# PROs Agree to Full Reassignment of *Proceeds* of Performance Rights



## chrisr (Mar 10, 2022)

I've just been told by a large production company that I must sign such a document to continue working with them.

The agreement itself essentially side-steps the "can't give away your writer's share" policy by saying "you keep the share, but agree to pay us any money arising from it in perpetuity"

Anyone else seen this and how have you responded?

I'm hoping the PRS outreach will call me back today to discuss... but any thoughts / experiences welcomed.

*EDIT - on 14th March PRS issued the following statement via twitter (see p5) in response to this particular matter. In the posts from p5 onwards the discussion moves to talking about this statement from PRS, and the protections it does or doesn't give the freelance composer in future negotiations with production companies / commissioners.
*


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2022)

If you are a PRS member, you don't own the writer's share. They do. Therefore you can't agree to give it to anyone else. Only PRS can do that.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 10, 2022)

Cheers Daryl - PRS are being v responsive to me about it all, just had an email from outreach (north) saying that he's looking into it with colleagues right now... will report back.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 10, 2022)

If this _has_ been agreed with PRS (waiting to hear back) then it means that there's no longer any way for a small fry composer like me to stop _anyone_ from insisting the same. And IF it has been agreed with PRS then that seems like a fundamental dereliction of their duty to administer those rights on my behalf... hmm...


----------



## chrisr (Mar 10, 2022)

@Daryl - ok so I just got off the phone with PRS outreach north, and YES the PRS (and speculatively BMI ASCAP it seems) have agreed that writer members_ can_ reassign all _proceeds_ of performance rights (but not the rights themselves) to a third party, and production companies are insisting that this now happens with shotgun diplomacy. PRS have seen several instances of this already this year.

I put it to PRS that effectively there will no longer be any reason for ANY writer member to be part of the PRS (or other PRO) if we're forced to pass on all _proceeds_ to third parties. There is no other point in having legal ownership of the right than for the £$ generated. He conceded this point and the point that the PROs will eventually act for publishers alone, _not_ writers.

Honestly this is the most shocking news I've heard as regards royalties and seems to be a massive dereliction of duty on behalf of the organisation that I paid to administer my rights.

@mike green - can you raise awareness of this please? - I don't know what way is best to do that. I feel like taking a pitchfork down to Pancras Square.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2022)

chrisr said:


> @Daryl - ok so I just got off the phone with PRS outreach north, and YES the PRS (and speculatively BMI ASCAP it seems) have agreed that writer members_ can_ reassign all _proceeds_ of performance rights (but not the rights themselves) to a third party, and production companies are insisting that this now happens with shotgun diplomacy. PRS have seen several instances of this already this year.
> 
> I put it to Daniel that effectively there will no longer be any reason for ANY writer member to be part of the PRS (or other PRO) if we're forced to pass on all _proceeds_ to third parties. There is no other point in having legal ownership of the right than for the £$ generated. He conceded this point and the point that the PROs will eventually act for publishers alone, _not_ writers.
> 
> ...


I'm shocked. It's an absolute disgrace. I'm going to try to fight this.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 10, 2022)

@Mike Greene - can you also please change the title of this thread to something which might get peoples attention, like "PROs Agree to Full Reassignment of Proceeds of Performance Rights" - thanks.

Honestly it's like the crutch upon which I've been leaning has just been kicked out from under my legs. 

No longer will anybody care whether you keep the performance rights or not, it doesn't matter anymore.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 10, 2022)

chrisr said:


> can you also please change the title of this thread


On a side note if you scroll up to your original post don't click on "edit" instead there is a drop down arrow in the upper right corner with the option to "edit thread" which will let you change the title. It's in a weird spot.


----------



## pinki (Mar 10, 2022)

Truly appalling..not the two bit company you are being harangued by...no surprise that they would try a dirty trick like this, but that the PRS are allowing it.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 10, 2022)

BTW - just in case anyone thinks I'm going to agree to it - I'm not. I may even send an instruction to PRS saying that I irrevocably deny them the right to redirect any proceeds arising from any of my performance rights ever, and that any subsequent instruction should be dismissed.

Seriously if a lawyer could draw that up properly, and every PRS member signed it in reasonable haste, this issue would go away tomorrow. It might be something we should do?


----------



## MauroPantin (Mar 10, 2022)

The first answer that comes to mind is, pardon my french, "Get fucked!". Is there any legal equivalent of that and could it be sent out to PRS urging them to fulfill their duties?

This is so frustrating to read. It's been said several times already: Composers need a guild to represent them in these issues. Collective action is the only way to fight this kind of crap.

*EDIT*: _I have removed the quoted part of my post. It referenced the contract Chris originally posted and it might be better to avoid specifics in order to protect his privacy._


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2022)

The one bastion of writers not being screwed by dishonest Publishers was the inability to give away our Writers' share. PRS has just accelerated the race to the bottom. I'm not going to let this lie. In the end, it affects all of us.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 10, 2022)

What this basically looks like, it could possibly, possibly be an excuse for some unscrupulous publishers to get some of the writers share. Some publishers have been doing that through other means for years though.


----------



## RSK (Mar 10, 2022)

This is absolutely unconscionable. What are composers supposed to write for, the fun of it?


----------



## pinki (Mar 10, 2022)

MauroPantin said:


> It's been said several times already: Composers need a guild to represent them in these issues. Collective action is the only way to fight this kind of crap.


Agreed. That used to be BASCA here in the UK. But to be honest, whilst being very pleasant, they were pretty useless and the one time I needed advice whilst being a member they were clueless. They now have become 'The Ivors Academy' ... I am no longer a member because I was so confused with their constantly changing identity I let my membership lapse... it seems they are now only organisers of the Ivors awards ceremony. Maybe I'm wrong on that, I stopped trying to figure them out...


----------



## pinki (Mar 10, 2022)

_edit…I agreed to remove this quote_
OMG that is ..just...shocking. This is just plain wrong. The PRS has _agreed_ to this?


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 10, 2022)

chrisr said:


> I've just been told by a large US/UK children's production company that I must sign such a document to continue working with them.



Something rings a bell with a tenuous similarity to what happed with Discovery a little while ago.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Mar 10, 2022)

This is ridiculous. I'd at least forward it on to industry people like Crispin Hunt, Tom Gray (absolute champion for composers' rights, now works with the Ivors Academy) - there have been some successes recently with nonsense like this before, like the Discovery/Epidemic thing...


----------



## jonnybutter (Mar 10, 2022)

RE: ASCAP and BMI joining in. AFAIK there is nothing legally prohibiting a US composer giving up his/her writer’s share. I would never do it, but such a contract is not illegal in the US.

The whole US (and maybe UK?) music business needs a reboot, from media music to music-music. It’s not a rational or sustainable system. Start over.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 10, 2022)

This is sickening. I suspect that there a lot of nieve composers out there that are inadvertently contributing to the problem....like thinking they are winning the lottery by selling their music outright (and for dirt cheap). 

I agree with @MauroPantin in that we really need some sort of unionized collective. Unfortunately, the logistics of that are probably a nightmare.


----------



## tsk (Mar 10, 2022)

Absolutely disgusting but not at all surprising.

I'm sure someone will be on here soon to tell us all that a free market is best for everyone and Ayn Rand herself probably said royalties should be assignable or some b*******.

PRS, like all the PROs in my experience, is a garbage institution full of favoritisim and they're trash when it comes to actually collecting and paying out royalties. Try sending them a query about why your royalties weren't paid out and see how they don't bother to ever look into it.

Maybe it's finally time to move on from these PROs. If they're not going to keep their end of the bargain on some garbage contract then WHY THE F**** SHOULD I. I always knew all these organizations were scum. As are the production companies. And most of the publishers who will no doubt be demanding a cut of our performance royalties soon. "Give us x% or we'll find someone else".

Music is doomed.

There will *never *be a collective of composers. How are you going to convince someone in a country with 1/10th the cost of living to sign up to your collective when they could just do a deal with a production company and feed their family easily. Answer: you never ever will


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 10, 2022)

tsk said:


> There will *never *be a collective of composers. How are you going to convince someone in a country with 1/10th the cost of living to sign up to your collective when they could just do a deal with a production company and feed their family easily. Answer: you never ever will


Absolutely and this is probably why based on setting track prices at what seem to most people as ludicrously low, a lot of the Royalty Free libraries are going down the tubes. Or at least, that is what I gather is happening.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 10, 2022)

@Roger Newton I'm a freelance composer with my own company. Yes there's an upfront fee to write / record / produce the music, but I work for myself and i carry liability for any legal claims / delivery guarantees / bringing client into disrepute etc etc, not them. I provide the studio, the sounds, the expertise, not them. I'm certainly not their employee, and thankfully have other clients.

@pinki yes the PRS have agreed that if a member decides to (or is compelled to) write to them asking to "redirect" the royalties generated by performance rights that they hold, that the will facilitate that process. The member will still hold the performance rights but all money collected will be redirected. They may have been powerless in stopping this under uk law for all I know at present. Dunno...

