Editing Performance rights organisation (section)

==Criticisms==
PROs have been criticised for charging [[non-profit organisation]]s for their use of copyrighted music in situations where the non-profit organisation was not earning money from the use. ASCAP, for example, was eventually forced in the face of public opinion to abandon its attempts to charge the [[Girl Scouts of the USA]] for singing campfire songs. ASCAP's and [[SESAC]]'s policy of charging [[non-commercial educational]] (NCE) [[radio station]]s for playing copyrighted music has also been criticised, especially by [[Campus radio|college radio]] stations across the U.S., which rely entirely on student and listener support for funding and have difficulty affording the extra fees. Community Orchestras, which mostly play classical works in the public domain, may occasionally play a work within copyright, but are forced to pay licenses to rights societies on all concert revenues including concerts where all music is in the public domain, which is then distributed to songwriters of pop songs.

PROs are often criticised for stretching the definition of "public performance." Until relatively recently{{when|date=November 2014}} in the U.S., playing copyrighted music in restaurants did not involve legal issues if the media was legally purchased. {{Citation needed|date=September 2013}} PROs now demand royalties for such use.

<blockquote>"One exception to the rule allows businesses of a certain size (stores under 2,000 square feet, restaurants or bars under 3,750 square feet) to play music from a radio, television, or similar household device without a license, provided there are fewer than six speakers (with limits on the placement of speakers), and customers aren't charged to listen. Other exceptions include educational and charitable functions... If your business falls into one of the categories listed above (size of business, number and placement of speakers, etc.) radio/TV] you may want to check out section 110(5) of the Copyright Act. As you likely won't need a license. But, before making a decision, check with a lawyer."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Deceglie|first1=Paul|title=Cut It Out|url=http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/22604|website=www.entrepreneur.com|date=23 February 1998 |publisher=Entrepreneur|access-date=12 March 2013}}</ref></blockquote>

By discouraging performances in limited public arenas, again using the restaurant example, critics {{Who|date=September 2013}} say PROs eliminate the free publicity such performances provide for a work thereby depressing media sales. Incidentally, lower media sales conflict with PROs, but disputes between the two parties are not known to occur since each type of organisation represents the interests of the same parties - rights owners - and are forced to work in common interest.

Rights owners – especially independents and newcomers not represented by large [[Music publisher (popular music)|publishing]] companies – criticise the PROs for what they deem to be "mystical" formulas for deciding who gets what share of the total licensing revenue received. They also criticise PROs for slow or non-existent payments and excessive membership dues or service fees.{{citation needed|date=March 2014}}