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).
How do they calculate the amount to pay each member?
You would need a PRS Licence and a PPL licence and a TV Licence as the law stands today!
Yes, I've just discovered this.
PRS visited my business last week and, as I wasn't available, they've sent three letters, telephoned eight times and visited a further three more times.
I spoke to the representative on the telephone at length and he confirmed that a PRS and PPL licence is required. I already have a TV licence.
I also have two shops so I'm looking at the best part of £1000 just to have the internet radio playing from a couple of stations that originate from Paris.
As a small business enterprise that is already struggling because of the incessant and increasing costs of business rates, rents, rubbish collection (yes, for a business that costs extra on top of the business rates), I am of the opinion that these licences to replay music that is broadcast from radio stations that already pay artists and performers through licences, are an extortion.
I am now contemplating how to cuts these costs. The first thing I shall do is remove the television which is a saving of £145. Next I shall look for loopholes of how to reduce costs through playing non-copyright music.
It's easy for most people who have never run a business to say that £1000 isn't a lot to pay, however, when added to all the other costs it is quite significant.
I may have to look at reducing staff in order maintain the business's viability.
What really angers me is that I'm providing employment for people who in turn pay tax and NI as well as feed their income into the economy.
If business like mine are "crowded out" (check the economic theory of Adam Smith for the definition of that term) then the wider economy suffers. And PRS/PPL receive less income to pay the salaries of the suited individuals who pursue business owners in order to preserve their created jobs.
You are taking somebody elses property and using it in your own business - if you don't pay for it - it is THEFT plain and simple!
Absolute Radio's listening legally at work page (http://absoluteradio.co.uk/legal/listening-at-work/) makes the point that they already paid copyright fees on the music they broadcast - I believe it's 10% of gross income for radio stations, 5% of that goes to PRS for Music and 5% to PPL, so it could be argued that people playing radios in the workplace are paying for a second time and effectively being milked.
Absolute Radio's listening legally at work page (http://absoluteradio.co.uk/legal/listening-at-work/) makes the point that they already paid copyright fees on the music they broadcast - I believe it's 10% of gross income for radio stations, 5% of that goes to PRS for Music and 5% to PPL, so it could be argued that people playing radios in the workplace are paying for a second time and effectively being milked.
You listening to the radio by choice and you re-broadcasting the radio to other people to help your business are different things....
Essentially you also become a broadcaster - in fact you should probaly be paying more than they already ask....
Has anyone ever asked PRS and PPL for a list of which artists they represent? Then you could just play music by artists and songwriters they don't represent....
Just a thought if not already mentioned - if you work from home do you need a PRS licence if you listen to the radio or play music from your PC, mobile or any other source?
Just a thought if not already mentioned - if you work from home do you need a PRS licence if you listen to the radio or play music from your PC, mobile or any other source?
If you work from home are you playing music in public? Or just listening to it on your own in private, which (as I understand it) does not require a licence.
You are taking somebody elses property and using it in your own business - if you don't pay for it - it is THEFT plain and simple!
Musicians have a hard enough time as it is
If you want to avoid it and you are in the UK get a nice gramophone and play some early 78s to your customers - they should be out of copyright
If musicians are struggling for money then they should get another job like the rest of us have to do.
No-one is saying that bars and clubs that make money by having music should pay some fee but there is no way that someone playing music for their own use should have anything to pay.
Anyone that says otherwise is either working for the collectors or is a musician.
If musicians are struggling for money then they should get another job like the rest of us have to do.
No-one is saying that bars and clubs that make money by having music should pay some fee but there is no way that someone playing music for their own use should have anything to pay.
It's nothing to do with people playing music for their own use - it's about public performance of copyright material.
My feeling is that music only being heard by members of staff should not require a PRS licence, unless perhaps it's being done on a large scale.
Just a thought if not already mentioned - if you work from home do you need a PRS licence if you listen to the radio or play music from your PC, mobile or any other source?
I think the PRS would try and make you pay for the proverbial 'whistling whilst you work' if they could con / scare people into paying.
I think the PRS would try and make you pay for the proverbial 'whistling whilst you work' if they could con / scare people into paying.
