Bermuda Music Group Warns Of Licence Issues
The Bermuda Music Users’ Group [BMUG] is advising local companies to “carefully consider” any licensing agreements that are proposed to their organization by the UK’s Performance Rights Society [PRS], which in June 2013 was granted a permit, to operate in Bermuda.
BMUG spokesman Mr. Ben Fairn said, “BMUG cannot advise local companies on whether they should or should not sign a licensing agreement with PRS. BMUG is however advising Bermuda companies and organizations that may require licensing agreements for the use of copyrighted music to exercise extreme caution when considering any license fees proposed by PRS.
BMUG said they believe that Bermuda is “being targeted as part of PRS’ growth strategy as evidenced by objectives listed in the International Licensing Services Manager job description [PDF] which reads in part “to drive the maximization amount of income through the society network and via new business opportunities outside the UK to meet the ‘licensing, collections and tariffs’ objectives of the International Growth Strategy.”
BMUG said, “In the past PRS has had few licenses in Bermuda, primarily targeting broadcasters, hotels and large restaurant chains. They now seem intent on exploiting the terms of the 2004 Copyright Act, which requires Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory its companies and organizations that use copyrighted music to purchase a license from PRS.
“PRS’ current campaign includes an expanded target list including Government entities, schools, charities, concert promoters and any business that uses copyrighted music to entertain their workers or clients even if it is just on their answering service.
“The BMUG’s primary concern is that PRS is attempting to impose UK terms and licensing rates on the Bermuda market without full disclosure and transparency or consultation with Bermuda industry stakeholders.
“PRS has the right to license users of copyrighted music in Bermuda, but there is no requirement that Bermuda business or charities must accept the rates or fees requested or applied in the UK.
“In the instance where a Bermuda business or charity does not agree with the rates or terms proposed by PRS, that business or charity has the right to have the rates, fees and terms reviewed by the Copyright Tribunal, a Government board that has yet to be convened.
“PRS has also indicated to some firms and charities that they will offer them protection from retroactive fees if they sign immediately. This threat of an unknown financial liability, to force acceptance of their UK published fee structure shows their intent to take advantage of local organizations which presume they must accept what appears to be approved terms and fees, and its not. Again, BMUG is looking for a professional approach and proper transparency and disclosure.
Mr Fairn said, “We believe it is equally appropriate for BMUG to form a collective to negotiate rates and terms that will be in the best interest of Bermuda residents that stand to pay millions to a foreign agency with virtually no income circulating back to Bermuda artists.
“There are currently more than a hundred local artists that compose and perform their music here on the island, and they have never been approached by PRS in their lifetime, and yet the fees being collected on their behalf go directly to London. This has been going on for many years, and so you would understand why there is concern.”
If in fact this is the beginning of a major licensing campaign of expanded scope and potential new cost to Bermuda businesses, BMUG said they “would suggest that PRS should stand-down from its divide and conquer approach to individual businesses, apply some transparency and disclosure and work with the BMUG to negotiate how terms and License fees will be applied in the Bermuda market.”
The Bermuda Music Users Group urges any business owner, charity, school, church and organization interested in learning more about this topic to attend their next meeting to be held Wednesday, 27th of November at 5:30pm at the Bermuda Chamber of Commerce. At that time BMUG will provide an update and discuss the formation of industry specific sub-committees to consider their collective bargaining position.
Read More About
Category: All, Entertainment, Music, News
who else besides Bermuda is being screwed to play broadcasted music on their radios?
Just about every other country. Some stations here already do pay. The others in Bermuda will surely follow, It’s just a matter of time. Agreeing on a percentage of sales is what is coming.
I don’t understand the issue.
A radio station pays royalties to play a song. A car manufacturer buys aluminum to build a car. The radio station sells advertising time to cover the cost of the royalty. The car manufacturer sells the car to a taxi company.
Now, the PRS wants to charge the business that plays the radio? After the artist has been paid through the royalties paid by the radio station? Isn’t that called double dipping?
Should the taxi have to pay the aluminum company?
It makes no sense to me.
EW
Oh well, it’s not as if any of you lot much in the way of tax is it? The rest of the world does this as standard for copyrighted creative material, don’t make out that you’re so special…
The rest of the world does NOT do this to the degree being proposed. Shops that tune in a radio for the enjoyment of their customers in other countries do NOT pay roylaties. As Edmund notes above, royalties have already been paid. This is extortionism and opporturism on the part of some quasi-legit, profit-seeking, overseas entity. Nobody should pay anything till firm rate cards are in place for different categories of Bermuda business… schools and charities and most retail outlets should pay NOTHING.
Yes they do. Shops and other businesses that play copyrighted material, whether it’s radio or CDs or whatever, DO pay royalties in other countries. They have had to do it for years.
It’s not extortion. Shops and businesses have a choice. If they don’t want to pay for a licence, just don’t play music at your business. But if you want to play copyrighted music, pay the royalty licence, like everywhere else in the world.
Shops presumably play music to make their premises more enticing. There is an economic benefit to that, for which they should pay the copyright owners.
Ms. Quattro-
If the shop owner purchases a CD, and a portion of the cost covers royalties, should the shop owner pay again to play the CD in her store? Didn’t the shop owner purchase a license when they bought the disc?
How is radio any different, except that the radio station has purchased the license? The shop owner has no control the songs played by the radio station, and the artist has been paid.
This could be taken to extremes. For example, when their music is played in the store, the artist benefits from a larger audience hearing their compositions, which may well generate sales of more licenses (CDs). If so, should the artist pay the shop owner a commission for promoting their music, and the sale of those licenses? And should the artist pay the radio station for playing their tunes, which generated the additional CD sales?
EW
just like young dro said fdb take dat back to England
Bermudians have gotten away with breaking copyright laws for many years. Even the guys selling cd’s of foreign artists have made loads of money doing so.
PRS, you would/will never get a dime from me! I will listen to what I want When I want How I want and with whomever I want.