Navigation

Home

Sign the Petition

View list of Signatures

Campaign Blog

766 Total Signatures

Please sign your name to our campaign to insist PRS put this wide-reaching and incredibly controversial decision to a full vote.

Name	Comments
Joe Hague	Isn't earning a decent living through music difficult enough, without schemes like this lining the pockets of the already well established and privileged few. I have no problem with composers getting well paid for high profile work. With the downturn in other sectors of the music industry, we need to keep as many places and opportunities for talented people, who need this revenue to keep doing what they have worked so hard to do.
Mark Sellar	This is a digusting proposal which is unfair in the extreme.
Sebastian Morawietz	No Comment
Rob Miller	Cool site.
Bernie Holland	PRS should be acting in the interests of all its members and not just a selected few - this is all reminiscent of the PAMRA scam
Ian Dolamore	It's hard enough to make a living as a composer, this scheme makes it even harder.
andy hardwick	No Comment
Richard Heacock	No Comment
Junzhe	music is to be enjoyed by all. i disagree holding all music lovers at ransom for loving their music thumbs down to PRS
david a.nash	what a crock of s***! this suggestion will cripple up & coming writer. yeah! go PRS! how can you expect writers to establish themselves. a 6 hour window to make a living. it's not going to happen! you thieves!
Ally mac	Really bang off the whole point of a protective body! isnt the charter of the PRS to "protect" songwriters, not enable inequality in governing the members unfairly. Do the" PRIME TIME" composers deserve a "pay rise" when the whole point of this argument is that they are already earning a decent fee for being prime time composers! but smaller comps/writers are already finding that making a living from music difficult enough, without the people who they believe were voted on the board to protect them, now move the goal posts. bang out of order, and way off the mark. Question is, can the board be replaced by others who have a more vested interest in ALL music composers being fairly rewarded ? or will be nugget out, nugget in! peace to all
Uwe Buschkoetter ( UBM RECORDS)	I agree.
lars usi	No Comment
Danny Lee Ramsey	No Comment
S Howe	No Comment
Paul Stanway	as if the structure isn't geared solely towards the succesful few enough already - total insanity. do you want any new talent to emerge? if so, stop taking money from them and giving it to the ones who already have too much
Maggie O'Keeffe	No Comment
Paul Wheatley	No Comment
Jack Oughton	No Comment
David Lidgett	No Comment
Stephen Woods	The idea is an absolute disgrace
Keith Hopwood	So much for transparency within the PRS. The initial consultation and sounding out of this idea, and the writers involved are well hidden. If the graveyard slot was the concern, then that should have been the time period addressed. Instead, with this sledgehammer approach, it affects all hard working composers whose work is aired mainly in daytime hours. Should be an interesting AGM. Full vote please.
Brandon James	Count me in...
Chesney Hawkes	No Comment
Tim Hart	No Comment
Daniel Sherman	No Comment
Janet Yasmin James	No Comment
Lars H. Jensen	No Comment
Taylor Smith	No Comment
Gil Cang	No Comment
victoria Horn	i strongly support this proposal and urge others to sign as well! I run the song writers awareness collective on facebook that informs songwriters all about the ins and out on the industry as well as following legal cases within the industry.. including the much hidden reduced rates legal battle that goes to congress in october between the publishers and record companies.. plz feel free to join.. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6018451726
Rick Juckes	No Comment
Peter Green	The only way the current PRS board could save any dignity or come close to regaining the trust of the membership would be to either establish a 3-tier system immediately or better still put the issue to a full vote of all members. The longer they leave it the more out of touch they appear. The board should be ashamed of the way they handled this whole issue. I applaud the people behind this website and completely endorse Paul in his fight. At last someone actually looking out for our interests.
James Young	Fail to understand the motive for this decision. If the board won't reverse it, they should at least acknowledge the dissatifaction of the membership and put it to the vote.
Marc Sylvan	I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in this petition. The fact that programmes airing at 5:30pm on BBC1 Saturday night are valued at the same rate as those airing at 3am on a Tuesday morning is extremely unfair. The fact that children’s programming is brutally slammed by this two tier system is disastrous for those composing in that field. The policy clearly has significant shortcomings and all the while it continues, many composers are being unjustly deprived of their incomes. I gather the PRS Board has been instructed to listen more to its members and I trust this significant petition will make them do just that.
Ernie Wood	Thankyou for bringing this up, Paul. I thought I was the only composer in TV that thought this was pretty unfair! And while we're at it, what about TV commissioning contracts that insist you publish with them or you don't get the job? What's the PRS doing about that?!
John Worth	Ellis Rich and Peter Knight , I know from personal experience, are upright honest men. If they have proposed you as a writer director thats good enough for me. I will welcome your voice and opinions at board level. I support your proposals fully. Its proper that our representatives should not be self promoting toadies. You've got my vote and may the songs go with you!
Stephen Patman	As a composer of music for television I agree that there should be a weighting to reflect the audience size at time of broadcast but to include all airplay outside of 'primetime' in one bracket is ridiculous. Daytime viewing is far greater than in the middle of the night. It would be far more representative to have one low rate bracket between midnight and 8am and the rest of the day at the higher rate. These all-night quiz shows playing constant music when no one is watching are just sucking up royalties from composers who's music is being played when there are viewers.
con Fitzpatrick	None
David Brockett	I compose mainly for CBBC so this new scheme really effects my earnings from PRS in a negative way.The proposal at the very least should have been put to a vote by all members.
Robert David Hartley	No Comment
matt coldrick	The decision to create the tier system of TV royalty rates is an appalling mis-use of power . It has created an unfair system and has been enforced without the consent of the PRS membership at large. It benefits a tiny minority for no visible reason other than greed. At a time when more and more TV composers depend on royalties to prop up the diminishing budgets created by a proliferation of programmes and channels it flies in the face of reason to the point of being suspicious .
John McCabe	No Comment
Ian Boddy	Your website address states the obvious - a fair deal for composers - that's ALL composers which is what the PRS should always seek to achieve.
Cliff Haywood	I do not agree with the primetime payment system.
Peter Moss	Disgusting
Sam Moreton	No Comment
Richard Gower	Any major fundamental changes,or cotroversial decisions regarding `The Performing Right`s Society`s` policy must be put to the membership (full members) the current board should not, and indeed must not take unilateral decisions that affect the `PRS society` without majority agreement from`The Members`
Simon Woodgate	No Comment
Jonathan Jowett	As a full PRS writer members I am upset the Board have pulled a fast one over the hard working membership. To stem the fall in income they have come up with a "primetime" rate. Many writers get a small cut of prime time play - now the incentive will be for a further shift to royalty free music during primetime. What a bunch of tossers!
Samuel R Sutton	I too felt there was not enough consultation on this matter and would have favoured an opportunity to vote on the issue.
Andrew Powell	Yet another badly thought-through decision from what is supposed to be "our" Society. Can anyone prove that there are more people watching TV in Britain at 11.30 p.m. on any weeknight than at 2 p.m. on a Saturday or Sunday? Re-think this decision!
Stephen Chadwick	This new scheme has totally devalued the role of composers in anything outside of prime time and in particular children's tv. It is the latest in a long trend, beginning with the departure of collecting royalties from theatres and smaller concert halls. I would like to see more balance, supporting the whole industry and not just the main music publishers which is were most of prime time goes. Surely it's the healthy option?
Rowland Lee	I was initially supportive of the move to lower rates for the "graveyard slot", feeling that this would be fair, but I now feel seriously let down by the Board of the PRS who appear to have used this move as a smokescreen in order to introduce this invidious policy of primetime weighting. Was this their plan all along, one wonders? The Board, who one might reasonably expect to protect the interests of the membership, have effectively forced a swingeing pay cut on a large number of people who frequently have to subsidise the production costs of their music from their royalty income. The two-tier system which has now been created should be abandoned immediately and those who have lost out should be re-imbursed at the PRS' expense. A motion of no confidence in the current Board should be tabled for the next AGM.
Paul Honey	No Comment
Marten Joustra	No Comment
Dave Howman	This is terrible news for daytime and kids composers. TV companies budgets have been slashed, its got so bad that the last kids show I did cost me in the region of £2,000 and this was for a major ITV series........And they all want the publishing! I'm lucky inasmuch as I do primetime stuff as well, Palin's Himalaya etc, but my main living is doing kids stuff and relying on the PRS to make up for the pathetic fees will not now be an option. Good on you for making a stand, and lets hope we can get this dire rule changed before we all have to get jobs in McDonalds.
Maurice Cheetham	There are enough 3rd party crooks in this business keeping our income from us without the body that is supposed to be representing our interests doing the same.
Graham Pike	No Comment
Ted Dicks	PRS should be a democratic institution and not biased towards an elected elite.
Ian Curnow	No Comment
Ivo Eloi	I'm in
Hazel	No Comment
Josie Alison	How dare they?!
Tom Davenport	No Comment
Stacy Evans	absolutely ridiculous and greedy.
Junod Etienne	No Comment
Alan Vranic	No Comment
John Harvey	good luck!
Frank McLaughlin	No Comment
marcus flynn	No Comment
James Harrington	I signed this petition ages ago and reading through the list of famous and not so famous name indicates to me that everybody feels exactly the same but has the PRS board listened to all of these comments? as the signings aren't dated it is difficult to tell if any progress has been made to rectify this outrageous policymy recent PRS and MCPS payments seem to me to indicate that daytime plays on BBC 1 and BBC2 have halved in value.if I was starting up now I couldn't afford to be a composer and yet I have had a large amount of airtime in 2007(dated 13/12/2007)
John Paul McCormick	This is a totally unfair and wrong decision. Those like myself, who are trying to make a living out of composing music for tv and film, find it hard enough, never mind when our pay is being slashed. "Fair Deal for ALL Composers please!!!"
damien O'Hora	No Comment
Scarlet P	Well there you have it folks. The PRS board taking not a bit of notice and doing exactly what it wants to do in the face of qualified criticism. There is no justification to employ this policy. If the broacasters hadn't been found out as being nefarious with their phone in scams, then the game shows wouldn't have been rolled back as such, and things would have continued as normal. This policy didn't do a damn thing for the graveyard music and it was just a ruse to employ this nefarious policy. Don't think it will stop there. Just what did your voices and complaints do? - absolutely nothing as you can't break the voting cartel which sees board members being elected time and time again to make a policy like this at the expense of sectors of the membership who can least afford it. It is interesting reading Steve Porter's (Chief Executive of the MCPS-PRS-Alliance) analysis (page16 in issue 25 September 2007) of the alliance's M (members music magazine) where he states "...standing together to ensure the best interests of those they represent" "......Publishers, writers.....need to stand together like never before". "We need to regularly sit down with each other, talk to each other, understand each other and find common ground and solutions...." blah, blah, blah, blah and all the rest of the rhetoric in this and previous issues. Well Steve you didn't sit down with us to discuss this issue and it appears you didn't sit down with all those making comments in this petition. You may have sat down with a SELECT few for "lip service" and took no notice, but the membership comprises of the ENTIRE membership not just a SELECT few. Your comments in text are hypocritical to say the least especially where the distribution pool under this Prime Time policy is being directed to a favoured few within the membership due to their success and position. The ENTIRE membership gives PRS the strength to go out and obtain the licence money where good governance has to be with fair policy and fair equitable distribution on a level playing field basis which this policy is not. We fully appreciate that the music industry is changing, but revenue coming into The Alliance does not need to be carved up under unfair policies such as this to top up the income of those who are already successful at the expense of others who are not as yet fortunate to be in the same league earning capacity wise. There is a mass of unemployed people who watch TV during the daytime, parents and children watching TV during the daytime, with elderly and retired people watching TV during the daytime, etc, etc. For PRS too denigrate music in this is not preserving the value of music and this is a flawed and absolutely disgusting policy. All this nonsense about it being reviewed - PRS will adopt the usual stance of this being a "storm in a teacup" and hope it will die. Well PRS members it is up to you all to keep this debate alive to change this policy and to ensure that your rights are not eroded further. If you let apathy prevail then you will suffer the consequences and this is what they will hope for.
john mccauley	we must have an even playing field
Henry Readhead	No Comment
Adrian York	If the PRS wishes to give the impression that it is run by a small clique of people who only look after the interests of major writers and publishers, then it has succeeded. This undemocratic decision will cost me thousands of pounds. The PRS board should be ashamed.