They have already tried that, but were forced to back down after media pressure
A shop assistant who was told she could not sing while she stacked shelves without a performance licence has been given an apology.
Sandra Burt, 56, who works at A&T Food store in Clackmannanshire, was warned she could be fined for her singing by the Performing Right Society (PRS).
The village store where Mrs Burt works was contacted by the PRS earlier this year to warn them that a licence was needed to play a radio within earshot of customers.
When the shop owner decided to get rid of the radio as a result, Mrs Burt said she began singing as she worked.
She told the BBC news website: "I would start to sing to myself when I was stacking the shelves just to keep me happy because it was very quiet without the radio.
"When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance licence, I thought it was a joke and started laughing.
"I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds.
PRS argue that radios at work increase productivity thereby benefitting companies commercially. Fatuous I know but that's their case. I'm presuming the rules also extend to streaming services and locally stored music if you were to play a Spotify stream or iTunes playlist out in the office for example.
PRS argue that radios at work increase productivity thereby benefitting companies commercially. Fatuous I know but that's their case. I'm presuming the rules also extend to streaming services and locally stored music if you were to play a Spotify stream or iTunes playlist out in the office for example.
Why is it fatuous? If, for example, you thought your staff would be more productive if you gave them a Mars Bar, would you argue that Mars Bars should be free?
Why is it fatuous? If, for example, you thought your staff would be more productive if you gave them a Mars Bar, would you argue that Mars Bars should be free?
Yes if Mars bars were funded via advertising revenue or a tax on watching TV. The point is makers of Mars bars would already have been paid.
If Mars bars are given out in the workplace, the Mars should be entitled to a royalty payment as it would only be fair that the artists who craft the mars bars are renumerated for their efforts.
not only that but the behind the scenes people - the engineers, the technicians and all the other support personal need to be looked after, and recognised for their efforts in bringing licencsed confectionery to the workforce.
After all if a Mars a day helps you work rest and play then someone somewhere is making money off the back of some one else's hard work.
If Mars bars are given out in the workplace, the Mars should be entitled to a royalty payment as it would only be fair that the artists who craft the mars bars are renumerated for their efforts.
not only that but the behind the scenes people - the engineers, the technicians and all the other support personal need to be looked after, and recognised for their efforts in bringing licencsed confectionery to the workforce.
After all if a Mars a day helps you work rest and play then someone somewhere is making money off the back of some one else's hard work.
They already have been remunerated though. That's the point! Why should they be paid twice?
They already have been remunerated though. That's the point! Why should they be paid twice?
But the payment they receive is just for general distribution and private consumption, if the product is being consumed in a workplace where it increases productivity (and profits for the business ) then it has an increased value and as such those who produce mars bars, and those who support the production should be paid fairly for their efforts
Yes if Mars bars were funded via advertising revenue or a tax on watching TV. The point is makers of Mars bars would already have been paid.
If I buy a Mars Bar, that doesn't mean you can have a Mars Bar without paying for it; similarly if a radio station pays for a song to use in the course of its business, that doesn't mean you can use the same song in the course of your business without paying for it.
It's the same song but two completely different businesses are using it so two completely different businesses should pay for it.
PRS argue that radios at work increase productivity thereby benefitting companies commercially. Fatuous I know but that's their case. I'm presuming the rules also extend to streaming services and locally stored music if you were to play a Spotify stream or iTunes playlist out in the office for example.
Surprised they have not tried claiming electric light increases productivity so there should an extra charge on electricity used for lighting in industrial premises.
Comments
http://www.moodmedia.co.uk/clientsdetail.asp?id=9
An article from the Guardian on how Pret and other fast food outlets use music to speed up customer turnaround:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/aug/09/artsfeatures.popandrock
Not sure whether Pret pays royalties to PRS or just to the music supplier. However they have made the news recently by playing Christmas music in their stores - in August.
How do they calculate the amount to pay each member?
Yes, I've just discovered this.
PRS visited my business last week and, as I wasn't available, they've sent three letters, telephoned eight times and visited a further three more times.
I spoke to the representative on the telephone at length and he confirmed that a PRS and PPL licence is required. I already have a TV licence.
