by hangontoyouregoism on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:37 pm
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, San Serif, Arial" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by BimboLimboSpam</i>
<br />What's everyone's opinions on PRS? I was on some email list from a pub venue down in Oxford and the pub has just closed, and the landlord declared bankrupt because they didn't/couldn't pay a fine to the PRS.
They didn't have a PRS licence in the first place and put a lot of live acts on. Their stance was that too much money went to the likes of Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney, and not enough to smaller acts. So they got found guilty and fined, but disputed the verdict.
I can imagine the PRS system does benefit big acts more than smaller ones, but is there a fairer way of doing things?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Seems a dead pointless thing to write about if you're "imagining" what it does but not reading about it!
PRS is good.
If you have a publishing deal you still get 50% of your prs directly and you get whatever your split is with your publisher from your publisher. If you don't, you get 100%.
You get paid whether you have a publishing deal or not. That's what PRS is for.
Minimum payment is £30, so it's not exactly hugely skewed. If you don't think you'll make that, don't register.
The money is the same for everyone. Of course Michael Jackson gets more money than the fell in the pub, that's cos his songs are used a lot.
The fee generated is based on level of music usage and how big the audience (in a live setting) or the reach (on tv/radio etc) is. It's exactly the same for everyone.