Jack Chapple	No Comment
Louis Borenius	Having donated eleven million Quids worth of our money-that's eleven million pounds -to an obviously incompetent-if not fraudelent-I.T company a few years ago Prs now seems set upon reducing existing members -and future members-rates-to a level that would result in absolute penury -save for those few members whose names are Macca ,John,and Gallgher. Mind you ,upon mature reflection I wouldn't mind the last mentioned being reduced to penury-butr you get my point.
Mike Collins	This scheme is totally unfair to the composers whose rates willbe slashed.
Dave Cooke	I have wanted to write this letter as soon as I found out about the rather ridiculous and heavy-handed decision by PRS to split their TV Royalties into Peak and Off-Peak. Having now received the first royalty statement where this has been implemented, I have decided to write an open letter expressing my views. First of all, I must protest that this decision was taken without any real consultation from Full members, and there was no opportunity either to vote, or decide democratically whether it was a good idea, or one that was justified. The fact that it was made, with no choice or option either to protest or be given an alternative, was extreme to say the least. When I enquired about this earlier to the PRS, I was told that the decision had something to do with the ever growing night time quiz shows that use wall to wall music. If that is the case, then why not offer an Off peak time of Midnight to 6 am instead of the huge block of the entire Daytime schedule? The reason that I am so annoyed at this decision is quite simple; I have been very fortunate to work for BBC and ITV for many years on Drama, Features, Documentaries, and Children’s programmes. Apart from the very odd occasions, virtually all of the programmes with which I have been involved have been transmitted from 7am through to around 6 pm. Now called Off Peak, on BBC 1, 2 and ITV. Because I have been able to calculate the rates of royalties received, I have also been able to keep production fees to a manageable and attractive budget size, hopefully encouraging clients to offer me the music commission. As the percentage of my overall fees would be paid as royalties and not as part of the production, this seemed like good working practice wherever possible. Now what is to happen? Are we meant to go back to our clients and tell them that as our royalties have decreased considerably, so we must increase our production budgets? I can hear them laughing now as they reject this silly suggestion, especially in light of ever decreasing budgets over the whole of the industry. Furthermore, I was told by a PRS representative that this decision would be reviewed after a period of perhaps a year, despite the fact that they have calculated the new rates for the next three years. If they decide to go back to the original rates, will we get a “refund” on the money we had lost during this uncertain and silly season? The BBC and ITV have been clearly working hard to build up their respective daytime TV programming, attempting to make it as attractive as possible to as many viewers as they can. This also affects the amount of potential work available to media Composers like myself. But there is a great deal of difference between writing specially composed themes and incidental music for a commissioned programme, and music being picked off the shelf, as library music background loops that has no relevance or meaning to the overall programme,. So why are we expected to be included in the same arbitrary time slot? If we are to follow this argument through to it’s logical conclusion, then we might as well just write for the thousands of library companies out there, and not bother with commissioned music at all. The few hours that have been unwisely described as “Peak” don’t appear either to attract more viewers or offer Media composer better opportunity to be given commissions. This decision in practice gives literally a handful of media Composers considerably more royalties with the mainstay of composers writing for pretty much all of the TV music out there, getting considerably less. And who gets the difference? Will PRS be sitting on these funds earning interest of the money that we should be receiving? Will it be redistributed at a later stage? To add insult to confusion, my latest statement not only indicated BBC1 and BBC2 Off peak rates, but also CBBC Off Peak!! What is that all about?? Not only is CBBC, BBC3, BBC4 etc calculated on a sample time basis, they are also throwing the Off peak rate at those too. How utterly ridiculous and thoughtless. So who is benefiting from this decision? Certainly not the off peak writers. Maybe the small number of Peak writers and most definitely the PRS. The Broadcasters? Are they paying less to the royalty societies? It would also be pertinent to ask who were the specific people that made this decision in the first place and why? Were they by any chance writers who would benefit from the peak royalties? I would like to think that there are other Media Composers out there who feel the same way, and who would be moved to put pen to paper and write their objections to this silly, miscalculated and misguided decision. This is the way we earn our fees. With the threat of more progarmmes being used on the internet and offered as home choice, we must work out a way forward that benefits not only the broadcasters but those that enable the programmes to be produced. I hope that this letter reaches the relevant departments, committees or decision makers. It’s hard to know to whom we should address letters like these especially when it affects so many people and has so many rather sinister implications. But as one media Composer to others of you out there, please put down your instruments, virtual or real, and pick up your pens, virtual or real, and show your objections, and let’s turn this decision round so that it reflects democratically the views and wishes of us all scribbling tunes for a living! Thank you. Dave Cooke. Media Composer, Producer. www.davecooke.com dave@davecooke.com
Martin Laight	I think they know what they are doing by now. I am in the process of attracting more prime time useage. Yeah!!!!!
Tony Patterson	No Comment
Julian Chown	We deserve what we are due. Ban the cuts and give musician composers a fair deal!
Olivia Dixon	This will have a devistating effect on composers, many of whom are struggling to make a living as it is. I am thankful that there are people prepared to go to the trouble of setting up petitions like this.
peter morris	i totally object to this as a prs member and a composer of library music. it is totally unfair in its concept peter morris
Jonathan Maris	Lets keep this campaign up until we get the scheme cancelled. To create a divide like this and in this way is wrong.
Philip Zikking	Could not bring myself to vote in recent election for board members since I could not find clear indication that any of the candidates opposed this ridiculous change. Surely, if this is to regain money lost to the 'graveyard' slots and quiz shows etc, then a 3 tiered system would have been far more suitable. Why were members not consulted?
Tomasz Pauszek	No Comment
Steve Isles	There was no consultation on this. I've seen my royalty income shrink this July. It smacks of vested interests, and being the music business almost certainly is. I have contracts in place, with up front fees negotiated on the basis of a royalty rate, only to see that slashed by my collecting society. There should be a vote on this, or they should be disintermediated.
Anthony Smith	Proper consultation,please, a full ballot of all writer members.
Gary Williams	All my music is shown during the day this will affect my income dramatically!!! Also those of you creating music for childrens TV, which I think is one of the more creative and demanding areas of writing and production, must be wondering what's happened.
Philip Barber	No Comment
Andy Procter	Worse than this Prime time idea is the fact that Digital TV is still only sampled over 2 days every 9 months.90+% of music used on bbc3,4, interactive,cbbc etc is effectively not paid for ever.
David Shaun Kirkpatrick	Thank God someone out there is doing something about this rediculous situation. You have my full support..... Regards Shaun K.
John Hyde	My full support against the useless PRS
Alan J Moore	As a new PRS member (just received my first cheque!) I'm dismayed at what the PRS have done. I've just read the back page of 'Sound on Sound' where the PRS reply to Paul's comments about the changes. They fail to address many of the issues that he raises. Why couldn't the PRS email their entire membership (50,000) and ask for their comments or even vote on the changes? Sure, use the magazine and website to raise awareness of the proposed changes, but an email vote wouldn't be hard to organise and would be far more democratic. I understand that that the world is changing and composers are under pressure to accept less remuneration, but as Paul pointed out in his article, it's crazy to say that prime time TV is only from 6pm - 12. Guess children's TV composers are stuffed!
Alan Coates	Smells like the inner circle getting greedy - Think again!!! Value all music. Thats what PRS used to stand for.
Benji Kirkpatrick	No Comment
Nigel Hopkins	I've written and produced TV music for over fifteen years and have had several 'prime time' series that have earned well, but most of my 'every day' non prime time plays have steadily earned my bread and butter money for long periods when commissioned work is hard to find. It's hard enough these days to earn decent money from TV writing, what with the arrival of 'royalty free' music being played on most cable stations so I can't think WHY the PRS has seen this proposal as anything but destructive to writers and the quality of TV music production that will eventually die through lack of financial reward and re-investment in new and up and coming writers. Hey..... Maybe we should ALL shop at Tesco’s just to keep the big boys happy. I'm a full member of PRS and I'm going to take this up with them.
David Kelly	This sounds like a fairly worrying development. It does seem very strange that the PRS should make such an important decision on behalf of its members without consultation. I can understand the complications such a consultation would entail, but even so, up till now I had confidence that the PRS were out to get the best deal for everybody. I receive royalties worldwide, so perhaps I won't be so much affected as others, but even so, this smacks of alarming capitulation to a privileged few- to those fortunate enough to be those privileged few, and the broadcast companies who must have negotiated this deal with the PRS. Don't get me wrong- in many ways I'm very grateful to the PRS for their hard work in the last 5 or so years, but this issue, I feel, has attempted to get under the radar until Paul Farrer drew specific attention to it in his Sound On Sound article.
Liz Radford	No Comment
Harry Rowe	No Comment
James Spaer - Bignoize music library	So P.R.S are trying to justify these pathetic new distribution rules by saying that audience figures are higher in number between 6PM and 12 midnight.....Ihang on, I still have to pay my TV licence during the daytime whether or not I'm watching it why should P.R.S be any different. I recently found out that a TV ad I did recently (which I own all publishing rights to) ended up being spilt with another publisher???, Perhaps if P.R.S did there job properly in the first place they would'nt have to come up with these hair brain ideas to recue lost income. The end is nigh !!
Jonathan Cohen	No Comment
Mark Bradley	This will affect my future in a big way if it's allowed to happen
Terry Wilson	No comment really
nick crofts	No Comment
Andi Baxter	All composers should receive the same amount of broadcast royalties whatever time of day it is broadcast, the fact that P.R.S members were'nt involved with the changes is absolutely ridiculous. Earl Andrew Truesdale Baxter
Paul Cooke Music Publishing	On behalf of our artists and writers and as a company that has an interest in fair play, lets have a democratic distribution of income, not one based on power and wealthy minority artists, (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE). Without the rest of the contributing 'POOR' musicians what industry would there be for the top 1% that currently get all the cream. VIVA. La Revolucian..
paul cooke	I agree with this statement based on experiances of smaller less empowered musicians being rode roughshod over by the very music organisations that are supposed to protect everyones musical interests, not just the wealthy musicians and their associated communities....VIVA
Tony Atkins	I will be interested to know the real reason that this move has been made. I cannot find anything of merit in the decision.
John Beecher	I expect better from the PRS. Unfortunately, over the years their actions have not lived up to my expectations and this is another example of the Board making a decision without reference to the membership. Who asked that this change be made?
Andy Partridge	Stinks of greed.Poor songwriters and musicians,always last in the chain.Shame on you.
Elizabeth Bennett	No Comment
Eleni Hassabis	No Comment
barry andrews	No Comment
Bill Clift	This ridiculous plan has even been picked up by the very laudable Private Eye magazine, latest issue, page 11. Madness.
Carl Marsh	I'm very glad this is being addressed. The decision was arbitrary and shocking.
Geoff Woolley	grrr ....
Rob James	No Comment
Kev Curtis	Just because a programme is transmitted outside of the prime time slot doesn't mean that any less work was put in by the composer. The amount of work involved, the ridiculously tight deadlines and the constant to-ing and fro-ing with musical ideas that is the nature of the beast with writing music for TV, occurs for ALL programmes that are in the schedules. Getting the music right for a daytime show involves no less work than getting the music right for an evening documentary.
