huw Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 You could make a better case for calling it a union. Better yet - a neighbourhood watch scheme. Or anything else with a group of members looking to protect themselves from thieves. But as we've seen in this thread, they're claiming ownership over property/commons that have nothing to do with them. In doing this, they become thieves and extortionists themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 You could make a better case for calling it a union. Better yet - a neighbourhood watch scheme. Or anything else with a group of members looking to protect themselves from thieves. There's a fair few artists who wouldn't accept that the PRS represents their interests. You might want to start by taking a look at the Featured Artists Coalition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copydude Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 The music industry is geared around making money for record companies and the only way artists, songwriters and musicians make money that goes directly to them and not their record company is through payment of such licences. That does not mean the system is correct. Every other industry pays its employees and for its raw materials. The fact is, the same product is being paid for over and over again. In shops, cafes and restaurants I am invariably forced to pay for music I don't want to listed to in the first place. The PRS fee is reflected in what I pay for, even if I have no choice. This is legally enforced extortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I work in the Music Industry and must state that if you use services such as Music (and it is a public service) in a public place then you should pay for it. The music industry is geared around making money for record companies and the only way artists, songwriters and musicians make money that goes directly to them and not their record company is through payment of such licences. This whole issue of "music is free" is utter nonsense. It's not free to create, record, perform - but people seem to want to enjoy the benefits of it without a thought as to how the artist, songwriter, musician is putting a roof over their head..... I understand the cost of such licences can be an extra overhead for small businesses, but please remember that you are supporting the UK industry in buying one.... that means that more artists, songwriters, musicians will be able to set up on their own - not rely on huge labels that take a massive 90% cut of everything they do and therefore means that perhaps one day in the future there will be no need for licences if the UK music industry can look at other ways to get revenue for services rendered; online streaming perhaps.....? Technology is changing all the time and new rules and regulations regarding the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act are being looked at with every change and development, to help artists, songwriters and musicians not be so dependent on the likes of the despicable Simon Cowell - but it takes time and effort and needs your support - the majority of talented, underpaid, underrespected artists, songwriters and musicians we have in this country are not the ones getting paid - its the labels and the superstars. Just a thought Anything that can be done to reduce the amount of utter shite I have to listen to as I wonder around the shops will be fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webchat Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Easy to avoid legally: talk radio... Afraid not. I tried that argument once. Apparently the music in the adverts counts. Oh, and I forgot to mention that if you play CDs (in a Pub for example) the MCPS come after you too. They are the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society, and you have to pay for using a Mechanical copy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I work in the Music Industry and must state that if you use services such as Music (and it is a public service) in a public place then you should pay for it. The music industry is geared around making money for record companies and the only way artists, songwriters and musicians make money that goes directly to them and not their record company is through payment of such licences. This whole issue of "music is free" is utter nonsense. It's not free to create, record, perform - but people seem to want to enjoy the benefits of it without a thought as to how the artist, songwriter, musician is putting a roof over their head..... I understand the cost of such licences can be an extra overhead for small businesses, but please remember that you are supporting the UK industry in buying one.... that means that more artists, songwriters, musicians will be able to set up on their own - not rely on huge labels that take a massive 90% cut of everything they do and therefore means that perhaps one day in the future there will be no need for licences if the UK music industry can look at other ways to get revenue for services rendered; online streaming perhaps.....? Technology is changing all the time and new rules and regulations regarding the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act are being looked at with every change and development, to help artists, songwriters and musicians not be so dependent on the likes of the despicable Simon Cowell - but it takes time and effort and needs your support - the majority of talented, underpaid, underrespected artists, songwriters and musicians we have in this country are not the ones getting paid - its the labels and the superstars. Just a thought But in this case, you already have been paid for it - the broadcaster has paid. The listeners also have paid a license fee to receive it and are listening to a PUBLIC broadcast. What you are seeking to do is to make someone else pay AGAIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normal Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 But in this case, you already