As a musician should i continue to create new music?

[peekay]

grunch -

i'm glad we agree on copyrights. drugs companies and writers are very different cases, and it's important not to let an anti-corporate narrative get tied up with limiting the rights of creative people.

copyright is the best protection because it gives me the right to decide what to do with my work. i think that's a moral right, for artists or anyone else. obviously i want my work to be widely read: i make some of it available for nothing for that reason, and am very free with it most of the time. but i want to be the one to decide that, not have it decided for me by others. i think we need give and take on this; getting rid of copyright seems more like take and take to me.

[Grunchtherunch]

grunch -

i'm glad we agree on copyrights. drugs companies and writers are very different cases, and it's important not to let an anti-corporate narrative get tied up with limiting the rights of creative people.

copyright is the best protection because it gives me the right to decide what to do with my work. i think that's a moral right, for artists or anyone else. obviously i want my work to be widely read: i make some of it available for nothing for that reason, and am very free with it most of the time. but i want to be the one to decide that, not have it decided for me by others. i think we need give and take on this; getting rid of copyright seems more like take and take to me.

i agree, copyright has to be continued in some form - creative commons sets up a great example. i commend you for giving some works away not many people would be so generous with their works

so anyway i hope some of your concerns have been alleviated even if you do still have more but the one thing we want people to know is we are only trying to inspire creativity and help cultural exchange and creativity. we just believe this is a very important way to do it.

there are still a lot of misjudged statements by people who support us i think, they have to be careful about how they put their ideas. some people say some things like 'we believe in sharing and now its easy across the internet' - that gives entirely the wrong message and they don't explain fully what they mean, but it's such a long topic and it's not in the medias eyes so we find our message very hard to portray in any detail or even atall.

[M2Ys4U]

We are not saying that are going to "[get] rid of copyright". That is not our position.

The idea of copyright is to provide an incentive for people to produce content, perhaps as a career (which is obviously good for the public). This, however, comes at the cost of restrictions on this content (which is bad for the public). The problem is that copyright law isn't working for its intended purpose. Copyright is no longer this balancing act between the benefit for society and the benefit of the creative people, it's now a big stick with which some people, a small minority, use to beat society down for their own gain. These are generally (in the field of music and film) the record labels and their associated cartels and cabals, such as the BPI, RIAA, IFPI, MPAA etc.

Just think about who has the most to gain from draconian copyright laws and take music as an example: Is it small artists? No, small artists do not have the time or money available to investigate piracy and issue court proceedings. It's the big media industry corporations, the likes of the BPI and RIAA. Who loses the most? Everyone: Society as a whole loses out on a wealth of culture that comes from sharing, mixing and evolving content.

We need to return copyright to its purpose: The balancing act between the benefit of society and the benefit of those, like yourself, who need to make a living from being creative. A shorter copyright period certainly won't stop you from making money from your works. Non-commercial sharing won't sacrifice your moral rights as an artist, you still get to decide who gets to use your work if it's not non-commercial.

Also, a point not worth forgetting, is that digital distribution isn't always best (insert shock and horror here). I, for one, hate eBooks and always buy the real paper copies. Lots of people love CDs, even Vinyl. A jpeg is never as good as a real painting! Whp's going to go to the trouble or producing physical goods using other people's copyright non-commercially? Nobody.

Reducing and relaxing copyright is not the same as abolishing it and any we don't want our creative people being forced to stop producing works of art. If anything, our goal is the exact opposite and we need to work together with artists to produce a copyright framework that's suitable for all.

[peekay]

A shorter copyright period certainly won't stop you from making money from your works.

Well, it would, wouldn't it? If my book is out of copyright, anyone can reproduce it and I can't stop them. They could even print new copies and sell them dirt cheap, undercutting me. If my work was popular that would be pretty much guaranteed to happen.

Non-commercial sharing won't sacrifice your moral rights as an artist, you still get to decide who gets to use your work if it's not non-commercial.

Fine; but as I say, i can do that now. I do do it, in fact, with some of my writing. Why does it require a law change - unless you want to take the decision to do it away form me and put it in the hands of 'society'?

I think my problem here - and you'd find it was the same with many other artists - is that I don;t feel that 'society' has an automatic right to get what I create for free. I take on board what you say about big corporations; but I don;t see how reducing, say, copyright law sorts that out. That is a political and economic problem. It's a structural issue with global capitalism. My worry is that, for all your talk about tackling corporate injustice, you are mainly interested in getting more stuff for free. I've yet to see a suggestion from the PP about how copyright law would actually be reformed that would ensure me, as an independent writer, as much protection as a I currently get.