Ben Sands	No Comment
steve lodder	No Comment
Tim Grossi	No Comment
John A. Thomas	No Comment
Michael Marshall	as if it wasnt hard enuf beeing a pro
Peter Calzona	So how do we media composers not lose with this ? Can we increase the upfront fee's for composing TV music when the budgets have more or less frozen for years anyway ....no? so now we cannot rely on the royalties anymore, what the hell are we going to do ? Are the PRS board reading this or even doing anything other than ignoring what we want ? Do we have to march and protest outside the PRS offices until its changed ? I would, will anybody else, or do we have to wait until our income is slashed ?
luke mitchell	this is yet another potential blow to the music industry and anyone without a firm grounding yet!! the composer has a right to their royalty
Soraya El-Maghraby	Complete and utter disgrace! Has any real thought been put into this proposition? It seems that the answer is a resounding NO....
dONAL o'cONNOR	This is a disgrace
Will Lewis	No Comment
Karen Sharp	No Comment
Nick Foster	No Comment
Peter Orlando John Roberton	No Comment
Jo Fooks	No Comment
thomas leo mccann	No Comment
Paul Nieman	I'm very upset to hear that whilst the use of music proliferates the commercial payments for music are being undermined by a policy designed to divide and rule the community of composers. The monatery value of a piece of TV music is to be measured by when it is shown. - awful. Please be sensible!
Paul Busby	No Comment
Dave O'Higgins	No Comment
Andy Roberts	This move by the board is clearly discriminatory. Look at the vast areas of music which will never be "prime time" favourites. Childrens' music, jazz, folk, classical, educational programmes, all these rarely if ever fall within the specified hours. The membership MUST be consulted before a chnage such as this.
Eilidh Steel	No Comment
Corrina Hewat	This is madness!
Gavin Marwick	Equality and encouragement for all please. We're a society not a heirarchy.
Vivian Thompson	No Comment
Matt Houghton	This year seems to be a very bad one for small scale music businesses - with the inexplicable decision to reduce revenue in this way combining with Gordon Brown's decision to raise taxes for small businesses earlier this year. This sort of ill-thought out policy is crippling to entrepreneurs that are the life blood of both the music and media industries and the nation's economy.
Ian Poole	listen
Anthony Harris	No Comment
Matheu Watson	great idea!
Ben Fenner	No Comment
Jody White	No Comment
Anna-Wendy Stevenson	No Comment
caz	No Comment
Alison Stewart	No Comment
Frank McLaughlin	No Comment
Alex Wilon	This notion of a prime time royalty seems to be, at best, lacking in foresight and at worst, a cynical attempt to claw back some of the profits for big names in the increasingly meritocratic system, as brought about by the home recording/iTunes/MySpace explosion.
Nils Edstrom	This potentially affects ethnically diverse music as well as "smaller" composers
Matthew Beal	No Comment
james corner	No Comment
Peter Dandy	I say put it to a vote right now !
Nathan Rust	No Comment
Rebecca Ratcliffe	Come on, how arrogant to believe that just because some one's music is played at prime time, they deserve to be paid more than others. I rely heavily on the couple of thousand pounds I make each year from such payments.....and so do my children.
Steve Sidwell	No Comment
Derek Nash	This is not a good thing , I agree with this petition
John Deller	The PRS board are going to shoot themselves in the foot with this. Remember what the Poll Tax did to the Tories ? I have voted for James Harpham and I hope everybody else opposed to this does too. Its time to stand up to this rubbish, this is our livelihoods they are ruining,I'm sure most of us have mortgages, bills, school fees, credit card bills. I for one will NOT let these people destroy my life with this ill thought out crazy idea. I dont care if the board members get upset because we didnt sit for hours allegedly pondering how to improve the value of music for all of us. The fact is ...a LOT of people do not want your changes. We elected you (more's the pity) and its time you started taking notice of what WE want. If you are so sure your idea is the correct one, then put the plan to a members vote and let us have OUR say on OUR financial future.
jason robertson	No Comment
B.T. A M.	Yeah, I want to get as much money as you guys with the big catalogs! Not that my music is as good, but, I believe in equality and if that means take it from you and give it to me, so be it! SPREAD THE WEALTH! From you to me.
Al Kelly	I certainly support this petition.
nJC Music	absolutely a disgrace and yet another way that the industry is trying to lock off new music!
Craig Morris	No Comment
Gordon A Bolton	This is a diabolical suggestion. Help Kick it into Touch NOW...
John Dipper	No Comment
Adam Wilson	I am concerned about this new scheme. It is currently hard enough for small producers and musicians to earn money from music as it is, why tip the balance and make it better for the big boys and harder for the small fry?
jason cambridge	dont take libs!!!!!
femi olasehinde (AKA - Ola)	When will they stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
richard cottle	fair deal for all writers please
KENNY BALL	COME ON PRS DO THE BEST YOU CAN FOR ALL OF US 'JAZZERS'!
Caroline Daniel	No Comment
Stuart Tucker	No Comment
Pete Eaglesfield	No Comment
Jo Collins	I think this is grossly unjust!
liz kitchen	No Comment
Steve Pearce	No Comment
james harpham	The Board should take account of the opinions of a much wider consensus of the membership when implementing matters to do with the division of royalties in new proportions for the various time slots in the media and especially broadcasting.
Helen Sheppard	No Comment
Ange Goliger	No Comment
julian littman	No Comment
Wix Wickens	It looks like "improving" backwards to me
tracey hammett	I object to the prime time t.v. proposed rate change. I am a children's writer, we generally get paid less for our work. Children's programmes are often shown outside prime time broadcasting slots - does this mean our work is less valid? The income I recieve from PRS definitely helps me to continue working as a children's writer/lyricist.
Mat Bartram	No Comment
owen parker	no no no no.Wrong. Stupid. Wake up. wrong.
clare bradley	I earn very slim royalites already from my work on CBeebies, due to the unfair sampling system. I totally object to these being cut still further. And - anyway - with the spectre of TV on demand, internet viewing etc. on the horizon, who is to say what is 'Prime Time TV'??
Lucy	No Comment
Chris Dibble	Disgusted of London
Pete Beachill	This cannot go through it is an outrage!
Francis Haines	My music entertains children and parents early morning and early afternoon - why is it of any less value than 'music to talk over' which appears all over reality TV shows in 'Primetime' ??? I, for one, will be considerably poorer when the new rates take effect. Please think again - it's a hard profession to be in at the best of times. Thank you.
Toby Wood	It would be madness to increase the cost to broadcasters of prime time music, especially if the way to finance it would be to reduce the cost of non prime time music.That particular solution would encourage them to find cheaper ways to source music on their programs. I say keep the differentiation of rates as they currently are. This scheme and others that have such wide implications for the economy of the music marketplace should be put to the vote of the whole PRS membership.
Mark Tucker	An absurd idea designed to crush the music industry ever further.
Piers Bailey	This is total bullshit, as if things aren't tough enough with all the piracy problems.... Thanks PRS! whats next, we pay you when we have a track played?
Crap TV Writer	Thank God it is still a society, They tried to turn it into a Corporate Business a few years ago under misguided "leadership"..but it was resoundingly rejected by the members. Blew 8 million pounds on a failed computer system too. Still, the composers being forced to sign their pubs to TV showed a weakness in the grab for money on composer's part, so it is not just the society's fault. Refuse to write, let the monkeys do it for peanutz and watch TV die! (what do you mean it already has :)
Kathy	No Comment
Pascal Redpath	No Comment
matthew quinn	this is completly unfair to the majority of prs members
Darren White	Whats the percentage of memebers this is good for?
Ben Mandelson	potential to earn from copyrights equitably, without bias towards the 'big fish', should be a right (and a protection, which is at the heart of the collective and cooperative nature of the PRS ) afforded to all members, no matter the size of their copyrights portfolio.
Peter Miller	No Comment
Cathi Ogden	Since when did it become ok to halve someone's income over-night when they have done nothing to deserve it? I'm horrified at the injustice. PRS you should know better - stop meddling with things and start looking after your writers - that's your job remember?
Paul Nineham	No Comment
Peter Batchelor	No Comment
Rob Manzoli	No Comment
Simon Vaughan	Next thing they'll introduce is some kind of 'boys club' for all the big money songwriters and publishers!!! That'll keep the small fish down!!
Chris Wood	I do not write for TV but I ask if this could be brought into the open where it can be discussed and voted on please.
Dave Alexander	No Comment
liam	No Comment
James Mackay	No Comment
Patrick McCann	No Comment
Simon Edwards	I experienced recently being informed by the PRS that they only sample and pay out on 1 day in 90 for certain cable and satellite TV channels including BBC 4 for all broadcast music.
Christopher Johnson	No Comment
ben lamdin	i agree.
Claude Burton	No Comment
Karel Will	No Comment
T J Eccles	No Comment
Steve York	ASCAP member
Simon Haworth	We'll notice the lack of small change but will the rich notice the few extra coppers in their pocket??
Paul K Joyce	I want a democratic organisation that reflects the views of the membership, not the self interest of a small but seemingly influential group who have the ear of the PRS board. Who are these composers whose incomes need protecting? If it's night time performances that concern PRS then they should restrict their activities to investigating and curtailing these programmes alone. How can the remedy for falling revenue be to propose a solution which further reduces income? - this is madness. I intend to go to the AGM and make my opinions known.
Sean Larkin	No Comment
Tom Howat	Wrong.
Alex Mula	No Comment
Kris Spencer	So, if this petition saves the day, the then they are going to have to continue to trawl the music of the dead composers in order to get a free-ride! Keep music alive: keep music live.
Alan Levermore	This my vote and should not be seen as Comapny Policy
Trevor Jones	Other's comments say it all!
Alex Fordham	No Comment
Martin Litton	No Comment
David Slater	The decision of the PRS board is completely undemocratic and will do nothing to promote the cause of creativity and innovation in music.
Richard West	I thought the PRS was interested in getting a fair deal for its members, but this is a case of robbing the poor to give to the rich.
Ulf Wederbrand	No Comment
Elizabeth Westwood	How come you never sent out your intention to do this?! You send out enough bullshit, ballots etc. I can't believe this is the first I've heard of this and it wasn't through PRS!
James Stevenson	Get you act together!
Ian Porter	No Comment
Roland Chadwick	No Comment
dave traina	No Comment
Rex Sargeant	Lets keep a level playing field
alan barker (dj himbo)	i am a self employed composer and producer of many styles of music. i think this is a terrible idea and would impact an already damaged music scence
Angela Gordon	All we want is a fair deal.
Chrissy van Dyke	No Comment
mel glynn	this would make music financially even more like football. there just will be less original stuff coming through than ever
Paul Morea	Lets see if one of the biggest beneficiaries of the PRS:Bono,will come down on the side of the little guy. Or remain strangely silent on this issue. Over to you,rich rock stars.
Tony Barber	Absolute madness. This kind of crap is encouraged under a Labour Gov. as well. Shows you where their priorities lie.
PJ Wassermann	No Comment
Paul Tennant	A totally unfair distribution of royalties.
Martin Gordon	This is a blatantly unfair proposition which is clearly NOT beneficial to the majority of PRS members. As a PRS member, I insist that, at the very least, that the matter is put to a vote, as proposed in option B above.
John Bromley	Don't do this
Ralf Kimmet	No Comment
brian W. Nicholls	"Remembering Buddy"
Caspar Sambrook-Smith	Sounds ridiculous, music composers/producers should gain fairly from their music and not be cut out, so to speak - it's hard enough already for alot of producers to make a living. Peace and love.