@Richard Wilkinson yes i think I will do in the coming days. I'm not currently a member of Ivors. PRS outreach suggested the same, and in fairness also suggested not to sign the contract, but admitted that the PRS will facilitate the redirection process if requested by me, and that it wouldn't invalidate my membership.... leaving me with only my own two legs to stand on in negotiations. I would rather their policy was to decline the request for all writer members as a matter of course, which would save me having to negotiate. I'm going to say no, but previously when the perception was that 'my hands are tied', there was never any further dispute. Publishers already take 50% ffs. It's just named in such a way as to seem like it's theirs by right... And having filled in a good number of BMI ASCAP cuesheets, those guys even reworked the maths so the performance royalties are 200% in total! 100% writers 100% publishers.... i digress... I came up in a world where the composer sells half of his rights and that's that. Not going to move from there.

Btw i was recently invited / shortlisted to pitch on a bbc production. Now, i recall Christian saying in his vlog a few years back that one of the joys of working for the beeb is that as a publicly owned entity they can't compel you to give up half of your performance rights - you can truly keep the 100% (200% usa...) that you have when you compose something. Just a couple of years later, that's been changed, when you work on a beeb production now it's through "BBC Studios", their commercial subsidiary, and guess what? Kerching! - in fairness i still see the beeb as totally 'the good guys' and think they were forced into that by the situation they're facing in the uk right now. The knives are out.


----------



## MauroPantin (Mar 10, 2022)

tsk said:


> There will *never *be a collective of composers. How are you going to convince someone in a country with 1/10th the cost of living to sign up to your collective when they could just do a deal with a production company and feed their family easily. Answer: you never ever will


I live in such country and I can tell you that I would NEVER be content as you describe. Not the mindset, at all.

If there was some international guild I would sign up in a second. I still need to pay for the samples, the equipment, the digital storage, the remote recordings (when I get a great gig with the budget to cover it). All things that I absolutely **need** to be competitive in the field, and also all denominated in US dollars, no exchange rate advantages. My business costs almost as much to run as yours, except for the actual space that I have to rent.

Also... why would I knowingly leave 90% of the money on the table?! Even if that was the case I can feed myself at 1/10th of the cost and pocket the rest for a rainy day!


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 10, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> What this basically looks like, it could possibly, possibly be an excuse for some unscrupulous publishers to get some of the writers share. Some publishers have been doing that through other means for years though.


I honestly don't think even the largest publishers have this kind of sway. I'm absolutely taking a stab here, but technology does, and broadcast and film have been rapidly being devoured by technology.

With the rush to streaming over the past few years (and the lack of effort from PROs), I've more or less been under the assumption that the lack of action to even out financial inconsistencies between streaming and broadcast revenue stems from streaming services and PROs having some kind of backroom sweetheart deal where the Disney+'s, the Spotifys, etc offer up a massive chunk of change up front in exchange for PROs to look the other way...

If the statement about there being a move away from PRS guaranteeing a writers share is true, I'd wager my guess on media companies moving toward a world where they absorb publishers and become the publishing entity themselves. It's already happened, where production libraries have been bought out by networks for huge sums of money... This would be the next logical iteration. (Just to be clear _logical_ in no way implies that it's ok!!)

It's the stuff of tinfoil hats for sure, but that's been my theory for a few years now and I'm sticking to it...

As far as the actual topic. This is genuinely nauseating. This could potentially put a whole bunch of people here out of work, including myself....


----------



## AndrewS (Mar 10, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> This is sickening. I suspect that there a lot of nieve composers out there that are inadvertently contributing to the problem....like thinking they are winning the lottery by selling their music outright (and for dirt cheap).


Like how Epidemic only accepts music from US or Sweden based composers, since those two countries will allow you to sign away your writers share and all rights to your work.

Wouldn't be surprised if they and similar libraries are behind the push for this.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 10, 2022)

AndrewS said:


> Like how Epidemic only accepts music from US or Sweden based composers, since those two countries will allow you to sign away your writers share and all rights to your work.
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised if they and similar libraries are behind the push for this.


Yes, it baffles me why anyone would work with Epidemic.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2022)

jcrosby said:


> I honestly don't think even the largest publishers have this kind of sway. I'm absolutely taking a stab here, but technology does, and broadcast and film have been rapidly being devoured by technology.
> 
> With the rush to streaming over the past few years (and the lack of effort from PROs), I've more or less been under the assumption that the lack of action to even out financial inconsistencies between streaming and broadcast revenue stems from streaming services and PROs having some kind of backroom sweetheart deal where the Disney+'s, the Spotifys, etc offer up a massive chunk of change up front in exchange for PROs to look the other way...
> 
> ...


You think that big Publishers don't have this sway? Are you aware that on the PRS council, all the writer members have to be elected, but the three richest Publishers automatically get a seat, so they only represent themselves?


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 11, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Yes, it baffles me why anyone would work with Epidemic.


Less baffling when you actually hear the material on there.


----------



## AdamKmusic (Mar 11, 2022)

Hi Chris, that is really bad news! Not sure if you’re part of the group on Facebook but I’ve shared it to scorecast London which has some high profile composers who are directors at PRS who’ll no doubt take note of this


----------



## chrisr (Mar 11, 2022)

AdamKmusic said:


> Hi Chris, that is really bad news! Not sure if you’re part of the group on Facebook but I’ve shared it to scorecast London which has some high profile composers who are directors at PRS who’ll no doubt take note of this


Thanks Adam, I'm not in that group but very happy for them to be made aware of this. I may sneakily pretend I still live in London and join the group too. Thanks again.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 11, 2022)

Companies like Hipgnosis buy up the entire revenue stream for hit songs so I suppose this kind of assignment is necessary for those kind of deals. 

It's very concerning that this is now happening at a smaller scale to people who really needed the original protection. We need to make a song and dance about this or we'll all be stuffed in 10yrs


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2022)

So this is no longer true:

About PRS for Music​_PRS for Music _represents the rights of over 160,000 songwriters, composers, and music publishers in the UK and around the world. On behalf of its members, it works to grow and protect the value of their rights and ensure that creators are paid transparently and efficiently whenever their musical compositions and songs are streamed, downloaded, broadcast, performed and played in public.


----------



## Kent (Mar 11, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> we really need some sort of unionized collective.


My coffee is still kicking in, and I totally read this as a call to invent some futuristic, sci-fi device. 

an un-ionized collective


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 11, 2022)

Kent said:


> My coffee is still kicking in, and I totally read this as a call to invent some futuristic, sci-fi device.


The likelihood of manufacturing a Wal-Mart flux capacitor is more likely than establishing an international union for composers (unfortunately).


----------



## aeliron (Mar 11, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> The likelihood of manufacturing a Wal-Mart flux capacitor is more likely than establishing an international union for composers (unfortunately).


I wonder. What are the chances of getting a Hans Zimmer or such behind such an effort?


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 11, 2022)

chrisr said:


> Btw i was recently invited / shortlisted to pitch on a bbc production. Now, i recall Christian saying in his vlog a few years back that one of the joys of working for the beeb is that as a publicly owned entity they can't compel you to give up half of your performance rights - you can truly keep the 100% (200% usa...) that you have when you compose something. Just a couple of years later, that's been changed, when you work on a beeb production now it's through "BBC Studios", their commercial subsidiary, and guess what? Kerching! - in fairness i still see the beeb as totally 'the good guys' and think they were forced into that by the situation they're facing in the uk right now. The knives are out.


Work I've done for the BBC via third party studios has always been work for hire. Admittedly, these were small 2 days jobs, not prime time with any chance of serious royalties...but there you have it. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## aeliron (Mar 11, 2022)

mat1 said:


> Companies like Hipgnosis buy up the entire revenue stream for hit songs so I suppose this kind of assignment is necessary for those kind of deals.
> 
> It's very concerning that this is now happening at a smaller scale to people who really needed the original protection. We need to make a song and dance about this or we'll all be stuffed in 10yrs


Sounds like the makings of a Metapop competition … Save the Musicmakers!


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 11, 2022)

This week I learned... That film composers are also 'work for hire'. 

For all the talk of 'not accepting a buyout', isn't this exactly what John Powell is talking about here?





So film composers work with buyouts, game composers too. What is left? Library music? Is this basically an issue of library composers wanting to maintain writer's share while the rest of the industry has left it behind? 

PS - I'm also thinking of the big name artists who have recently sold their entire catalog (e.g. Springsteen). Seems the wind might be blowing in this direction already based on all these indicators?


----------



## AndrewS (Mar 11, 2022)

marclawsonmusic said:


> This week I learned... That film composers are also 'work for hire'.
> 
> For all the talk of 'not accepting a buyout', isn't this exactly what John Powell is talking about here?



Yes and no, generally buyout is used to indicate not just ownership, but also claim to royalties being bought out. JP is just describing your average film composer contract where he doesn’t have any claim over the music since the film/studio owns the material, but I can guarantee you he’s still receiving his writers share.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 11, 2022)

marclawsonmusic said:


> So film composers work with buyouts, game composers too.


There's a lot of confusion between these terms.

I am a tv composer and 99% of everything I've ever done is work-for-hire.

This means (with a few exceptions but in general):
- Upfront money, the production company is paying for music to be written
- They own the publishing, and the track/music itself, because they are paying for the music
- I retain 100% writer's share

So very similar to Powell's example.