I agree with you about physical objects, btw. I'm just glad I'm not a musician.

[Grunchtherunch]

A shorter copyright period certainly won't stop you from making money from your works.

Well, it would, wouldn't it? If my book is out of copyright, anyone can reproduce it and I can't stop them. They could even print new copies and sell them dirt cheap, undercutting me. If my work was popular that would be pretty much guaranteed to happen.

Non-commercial sharing won't sacrifice your moral rights as an artist, you still get to decide who gets to use your work if it's not non-commercial.

Fine; but as I say, i can do that now. I do do it, in fact, with some of my writing. Why does it require a law change - unless you want to take the decision to do it away form me and put it in the hands of 'society'?

I think my problem here - and you'd find it was the same with many other artists - is that I don;t feel that 'society' has an automatic right to get what I create for free. I take on board what you say about big corporations; but I don;t see how reducing, say, copyright law sorts that out. That is a political and economic problem. It's a structural issue with global capitalism. My worry is that, for all your talk about tackling corporate injustice, you are mainly interested in getting more stuff for free. I've yet to see a suggestion from the PP about how copyright law would actually be reformed that would ensure me, as an independent writer, as much protection as a I currently get.

I agree with you about physical objects, btw. I'm just glad I'm not a musician.

well, i personally am not looking to disguise the fact that everyone loves free stuff, but it doesn't necessarily make people selfish and unjust to want free access to it. because we are people want file sharing and new business models to be mutually beneficial i think that makes us stand part from the file sharer who just downloads and makes the argument that they don't care.

I'm training in music production and without file sharing i would definitely not be any where near as good a composer as i am today - because i have access to so many styles and artists i can create better music myself. if I'd have had to buy every piece of music i download my progress would have been SEVERELY slowed and that is no overestimation. but bare in mind i do buy products i have downloaded - i have bought 2 nine inch nails albums that i had previously downloaded - because the overall product was great and because i felt the artist deserved a return. again i encountered my very favorite artist because they gave and give a lot of their music away and encourage file sharing - and i have 2 out of 3 of their albums and some merch.

anyway your concern is that we may be a group of freeloaders basically or at least a large majority being freeloaders - i think you'll find this is a place and a party where people gather to dispel that very concern.

EDIT - (sorry i forgot to address another point) the other main point i was going to makkkke it that, i don't think i feel that it is a right to have someones work for free but a privilege that would go with our policies that shouldn't be abused. of course there is always abuse but in the end people want to see artists making ends meat i think. I mean you have read how we believe that sharing is actually beneficial to artists not the other way round. so it could be that it is a privilege that is for the most part self sustaining. there will always be injustices somewhere along the line but we do want to minimize that - and the way i see it is it is better than having giant labels abuse their position.

i guess what I'm saying is we are hoping that all artists would want their work to be spread as far and wide as possible especially if they are trying to make a living from it. and there are always problems but we want to minimize them.

[M2Ys4U]

A shorter copyright period certainly won't stop you from making money from your works.

Well, it would, wouldn't it? If my book is out of copyright, anyone can reproduce it and I can't stop them. They could even print new copies and sell them dirt cheap, undercutting me. If my work was popular that would be pretty much guaranteed to happen.

Even if your book is out of copyright and you can't stop people for reproducing it, YOU can still reproduce it and sell it. I'd imagine it's possible to build up enough of a "brand" that all of the "advertisement" that your book would produce for itself during the time its under copyright would give it a significant advantage against its white label alternatives. I think quite a few people would also appreciate having an original copy, as well. Many of my friends who are prolific file sharers often proudly say "I've actually got a [genuine] copy of that CD" when they have something that they really like.

Also, take a look at John Lewis - I don't think you'd be able to find somebody who'd say that they're a cheap store or a store that sells 'knock-off' goods, yet they have quite an impressive half-yearly gross sales (up to Aug '09) of £1.2 billion.[1] There's something to be said for buying the real deal.

Non-commercial sharing won't sacrifice your moral rights as an artist, you still get to decide who gets to use your work if it's not non-commercial.

Fine; but as I say, i can do that now. I do do it, in fact, with some of my writing. Why does it require a law change - unless you want to take the decision to do it away form me and put it in the hands of 'society'?

The law is broken, outdated and not fit for purpose in the 21st century. You've said yourself on this forum that you "don't necessarily believe in current copyright". The law needs to be changed to bring back the balance between the needs of the artists and the needed of society.

I think my problem here - and you'd find it was the same with many other artists - is that I don;t feel that 'society' has an automatic right to get what I create for free.

