Photo Credit: Andrea Czapary Martin, CEO of PRS for Music
The lawsuit filed against PRS for Music by Pace Rights Management, the Jesus and Mary Chain, and others is intensifying, as the plaintiffs are calling out the defendant’s “simply untrue” statements and wider operations.
London’s Pace Rights Management voiced this and different qualms with PRS for Music in an open letter, after the UK-based collecting society fired back against the suit shortly after its June filing. As we covered at the time, Pace, King Crimson founder Robert Fripp, and the Jesus and Mary Chain’s Jim and William Reid in their complaint targeted PRS for Music’s alleged transparency shortcomings and live performance terms.
Specifically, the plaintiffs expressed the belief that in practice, said terms benefit commercially prominent PRS members at the expense of all others.
On cue, PRS refuted the allegations, maintaining that it had “worked extremely hard to simplify our processes…which Pace has consistently failed to comply or engage with.” That alleged lack of compliance (though Pace says it “has no process to comply or engage” as a non-member) “resulted in royalties being unnecessarily withheld from PRS members for the live performance of their works at concerts,” the Nexus Program developer indicated.
The parties behind the action have addressed PRS for Music’s positions with the mentioned open letter, in part so “members can have some much needed transparency” on the organization’s activities and spending.
Spanning seven pages and a cool 3,600 or so words, the detail-oriented message begins by countering PRS for Music’s claim of long-running talks with Pace and the member plaintiffs. “PRS have refused to engage or discuss any matter with PACE for more than 7 years now, let alone having done so in a sincere or constructive way,” the text spells out on this front.
Notwithstanding the alleged refusal to explore discussions, the document recounts at length two purported meetings between PRS higher-ups and Pace, one having occurred in 2022, the other in 2023. Predictably, given the litigation and the public war of words, these alleged sit downs were far from fruitful.
“[PRS for Music head] Andrea Czapary Martin, [Members’ Council chair] Julian Nott and [chief international business officer] Sami Valkonen refused to discuss any of the material points. It was very evident from the meeting that neither Ms. Martin nor Mr. Nott had an appropriate or sufficient grasp of the relevant matters in dispute or of PRS’s own processes,” the letter continues.
Building on the meeting particulars, the message then takes aim at an alleged lack of transparency (the filing parties “believe that PRS has not been transparent with the Membership about the dates, agendas, attendances, minutes, information provided, and decisions of Members[’] Council, Board, committees and group meetings”) as well as the member approval process associated with the terms at hand.
From there, the all-encompassing text circles back to the main argument that many members are being harmed by PRS’ varying fee structure for live performances delivered by especially prominent professionals.
Illustrating the idea with in-depth calculations, the letter towards its end highlights an example of a stadium concert that would otherwise have £96,600 in admin fees.
“Instead of obtaining £96,600 in admin fees which could be used to reduce the 23% charged to Members,” the retort continues, “PRS has decided to discount this amount to a mere £125 with the MLCS [Major Live Concert Service] (which in the above example would result in an effective admin rate of 0.03%).
“This is in stark contrast to the rest of the Membership (including those who may have applied to receive touring and hardship grants) who are being charged 23%, 115 times more than the effective average rate PRS is awarding to the most prominent rightsholders.”
While it goes without saying, an amicable resolution doesn’t appear to be in the near-term cards. When contacted for comment, PRS for Music told DMN that it intends to respond via “the proper legal channels.”
“We will be providing a comprehensive response to all of the issues raised by PACE in their claim against PRS through the proper legal channels in due course,” PRS told DMN. “Our response will fully address any misrepresentations of PRS’ policies or practices.”
