Various studies have shown that music can make people more productive and happier in the workplace. By stopping Joe Mechanic in his small repair shop listening to the radio, might it reduce his productivity and happiness at work.
As a result, he will have less revenue and pay less tax resulting in a net loss for the government. He will also be less happy and more likely to take time off with stress, etc.
Thoughts?
The argument would be something like: it's up to the employer to motivate his staff by whatever means work best. It could be higher pay, it could be better working conditions, but either way it's the employer who has to pay in order to get results. You can't expect other people (musicians, songwriters etc) to give their services for free so that Bert's Garage makes more money.
In the past maybe but these days that's a completely outdated idea. So many people these days discover music through means other than radio (You Tube, streaming services, on-line music stores and recommendations) and these days radio, with one or two exceptions, reflects popularity rather than sets the agenda. Artists can have hit records these days, and build careers and fanbases with virtually no radio exposure. This is even more the case with the stations playing songs from 60s to 90s when listeners, in reality, are never going to hear something new and think 'I must go out and buy this'.
Unlike 20 year ago, radio stations need music far more than musicians need radio.
And I still don't get how stations paying artists royalties to use their music in pursuit of profit can be a 'silly idea'???:rolleyes:
It isn't a silly idea at all and is only right. Charging people in shops is just madness and using that logic the guy camping in the next tent to me at the weekend should have a licence for inflicting his crap music on me and the whole campsite.
These days a lot of radio stations won'y play music until it's familiar so aftists don't target msinstreem radio stations at first. Radio needs music but artists don't need the radio stations. Some of the worlds biggest selling artists get hardly any airplay.
In order to hit the big time artists try to get their music heatd by the people whp pick music for tv shows and adverts. Get your song on there and you are more likeky to make some cash, and get played on mainstreem radio.
The argument would be something like: it's up to the employer to motivate his staff by whatever means work best. It could be higher pay, it could be better working conditions, but either way it's the employer who has to pay in order to get results. You can't expect other people (musicians, songwriters etc) to give their services for free so that Bert's Garage makes more money.
That could apply where the employer has a Tannoy system with something like the old Music Whilst Your Work but can't see that it applies to someone working in a small establishment, perhaps on his own, listening to his own portable radio or even the garage mechanic switching on the radio in the car that he is working on. A friend of mine works in a not very busy shop on her own all day, the owner of the shop will not let the staff have a radio on because of the threats from the PRS.
Various studies have shown that music can make people more productive and happier in the workplace. By stopping Joe Mechanic in his small repair shop listening to the radio, might it reduce his productivity and happiness at work.
As a result, he will have less revenue and pay less tax resulting in a net loss for the government. He will also be less happy and more likely to take time off with stress, etc.
Thoughts?
If I was forced to listen to Radio One all day at work, I would be seriously stressed!
A friend of mine works in a not very busy shop on her own all day, the owner of the shop will not let the staff have a radio on because of the threats from the PRS.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The PRS licence for a small shop with only a portable radio is £81.40 per annum.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The PRS licence for a small shop with only a portable radio is £81.40 per annum.
Yes indeed; eventually very few factories and other workplaces will have the radio on, and then everyone loses, all because PRS are after their pound of flesh. Fewer places playing music, smaller the audience listening, less opportunity for new stuff on get on the radio, results in boredom, so fewer places play music...
Yes indeed; eventually very few factories and other workplaces will have the radio on, and then everyone loses, all because PRS are after their pound of flesh. Fewer places playing music, smaller the audience listening, less opportunity for new stuff on get on the radio, results in boredom, so fewer places play music...
I'm fairly sure you know that's not what I meant.
If a small shop is open six days a week, a PRS licence could cost the owner about 3p an hour. That's a tiny amount to pay to improve staff working conditions.
It's not like a 3p per hour pay rise would suddenly make the staff work harder, is it? Yet people are saying that having a radio on makes a difference to productivity - but it's not worth paying for.
Yes indeed; eventually very few factories and other workplaces will have the radio on, and then everyone loses, all because PRS are after their pound of flesh. Fewer places playing music, smaller the audience listening, less opportunity for new stuff on get on the radio, results in boredom, so fewer places play music...
I wonder how much of the £81.40 goes to the artists? Probably the 40p.
I wonder how much of the £81.40 goes to the artists? Probably the 40p.
According to PRS "PRS for Music is a not for profit organisation. This admin charge covers the cost to us of collecting your royalties."
The admin charges are listed online and range from 13.75% - 22%. That would mean that at least £63 of the £81 would be distributed to PRS's members.
In case there is any confusion, PRS's members are the writers and publishers of music which is played in public, not the artists (unless the artists write their own songs).