I believe more that society has a right to adopt your work in a free (libre) manner rather than for free (gratis).[2] The first does usually imply the second, however, which is where the distinction between commercial and non-commercial comes in.

I take on board what you say about big corporations; but I don;t see how reducing, say, copyright law sorts that out. That is a political and economic problem. It's a structural issue with global capitalism.

I don't see how we can tackle the issue without adjusting copyright law, to be honest. There's no way we could efficiently differentiate between corporations and individuals without (as somebody on these forums put it) creating loopholes large enough to park tanks in. Corporations embrace the "greed is good" mantra far too often, I think putting some statuary altruism (if that's not too much of a tautology) by allowing society the freedom to share, mix and assimilate works is a good rebuttal to this. We do have to be careful not to preclude the commercial viability of these works but I am confident that we can strike this balance!

My worry is that, for all your talk about tackling corporate injustice, you are mainly interested in getting more stuff for free.

Not at all. I've been derided on a couple of occasions by some less scrupulous friends/acquaintances for buying things which could easily be obtained for free. When something is conveniently available and offered at a reasonable price, I'm more than happy to buy it. Naturally, I can't speak for anybody else and there will be members of this party who only want to get things for nothing, but I don't think one can fairly make a sweeping statement like that.

I've yet to see a suggestion from the PP about how copyright law would actually be reformed that would ensure me, as an independent writer, as much protection as a I currently get.

The PPUK is a very young party. It takes time to flesh out the details, especially with a topic as complex and far-reaching as this. Unfortunately there will be people/companies that are impacted negatively, I just hope that the correct people will be the ones to lose out (i.e. the ones abusing the system). I like that fact that people such as yourself have engaged in discussion with the party. I've certainly taken on board some points that you've raised about the literary world to which I was previously ignorant, and I'm sure I can't be alone in that respect. Surely that can only be a good thing for both of our causes?

I agree with you about physical objects, btw. I'm just glad I'm not a musician.

Well, musicians have their plus points in all of this too - they can perform live, for example.

[Grunchtherunch]

A shorter copyright period certainly won't stop you from making money from your works.

Well, it would, wouldn't it? If my book is out of copyright, anyone can reproduce it and I can't stop them. They could even print new copies and sell them dirt cheap, undercutting me. If my work was popular that would be pretty much guaranteed to happen.

Even if your book is out of copyright and you can't stop people for reproducing it, YOU can still reproduce it and sell it. I'd imagine it's possible to build up enough of a "brand" that all of the "advertisement" that your book would produce for itself during the time its under copyright would give it a significant advantage against its white label alternatives. I think quite a few people would also appreciate having an original copy, as well. Many of my friends who are prolific file sharers often proudly say "I've actually got a [genuine] copy of that CD" when they have something that they really like.

Also, take a look at John Lewis - I don't think you'd be able to find somebody who'd say that they're a cheap store or a store that sells 'knock-off' goods, yet they have quite an impressive half-yearly gross sales (up to Aug '09) of £1.2 billion.[1] There's something to be said for buying the real deal.

Non-commercial sharing won't sacrifice your moral rights as an artist, you still get to decide who gets to use your work if it's not non-commercial.

Fine; but as I say, i can do that now. I do do it, in fact, with some of my writing. Why does it require a law change - unless you want to take the decision to do it away form me and put it in the hands of 'society'?

The law is broken, outdated and not fit for purpose in the 21st century. You've said yourself on this forum that you "don't necessarily believe in current copyright". The law needs to be changed to bring back the balance between the needs of the artists and the needed of society.

I think my problem here - and you'd find it was the same with many other artists - is that I don;t feel that 'society' has an automatic right to get what I create for free.

I believe more that society has a right to adopt your work in a free (libre) manner rather than for free (gratis).[2] The first does usually imply the second, however, which is where the distinction between commercial and non-commercial comes in.

I take on board what you say about big corporations; but I don;t see how reducing, say, copyright law sorts that out. That is a political and economic problem. It's a structural issue with global capitalism.

I don't see how we can tackle the issue without adjusting copyright law, to be honest. There's no way we could efficiently differentiate between corporations and individuals without (as somebody on these forums put it) creating loopholes large enough to park tanks in. Corporations embrace the "greed is good" mantra far too often, I think putting some statuary altruism (if that's not too much of a tautology) by allowing society the freedom to share, mix and assimilate works is a good rebuttal to this. We do have to be careful not to preclude the commercial viability of these works but I am confident that we can strike this balance!

My worry is that, for all your talk about tackling corporate injustice, you are mainly interested in getting more stuff for free.