I don't consider this to be a "buyout" not in the way we are discussing here.


----------



## NekujaK (Mar 11, 2022)

Yes, film work is typically a "work for hire buyout", but the composer(s) retain their writer's share.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 11, 2022)

chillbot said:


> There's a lot of confusion between these terms.
> 
> I am a tv composer and 99% of everything I've ever done is work-for-hire.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clearing that up, @chillbot. 

In traditional contract terms, 'work for hire' means you assign all creative rights to the employer. So I interpreted it the same way here.

Carry on, then.


----------



## d.healey (Mar 11, 2022)

chrisr said:


> Seriously if a lawyer could draw that up properly, and every PRS member signed it in reasonable haste, this issue would go away tomorrow. It might be something we should do?


I'm in, show me where to sign.


----------



## AdamKmusic (Mar 12, 2022)

Just an update, after sharing it on scorecast some people who work for / with PRS have commented on it & I believe PRS will be publishing a response


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2022)

AdamKmusic said:


> Just an update, after sharing it on scorecast some people who work for / with PRS have commented on it & I believe PRS will be publishing a response


I bet they will. And I bet it will do nothing to change anything. They have already decided that they no longer represent writers' interests. Only Publishers' interests. It's up to us writers to change that.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 12, 2022)

AdamKmusic said:


> Just an update, after sharing it on scorecast some people who work for / with PRS have commented on it & I believe PRS will be publishing a response


That's great Adam. Let's see what they say...

I also had an email yesterday to say that it was being discussed by senior management, which was good of them to keep me in the loop.

At the moment I feel like they're being genuinely responsive to the issue - my pitch fork remains tucked away in the shed. Let's see what if anything is announced.

I politely made my position clear to the production company yesterday (eve) so may get a response from them on monday.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 12, 2022)

chrisr said:


> I politely made my position clear to the production company yesterday (eve) so may get a response from them on monday.


I'd be interested to hear their position if possible.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> I'd be interested to hear their position if possible.


The bottom line is that there may be a legal position. However, it doesn't excuse not discussing this with us, and if PRS was really interested in protecting writers, they would just say "no". I'd like to see one of these greedy Publishers try to take them to court. From the outside it seems like cowardice and apathy to me.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Mar 12, 2022)

@chrisr @Daryl 

Please do keep us posted, as and when any info comes in. Forwarding this issue to others who can affect change.


----------



## GuyM (Mar 12, 2022)

Don't panic and don't sign it. If PRS go with this, then join SACEM. PRS must know they will lose their biggest earning media composers. Also this is part of a long running battle - Discovery tried this, Nat Geo, Netflix is almost defacto royalty free for most productions. Discovery backed down eventually. In the long run royalties will reduce and fees will become the main income. In games, commercials and trailers that's already the way it works. But nobody with any experience would work for what children's and animation pay in the UK without royalties. So either the fees have to go up a lot or they stick with the writer's share.


----------



## d.healey (Mar 12, 2022)

GuyM said:


> In the long run royalties will reduce


From what I'm seeing the problem is not royalties are being reduced, it's that they are being paid to publishers instead of the artists.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 12, 2022)

Daryl said:


> The bottom line is that there may be a legal position. However, it doesn't excuse not discussing this with us, and if PRS was really interested in protecting writers, they would just say "no". I'd like to see one of these greedy Publishers try to take them to court. From the outside it seems like cowardice and apathy to me.


Well Daryl I think there may be some sort of legalise involved too. You need to get my 10 votes and get on the board. 

I can't begin to guess how many publishers there are that may fall into the category of going to court, but you're probably right. I tried to allude to this earlier. Time will tell.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 12, 2022)

d.healey said:


> From what I'm seeing the problem is not royalties are being reduced, it's that they are being paid to publishers instead of the artists.


Performance royalties as I understand it, i.e. from the PRS are paid directly to the writers (or the writers 50% share and 50% to the subs) at the moment. If that was changed it could turn into a disaster. Can't see it myself.
Overseas mechanicals as I understand it are paid to the publishers direct.

A lot of this currently seems to belong to the camp that belong to bespoke writers and up front fees.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 12, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Performance royalties as I understand it, i.e. from the PRS are paid directly to the writers (or the writers 50% share and 50% to the subs) at the moment. If that was changed it could turn into a disaster. Can't see it myself.
> Overseas mechanicals as I understand it are paid to the publishers direct.


This is what is happening. That's how these Private Equity companies can buy the entire revenue stream of a song.

I heard about it last year from my GF whose lawyer was involved in deals like this for big artists. They were selling all future income (including writers income) for big songs. I didn't believe her at the time but in theory could accept the concept for big superstars where the payout at 20% tax would make up for the lack of backend at 50% tax. 

For us little writers it's a total disgrace.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Well Daryl I think there may be some sort of legalise involved too. You need to get my 10 votes and get on the board.
> 
> I can't begin to guess how many publishers there are that may fall into the category of going to court, but you're probably right. I tried to allude to this earlier. Time will tell.


I shall do my best...!

Can you imagine the court case and the headlines?

"Publishers sue to steal income from poor starving artists." That should go down a treat.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 12, 2022)

Daryl said:


> I shall do my best...!
> 
> Can you imagine the court case and the headlines?
> 
> "Publishers sue to steal income from poor starving artists." That should go down a treat.


Yes go for it Daryl! Whenever it is btw. No idea. I'll get my publishers to give you their votes under pain of death.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 12, 2022)

mat1 said:


> This is what is happening. That's how these Private Equity companies can buy the entire revenue stream of a song.
> 
> I heard about it last year from my GF whose lawyer was involved in deals like this for big artists. They were selling all future income (including writers income) for big songs. I didn't believe her at the time but in theory could accept the concept for big superstars where the payout at 20% tax would make up for the lack of backend at 50% tax.
> 
> For us little writers it's a total disgrace.


Whatever happened to Audio Network btw?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Yes go for it Daryl! Whenever it is btw. No idea. I'll get my publishers to give you their votes under pain of death.


Unfortunately only writers can vote for writers.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 12, 2022)

Daryl said:


> Unfortunately only writers can vote for writers.


They also write. Unfortunately.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2022)

Maybe I’m not getting it, but I’ve heard of composers selling their entire catalogue (writers share).

Normally it’s big companies like Bmg who granb these old shows and give a big upfront to composers for a complete buyout of writers share.

Composers would agree since the tv show or movie has had already a good run but later royalties dwindle.

Bmg or whomever is buying the writers share is betting in the long run that streaming might pay better, or have enough of a pool to make it up. Or use it on other shows if possible. Etc.

The emphasis here is just another option for older shows and composers to have a different venue to get money.


----------



## d.healey (Mar 12, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Composers would agree since the tv show or movie has had already a good run but later royalties dwindle.


We're talking about music for new productions where they won't hire you unless you agree to give them your writer's share.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 12, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Whatever happened to Audio Network btw?


Dunno they still exist right?


----------



## mat1 (Mar 12, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Maybe I’m not getting it, but I’ve heard of composers selling their entire catalogue (writers share).


In the UK you’re not ever supposed to be able to sell your writers share.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2022)

mat1 said:


> In the UK you’re not ever supposed to be able to sell your writers share.


Yes, the legality is that you assign it to PRS, so it's not yours, and only PRS can do something with it, and they agree to give it to you. This whole sordid little deal is a fig leaf. What use is retaining your "share" if you don't retain any of the income? It stinks.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 12, 2022)

The writers share was always supposed to be written in tablets of stone. I find this hard to understand atm. Maybe a big deal, maybe nothing.


----------



## tsk (Mar 12, 2022)

Was PRS ever on our side? Here is an extract from Sound on Sound's forum and it's really worth seeing the thread (posted a few months ago):

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80428
I have no relation to them, don't know who they are and don't have an account on Sound on Sound so this is just a quote:



> I've gone to WAR with my PRS before....And I won too....but the experience took so much out of me, I couldn't do it again.
> 
> I had to hound them to the point where I was spending too much of my energy on conflict. It was brutal.
> 
> ...


----------



## tsk (Mar 12, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Maybe I’m not getting it, but I’ve heard of composers selling their entire catalogue (writers share).
> 
> Normally it’s big companies like Bmg who granb these old shows and give a big upfront to composers for a complete buyout of writers share.
> 
> ...


You definitely don't seem to be getting it


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2022)

tsk said:


> You definitely don't seem to be getting it


ME and several other composers with decent shows i know whove done this and theyve been very happy.


----------



## tsk (Mar 12, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> ME and several other composers with decent shows i know whove done this and theyve been very happy.


Sounds like the Epidemic writers. "I gave up all my rights and I'm pretty happy with it, thank you". Don't care about anyone else


----------



## mat1 (Mar 12, 2022)

Big difference between choosing to sell the writers share of old catalogue and being forced to just to get the job in the first place. If the latter becomes the norm we’ll all be Fxckxd.



gsilbers said:


> ME and several other composers with decent shows i know whove done this and theyve been very happy


----------



## Kevin Sargent (Mar 12, 2022)

chrisr said:


> BTW - just in case anyone thinks I'm going to agree to it - I'm not. I may even send a similarly worded document to PRS saying that I irrevocably deny them the right to redirect any proceeds arising from any of my performance rights ever, and that any subsequent instruction should be dismissed.
> 
> Seriously if a lawyer could draw that up properly, and every PRS member signed it in reasonable haste, this issue would go away tomorrow. It might be something we should do?


