PRS demands fees from musical instrument shops

December 18, 2005 12:29 PM

A few years back ASCAP, the performing rights agency that collects fees on behalf of songwriters and publishers, attempted to collect licensing fees from summer camps for songs sung around the campfire by Girl Scouts. This week, PRS, the UK equivalent of ASCAP, flexed its muscles by demanding a licence fee from a guitar shop owner for customers who play copyrighted riffs while testing instruments. Jimmy Page must be rubbing his hands together.
posted by gfrobe (69 comments total)

You probably meant to link to this
posted by Mwongozi at 12:33 PM on December 18, 2005

I can't be the only musician who's fucking sickened by this.
posted by Tlogmer at 12:34 PM on December 18, 2005

No Stairway
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:35 PM on December 18, 2005

ASCAP = ASSHAT
posted by dflemingdotorg at 12:35 PM on December 18, 2005

This beggars fucking belief.
posted by armoured-ant at 12:37 PM on December 18, 2005

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- 17 U.S.C. § 107
posted by Saucy Intruder at 12:45 PM on December 18, 2005

Keith Gilbert, PRS Performance Sales Director said: "Royalties are crucial – they keep songwriters and musicians writing more music. And royalties are paid by everyone that plays music in public."

There's a simple solution to this. The store needs a sign saying "Due to absurd legal action, customers tinkling on instruments must play uncopyrighted music only, in a similar manner to Beethoven in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure". Then, if a customer does play Stairway, the shop can't possibly be held responsible.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 12:45 PM on December 18, 2005

Saucy Intruder - this is about England.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 12:46 PM on December 18, 2005

I wonder what the law of fair use is in the UK? In any event it would seem to apply.
posted by caddis at 12:47 PM on December 18, 2005

This can't be real. What's next, charging people for singing in the shower, or in the car, or at the bar? (Did not mean to rhyme.)
posted by handshake at 12:47 PM on December 18, 2005

Next up, local health club offered license to cover members who sing in the shower.
posted by caddis at 12:48 PM on December 18, 2005

Hey!
posted by caddis at 12:48 PM on December 18, 2005

handshake writes 'This can't be real. What's next, charging people for singing in the shower, or in the car, or at the bar? (Did not mean to rhyme.)'

Yes.
posted by mullingitover at 12:49 PM on December 18, 2005

From the Wikipedia link: The tendency for many aspiring guitar players to learn to play the introduction to the song was spoofed in the 1992 Mike Myers movie Wayne's World, when a "No Stairway to Heaven" regulation is enforced at a music store visited by the title character. The intro was replaced with a more generic, non-"Stairway" riff in later releases of the movie, making the joke rather incomprehensible.

The asshats at ASCAP had something to do with this, no doubt. The thing that baffles me is: aren't the licensing copmpanies supposed to be maximizing their profits? How can one maximize profits by making licensing prohibitively expensive?

Oh, and "WKRP." So there.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:52 PM on December 18, 2005

Pay up when you sing happy birthday to you, damn it!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:53 PM on December 18, 2005

I'm singing along right now to one of the 5000 mp3's I copied from a friend. I better keep my voice down.
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:54 PM on December 18, 2005

Pay up when you sing happy birthday to you, damn it!
posted by ParisParamus at 3:53 PM EST on December 18 [!]

Why do you think they sing a different song in chain restaurants?
posted by caddis at 1:04 PM on December 18, 2005

It smells like a joke, or maybe like one PRS representative (and not the entire PRS) going off the rails a bit. Are there other sources for this story?
posted by pracowity at 1:08 PM on December 18, 2005

"Why do you think they sing a different song in chain restaurants?
posted by caddis at 4:04 PM EST on December 18 [!]"

Guess I would need a tv to know that? Or go to a chain restaurant? We don't do that much in NYC (Starbucks is the closest thing to a successful chain here...)
posted by ParisParamus at 1:16 PM on December 18, 2005

This is officially the dumbest thing I've heard this year, but there's still a good 13 days to go, so you never know.
posted by signal at 1:20 PM on December 18, 2005

I think the Macclesfield Express article is also the worst-proofread article I've read this year. A perfect example of why you can't replace a human with a spelling checker.
posted by hattifattener at 1:45 PM on December 18, 2005

Oops, didn't see that's in the UK.