Not at all. I've been derided on a couple of occasions by some less scrupulous friends/acquaintances for buying things which could easily be obtained for free. When something is conveniently available and offered at a reasonable price, I'm more than happy to buy it. Naturally, I can't speak for anybody else and there will be members of this party who only want to get things for nothing, but I don't think one can fairly make a sweeping statement like that.

I've yet to see a suggestion from the PP about how copyright law would actually be reformed that would ensure me, as an independent writer, as much protection as a I currently get.

The PPUK is a very young party. It takes time to flesh out the details, especially with a topic as complex and far-reaching as this. Unfortunately there will be people/companies that are impacted negatively, I just hope that the correct people will be the ones to lose out (i.e. the ones abusing the system). I like that fact that people such as yourself have engaged in discussion with the party. I've certainly taken on board some points that you've raised about the literary world to which I was previously ignorant, and I'm sure I can't be alone in that respect. Surely that can only be a good thing for both of our causes?

I agree with you about physical objects, btw. I'm just glad I'm not a musician.

Well, musicians have their plus points in all of this too - they can perform live, for example.

quite right for most i think

I just don't understand how we the pirate party can condone knock of physical goods being sold - and the creator missing out on that money. for this reason i disagree with the discussion about making copyright terms shorter it should be a lifetime. but aside from that bittorrent sites making money from adds i don't think is too bad because that doesn't hurt the artists income whatsoever.

i don't think we can make physical reproductions legal because perfect reproductions are so easy to make especially if it is legal - and therefore artists have the high chance to loose a massive amount of money they should be making there's no arguing out of that one really. and the whole point of us is that we are talking the digital realm we are talking about information not products - and that discussion leads to products being reproduced.

[JohnB]

quite right for most i think

I just don't understand how we the pirate party can condone knock of physical goods being sold - and the creator missing out on that money. for this reason i disagree with the discussion about making copyright terms shorter it should be a lifetime. but aside from that bittorrent sites making money from adds i don't think is too bad because that doesn't hurt the artists income whatsoever.

Grunch: I think you'll find we are very clear that we do not at all condone knock-off/counterfeit physical copies being sold (nor, for that matter, digital downloads being directly hosted and access sold without remuneration). The arguments around shorter/longer copyright duration aren't really to do with that, either, other considerations come into play. The importance of moral rights of attribution, without expiry, and of the deception/fraud involved in selling counterfeits as if they were original/authorised/endorsed by the author, are essential, and are unaffected by copyright reform.

[Grunchtherunch]

quite right for most i think

I just don't understand how we the pirate party can condone knock of physical goods being sold - and the creator missing out on that money. for this reason i disagree with the discussion about making copyright terms shorter it should be a lifetime. but aside from that bittorrent sites making money from adds i don't think is too bad because that doesn't hurt the artists income whatsoever.

Grunch: I think you'll find we are very clear that we do not at all condone knock-off/counterfeit physical copies being sold (nor, for that matter, digital downloads being directly hosted and access sold without remuneration). The arguments around shorter/longer copyright duration aren't really to do with that, either, other considerations come into play. The importance of moral rights of attribution, without expiry, and of the deception/fraud involved in selling counterfeits as if they were original/authorised/endorsed by the author, are essential, and are unaffected by copyright reform.

yeh i agree but it's not just the moral rights that should be maintained, i don't think making money from other peoples goods should be allowed to happen at least not in such a direct and harmful manor. there would have to be something in the law to prevent it - or that's where the shorter copyright term leads. And let's be honest beyond being attributed which in itself is important - but beyond that moral rights are not useful in artists supporting them selves. And if an artist wants to make a living from their craft - they may need several albums/projects to do so - if we cut copyright terms then this may become impossible. but regardless of that it is immoral for someone to be directly undercutting someone with their own work to make a profit

[cheyenne]

i can understand the point of view of the artists etc, but as an example the prs for music will not allow a shopkeeper to play music in any form without a license not even a radio, the radio station pays for the privilage of broadcasting the music so why should people have to pay for it? as a consequence i no longer buy music/download because i only used to listen to music at work, also the bbc is hounding business's for a tv license sighting the internet/broadband as a way of watching live tv, why should we pay for a tv license in the first place? then we would also have to pay for a public performance license where does it stop?

Then you here that an artist has recieved £127-00 pounds for a million plays of spotify so where's the rest of the money they collect going to if not the artists?

In short i think they are parasites and the law needs to be changed to make new business models more viable, until this happens the music industry will flounder. But the artists could take matters into there own hands and use the internet to sell themselves to a wider audience with reletively little cost and make money like musicians used to by playing live performances.

