So did I, until I stumbled across this video: http://haznos.org/assista-este-video-e-conclua-voce-nao-sabe-tocar-violao-video/ Now something that really calls my atention apart from his incredible abillity to play guitar is his incredible similarity with Van Deisel
Wow!, fantastic, it has gone straight to my favourites.
In my opinion, I think the best response to unfair negative comments is to show some restraint, I really think that when people come up with rude overly harsh comments they just show themselves up, we all know that this is a very strong and supportive community here and we can all see when someone is just being “poisonous”.
Thanks YanD, that’s kind of what I thought, so isn’t the issue that if you want to broadcast music you should have the appropriate license? If a piece of music is broadcasted and the creator is non PRS registered, the PRS still collect a set license fee from the broadcaster it’s just that non of it will get to the musician. I was under the impression that the PRS uses cue sheets to work out what share of the collective pot a registered member is entitled to based on airplay etc rather than to work out how much to charge the broadcaster. I admit that I’m not sure how it all works, and now I’m wondering what royalty free actually means! But I don’t think that anyone should be at a disadvantage because they are a member of a PRS .Not entirely, PRS will only require a license if the broadcaster broadcasts music that is PRS registered. They CANNOT issue a license for music that they do not represent. But you are correct if a broadcaster is paying a blanket license because they use PRS controlled music and then they also use (alongside the prs registered music) NON PRS music they will still issue the same license. In other words the broadcaster quite unfairly pays for everything. In this perculiar instance the money for those tracks that are non prs registered goes into a pot and stays there and if no one collects it after a certain period of time, it get’s distributed amongst the high end artists….isn’t that cr*ppy! BUT you can get your hands on it if you have a publisher. That should be nice and confusing!!I was under the impression that the PRS uses cue sheets to work out what share of the collective pot a registered member is entitled to based on airplay etc rather than to work out how much to charge the broadcaster.Your right that is how it works, the production house should fill out the cue sheet or inform the broadcaster of the creative talents so that PRS knows how to distribute the money. This is where most PRS money fails to reach the composer as cue sheets are not filed every time due to laziness so the composer misses out. Sad but true.I’m wondering what royalty free actually means! But I don’t think that anyone should be at a disadvantage because they are a member of a PRS .It’s not a very accurate term I’m afraid. The origins of this term and a more correct term would be more like ‘sync fee free music’ (just trips of the tongue!) as it was originally designed for production houses to be able to sync music to visuals without payingt high fees. It’s free of royalties for production houses. A composer can opt out of being MCPS registered but remain PRS registered. Unless it’s totally non prs then it’s free for everyone (unless they already pay a blanket license to PRS LOL !) Don’t forget that MCPS exists for ‘Production Music’ which a similar thing but the prices are higher than royalty free music because royalty free music had evolved and prices have been steadily pushed through the floor….next step free yippee!! oh hang…that means that no composer get’s any money…boooooo BTW it’s a whole different ball park for different countries just confuse things more. In my opinion the best thing to be if you are selling truely royalty free music is not to be registered with any of the PRO ’s that way your clients know exactly where they stand (which I think is the point of this thread). I hope that explains some of it, please correct me if I have made any mistakes in my explanation.
Can you repeat that please?
No seriously, cheers, I think I understand . But it is just in the case of broadcasting yes? so if someone is broadcasting something then they should be paying a license. However, if they are just using some royalty free music as part of some other creation, wether it be drum loop as part of their own original track, or a music track as part of a film, they don’t have to pay anything else, in the first case the drum loop becomes a part of their own creation, in the second case, if the film is being broadcast the broadcaster will have a license anyway. Is this right?