[Hooray]

Any musician that makes music for money and not for the love of it deserves to go out of 'business'.

NO musician making music because they love it would put any kind of restriction in the way of people listening to it.

[Richard O'Hagan]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bradshaw

radio station licenses do not cover businesses use

If I blow my nose in my office, my snotty hanky hasn't been put to "business use".

If I play my personal radio in my office, the music hasn't been put to "business use".

[Wizard]

Originally Posted by Richard O'Hagan

If I blow my nose in my office, my snotty hanky hasn't been put to "business use".

If I play my personal radio in my office, the music hasn't been put to "business use".

If you're listening on a personal stereo, or if you're the only person in the office, I believe you don't need a licence.

I'm not sure how to reply to the snotty hanky comment, apart from to suggest that you're unlikely to share it with colleagues afterwards!

[Wizard]

Originally Posted by Hooray

Any musician that makes music for money and not for the love of it deserves to go out of 'business'.

NO musician making music because they love it would put any kind of restriction in the way of people listening to it.

Come on! That's like saying that someone who loves baking, should bake cakes for free... for the love of it. Or someone who loves solving crime, should become a detective and no accept a salary, for the love of it.

Being a professional musician / song writer, etc is a career, just like any other. You might work for nothing at the start but, after a while, you expect to be paid.

[Richard O'Hagan]

Originally Posted by Wizard

You might work for nothing at the start but, after a while, you expect to be paid.

Reality check: Most radio airplay goes to established artists who are already multi-millionaires.

[Marcus Bradshaw]

Originally Posted by Richard O'Hagan

Reality check: Most radio airplay goes to established artists who are already multi-millionaires.

Reality check.

Artists are not the only recipients of royalties.

Record companies employ staff and contribute to the wider economy.

Maybe you should educate yourself about the music industry before posting irrelevant nonsense.

Next thing, you'll be saying it's ok to download Pirates of the Carribean 4 for free because Johnny Depp is loaded... Or that it's ok to steal money from banks because they've got loads of it.

[Wizard]

Originally Posted by Richard O'Hagan

Reality check: Most radio airplay goes to established artists who are already multi-millionaires.

Very, very, very few artists (even most of ones you hear on the radio) are multi-millionaires. They hardly ever make any money.

Why? Because it costs thousands to develop and market the acts.

Here's Jazzy Jeff talking about the reality of making music!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkcNYQxAog

[old pilot]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bradshaw

I think you're confusing radio and music Mr P.

The point in question is about playing music not radio... the fact a radio station is delivering the music is coincidental. It would apply if the music were delivered by CD, Spotify or even a live performance.

It also doesn't matter if your music comes from a radio station piped in from Guatamala or from an ipod under the counter.

Maybe time to adopt a model where we listen to new musicians and singers who want a break.

There are internet radio stations that play music which has been freed by the copyright holders and exempt from the PRS fees. This includes Creative Commons or Public Domain music. These outlets claim there is no need to pay money to PRS if only these radio stations are played at your place of work.

There are many radio stations that play creative commons music

[old pilot]

Originally Posted by Wizard

Very, very, very few artists (even most of ones you hear on the radio) are multi-millionaires. They hardly ever make any money.

Why? Because it costs thousands to develop and market the acts.

No it does not.

Look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Partridge

As for record companies spending money to develop acts and your claim that 'few become millionaires' check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Waters

[darkisland]

Blah blah blah - music blah blah blah. Blah blah unafair blah
blah blah ! Blah blah PRS already paid blah blah blah - blah blah - Double Dipping ! blah blah my favourite phrase blah copyright blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah IMO blah blah - blah blah blah already well off. Blah blah blah double dipping blah blah blah - so unfair. Blah blah old rope - blah blah scandalous blah blah blah just another tax - disgrace blah blah - double dipping. !!!

[jcafcw]

The reality of this is that it has never been vigorously enforced. I have worked in warehouses for the last twenty years. All have had radios playing. No warehouse has had a licence and not one has had a sad busy-body asking for one.

Why?

Because it is a pointless and simply pyrrhic exercise.

If it was then the radios would go. The radio stations would lose listeners and advertising and the music industry would lose a source of income. It will have to decide what is more important to it. The money from radio royalties or chasing up PRS money from businesses like a pathetic whore. It can't have both, no matter what the coke-addled execs think.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by jcafcw

The reality of this is that it has never been vigorously enforced. I have worked in warehouses for the last twenty years. All have had radios playing. No warehouse has had a licence and not one has had a sad busy-body asking for one.

Why?

Warehouses tend to be often in secure areas and one of the busy-bodies would be stopped before he reached the door. Also often big companies, they prefer to pick on smaller places who will not challenge them and just pay up.

