tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613328680885176912.post2251508610034461828..comments2009-06-09T04:49:54.281-05:00Lee Jarvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11937780052238601744noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613328680885176912.post-22420728285870981622009-06-09T04:49:54.281-05:002009-06-09T04:49:54.281-05:00Hi Colin, thanks for reading and sharing your comment! Your points on the &#39;effective monopoly&#39; and also the fees that can mean the difference for a small label breaking even or not are both very well-founded indeed. I&#39;m glad you raised the points at the panel and again here on my blog.<br /><br />Fiery is good! It means people have passion for music! Keep up the good work, and hope to see you back here soon :)<br /><br />Lee.Lee Jarvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11937780052238601744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613328680885176912.post-51230729737741119652009-06-07T14:41:58.386-05:002009-06-07T14:41:58.386-05:00Nice piece Lee. As one of the &#39;fiery&#39; audience members I&#39;d like to clearly outline my issues with PRS 4 Music.<br /><br />Firstly, if you wish to manufacture product in the UK or EEC then you have to join and adhere to the rules of the collection agencies. This effectively makes them monopolies.<br /><br />Under a AP2 manufacture license, the standard license for small indie labels, it is required that the label should pay a ‘mechanical’ royalty, 8% of the wholesale price, on all manufactured units. The MCPS (as was, now the PRS 4 Music,) then pay out to the artist - minus their 12% &#39;admin fee&#39;. In the US, and for larger labels using an AP1 license, the mechanical is paid only on &#39;shipped&#39; (or sold) units. Also, AP1 licenses allow for the first 400 copies to be ‘mechanicals’ free.<br /><br />This extra cost to the smallest of labels can represent the difference between recouping or not on a project and is also a hefty outlay at the manufacturing stage of a project, i.e. before any money has come in. The MCPS has closed down small companies over issues relating to mechanical payments.<br /><br />This process alone is a bar to entry on emerging artists and companies and could have been solved easily at any time in the last 30 years.<br /><br />Alongside this, are issues relating to the use of an artist or labels own music on their own website, which they technically have to pay the PRS 4 Music to do, losing their admin fee as a result. Also, an independent label or artist that publishes it’s own output has to pay £450 to join and has to sign 5 different contracts.<br /><br />Also, each year there is a large sum of money with the agency cannot accurately assign to individual members. This is known as ‘The Pool’. This pool is normally delivered on a pro rata basis to the highest earners in the previous year. This money would be extraordinarily valuable were it distributed to the poorest members, who are often badly served when it comes to calculating earnings from plays of their music anyway.<br /><br />In short, the bias towards larger businesses and the most successful artists, combined with it’s monopolistic and arcane practices make the PRS 4 Music a poor support system for emerging artistic and business talent.<br /><br />I hope this sheds some light on my grievances with the PRS 4 Music and thanks again Lee for a great blog andconsterdinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13914192477404225279noreply@blogger.com