Performing Right Society sued by songwriters

25 June 2024 - Press release

A group of leading UK songwriters and composers, including Robert Fripp (from King Crimson amongst others), have initiated a court action against their own collective management organisation, the Performing Right Society (PRS), in a bid to overhaul the implementation of procedures and policies which are prejudicial to their interests and to the interests of PRS Members more broadly.

After many years of PRS refusing to discuss or constructively engage with the matters in dispute, the Writers have determined that legal action is now the only possible recourse. They have been joined in this action by PACE Rights Management, the global leaders and experts on direct licensing Live Public Performance Rights (being the right to publicly perform a composer's music and/or lyrics by way of live performance).

The issues at the heart of the Writers' position are:
The right of music writers and publishers to efficiently Direct License their Live Public Performance Rights (i.e. license their rights directly to the users of the rights e.g. concert promoters or festivals, without having to go through PRS to license their rights). Direct Licensing allows writers and publishers to benefit from fewer deductions from their royalty income, faster royalty payments and greater transparency throughout the process. PRS has imposed a number of unreasonable and unnecessary hurdles which it says must be overcome if its members are to withdraw their Live Public Performance Rights. It has done so unilaterally, without consulting its members or seeking their approval. The Writers cannot conceive of how these measures are supposed to further their best interests, or that of other PRS Members. Instead, it appears that the measures PRS are seeking to impose are intended only to try to prevent the writers from Direct Licensing their rights, and receiving their money without PRS being able to deduct fees from it. PRS seems to be actively working to try to ensure those Members receive less money for their rights than would otherwise be available to them. The measures PRS are seeking to impose would also suggest that PRS has decided that it would rather that UK Writers' money goes to its overseas Performing Rights Organisation (PRO) Network members and to benefit their economies, than the money goes to UK Writers, and benefits the UK economy and UK exchequer.

PRS is deliberately withholding information from its Members about the deductions they suffer from their royalty income when their rights are licensed internationally via PRS. This lack of basic transparency means writers are unable to make fully informed decisions about how to licence their own rights. In the Writer's view, PRS is not transparent with their Members as to the deductions they are suffering. Again, this creates a sense amongst the Writers that PRS is not acting in their best interests and is more concerned with maintaining control of its Members' rights, rather than enabling its Members to make clear and coherent commercial decisions based on the true value of their rights.
The Writes say that the implementation of the Major Live Concert Service (MLCS), which awards preferential conditions to a small group of arbitrarily chosen rightsholders, is in direct conflict with PRS's obligations as a collective management organisation. The scheme has been implemented by PRS without consultation with, or approval or consent from the Membership. It has created a situation where, for instance, a songwriter whose works are performed at a concert selling just over 500 tickets with a face value of £30 is charged more administration fees by PRS, than a songwriter whose works are performed at a concert selling 80,000 tickets with a face value of £150. According to PRS's own figures, the preferential conditions of the MLCS results in its beneficiaries paying an average administration fee of 0.2%, while the wider PRS Membership pays 23% - proportionately, 115 times more. In effect, the most successful writers are being subsidised by the rest of the PRS Members. The Writers believe that, together with its previous incarnations, the MLCS has led to the vast majority of PRS Members being overcharged administration fees by PRS on live and international income for nearly 30 years.

PRS has a monopoly in the UK over the administration of performing rights, with reciprocal agreements in place with other similar Performing Rights Organisations in other countries. However, as a mechanism to safeguard the best interests of writers and publishers members of PRS have a statutory right in UK law which entitles them to withdraw their rights of their choice, and take advantage of alternative licensing arrangements. This right of withdrawal from PRS is brought squarely into focus by today's legal action.

The freedom of writers to withdraw their rights from PRS has been a long-running frustration. In 1994, the writers of Irish rock band U2 launched legal action to challenge PRS' "anti-competitive and restrictive behaviour" on this issue and the resulting "inefficiencies, delay and excessive expenditure" that they incurred. A 1995 Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC, now renamed the Competition and Markets Authority) report about PRS, noted that, "U2 said that for live events in some countries the amount received was only 50 percent of what it should be and it took up to three years to come through." 30 years later, it seems that PRS Members are suffering from similar inefficiencies and opacity when they license their rights through PRS.

In a collective statement, the claimants in the legal action stated:
"From a theoretical or academic perspective, the efficiencies of collective rights management make perfect sense for songwriters and composers. However, PRS has strayed significantly from the principles on which it was founded 110 years ago, to the point that the organisation's policies no longer appear to be operating in the best interests of its Members. PRS Members are treated as second-class citizens in their own organisation.

"Regretfully, after years of PRS refusing to discuss or constructively engage with these issues - including the withdrawal of Live Performance rights, the lack of transparency around international deductions, and the operation of the Major Live Concert Service - we have been left with no option but to seek redress through the courts. The ball is now firmly in PRS's court. Either they constructively engage with much needed reforms to empower and benefit writers and publishers, or they continue to resist these necessary changes, and attempt to defend the indefensible by spending yet more of the Members' money on legal costs supporting policies that make the Members less money."

Robert Fripp added:
"I am yet to be persuaded that the PRS operates on behalf of the membership's best interests."

PRS Members (or their representatives) wishing to support the action or receive more information can email: JusticeforPRSMembers@PACErm.com