PRS for Music welcomes results of independent code review

PRS for Music has today welcomed the publication of an independent review of its code of conduct, which found the society was compliant with both its own standards and those of the government.

Anita Awbi
  • By Anita Awbi
  • 2 Jun 2014
  • min read
Walter Merricks CBE was appointed last year as part of a self-regulatory process put in place by the UK's Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) to ensure codes of conduct were fit for purpose.

He launched a consultation programme in November to collect evidence from the ombudsman, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the British Copyright Council, collective rights management organisations (CMOs), PRS for Music members, copyright users and their representative bodies.

The report, published today (Monday), found that PRS for Music was compliant with its own code of conduct and with government standards for CMOs.

It also made a number of recommendations that PRS for Music welcomed as part of its ambition to set best practice across all areas of its membership and domestic licensing activity.

These include PRS for Music and PPL committing to cooperate in their codes of conduct, and PRS, MCPS and PPL establishing small business users’ and broadcast music licensing consultation panels.

Robert Ashcroft, chief executive of PRS for Music, said:‘We are generally pleased with Walter Merricks’ code review and welcome the opportunity to work with our stakeholders in the coming months to implement his recommendations across the business.

PRS for Music was the first British collecting society to put in place a code of conduct. We strive to listen to and build strong relationships with licensees and fairly represent our members through our commitment to transparency in all operations.

‘Although the report shows a lack of understanding about the commercial nature of our business, it serves as an important checkpoint to ensure that we are on course to provide the highest possible service to members and licensees alike.’

To see the full independent review, please visit http://www.britishcopyright.org/