Massive Hike In Fees For Venues Playing Music In The UK
from the this-won't-help dept
We've seen this time and time again. The various music collection societies around the globe have been trying to squeeze out more and more cash -- either by extending what counts as a "public performance" or by massively jacking up the rates on existing licensees. We saw this recently in Australia, where rates went up by ridiculous amounts. To a lesser extent, we've seen something similar in Canada with its 1,300% fee increase. And, now, something similar is coming to the UK, where PPL massively increased a bunch of its fees:If you're playing along at home, that last case describes a fee increase of 3,900%.Bills for a typical �wedding bash will soar from £30 to £380. Pubs which can now pay as little as £8 a night will have to fork out around £10,000 a year up front for a public �performance licence.
The fee for nightclubs will zoom from £167 to a mind-boggling £6,667 for each event.
Now, for the most part, such collectives are passing money on directly to musicians, and not to record labels or the like. So you could argue that this means that musicians make more money, so perhaps it's okay. But that's not taking into account the overall impact of such fee increases. They actually harm musicians in multiple ways. First, as you would expect with such a massive increase in fees, many venues simply stop agreeing to pay a license to play music. Many may just not play music at all any more, and what good does that do any musician? Fewer venues playing music isn't helping anyone. It also means that a lot more of these kinds of venues end up going out of business. We keep hearing stories of people complaining about fewer venues being around for music these days, and you can blame ridiculous price hikes like this one for that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fees, music, performance, uk
Companies: ppl
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Extortion
Oh ?! Someone just told me it actually is "Government Approved Monopolistic Extortion", it should be fine then !
Nope sorry, i don't wanna play this G.A.M.E.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extortion
(read it with James Earl Jones's Voice) ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do not consume their products. Paid or free. Downloads are not lost sales, but they are a notch upwards in how it is valued by "imaginary property" holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how
It is just as if, for example, Pepsi are desperate for the lead actor to be seen drinking a can of Pepsi in the latest blockbuster film as it is a superb advertisement for their product, and then demanding a cut of every DVD rental.
Is there now way of pointing out to these clowns just what is driving the sales of their products. Just in case any one of these Record executives are listening, let me point it out very simply.
I buy one of your products because I have heard it on the radio/in a club/down the shops. If I never get exposed to your product, I AM NOT GOING TO BUY IT.
There. Simple really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny how
Rihanna @ 00:38, "The middle man between me and my fans is the radio".
Will.I.Am @ 00:41, "Without the radio a hit would not be a hit".
Seems the artists realise what the collection companies don't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MIyQvIrFSU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny how
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny how
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny how
That 's the link if you want to see how much Radio in the UK has to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That could be a good thing. Maybe they'll start playing CC music and give those artists some exposure?
/wishful thinking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell the PRS / PPL that you are doing that - and expect them to believe you??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously this could not happen overnight, and has numerous issues, such as a request for an old favorite, which would have to be refused, incensing the guest. Not very hospitable.
A long time ago, we had a fight with (either ASCAP or BMI, I forget) about our MUZAK system. They collected from MUZAK and now wanted to collect from us as well. It took much too much management time (we were running a business, our managers worked), which did not recoup even when we won.
The slim margins in the Hospitality business (lets leave out the casino portion for now) do not allow for a large percentage of Gross sales for entertainment. The idea of paying this extortion in order to differentiate oneself from competitors should be frightening to anyone who holds an interest in ANY Hospitality operation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoddy and sensationalist journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shoddy and sensationalist journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shoddy and sensationalist journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money to Musicians
Correction - passing money to already rich musicians - having taken thst money from ordinary jobbing musicians.
This is a wealth redistribution scheme from poor to rich musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money to Musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money to Musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PPL is for record labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call to pub goers in the UK
What other sites allow for free play in a public place like a pub?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call to pub goers in the UK
http://pro.jamendo.com/en/product/background/prices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leaving PPL and PRS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leaving PPL and PRS
i think a brief explanation would be 'i wish to terminate my membership with your organisation, effective immediately,' (give the date).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leaving PPL and PRS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leaving PPL and PRS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the actual consultation document, the PPL clearly thinks they can get away with this. Many venues will complain bitterly but pay up anyway as they feel they have no choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do they figure $615 when a song costs 99 cents in iTunes? Over the course of a wedding reception, a DJ may play 100 songs. That's $6 per song.
From the article:
"Its income rose �12million to �143million last year."