What's next, charging people for singing in the shower, or in the car, or at the bar

They can realistically only go after public performances. If the record company had proof that you sang in the shower, that would be a much creepier issue entirely.

Karaoke software presumably includes blanket performance licenses, which makes infringement a non-issue.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 1:49 PM on December 18, 2005

ParisParamus: "
Guess I would need a tv to know that? Or go to a chain restaurant? We don't do that much in NYC (Starbucks is the closest thing to a successful chain here...)"

The closest thing to a successful chain? I think Starbucks goes pretty well beyond the realm of just being successful. And I've never been to New York but I don't think I'm out of line calling bullshit on your implication that there aren't any (many) established chain restaurants in the area.
posted by Evstar at 2:12 PM on December 18, 2005

Heh. Not surprised that the PRS would try something like this as they're always trying new ways of getting the moolah in.

They won't be able to nobble anyone for singing in the shower (private performance) but they'll sure have a go at getting something out of anyone making a public performance be it live or recorded. Radio playing in the caff or the hairdressers? The business has to pay a fee to the PRS. Example.
posted by i_cola at 2:15 PM on December 18, 2005

Mwongozi, thanks for correcting my link. Not sure how I screwed that up.
posted by gfrobe at 2:28 PM on December 18, 2005

Performance fees like this, used properly, can be a good idea. Maybe I'm just saying that because it's one of they few ways I've ever made money from music (An annual cheque for $5.60 arrived once. I was chuffed.)

But there has to be a limit - size of business (hairdressers? come on!), type of business (girl scouts? what the hell? they're performing it for themselves), audience for the music (guitar shop? you're hardly providing entertainment value for the other customers in the shop by playing the opening riff from Pearl Jam's Alive on that $150 strat copy) - so that stupid shit like this can't happen.

Surely, a key determinant should be whether the business is making a profit from the performance. A direct profit - is the music being played on the premises to attract business, or is the music being played / performed by the customer for other reasons? Some kind of clear-cut definition like this would be great, but I doubt it will ever happen with organisations like this clearly intending to squeeze the lemon dry.
posted by Jimbob at 2:42 PM on December 18, 2005

what about if you turn your car radio up really loud? is that a public performance or are you just being obnoxious?
posted by zorrine at 2:44 PM on December 18, 2005

What about singing to yourself in public?

Pretty soon you'll be allowed to listen to public domain songs--hours and hours of the star spangled banner.
posted by FeldBum at 2:46 PM on December 18, 2005

Keith Gilbert, PRS Performance Sales Director said: "Royalties are crucial – they keep songwriters and musicians writing more music. And royalties are paid by everyone that plays music in public.

Since when do the majority of songwriters and musicians receive the absolute majority of the income from each unit sold ? Since never !

Today distributing music is less expensive and a lot easier then it ever was historically..so some music profiteers are trying to advance the concept that they're entitled to their own incomes and are attempting to skip the distribution part all togheter, knowing that they already have lost control over it and are trying to advanced their imposition directly on the final customer.

It's an interesting moment, a time to remember and to record carefully as we are now seeing how leeches attempt fighting the loss control over their victims, either by scaring them into comformance (RIAA attempt) or by advancing requests that actually harm and restrict their own market, like PRS.

Next probable strategy is an attempt to restrict your devices, computers or dvd players or whatnot , to an "acceptable" behavior of having you pay many times for the shows and music you like to watch and listen to. Technology for this strategy to work already exists, but it's remains utterly useless if one doesn't accept the idea of losing control of our hardware.

Just don't buy DRM crap and we'll see if the market rule "offers meets demand" has some merit or if it works only in one direction.

