanfm at hotmail.com> > wrote:

Bob - what you have written from 30 years' experience is very valuable - thank you.
But - forgive me - it all reads as probability - and what we must have here is cast-iron legal facts.
So many times we are told that the Royalty Societies are all-powerful with formidable litigation support.

Sorry - that doesn't frighten me one bit.
These situations are all governed by UK Law and administered by one of the best Judiciaries on the planet.
I will not be bullied by any overbearing organisation - of any variety - and neither should the rest of us.

We've recently been shown the power that an MP can exert by summoning a Government Agency to answer questions at The House.

Let's use it!

Ian Hickling

Partner

 <http://www.transplanuk.com/> 

Office: 016 3557 8435  (07h to 22h GTS)

Car: 075 3098 0115 (only responds when driving)

6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS

  _____  

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>  <cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk> > on behalf of Bob Tyler <bobtyler at btinternet.com <mailto:bobtyler at btinternet.com> >
Sent: 10 December 2016 22:02
To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk> 
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL & PRS for Music Joint Licence for Community Radio

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).

I would not sign anything until it was generally felt that all concerned were happy with the contract.

Whatever you might think. These two bodies are law abiding, they are very savvy legally but also accommodating. As far as I understand, they set this commencement date and it is not unreasonable to request a period of time to review the legalities of what you are signing. If you were to delay the contract commencing next month, it would simply be backdated.

My second concern is that having dealt with these collecting bodies for more than 30 years I am familiar with the way they conduct their business. I believe they will ensure they collect their fees due to them under the signed agreement. The sums of money are smaller than any of their other licences but this is certainly a very favourable proposal. However, when you sign the agreement you will be expected to keep up to date with the payments.

Personally I feel this unique deal should have been a CMA Exclusive. In other words, only available to CMA members. I don’t think it is too late to achieve this.

It is all a bit irrelevant in the context of the current Ofcom Consultation.

On 2 Dec 2016, at 15:44, Ian Hickling <transplanfm at hotmail.com <mailto:transplanfm at hotmail.com> > wrote:

So Martin - the message appears  to be that you have to be very rich to get justice from such organisations.
Contrast this with what we've been able to achieve with Ofcom - an Agency of H M Government - by careful research and reasoned argument - without having to resort to paying any fees to anyone.
Is there a lesson to be learned there I wonder?

Ian Hickling

Partner

 <http://www.transplanuk.com/> 

Office: 016 3557 8435  (07h to 22h GTS)

Car: 075 3098 0115 (only responds when driving)

6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS

  _____  

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>  <cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk> > on behalf of Martin Steers <martin at martinsteers.co.uk <mailto:martin at martinsteers.co.uk> >
Sent: 02 December 2016 14:55:42
To: Canalside's The Thread; The Community Media Association Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL & PRS for Music Joint Licence for Community Radio

Dear all,

The CMA has continued to represent the sector and lobby hard for better terms etc from PPL & PRS, we have won some concessions with the reduced fees for CR stations who want to simulcast DAB & CR FM/AM. (I think from memory a saving of £500 a year).. and there are also other areas and work that still needs to be done as far as I am concerned (RSL fees, SSDAB for CR/Not for Profits etc).

However other than representation and lobbying as the CMA currently are doing, I am not sure what else the organisation can do that is responsible and legal.

The CMA couldnt condone or recommend a boycott of fees or anything else that could get stations or the CMA into legal hot water, nor can they engage legal advice without a "warchest".

If the sector wants to come together and put up some money to consider taking PPL/PRS to copyright tribunal then I am sure the CMA could help coordinate the effort and bring it all together, but I suspect we would need at least £10k just to engage a firm to do some ground work.. and the sector could be looking at tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds to fully take the case. Not to mention I think the looser pays all the costs dont they? so that would need to be budgeted for.

As ever I would recommend stations consider the situation, evaluate your numbers / finances, what counts on NBR etc I suspect 95% of stations would only pay the minimal fees and if you need someone else to check your numbers I am sure the office or myself would be more than happy.

Martin

On 2 December 2016 at 14:36, Canalside's The Thread <office at thethread.org.uk <mailto:office at thethread.org.uk> > wrote:

Good Heavens

I can have field day on this discussion ………I’m just a bit busy at the moment but I’ll sink my teeth into it when I get five mins.