Hi Chris, I applaud you resisting this egregious attempt to deprive you of your rightful income stream. It undermines the whole fabric of copyright and the right for you to enjoy the fruit of your creative labours. I represent the media composing community on the board of the Ivors Academy and this is not the first time I’ve heard of this practice recently. If you or anyone else here would like to discuss it in confidence, I would love to hear more, and have it feed into our Composers Against Buyouts campaign which is gathering pace. My email [email protected]. Yours, in solidarity, Kevin


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2022)

tsk said:


> Sounds like the Epidemic writers. "I gave up all my rights and I'm pretty happy with it, thank you". Don't care about anyone else



well. yeah.. why would anyone? They got an offer, they accepted. There is writers shares for other shows, there are non exlusive and exclusive... their are upfront for video games w no writers share. I mean.. its all the different options to keep making money depending on the project and tracks.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2022)

mat1 said:


> Big difference between choosing to sell the writers share of old catalogue and being forced to just to get the job in the first place. If the latter becomes the norm we’ll all be Fxckxd.


yeah, that doesnt seem right. I think its all this with YouTube thing. where it needs to be royalty free so it wont get copyright strikes or some sort of nonesense.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 12, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> yeah, that doesnt seem right. I think its all this with YouTube thing. where it needs to be royalty free so it wont get copyright strikes or some sort of nonesense.


Realistically they just want the income stream and they’ll keep pushing until they get it if we don’t nip it in the bud. 

Its not as if they’re going to start offering 10yrs royalties up front to make up for what they’re taking.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2022)

mat1 said:


> Realistically they just want the income stream and they’ll keep pushing until they get it if we don’t nip it in the bud.
> 
> Its not as if they’re going to start offering 10yrs royalties up front to make up for what they’re taking.



Music libraries are also taking half the writers share in the USA/LA area. Plus the full publishing. seems its the standard now.

And some broadcasters/networks will do the buyout thing so they own the publishing which then leaves the music library forcing the composer into giving up their half of the writers share.

So the UK way of making it a law that writers keep their share is imo a good call. US is more open market and of course the big fish will eat the small fish. And doesnt seem anyone cares.

just compare the amount of views and response of this thread and others like it, vs spitfires new string library.

I mean.. i think it wouldbe easier if sample library developers as well as equipment/audio companies pushed for beter standards. IT will benefit them in the long run.

If spitfire, eastwest, cinesample, 8dio, cinematic studio, orchestral tools, sonuscore came together to promote, provide info and make some sort of push towards having composers at all levels get better paid and know more about the back end, and deals etc... we could easily make a more standard push to not have big companies take advantage, give writers share and royalty free etc. Heck, even put it in their EULA... not for royalty free music or for music where you give your writers share


----------



## clisma (Mar 12, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Music libraries are also taking half the writers share in the USA/LA area. Plus the full publishing. seems its the standard now.


No, not the norm yet in my experience. And the ones who ask get a not-so-polite ”Thank you but no thank you“ response. I urge you to do the same. We’re all in the same boat here.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 13, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Music libraries are also taking half the writers share in the USA/LA area. Plus the full publishing. seems its the standard now.
> 
> And some broadcasters/networks will do the buyout thing so they own the publishing which then leaves the music library forcing the composer into giving up their half of the writers share.
> 
> ...


Of course we're not talking about the US, are we. We're specifically talking about the UK. PRS. US writers have already given up Royalties before, where the UK hasn't, but just because the US thinks it's a good idea, there is no reason everyone else should follow their lead. For example, the US thinks that poor people shouldn't get healthcare. The UK disagrees.

The idea that any writer can be forced to give up their legally guaranteed share of Royalties by a greedy, unscrupulous Publisher, is abhorrent to me. Those who are in a position to be able to do something about this have a moral duty to do something about this. We either fight it, or the days of being able to earn a living as a composer are well and truly over, unless you really are in the top bracket of earnings.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 13, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> yeah, that doesnt seem right. I think its all this with YouTube thing. where it needs to be royalty free so it wont get copyright strikes or some sort of nonesense.


Youtube does not need to be Royalty free. That's just not true.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 13, 2022)

clisma said:


> No, not the norm yet in my experience. And the ones who ask get a not-so-polite ”Thank you but no thank you“ response. I urge you to do the same. We’re all in the same boat here.



U might to give me a list. Cuz I asked about 15 in the LA area and most wanted writers share.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 13, 2022)

Daryl said:


> Of course we're not talking about the US, are we. We're specifically talking about the UK. PRS. US writers have already given up Royalties before, where the UK hasn't, but just because the US thinks it's a good idea, there is no reason everyone else should follow their lead. For example, the US thinks that poor people shouldn't get healthcare. The UK disagrees.
> 
> The idea that any writer can be forced to give up their legally guaranteed share of Royalties by a greedy, unscrupulous Publisher, is abhorrent to me. Those who are in a position to be able to do something about this have a moral duty to do something about this. We either fight it, or the days of being able to earn a living as a composer are well and truly over, unless you really are in the top bracket of earnings.


Yeah, for those in the uk and being forced to give writers, should be fighting it.
And no one in the USA is ok with being forced out of their writers share .


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 13, 2022)

Daryl said:


> Youtube does not need to be Royalty free. That's just not true.


YouTube has 4 types of royalties… yes it doesn’t have to be ONLY royalty free but it’s not exactly easy for a composer of a tv show or movie or even a record label or the video itself to do the splits for performance royalties. Therefore, any video made spefically for YouTube is either too low pay to provide royalties or the video is owned by a large distributor or sub contractor who just uploads the video and then the composer needs to do their own adrev thing and be marred in copywriter strike issues. 
So it’s all doable and google does have the proper way and all that but what I’m talking about is the TREND
Among video creators where everyone just wants epidemic sound sort of royalty free no hassle.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 13, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> YouTube has 4 types of royalties… yes it doesn’t have to be ONLY royalty free but it’s not exactly easy for a composer of a tv show or movie or even a record label or the video itself to do the splits for performance royalties. Therefore, any video made spefically for YouTube is either too low pay to provide royalties or the video is owned by a large distributor or sub contractor who just uploads the video and then the composer needs to do their own adrev thing and be marred in copywriter strike issues.
> So it’s all doable and google does have the proper way and all that but what I’m talking about is the TREND
> Among video creators where everyone just wants epidemic sound sort of royalty free no hassle.


Agreed, but that's why I picked up on your point. The more times people say that YouTube needs to be Royalty free, the more likely it is that people will believe it, and that we will be forced to go that way. Any diminishing of our right has to be called out, or those right will no longer exist.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 13, 2022)

d.healey said:


> We're talking about music for new productions where they won't hire you unless you agree to give them your writer's share.



Yes, figure that one out afterwards thanks.
I’m still confused as to why if the law in the uk says you can’t. 
Woudnt it be just against the law and that’s it?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 13, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Yes, figure that one out afterwards thanks.
> I’m still confused as to why if the law in the uk says you can’t.
> Woudnt it be just against the law and that’s it?


No, it has nothing to do with UK law, per se. When you join PRS, you assign your writers' share to them. Therefore the only organisation who can give it away is PRS. So if PRS says "no", you would be breaking the contract you signed with PRS. Don't forget that PRS is a Government "sponsored" monopoly.


----------



## clisma (Mar 13, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> U might to give me a list. Cuz I asked about 15 in the LA area and most wanted writers share.


Since we’re taking each other at face value, I work with about a handful of them, and so far this has not come up. A couple of other small ones, where some of my tracks have resided for years without much action, came asking for it and that’s when I said no, missing out on whatever revolutionary project they’re working on.

Now, if one is new to the library game and trying to get in, they might try this with you, sure. I’m not sure what recourse there is other than declining. As Daryl says, we in the US have always been more inclined to see to our own personal interest over the common good, but unless you’re getting a *really* good pay-out, and you really need the money now, giving away your writer’s or reassigning it, seems myopic to me, based on what royalties can make you over the shelf life a popular cue.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 13, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Among video creators where everyone just wants epidemic sound sort of royalty free no hassle.


This is one but not the only reason that RF sites are going to the dogs. They are feeding on themselves with ridiculously low prices until in the end they are selling for cents. I don't do RF so do not have an axe to grind on this issue. Video creators in the large part are only interested in the lowest price they can get.


----------



## tsk (Mar 13, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> YouTube has 4 types of royalties… yes it doesn’t have to be ONLY royalty free but it’s not exactly easy for a composer of a tv show or movie or even a record label or the video itself to do the splits for performance royalties. Therefore, any video made spefically for YouTube is either too low pay to provide royalties or the video is owned by a large distributor or sub contractor who just uploads the video and then the composer needs to do their own adrev thing and be marred in copywriter strike issues.
> So it’s all doable and google does have the proper way and all that but what I’m talking about is the TREND
> Among video creators where everyone just wants epidemic sound sort of royalty free no hassle.


Hahaha.

My god. Here we are.

A corporation whose annual profit is $76 billion, which pays tax at a lower rate than me, shouldn't have to pay royalties.