The alternative ? Listen to copyright expired music, IF your machines will still allow playing music that isn't copyrighted..which is unlikely as the idea is to have any kind of memory/hd/usbstick/whatever etc removed from your avaiability. You'll still pay for it but you'll no longer be able to save whatever you want for it..unless you pay for a retention permission .
posted by elpapacito at 3:05 PM on December 18, 2005

The thing about such overstepping is that it just might motivate lawmakers to diminish their rights.
posted by caddis at 3:23 PM on December 18, 2005

I think Starbucks goes pretty well beyond the realm of just being successful. And I've never been to New York but I don't think I'm out of line calling bullshit on your implication that there aren't any (many) established chain restaurants in the area.

Yeah, but they don't sing Happy Birthday to you at Starbucks, do they? And there are some chain restaurants up here (Red Lobster and Olive Garden in Times Square, Fridays in Penn Station), but it's pretty easy not to go to one; in the past 3 years, I've been to one, once, as a joke.
Chill, Winston.
posted by 235w103 at 3:27 PM on December 18, 2005

Elpapacito, I agree with your detailed analysis, but don't forget the Bill Gates Charity Strategy.

Your friendly corporate fascist Intellectual Property dealer starts giving, say, 10% of their profits to dodgy charities, promoting some kind of pharmaceutical research, or claiming to help starving African babies, etc, with lots of rose-tinted publicity, natch.

Anyone who doesn't pay up will be seen as robbing starving children. Most people fall for this one every time. Otherwise decent, idealistic people begin acting as enforcers for the corporate "charities", putting pressure on their friends to pay up for the good of the starving kiddies.

Some people may even start giving extra money to the recording companies voluntarily, imagining that they are helping the needy. And the corporations will continue laughing all the way to the bank.

On the other hand, never forget that every man is only three missed meals away from violent revolution.
posted by cleardawn at 3:36 PM on December 18, 2005

Good comedy, cleardawn.
posted by bz at 3:57 PM on December 18, 2005

Yes, chill Evstar. Chain fast food is for the poor in NYC. Chain pizza is for the stupid, and, well, lets just say that the only significant chain presence is in the outerouterboroughs where the cater to people "just off the boat."
posted by ParisParamus at 4:16 PM on December 18, 2005

this is actually true.
posted by wakko at 4:22 PM on December 18, 2005

"Surely, a key determinant should be whether the business is making a profit from the performance."

No, this is not true. That's why a non-profit organization needs to pay royalties. But also, they ARE making a profit--on the guitar.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:50 PM on December 18, 2005

cleardawn: yeah charities can quickly become sinks for money, expecially if the beneficiary is a distant person ; obviously by promoting that $1 spent for X means 0.1 given to the poor and needy AND if this is very convenient (meaning less cost and less fatigue for some cheap moral cleansing) some people will eat hook line and sinker.

Actually as a proof of the fact is works, I have some personal experience explaining my mother , an otherwise rather intelligent person, that they're constantly employing emotional baiting tactics : which is , obviously, useless.

So I directed her to donate to some LOCAL well established charity that is rather easy to keep under control, if anything a more strict control then some charity somewhere in some distant place.

Also consider that charity strategy is not as pervasive as technology leeching..charity requires both the will to be charitable AND the will to do some moral cleansing...while buying a product is by far not such an emotive action

Yet if you compare and contrast that actual hardware gives a LOT more freedom then DRM hardware will ever and that after all it's not about a song, but it's about forcing their decisions on the consumer in very sneaky ways, then you have something to work on.
posted by elpapacito at 4:50 PM on December 18, 2005

I remember back in the late 80's, there was a coffee shop called Cafe Espresso Roma that I spent WAY too much of my life at.

They always had a policy (sometimes abused by folks like myself) of pretty much playing any cassette handed to them. We regulars enjoyed that as it meant a fun variety to listen to.

Until ASCAP showed up and said they need to pay a license fee for each song they played.

Mind you, this wasn't the most profit oriented place in the world either. A cuppa joe and a cheap baguette could get you a seat (napping often tolerated) for the whole day. And, until the city made them stop, any of the fresh baked goods would have been separately and cleanly bagged for the local homeless every night.

Anyway, much less fun was had with the local lame excuse for broadcast radio...
posted by Samizdata at 4:56 PM on December 18, 2005

"The closest thing to a successful chain? I think Starbucks goes pretty well beyond the realm of just being successful. And I've never been to New York but I don't think I'm out of line calling bullshit on your implication that there aren't any (many) established chain restaurants in the area."

