[cma-l] PPL / PRS for Music mini consultation
Canalside's The Thread
office at thethread.org.uk
Thu Feb 11 16:36:05 GMT 2016
Hmm ?
Alex et al
I am fully aware of what they charge and why they charge it. However, that’s
not the point. I suppose if we were being honest with ourselves (and them)
then everything is to do with Broadcasting why ? because we are
Community RADIO
..
The key is we are using Broadcasting as a means to an end, that end is NOT
MAKING PROFIT. We are not making commercial profit as such off the back of
Tina Turner and Elton John, we are merely providing a service. No one, not
the PRS/PPL/Ed Vaizey/CMA/Ofcom/Uncle Tom Cobbley/Me/Thee/ All and sundry
can argue against this
. And why ? because when the Bill was passed it
was made very clear why Community Radio existed, why it was here and what
its purpose is. I didn’t make the rules, they did. We now have as I have
pointed out that those in authority and those with the clout are technically
arguing and contradicting against their own rules.
Another one of my questions from around 2008 I think ? was have PRS/PPL
ever read the script ? I don’t think they have, and they still haven’t.
They don’t get it
. My argument is they are going to have to be made to get
it.
Here’s one for you. Commercial Radio make money out of Broadcasting. They
make money for the purpose of making profit. Nowt wrong with that, it’s
called Business. However, the new Tina Turner and Elton John cds get given
to them as promos
.all the music on our system has been paid for, most of
it by me out of my Piggy Bank.
I said this years ago. We are getting charged twice for doing them a favour
and then they send us a Bill ????? who thought that one up ????? I
fully understand that looking at it like this doesn’t solve the current
problems, but it is worth mentioning just for the record (pardon the pun)
Onto the serious stuff, my main issue is this % malarkey. Sorry chaps, I
disagree totally with it. The reason I disagree is because it is a
contradiction of what we are about.
We accept that within our fraternity there are small Community Stations,
Medium sized Stations and Bigger Stations. I think Canalside fall into the
just below Medium status
. Looking at figures, some Stations need about
£30,000 a year, some need £50,000 a year and other £80,000 a year. This has
got nothing to do with making money ‘’’out of’’’ Broadcasting
. It is
merely monies needed to operate and survive, provide the community services
and achieve our core commitments.
If anyone at PPL or PRS fancies a hustings argument with me on this then
bring it on
.. we were getting charged PPL/PRS from 2008 – 2014 and we
WERE’NT allowed to run adverts on-air
.so that’s blown that argument out
of the water ! all our sponsorship came from the website.
Also, for the sake of being downright awkward, we continue our policy of
offering advertising across the The Thread Network
this includes a
Newsletter, a Magazine supplement, 3 x websites (The Thread / MIM / Visit
Macclesfield) Twitter / Facelessbook oh and if they support us,
we’ll chuck a few on-air adverts into the mix, but we can’t promise it.
There you go ----- the PRS/PPL argument has just gone belly-up in one fell
swoop !
Please don’t get suckered down this NBR route and this argument as this is
the road these people want us to go down. Stay on the laymans route /
keep it simple.
So :- I repeat one more time
1) One licence that covers FM / Internet / DAB if a Station happens to
be on 2 or 3 or only 1 ?? then so be it ? that’s the way the cookie
crumbles. I’m sure we are all aiming to be on all three aren’t we ? One
listener does NOT listen to all three at the same time.
2) A flat rate fee
same for everyone. How do we come to that figure
.basically we plonk ourselves in the middle. I actually think the £1000.00
quid-ish is possibly reasonable
..so £1000 to PRS & £1000 to PPL
x
250 Stations and hardly any admin apart from a second class stamp or the
press of a computer key is fair to all.
3) No reporting, because there is nothing to report. Whether the Station
earns/needs £80,000 to survive or £40,000 or £20,000 it’s irrelevant,
because it is not-for-profit. Here comes my zero / zilch / not a sausage
again.
4) The amount of listeners is also irrelevant
we run programmes off the
beaten track where we might have one man and his Dog if we’re lucky --- are
they going to give us a refund ? think not ?