Jesus Christ.

When a production company sells their show to a network, it's the network that pays royalties for performances. YouTube should be paying a non-humiliating amount of royalties for the music that makes their 'network' go round.

The reason they don't isn't because of some nuanced ideological argument around copyright law. It's because big corporations get their way at the expense of us little people.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 13, 2022)

This is no normal large company, by the way - they're one of the biggest children's entertainment companies worldwide. I should know - I took some work on from them. 

As I neared the end of the work, I got the contract with the letter of direction - I've NEVER seen a letter of direction before. I queried it and was told that the PRS would be fine with it. Spoke to someone at the PRS who said that they would never agree to it. And that was that for me. 

They seem to use a lot of young composers - as in people who've just left uni. I guess they don't know better and the company knows this. 

For what it's worth, I hear they're not the only children's entertainment company doing this - indeed, it seems to be almost the norm for doing kids' music these days.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 13, 2022)

tsk said:


> Hahaha.
> 
> My god. Here we are.
> 
> ...


Remember that YouTube only started paying paltry royalties when they were forced to. 

People think of YouTube's initial success being down to cute cat videos. 

It wasn't. Most "videos" on it were of songs without moving visuals. YouTube's huge success is down to audio streaming.


----------



## Kevin Sargent (Mar 14, 2022)

BooYah said:


> This is no normal large company, by the way - they're one of the biggest children's entertainment companies worldwide. I should know - I took some work on from them.
> 
> As I neared the end of the work, I got the contract with the letter of direction - I've NEVER seen a letter of direction before. I queried it and was told that the PRS would be fine with it. Spoke to someone at the PRS who said that they would never agree to it. And that was that for me.
> 
> ...


Hi Booyah. If you are interested in sharing details of this company, anonymously, we are preparing action regarding this predatory practice as a matter of urgency, my email: [email protected] - thanks.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 14, 2022)

Alas I recently saw that they are now in a partnership with one of the biggest worldwide music companies re publishing and licensing, so this other company will be very much aware of the deal re royalties.

Which means absolutely no chance of changing how they operate.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 14, 2022)

Can we name and shame?


----------



## chrisr (Mar 14, 2022)

@mat1 I have no wish to do that and would recommend others don't mention specific companies if they've experienced the same - it seems wrong and unwise to do so, which is why I haven't mentioned any company apart from the PRS. I'd rather address the response of the PRS, when we know it better. This is after all really a _PRS matter_, about what is/isn't possible within the framework of their organisation. Having started this thread to better understand how widespread this practice is, I don't want to add fuel to the fire of the approach amongst the media sector generally.


----------



## AdamKmusic (Mar 14, 2022)




----------



## Daryl (Mar 14, 2022)

AdamKmusic said:


>



Thanks, Adam. I don't think that's sufficient. Not by a long way.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 14, 2022)

To me this is not about the production companies who are making these requests, but about it being clearly legislated for, within PRS policies, that such re-assignments cannot happen. There needs to be a complete absence of any sense of a 'judgement call' around this. It needs to be black and white.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 14, 2022)

chrisr said:


> To me this is not about the production companies who are making these requests, but about it being clearly legislated for, within PRS policies, that such re-assignments cannot happen. There needs to be a complete absence of any sense of a 'judgement call' around this. It needs to be black and white.


Agreed. There are many ways that can be done, not least of which is making it impossible for any PRS member, be it person or entity, to receive funds from tracks not registered to their name.


----------



## MauroPantin (Mar 14, 2022)

The PRS should know better. Calling the company out is just a redirection of blame. If someone wants to give up their writers share, then have them send out a check to the production company for the redirect. Allowing for this is like losing a Spartan shield at the front of Thermopylae. You leave a gap, they come in.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 14, 2022)

Legally, assigning all the economic benefits could be argued to be assigning the full writer's share. I would guess that the PRSs could have their counsel make that argument to fight this.

It's not shocking that a production company would _ask_ for this, but I am shocked that the PRSs would go along with it.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 14, 2022)

chrisr said:


> To me this is not about the production companies who are making these requests, but about it being clearly legislated for, within PRS policies, that such re-assignments cannot happen. There needs to be a complete absence of any sense of a 'judgement call' around this. It needs to be black and white.


Yeah. It really should be that simple.

And, just to play Devil's Advocate, if a company still wants to screw you out of your royalties, they can just say in the contract we're not putting your name down as a writer, instead we're going to put down "Billy Ray Fingers" as the writer (or whatever, just as a totally made up random example). But that would leave PRS completely out of it, as they should be.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 14, 2022)

MauroPantin said:


> The PRS should know better. Calling the company out is just a redirection of blame. If someone wants to give up their writers share, then have them send out a check to the production company for the redirect. Allowing for this is like losing a Spartan shield at the front of Thermopylae. You leave a gap, they come in.


Mmmmmm. Not quite a simple as that. That's a very simplified approach. There's a lot of legal jargon you would need to wade through before first.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 14, 2022)

chillbot said:


> instead we're going to put down "Billy Ray Fingers" as the writer (or whatever, just as a totally made up random example). But that would leave PRS completely out of it, as they should be.


And that my friend is my biggest fucking pet hate.


----------



## MauroPantin (Mar 14, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Mmmmmm. Not quite a simple as that. That's a very simplified approach. There's a lot of legal jargon you would need to wade through before first.



Perfect, even better. Have the production company's legal department spend a month trying to figure out the specifics around the very firm "NO" that I expect from the PRS when someone asks for facilities to get the writers share. In fact, if the legal department could eat the entire worth of the writer's share they are trying to obtain, that would be ideal.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 14, 2022)

MauroPantin said:


> Perfect, even better. Have the production company's legal department spend a month trying to figure out the specifics around the very firm "NO" that I expect from the PRS when someone asks for facilities to get the writers share.


Ha! Well that's an absolute and there are very rarely absolutes in the small print of legalise unfortunately.


----------



## shadowsoflight (Mar 14, 2022)

From the PRS website:

"We're committed to protecting the value of music and ensuring our members' rights are represented."

I'm sorry, but from my outsider perspective any redirection of a writer's share to a publisher is a failure on their part. It devalues music and allows the rights of its members to slip away. What rights do the members even have, if not to their writer's share? In fact, they should be *actively* working against this sort of thing, even if it makes "valid" redirections less convenient. Otherwise why exist at all?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 14, 2022)

shadowsoflight said:


> From the PRS website:
> 
> "We're committed to protecting the value of music and ensuring our members' rights are represented."
> 
> I'm sorry, but from my outsider perspective any redirection of a writer's share to a publisher is a failure on their part. It devalues music and allows the rights of its members to slip away. What rights do the members even have, if not to their writer's share? In fact, they should be *actively* working against this sort of thing, even if it makes "valid" redirections less convenient. Otherwise why exist at all?


No, you are right. It is basically PRS siding with one part of their membership against another. At best, it's weak. At worst, it's collusion.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 14, 2022)

chrisr said:


> @mat1 I have no wish to do that and would recommend others don't mention specific companies if they've experienced the same - it seems wrong and unwise to do so, which is why I haven't mentioned any company apart from the PRS. I'd rather address the response of the PRS, when we know it better. This is after all really a _PRS matter_, about what is/isn't possible within the framework of their organisation. Having started this thread to better understand how widespread this practice is, I don't want to add fuel to the fire of the approach amongst the media sector generally.


I would have thought it was clear that I wouldn't name the companies involved by...well, not naming them in my post!

I don't think any organisation involved in this comes out of it well - including the PRS.


----------



## SupremeFist (Mar 14, 2022)

Daryl said:


> Thanks, Adam. I don't think that's sufficient. Not by a long way.


Me neither. They need to say that they simply will not action requests to redirect writer's share back to the publishers or people will continue to be pressured to agree to this.


----------



## tsk (Mar 14, 2022)

shadowsoflight said:


> From the PRS website:
> 
> "We're committed to protecting the value of music and ensuring our members' rights are represented."
> 
> I'm sorry, but from my outsider perspective any redirection of a writer's share to a publisher is a failure on their part. It devalues music and allows the rights of its members to slip away. What rights do the members even have, if not to their writer's share? In fact, they should be *actively* working against this sort of thing, even if it makes "valid" redirections less convenient. Otherwise why exist at all?


That tweet from PRS... "For the avoidance of doubt" they say. "We'll be urgently contacting the children's company". To what? "to reinforce the point that they aren't authorised by PRS to encourage or action any re-assignment of royalties".

Oh ok, so the children's company can ask for it then, and they can make it part of their contract, and PRS can agree to the writer's "request" to reassign the royalties since it "came from a member".

At least we know where we stand now. So it's not possible to say something like:

*No writer is permitted to assign their writer's share or the royalties or income derived from such to any third party, ever*

But no, we get an obviously rushed out tweet trying to protect their precious self image without the help we really need.

I'm so sick of PRS trying to look helpful and 'nice'.


----------



## SupremeFist (Mar 14, 2022)

BooYah said:


> I would have thought it was clear that I wouldn't name the companies involved by...well, not naming them in my post!
> 
> I don't think any organisation involved in this comes out of it well - including the PRS.


