Come the revolution...

[DaveB]

Hello Mate

Yes indeed.. that's an article I found and 'partially' quoted the fact that they were more concerned about distribution of the signal rather than copyright infringement. There isn't a lot good to be found online regarding the BHA's participation in all this. Many feel (and rightly so) they were 'sold out'.
I'd also seen that a possible way round the problem was to install separate aerials for each room but this in itself is a costly operation and in many cases, unworkable. I don't want to mention it again to SWMBO today as thus far, we've had an argument free day

Tks for that

ATB
DaveB

[markw]

I get the impression the PRS are trying to increase their revenue. Our village hall has had a PRS licence for years which always covered use of recorded music (for example for the twice weekly pensioner's tea dances) and for the use of sheet music by visiting artists, such as the brass band and choir concerts we organise. Now they have written to us saying we need two licences, one for recorded music and a seperate one for live performances, which surprise surprise is double the fee we usually pay. Our Village Hall gets no revenue support other than £1k from the local Parish council, so we have to have fundraising events and use any profits from our events to underwrite the running costs of the hall, which is vital in this village where over 40% of the population are retired and who make use of the range of activities we organise throughout the week. On top of the other rising costs and a need to look after the fabric of the hall, we don't need this.

Whilst I have every sympathy with struggling songwriters who frankly get ripped off by the bloated music industry, and suffer from illegal downloading, unfortunately I suspect they will be at the back of a much more well-heeled list of the likes of Gary Barlow and other rich singer songwriters in getting their share, and the PRS is being heavy handed and frankly going the right way to encourage law-breaking and further loss of revenue.

Perhaps it's time for a complaint to the Government to see if they can intervene, although I'm not sure exactly what they could do.

[Chris Trott]

Well, if they are not official and just a company, then they can't force you to do anything you don't agree too. This is what's happened with the MPAA here in the states. Successful lobbying by various groups in Congress has resulted in all attempts by the MPAA to force their will on the people to be shot down, as such, MPAA is just a business and as such they can't force anyone to do anything, including change the terms of your agreement without your consent. In the US, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is the agency responsible for ensuring that royalties are paid and determining what is and isn't a public performance. A lot of legal cases have been heard to make what a public performance is a very clear definition here and it may be time that the people of the UK ensure the same or just that it be pushed back that the US definitions for public performance be used.

[DaveB]

Mark, Chris..

I wholeheartedly agree with both posts. There are 2 separate 'forces' at work here and one usually doesn't work without the other in tow. The PRS.. Perfoming Rights Society (for music).. why this is appears to be an afterthought in brackets, I don't know.. and the PPL. The PRS (for music) represents the composers and music publishers. The PPL prepresent the record companies and performers. It's hard to see where one ends and the other begins. I dare not delve into the 'Mechanical' side of the equation

I've read on one site that PRS support the likes of Gary Glitter and other 'artists' of a similar bent.. need I say more!

Thanks for keeping this alive. I'm more convinced than ever that to pay PRS for having TV's in guest rooms that broadcast 'music' is a payment too far. They may win in the end.. though my ar$e will be WELL out of here by then.. I hope.. I'll make it as difficult as I can for them

ATB
DaveB

[TSR2]

I get the impression they are going after the low hanging fruit by targeting pubs and village halls. The fundamental problem is that a growing number think that downloading music, videos etc for free is ok. Yes the music industry is bloated and unjust, but that doesn't mean its ok not to pay for it. My Dad was telling me how he buys his music from some Russian download site and only pays £1 per album. I pointed out that just because he had paid for it doesn't make it right as there is no way £1 is a legal way to obtain an album. This nonsense that ISPs shouldn't block illegal sites needs to be knocked on the head. If I provide transport to bank robbers to get to the bank to rob it I am guilty of being complicit in the theft. Therefore only when these people start to target the ISPs will the ISPs start to take copyright theft seriouslyand deal with their subscribers who break the law.

[Garry Russell]

Indeed Ben

Paying £1 per album from a non legit supplier is no different to buying a packet of cigarettes from a bloke on the street corner for £1

Truth is, ISP providers are not brought to reign and make a lot of revenue off traffic generated so are not going to volunteer anything.

I get hacked off by the cries of freedom and rights and etc as it is conveniently forgotten (or ignored) that we all have a right to make things and to not have what is our property stolen.

Like folks who think that the right to free speech is the right to tell everyone to do it their way...or else.

It's all ar$e about face.like copyright on FS freeware for example...It always seems the author has to try and make a convincing case for it ti be left alone rather that everyone else having to prove some sort of claim.

The assumption is that everything is free, but whether it is free or not it always comes with conditions and even something paid for has conditions about re distribution saying it's not allowed.

As usual they jump on the indirect small fry instead of tackling the real problem.

The easiest way would be to allow ISP providers to carry on allowing free download to their customers. The PRS then billing the ISP bods 5 dollars for every download.

Perhaps then they might find it a good idea to start self policing their activities.

If they don't then the law will eventually step in, and as with all cases of that sort of thing will go restrict thing much further than it would have been had folk just played by the rules of common decency in the first place

[simondix]

Just as a matter of curiosity how much do they want?

[DaveB]

Hi Simon..

I'm not 100% sure to be honest.. it's still an 'untouchable' subject around these parts However, from what I remember SWMBO saying.. it was around £45. It does seem that they've dropped the 'lower end' scale.. I guess in an attempt to make it more palatable! SWMBO has it in her head that at least we could play background music (eg, the radio) in the pub again but I'm finding it difficult to accept their justification in saying that because music is played on TV's in our guest rooms, we need a licence in the first place. Fact is, I have a load of stuff here broken that we can't afford to fix and I can ill afford to add to an already bad situation by succumbing to this frivolous act of highway robbery by the PRS. It's not exactly the money/cost that counts though that is important.. it's the principle of the matter.

ATB
DaveB

[Garry Russell]

Indeed the principle, and the fear of it being the thin edge of a very big wedge.

[jonesey2k]

Shall we each donate £1 to Dave?