Royalty collection is an important source of income for songwriters... but the current system of collection for live music simply isn't working for the vast majority of creators.
PRS need monitoring themselves - they are bullies and seem completely unregulated, like essentially just another tax. I also find it pretty gross that their CEO takes home around a million pounds in salary when so many in the industry are struggling. An example of how insane their policies are...
We ran some shows with a local band who have made it big. They are trying to help the venue and in turn trying to improve their chart position (it worked, they got to number 1). They covered the base costs of the venue to put in a number of shows over 3 days and make the events free entry when you purchase one of their albums. Sounds brilliant for live music, doesn't it? The venue wins, the band wins, other local businesses within the night time ecosystem win. However, then PRS get involved.
Later down the line, PRS come along and demand that the venue, who saw no ticket money from the shows whatsoever (remember, the fans purchased an album and not an actual ticket) pay them 4.2% of whatever was earnt on the ALBUM sales and not a ticket to an actual show. This in turn is now costing the venue hundreds of pounds in Tariff LP royalty collections, money that the venue never saw and potentially don't actually have.
I argue (you can't reason with them) that the physical product purchased was the album and not the ticket, therefor the shows are essentially free entry and should be billed as such. The is PRS' reply:
"But without buying the album, the audience wouldn’t have admission to the concert.
Therefore, the album price was the cost of admission, hence “unavoidable cost of admission”. It would be charged at the standard 4.2% for Live Popular music."
Even in their own description, taken from their Tariff LP document, it states:
"This tariff applies to live Popular Music performances at events such as concerts and festivals where a charge is made for admissions."
This wasn't, it was the cost of an album. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
I'm in complete agreement with your post. PRS are actually harming the very grassroots artists and songwriters they claim to support. How can you invoice for a show that an unregistered artist is playing at - you are taking money from the very people who need it most. It's shocking that it is legal to do this.
The headline act songwriters only get 46.2% of the PRS charge that has been already been deducted from their potential fee at the costing / offer stage. It can’t be emphasised enough what a bad deal Tariff LP is for ARTISTS, registers or otherwise.
PRS need monitoring themselves - they are bullies and seem completely unregulated, like essentially just another tax. I also find it pretty gross that their CEO takes home around a million pounds in salary when so many in the industry are struggling. An example of how insane their policies are...
We ran some shows with a local band who have made it big. They are trying to help the venue and in turn trying to improve their chart position (it worked, they got to number 1). They covered the base costs of the venue to put in a number of shows over 3 days and make the events free entry when you purchase one of their albums. Sounds brilliant for live music, doesn't it? The venue wins, the band wins, other local businesses within the night time ecosystem win. However, then PRS get involved.
Later down the line, PRS come along and demand that the venue, who saw no ticket money from the shows whatsoever (remember, the fans purchased an album and not an actual ticket) pay them 4.2% of whatever was earnt on the ALBUM sales and not a ticket to an actual show. This in turn is now costing the venue hundreds of pounds in Tariff LP royalty collections, money that the venue never saw and potentially don't actually have.
I argue (you can't reason with them) that the physical product purchased was the album and not the ticket, therefor the shows are essentially free entry and should be billed as such. The is PRS' reply:
"But without buying the album, the audience wouldn’t have admission to the concert.
Therefore, the album price was the cost of admission, hence “unavoidable cost of admission”. It would be charged at the standard 4.2% for Live Popular music."
Even in their own description, taken from their Tariff LP document, it states:
"This tariff applies to live Popular Music performances at events such as concerts and festivals where a charge is made for admissions."
This wasn't, it was the cost of an album. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
I'm in complete agreement with your post. PRS are actually harming the very grassroots artists and songwriters they claim to support. How can you invoice for a show that an unregistered artist is playing at - you are taking money from the very people who need it most. It's shocking that it is legal to do this.
This is so depressing. I thought dealing with SGAE Spain in the 90s was bad. It makes me never want to play live again.
The headline act songwriters only get 46.2% of the PRS charge that has been already been deducted from their potential fee at the costing / offer stage. It can’t be emphasised enough what a bad deal Tariff LP is for ARTISTS, registers or otherwise.
PRS 23%
Publisher 15.4%
Supports songwriter(s) 15.4%
Headline songwriter(s) 46.2%
For artists this is a tax, nothing more.