Nick Dumpty

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>  [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk> ] On Behalf Of tlr at gairloch.co.uk <mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk> 
Sent: 02 December 2016 12:20

To: The Community Media Association Discussion List <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk> >
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL & PRS for Music Joint Licence for Community Radio

That's a nice thought, but a very simplistic approach Pippa.

Your advice is probably good for a station that is allowed to take advertising and has a population of, say, 10,000 or more to go at. But it's not so easy for a station serving a huge area with a population of under 3,000. I have no problem with payment of reasonable royalties, but the payment should be better related to the value of the rights being granted.

Under the present system, a small station that can't feasibly generate more than, say, £10,000 in broadcast revenue pays more than 15% of its revenue in PPL/PRS royalties (thanks to the effect of minimum fees), whereas a station in a more populated area that is able to raise, say, £50,000 a year, and has a much larger pool of potential volunteers available, pays around 3%.

There are other unjustified anomalies - such as if you add an FM relay that doubles your potential audience, there is no direct additional charge, but if you add a DAB transmitter serving fewer people than your existing FM transmitter you do pay extra.

Alex

On 02 December 2016 at 11:47 Pippa at Curly Radio <pippa at curlyradio.com <mailto:pippa at curlyradio.com> > wrote:

Alternatively we can all stop wasting valuable time and energy in fighting the system.  Instead, focus on developing brilliant locally focused programmes which engage and build your audience.  That way you will have advertisers and sponsors lined up who will cover the cost of your licences.

It’s also much more fun <image001.png>

Happy Friday everyone.

Pippa

From: Canalside's The Thread

Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 11:21 AM

To: 'The Community Media Association Discussion List'

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

Dear All

I suggested to PRS/PPL back in 2011 that would it not make sense for all concerned to have :-

1)      One collection point

2)      One fee covering everything

3)      One fee (be it either a minimum fee or an average fee)

Like quite a lot of my suggestions over the years, they were dismissed and laughed at. Very odd though that 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 years later down the line we always end regurgitating them and tagging them with ‘’ah, that’s not a bad idea’’    or actually implementing them full stop. Remember that most do actually agree but fall under the category of the ‘silent majority’

If you would like me to give you a list of those observations, pointers etc    I can do ---- I’m up to 15 at the moment on my list, which is exactly the same number as my ‘’well I told you so’s’’

Best if we get to the nitty gritty though

We have to face up to the fact that in all changes of things and tweaks to things some folk will be slightly better off and some will be slightly worse off (that’s life) ……………. But alas ----- unless we start working as a team and a fraternity we will forever be going around in circles and being picked off one by one and walked on by the authorities.

I hope at the AGM this year we actually walk out of the place at 5:30pm with a clear vision as to     what works, what doesn’t work, what we have concerns about, and most importantly what are we going to do about it, as whinging for the next 14 Years (me included) is not acceptable. I would also hope that we stop being nicey nicey all the time and face up to the fact that sometimes sadly we have to be controversial and we have to say the things that are maybe not pleasant.

I’m afraid with this PRS/PPL malarkey it does drop on my ‘’well I told you so list’’           unless I have missed something, we haven’t really gained anything ???   or that’s how it seems.

I hear what Bill is saying and there are some changes to the DAB malarkey      however, the truth is, the majority of us couldn’t even afford a Yogurt Carton and a piece of string, let alone DAB …… so it’s a none starter.

NBR or whatever you call it in relation to Community Radio    HAS TO GO BON VOYAGE / DUMP IT !    it rubs against everything we stand for, I have been saying this since day dot. We (Canalside) do not fill this form in as I refuse to do so. I suggest everyone else (all 270) do exactly the same. It isn’t NET it is GROSS …………. And Gross has no bearing on what we do.

We (Community Radio) are charitable, With some actually fully fledged charities, all not-for-profit and the rules that we operate under (or is that Straight-Jacket?) means we do exactly what it says on the Can/Tin.

With this in mind (I repeat) come the end of the financial year be that in our case November but others maybe April the end result is = not a Pot to Pee in. What do PRS/PPL/DCMS etc not understand about that ??  it seems quite simple to grasp.

Our report is NOTHING TO REPORT apart from the fact on average we play 9 songs per-hour. If that changes we will inform PRS/PPL    we shouldn’t have to keep informing them every 12 Months.

Come November our Pockets are empty.

I didn’t really fill the consultation in for a number of reasons :-

1)      They already know my/our thoughts on this as I have told them directly on at least 20 occasions since 2008

2)      It isn’t a consultation really coz the folk at the other end aren’t reading it, nor are they listening

3)      The Agenda (if we are being honest with each other) couldn’t really give a flying cactus about us, it was more for making things easier for PRS/PPL          not actually a crime, but hey, can we not work together on this please ?