Bryn Haworth	Very sorry to hear about this PRS decision. It seems the grass roots are being trodden on again. Hope it's not too late for a fairer compromise to be achieved.
sam neal	this proposal goes against everything that open music and telesphesia stand for. please accept our full support in your campaign. good luck. sam
Charlie Jones	No Comment
Charlie O	No Comment
Christopher Andrews	I'm concerned about the "rich get richer" aspect of this proposal. Lets not apply government/corporation tactics to musicand the rest of the arts. We are artists,not commodity's,therefore we are all giving and should be ptotected and respected.
Pete Johnston	Full vote from all members
Rich Batsford	No Comment
Ian Wheeler	No comment
A.R. Reeves	I am quite disturbed that the first I have heard about this was from an emailed petition, and I am not willing to accept the apparent reduction in my earnings.
John Norman	It is the job of the PRS to look after all its members
andy gill	non peak rates must not be reduced - totally unfair
Stu Fletcher	No Comment
Damian Taylor	No Comment
Austin Ince	No Comment
Charles Tate	You have got to be kidding me!!! They must be... how you say... "tripping"
ali	disgrace
Steve Turpin	I thought we were supposed to support new talent, not penalise it...
Nicky Calvert	No Comment
Ben Calvert	No Comment
Abigail Seabrook	No Comment
Rob Clydesdale	No Comment
Alison Kenady	Pay people for their hard work. period.
Lawrie Malen	No Comment
donna beaumont	No Comment
Name Witheld	*sigh* - yet another example of primary shareholders dictating the percentages of return they would like to see (or rather demand). Typically and yet unfortunately unsurprising that the PRS is now as transparent as any other organisation whose prime motivation is clearly greed and not in accord with the majority of members views or needs. How sad that the one true universal field of music can also become as tainted as the field politics or worse.
Tom Woodhead	This is rediculous. Music does not have a "prime time".
Matt Straw	No Comment
Not Robin Hood	PRS members are being told by the PRS board to take a reduction in royalty income in the Prime Time slot if you don't get broadcast in the time span of the policy - WHY, well possibly to shore up any losses by directing greater income to the successful at the expense of the majority of the PRS membership who are not so fortunate to be quite there yet, or those that are there but don't get much if any Prime Time broadcasts which will possibly help create further royatly income, sustained profits and dividend payments to companies and shareholders who have publishing interests. Some companies are returning to publishing whilst selling off recording assets and some are trying to securitise their publishing assests, shore up and offset their losses in their record / label business - A good way to maximise some greater income is to invent a Prime Time distribution policy - does anyone know who thought up this wacky scheme (well not wacky for some) and bought this sceme to the PRS board's table or is it going to remain a mystery???? - apparantly Dick Turpin wore a mask so possibly Dick (or maybe more than one Dick) sits on the PRS board - The PRS board have put themsleves up for re-election, but they all voted for this absurd policy - we don't want to vote for any of this lot, do you? so where are the candidates to stand up for the majority of the membership and their right to compete on a level playing field? (they don't get a chance to) - This lot are not going to are they? - There will be winners (we wonder who???) there will be loosers (the majority of the membership). There is a PRS general meeting coming up soon on 28th June 2007 - hope all you PRS members attend and make your feelings known in an orderly democratic way (even those members who don't have a vote and are denied a vote in their own society's policies) Office of Fair Trading email contact is: Marie.Clark@oft.gsi.gov.uk if you feel strongly about this sickening policy.
J LeBlanc	No Comment
Alan Bleay	This decision is clearly unfair to all writers. The board are not acting in the interests of it's members which is a basic requirement of the positions that they hold.
Rob Miller	Please cancel this new scheme. I make a modest living from royalties and this will severely affect my income and consequently my life. I am very angry that YET AGAIN you put the 'big' composers first and IGNORE the majority of your members. This is a disgrace.
Ian Baguley	No Comment
Mary Humphreys	I don't agree to having my royalties reduced without any consultation from the membership, which includes me!
Darius Kedros	Do the main earners really need more, or do the smaller writers need a little help? Hmmm...let me think about that one... No doubt Brian Engel is right that we should all attend the AGM on 28th June.
Gary Carpenter	CD sales must be really slumping badly if some members have to resort to this dodgy idea. Remember that the Classical weighting was eliminated because it was deemed unfair and this isonly putting in place an alternative subsidy - but for top end earners.
ilmar karuso	one day we will all be American. Profit first, creativity last
will Parnell	No Comment
Graham Collier	Yet another scheme which helps the rich members at the expense of the rest of us.
Dag Leistad	No Comment
Stuart Daniel Oracle Proud	No Comment
Caspar Kedros	No Comment
Jez Larder	No Comment
Mike Moore	This will lead to more tripe played in prime slots and I disagree with ithe proposal for this reason
Nicky brown	No Comment
Sam Hartley	No Comment
Nuala O'Halpin	No Comment
Ian Sheppard	No Comment
Dominic Betmead	Not at all fair. I thought the PRS were supposed to work on everybody's behalf.
Joy Denyer	No Comment
P.Smith	Disgraceful composers take a big enough cut as it is
Jonathan Thomas	No Comment
Alex Pilkington	Play fair PRS....
David Brinkworth	what kind of people are running the PRS, that they can try to do something so blatently shamefull ... they should all lose their jobs.
anna harvey	This will totally ruin the quality of music in this country and is yet another step towards the death of creativity and innovation which is the long term life blood of the music industry in the name of commercialism
Grace Anywar	Sickening.
Kimmo Perkkiö	No Comment
Ian Hartland	The proposal seems unfair to hard-working musicians who haven't the luxury of playing the sort of music that gets airtime on "PrimeTime" television.
sean thompson	No Comment
athanasios argianas	No Comment
Chris Notton	No Comment
mike rowe	not good. non 'top 40' artists need protection.
Clare Spurrell	No Comment
Paul Crossman, Eelz	this doesnt surprise me in the least frankly. the subjective status of the broadcast medium is irrelevant. you make your music, it is performed or broadcast, you get paid. end of story.
andrew wilson	No Comment
Richard Preston	I believe that the PRS should be thinking about the interests of all its members and not just of the 'elite' writers and publishers.
isobel heyworth	No Comment
Steve Maloney	No Comment
Brian Engel	I have already raised this issue with PRS. The CORRECT way to do this is for ALL concerned members (writers and publishers) to turn up at the AGM at Copyright House on 28th June and seriously disrupt the meeting with a barrage of demands and instencies that this scheme is dropped! You need the backing of the publishing majors (and they MAY have been bought off, somehow; you never know!)
daniel abineri	No Comment
ley o'neil	it's the little folk that keep the music business afloat, this ruling is so unfair! It's them Vs us all over again!
Mary O'Meara	Please re-consider this! It will widen the already great canyon-like gap between BIG names and those not being shoved in our faces 24/7! Most musicians struggle enough to make a living - please don't do this!
Dom Chalk	No Comment
Ruth Morgan	No Comment
jasmine abineri	No Comment
paul grzegorzek	IF things like this are allowed to go ahead, no great musicians will come anymore, as they will have to work other jobs and not concentrate on their music. Go watch the paris hilton southpark episode.........
Jetro Vainio	No Comment
MILLET	No Comment
Ian David Smith	No Comment
Henry Pearce	Bad Idea as it will discourage up and coming artists
NIGEL WESTON	I believe music to be one of the greatest ways in which a person can express their true self. The difficult it becomes for individuals to express themselves, the more the world loses out!
Amy Alexander	No Comment
Mark Miller	No Comment
Simon Noble	What a great way to encourage up and coming composers.......this is what happens when a body which was originally supposed to be a benevolent non-profit making organisation designed to help the musician/composer make a living becomes a greedy contractor headed by fatcats whos only objectives are to smash last years profit margins so they can live the highlife payed for by their humonguos yearly bonuses at the expense of reason,honesty and us.This was planned a long time ago. Suck them in and suck them dry!! Sadly this is the way the world is today, the world is a tier system with the majority at the bottom, the noose tightens.... Rise up people, take it no more!!!!!!
Phil Da Costa	Let the members decide, not the PRS "bored" !
Phil Laycock	No Comment
Philippe Auclair	No Comment
Danny Blackman	Give the money to the composers/copyright owners
Thomas Conrad Wedde	No Comment
Susan Adams	No Comment
Steve Rhodes	No Comment
terence britten	unfair & will cause division.
Thomas Voyce	Fair go mate.
Zac Zikis	This is disgusting! Was this part of 'The Alliance" plan all along, to make becoming the 'cream of the crop' even more unpenetrable to 'the little guy'? Those at the top are getting the best deal anyway, both financially and for future work due to a proven track record - this will make the music industry become more of same old, and far less original, due to only a handful creating what the majority hears!
Clark Erickson	No Comment
Eddie Walker	The wealthy and already most successful don't need to made more wealthy at the expense of determining a reduced value of the creativity of others in this regard. The numbers game is already satisfactorily addressed with regard to individual stations and their potential audience size. Taking this further to parts of days on individal stations is the thin end of a wedge that will eventually affect radio as well at entirely different periods deemed to be their prime time. Dick Turpin at least had the decency to wear a mask!
yossi schwarts	No Comment
pete moss	No Comment
Chris Muijzert	No Comment
Michael Screene	No Comment
tony white	No Comment
Tamara Schlesinger	No Comment
matthew herbert	busines as usual- to them that have, more shall be given
Peva Pardel	For the rights of imagination, creation and benevolence...
Kevin Saunders	I think the rest of us are already subsidising the super rich too much.So this is beyong the pale.
Martin Dust	This is unfair and not acceptable.
Philip Aston	No Comment
jim barr	please dont do it .
Mark Daniels	No Comment
calum malcolm	No Comment
Dave Webber	It seems that real music is being sidelined yet again. This plan is wholly unjust.
Mark Lansbury	No Comment
steven Abunab	obviously we feel strongly about this as a studio. we will do all we can to support this issue.
eddie	No Comment
Sean McGhee	Do we really want the people whose job it is to correctly administer and distribute our royalties to be deciding that one form of music is worth more money than another? This is a despicable, divisive and completely inappropriate move by an organisation who should know better.
trancenger	its about time DAWG
George Reilly	No Comment
Justin Evans	No Comment
George Papavgeris	No Comment
Martin Hooker	This is a totally unfair and unsustainable approach
pascal Gabriel	No Comment
Martin Briley	I'm an ASCAP member, isn't this unconstitutional?
Ben Henderson	No Comment
Guy Sigsworth	The people proposing this amendment should be ashamed of themselves. If implemented it will mean fewer people being able to eke out an existence from royalties. The intention is clearly to entrench musical conformism and magnify the power of playlist selectors. It's the most anti-musical proposal I have ever heard.
Paul Riordan	I am one of those musicians that will not be able to earn a living as a musician, if the off peak time royalties are halved - I earn my small income from Production and Libary music - which is mainly used for off peak Telivision programmes -
Paul Reeve	No Comment
A.K.Westwood	Being the manager of a band that have paid their dues to the PRS and who have NEVER been paid by them even though we have been played on the local BBC many times and who have filled in forms supplied by the PRS at festivals that we have played this has me even more dismayed. Why have we paid money in and never had a single return? Has all our money gone to Madonna or Robbie Williams? This is grossly unfair and shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Tristan Maguire	This is a disgusting use of capitalism. STOP SCREWING THOSE WHO HAVE SO LITTLE
Martyn Wyndham-Read	Tune in to the majority of members and not the minority
Donal Hodgson	immediately cancel the new scheme which doubles the rate for "primetime" television and slashes the rate for broadcasts at any other time.
Matt Southall	No Comment
Nick Allen	No Comment
Rob King	As if the music business isn't bad enough already, The PRS wants to destroy what little career chances for upcoming composers to make a living being creative and adding so much value to their visuals? Sad...
