Talk:PRS for Music

2008 Advertising concern

Sorry I can't login as I can't remember my details but this reads as an advertising promotion for the performing rights society and is not in my opinion written from a neutral point of view Statements like "Royalties ensure composers and songwriters are paid in order to keep on creating. Royalties are vital to support the growing creative economy. PRS is an easy way for businesses that wish to use music to get the permission they need to do so from the creators of that music" are not neutral in tone - they are advertising. Suggest this is reworded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.151.58 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 November 2008

Agree and have edited with that in mind Kumarajiva (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This page has a lot of users editing that look like veiled fronts for PRS staffers. 92.25.175.45 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenced music?

Could someone with legal knowledge explain in the article whether a person who plays creative commons licenced music in public is legally required to pay the PRS? (where both the composers and performers have indicated that they wish the music to be playable free of charge) I can see a market for an internet radio station playing only CC licenced music as employees in many workplaces in the UK are banned from playing the normal radio because the management cannot afford a PRS licence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.163.73 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't give out legal advice. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

PRS plc

PRS is still a company (cf Companies House) but "PRS for Music" is also a PLC (Private Limited Company) - this rather muddies the relationship between them. Which company is the licensing body, which is collecting the money? The header is giving the impression of a cooperative like society, but this appers to be wrong. Pbhj (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I gather the PRS is a company limited by guarantee (i.e. collectively owned by the songwriters who are members of the PRS), and MCPS is owned by the Music Publishers Association on behalf of music publishers. PRS for Music is an operational alliance co-owned by the two in order to carry out the administrative functions. Paul45 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Money

I'd also like to work in here some stats on money, eg how much the agency collects and how much is distributed. Things like the minimum payment out being £30. What the average pay out is. It would be good too to mention that it's execs get 500,000 pay packets whilst they claim to be "not for profit" but this of course needs to be NPOV. Pbhj (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Executive pay should be obtainable from the companies house reports, though it's worth pointing out that not-for-profit doesn't mean it is a charity, or that execs should work for free or something. I suspect it means the articles of association state that the aims of the company are for efficiency or speed or something, rather than to generate a pre-tax surplus (this is what I'd expect given that it's a royalty distribution service). Paul45 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No log-in but serious question: who decides which artists benefit, and by how much? Is this simply a tax on listening that gets redistributed to the record labels rather than the small artists? I have in mind the webcasters like SomaFM (in the US, I know) who play music by many small acts, many of whom are unsigned - yet all music played costs actual money to rights collection bodies. I think this is query about the fairness of the system and its recipient. Thanks, Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.58.83 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject in general. SimonTrew (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's requesting information that could do with being in the article, therefore is relevent. Another relevent question that I'd like to know the answer to, and really does need to be there, is how the PRS has any authority whatsoever to license what they say they do. Riedquat (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well since the comment said "I think this is query about the fairness of the system and its recipient", it is hard to say, on its own terms, that it is about the article; but I am not going to quibble.

I'd suggest checking http://www.prsformusic.com/users/Pages/Licensingexplained.aspx#whatis for why you need a license. When you buy music, you buy the physical medium (or bandwidth if it is downloaded) and you are licensed to use it by the copyright owner(s). There's no specific law beyond the copyright laws, PRS for Music exists simply as agents to collect it for copyright owners. Owners need not choose to be members of PRS, and then the onus on enforcing their copyright lies elswehere (e.g. on themselves). I guess all we need to say is that (put better, no doubt), i.e. nobody is forced by law to join PRS, but PRS enforces the licenses for its members. SimonTrew (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A Friend of mine is a member of the PRS and has explained to me how it works, though i cannot find any online proof to back this up. If you wish to earn money via the PRS, you must register as a PRS member (either via your record label, or directly as a band/band member) and file your songs against your name/band/record label with the PRS and when they are within a monitoring period (ie, they only monitor for 1 month, twice a year, and take that as an average across the year, so if your played 10 times in april and 7 times in october you would be paid on 108 plays). your pay is dependant on the radio station, and the time of day, i.e. a play at 1pm on Radio 1 may get you £25 per play, but a play at midnight on wish fm may only get you £2.20 per play. Bizzehdee (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Alternatives to paying the PRS" section

This section was added fairly recently by an anon IP, with the only sources given as sites that say that what they're doing is "legal," which is less than ideal. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

neutrality of "Legal cases" section

PRS routinely is involved in litigation in respect of its day-to-day licensing and copyright activities, I don't think the two tabloid stories presented here are in any way representative, they're just atypical sensational cases. It's not a neutral point of view. So, I've tagged it.--feline1 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Not to be confused with Phonographic Performance Limited" Hatnote

TJRC Regarding your Latest revision as of 22:36, 26 August 2020 "(→‎top: "PRS for Music" sounds nothing like "Phonographic Performance Limited"; hatnote not needed)"

As already identified on Talk:Phonographic Performance Limited ongoing discussion/Talk that "PPL" is the Commonly Recognisable name for "Phonographic Performance Limited".

Prs for Music most commonly recognisable name is "PRS".

And, there is confusion between the two entities commonly know as and reffered to as "PPL" and "PRS" both by 3rd parties they issue license to and by potential writer and performer members respectively

This is why the Hatnote on the currently debated page Phonographic Performance Limited states "Not to be confused with PRS for Music" (which I see you have also removed) There is much confusion between these two entities in the UK (I can cite more information if needed?). To confirm in case you are still unaware, they are both commonly known as "PPL" and "PRS" respectively, they are both Copyright collective entities collecting related but separate income from commercial exploitation of Intellectual property rights associated with Music, that being Sound recordings in the first part (PPL) and Music Publishing Rights for Music publisher and Composer (PRS), they are both registered and located in the United Kingdom and they have both existed as operating and trading entities for decades in the Music Industry.

To add further confusion and to make the case for the need of a Hatnote, these two entities have launched an equally owned new commercial vehicle as 2018 called PPL PRS Ltd which adds support to the "most commonly known as" arguments for the addition of "PPL" in Talk:Phonographic Performance Limited.

I think it reasonable include a Hatnote which differentiates between these two entities who's most commonly known as names are "PPL" and "PRS" - with registered and located in the UK and both Music Copyright Collectives.

DJ888kmg (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what hatnotes are like this are for. They're for clarification of near-identical or near-ambiguous terms. Like mistyping "coma" for "comma" or "Reversi" for "Reversis". See, for example, Template:Distinguish/doc.

You cannot seriously contend that someone meant to type "Phonographic Performance Limited" when they meant to type "PRS for Music". You're simply using the templates wrong. TJRC (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC: Fair comment, I'll take in good faith this is not intended use of Hatnotes. I copied it from original PRS for music page in good faith of use (you'll see I didn't insert that original Hatnote on PRS page). In which case, thanks for the correction - But, my point on "PPL" and "PRS" being commonly known for both these entities is a valid one. DJ888kmg (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

References