[cma-l] Licensing and VAT

Thu Jan 5 14:23:49 GMT 2017

You only play performancing rights (like our PRS) in the US. There are no
exemptions in the UK - just a flat rate fee for hospital broadcasters and
RSLs etc.

Regards,

*Catie Lake*

-- 

Sales & Support: 0333 37 00 252 : http://www.artisanbroadcast.uk

*'Artisan Broadcast' is a brand name of Artisan Internet Limited*

Artisan Internet Ltd.  ::  Reg. No. 4577129  ::  VAT No. 750 3706 48
mail: 56 Kenilworth Court, Kenilworth Close, New Milton, BH25 6BN

On 5 January 2017 at 13:12, Alex Gray, Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk>
wrote:

> James/Catie: I’m puzzled by this discussion. Maybe there are some
> exemptions for pure mechanical rights, but as far as I understood it, for
> the music performance rights the US operates a roughly similar system as
> the UK, but with generally much lower royalty rates.
>
>
>
> In the United States, royalties are collected and distributed by the
> Performing Rights Organizations ASCAP, SESAC and BMI. ASCAP and BMI offer
> blanket licences to radio stations similarly to PRSfM/PPL, except that they
> operate under “consent decrees” issued by the US Department of Justice in
> response to concerns about the anticompetitive tendencies of the publishers
> (whose monopolistic activities would otherwise have been illegal in the
> US). The decrees are Intended to promote competition in the marketplace for
> musical works, and encourage ASCAP and BMI to compete with each other to
> offer the most attractive licence terms.
>
>
>
> It’s also important to note that unlike the monopolistic positions of PPL
> and PRSfM in the UK, under the US consent decree provisions, ASCAP and
> BMI’s licenses are non-exclusive and rights holders retain the right to
> individually license their works. (In the UK PPL and PRSfM prohibit this,
> so for example, denying signed artists the option of waiving their fees for
> non-profit users.) A number of artists are signed to the competing but much
> smaller SESAC instead (including some big names, such as Bob Dylan). SESAC
> charges non-profits according to US Copyright Office rates (currently about
> $150/year for population less that 250,000).
>
>
>
> ASCAP has very low flat rate charges for non-profit and low-power
> stations, a fraction of the fees charged here by PRSfM.
>
>
>
> I note that in the US 7,000 mainstream commercial stations have just
> refused to continue their BMI copyright payments of 1.7% of gross revenue
> (equal to 2% of NBR), and are from Jan 1 operating without BMI licences
> while their representative body seeks a rate of 1.4%. BMI has a minimum
> charge of $588 – just over half that charged by each of PPL and PRSfM. They
> also have a much more progressive charging scheme for stations that don’t
> broadcast full-time.
>
>
>
> Or have I completely misunderstood the US model?
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> PS also in the US small cafés, shops, offices etc **don’t** have to pay
> performance licences to play radios as PPL and PRS demand in the UK.
>
>
>
> *From:* cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:
> cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] *On Behalf Of *James Cridland
> *Sent:* 04 January 2017 22:25
> *To:* The Community Media Association Discussion List <
> cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
> *Subject:* Re: [cma-l] Licensing and VAT
>
>
>
> The US is the only country in the world that doesn't charge for mechanical
> rights. It is a dangerous comparison. Every other country in the world
> operates similar to the UK model.
>
> If you back-announced every song with a clear name of artist, song title,
> album it is from and its record label, and only played music that was
> unfamiliar to your audience, you would potentially have slightly more of a
> case for claiming it is for publicity of the artist concerned.
>
> However, as it is, claiming that radio plays music *only* to promote the
> artists is a lie. You play music to gain an audience from which to operate
> a business, and because it's cheaper playing a song than it is producing a
> great piece of speech content.
>
> These public arguments do nothing for UK community radio's reputation.
>
>
>
> On Thu., 5 Jan. 2017, 04:27 Artisan Broadcast (Sales), <
> sales at artisanbroadcast.uk> wrote:
>
> US "licences" are not charge for mechanical rights for exactly the
> promotional and prospecting reason Nick outlines. I've always found that a