You can't expect other people (musicians, songwriters etc) to give their services for free so that Bert's Garage makes more money.
In the case of Bert's Garage playing a radio then the musicians have already been paid by the radio station.
So it would be double payment. No, it would be more as every single establishment playing a radio would pay.
It's not like a 3p per hour pay rise would suddenly make the staff work harder, is it? Yet people are saying that having a radio on makes a difference to productivity - but it's not worth paying for.
But that's not the argument.
Why should artists get payments beyond what they already get paid by stations?
But that's not the argument.
Why should artists get payments beyond what they already get paid by stations?
That's how royalties work: PRS's members (as already explained, writers and publishers not artists) are entitled to receive royalties when their music is played in public. That's how they earn the money to pay the rent. You may not like it, but it's a fact.
That's how royalties work: PRS's members (as already explained, writers and publishers not artists) are entitled to receive royalties when their music is played in public. That's how they earn the money to pay the rent. You may not like it, but it's a fact.
I don't think many would object to them being paid again when the music is played in public to an audience as with a DJ on a club, Muzak on a Tannoy system etc. But most people object to them being paid again when it is one or a small group of people listening to their radio when at work which is what the PRS people seem to spend much of their time chasing after and make threats to the employer to get them to pay protection money (which I doubt would stand being challenged in court in most cases). I presume the people going around get a high commission and a lot more than the figures quoted for administrative charges quoted.
If they had come to my work they would get thrown off the premises.
I don't think many would object to them being paid again when the music is played in public to an audience as with a DJ on a club, Muzak on a Tannoy system etc. But most people object to them being paid again when it is one or a small group of people listening to their radio when at work...
It's not a question of whether anyone objects to them being paid. They (or their publishers) own the copyright in their compositions. That means they are entitled to royalties if their music is played in public.
You always portray PRS as demanding money they are not entitled to but that is simply not true: they are demanding money which their members have a right to be paid. The facts are clear and I'm sure that the "protection racketeers" would be happy to explain them if you have any questions.
And I don't see why anyone would object to songwriters being paid when their work is played in public. We're talking about relatively small sums - it's not like anyone is going to be able to retire on their share of a few pence a day.
That's how royalties work: PRS's members (as already explained, writers and publishers not artists) are entitled to receive royalties when their music is played in public. That's how they earn the money to pay the rent. You may not like it, but it's a fact.
You've missed my point.
They have been paid. But they're getting multiple payments. The station pays but on top of that, anybody who plays a radio within earshot of anybody else also has to pay.
Surely they should get one payment for public proformance?
You've missed my point.
They have been paid. But they're getting multiple payments. The station pays but on top of that, anybody who plays a radio within earshot of anybody else also has to pay.
Surely they should get one payment for public proformance?
This is my main gripe with this as well. As the radio station has paid royalties there should not be extra payments further down the line.
If you actively use music to help business as clubs and pubs do then it would be fine but small businesses should not have to pay.
The argument that it helps create a better environment is the PRS clutching at straws.
During the last World Cup I had a game on in our back shop when someone came in from the PRS and he said I should have a license to play the T.V. I told him that would not be happening and he left it at that.
We don't listen to the radio near the front shop now because of this.
Pathetic law that allows companies to abuse it by targeting the wrong people.
You've missed my point.
They have been paid. But they're getting multiple payments. The station pays but on top of that, anybody who plays a radio within earshot of anybody else also has to pay.
Surely they should get one payment for public proformance?
I haven't missed your point. PRS are not issuing licences to listen to the radio, they're issuing licences to play music in public. If someone plays the radio in their business premises, it is not the fact that the music is on the radio that makes it a public performance, but the fact that they are playing it with the intention that others will hear it.
But again I ask, why would anyone begrudge writers being paid when their work is played in public? They may be struggling songwriters or they may be highly successful composers but either way, royalties pay their bills.
I haven't missed your point. PRS are not issuing licences to listen to the radio, they're issuing licences to play music in public. If someone plays the radio in their business premises, it is not the fact that the music is on the radio that makes it a public performance, but the fact that they are playing it with the intention that others will hear it.
But again I ask, why would anyone begrudge writers being paid when their work is played in public? They may be struggling songwriters or they may be highly successful composers but either way, royalties pay their bills.
But there are many reports where they attempt to bully people into paying when they are not 'playing it with the intention that others will hear it' but someone is just listening to the radio somewhere where someone else might hear it. I mentioned a friend who is not allowed to play a radio in the shop where she works because the owner has been threatened with charges by the PRS. The radio would not be for customers and would probably be switched off or turned down if any customers came in the shop. If there was someone else working there who could hear the radio then I can't see how it is different from having the radio on at home when you have visitors.