I respect your decision, but out of interest — why not name them? Then if anyone is asked to work for them they can bring this up before writing a note and say they're not into it. Would help fellow composers, seemingly.


----------



## tsk (Mar 14, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I respect your decision, but out of interest — why not name them? Then if anyone is asked to work for them they can bring this up before writing a note and say they're not into it. Would help fellow composers, seemingly.


I would agree that naming helps us all, but I can understand them not wanting to name the company.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 14, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I respect your decision, but out of interest — why not name them? Then if anyone is asked to work for them they can bring this up before writing a note and say they're not into it. Would help fellow composers, seemingly.


Because it's not about a company trying to break any sort of law. This company knew something that many of us writer members didn't know: We seemingly have the power to assign the revenues from our royalties to a production company, if we desperately want to and have taken independent legal advice on the matter.

I don't think that this is about the companies asking - it's about the process being possible...

As someone said to me today: protecting composers from themselves!

If it helps, ask the question of all your clients. Just because they're perhaps not currently one of the companies taking this approach doesn't mean they won't soon be. .... or... don't ask ... for fear of alerting them to the opportunity.... 

That's a fresh dilemma which PRS writer members working on commission now face.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 14, 2022)

chrisr said:


> because it's not about a company trying to break any sort of law. This company knew something that many of us writer members didn't know: We seemingly have the power to assign the revenues from our royalties to a production company, if we desperately want to and have taken independent legal advice on the matter.
> 
> I don't think that this is about the companies asking - it's about the process being possible...
> 
> ...


It's ultimately not even about protecting composers from themselves. It's about being able to act in a fair and moral manner, without being able to be bullied by unscrupulous Publishers into doing something you don't wish to do.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 15, 2022)

Composers criticise Moonbug Entertainment’s rights demands


The company has been accused of demanding composers hand over their performing royalties before they can work with them




www.broadcastnow.co.uk


----------



## mat1 (Mar 15, 2022)

Hopefully the growing pressure on PRS will force them to close these kind of loopholes. Look what happened with the publishers share.. we all know where this ends up.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 15, 2022)

Beware The Ides of March is all I can say to the above.


----------



## clisma (Mar 15, 2022)

mat1 said:


> Composers criticise Moonbug Entertainment’s rights demands
> 
> 
> The company has been accused of demanding composers hand over their performing royalties before they can work with them
> ...


Fantastic. This is how you would hope PRS would have responded. Clearly marked intentions. Makes me doubly sad that we don't have a composer's union in the US.


----------



## tsk (Mar 15, 2022)

clisma said:


> Fantastic. This is how you would hope PRS would have responded. Clearly marked intentions. Makes me doubly sad that we don't have a composer's union in the US.


I'm glad they've been named. Why should we composers be so scared of speaking out and naming and shaming a company that carries out "underhand and coercive behavior", as stated by the chair of the Ivors Academy in that article.


----------



## RSK (Mar 15, 2022)

The problem is simple supply and demand. There are so many people who want to make money from writing and producing music that companies like Moonbug know they can (barring third-party intervention) negotiate writer's share with someone, whoever that someone might be. If you won't, someone else will. Music makers of all forms, whether rock songwriters or children's music composers, are so desperate to make a living from music that they will undercut everyone to their own detriment.

If I recall correctly something like 1/4 of the world's population are musicians, and we would all love nothing more than to do that for a career.

Another problems is that "quality" is a relative term when it comes to the arts. John Williams is obviously an exceptional composer when compared to the guy who did the latest B movie from Asylum, but do the people who run Moonbug know how to compare the quality of composers who are pitching to them? Probably not. So they're going to pick the guy who will give up some writer's share to them.

You would think that the fact it's called "Writer's share" would be a deterrent, but in such a highly competitive market, apparently not. With a company like this, the only thing that would potentially change this kind of behavior is if current and potential customers starting complaining that the music is really bad.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 15, 2022)

RSK said:


> The problem is simple supply and demand. There are so many people who want to make money from writing and producing music that companies like Moonbug know they can (barring third-party intervention) negotiate writer's share with someone, whoever that someone might be. If you won't, someone else will. Music makers of all forms, whether rock songwriters or children's music composers, are so desperate to make a living from music that they will undercut everyone to their own detriment.
> 
> If I recall correctly something like 1/4 of the world's population are musicians, and we would all love nothing more than to do that for a career.
> 
> ...


And let's face it, companies like this are counting on the average composer to be nieve to how the money flows. I was guilty myself in the past, until I did some homework and discovered I had indeed been royally screwed (and it was my own fault). For example, the first "major" production library I was commissioned with. I received an upfront fee to write the album, and just went ahead and signed the contract not knowing I had signed over everything except for 50% of the writers share because I was literally clueless, and too lazy to actually READ the documents. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement, but the key is to bring awareness to composers internationally how things should work so that we don't continue to get screwed.


----------



## pinki (Mar 15, 2022)

RSK said:


> The problem is simple supply and demand. There are so many people who want to make money from writing and producing music that companies like Moonbug know they can (barring third-party intervention) negotiate writer's share with someone, whoever that someone might be. If you won't, someone else will. Music makers of all forms, whether rock songwriters or children's music composers, are so desperate to make a living from music that they will undercut everyone to their own detriment.
> 
> If I recall correctly something like 1/4 of the world's population are musicians, and we would all love nothing more than to do that for a career.


No it's not "simple". That's how you are choosing to frame the issue. The "supply and demand" argument- sorry but ...yawn. No offence but I really don't agree with the "it all comes down x y z". We are talking about people fighting for their livelihoods and just because someone else is happy to take your job from you doesn't mean that it's OK and doesn't mean unscrupulous business people can strong arm individuals. We are no longer living in the Victorian era.


----------



## RSK (Mar 15, 2022)

pinki said:


> We are talking about people fighting for their livelihoods and just because someone else is happy to take your job from you doesn't mean that it's OK and doesn't mean unscrupulous business people can strong arm individuals.


I didn't say it was OK. Read the whole post before criticizing.


----------



## pinki (Mar 15, 2022)

RSK said:


> I didn't say it was OK. Read the whole post before criticizing.


The 'supply and demand argument' is what I'm criticising. Apologies if I implied you were saying malpractice is ok.


----------



## RSK (Mar 15, 2022)

Apology accepted.

But tell me, what else is going to embolden a company like this to ask for writer's share, and what else is going to make a composer afraid enough to agree to it? In both cases it's the idea that there's someone else waiting in the wings, ready to do it.


----------



## JonS (Mar 15, 2022)

chrisr said:


> I've just been told by a large production company that I must sign such a document to continue working with them.
> 
> The agreement itself essentially side-steps the "can't give away your writer's share" policy by saying "you keep the share, but agree to pay us any money arising from it in perpetuity"
> 
> ...


If any producer or production company or publishing company wants your Writer's Share I strongly advise you to tell them to "GO FVCK THEMSELVES!!" In no case should you ever sell any part of your writer's share of royalties unless a major publishing company is paying you a fortune for your entire catalog.


----------



## RSK (Mar 15, 2022)

JonS said:


> If any producer or production company or publishing company wants your Writer's Share I strongly advise you to tell them to "GO FVCK THEMSELVES!!" In no case should you ever sell any part of your writer's share of royalties unless a major publishing company is paying you a fortune for your entire catalog.


As much as I viscerally enjoy this response, it won't work if only a few people do it. There would have to be enough of us that the company in question realizes they would lose a significant portion of their future catalog.

Which brings us back to the point I made that there might be enough people desperate to "break into the business" that they would agree to terms that are detrimental even to themselves.

This is a critical point in the timeline of this business. If the PROs cave to the publishers, then it's going to get ugly for the very people who create the music. Like it or not the PROs are currently our best defense against this kind of malfeasance, and we need to pressure them to stand up for composers.


----------



## JonS (Mar 15, 2022)

RSK said:


> As much as I viscerally enjoy this response, it won't work if only a few people do it. There would have to be enough of us that the company in question realizes they would lose a significant portion of their future catalog.
> 
> Which brings us back to the point I made that there might be enough people desperate to "break into the business" that they would agree to terms that are detrimental even to themselves.
> 
> This is a critical point in the timeline of this business. If the PROs cave to the publishers, then it's going to get ugly for the very people who create the music. Like it or not the PROs are currently our best defense against this kind of malfeasance, and we need to pressure them to stand up for composers.


I completely agree with you.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 15, 2022)

Don't forget the huge global music company that is in partnership with the children's entertainment company - remember that they are overseeing the publishing and licensing of music for them.

There's a bigger picture here that concerns me far more.


----------



## Varishnipu (Mar 16, 2022)

Agreement is very beneficial for all…give publishers the monies since they have big responsibilities and they can pay composer after deductions for services….no more need to have composers for PROs


----------



## RSK (Mar 16, 2022)

Varishnipu said:


> Agreement is very beneficial for all…give publishers the monies since they have big responsibilities and they can pay composer after deductions for services….no more need to have composers for PROs


Let me apologize in advance for what is about to happen to you….


----------



## MauroPantin (Mar 16, 2022)

Varishnipu said:


> Agreement is very beneficial for all…give publishers the monies since they have big responsibilities and they can pay composer after deductions for services….no more need to have composers for PROs


"Pay composers after deductions". This genuinely made me laugh out loud. 

