Comments on: You can’t be bitter at a Kwik Fit fitter

By: Pete W

Pete W — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:03:56 +0000

I had a run-in with the PRS a few years ago over performances of folk music. I ran a small ‘festival’ in our village (i.e. got two pubs and the village hall to stage events in the same weekend) and was targeted by the PRS as a ‘festival organiser’ who, in their books, was liable for payments above and beyond the PRS licenses that the pubs already had. The problem was that most of the music peformed was either traditional (with no identified composer) or original material performed by singer-songwriters.

It transpired that if I stood up in a pub and sang ‘Wild Rover’, someone would have to pay money to the PRS even though no-one knows who wrote the song. They would see my ‘arrangement’ of the song as my own composition. The fact that I am not registered with the PRS to receive any benefits from my ‘arrangement’ being performed in public cuts no ice. They still want the money.

It’s a different issue from the Kwik Fit example but the conclusion is the same – a system that commodifies the act of listening to music cannot be reduced to a simple royalty payment. To attempt to enforce such a system creates unfair anomolies as well as a bureaucratic nightmare.

By: Graham

Graham — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:23:51 +0000

Shitspazz? That’s not terribly PC now is it Chris?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:44:11 +0000

Have you noticed that the radio stations keep playing adverts from the PRS (tagline: Where would we be without music?) basically saying that you can’t listen to the radio in an office without a PRS licence?

Which, in upshot, means that the radio stations are now broadcasting messages demanding that you get a licence before you can listen to them. So people will end up having to switch off the radio in offices and workplaces.

Why take down one industry when you can take down another with it at the same time?

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:08:37 +0000

It’s worth clearly drawing a distinction between the MPAA, as an industry body, and the PRS, as a collection society. PRS doesn’t have “a business”, as such – they’re non-profit – so I’m not sure how relevant the arguments about the lack of harm it does to their business are. I think the key point, which you’re spot on about, is that the PRS has already got the money once, from the radio station. And if the PRS wants to start setting a precedent that playing any radio station in a workplace where customers may hear it counts as re-broadcasting it, then they should be open about that – and open themselves up to the ridicule they deserve – and not hedge it by making false comparisons to shops or restaurants playing their own selection of music.