There's fast food places, McDonalds, Wendy's, but the "chain restaurants" like Applebee's, Friendly's, Olive Garden, etc aren't seen outside of the tourist ghetto.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 5:07 PM on December 18, 2005

Pretty soon you'll be allowed to listen to public domain songs--hours and hours of the star spangled banner.
posted by FeldBum at 5:46 PM EST on December 18 [!]

Only if you sing it yourself. Just about any sound recording of it will be copyrighted itself.

Until ASCAP showed up and said they need to pay a license fee for each song they played.

Yes, there is a license for establishments with radios or jukeboxes. It's not that expensive, but it's not free either.

don't forget the Bill Gates Charity Strategy

Of course you are not in his brain. He might just have so damn much money, and a bit of guilt to go along with it, that he wants to give a small bit back to society. I truly think the charity comes from the goodness of his heart. I would not want Bill to come poking his nose into my small business area, he routinely crushes that competition, but his business ruthlessness does not mean he can not have a charitable heart outside of work. Of course, you might be right, that it is just a ploy to temper negative MS press, but I doubt it.
posted by caddis at 5:08 PM on December 18, 2005

This is internationally gone insane, industry-wide. The Hungarian musician rights agency Art- i -sijus went after a friend of mine for recording a piece of music for his friend's answering machine. And they won! I would tell you more but all they would eventually surf the web, see this post, and sue me for libel. (Which explains the hyphens.)

A few years ago I wrote an article about the copyright fees. I interviewed about 30 well known Hungarian musicians. About 5% of them ever recieved royalties from the Official Agency. In a country of 10 million the copyright agency mentioned have something like fifteen office buildings and hundreds of employees - many of whom are really grubby-diseased-carrion-worm-eating entertainment lawyers who legally pursue people like barbers and taxi drivers for playing the radio for customers while working. If you play music in your pizza joint or student bar you pay about US$3,000 a year.

I'm a professional musican. I work hard to get gigs, record music, and get broadcast. But these people are leeches.

Steal all the music you want. 99% of the musicians would never see a cent of the profit anyway. Just go to their gigs and buy CDs there. We love you for it.
posted by zaelic at 5:09 PM on December 18, 2005

Reminds me of this. And I was joking when I posted that.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:31 PM on December 18, 2005

Steal all the music you want. 99% of the musicians would never see a cent of the profit anyway. Just go to their gigs and buy CDs there. We love you for it.

Perfectly agreed, except don't say "steal" as that may be constructed by some of these leech lawyers as you promoting crime , painting you into the villain corner. That unless you really wanted to promote stealing :)
posted by elpapacito at 5:40 PM on December 18, 2005

Macclesfield Express

I am singing along right now to the Macc Lads, and not paying a penny.
posted by meehawl at 6:12 PM on December 18, 2005

"Surely, a key determinant should be whether the business is making a profit from the performance."

No, this is not true. That's why a non-profit organization needs to pay royalties. But also, they ARE making a profit--on the guitar.

If it's the customer who plays the riff, surely the store has no responsibility for the customer's actions? As a practical matter, it would be impossible for them to detect every single possible copyrighted riff a customer might wanna whip out.

(And what if the customer makes something up on the spot? Do *they* get royalties on what they just played?)

On the other hand, I can see an issue if it's the store employees playing copyrighted music to demo instruments for customers. (I'm pretty sure the Eleventh Commandment is "Thou shalt play 'Ain't Talkin' Bout Love', and no other, when demoing a flanger pedal.") I still think it's absurd, but at least it's practically possible.
posted by arto at 6:48 PM on December 18, 2005

Oh nuts!! This is so incredibly retarded and disingenuous. A lot of songs use pretty common chord progressions and most of the shit played in musical instrument stores would mean royalties for long gone blues musicians from the turn of the last century, including most Zeppelin riffs. So if they want to give money to the estates of Robert Johnson and Leadbelly I'd be happy to pay royalties.
posted by Skygazer at 8:12 PM on December 18, 2005

There's a really simple answer to this whole problem. The music store lobby or association or brotherhood needs to tell the music industry that they are unable to monitor the playing of copyrighted material, and invite the industry to send a music cop to the store who can collect royalties on behalf of the license holders.