[Wizard]

Originally Posted by old pilot

No it does not.

Look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Partridge

As for record companies spending money to develop acts and your claim that 'few become millionaires' check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Waters

In general, yes it does (cost thousands to develop and market new acts).

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_..._in_music.html

And the person who actually foots that bill at the end of the day is the artist themselves. So, unless they're in the top 5 or 10 percent of successful acts, they won't see much of a profit.

Roger Waters (and Pink Floyd, being one of the most successful bands of all time) are obviously in the top 5 or 10 percent.

Anyway, I think we're moving away from the point slightly.

[Hooray]

Originally Posted by Wizard

Come on! That's like saying that someone who loves baking, should bake cakes for free... for the love of it. Or someone who loves solving crime, should become a detective and no accept a salary, for the love of it.

Being a professional musician / song writer, etc is a career, just like any other. You might work for nothing at the start but, after a while, you expect to be paid.

That's exactly what I am saying. Music is not a commodity, this is why the kids are not paying for it and the record companies and "career" musicians are the biggest losers. Music and musicians will be around forever.

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by Hooray

That's exactly what I am saying. Music is not a commodity, this is why the kids are not paying for it ...

They are not paying for it because they can get it for free. It's simply human nature that even if you value something enough to pay for it, you'll get it for nothing if you can.

[Marcus Bradshaw]

Originally Posted by Hooray

Music is not a commodity.

What a strange thing to post, especially as we're discussing this in a radio forum, and the radio industry is largely built on the principle that it is possible to monetise music performance.

Aside from that, why not actually read up on the subject instead of posting ill-informed nonsense.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...industry-facts

[darkisland]

Originally Posted by Hooray

Any musician that makes music for money and not for the love of it deserves to go out of 'business'.

NO musician making music because they love it would put any kind of restriction in the way of people listening to it.

If there were a good living to had from talking borrocks, some folk could exist very, very comfortably.

[Hooray]

I can only conclude that you folks are not really into music, good day to you sirs.

[Gwylfa]

I have two shops in Wales and pay over three hundred pounds per annum for the right to play music ( mostly CD as the talk on Radio can be distracting for customers). The thing I most object too is paying for the service and acting as an unpaid retailer, as when people ask me what is playing I invariably write down the deatails for them to be able to purchase said tune thus giving the society/artist even more money!!

[Pete Baker.]

Originally Posted by jcafcw

It will have to decide what is more important to it. The money from radio royalties or chasing up PRS money from businesses like a pathetic whore. It can't have both, no matter what the coke-addled execs think.

That fits in with what I think they should do - allow businesses to listen to radios with no charge, but if they want to play CDs or an "instore" radio service tailored to their stores, then they should pay. This gives businesses an incentive to listen to the radio, as a result less small local stations will go under, which in turn means PRS will get more revenue.

The bigger businesses who can afford it will have their own Instore service, and the small ones will have the radio on.

And collecting money on behalf of artists is one thing, but the majority of money collected by PRS goes to themselves for collection services and to pay for their offices in premium areas etc. They should be forced to downscale their costs like many other businesses are.

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by Pete Baker.

the majority of money collected by PRS goes to themselves.

According to PRS, last year their costs were £67million and they made £547.9milllion available for distribution. What figures are you using to show that their costs are higher than the amount they distribute?

[Pete Baker.]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

According to PRS, last year their costs were £67million and they made £547.9milllion available for distribution. What figures are you using to show that their costs are higher than the amount they distribute?

Maybe not the majority then but how do they justify £67m in collection costs. And i'm sure there's a difference between "made available for distribution" and "distrubuted"

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by Gwylfa

I have two shops in Wales and pay over three hundred pounds per annum for the right to play music ( mostly CD as the talk on Radio can be distracting for customers). The thing I most object too is paying for the service and acting as an unpaid retailer, as when people ask me what is playing I invariably write down the deatails for them to be able to purchase said tune thus giving the society/artist even more money!!

I am surprised there is not more of a market for royalty free CDs recorded somewhere like Eastern Europe.

[teh]

For those who don't think artists are multi-millionaires... go and Watch MTV, and go and watch Cribs and see the amount of music artists that feature on there with their bling and massive houses. Oh wait, they live in the USA, they see their money from record sales apparently.

Look at Peter Andre, he made an absolute buck from a couple of hits.

[Pete McIntosh]

This is always a fascinating subject to debate with strong arguments on both sides. Those with an interest may wish to take a look at my latest blog entry. You'll find it here:

http://petemcintosh.wordpress.com/20...at-feeds-them/

Pete