Simon Franglen	No Comment
David Matthews	No Comment
Nick Griffiths	What on earth were they thinking? mmm, i wonder...............
simon denny	No Comment
marko gutman	burn the billboards or make it more, for every tone, scream or frequency.....
William Pearson	Keep composers alive. ALL composers. Please do not pander to the already rich in favor of making them richer. The middleclass composer should not be robbed to pay out more for the guys doing primetime. This will have a devistating effect on the overall creative community at large. Please.......
Jeremy Christensen	No Comment
Oscar Cainer	No Comment
S Masoner	No Comment
Sven Lens	Think before you act.
Denise Hayes	No Comment
chris farrell	No Comment
Ian Robert Gomm	Having just helped my builder, who insisted on listening to BBC Radio2 all day long, renew my kitchen over the last two months, I am acutely aware that the same records are played again and again by this station and that their format is rarely broken. Who chooses these records and how does this PRS move help to break this stranglehold of the airwaves? It smells of corruption to me.
Gommsongs	Having just helped my builder, who insisted on listening to BBC Radio2 all day long, renew my kitchen over the last two months, I am acutely aware that the same records are played again and again by this station and that their format is rarely broken. Who chooses these records and how does this PRS move help to break this stranglehold of the airwaves? It smells of corruption to me.
Daniel Zelonky	No Comment
Louis Fagenson	No Comment
Richard Bloorat Eye Spy Publishing	Yet again the small indie parts of the industry get shafted. The rich get richer and the poor will close down. It is difficult enough to survive, the people at the top are strangling the ones at the bottom. Soon there will be no independant music industry in the UK and then everyone will suffer as creaitivity will reach an all time low.
Haris Custovic	PRS should give us more royalties and not less!!! We cannot rely on music sales anymire, dont cut our royalties as well!!!
Oliver Kenney	No Comment
Dominique Gauriaud	No Comment
rik sanders	No Comment
Paul Mason	No Comment
Katherine Ellis	No Comment
Richard Eigner	No Comment
robert chetcuti	No Comment
John Rowley	Madness but oh so typical
Derek Preston	No Comment
Dave Anderson	A very unfare way of dealing with the distribution of royalties!
Elizabeth Venner	No Comment
kane	No Comment
Lee Tyler	No Comment
Kevin Buxton	No Comment
Will Sergeant	No Comment
Robin Valk	Please show some respect for the majority of PRS members who operate in the margins.
Steven Taylor	No Comment
Chris Tarren	Ridiculous- another way of frightening up-and-coming composers away from the business.
Barry Hufker	This new policy for rights distribution is an economic burden to composers, while being an embarrassment before the worldwide artistic community.
James Dancer	Absolutely Insane!
Krister Jonsson	No Comment
Pierre Tubbs	I don't seem to remember any communication from the PRS asking members what they thought of this stupid suggestion.
Chris Anderson	No Comment
The Sound Foundation	No Comment
Hadyn Wood	No Comment
richard parker	No Comment
Derek Gifford	No Comment
Lolly Cleary	No Comment
Edward Henderson	Changing the performance rights collection amounts in the way proposed is divisive and unfair. Please abandon this idea. Best, Edward Henderson
Galore Wisebort	This is OUTRAGIOUS
Miguel Sousa Marques	Ridiculous scheme...
Jonathan	Im a writer and i may loss out
Russell Whyte	No Comment
Tom Clark	in aggreement of fare distribution of royalties
simon hawkins	No Comment
Tim	Royalties were introduced as a way of ensuring performers were paid for the use of their material. This payment should be made irrespective of when their work is used. Suggesting otherwise is utter nonsense.
cristian vogel	2-tier payment of music rights, with bias to commercial music is UNFAIR to the majority of hardworking composers and musicians
Mark Smith	No Comment
Dec Clarke	No Comment
Roy Clinging	No Comment
Brock Ferguson	No Comment
Jim Credladn	No Comment
Ian Loveday	I am against this unfair policy
Marc Dolley	Seems like a plot to kill the music industry for good!
Paul Baker	Another way to stifle new talent. Shame on you.
Jo Christophe	No Comment
Aaron Scherz	As a professional songwriter this is unfair. Pay us all the same.
Boris GANGOLF	Sound engineer Belgium
Daniel Walker	No Comment
Rhian Sheehan	No way!
Dave Escobar	No Comment
peter Stewart	No Comment
Martin Tisdall	No Comment
Bill Leverty	No Comment
Paul Nagle	Long-time PRS member, don't bother to register most works these days.
Andrew Evans	No Comment
Beata Mablad	No Comment
Hamlet Sweeney	This is a big mistake and could force a lot of musicians under. Don't do it.
Peter Philipson	No Comment
Danny Briottet	What's going on here then?
Dan Bromley	Surely its just a way of making the rich get richer. I see no other point in it.
Will Worsley	No Comment
Joshua J Macrae	Put it to all members ! This is totally out of order !
David Morley	No Comment
Dave Curle	music is music
Nuno	This is unfair a devisive, it should not be implemented.
steve jones	find the proposals too exclusive and deeply unfair
howard turner	I was not consulted, I do not agree, this change should NOT be implemented.
Tim Duncan	I am a fully paid up member of this stupid society, and I don't want this sort of policy.
Neill Burbidge	This is just Ridiculous. Why should a few Primetime writers reap all the rewards. PRS need a good Kickin'
James Collins	This idea sucks, I record/mix music for many composers whos music gets aired out of hours. If they dont get paid what they're owed, the downward spiral of quality verses expense of production goes ever downward. Everybody will suffer eventualy.
Harm Schopman	No Comment
cenzo Townshend	No Comment
Huw Williams	This scheme is unjust & immoral
c bemand	No Comment
ishq	no comment accept bollocks to the lot of them.Parasites.
Harvey Summers	This new scheme is not only ridiculous, it is criminal, capitalist nonsense. PRS are supposed to look after their members best interests. This new scheme is divisive and immoral and would create a 2 tier hierarchy which could potentially ruin many member's careers. Harvey Summers (Associate member)
Flemming Bloch	No Comment
Robert Stewart	The proposed scheme will make it even harder for the small independent composers to continue doing what they do, and will reduce the variety in an already corporate markt place
Dean Butlin	No Comment
Jeremy Blasongame	No Comment
Emre Ramazanoglu	Shocking that the PRS would attempt this, really an unnecessary move....
Mark Adnitt	Would be nice to know which director of the PRS came up with this bright idea! ...and explain why
Michael John O'Connor	Proposals to make the rich richer and the poor poorer rarely work in a democracy
Francois DENIS	let's get the rich poorer
Mark Caro	No Comment
Gary Cole	No Comment
Mark Edgeller	No Comment
Tom	No Comment
Eric Powers	This is crazy. I vote against it!
The Ringside	We pay the performing rights society for the bands we put on. We dont care about who is on at prime time etc. The royalties are supposed to be for the bands we use...not for someone who doesnt even know where Ringside is. We should be able to scrap payments to the PRS and pay the bands directly (who we use) and the money for "Prime Time" broadcasting should be bourne by the channels who decide what music to put on...why should i pay for that.
John Alexander	No Comment
Mark Thompson	No Comment
Andi McBurnie	who does this make scense to? Only the rich, at the cost of the struggling, none of these fat cats deserve to survive the internet revolution and this does nothing to encourage new, up and comming artist to play ball.
Tim Moon	No Comment
Maddie Southorn	No Comment
Simon Lesley	We need to encourage breadth and depth in the industry, not promoting the select few.
Guy Walsh	No Comment
Bob Wilson	The poor get poorer ? Nice one ! Referendum please.
Mr Plow	Come on PRS, fair deals for all of your members.
Simon Scardanelli	This is a disasterous policy. Divisive, pernicious and scurrilous.
Jacey Bedford (Bedspring Music)	We're just small fry at Bedspring Music and, along with the rest of the folk world, we already find it's difficult enough to get what's owing. Weighting payouts towards prime-time airplay is a mad idea designed to give more to those who have and subtract from those who have not.
Lynne Heraud	The membership were not consulted on this issue and this should be done immediately, before any changes are brought into being. This proposal will considerably reduce the incomes of many writers and composers.
Brian Bedford	No Comment
John Tams	As above - it seems a very poor idea, which doesn't support the majority of writers. It doesn't seem to follow the thics of PRS at all. I suggest a rethink.... please. Best John Tams
Chris Barber	No Comment
Andy Cutting	No Comment
Tom Bliss	No Comment
Robert Harbron	No Comment
Paul Adams	No Comment
Yves Val Schott	As an European from Germany, I would be discriminated in the UK, because this payment scheme does not exist for me in Germany (rembember the Phil Collins case?). Plus it is morally incorrect that not the composer's work is been honored but rather the promoter's decision when to play a song is the basis of the composer's salary.
Andy Stuteley	No Comment
Richard Blenkinsopp	Canadian composer with interest in UK market and of British origin!!!
Andrea Rocca	No Comment
Raina Reid	I agree with others on the site. Don't the PRS realise that they are at the start of minimising their own status as well? If we were all tradesmen or blue-collar workers this wouldn't even be happening! It's all coming down to the lowest common denominator where quality goes out the windonw for the easiest option.
Ted Beament	No Comment
Jim Chase	No Comment
Sarah Terras	So unfair
Jon Bell	This is rediculous. Fat cat syndrome
Anthony Adams	Not a PRS member, but support all composers (I'm from the US). Don't let the biz in the UK go the way as in America - stand up for your rights, and your money! Cheers, mates.
andrew feazelle	not currently a PRS member, but still concerned as a possible future member. Anyone know where i can get info on history of John Hutchinson and the weighting reform to 1:1 score vs song?
Ben Holbrook	No Comment
Paul Ross	No Comment
Joel Braverman	No Comment
Harry Price	DJ Archimedes
John Doryk	The way the system works, seems to me, to be so convoluted and not in the composer's interest that the only way I can make a living in this business is to arrange all licenses and fees directly with the client ad up front. Either that or work for hire.
Fletcher Beasley	No Comment
Keith Moore	No Comment
Les Mizzell	Fair pay to all!
Martin Laight	No Comment
Benjamin Pope	No Comment
Peter Emms	No Comment
Mat Anderson	This should be put to a vote. It is not acting in the majority of members' interests.
Thomas Grayson-Smith	No Comment
Alan Broadbent	No Comment
Seth Olansky	No Comment
Jon Kirch	No Comment
Dana DiAnda	No Comment
Scott W. Hallgren	No Comment
Douglas Nicholson	No Comment
Susan Poliniak	No Comment
Geoff Koch	No Comment
Howard Richman	No Comment
Birthe Oelmann	No Comment
Fergus Currie	This measure makes it cheaper for rich corporations to produce more low quality commercial trash TV and more expensive for poorer companies (who don't control prime time) to produce anything like high quality programs. I believe there was once a guy called Robin Hood, where is he now?!?!
Marc Fanciullacci	No Comment
Karsten Dahlgaard	No Comment
tony sinclair	No Comment
Julian 'Bev' Moore	We get sent all this 'vote for me' stuff from the PRS that we don't give a monkeys about, but when there are decisions that matter being made, we as members are not consulted. Completely baffling.
Ken Peel	This proposal is terrible. Exactly in whose interests is the PRS acting? Not the majority of its members.
Colin Eade	I think this decision is totally unfair
Chris Harvey	No Comment
Dasa Jurickova	No Comment
Keith F Bayley	It does seem a hasty and ill-thought out reaction to the issue of late night phone-in shows .. whose days seem to be numbered anyway. Seems a knee jerk reaction to punish the vast majority of members who earn a living from music out of the prime time zone... a remarkably disproportionate form of 'punishment' which willl hurt the many in an an attempt to reach the few. Also seems an untypical radical action from PRS - eg why not the same violent and swift response to the issue of tracking all overseas broadcast royalties, a problem that has rumbled on throughout my entire career as a TV composer? KFB
Racket Music	Once again the little guy is loosing out.
