<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
</head><body style="">
<div>
Re the question of profits, I gave my take on that in my reply to Nick. PPL's position would be that it isn't concerned with your profits, it is concerned to get a fair return on the value you get from their members in being able to run the radio station at all, whether that is for social gain or financial gain.The argument I have with PPL is in their approach and attitude, and the actual amounts they try to levy.  Especially I see no true justification for the large minimum charges under the licences (that just encourages them to have inefficient admin with the costs covered by small stations). Nor do I believe there should be additional fees for simulcasts. The strange thing is you could treble your population coverage geographically (Ofocm permitting) and there would be no change whatever in the licence other than reflected in increased revenue, but if you add a different access method, even covering teh same area, they want a huge increase in charges.
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
<div>
The trouble is that with annual revenues approaching £200m, PPL can rely on the principle of 'might is right' to have it all its own way with small operators. The present system denies justice to those who can't afford the barristers' fees and risk the potential legal costs of arguing their case before the Copyright Tribunal, which is the arbitration route offered by the law.
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
The only routes left for thise without thousands to spend on legalities are either individual negotiation, which PPL says it won't do, a collective approach, which is where CMA could really come into its own, lobbying the legislators, civil disobedience, or a combination of all the above.
</div>
<div>
 
</div> Sadly, CMA's track record of negotiating with PPL isn't very inspiring - they have achieved tiny concessions around the edges of the licence, but no overall rationalization or serious reduction in charges. The whole sector should long ago have held out for a simple low percentage of revenue royalty - I would propose 1% of NBR for micro/non-profit stations (eg turnover less than say £100k or a similar threshold figure related to the current 2% and 3% bands). Full stop. No minimum charges, no extra licences for simulcasts.
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
Alex
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<blockquote style="position: relative; margin-left: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: solid 1px blue;" type="cite">
On 12 March 2015 at 18:21 David Duffy <david@theradiopeople.co.uk> wrote:
<br />
<br />
<div>
Hi Nick/Phil
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
Just before I reply. can I ask. This email thread it’s missing other people's contributions on the subject of 'The Cost Of The DAB Trials’ that were made previously (including one from me). I don’t begin to understand how mailman works but my earlier response is still on the thread online but not in this email.  What’s that all about?
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
Anyhow, I wholeheartedly agree.  I think there is a strong case for the CMA to talk to both copyright bodies on the grounds that as the use of their members material is on a not-for-profit basis, community radio stations should be exempt from fees.  Unlike a commercial radio station where ultimately the shareholders gain financially from the use of copyrighted material; or in a shop where the proprietor benefits commercially from playing copyrighted material; the use of the very same copyrighted material on a not-for-profit community radio station just contributes to the service perpetuating. There is no net financial gain. If anything, the playing of their members material contributes to sales, downloads, merchandise, concert tickets, etc. So their must surely be a zero sum argument to be negotiated here on behalf of the Community Radio sector?
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
David
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.theradiopeople.co.uk">www.theradiopeople.co.uk</a> 
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<br />
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
On 12 Mar 2015, at 16:38, Canalside's The Thread <
<a href="mailto:office@thethread.org.uk">office@thethread.org.uk</a>> wrote:
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
 
</div>
</body></html>