Stay away from all complicated arguments because they will just grind you
down
.. keep it simple, 4 4 2, keep possession, knock the ball into the
danger zones, be patient, grit your teeth, show your teeth, knuckle down,
get weavin’, and we’ll score the goal. We might not win, but we’ll get a
draw.
Please please please, get this percentage % malarkey OFF the agenda. It is
alien to us and goes against everything that we stand for. You leave us wide
open if you sign up to it. NBR, it’s all a nonsense
.. and btw none
of us have the resources, manpower, will, time to go through this
bureaucratic garbage
. Hence why I knocked the reporting in the head ages
ago
.. I refuse to do it. I currently have the big Chief knocking on my
door
I am in but the lights are off and I’m hid behind the settee :-)
LOL
My report is simple :- [ 9 songs per hour, listeners ? dunno ??
we ain’t on rajar because we can’t afford it NBR and Advertising / Contra
/ Barter - MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS ! that’s my report.
At the moment I am a lonely soul and a voice crying in the wilderness
.
If that’s the case, then so be it. I am full of frustration and anger if I
was being honest as I am sick and tired of this fraternity being treated
like dirt and being bullied.
I hope and pray for common sense, but looking at the last 14 years it
doesn’t bode well. It will then be ‘’make your mind up time’’ ‘’put up or
shut up’’
We’re avin a go, even if we’re on our own. I suggest for starters you/we
take all your/our forms/agreements and all your/our reports, and chuck them
on the biggest Bonfire you can find.
By the way
. What is the Plan Stan for tomorrow ? I don’t want folk
negotiating any NBR malarkey for us.
Reading deeper into Alex’s post, it looks like someone somewhere is gearing
up for a ding dong
what with all this talk of Tribunals and Courts
.. if
so, I suggest we all start huddling together rather quickly and get our
sleeves rolled up.
Nick / Wrighty
_____
From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
[mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Alex Gray, Two
Lochs Radio
Sent: 11 February 2016 14:13
To: 'The Community Media Association Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL / PRS for Music mini consultation
I would add a rider on one specific point there Tony, but it’s a long one
“The law is civil, anyone can demand any fee they chose.”
Strictly speaking that is true, but that does not mean they can
automatically have the fee they demand. The law recognizes the privileged
position of the limited monopolies it grants to recognized collecting
bodies, are their demands are always subject to review and settlement before
the Copyright Tribunal.
The PPL vs AIRC ruling on which the current radio licensing is based is
arguably out of date, since it predates Community Radio licences, but it
does *not* provide for minimum fees, nor extra payments for additional
simulcasts. PPL is on unproven ground in making those demands. A
particularly pernicious aspect of minimum fees is of course that it removes
from PPL any strong incentive to come up with more cost-effective
administration or group schemes.
To deal with the one-sided situation of bodies being able to name their
price, the law permits anyone who feels they are not being offered fair or
appropriate licence terms to refuse to sign up, and instead pay what they
feel is properly due for a ‘deemed licence’. However, and this is where PPL
plays dirty, exercise of that right is subject to the would-be licensee
making an application to the Copyright Tribunal to adjudicate on the matter.
PPL is an aggressive corporate bully, and relies heavily on the fact that
most of its individual licensees could never afford the financial risk of
taking a case to the Tribunal (which has similar procedures to a court of
law), and PPL has a history of employing unnecessary levels of legal
expertise to rack up the potential costs for losers.
This situation has always in effect denied justice to smaller radio
stations, and even the big ones have generally been able to act only
collectively. It’s more than overdue for CMA to find some way of properly
getting the non-profit radio sector (Community and micro commercial together
ideally) for collective action to demand a fairer tariff. When we deemed our
own licence for two years we based it on a minimum fee of £50 + 1% of NBR,
and I believe that could have bene well-defended at Tribunal, but equally
PPL could have bankrupted us with just a few days of their legal costs.