Martin Rodger	The proposal by the Board will unfairly benefit heavyweight members and penalise lightweight small members. Surely we live in a world which should be heading for fairness and equality.
Nicky Reading	No Comment
Andy Davis	No Comment
Judith A Reading	No Comment
Tim Jeffery	I stronlgy object to the PRS's proposals. There's has been no debate on tis issue. I run a publishing company and speak for all my writers. Tim Jeffery, Director, Skint Music Publishing/
andy nice	This is so out of order.....what happened to helping the non established composer get a little ahead in the game?
Gemma Cullis	No Comment
Mark Hindmarsh	No Comment
The Music Factor Ltd (library and TV music publisher)	Nobody at PRS will tell me the names of the people who first pushed the Board into this skulduggery - so who actually are these people who want us to subsidise them? We're brave enough to put up our hands and say who WE are - why are they so cowardly?
Amy Rolfe	No Comment
David J Reading	No Comment
Julia Thornton	This is just ridiculous. Why should the time something is aired have any bearing on the amount we get paid???
luke slater	No Comment
Thea Gilmore	No Comment
Nick Cooke	No Comment
David Harrison	This is pretty gross. PRS doing what they can for the big artists. When was the last time I got handed a sheet of the actual Music I was playing as opposed to the what they assume is being played.
David Lightfoot	No Comment
Andrew Drinkwater	No Comment
John Myers	No Comment
Steve Roberts	It's all or nothing getting paid for music.
mark boccaccio	STUPID CHANGE IN LAW TO REWARD THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY THE HIGHEST PAID (AND DONT NEED AN INCREASE)....WHILE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE LESSER COMPOSERS WHO NEED TO WORK HARDER (AND ALREADY DO) JUST TO MAKE ENDS MEET...ONCE AGAIN A BACKWARDS, SENSELESS "IMPROVEMENT".
Paul Hobbs (DJ Force)	It's hard enough to earn a living in this business, don't make it impossible!
henry gorman	No Comment
Darren Purkiss	No Comment
Pete Thomas	No Comment
Will Mills	A consultation is needed.
Alastair Lyle	No Comment
Robert Brimley	This must be proposed to all the full members for consultation.. This cannot be decided by a few white collar workers sitting behind desks. Without us they would not be in employment. R G Brimley
Gerry moffett	No Comment
Ian Wherry	No comment
Chris Spedding	No Comment
Gordon Marshall	No Comment
Gaëtan Schurrer	I agree with Dobs Vye - that would be a much fairer deal. As it is it's just nonsense!
neville atkinson	This is the first time I have been made aware of this change. Although I am only a minor member of PRS , I have always admired the openess of discussions when PRS hold their AGMs. I have always found that the full range of writers and composesrs could air their views and be heard and most importantly their ideas and suggestions considered by the democratically appointent PRS board members. I do feel that this rare quality found in the PRS organisation is the special a gem at the heart of the society. However if you take away equality and open discussion from the democracic model and insert the powerful factor , money , then plutoocracy could emerge and the gem may trodden underfoot. In my opinion this propsal is out of charactor with the ethos and style of PRS and should be either scrapped or fully discussed with all the members present. Without prejudice neville Atkinson
Andy Moore	I'm an engineer not a composer, and I wonder if the number of composer/players that want their material recorded and produced - ie. my revenue - is going to diminish when it's clear they may as well give up composition and stack shelves for a living? Thanks very much PRS.
Stephen Hughes	this is so wrong and basically means the fat cats get the lions share again. im just starting to get a foothold in this game and now my pay will be reduced unless i can score evening tv........just not right in my opinion
Chris Adams	This seems very unfair :-( As ever the rich get richer.... I hope PRS will reconsider, or at least let us vote.
Terry Lightfoot	No Comment
mike james	I am a member of PRS and i think its very wrong and disgusting
Eddy Mentzel	I run an independant music production company called Fickle Chicken Productions. Businesses such as my own rely on 'non prime time' royalties as much as the 'big fishes' rely on their prime time royaltys. I wonder how much they would protest if it were the other way round!!
Ted Critten	No Comment
Guy Meredith	Unfair and undemocratic.
Neil Myers	No Comment
Jon Gillaspie (publisher, Sarastro Music & composer/writer)	Why is it that I'm thinking of Orwell's novel 'Animal Farm' and the final single commandment, ""All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." ? It took an extremely long time for PRS to make all music equal (abolishing the lower rates for arrangments of traditional and public domain works, and stopping the classical music subsidy. Once the door is again open to certain works being 'more important' in royalty terms, there is no way to stop the process in the future. The ratio for Prime Time works can go up to anything the board wishes, and the majority of the members pay for this with lower rates. Moreover, other areas of musical endeavour can be granted even LOWER rates with no comeback. Is the board's decision really looking after the interests of the MAJORITY of members of PRS? One word answer: No.
ian williams	Tossers.
Andy Britton	No Comment
Gavin O'Shea	The idea of concentrating revenue into a narrower band is devicive and open to more abuse of influence. The blanket agreements need to encompass more areas not less. The digital age should make this easier(?) tracking music use in all areas should be the focus, not prime time premiums. Of all agencies the mcps and prs should use their vantage point to increase the ease of use and ease of licensing,. The challenges of the shifting revenue streams are great but please do not let the short term fix win out.
Michael O'Sullivan	As if trying to make a living in this area isn't hard enough! Lets at least give everyone a fair shot!
rob reed	Its sounds totaly wrong
Jon Brooks	No Comment
Russell Pay	If this policy was truly constructed after 'consultation' how come, as a member for nigh on eight years, I only got to find out about it after PRS announced their decision to implement it? Behind the boardroom's sealed doors we encounter yet another example of corporate policy ensuring the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Steve Nolan	I think this is an insane decision that will greatly reduce my income from TV and i demand that the PRS Board immediately cancel this outrageous new scheme.
Phil Bulleyment	No Comment
Ray Smith	This is another example of the lesser (earner) being sacrificed for the (already) greater. In my opinion the scheme should be cancelled.
Judmusic Publishing	PRS need to understand that they are poking a stick into a hornets nest with this, although i think we are the ones who are being stung.
George K. Kempson	The growing number of names and comments on this petition confirms how we all feel about this ridiculous situation. Sort it out PRS, we as members demand it.
DaZ Dicks	Taking money off of those who composer for the less popular shows and giving it to those who are already lucky enough to work on big projects isnt just unfair its rediculous! DaZ
Dov Waterman	No Comment
HUGH CHARLES LEDIGO	No Comment
Adrian Macintosh	No Comment
Rosie Hardman	Comments should be unnecessary when it's blatantly obvious that this is totally unfair to the vast majority of songwriters.
Joanna Bates	I am appalled at this proposal and will fight to get it stopped - how can anyone think that this is morally justified - you would be jeopardising many livlihoods and I shall make it my business to oppose this measure.
erran baron cohen	No Comment
Clive Stone	No Comment
Andrew Littlewood	No Comment
Philip Adams	This does not appear to have been thought through properly
Anthony Rooley	No Comment
Hilgrove Kenrick	No Comment
Hywel Maggs	I would welcome a clear explanation (via PRS website or newsletter) of the overall benefits (to members) of this ludicrous proposal - it all sounds very sinister to me. Let the members vote!
Big George Webley	No Comment
Neil E Cartwright	No Comment
Peter James Daniel	I think that the music inductry is ruthless enough without this added bias.
adam ryan-carter	this proposal is wrong
Andrew Harris	I understood the PRS to be moving towards pay per play, is this proposition a safeguard against the potential equanimity that this system will engender. The only logic I can see behind such a change is that the change in terms of accounting will off set potentially greater payments to those who are currently invisible to the current system of performance auditing. I hope this is not the case and that it is simply a poor piece of policy which will be revoked; otherwise my current trust and firm belief in the PRS as a force for good for music in this country will sadly be shaken.
Richard Clarke	No Comment
Mark Westwood	Just another case of the 'Old Boy Network'
mark van hoen	No Comment
Julian Ronnie	No Comment
Mark Brady	No Comment
George Haslam	No Comment
Nick Smith	No Comment
Stuart Roslyn	I have music used on the ITV game shows at night and this new royalty rate could seriously effect my yearly income..
Paul Manuel	It sucks
Scamp Music Publishing	As music publishers we publish and look after many songwriters, composers and dj dance producers where our copyrights have been recorded by many artistes and composers performing and recording in a wide variety of styles where chart success has been achieved through to those working with minority music styles. This new distribution policy is ill conceived.
Richard Morris	why make a tough business even tougher!. There is so much natural talent ready to work hard, but what for?
Gaynor Morris	It is difficult enough already, please don't make it any harder for us.
David L. Vickers	'Them that's got shall get, them that's not shall lose...' ( From God Bless the Child.) Apologies to Billie Holliday, but it seemed appropriate. This move can only help to reinforce the percieved notion that the music business is a hostile environment frequented by sharks.
Jon Doe	We must all be carefull that our music styles are not treated as second rate behind commercial fodder!