The world is changing like all species you must adapt or evolution sees you gone.

[Grunchtherunch]

i can understand the point of view of the artists etc, but as an example the prs for music will not allow a shopkeeper to play music in any form without a license not even a radio, the radio station pays for the privilage of broadcasting the music so why should people have to pay for it? as a consequence i no longer buy music/download because i only used to listen to music at work, also the bbc is hounding business's for a tv license sighting the internet/broadband as a way of watching live tv, why should we pay for a tv license in the first place? then we would also have to pay for a public performance license where does it stop?

Then you here that an artist has recieved £127-00 pounds for a million plays of spotify so where's the rest of the money they collect going to if not the artists?

In short i think they are parasites and the law needs to be changed to make new business models more viable, until this happens the music industry will flounder. But the artists could take matters into there own hands and use the internet to sell themselves to a wider audience with reletively little cost and make money like musicians used to by playing live performances.

The world is changing like all species you must adapt or evolution sees you gone.

Lady gaga was used as an example on spotify and she got a very small amount of money - but if she had been under an independent deal as opposed to her record label she could have gotten $30,000 for her plays - the reason radio needs PRS licenses are that anyone who has composed and has their music played on the radio gets their royalties from the PRS - as far as i know they are not a profit making organization they are here solely to help support artists - so although i agree it is an annoyance having to pay for a PRS license let's not forget that these are in existence to aid writers.

also it is a good point to note that systems like this have been discussed by us for artists to make their money this way. i agree the TV license on the internet is just retarded but i don't think it's fair to demand a new business model when this particular aspect of the industry works very well and in many cases playing radio or CDs in a shop does directly help to get sales e.g. hair dressers. even when it does not it is not much harm for a business to pay a bit to support artists in this way.

and let's not forget sometimes it is not viable for an artist to play live either because they feel they cannot offer a performance that would justify the recordings or it is impractical - e.g. orchestra required - not enough sales to justify the expense.

I definitely agree live is a very good route - but lets not start attacking parts of the industry that work well. right now copyright is the only real problem stopping the industry from adapting.

and remember royalties are not copyright - PRS royalties work

if you want to have music at work then get together with some of your peers to pay for it, I'm sure it won't be that expensive and this kind of thinking only serves to reinforce the image that some people think we want everything for free

EDIT - the point i was making about lady gaga is that independent artists can benefit massively even if record labels do take all their artists money

[scuzzmonkey]

as far as i know they are not a profit making organization [...zip...] PRS royalties work

hahahahaha - speaking as someone that has had extensive dealings with the PRS, they are a bunch of money grabbing c***s, and no better than the bloke at the end of the road that stole your wheels.

A band I used to manage in college (that shall remain nameless) got a few plays on Radio 1 during their late night unsigned shows, and even though the band was part of the PRS, to get royalties I had to contact them and claim, go through numerous phone calls, argue with a whole host of people, even get the DJ to supply them with a written declaration about the number of plays. After the first few months - and maybe 10 plays in that time - we just stopped claiming, we were spending more money in phone calls to get what they were meant to be paid, than we made from the plays.

The PRS do this to everyone, that are thieving b*stards that profit off of others work - and if you don't claim they keep your money forever - the band are currently owed in the area of several hundred pounds, and are currently in talks with them again - and have been for the last few weeks from what the singer said when I spoke to him a few days ago.

Anyone claiming the PRS works has never dealt with them personally - or if they have, are the lucky few which haven't been screwed over, but you will be, eventually.

Needing a license to play the radio in your own shop is idiotic and just more money grabbing.

[cheyenne]

i couldn't have said it better myself scuzzmonkey lol

[Grunchtherunch]

as far as i know they are not a profit making organization [...zip...] PRS royalties work

hahahahaha - speaking as someone that has had extensive dealings with the PRS, they are a bunch of money grabbing c***s, and no better than the bloke at the end of the road that stole your wheels.

A band I used to manage in college (that shall remain nameless) got a few plays on Radio 1 during their late night unsigned shows, and even though the band was part of the PRS, to get royalties I had to contact them and claim, go through numerous phone calls, argue with a whole host of people, even get the DJ to supply them with a written declaration about the number of plays. After the first few months - and maybe 10 plays in that time - we just stopped claiming, we were spending more money in phone calls to get what they were meant to be paid, than we made from the plays.

The PRS do this to everyone, that are thieving b*stards that profit off of others work - and if you don't claim they keep your money forever - the band are currently owed in the area of several hundred pounds, and are currently in talks with them again - and have been for the last few weeks from what the singer said when I spoke to him a few days ago.