This seems fair as it is not in the material interest of the guitar shops to spend resources and capital monitoring what their customers play while they test a guitar.
posted by illovich at 8:12 PM on December 18, 2005

invite the industry to send a music cop to the store who can collect royalties on behalf of the license holders.

The problem is, they'll probably do it! ...and hike up the licencing fees to pay for the thousand of music cops now required.
posted by Jimbob at 8:21 PM on December 18, 2005

Is this Bill Gates stuff in the right thread???
posted by smackfu at 8:31 PM on December 18, 2005

I wasn't suggesting that the store should pay; just that the the profit issue wasn't the litmus test for copyright infringement.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:36 PM on December 18, 2005

FAIR USE!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:52 PM on December 18, 2005

Guess I would need a tv to know that? Or go to a chain restaurant?

PP, unless you also do the embarrassingly false cultural superiority dance over movies too, you will eventually see a film where they sing a weird song for someone's birthday, you know, as opposed to the traditional song. That will be your indication that the film's budget was not great enough (or the producers said fuck that shit) to pay (ing) the insane fee for said trad song.

These licensing fees are a cousin-once-removed to gangs that make store owners pay for protection. Hmm, of course there's a better comparison but I'm too tired.
posted by zarah at 9:07 PM on December 18, 2005

the Happy Birthday Song...WHAT ARE WE.....ROBOTS?

PS: I've seen chain restaurants in....Paramus, but I don't stop. On the other hand, there a Pizza Hut near Paris that I love.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:12 PM on December 18, 2005

Secaucus has a good Olive Garden.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:20 PM on December 18, 2005

"Secaucus has a good Olive Garden.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:20 AM EST on December 19 [!]"

Priceless comment.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:27 PM on December 18, 2005

I do films; just not tv.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:41 PM on December 18, 2005

The intro was replaced with a more generic, non-"Stairway" riff in later releases of the movie, making the joke rather incomprehensible.

Dammit, I thought I was going crazy when I saw this movie recently. I could have sworn they played the real Stairway riff in the theater, but the movie riff doesn't sound anything like it. This has always bugged me; thanks for bringing a little more sanity to my addled mind. Now I have to go track down a Special Edition Laserdisc German release on Bittorrent to download and replace the fucked-up-no-Stairway-version in my collection.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:42 PM on December 18, 2005

But you can still smoke in bars there right? Damn...
posted by Football Bat at 9:53 PM on December 18, 2005

I could have sworn they played the real Stairway riff in the theater, but the movie riff doesn't sound anything like it.

See, they paid for lots of other music in that movie. They paid for the songs on the soundtrack (Foxy Lady). They paid for the songs the band plays (Ballroom Blitz). Why couldn't they afford two bars of Stairway to Heaven?
posted by Jimbob at 9:58 PM on December 18, 2005

Leave it to the lawyers to suck all the fun and common sense out of life.
posted by runningdogofcapitalism at 10:24 PM on December 18, 2005

"Secaucus has a good Olive Garden.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:20 AM EST on December 19 [!]"

Put that in the dictionary next to oxymoron.

Even more true for Jersey towns. How pathetic is it to go to the Olive Garden when most towns have multiple good Italian restaurants, not some hack job place that serves reheated pasta. However, I am lame enough to know that they don't sing Happy Birthday at Olive Garden restaurants either. I guess they also don't want to pray to Time Warner.
posted by caddis at 11:22 PM on December 18, 2005

Next step:

ASCAP seeks court order to place listening devices in the homes of all Americans - in cases of unauthorised song play / guitar riffs / singing in the shower micropayments are automatically deducted from citizen bank accounts.
posted by troutfishing at 4:02 AM on December 19, 2005

elpapacito wrote: "The alternative ? Listen to copyright expired music..."