I believe the appalling situation of the Copyright Tribunal for smaller
entities has been partly recognized by the introduction of a fast track
process, but I am not sure how applicable this would be to our case.
However, I do think if it wants to do anything, CMA should have some
preliminary investigations of that.
I would *not* ask PPL to justify its costs – anyone can find plausible ways
to justify a scale ranging from zero (or even negative!) up to astronomical
figures. We should simply say what we feel are fair costs and apply those
across the board until PPL can get legal backing for its present unfair and
inequitable structure. NB it is *fair* and equitable rates we are looking
for *not* just ‘reasonable’, since a hugely wide range of charges could be
considered reasonable (ie within the bounds of reason), even though they
might be clearly grossly unfair. A fine distinction to be sure, but I think
significant.
It occurs to me however, that if PPL continues to insist that the minimum
royalty tariff is fair, then they must by the same argument demonstrate
adoption of a minimum royalty *payout* scheme that gives, for sake of
argument, a minimum of £500 in royalties to any artist whose royalties for
reported music use would otherwise fall below that threshold; quid pro quo
(er, that’s not Status Quo obviously – they probably do okay!).
Sorry this is so lengthy, but beyond those points on the basic tariff, I
would like to add:
1) I believe there should be at most a truly minimum fee to cover
reasonable admin costs of a licence, and I would assess those as £30-50. And
I believe a new threshold should be added below the current 2% step, with a
1% rate band up to half the 2% threshold – this is in line with the
Copyright Tribunal’s original reasoning for the 2% and 3% bands, and simply
recognizes that nowadays there are numerous stations operating at a lower
financial level that the Tribunal ever realized there would be a need to
consider.
2) As for additional fees for simulcasting on Internet and/or DAB, I
believe these should simply be rejected *entirely*. If a station is able to
generate additional income from having any of these, then the value of that
will be properly recognized in the revenue figures. PPL's position is wholly
inconsistent - if you are given consent by Ofcom to add a relay that
quadruples your population or geographic coverage there is no change of PPL
agreement or tariff at all, and yet if you add a small area DAB simulcast in
your existing patch they want a massive increase in royalties.
3) I would stay away from discussions of payments to the niche artists
that we all play but suspect aren’t getting their fair share of the dibs,
because the obvious answer to that one is for PPL to demand 100% 24x7 music
reporting.
4) I do believe is fair to levy royalties on broadcast-related revenue
Community Radio/non-profit licensees, as is the case at present. [Wrighty
note: it is not your ‘zilch profit’ that is assessed for royalties, it is
your revenue derived from broadcasting activities]. What I do not agree
with, as said above, is the levying of a minimum fee, and I feel 1% would be
a fairer first step on the tariff scale.
Or we could ask Ed Vaizey to recognize in law that community/non-profit
stations do as much good for musicians broadly as they get in benefits from
the PPL repertoire, and to exempt them from the copyright regime, except
again perhaps for a nominal registration fee.
I do feel also that the constitutionally non-profit micro-commercial sector
(where I sit) and the enforced non-profit CR licensees should stick together
on this to make the case as broad and compelling as it can be.
But we won’t get anywhere without strong collective action led by a
determined body willing to take on a rough ride.
Phew, lunchtime methinks.
Alex
From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
[mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Tony Bailey
Sent: 11 February 2016 12:45
To: The Community Media Association Discussion List
<cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [cma-l] PPL / PRS for Music mini consultation
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/>
<http://www.transplanuk.com/> Office: 01635 578435 (7am-11pm UK time)
<http://www.transplanuk.com/> Carphone: 07530 980115 (only responds when
driving)
<http://www.transplanuk.com/> 6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS
<http://www.transplanuk.com/>
<http://www.transplanuk.com/>
<http://www.transplanuk.com/>
_____
<http://www.transplanuk.com/>
<http://www.transplanuk.com/>
<http://www.transplanuk.com/> --
<http://www.transplanuk.com/> Local Reports at
http://www.ravensound.pilgrimsound.co.uk
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email> www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20160211/5ae00caa/attachment.html>
More information about the cma-l
mailing list