Anyone claiming the PRS works has never dealt with them personally - or if they have, are the lucky few which haven't been screwed over, but you will be, eventually.

Needing a license to play the radio in your own shop is idiotic and just more money grabbing.

Ok well i wasn't implying it was perfect and it's true i haven't had any dealings with them yet although i will be joining this week most likely but yes they should be more organized - but it is a system that is better in theory than anyone else has come up with for writers royalties. and they only work from samples they take - they can't attend every venue and count every play. But they don't make a profit

'After operating costs are deducted (which in the past have averaged about 12% of turnover) the remaining money is distributed to the copyright holders'

and I know from a friend of mine who does composition and is a member that this is true.

Anyway my point is we don't need a new business model there - we need it to be fixed, not scrapped.

but you should get written confirmation of plays you have had if they are infrequent as yours were as they are unlikely to be in their samples - once you know how the system works you can make it work a little more in your favor. And yes you may have to chase a lot of people up on plays you have has and people using your music but that is just the nature of the business.
THOUGH i would say in favour or your POV companies should have to keep records of music they have used AND contact the artist within a certain amount of time - that would discourage them from using music without contacting the composer meaning they would have to chase up their music a lot less to get paid.

[scuzzmonkey]

grunch - i don't want to be misunderstood here, i genuinely believe that musicians and any performing artist of any discipline should be paid for their work - I did not join PPUK because I'm a freeloader.

Commercial use of music, be it in samples, played on the radio, incidental music in films/tv or whatever, should be paid for, the artist should be rewarded for it.

The following is my own experience, things that I have witnessed with my own eyes and ears - I will however leave all names out of it because I cba with any possible backlash.

During the latter years of school and into college (14-18 give or take a few months either way) I managed a band that comprised of a group of my close friends, regularly gigging (3-4 nights a week was not uncommon) in our hometown and surrounding area, getting plays on local radio, and the aforementioned occasional play on Radio 1, even playing a major dual-venue music festival. What I found was that the little people - local radio and pirate radio being the best of these examples - paid us straight off, no hassle, cash in hand or wire transfers on very regular basis - once a week/month was common place. The same is said for local Music Promoters, including a fair cut of the gate receipts if we brought in more people than we were expected to - which was again fairly common place.

One thing we never did though was make any fuss if people downloaded our music for free - of course we preferred if they paid - but especially in our early days it wasn't uncommon of us to pay them to take our cds and give them to their mates.

Everything was fine _until_ we joined the PRS around the same time we started getting the occasional play on national radio - especially after video footage of the band playing at the aforementioned festival was played on a publicly funded TV station. We did this because we wanted the extra protection they are meant to provide - we didn't want to fight the big boys basically - but after that point, everything went down hill.

After a few months of nothing, no contact from them what so ever, we get in contract to be told "we don't owe you anything". We got listings for all radio stations, including the exact play times; start/end/duration, which show it was, who was the DJ - and also signed letters confirming this from each DJ - and they still said no.

Finally after banging on and on for what must have been nearly 3 weeks - a process that cost us upwards of £300 on phone calls (that alone meant we made no money), and probably in the hundreds of hours with emails as long as my arm - including a trip to their headquarters - it was finally sorted out.

Another month passes - and the whole process started again - at that point we told them to get f**ked and left them - they still try to claim royalties that are not theirs, and according to the singer still owe them money since that cheque.

==============================

The problem is, the PRS need to exist - we were very lucky in that we had very good relationships with all the music promoters, and local DJ's to the level that they felt bad if they screwed us - because there was a friendly face to the name.

We didn't have that type of relationship with the PRS - they never gave us the chance - and honestly, I don't think they ever cared.

The industry is full of some amazing people - people that have truly impacted on me and helped me grow and mature radically - but the ones at the top, the ones with power, are corrupt and drunk with it. They genuinely don't understand the Internet, they don't understand the unsigned scene, they don't understand why you would ever give out your music for free - because they simple cannot understand how increased exposure (without payment) is only a good thing.

Artists need to be, and should be paid for their works.

However, just because you download an album shouldn't mean you should be punished if it is for a non-commercial use.

I'm in a very grey area, I don't think it should be legal - but, I completely detest anyone that suggests it should be illegal - people that do this do not understand their scene...and why would you ever want to sue a person that likes your music?

I spend thousands of pounds on live music - seeing my favourite bands all over the country - every year, and have done for the past 6 years - I personally feel I am a true music fan, I have a true passion for music - but I have not paid a single penny for a commercially released CD in that same amount of time.

However, I have brought many tour-EPs and probably half a metric ton of other merch - I support the artists; I don't support the heads of the Industry.