I also have two shops so I'm looking at the best part of £1000 just to have the internet radio playing from a couple of stations that originate from Paris.
As a small business enterprise that is already struggling because of the incessant and increasing costs of business rates, rents, rubbish collection (yes, for a business that costs extra on top of the business rates), I am of the opinion that these licences to replay music that is broadcast from radio stations that already pay artists and performers through licences, are an extortion.
I am now contemplating how to cuts these costs. The first thing I shall do is remove the television which is a saving of £145. Next I shall look for loopholes of how to reduce costs through playing non-copyright music.
It's easy for most people who have never run a business to say that £1000 isn't a lot to pay, however, when added to all the other costs it is quite significant.
I may have to look at reducing staff in order maintain the business's viability.
What really angers me is that I'm providing employment for people who in turn pay tax and NI as well as feed their income into the economy.
If business like mine are "crowded out" (check the economic theory of Adam Smith for the definition of that term) then the wider economy suffers. And PRS/PPL receive less income to pay the salaries of the suited individuals who pursue business owners in order to preserve their created jobs.
STOP WINGEING
You are taking somebody elses property and using it in your own business - if you don't pay for it - it is THEFT plain and simple!
Musicians have a hard enough time as it is
If you want to avoid it and you are in the UK get a nice gramophone and play some early 78s to your customers - they should be out of copyright
Oh yeah, of course. They're all poverty-stricken and destitute aren't they. Let's get the violins out for them shall we?
That's a very good suggestion actually. I'll look into the feasibility of it. Thanks.
Absolute Radio's listening legally at work page (http://absoluteradio.co.uk/legal/listening-at-work/) makes the point that they already paid copyright fees on the music they broadcast - I believe it's 10% of gross income for radio stations, 5% of that goes to PRS for Music and 5% to PPL, so it could be argued that people playing radios in the workplace are paying for a second time and effectively being milked.
And It was a serious suggestions - as I am the UKs largest supplier of 78s
You listening to the radio by choice and you re-broadcasting the radio to other people to help your business are different things....
Essentially you also become a broadcaster - in fact you should probaly be paying more than they already ask....
If you work from home are you playing music in public? Or just listening to it on your own in private, which (as I understand it) does not require a licence.
If musicians are struggling for money then they should get another job like the rest of us have to do.
No-one is saying that bars and clubs that make money by having music should pay some fee but there is no way that someone playing music for their own use should have anything to pay.
Anyone that says otherwise is either working for the collectors or is a musician.
It's nothing to do with people playing music for their own use - it's about public performance of copyright material.
My feeling is that music only being heard by members of staff should not require a PRS licence, unless perhaps it's being done on a large scale.
I do own a 1954 radiogram and also a small collection of 78s, so I'm ready to go, I guess.
I think the PRS would try and make you pay for the proverbial 'whistling whilst you work' if they could con / scare people into paying.
They have already tried that, but were forced to back down after media pressure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm
Why is it fatuous? If, for example, you thought your staff would be more productive if you gave them a Mars Bar, would you argue that Mars Bars should be free?
Yes if Mars bars were funded via advertising revenue or a tax on watching TV. The point is makers of Mars bars would already have been paid.
not only that but the behind the scenes people - the engineers, the technicians and all the other support personal need to be looked after, and recognised for their efforts in bringing licencsed confectionery to the workforce.
After all if a Mars a day helps you work rest and play then someone somewhere is making money off the back of some one else's hard work.
They already have been remunerated though. That's the point! Why should they be paid twice?
What I do have a problem with is being hounded by PRS telephone sales people when we already have a licence.
But the payment they receive is just for general distribution and private consumption, if the product is being consumed in a workplace where it increases productivity (and profits for the business ) then it has an increased value and as such those who produce mars bars, and those who support the production should be paid fairly for their efforts
If I buy a Mars Bar, that doesn't mean you can have a Mars Bar without paying for it; similarly if a radio station pays for a song to use in the course of its business, that doesn't mean you can use the same song in the course of your business without paying for it.
It's the same song but two completely different businesses are using it so two completely different businesses should pay for it.
Surprised they have not tried claiming electric light increases productivity so there should an extra charge on electricity used for lighting in industrial premises.