Sure, that's be great - if the fuckers would actually let the copyrights expire as they should. The way things are headed now, nothing recorded or written since 1880 is going to be copyright free. We've got recorded and written material that is decaying past the point of recovery, simply because the copyright owners won't make it free for the public, but it isn't worth enough for them to try and sell it.

zaelic wrote: "I'm a professional musican. I work hard to get gigs, record music, and get broadcast. But these people are leeches.

Steal all the music you want. 99% of the musicians would never see a cent of the profit anyway. Just go to their gigs and buy CDs there. We love you for it."

So, on a totally unrelated note, where would one go to discover what Hungarian music sounds like? Free or otherwise...
posted by caution live frogs at 7:21 AM on December 19, 2005

hungary
posted by mr.marx at 7:49 AM on December 19, 2005

fuck ASCAP
posted by NationalKato at 8:39 AM on December 19, 2005

Caution Live Frogs: Try some radio. Radio C is the local Gypsy radio station, with some shows in the Romani language and a wide range of music. Click below the Élő adás! sign halfway down the screen to listen.

Tilos Radio is the alternative station.

Hungarian State Radio is a laughable remnant of the old Communist Radio style. There are three choices here. Kossuth is he basic national station, Petofi is more talk oriented, and Bartok Radio is more serious with good classical music in the evenings. Sometimes good except that you can tune into insane right-wing nationalists on Kossuth Radio on Sunday morning 6 am Central European time.

Nonstop traditional music on Folkradio.
posted by zaelic at 8:41 AM on December 19, 2005

C'mon, this has got to be fake. Please tell me this is one of those unfunny Onion knockoff sites.
posted by Nahum Tate at 9:30 AM on December 19, 2005

"I'm pretty sure the Eleventh Commandment is "Thou shalt play 'Ain't Talkin' Bout Love', and no other, when demoing a flanger pedal.""

If so, that's the wrong pedal to be demo-ing that song. There's no flanger in "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love," only the vintage MXR Phase 90 phase shifter.

For flanger, the appropriate songs are 'Unchained' and 'Hear About It Later.'

Please make a note of it!

"most of the shit played in musical instrument stores would mean royalties for long gone blues musicians from the turn of the last century, including most Zeppelin riffs."

Furthermore, Led Zeppelin by all rights owes a metric crapload of money to the descendants of the black blues musicians who wrote songs like "When the Levee Breaks," "Dazed and Confused," "Bring It On Home," and probably about half the rest of the catalog. "How Many More Times" was not written by white men from England, sorry.

And no, I'm sure this isn't fake.

ASCAP (and the similar BMI) is supposed to represent the artists who write the songs in the first place, and collect license fees from performances and broadcast, and then distribute those fees appropriately to its member artists. I understand that PRS does the same thing in the UK. And some artists do indeed receive distributed performance royalties, but only if they're played a lot on the radio, where there is a clearly established license fee system in place - playlists are tracked by ASCAP and BMI (and I would assume PRS as well) and the radio stations get billed.

A key concept to remember is that the royalties that these organizations collect are distributed to the artists's publishing companies - this is why you see notices on recordings like "All songs published by Bob's Music, ASCAP." However, in many cases, artists sign separate deals with large publishing companies like Warner-Chappell, to get a separate advance from them and, in theory, make it more likely they'll actually get paid their performance royalties, in addition to having a big publisher selling their songs to a wider audience.

Of course, given the actual state of the music industry, I can almost guarantee that whole process is corrupt from front to back, since the copyright owners are the record labels, who do business directly with ASCAP, BMI, PRS, and similar organizations, and who usually have a hand in their artists's publishing deals.

And of course, since some large music publishing corporations - for example, Sony BMG, who gosh 'n' golly are also a record company! - own lots of the publishing rights, and therefore get the royalties paid to them, you can bet this is all about them leaning on the royalty organizations to squeeze more for them.

Disclosure: I am a former BMG recording artist (briefly) and a member of BMI.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:45 PM on December 19, 2005

I'm sure this isn't fake too, but I wonder if the store didn't start off by threatening customers with the PRS just so they didn't have to listen to Stairway one more time.

Also a former BMG recording thingy.
posted by sneebler at 7:51 AM on December 28, 2005