> great many UK 'authorities' are out to charge for everything without
> considering the 'potential benefit or income' of a particular arrangement
> that may (in turn) generate a commission/revenue for the authority up the
> chain. A very blinkered approach if you ask me.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Catie Lake*
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> Sales & Support: 0333 37 00 252 : http://www.artisanbroadcast.uk
>
>
>
> *'Artisan Broadcast' is a brand name of Artisan Internet Limited*
>
>
> Artisan Internet Ltd.  ::  Reg. No. 4577129  ::  VAT No. 750 3706 48
> mail: 56 Kenilworth Court, Kenilworth Close, New Milton, BH25 6BN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4 January 2017 at 16:04, David (RadioPeople) <
> david at theradiopeople.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Beautifully described, Bill.
>
> The analogy i’ve heard used in the past is that of the 'cornershop window'
> - where one pays the owner to place a card in the shop window describing
> the item you have for sale. You wouldn’t expect the shop owner to pay you
> for the privilege of having your card in their window.  Therefore, it goes,
> artists should be paying radio stations for advertising their product
> (songs) in their shop window (radio).
>
> However, where this falls over is, unlike the corner shop radio stations
> have a quid pro quo. By choosing to use an artist's product (songs) you are
> able to attract an audience and also to be able to charge for and sell your
> product (advertising). Therein lies the fundamental principle. If you’re
> not going to accept, understand, acknowledge that principle then you should
> not be in music radio.  No one is compelled to use copyrighted music.  Use
> music that is not copyrighted and see what that does to your audience
> figures and/or income.
>
> David
> theradiopeople.co.uk
>
>
>
> > On 4 Jan 2017, at 15:30, Bill Best <bill.best at commedia.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Good afternoon
> >
> > Nick, you said:
> >
> > > In a nutshell, why do you have to apply for a licence to allow you to
> > > do something with something that you have already paid for ???
> > > it’s bonkers !     I can’t think of any other system like it ………………
> > > …… can you ?
> >
> > Purchasing a CD does not confer to you any rights of broadcast - for
> which you need a separate licence. If you look at any CD that you own it
> will say on it "All rights reserved" meaning that the original creator of
> the work still owns every right to the material i.e. they have not given
> away the right, among others, to broadcast the material.
> >
> > An example of something similar, as you asked, is if you buy a licence
> for some software that doesn't give you the right to do anything that you
> like with that software such as share it. You would not have the right to
> upload a copy of that software to a torrent server and distribute that
> application over the Internet - which would be analogous to webcasting a
> piece of music.
> >
> > So, there are plenty of precedents and analogous examples. Your TV
> licence does not permit you to stream (e.g. broadcast) the content over the
> Internet or open up a theatre and charge admission for people to come and
> watch "Strictly".
> >
> > PPL and PRS for Music were invited to last year's Community Media
> Conference in order to put these quite basic misunderstandings to rest. I
> see that I may have to invite them back again this year.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Bill
> > --
> > Operations Manager
> > Community Media Association
> > http://www.commedia.org.uk
> > https://twitter.com/community_media
> > https://facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> >
> > Canstream Internet Radio
> > http://www.canstream.co.uk
> > https://twitter.com/canstream
> >
> > On 4 January 2017 at 13:55, Canalside's The Thread <
> office at thethread.org.uk> wrote:
> > I understand the legalities of it all but DISAGREE with it all with a
> vengeance !
> >
> > It’s nothing more than a legal money making racket concocted up back
> 1912 by a few clever boffins who knew how to work a system.
> >
> >
> >
> > By rights, if I buy or purchase something, then I own it, and I can do
> what I want with it because I own it. If an ‘artist’ or whoever doesn’t
> want people to use their material then don’t put it up for use, keep it to
> yourself.
> >
> > Put your talent and your material in a shop and if it is good enough
