In the UK today, PPL and PRS for Music license the use of music and
collect royalties for the music industry.  Separate organisations,
they represent different rights holders and have different licences,
tariffs, terms and conditions.

PPL collects and distributes money for the use of recorded music on
behalf of record companies and performers.  PRS for Music collects and
distributes money for the use of the musical composition and lyrics on
behalf of authors, songwriters, composers and publishers.  Typically,
a licence is required from both organisations to play recorded music
in public.

PPL and PRS monitor performances, recordings, broadcasts, venues,
premises and music web sites.  They cold call anybody deemed capable
of infringement and send out unsolicited invoices and licence
applications.  They warn alleged infringers of legal action and
pursue them through debt collection agencies.  Their inspectors, on
commission, make anonymous and surprise visits.  Questions have been
asked in Parliament about their methods.

PPL and PRS foster the impression that they have official status and
are required to act by the Government, but this is false -- there is
no UK Government sanction for such bodies.  The licences they issue are
private licences.  They are commercial companies.  They were not set up
for the benefit of musicians, but by publishers and record companies to
reap huge returns from public performances.  Until 1996 PPL did not pay
royalties directly to performers.  Their directors receive six-figure
salaries.  Their members, as has been said, receive only small
percentages.

While in the UK "deliberate infringement of copyright on a commercial
scale may be a criminal offence" (Government's own words), PPL and PRS
cannot themselves start criminal proceedings but can only take civil
action for dues, and only on behalf of their own members: they cannot
charge for music whose copyright owner is not one of their members,
and must prove membership if asked.  And they must prove that an
alleged infringer has played music by one of their members.

In the past there were not just two UK royalty collection companies,
and in the future, especially with developments in China, there could
again be more, each with their own members and repertoire for which
they will all legitimately pursue dues.  It's not hard to imagine the
ramifications.

In fact, non-specific blanket licensing will probably disappear, each
performance having to be listed individually and agreed fees sent
direct to copyright owners, as broadcasters already do.  This is not
difficult with today's digital streaming and connectivity, even for
stores, factories, restaurants, etc.  Songwriters, composers and
performers can only benefit.  Many already monitor the internet for
use of their music.

This is apposite, since musicians are increasingly making their music
available completely free online, bypassing the traditional music
publishers and record companies.  They enjoy contagious exposure and
find that the public will in fact readily pay them direct for high
audio quality discs, merchandise, scores and performances.

Patrick Handscombe
Wivenhoe, Essex, UK