[Grunchtherunch]

grunch - i don't want to be misunderstood here, i genuinely believe that musicians and any performing artist of any discipline should be paid for their work - I did not join PPUK because I'm a freeloader.

Commercial use of music, be it in samples, played on the radio, incidental music in films/tv or whatever, should be paid for, the artist should be rewarded for it.

The following is my own experience, things that I have witnessed with my own eyes and ears - I will however leave all names out of it because I cba with any possible backlash.

During the latter years of school and into college (14-18 give or take a few months either way) I managed a band that comprised of a group of my close friends, regularly gigging (3-4 nights a week was not uncommon) in our hometown and surrounding area, getting plays on local radio, and the aforementioned occasional play on Radio 1, even playing a major dual-venue music festival. What I found was that the little people - local radio and pirate radio being the best of these examples - paid us straight off, no hassle, cash in hand or wire transfers on very regular basis - once a week/month was common place. The same is said for local Music Promoters, including a fair cut of the gate receipts if we brought in more people than we were expected to - which was again fairly common place.

One thing we never did though was make any fuss if people downloaded our music for free - of course we preferred if they paid - but especially in our early days it wasn't uncommon of us to pay them to take our cds and give them to their mates.

Everything was fine _until_ we joined the PRS around the same time we started getting the occasional play on national radio - especially after video footage of the band playing at the aforementioned festival was played on a publicly funded TV station. We did this because we wanted the extra protection they are meant to provide - we didn't want to fight the big boys basically - but after that point, everything went down hill.

After a few months of nothing, no contact from them what so ever, we get in contract to be told "we don't owe you anything". We got listings for all radio stations, including the exact play times; start/end/duration, which show it was, who was the DJ - and also signed letters confirming this from each DJ - and they still said no.

Finally after banging on and on for what must have been nearly 3 weeks - a process that cost us upwards of £300 on phone calls (that alone meant we made no money), and probably in the hundreds of hours with emails as long as my arm - including a trip to their headquarters - it was finally sorted out.

Another month passes - and the whole process started again - at that point we told them to get f**ked and left them - they still try to claim royalties that are not theirs, and according to the singer still owe them money since that cheque.

==============================

The problem is, the PRS need to exist - we were very lucky in that we had very good relationships with all the music promoters, and local DJ's to the level that they felt bad if they screwed us - because there was a friendly face to the name.

We didn't have that type of relationship with the PRS - they never gave us the chance - and honestly, I don't think they ever cared.

The industry is full of some amazing people - people that have truly impacted on me and helped me grow and mature radically - but the ones at the top, the ones with power, are corrupt and drunk with it. They genuinely don't understand the Internet, they don't understand the unsigned scene, they don't understand why you would ever give out your music for free - because they simple cannot understand how increased exposure (without payment) is only a good thing.

Artists need to be, and should be paid for their works.

However, just because you download an album shouldn't mean you should be punished if it is for a non-commercial use.

I'm in a very grey area, I don't think it should be legal - but, I completely detest anyone that suggests it should be illegal - people that do this do not understand their scene...and why would you ever want to sue a person that likes your music?

I spend thousands of pounds on live music - seeing my favourite bands all over the country - every year, and have done for the past 6 years - I personally feel I am a true music fan, I have a true passion for music - but I have not paid a single penny for a commercially released CD in that same amount of time.

However, I have brought many tour-EPs and probably half a metric ton of other merch - I support the artists; I don't support the heads of the Industry.

don't worry i never thought for a moment you were a freeloader! hehe if you are here it means you are looking for a solution so i have no arguments with you there.

and i have to say that is a pretty bullsh*t show by the PRS.. maybe it is just unlucky to be in contact with the wrong people or maybe it's not... but if that is their regular practice even when you have that much solid evidence then we seriously need to talk about putting a review of them into our policies/plans i think. that's just not acceptable.

and for a non profit organisation that always has spare money left over from licenses (i guess i dont see a way around that) what's their problem in giving you your royalties!?

[cheyenne]

I still believe the rights holders have got to look at new innovative ways of exploiting the public, take an example 7 million people plus are currently file sharing in the uk, i believe virgin wanted to offer an all you can eat download service for the price of an album per month, this was a good idea and could generate some 923 million pounds a year if the 7 million where to take up the offer for 10-99 per month, the average person would only download an album a month or a few singles, i believe universal said they were up for it but the others said no so it didn't materialise, they instead demanded too much cash thus making the business model unworkable.