> folk will buy it, if it isn’t, they won’t and that dear all is how life
> works. If ever there was a classic example of cake and eat it here it is.
> >
> >
> >
> > If I buy a Ford Car next week and decide to open up a Taxi business,
> Ford don’t charge me each time I drive it … I buy it and then I own it. If
> I earn money (as in this Taxi case .. so what ?)   do I have to report to
> Ford every year on how much I have earned so that they can charge me 3% of
> it …….
> >
> >
> >
> > What has happened is CONVENIENTLY ‘they’ as in the powers that be have
> confused Performance etc with PIRACY and by doing so they have been able to
> force through legislation. No doubt the ones who forced it through
> originally had their fingers in the Pie and were getting a nice tickle out
> of it £££ and possibly still are …………..
> >
> >
> >
> > I see it like this :-
> >
> >
> >
> > If I wish to play Elton Johns music then I go out and purchase it on
> record / cd / download / spottyface / yogurt carton and piece of string
> ………. Including all his albums and singles back in the 70’s (I started
> buying records back in 1969) plus then cd’s, I reckon Elton has had a good
> butty out of me.
> >
> > I happen to work in an industry where I can then showcase (for Elton)
> his work in the hope that perhaps others will purchase his talent. In
> otherwords we are all happy bunnies as it benefits us as well. Please don’t
> be distracted or foget though by the fact we have already paid for it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Elton can then pay who he wishes for helping him write a song or play
> spoons on one of his songs.
> >
> >
> >
> > If Joe Public go out and buy his material he makes money, if people
> don’t because they don’t like it then he doesn’t make money ---- a bit like
> us really. If no ones listens to us and we’re not very good, there’s no
> PRS/PPL safety net for us !        ie:- getting paid for doing nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> > If I steal Eltons talent though and don’t pay him for his record or cd
> then that is breaking the law --- it is theft.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, to conclude ……………. Buy it, do what you want with it because it
> becomes yours. If he/she doesn’t want you to buy it, don’t do it in the
> first place and don’t put it up for sale.
> >
> > It’s just a money making racket.
> >
> >
> >
> > To rub salt in the wounds we then have PRS/PPL coming to us    official
> Charities / Not-for-profit Organisations asking for reports and poking
> their conks into our Business. Our Business is exactly what it says on the
> can – Not-for-profit so the end result is = zero …………..also     all the
> music on our system bar a handful have been bought / purchased and I have a
> receipt for the lot going back to 1969
> >
> >
> >
> > It’s a complete joke and folk have just gone along with it. Of course it
> is a multi-million pound circus now so it will probably never be tweaked.
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree totally with this new licence and I am unsure as to what to
> do??    The idea and concept is good (something I suggested 8 years ago and
> was told ‘’oh we can’t do that’’)             By applying for it and
> signing the form means that you are agreeing with the terms ……… we do not
> agree with the terms and therefore ‘’houston we have a problem’’
>        this wasn’t a consultation, it was merely yet another lipservice
> exercise.
> >
> > I have asked them to send me the invoice for the year and who to pay it
> to, as of yet all I have received are two letters full of gobbled gook and
> the usual telling me what I already know.
> >
> >
> >
> > We refuse as a Charity / Not-for-profit Organisation to fill in report
> forms on whether a window cleaner cleans your windows for a philanthropic
> thank you … I have far more important things to do each day than work out
> mathematically the value of that.
> >
> >
> >
> >       • It’s none of Elton Johns business           and
> >       • What don’t they understand about our Net being = zero ??
> >
> >
> > I am sick of banging my head against a brick wall
> >
> >
> >
> > In a nutshell, why do you have to apply for a licence to allow you to do
> something with something that you have already paid for ???   it’s bonkers
> !     I can’t think of any other system like it …………………… can you ?    I’m
> all ears
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20170105/455dc647/attachment.html>