Yeah, let's leave it to the accountants. According to them Return of the Jedi never made a profit.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 16, 2022)

Varishnipu said:


> Agreement is very beneficial for all…give publishers the monies since they have big responsibilities and they can pay composer after deductions for services….no more need to have composers for PROs


Nice of the CEO of Moonbug to drop in here.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 18, 2022)

So, what I'd like to know about all of this is - did PRS grant the transfer of monies to some people composing for Moonbug?

I haven't looked at a statement from the PRS for ages - trust me it's not because I have so much money coming in from them! - but doing this for specific pieces of music is extremely problematic, no?

Easy enough doing it for a whole catalogue - but this is very different. 

It would be good to have answers from the PRS.

Although I do understand that they've been in prolonged legal action with three huge acts re underpayment of royalties.

Either way, the PRS' PR image isn't great.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 19, 2022)

BooYah said:


> So, what I'd like to know about all of this is - did PRS grant the transfer of monies to some people composing for Moonbug?
> 
> I haven't looked at a statement from the PRS for ages - trust me it's not because I have so much money coming in from them! - but doing this for specific pieces of music is extremely problematic, no?
> 
> ...



One time yes. They wouldn't expand on the exact reason for why but did say it was "exceptional" and fair. They have opened a massive can of worms with this for no good reason.


----------



## Kony (Mar 19, 2022)

I think composers should start asking for the publisher's share.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 20, 2022)

mat1 said:


> One time yes. They wouldn't expand on the exact reason for why but did say it was "exceptional" and fair. They have opened a massive can of worms with this for no good reason.


So a letter of direction from Moonbug was granted by the PRS? Odd how it would be seen as "exceptional" and fair. 

Surely they must have known that Moonbug would continue to exploit this.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 20, 2022)

BooYah said:


> So a letter of direction from Moonbug was granted by the PRS? Odd how it would be seen as "exceptional" and fair.
> 
> Surely they must have known that Moonbug would continue to exploit this.


No it was at the direction of the composer (for reasons unknown, maybe a massive buyout). PRS’s position is that it should be up to us.. I think so few people are using this option they should get rid of it and close that loophole.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Mar 20, 2022)

MauroPantin said:


> "Pay composers after deductions". This genuinely made me laugh out loud.
> 
> Yeah, let's leave it to the accountants. According to them Return of the Jedi never made a profit.



Thanks for the wiki link. I have even _more _respect for Eddie Murphy now!

Had no idea the depths of "Hollywood Accounting" were *this* absurd. I was only familiar with New Line screwing over Peter Jackson and the Tolkien estate. But the list of examples is....copious. I mean, the author of Forrest Gump, really? Does anyone seriously believe that movie made no money?


----------



## BooYah (Mar 20, 2022)

mat1 said:


> No it was at the direction of the composer (for reasons unknown, maybe a massive buyout). PRS’s position is that it should be up to us.. I think so few people are using this option they should get rid of it and close that loophole.


Well effectively, the letter of direction in the Moonbug contract is from the composer...so just to clarify, this particular instance was specifically to do with a composer working for Moonbug? 

The problem is that we have a massive dichotomy here between what the PRS told me (as in that they would never re-direct funds) and what they have clearly allowed to happen. 

They seriously need to sort themselves out.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 20, 2022)

BooYah said:


> Well effectively, the letter of direction in the Moonbug contract is from the composer...so just to clarify, this particular instance was specifically to do with a composer working for Moonbug?
> 
> The problem is that we have a massive dichotomy here between what the PRS told me (as in that they would never re-direct funds) and what they have clearly allowed to happen.
> 
> They seriously need to sort themselves out.



Yes my current understanding is that they don’t usually re-direct funds outside of say court orders/divorce/bankruptcy/management commission etc.

In that occasion they allowed a composer working for moonbug to re-direct his writers share for some reason which has opened this can of worms. They won’t share any more about the individual deal only that PRS deemed the circumstance as exceptional whatever that means!

Agree massively on your last point!


----------



## BooYah (Mar 21, 2022)

I hate to also slightly urinate on the response I've seen from the Ivors, PRS, the Broken Record campaign and the MU, although at least it's co-ordinated and collective.

My problem with it is that it seems a bit naive - I don't know if they think that Moonbug will be shamed into changing their ways. But, much as we see with our "wonderful" present UK government, we know that doesn't happen anymore. And there being two puff pieces about Moonbug in The Times and Time over the last week doesn't help...


----------



## tsk (Mar 21, 2022)

BooYah said:


> So, what I'd like to know about all of this is - did PRS grant the transfer of monies to some people composing for Moonbug?
> 
> I haven't looked at a statement from the PRS for ages - trust me it's not because I have so much money coming in from them! - but doing this for specific pieces of music is extremely problematic, no?
> 
> ...


If you think this Moonbug stuff is bad, I just looked up the PRS's response to the legal action you mentioned. Quotes from PRS's "formal legal response" are available in the press on the internet, and here is one:

_"The society’s defence document also adds that the organisation’s membership agreement “*does not … contain any express term requiring the [society] to adopt policies in a manner which is fair, reasonable or transparent, or to consult with right-holders who would be affected by the policies”*. Which is presumably true and possibly a legitimate defence to the Delicious Digital legal claim. Although, at the same time, it’s not a great thing to admit."_

Red color mine.

So there we go. We all have our answer. They have no obligation to be fair. No obligation to be transparent. And no obligation to right-holders affected by policies.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 22, 2022)

I'm actually referring to other legal action that's been going on a while re the PRS. Guess it's all keeping them busy...


----------



## tsk (Mar 22, 2022)

BooYah said:


> I'm actually referring to other legal action that's been going on a while re the PRS. Guess it's all keeping them busy...


Oh wow.. is that publicly available knowledge? Do you have a link to any articles on it? I'm very interested in seeing what else is going on.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 22, 2022)

It isn't...


----------



## BooYah (Mar 24, 2022)

So I guess this is all yesterday's news now.

My main issue with the whole thing is how hypocritical the PRS comes across as.

I don't expect Moonbug to act in the interests of composers.

But I do expect the PRS to.

So how the hell can they tell a composer (i.e. me) that there is no way that they would allow a letter of direction to be used in this manner when it clearly was allowed.

My understanding is that this was not a one-off...

I certainly have no trust in the PRS anymore.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 25, 2022)

Just in case anyone is interested:





__





PRS Council Election


I just wanted to let any PRS members know that I am standing for election to the PRS Council this year. The ballot has just opened, so feel free to read/watch my manifesto, and then, if you like what you hear, I'd be grateful for your support...




vi-control.net


----------



## tsk (Mar 25, 2022)

Daryl said:


> Just in case anyone is interested:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is kind of funny, I think Daryl has me on his ignore list on vi-control but I still voted for him in this election. I'm feeling very mature right now.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 25, 2022)

If I had signed the letter, PRS would have acted upon it.
I chose (and was advised) not to sign. I lost the work soley on the basis of declining to sign. It would be nice not to find myself in that position again in future, if that can be arranged. I'll be voting for Daryl.


----------



## Roger Newton (Mar 26, 2022)

chrisr said:


> If I had signed the letter, PRS would have acted upon it.
> I chose (and was advised) not to sign. I lost the work soley on the basis of declining to sign. It would be nice not to find myself in that position again in future, if that can be arranged. I'll be voting for Daryl.


This suggests that there will be some/many/a few writers that did sign. That's a big problem.


----------



## BooYah (Mar 26, 2022)

Nothing will be done about this by the PRS, as it's effectively the PRS up against Universal Music (the world's biggest music company), seeing as the latter look after the publishing/licensing re Moonbug.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 28, 2022)

BooYah said:


> Nothing will be done about this by the PRS, as it's effectively the PRS up against Universal Music (the world's biggest music company), seeing as the latter look after the publishing/licensing re Moonbug.


And, of course Universal gets an automatic seat on the PRS Council. No need to be elected for them, so in any PRS discussions they will only look after themselves.


----------



## chrisr (Mar 31, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> This suggests that there will be some/many/a few writers that did sign. That's a big problem.


Yes, I may be mistaken but I think the chap who subsequently landed one of the jobs that I was due to score is a PRS member of some years' standing, sadly. If I'm correct, then in taking the job it would imply that he, at least, has signed a LoD to PRS.

This distinctly reminds me of the equity advertising dispute of 97/98. I wasn't a member of equity, but worked in audio post production and consequently spoke with actors of various standing, including some of the main protagonists. The impression I got was that equity were really weak on the issue and conditions across the board subsequently deteriorated post '98, sadly.

If PRS could themselves lead strongly (or be made to lead strongly) on this matter, then that would be great.


----------



## BooYah (Apr 3, 2022)

The PRS allowed a fair amount of composers working for Moonbug to redirect their royalties whilst stating to others that they wouldn't allow this to happen.

Impossible for me to take any efforts of theirs seriously of leading - not that I can see any evidence that they are.

They are impotent as such.


----------



## BooYah (Apr 5, 2022)

Er...


----------



## BooYah (Apr 5, 2022)

As I said, you can't shame people who know no shame. 