This is the type of business model that in my opinion is the only way to fight file sharing and take into account the figure is based purely on the uk you get the global implications here also, within the next 10 years phone/tv/cinema/music etc will all be available via broadband this is the furture of entertainment so change is happening and if you do not want to accept change then look what happened to all the species that did not accept it they became exstinct very quickly, file sharers will simply go underground or hide behind new and innovative technologies/programmes and it is a shame that they didn't see the potential of napster back in the day when they could have sewn all this up.

Simply trying to sue individuals for thousands of pounds ruining there lives and making them bankrupt only serves to alienate the very people who buy and listen to your music.

[Grunchtherunch]

I still believe the rights holders have got to look at new innovative ways of exploiting the public, take an example 7 million people plus are currently file sharing in the uk, i believe virgin wanted to offer an all you can eat download service for the price of an album per month, this was a good idea and could generate some 923 million pounds a year if the 7 million where to take up the offer for 10-99 per month, the average person would only download an album a month or a few singles, i believe universal said they were up for it but the others said no so it didn't materialise, they instead demanded too much cash thus making the business model unworkable.

This is the type of business model that in my opinion is the only way to fight file sharing and take into account the figure is based purely on the uk you get the global implications here also, within the next 10 years phone/tv/cinema/music etc will all be available via broadband this is the furture of entertainment so change is happening and if you do not want to accept change then look what happened to all the species that did not accept it they became exstinct very quickly, file sharers will simply go underground or hide behind new and innovative technologies/programmes and it is a shame that they didn't see the potential of napster back in the day when they could have sewn all this up.

Simply trying to sue individuals for thousands of pounds ruining there lives and making them bankrupt only serves to alienate the very people who buy and listen to your music.

who is this a reply to?

[scuzzmonkey]

I still believe the rights holders have got to look at new innovative ways of exploiting the public, take an example 7 million people plus are currently file sharing in the uk, i believe virgin wanted to offer an all you can eat download service for the price of an album per month, this was a good idea and could generate some 923 million pounds a year if the 7 million where to take up the offer for 10-99 per month, the average person would only download an album a month or a few singles, i believe universal said they were up for it but the others said no so it didn't materialise, they instead demanded too much cash thus making the business model unworkable.

This is the type of business model that in my opinion is the only way to fight file sharing and take into account the figure is based purely on the uk you get the global implications here also, within the next 10 years phone/tv/cinema/music etc will all be available via broadband this is the furture of entertainment so change is happening and if you do not want to accept change then look what happened to all the species that did not accept it they became exstinct very quickly, file sharers will simply go underground or hide behind new and innovative technologies/programmes and it is a shame that they didn't see the potential of napster back in the day when they could have sewn all this up.

Simply trying to sue individuals for thousands of pounds ruining there lives and making them bankrupt only serves to alienate the very people who buy and listen to your music.

who is this a reply to?

i think it's just a general post lol - I agree with you though cheyenne.

Give me a subscription service, all I can eat for...i dunno, 7 quid a month, 70 quid for a year, whatever, and i'd buy everything.

personally, i think the best way they could do it would be with a steam-esque system where the songs are tied to your account - you can sign in and download them anywhere, but they need to be listed on your account.

[Grunchtherunch]

I still believe the rights holders have got to look at new innovative ways of exploiting the public, take an example 7 million people plus are currently file sharing in the uk, i believe virgin wanted to offer an all you can eat download service for the price of an album per month, this was a good idea and could generate some 923 million pounds a year if the 7 million where to take up the offer for 10-99 per month, the average person would only download an album a month or a few singles, i believe universal said they were up for it but the others said no so it didn't materialise, they instead demanded too much cash thus making the business model unworkable.

This is the type of business model that in my opinion is the only way to fight file sharing and take into account the figure is based purely on the uk you get the global implications here also, within the next 10 years phone/tv/cinema/music etc will all be available via broadband this is the furture of entertainment so change is happening and if you do not want to accept change then look what happened to all the species that did not accept it they became exstinct very quickly, file sharers will simply go underground or hide behind new and innovative technologies/programmes and it is a shame that they didn't see the potential of napster back in the day when they could have sewn all this up.

Simply trying to sue individuals for thousands of pounds ruining there lives and making them bankrupt only serves to alienate the very people who buy and listen to your music.

who is this a reply to?

i think it's just a general post lol - I agree with you though cheyenne.

Give me a subscription service, all I can eat for...i dunno, 7 quid a month, 70 quid for a year, whatever, and i'd buy everything.

personally, i think the best way they could do it would be with a steam-esque system where the songs are tied to your account - you can sign in and download them anywhere, but they need to be listed on your account.

hells yea - I'd pay that