4)      And finally --- when Lucy and Laura (who are two lovely people may I add) were in Birmingham, the whole exercise was pointless. Just like all the other nonsenses    ie:- BBC man etc etc     we sit for an hour being told what the rules are (we already know the rules)(in fact I know them better than the authorities)    they tell more small print, yet again what we already know and then hey presto we get to Bingo time and we’ve run out of time because someone has a Train to catch. This is NOT a consultation, it is a stitch up. As long as we tip toe and pussyfoot along with it we will for ever be on the receiving end.

My suggestion is a couple of Grand (£1600 - £2000) for the LOT ……….. this includes the FM and Internet for both and in our case here at Canalside – if we wish to run a small 100/200 stream training facility for the youngsters that gets chucked in for free. We make no money from this whatsoever but they charge us. We feel so strongly about it that we will possibly be stopping the payments now as this consultation seems to have achieved not much at all.

Finally, there is NO REPORTING as there is nothing to report. When we have paid all of our bills we end up with not a sausage and then we start afresh the following year.

This is all plain sailing and common sense to me ….. trouble is when Community Radio started Common sense went out the window.

Absolutely finally I would like to put my suggestion forward and ask if the CMA and Members will back it. If not, then that’s fine, but a word of warning ---- you/we are now at a crossroads, get some fire in your bellies (take note) or else Community Radio in the next number of years in the main will start to fade away, and that would be a travesty after all the hard graft we have each put in.

Obviously, those just on T’internet would pay about £600 quid-dish ??

Just done the Maths, and as you know I’m not very good at Maths (nor English LOL)     and to my calculation 270 x £2000 = £540,000 unless I have the decimal point in the wrong place (sorry if I have got this wrong)                    that’s not a bad little guaranteed tickle though for Chrimbo

Thank you

H Dumpty / Doormat FM

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>  [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ian Hickling
Sent: 01 December 2016 17:17
To: The Community Media Association Discussion List <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk> >
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL & PRS for Music Joint Licence for Community Radio

That's Stanford University and US law - no relevance over here fortunately.

Ian Hickling

Partner

 <http://www.transplanuk.com/> 

Office: 016 3557 8435  (07h to 22h GTS)

Car: 075 3098 0115 (only responds when driving)

6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS

  _____  

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>  <cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk> > on behalf of Tony Bailey <ravensound at pilgrimsound.co.uk <mailto:ravensound at pilgrimsound.co.uk> >
Sent: 01 December 2016 16:39:26
To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk> 
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL & PRS for Music Joint Licence for Community Radio

The term "licence" or "license" is used by an authority but it has also been used to give rights under an agreement:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/introduction/permission-tools-licenses-and-releases/

Tony Bailey

On 01/12/16 14:03, Ian Hickling wrote:

That's very informative - thank you.

But they've left out (or - Heaven forbid - ignored) two important aspects of the responses to their Joint Consultation:

1 - If this is a Licence - as opposed to a Service Charge - why isn't it issued by the only Licensing Authority in the system - which is Ofcom?  PRSfM and PPL are commercial businesses - not Licensing Authorities

2 - Despite many requests - there is still no categorical statement as to why PRSfM and PPL are entitled in Law to claim these payments - and precisely where this is written in UK Legislation.

Sorry - I know I've asked this many times before - but it's something we do need to have laid before us - and by the very people who are making these far-reaching demands.

My feeling is that broadcasters large and small who part with their hard-earned cash before being happy with the answers are rather unwise.

This isn't going to go away.
It makes no odds to us - we don't pay these charges - it's you out there, our friends and loyal Clients, that I'm concerned about.

Ian Hickling

Partner

 <http://www.transplanuk.com/> Office: 016 3557 8435  (07h to 22h GTS)

 <http://www.transplanuk.com/> Car: 075 3098 0115 (only responds when driving)

 <http://www.transplanuk.com/> 6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS

  _____  

_______________________________________________

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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 -  <mailto:cma-l at commedia.org.uk> 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/> http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter:  <http://twitter.com/community_media> http://twitter.com/community_media
 <http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video:  <http://www.canstream.co.uk/> http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________

Mailing list guidelines:  <http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-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> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l

_______________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20161212/c3fdbfb6/attachment.html>