have been paid for it - the broadcaster has paid. The listeners also have paid a license fee to receive it and are listening to a PUBLIC broadcast. What you are seeking to do is to make someone else pay AGAIN. Agreed. While WonderWoman is technically correct, logic dictates that you tax at the source of the broadcast, not source and recipient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadoube Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Your such a fecking idiot. Dear me, such a rapier-like response. I am cut to the quick. Methinks being caught out displaying the morals of an MP has upset you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 A 'titty tax' Sounds like a handful to administer. What would be the size of the tax. The PRS are bloodsuckers :- 'Woman who plays classical music to soothe horses told to get licence' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Why does anyone bother going to work? You mean the musicians and songwriters who produce the music everyone takes for granted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I work in the Music Industry and must state that if you use services such as Music (and it is a public service) in a public place then you should pay for it. The music industry is geared around making money........ If they don't want people listening to their music withdraw the consent for the radio stations to play it. Hypocritically they want people to listen to their songs on the radio at home or in the car, but at work they want extra cash of them. Its just an obvious self serving racket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wires 74 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nu Labour -THEY WANT YOUR MONEY . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypirate Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Charge it to the staff, if they refuse to pay, pay it this time, and ban radios in the workplace.Not sure it would help productivity, but it'll get them to dislike the government! Wouldnt it make more sense to ring them back and tell them its internet radio? And do workplaces really consistute as public places? I know the public arent allowed in my office - hell, half of the company arent allowed in my office as there is sensitive confidential information. In fact, im probably not even allwoed to be posting on websites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8107302.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contractor Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I work in the Music Industry and must state that if you use services such as Music (and it is a public service) in a public place then you should pay for it. The music industry is geared around making money for record companies and the only way artists, songwriters and musicians make money that goes directly to them and not their record company is through payment of such licences. This whole issue of "music is free" is utter nonsense. It's not free to create, record, perform - but people seem to want to enjoy the benefits of it without a thought as to how the artist, songwriter, musician is putting a roof over their head..... I understand the cost of such licences can be an extra overhead for small businesses, but please remember that you are supporting the UK industry in buying one.... that means that more artists, songwriters, musicians will be able to set up on their own - not rely on huge labels that take a massive 90% cut of everything they do and therefore means that perhaps one day in the future there will be no need for licences if the UK music industry can look at other ways to get revenue for services rendered; online streaming perhaps.....? Technology is changing all the time and new rules and regulations regarding the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act are being looked at with every change and development, to help artists, songwriters and musicians not be so dependent on the likes of the despicable Simon Cowell - but it takes time and effort and needs your support - the majority of talented, underpaid, underrespected artists, songwriters and musicians we have in this country are not the ones getting paid - its the labels and the superstars. Just a thought Busted business model. Change or wither and die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest มร หล Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 So the way to support the music industry is to stop staff listening to the radio at work. Thus making it less likely they'll hear a new track and buy it on itunes. No wonder the music industry's up sh1t street. +1 You always make sense, I enjoy your posts. WonderWoman, The biggest threat to music is Steve Jobs and the ability to convert iTunes files into normal mp3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I work in the Music Industry and must state that if you use services such as Music (and it is a public service) in a public place then you should pay for it. God, you really have a high opinion of yourself, a public service? Do you consider a busker on the tube a 'public servant' providing a vital 'public service'? In reality you're borderline parasites feeding a rich elite of drug snorting lay abouts that are living off yesterdays glory, so 'Trustfund Tristan' never has to do an honest days work because his dad wrote "Oh Fuk It's Christmas" when he was half stoned 40 years ago. Most of the PRS money goes to these unworthy big names. I'm sure half your talented performers are too busy saving the world to be collecting royalty cheques anyway, f***g pious b****ds :angry: Mind you, if the PRS are killing off commercial radio audience and advertising revenues it can only be a good thing. People will just listen to their iPod's instead, devoid of commercialism and propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aunt Sally Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 If they don't want people listening to their music withdraw the consent for the radio stations to play it. Hypocritically they want people to listen to their songs on the radio at home or in the car, but at work they want extra cash of them. Its just an obvious self serving racket. Yeah. Whatever. You obviously have NO idea. Errr how else do they make any money when record labels and publishers take 50-90% the the Government take the rest....? you be happy with that if your boss took 90% of what YOU earn...? get real. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 +1You always make sense, I enjoy your posts. WonderWoman, The biggest threat to music is Steve Jobs and the ability to convert iTunes files into normal mp3. The biggest threat to music is the recording companies. The vast majority of artists make little or no money from album sales. This has been pretty conclusively demonstrated. The money for the artists is in the concerts and the merchandise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aunt Sally Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Busted business model. Change or wither and die. I totally agree - that's what the majority of business are trying to do, but it doesn't help when we have to deal with F**kwits in Government who won't support Copyright in the European Court or support the music industry making money from ISP's, they're only just cottoning on to using mobile phones! The music industry is full of middle-aged white men who have NO real idea or concepet of how music is consumed..... changes long overdue all round and I personally can't wait for that happen and am constantly looking for ways to innovate and help creative talent make sustainable income whilst allowing people to consume music in the most organic way... bit like banging your head against a wall in these times..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon Gono Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 just had a bill come across my desk for £159.Why, because someone called our offices to ask how many radios we have, they were told two and a bill is sent from the performing rights society for a music licence that is apparently required to be paid by any business that has a radio on. We stated we had a tv licence but that doesnt matter , 14 days to pay or a £1000 fine. FFS , i tell you everything in this country is a fecking con , all devised to extract as much money out of people as it can !!!!! Thats total bullsh1t. Just for that Im going to keep on using "file sharing" sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aunt Sally Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 God, you really have a high opinion of yourself, a public service? Do you consider a busker on the tube a 'public servant' providing a vital 'public service'?In reality you're borderline parasites feeding a rich elite of drug snorting lay abouts that are living off yesterdays glory, so 'Trustfund Tristan' never has to do an honest days work because his dad wrote "Oh Fuk It's Christmas" when he was half stoned 40 years ago. Most of the PRS money goes to these unworthy big names. I'm sure half your talented performers are too busy saving the world to be collecting royalty cheques anyway, f***g pious b****ds :angry: Mind you, if the PRS are killing off commercial radio audience and advertising revenues it can only be a good thing. People will just listen to their iPod's instead, devoid of commercialism and propaganda. Ah bless, obviously frustrated wanna be rock n roll star.... u read too many shite tabloids and probably haven't been to a gig since Woodstock.... a lot has changed since then, but hey, what do you care? You obviously don't even LISTEN to music from the sounds of it! haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Yeah. Whatever. You obviously have NO idea. Errr how else do they make any money when record labels and publishers take 50-90% the the Government take the rest....? you be happy with that if your boss took 90% of what YOU earn...? get real. :angry: Supply and demand isn't it, you've confirmed our suspicion that music and bands are so plentiful that 99% of the tripe is basically so worthless that the record companies have to eat 90% of the pie in order to feed itself and justify taking these wannabes on by wasting resources on them. There's a free market, if these artists were any good a competing record company would give them 50% and so on. The situation is basically the same as Equity, aren't 90% of their members on the dole? An elite of 'talented' talent has a winner takes all approach with plush contracts and the other 99% of fights over the crumbs. Such are most things in life, why not lobby NuLabour to introduce a law making everyone above average? The cause of all this suffering? Pushy mums! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon Gono Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 God, you really have a high opinion of yourself, a public service? Do you consider a busker on the tube a 'public servant' providing a vital 'public service'?In reality you're borderline parasites feeding a rich elite of drug snorting lay abouts that are living off yesterdays glory, so 'Trustfund Tristan' never has to do an honest days work because his dad wrote "Oh Fuk It's Christmas" when he was half stoned 40 years ago. Most of the PRS money goes to these unworthy big names. I'm sure half your talented performers are too busy saving the world to be collecting royalty cheques anyway, f***g pious b****ds :angry: Mind you, if the PRS are killing off commercial radio audience and advertising revenues it can only be a good thing. People will just listen to their iPod's instead, devoid of commercialism and propaganda. Post of the day - Very honest..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Ah bless, obviously frustrated wanna be rock n roll star.... 'Fraid not, just somebody that objects to a real estate style tax to pay for a bunch of egotistical to$$ers who can't work for a living. I'd only value a guitar for fire wood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.