Name Witheld	We support this petition and express our disgust with this "Prime Time" policy and the PRS decision to introduce it. It may be that we would benefit from this "Prime Time" distribution policy, but we would feel most uncomfortable knowing that this unfair distribution policy benefits a few at the expense of many, and who are "the many" the vast majority of the PRS membership no doubt. Whilst we are all in competition with each other, we are needless to say all colleagues working in the music industry and I am sure you will all agree with us when we say that we would like a level playing field to operate on and absolute fairness, where equality for all is in place. This "Prime Time" distribution policy is a nefarious policy where the entire membership has not been consulted. Had the entire membership been consulted, then the PRS board would know quite clearly just what the membership think of it. We believe it would not be ratified. The PRS board need to start listening to the membership at ALL levels and not just dictating royalty distribution policies that result in pecuniary loss for the vast majority of the PRS membership. The board have been elected on an undemocratic vote i.e not all the membership have a vote: provisional members have no vote, associate members have one vote, full members have ten to twenty votes. It is about time the cartel was broken allowing associate members to be elected to the PRS board. Now is the time for the PRS membership to ask for an investigation into the graveyard music and expose those who are behind it with deals in place with broadcasters. This policy does nothing to tackle the graveyard music it just helps empty the pot a bit more for the chosen few. An unbiased outside source needs to investigate the practices that are in place at the moment relating to the draining of the distribution pot. Many PRS members know who they are, but an investigation to expose the perpetrators needs to take place. Where PRS is a de facto monopoly in the UK you cannot have board members messing about with the money members need and quite rightly are entitled to, to sustain their livelihoods. When the board come up for re-election members should ensure that the voting forms carry a box marked "against" as well as "for" so that we can all make our feelings known. The correct thing to now do is for the board to abandon this policy. If this policy is left in place then the board will have options to continue to increase the royalty levels in "Prime Time" from 2:1 to 3:1 to 4:1 and on and on, benefiting the band of elite and privileged and to further reduce royalty income levels which will affect again the income of the vast majority of the PRS membership who are not so privileged to have their music in the "Prime Time" slot. Is the PRS board not made up of successful publishers and writers in their own right, therefore as successful publishers and writers in their own right of tv, film/audio visual music how can they truely justify this policy? Where is the transparency of this decision, certainly not with the "lip service" given by some at the so called meetings with a few to try and show some sort of transparant behaviour by PRS. Consult the entire memberhip , take a vote from the entire membership or scrap the policy now. Would a composer board member of PRS search his/her conscience and stand up for the entire PRS membership, be the white knight in shining armour and come to the rescue and call an extraordinary general meeting. May we suggest David Ferguson who is a PRS composer board member for this task, and who is after all also Chairman of the British Academy of Composers & Songwriters (BACS) which represents songwriters & composers where some of their members may be affected by this "Prime Time" policy. After all the Statement on the "Status Quo?" report, from David Ferguson, Chair of the British Academy of Composers & Songwriters; as posted on the BACS website stated support and help for songwriters and composers. So well done David for those comments of support. We particulary liked the comments within the article that said " "Those who write music need to do so within an environment in which they can flourish." "support as they adapt" "and a fair reward for work undertaken." "It is high time that composers and songwriters received the recognition they deserve, for without them there would be no music industry and little music of quality." Unless the article has been removed from the BACS website http://www.britishacademy.com/content/view/53/82/ you can read the full transcript relating to "The DCMS Creative Economy Programme and the Treasury’s Gowers Review of Intellectual Property...." which contains the above quotes from David which we entirely agree with. Given that the vote from the PRS board was unanimous, as we are told, we invite David Ferguson given his quotes to stand up for those members of BACS that may be disadvantaged by the PRIME TIME distribution policy and for all PRS members by calling for an extraordinary general meeting of the membership to force a vote on this policy. The Musicians Union also state that they"...are delighted to have initiated the commison of this report...." "The DCMS Creative Economy Programme and the Treasury’s Gowers Review of Intellectual Property...." John Smith general secretary of the Musicians Union, who we should all lobby for support to rid us of this "Prime Time" policy said (unless it has been removed from the website) - "We believe that it is no longer enough to pay lip service to the creative community and no matter what employment status they may have, their intellectual property rights must be respected and enforced and their unique contribution to both contemprary society and the modern economy must be recognised in a more active and positive way." (see) http://www.britishacademy.com/downloads/pdfs/key%20issues/FINAL%20Status%20Quo%20Report.pdf David Ferguson chairman of BACS comments as above are linked to the report. So therefore David you are invited to take a stance against your fellow board members. That stance would be most welcome and for you as chairman of the British Academy of Composer & Songwriters (BACS) and PRS board member, to fight for the right for all PRS members to be treated equally and for you to endorse and ratify your quotes - "and a fair reward for work undertaken." - "It is high time that composers and songwriters received the recognition they deserve, for without them there would be no music industry and little music of quality." - "Those who write music need to do so within an environment in which they can flourish." Again we say and ask, given that the vote from the PRS board being unanimous as we are told, for David Ferguson given his quotes, to stand up for those members of BACS and all those PRS members (the majority) who may be disadvantaged by the PRIME TIME distribution policy by calling for an extraordinary general meeting of the membership to force a vote on this policy or to scrap it. Let the membership speak with democratic equality. One member one vote. A fair deal for composers and songwriters.
charlie landsborough	I thought when becoming a member of P.R.S. that I was joining an organisation that would be completely fair in all its dealings, with all its members. It seems I was wrong. I am disgusted at this proposal.
Simon Foster	If I write music for a non-prime time slot, should I spend less time working on it? I'm sure any musuicians I hire will be happy to work for less as well.
Mr. Dhiren Raichura	I oppose this move totally. It is rather unfair to separate one composer from another regardless of when his or her music is being used or performed.
Geraint Cynan	Can only agree with what everyone says. Utter madness probably fuelled by greed.
ray jones	put the proposal of slashing broadcast royalties for the overwhelming majority of members to a full vote of all the members. R Jones PRS/MCPS
Tanera Dawkins	I support this petition.
Martin Savill	Earing a living as a musician is hard work. An organisation such as yourself should do everything in its power to make it as easier, not make it harder still.
Toby Darling	No Comment
David Edward Jones Dip.Mus	We need the right thing done here,this new scheme must not come into practice.It is just not right and certainly not fair by any means.This scheme must be immediatley cancelled or put to a full vote by members,we must not mess with peoples income in this way.
Allan Scott	I wonder to who are the perpetrators and weavers of the hidden dark arts that play host to this fraud.
andy garbi	Please reconsider whatgt you are doing. A blanket marking up and marking down of royalties is to target an area that rasises concern for you regarding music looped in the early hours. What you have not considerd are the ramifications for composers whose main output does not feature on mainstream television during peak hours. What of the experimental films and animations that all have sound tracks, the fringe music programmes and all the other quality viewing with earnestly composed music that has more often than not been created on a budget of next to nothing because there is little money in independent cinema? You simply cannot do this
simon jones	No Comment
Tony Bodimead	Yet another example of the music business becoming more naff for musicians than it already is. This hairbrained scheme must be cancelled immediately!
mark Prime	No Comment
Andy Davies	This policy will increase the royalty rates hugely for a few writers by taking money away from the majority of the PRS membership.
Matthew Devenish	The rich get richer, the poor get poorer! PRS listen to your members and reconsider
Brian Smith, Interspear Music	If this goes through, the Office of Fair Trading may well receive a communication or two.
Mike Kneller / B G Kneller	No Comment
Nina Gansa	No Comment
Matt Wand	whilst its not true that the lower rate will be slashed by 50 percent(nearer 25%) IT is true that this proposal by PRS furthers the financial progress of an Elite who already have agents and big connections in the larger TV production companys, HOW COME childrens TV ie 4pm to 6pm is Excluded? this is one of the few areas that consistently commissions Composers to write new stuff? whereas prime time often uses Blanket License material from Artists who already have labels/deals/publishers. This is not the way to encourage the art of composing for the moving image!. I also agree with the previous comment that the PRS should be lending its power and leverage towards breaking this insidious publishing scam among independant TV companies whereby they Buy out all the mechanicals AND Take 50 percent of your measly PRS money without even paying an advance!!. Its an outrage and the PRS should be doing something about it RIGHT NOW rather than making the system even more of a Lottery..
GERAINT HUGHES	No Comment
David Thomas	It's difficult enough to maintain a sustainable living from this work as it is - I always thought the PRS were on our side - perhaps I was sadly mistaken...
Jamie Telford	No Comment
Sandra Frisby	A quite outrageous and inequitable scheme which seems to have no sensible objective. It should be cancelled immediately.
JOHN HAWKINS	I believe the new ban of so called prime time is too limited. Many daytime shows hac=ve a large following yet they would be excluded from this thebadly though out prime time.
Jonn Savannah	No Comment
John Hartley	No Comment
Ric Sanders	I agree with Humphrey Littleton!
Vo Fletcher	No Comment
Philip Venables	No Comment
Jason Firth	This is primetime robbery
Richard Matthews	No Comment
Duke Ashton	PRS should recogmise its duty to treat all members in an equitable manner.
Lucinda Mason Brown	No Comment
Peter Davis	Have to say nothing surprises me with the PRS. Though it's all we have.But many of their decisions are totally inept. Comes with having the ex head of Barclaycard (fer chrissakes!) as its once head. It's overloaded with medicorities on the board who are just a boys/girls club cartel. As if the radio 'sampling' wasn't bad enough! If you're hard working on a semiminority music you're already suffering. I mean what are the rates for the new station 'the jazz' etc? Part of my area. Do they just dip in once a month and if you're lucky you get a hit? And what about the TV cartel on publishing where as a composer you have to give away 50% of your publishing to work? It'll be the usual suspects who'll benefit. And that's not the aim of the PRS. It's meant to care for ALL its members.
Brian Hoggard	Let's be fair!
Tom Russell	No Comment
colin owen	No Comment
Jan Kopinski	This will damage the foundations upon which the bulk of composers can scrape a living.
Hugh Robjohns	No Comment
martin furey	wise up mo fo
Paul Bishop	No Comment
Joseph Metcalfe	Broadcast is broadcast no matter what time of the day and is discrimination agaist television composers. Will this also eventually extend to radio broadcast, daytime concerts vs evening concerts and any royality performance that isn't prime time? The role of PRS should also be to support and encourage the general music talent that exists in our country rather than try to create classes within the industry. I see that these proposals will be damaging to more people that the number of people that this will benefit consequently discouraging more people from making a living in music, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Please also bare in mind that generally the composers who write for prime time already get higher commission fees and so they have their increased rewards up front. I would like to feel that PRS works for all composers rather than an elect minority. It ain't broke... so don't fix it!
Oliver Davis	Put simply - a matter of this magnitude needs a vote by members. I have yet to speak to anyone who is in favour of the proposal.
Chris Skerritt	No Comment
Robert Bradley	No Comment
waj hussain	No Comment
Anna Matthews	How will new composers ever make it to "primetime" if this is the way things will be?!
Humphrey Lyttelton	I agree with the above demands, adding that if the scheme spreads to radio, whole generations of young and promising musicians who compose there own material will suffer at a time when they need the most support and encouragement. It's a thoroughly bad idea.
Barney Quinton	No Comment
Ken Easter	I agree the rates should be adjusted to reflect the viewing figures but the PRS's knee-jerk reaction to this is simply bizarre. To liken the graveyard 12am - 6am nightime viewing figure with the daytime 6am - 6pm is a very strange decision... A better way would be to either simply 1/2 the PRS rates only for the 'graveyard' 12am - 6am, leaving the remainder of the day 6am - 12am to share the rest equally. Or 1/2 the PRS rates for the 'graveyard' 12am - 6am, have another 'daytime' rate for 6am - 6pm, then have a 'primetime' rate 6pm - 12am.... simple.
genene edwards	It's a bit like history.....good only for those lucky composers working under the patronage of the King or Duke.......
Daniel Thornton	No Comment
Lee Miller	No Comment
colin winston-fletcher	unfair,unjust under board tack ticks should be stopped.
All-Media Music Ltd	We look after a lot of dance music composers - God help us all when this scheme spreads to radio.
Laura Forrest-Hay	No Comment
alan barnes	Some prior notice would have been nice. Maybe even a vote..
Paul Rodriguez Music Ltd	Don't believe for an instant the ratio in favour of primetime will stay at 2:1 This is just beginning - it won't be long before the PRS Board introduce 3:1, then 4:1 then......who knows - 10:1? They are already considering spreading the scheme to radio which will hurt EVERYONE hard. Elections are coming up soon at PRS. Bear in mind that the Baords' vote on this scheme was UNANIMOUS. Therefore if any of Board are putting themselves up for re-election, you may well want to consider very carefully how you vote. I look after about 400 composers. Not a single one has said they agree with the new primetime scheme
Richard Burns	No Comment
apcb	In these days of the big guy screwing the little guy more viciously than ever, we need protection. I thought that was the job of the PRS. We make precious little out of royalties anyway and the prospects of a full time career in this business are becoming rarer by the day. These proposals are at best shady. Also, for those who are not members of PCAM yet, I would recommend you join ASAP. Good luck
Tony Flynn	I was always under the impression that the PRS had all it's members interests at heart. This definitely should of gone to a members vote!
David Mason III	No Comment
Gavin Courtie	A peak time show useage should get more than a 5am commercial, so a three tier peak/day/night system would be good. If a shopping/quiz channel chooses a loop to help their branding, that useage should be rewarded and get more than for a short clip, but a limit on number of minutes useage per hour should prevail. This is all technically possible with the PRS returns system as it currently is. This current solution seems lazy, biased and ill-informed.
John Rowcroft	I'm suprised and shocked at the lack of consultation on this and like most members I feel that a 3 tier system would be the obvious solution.
Colin Willsher	Good to see some of the bigger names supporting this petition. I can think of many who will be rubbing their hands at the new proposal but I think the majority of the membership are certain to be disadvantaged if this goes ahead. Defitinely one which should have been put to a member's vote.
Chris Salt	A tad worrying.
Alasdair Reid	Ham fisted, if not down right shifty. Should go to a vote of the membership - the three tier suggestion sounds like a fair way to go.
