Why DO performers get paid so much less than writers? Plain talking at the PPL AGM

PPL chairman and CEO Fran Nevrkla’s is one of very few people who can claim to speak on behalf of the entire UK recorded music industry, since PPL represents the interests of record companies large and small, as well as individual performers. Nevrkla’s AGM speeches therefore act as something of an annual State of the Union address for the British recorded music sector.

So where does the British recorded music sector as a whole – and PPL more specifically- sit in June 2010, according to Nevrkla? It’s performing pretty well in comparison with other territories he notes, but there are still plenty of challenges. There has still been no success in achieving copyright term extension for sound recordings, for one. This subject has been lower on the news agenda in 2009/10, but it’s still a crucial one for PPL and its members, he noted. A European Copyright Directive is required, and whilst the Spanish Presidency only has three weeks left to provide such legislation, PPL will continue the fight as the presidency moves to Belgium. “We never, ever give up,” Nevrkla insisted.

Nevrkla also warmly welcomed the passing of the Digital Economy Act. Whilst acknowledging that the Act has its imperfections, he asked its critics to give the new legislation a chance, saying “have you ever seen or heard of a piece of legislation which is perfect at its point of enactment and introduction?”

PPL itself had a frustrating 2009, he acknowledged. The company was on course to continue its impressive annual growth and pay more money than ever back to its members, when it lost a ruling at the Copyright Tribunal which meant that it is forced to return £18.1m in license fee income. Needless to say that PPL was highly dissatisfied. “My colleagues and I are wholly supportive of the concept of the Copyright Tribunal,” Nevrkla said, before going on to describe its actual ruling against PPL as an “eccentric and bizarre decision”.

Nevrkla also noted that the Copyright Tribunal even described itself as “ill equipped to perform” its regulatory task. What this experience has meant however, is that the vast majority of the pub and retail market enjoys a one-size-fits-all license fee price, regardless of the businesses’ size. Not only is that unfair, it also means that performers and recording rights holders receive much less than composers and publishers for the public performances of their work in the very same premises.

Nevrkla clearly views the imbalance between writers’ and performers’ rights as a deep injustice which permeates UK copyright law and its application, one which needs to be addressed. Not only do performers’ copyrights expire more quickly, they also get paid much less for the same usage than writers do.  A fascinating illustration was later delivered by PPL’s executive director Peter Leathem: A building the size off PPL’s office must pay a PPL license for music performance which costs £337 per annum. The same building must pay PRS for Music £3140. “Why this continued discrimination,” Nevrkla asked. We certainly find it bizarre and unjust that the public performance of one intrinsic copyright in a recording can be valued be worth roughly ten times more valuable than another intrinsic copyright. Can writers and publishers defend or justify this disparity, or do they prefer merely not to draw attention to it? We invite them to send us their responses on this subject.

Nevkla further noted that the industry must do everything it can to promote the value of music and “would be well advised to delete two or three words from our vocabulary entirely and they are ‘promotion’ and ‘promotional value’.  There is no such thing in the 21^st Century.  There is usage, there are benefits.” He also hit out at those who belittle the copyright on sound recordings, and rubbish any moves to protect these rights. He accused this “small minority of our academics, various other self-styled ‘thinkers’…the digital freedom fighters” of “gross ignorance and naivety.” He also hit out at the argument that performers should “sell more T-shirts” to make up for the diminishing or disappearing value they receive from sound recordings. “What should that T-shirt say”, he asked “‘I was a fiddle player in the LSO and the RPO years ago, I can’t play anymore, I am old, I am ill, please feed me, cuddle me, look after me, make me warm, give me water’.  If it was not so arrogant and cynical and pathetic it would be laughable.”

Nevrkla paid warm tribute to a great many music industry bodies and figures, all of whom do their bit to protect musicians and their incomes. AIM, BPI, IFPI, MU, Equity, MPG, FAC, UK Music and MMF all got thanks and encouragement. “We are in this fragile glass boat together, all sectors of the music industry.  No-one should ever try to do anything to score brownie points at the expense of another,” he added.  The message to PRS for Music was slightly more challenging, possibly on account of the disparities mentioned earlier. “We are delighted to be collaborating with PRS for Music, please let us do it a bit faster because otherwise it might get a bit frustrating,” he said, adding: You truly are our cousins and we could and should do many good, exciting things together.”

As always Nevrkla left us with plenty of food for thought. We’ve long been aware of the disparity between writers’ and performers’ rights. As the entire recorded music usage model moves increasingly and rapidly from sales to licensing however, levelling this disparity seems an ever more crucial issue fundamental to the health of the music business but also musicians themselves. It would be wrong to focus only on this disparity however, since writers and performers do have so much common ground when it comes to copyright: they all feel the painful pinch of falling music sales. They all stand to suffer when their copyrights are not respected. With organisations as focused and passionate as PPL fighting to protect these rights, musicians are lucky to have some powerful and intelligent allies.