[cma-l] PPL / PRS for Music mini consultation

[Tony Bailey]

Don't take this as an endorsement but so far as I am aware:

Anything in the "public domain" has no rights attached to it.
Artist performance (as distinct from performance of the work) wasn't a 
legal right.
I think online payments are proportional to users.
The law is civil, anyone can demand any fee they chose.
Distribution is a matter for the representative organisation.
This is also a matter for the organisation and their members.

Tony Bailey

On 11/02/16 08:47, Ian Hickling wrote:
> Isn't this an opportunity to go right back to basics?
>
> Why are we paying to use something that is essentially out there in 
> the public domain?
> Why should we be paying artists to give their work exposure?
> Should it be the other way round - they pay us?
> If we decide to pay, shouldn't we pay in proportion to the number of 
> people that consume the product?
> What authority do the two organisations have in Law to demand what 
> amount to random fees?
> Where is the evidence of distribution and proportion to the alleged 
> beneficiaries?
> As with Charities, how much of what is taken in goes to administration?
>
> I'm prepared to put money on not getting a satisfactory answer to a 
> single one of those points.
> Go on - surprise me?
>
> *Ian Hickling*
> Partner
>
> <http://www.transplanuk.com/>
> /Office: 01635 578435  (7am-11pm UK time)/
> /Carphone: 07530 980115 (only responds when driving)/
> /6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
Local Reports athttp://www.ravensound.pilgrimsound.co.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20160211/ece2661c/attachment.html>