I haven't missed your point. PRS are not issuing licences to listen to the radio, they're issuing licences to play music in public. If someone plays the radio in their business premises, it is not the fact that the music is on the radio that makes it a public performance, but the fact that they are playing it with the intention that others will hear it.
But again I ask, why would anyone begrudge writers being paid when their work is played in public? They may be struggling songwriters or they may be highly successful composers but either way, royalties pay their bills.
Jeez. No-one is begrudging them being paid. THEY HAVE BEEN PAID and continue to be paid every time they sell a CD or download. That's why radio stations pay PRS. If a station pays PRS, and there are no limits to how many people can listen to that station, they when why should anybody who plays that radio then also pay PRS? PRS has already been paid.
What makes the writers of music or lyrics so special? They are already in a privileged position of receiving royalties for past work on a continual basis from repeat airplay. If they want more money, then they can do what most of us have to do and produce more work and get paid for that.......
You always portray PRS as demanding money they are not entitled to but that is simply not true: they are demanding money which their members have a right to be paid.
They are demanding to be paid money which they are legally entitled to by the letter of the law, yes.
But should they be legally entitled to do this? Probably not. The original intent of the legislation was probably not to allow PRS to demand a payment from anyone wanting to listen to the radio anywhere other than in a strictly private location with the windows firmly closed and absolutely no strangers present.
If the artists are hard-pressed as a result of ceasing to chase dastardly radio-listening scaffolders and van drivers, then PRS should maybe consider whether it is charging enough to those actually using music for what ordinary humans would recognise as "commercial purposes" (like broadcasting, or having background music in a pub). It would be vastly more efficient in terms of admin costs to collect the fees in one place anyway.
.... If the artists are hard-pressed as a result of ceasing to chase dastardly radio-listening scaffolders and van drivers, then PRS should maybe consider whether it is charging enough to those actually using music for what ordinary humans would recognise as "commercial purposes" (like broadcasting, or having background music in a pub). It would be vastly more efficient in terms of admin costs to collect the fees in one place anyway.
Good idea, if they charged more for music in pubs and restaurants then perhaps more would stop paying and you would be able to have a meal or drink in peace and quiet!
But again I ask, why would anyone begrudge writers being paid when their work is played in public? They may be struggling songwriters or they may be highly successful composers but either way, royalties pay their bills.
To use an analogy: If you wrote a book and had it published and it sold in the shops, would you expect to be paid again, everytime it was read, whether by the original purchaser/reader or their friends and family/strangers? This is exactly what the PRS is doing; they're wanting a fee for third hand information. The radio station pays PRS, and that's right and proper, as they're the original outlet (bookshop/ reader analogy); but why should a shop or factory that is recieving the broadcast have to pay out again?
Comments
It isn't a silly idea at all and is only right. Charging people in shops is just madness and using that logic the guy camping in the next tent to me at the weekend should have a licence for inflicting his crap music on me and the whole campsite.
These days a lot of radio stations won'y play music until it's familiar so aftists don't target msinstreem radio stations at first. Radio needs music but artists don't need the radio stations. Some of the worlds biggest selling artists get hardly any airplay.
In order to hit the big time artists try to get their music heatd by the people whp pick music for tv shows and adverts. Get your song on there and you are more likeky to make some cash, and get played on mainstreem radio.
Of course vural campaigns are best too.
That could apply where the employer has a Tannoy system with something like the old Music Whilst Your Work but can't see that it applies to someone working in a small establishment, perhaps on his own, listening to his own portable radio or even the garage mechanic switching on the radio in the car that he is working on. A friend of mine works in a not very busy shop on her own all day, the owner of the shop will not let the staff have a radio on because of the threats from the PRS.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The PRS licence for a small shop with only a portable radio is £81.40 per annum.
Yes indeed; eventually very few factories and other workplaces will have the radio on, and then everyone loses, all because PRS are after their pound of flesh. Fewer places playing music, smaller the audience listening, less opportunity for new stuff on get on the radio, results in boredom, so fewer places play music...
I'm fairly sure you know that's not what I meant.
If a small shop is open six days a week, a PRS licence could cost the owner about 3p an hour. That's a tiny amount to pay to improve staff working conditions.
It's not like a 3p per hour pay rise would suddenly make the staff work harder, is it? Yet people are saying that having a radio on makes a difference to productivity - but it's not worth paying for.
Could say that about many protection rackets, only £xx a year.
I wonder how much of the £81.40 goes to the artists? Probably the 40p.
According to PRS "PRS for Music is a not for profit organisation. This admin charge covers the cost to us of collecting your royalties."
The admin charges are listed online and range from 13.75% - 22%. That would mean that at least £63 of the £81 would be distributed to PRS's members.