Gareth Cousins	I think this should have gone to a member vote. The vast majority of PRS members will be worse off under the new arrangement. I think the fairest way to collect PRS royalties would be under the 3-tier system proposed by many others - that daytime remains at a similar level to what it is now (althought there should be a regular increase in cash values, increasing in line with inflation, say), and that the extra value of peaktime be offset by a smaller payout for graveyard hours.
normand corbeil	No Comment
Jane Peterer	We, as publishers, resent the fact to loose more money, particularly as the CD sales dropped to almost nothing!
no name on the cue sheet	PRS doesn't license music. It licenses copyrights in music and not all copyrights have identical value.
Paul Farrer	I would have loved to be in the meeting when some bright spark suggested that if I am watching TV at a quarter to midnight I am doing so in 'PRIME TIME'. For god Sake PRS! drop this nonsense. Fix the problem at source. Stop punishing all composers on all channels!
Adam Saunders	This is an insane decision that has been made by PRS to reduce the payment-per-minute for 18 out of 24 hours of television broadcasts each day. I seriously doubt the intelligence and motives of this move, and I think PRS should prepare for an enormous backlash from its members, whom they are supposed to represent. I’m sure we all agree that the “graveyard robbery” issue needs to be addressed, but all PRS have done is punish composers who have absolutely no connection with these all-night quiz shows. How you can equate a minimally-watched Nightscreen quiz at 3.30am with, for example, highly-watched children’s programmes from 3 – 6pm and popular daytime news, entertainment, current affairs and magazine programmes beggars belief. Also, what about weekends? Is PRS honestly suggesting that families watching television together on a Sunday afternoon can be compared to an barely-existant audience at 4am in the early hours of a Thursday morning? I wonder how the staff at PRS would feel having all of their salaries slashed in order to give a massive increase to a few people on the board? Surely the most intelligent and obvious way to deal with this issue is to have three levels of payment: “Graveyard” (12am to 7am), daytime (7am to 6pm) and primetime (6pm – 12am). Keep the daytime levels the same (increasing with inflation each year), reduce the graveyard payment and add what is gained from that to the primetime payments. This is far fairer and I, along with other composers I have spoken to, cannot understand why such an obvious solution had been overlooked and what the motives are for this. I think PRS are in for a massive backlash from its members. It's a situation nobody wanted and I hope they deal with the problem quickly and effectively.
Edward Baker	Seems that PRS is creating a redistribute system. Pay 1-1. If your music is played you should be paid!
Christopher Slaski	No Comment
Stavros Afxentiou	No Comment
Ronan Paul Coleman	No Comment
Phil Kelly	composers have a hard enough time survivng in this business as it is. keep it 1-1 as it should be!!
Alexander Baker	No Comment
Clair Marlo	This is ridiculous. Music is music - no matter what time of day. If the producers don't want to pay as much for over night, let them use less music and see how their programs sound without the music. Do not devalue music any more than it's already been.
Scott Szabo	More and more composers are being asked to compose music with no upfront fee. Royalties have become the only way to actually get paid a fair wage for the work.
Mark Henderson	I'm not a PRS member, but as a composer feel this is a dreadful proposal. The value of the music and it's use shouldn't depend on the hours of the day that it is presented.
Mike Pailthorpe	I had to find out about this proposal via an American Film Music magazine - this is not what I would call proper consultation. I have been a PRS member since 1991.
Tracey Larvenz	Not a fair deal.
Claude Castonguay	Unfair to a vast majority of composers already relying too much on Royalties due to continuously declining up-front fees.Ironicaly, producers have been arguing for years that we would make up for poor up-front money with the back-end. Now where will the back-end be if PRS goes forth with this proposition? I concur with other colleagues this will be detrimental to a vast majority of composers and it will only benefit composers already privileged enough to score prime-time shows.
Sean Jackson	No Comment
Dana Detrick	I am concerned for the long term effects these kinds of changes in rates will have for composers, and believe they should have a voice in these decisions.
James Ryan	I'd like to chime in here on something that is near and dear to my heart. I do most of the music for CNBC's financial daytime shows which air in the US, UK and a number of other countries internationally. The prime time for this type of broadcast is irrefutably when the stock market is open, namely 9:30AM to 4PM. After that, the viewership drops off steeply (I checked the Neilson ratings here in the USA to be sure). That means that the number of viewers on this station for the 6PM to 11PM slots is a fraction of the daytime viewership which is vast, worldwide. Though this is a special case, it is a concrete example of how this kind of blanket judgment of when prime time exists, and when it doesn't is a very slippery slope, slanted towards the few and away from the many. I urge you to leave things as they are!
Gerard Swift	No Comment
Wayne Clark	I've always believed that the western world runs on democracy. That's what they say is so great about it. But I'm continually be shown otherwise, and this is just another one of those situations that leeds me to believe we're run by more of a dictatorship than democracy. I though that by being a member of a group or organization, gave you the right to be heard as an equal. How wrong I seem to have been. Do the right things guys, and put decissions like this to your members. I can accept living with decissions to which I was out-voted by all the other members, but I can't accept living with decissions made backstage with the microphones turned off. Shame, shame, shame.!
Benjamin Newhouse	No Comment
Ferial Harley	As always, it is much easier to penalise smaller members.
Katherine Sturt	PRS are clearly wanting to cut the administration and work involved in paying all members fairly - this is very underhand and unethical and makes a mockery of its original very existance.
michael colley	as if it is not hard enough already in the music industry,it seems the people you trust to look after you are making it even worse .every thing in this world seems to be about greed.not forgetting we as members pay to be treated for this unfair decision CHEERS
Ken Warke	No Comment
Val Fay	I think it only fair that all members of the PRS are consulted on a proposal such as this, particularly as it affects the majority of the members, I may be 'small fry' but I, like most other writers/ publishers work very hard towards achieving some success in the music industry and find it unacceptable that we should be penalised for not quite reaching the 'primetime' slot. Please reconsider your proposal and let all the members vote on this issue, it would renew the faith of many!
Dave Cherrett	No Comment
Christopher Ashman - Cringe Music - Commercial and Production Library Publishers	Oh, here we go again! The PRS board appear to have a habit of penalising the smaller publishers and writers, the majority of which are not party to the goings on behind closed doors. As a membership society comprised of those who thought that equality and fairness for all members was paramount, the latest move by the board is a nasty shock. The board comprised of representatives of the largest, influential and richest in the music industry have a habit of eroding the equality of the majority of the membership. Whilst it is appreciated that the influential can bend the ear of those able to improve the reward and recognition of members work. It appears that there may be those who have a vested interest in dividing the spoils in one direction or the other that is not in the interest of all members. This is unfair and not democratic, are we to see OFT being brought in again? How much will that cost the membership? It is difficult enough to get your works aired in the media if you do not have the money to monopolise media or create a lock out arrangement as is enountered more and more each year without the fair opportunities being squeezed by the PRS board. It is no so long ago that 100's of small publishers were ejected from the society because their accumalative earnings were smaller than a target set by the board, and later to find, that to rejoin would cost £400.00 plus other punitive requirements. Could the board's latest move be part of an attempt to do the same again when the smaller members are poorer or destitute.? No! surely not. They would have consulted the membership before they hatched a plan to grab more of the pie for for the big boys, wouldn't they???
Roderick Jones (Chairman) The Guild of International Songwriters & Composers	This PRS policy / scheme has done nothing to tackle the problem of the graveyard music, "graveyard robbery". All this policy has done is to give equal status and weighting to daytime music broadcasts and the graveyard music broadcast on programmes such as Nightscreen, the Mint and other similar overnight music dominated time prolonged gameshows, programmes. The fixed point value (payout per minute) of ITV1 has fallen drastically over the last few years. However the payout for BBC television has not fallen significantly over the same period (around £40 per minute in 2003, around £40 per minute in 2007). This policy has done nothing to tackle the problem and issue of per-minute terrestrial TV rates dropping due to "graveyard robbery" - music on programmes such as Nightscreen, the Mint and other overnight music dominated prolonged game-shows, programmes. This policy has done nothing to tackle the problem of the graveyard music. The board of PRS has a duty of care to the membership to ensure that where the PRS "money pot" is being so effectively drained leaving royalty income distributions to the PRS membership to be spread more thinly, that it doesn't continue. The real reasons why this is happening needs to be specifically examined and published to the membership. This policy is not good governance in terms of addressing "graveyard robbery". This policy, as introduced by the PRS board is incredibly unfair and will harm and reduce the income of the vast majority of PRS member songwriters, composers and publishers and all new songwriters, composers and publishers wishing to enter into the music industry in the future. How can the PRS board which comprises dominant and successful writers and publishers of TV/film music justify this policy? This policy wil no doubt benefit a very small number of composers. No explanation or justification is offered for this policy. No real, transparent, explanation is given for any of this. The entire PRS membership have not been fully consulted on this policy. PRS members who may be significantly affected by the further erosion of PRS royalty distributions through this policy, need to have the opportunity to express their concerns which should be made available to the membership by a vote. This policy / scheme amounts to a new distribution policy aimed at increasing the royalty rates hugely for a few writers by taking money away from all other writers - all other writers just happen to be the huge majority of the PRS membership. PRS is a de-facto monopoly. There has to be good governance. This policy is viewed as not being that. How can DECIMATING the rate which will affect the majority of the PRS membership be described as "PRESERVING the value of members' music"!
Rúnar Júlíusson	No comments just fairplay
Vic Flick	No Comment
Mike Moran	This whole idea is grossly unfair and simply rewards those who are currently enjoying "prime-time" success. The vast majority of composers rely on a 24hr spread of broadcasting particularly with regard to copyrights of some vintage.
Alan Hawkshaw	Please note my objections to the new peak-time broadcast ruling. The general feeling against this from the PRS membership is apparent. If you proceed with this proposal you will undermine the confidence of those you represent. Be prepared for a voracious backlash in the coming weeks and months.
Helene Muddiman	I am totally missing the point here, and I need someone to explain how your new system of rates will address the 'Graveyard robbery' , as I only see a system which instead seems just to be favouring the prime time slots at the expense of all the other time slots! Please can we ballot members on some proposed alternatives and their cost effectiveness , or just allow us to understand why you have come to this decision. i.e. if you explained the figures on which you based this decision I think most members would be capable of understanding them. Many thanks
Les Hurdle	Reverse oreder.. back to 1-1` HOWEVER... we now know PRS never really had 1-1????
Kevin Kendle	This would be very unfortunate for a large number of instrumental composers working in "minority" styles such as myself - most of my work gets used outside the so-called "primetime" hours.
Kerry Muzzey	Instrumental composers are already unfairly compensated against vocals; please don't take this step of rescinding even more of a living wage.
Eric Allen	This will be detrimental to the vast majority. The beneficiaries will be the charts/playlist. I am confident in the hope that common sense will prevail.
paul lawler	Out of the countless 100s of library tracks I have composed, and TV shows I have worked on ....99% is mostly NOT used in the primetime slot. Please take this into account.
Dobs Vye	The PRS is right to tackle the issue of per-minute terrestrial TV rates dropping which is due to 'graveyard robbery' i.e. the broadcast of music overnight on marathon gameshows or publishers doing deals to broadcast their catalogue overnight. But the recent proposal is a bodge which penalises music broadcast during the daytime by giving it equal weighting with graveyard music. This parity is a nonsense. 3 rates would be fairer: graveyard / daytime / primetime with graveyard worth less than now, daytime the same and primetime worth more than now at relative rates 66%/100%/133% Rating according to general size of audience is the policy behind all music royalty evaluation so this solution should satisfy the majority. It seems so obvious to me that I wonder what other politics are at work.
Malcolm Laws	No Comment
Nainita Desai	No Comment
Paul Moessl	No Comment
Olly Roberts	No Comment
Mike Holloway	No Comment