Well if your income increased by 10 times, why not charge even more, so your income can increase be another 10 or 100 times. Incredible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Income rose �12m == "rose BY" not "rose FROM", so about 10%, not 10 fold. Still not bag going in the current climate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Income rose �12m == "rose BY" not "rose FROM", so about 10%, not 10 fold. Still not bag going in the current climate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the most ridiculous increase by far. I mean seriously, how much profit do they think nightclubs make an event? The answer is almost certainly not not 6,000+ dollars. Seriously, does someone have some moral (or religious) vendetta against nightclubs and want to drive them all out of business simply because they don't like the nightclub business and how they perceive nightclubs are effecting the community?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.dollars2pounds.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First up, let's talk about the "shortage" of live music venues. This sort of goes against your whole idea of giving away the music and collecting on the scarce, the "musician as a worker" mentality that would have them doing hundreds of shows a year to make a living. If the venues are disappearing, it's because there isn't enough demand at a reasonable price to make it work out. So if there is a shortage of live venues, but live show revenue is going up, it's ticket prices that have increased dramatically, no?
Second, while you do provide a link to an article, the article itself is lacking any and all detail. The example "67 to 1600" increase, what sort of venue? Is it a single venue? Is it because of a change of vocation? Are they moving from recorded music only to live performance? We don't know because there are no details, and nobody else seems to be talking about the story.
Third, I think what you are seeing is the birds of piracy coming home to roost. If you aren't paying for the music to buy, you will end up paying for it somewhere else. Licensing is one of those ways to get the money back lost on the other side. Remember the old "there is no such thing as a free lunch"? Well, more so here, you choose what to have for your free lunch, and it comes with an expensive desert. You earned it!
As a sub-text on all this, I would say that my opinions voiced a couple of years back appear to be true. Significant increases in "live" ticket sale revenue has little to do with huge increases in live shows, rather it has everything to do with top acts charging 3 - 10 times as much for their tickets. So much for the little starving artist getting more money, right Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, this isn't about one place getting it's licenses changed, these are the overall rules. A night club that played recorded music, now pays significantly more for the same thing.
Third, you take a market that's actually making money and decide to punish it for another market that isn't?
Sub-text, every concert I've gone to was inexpensive. I went to the Blink182 and My Chemical Romance concert for $20, Weird Al was $30. You need to stop buying your tickets from scalpers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is a direct quote.
Second, where are you getting the information? Not from the linked article, that is for sure, it has less information than talentless schmuch Marcus Carab's profile page.
Third, no, but if there is no money made elsewhere, they will up licensing to make the money back. You didn't pay at one end, you get to pay at the other instead.
Considering yourself lucky on concert tickets, in the UK is isn't unusual to pay closer to US$100 for a regular ticket, and the big names (like Bon Jovi) were charging upwards to $500 a ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do agree that Mike's use of language was a little sloppy but my reading of the "venues" comment was in respect of places which play recorded music rather than those that have live music. His comments about live music have generally been about how strong it seems to be these days. I could be wrong though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Within the last year, I've been to concerts at the MEN, the Liverpool Echo, and the Lowry. They cost at most �35, which is currently around $55, and I KNOW that they can go higher. The fact that the venue is being charged (in the MEN's case) around �450,000 for next year's license for artists to play their own music is mind-boggling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're one of those dumb soccer commentators/fans that, when the game ends tied, immediately exclaims "Team X just lost two points!" aren't you?
It's a nice trick. Makes things look a lot worse than they really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I already have enough music to create a 24/7/365 streaming playlist that doesn't start over for 5 years.
I already have enough movies to watch 2 a night and not start over for 5 years.
I already have enough tv shows (with no commercials mind you) like Space 1999 (try and buy that one!), M*A*S*H*, all the way up to Enterprise, Stargate Universe and True Blood to watch 5 episodes a night and not start over for 6 years.
That's;
Songs: 3,693,800
Movies: 3,650
VT Shows: 10,950
For willful infringement, I can see where the 58 billion number comes from, I owe $27,703,500,00
I read your post and had to laugh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PPL = Phonographic Performance Licenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PPL = Phonographic Performance Licenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PPL = Phonographic Performance Licenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I'm at home...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So I'm at home...
If you leave your radio on really loud in your flat above your restaurant then you are liable and would need to pay PPL and PRS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new tactics
2) until then, select non-uk music (not covered by uk licensing schemes) and play that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
credible source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]