In case there is any confusion, PRS's members are the writers and publishers of music which is played in public, not the artists (unless the artists write their own songs).
In the case of Bert's Garage playing a radio then the musicians have already been paid by the radio station.
So it would be double payment. No, it would be more as every single establishment playing a radio would pay.
But that's not the argument.
Why should artists get payments beyond what they already get paid by stations?
That's how royalties work: PRS's members (as already explained, writers and publishers not artists) are entitled to receive royalties when their music is played in public. That's how they earn the money to pay the rent. You may not like it, but it's a fact.
I don't think many would object to them being paid again when the music is played in public to an audience as with a DJ on a club, Muzak on a Tannoy system etc. But most people object to them being paid again when it is one or a small group of people listening to their radio when at work which is what the PRS people seem to spend much of their time chasing after and make threats to the employer to get them to pay protection money (which I doubt would stand being challenged in court in most cases). I presume the people going around get a high commission and a lot more than the figures quoted for administrative charges quoted.
If they had come to my work they would get thrown off the premises.
It's not a question of whether anyone objects to them being paid. They (or their publishers) own the copyright in their compositions. That means they are entitled to royalties if their music is played in public.
You always portray PRS as demanding money they are not entitled to but that is simply not true: they are demanding money which their members have a right to be paid. The facts are clear and I'm sure that the "protection racketeers" would be happy to explain them if you have any questions.
And I don't see why anyone would object to songwriters being paid when their work is played in public. We're talking about relatively small sums - it's not like anyone is going to be able to retire on their share of a few pence a day.
You've missed my point.
They have been paid. But they're getting multiple payments. The station pays but on top of that, anybody who plays a radio within earshot of anybody else also has to pay.
Surely they should get one payment for public proformance?
This is my main gripe with this as well. As the radio station has paid royalties there should not be extra payments further down the line.
If you actively use music to help business as clubs and pubs do then it would be fine but small businesses should not have to pay.
The argument that it helps create a better environment is the PRS clutching at straws.
During the last World Cup I had a game on in our back shop when someone came in from the PRS and he said I should have a license to play the T.V. I told him that would not be happening and he left it at that.
We don't listen to the radio near the front shop now because of this.
Pathetic law that allows companies to abuse it by targeting the wrong people.
I haven't missed your point. PRS are not issuing licences to listen to the radio, they're issuing licences to play music in public. If someone plays the radio in their business premises, it is not the fact that the music is on the radio that makes it a public performance, but the fact that they are playing it with the intention that others will hear it.
But again I ask, why would anyone begrudge writers being paid when their work is played in public? They may be struggling songwriters or they may be highly successful composers but either way, royalties pay their bills.
But there are many reports where they attempt to bully people into paying when they are not 'playing it with the intention that others will hear it' but someone is just listening to the radio somewhere where someone else might hear it. I mentioned a friend who is not allowed to play a radio in the shop where she works because the owner has been threatened with charges by the PRS. The radio would not be for customers and would probably be switched off or turned down if any customers came in the shop. If there was someone else working there who could hear the radio then I can't see how it is different from having the radio on at home when you have visitors.
Jeez. No-one is begrudging them being paid. THEY HAVE BEEN PAID and continue to be paid every time they sell a CD or download. That's why radio stations pay PRS. If a station pays PRS, and there are no limits to how many people can listen to that station, they when why should anybody who plays that radio then also pay PRS? PRS has already been paid.
What makes the writers of music or lyrics so special? They are already in a privileged position of receiving royalties for past work on a continual basis from repeat airplay. If they want more money, then they can do what most of us have to do and produce more work and get paid for that.......
But should they be legally entitled to do this? Probably not. The original intent of the legislation was probably not to allow PRS to demand a payment from anyone wanting to listen to the radio anywhere other than in a strictly private location with the windows firmly closed and absolutely no strangers present.
If the artists are hard-pressed as a result of ceasing to chase dastardly radio-listening scaffolders and van drivers, then PRS should maybe consider whether it is charging enough to those actually using music for what ordinary humans would recognise as "commercial purposes" (like broadcasting, or having background music in a pub). It would be vastly more efficient in terms of admin costs to collect the fees in one place anyway.
Good idea, if they charged more for music in pubs and restaurants then perhaps more would stop paying and you would be able to have a meal or drink in peace and quiet!
To use an analogy: If you wrote a book and had it published and it sold in the shops, would you expect to be paid again, everytime it was read, whether by the original purchaser/reader or their friends and family/strangers? This is exactly what the PRS is doing; they're wanting a fee for third hand information. The radio station pays PRS, and that's right and proper, as they're the original outlet (bookshop/ reader analogy); but why should a shop or factory that is recieving the broadcast have to pay out again?