And I'm afraid that I have to extend that to the PRS who have yet to acknowledge how much they've messed up with this whole situation. 

And they need to.


----------



## tsk (Apr 7, 2022)

BooYah said:


> As I said, you can't shame people who know no shame.
> 
> And I'm afraid that I have to extend that to the PRS who have yet to acknowledge how much they've messed up with this whole situation.
> 
> And they need to.


Completely agree. That guy, "we are all about compassion, empathy and resilience".. my god. The most horrible are usually the most hypocritical in my experience. Also, most of society is false, in my experience. 

The writing is on the wall. Production music is dying.


----------



## Roger Newton (Apr 7, 2022)

'we are all about marketing and maximum profits at the expense of everyone else'


----------



## Roger Newton (Apr 8, 2022)

tsk said:


> The writing is on the wall. Production music is dying.


Don't know about that. My PRS and MCPS this April has increased year on year and given CV19 that's pretty good in my book.


----------



## BooYah (Apr 8, 2022)

There'll come a point very soon where the bulk of royalties come from streaming rather than traditional TV viewing. 

In other words, replacing a pound with a penny.


----------



## ed buller (Apr 8, 2022)

BooYah said:


> There'll come a point very soon where the bulk of royalties come from streaming rather than traditional TV viewing.
> 
> In other words, replacing a pound with a penny.


ONLY if we let them !

best

e


----------



## BooYah (Apr 8, 2022)

The problem is, all the PROs did deals with streaming services such as Netflix a while ago, presumably falling for their bullshit that streaming will never rival the popularity of standard TV so only warranted paltry payout rates. 

More slow claps for the likes of PRS...


----------



## mat1 (Apr 8, 2022)

BooYah said:


> The PRS allowed a fair amount of composers working for Moonbug to redirect their royalties whilst stating to others that they wouldn't allow this to happen.
> 
> Impossible for me to take any efforts of theirs seriously of leading - not that I can see any evidence that they are.
> 
> They are impotent as such.


Is this confirmed?


----------



## BooYah (Apr 8, 2022)

Yes.


----------



## BooYah (Apr 25, 2022)

So, did anyone really expect Moonbug to respond? The silence from them has been deafening...


----------



## chrisr (Apr 26, 2022)

BooYah said:


> So, did anyone really expect Moonbug to respond? The silence from them has been deafening...


No, I definitely didn't expect a public response. I think their position is unchanged and they're just finding people who will work on their terms. I don't think they're struggling to find writers.

----------------

Personally I've realised that there are no rules in negotiation and it swings both ways. I _can_ work for peanuts and give everything away and I can also work for good money and keep everything I want. There_ are_ writers out there who are being quite smart about their business affairs and the public image that they present to the world, who _are_ getting good deals on great jobs. I need to become one of them. PRS _isn't_ my contractual safety net (in my case specifically, tens of thousands of pounds just slipped through said net as I lost both of the jobs I was about to sign for). I do seem to have had decent royalties through for a little while now and I'm pretty happy with that aspect thanks very much. Overall I still love PRS.

And it's sort of woken me up really - I can see that I'm going to have to move back away from the bottom of the market if I'm going to grow my career. It's better to have realised that sooner than later.


----------



## BooYah (Apr 27, 2022)

My understanding is that they're focusing more on recruiting new US writers as opposed to UK composers...


----------



## RSK (Apr 27, 2022)

BooYah said:


> My understanding is that they're focusing more on recruiting new US writers as opposed to UK composers...


They can take a long walk off a tall skyscraper.


----------



## MIkemoran (May 8, 2022)

mat1 said:


> Yes my current understanding is that they don’t usually re-direct funds outside of say court orders/divorce/bankruptcy/management commission etc.
> 
> In that occasion they allowed a composer working for moonbug to re-direct his writers share for some reason which has opened this can of worms. They won’t share any more about the individual deal only that PRS deemed the circumstance as exceptional whatever that means!
> 
> Agree massively on your last point!


Hi mat1 I am also dealing with Moonbug and have not signed anything as yet having been under pressure from them for a couple of years at least. We have engaged the services of Lee & Thompson solicitors to try and resist the buyout model but I am not optimistic about how far we will get. I agree that the MU, PRS and Ivors Academy are making a lot of noise but I don't think there is much real protection.


----------



## mat1 (May 8, 2022)

MIkemoran said:


> Hi mat1 I am also dealing with Moonbug and have not signed anything as yet having been under pressure from them for a couple of years at least. We have engaged the services of Lee & Thompson solicitors to try and resist the buyout model but I am not optimistic about how far we will get. I agree that the MU, PRS and Ivors Academy are making a lot of noise but I don't think there is much real protection.


Are you in the Scorecast FB group? the PRS guys are in their, sounds like it's time to bump the subject again!


----------



## chrisr (May 8, 2022)

Sounds like I should really join the scorecast group too.

Interesting to hear that @MIkemoran. This year was the first time I've been asked. Previously I kept writers' without dispute. Obviously I walked away, as there didn't seem to be a third option to explore, as far as i could see, other than having PRS alter their current process.

Very happy to chat/compare notes, if you'd like to.


----------



## mat1 (May 8, 2022)

Definitely join. There was quite a long thread but it sounds like the PRS rep was either misinformed or just telling porkies.


----------



## BooYah (May 8, 2022)

MIkemoran said:


> Hi mat1 I am also dealing with Moonbug and have not signed anything as yet having been under pressure from them for a couple of years at least. We have engaged the services of Lee & Thompson solicitors to try and resist the buyout model but I am not optimistic about how far we will get. I agree that the MU, PRS and Ivors Academy are making a lot of noise but I don't think there is much real protection.


Hi Mike, are you saying that you were under pressure from Moonbug re the redirection of writers' royalties for a few years? My understanding was that they only implemented the redirection clause in contracts at the behest of Universal Music, who began to oversee the publishing and licensing for Moonbug around this time last year. 

The MU, PRS and Ivors are extremely ineffectual in dealing with all of this, although the PRS have been very good at pointedly telling some members not to sign whilst accepting the redirection letter from others.


----------



## Daryl (May 9, 2022)

MIkemoran said:


> Hi mat1 I am also dealing with Moonbug and have not signed anything as yet having been under pressure from them for a couple of years at least. We have engaged the services of Lee & Thompson solicitors to try and resist the buyout model but I am not optimistic about how far we will get. I agree that the MU, PRS and Ivors Academy are making a lot of noise but I don't think there is much real protection.


The only people with any power are PRS. They have the right to refuse any assignment. You agreed to that when you joined. Everyone else is just a waste of hot air. It's PRS that has to refrain from giving your money away to others.


----------



## BooYah (May 9, 2022)

But they haven't been refusing any redirections re Moonbug. 

And as pointed out earlier, who has an automatic seat on the PRS council? Universal Music.


----------



## Daryl (May 9, 2022)

BooYah said:


> But they haven't been refusing any redirections re Moonbug.
> 
> And as pointed out earlier, who has an automatic seat on the PRS council? Universal Music.


Exactly.


----------



## chrisr (May 10, 2022)

mat1 said:


> Definitely join. There was quite a long thread but it sounds like the PRS rep was either misinformed or just telling porkies.


I'm in as of this morning, thanks  

I will look for that thread later and chime in if I think it's of any use.

Recognise a lot of friends and acquaintances there, not many of whom actually live in London - although they mostly did at some stage.


----------



## chrisr (May 10, 2022)

mat1 said:


> Definitely join. There was quite a long thread but it sounds like the PRS rep was either misinformed or just telling porkies.


Hey @mat1 - I've read it all now and commented over there - somewhere in the middle, in reply to Dru, sorry that probably wasn't the most helpful place for me to speak.

For what it's worth I didn't see any misinformation or lies from PRS?

Noted the thoughts from TB speculating that members might want PRS to "parent" them. It was an interesting choice of words from him that doesn't bode well for the prospects of effecting change from within, I fear.

@Daryl l - I was just looking for the words you quoted below - can't find them up on the PRS website anywhere... have they been removed/changed or am I just a bit rubbish at looking?? 



Daryl said:


> So this is no longer true:
> 
> About PRS for Music​_PRS for Music _represents the rights of over 160,000 songwriters, composers, and music publishers in the UK and around the world. On behalf of its members, it works to grow and protect the value of their rights and ensure that creators are paid transparently and efficiently whenever their musical compositions and songs are streamed, downloaded, broadcast, performed and played in public.


----------



## Daryl (May 10, 2022)

chrisr said:


> @Daryl l - I was just looking for the words you quoted below - can't find them up on the PRS website anywhere... have they been removed/changed or am I just a bit rubbish at looking??


https://www.prsformusic.com/press/2022/prs-for-music-announces-philip-glass-themed-composer-development-initiative
Down the bottom of the page


----------



## chrisr (May 10, 2022)

Daryl said:


> https://www.prsformusic.com/press/2022/prs-for-music-announces-philip-glass-themed-composer-development-initiative
> Down the bottom of the page


phew... thanks. Looking forward to hearing the ballot results in a couple of weeks - I expect you already know but are obligated to remain tight lipped. Wishing you the best whatever.


----------



## Daryl (May 10, 2022)

I don't know anything. More's the pity.


----------

