The key was business. You kitchen if only for private use would be fine but you shot yourself in thefoot by telling them you use it in the course of your business. You may also find Prs will also take the same view now you owned up to ppl? What's defence have you? None, you admitted to business use. I wish you luck with the mp but I doubt they will get involved especially as copyright law has recently been tested in the courts.
Much as I sympathise, there are two schemes because there are multiple rights holders - the artistes who performed the music have rights on their contribution, and the person who wrote the music has rights too. It's common sense that they should be the same, but copyright originally was only concerned with the composers - recording hadn't been possible because it wasn't invented. If anyone has old sheet music from the early 1900's it always mentions copyright. Once we started recording music it suddenly became more complicated. Rogers and Hammerstein wrote it in 1945 - so it is still under copyright. However, Gerry and the Pacemakers made it popular again in the 1960s, so their performance generates income for them, while the songwriting royalties go to the composers. That's why there are two separate organisations. I know it sounds like a rip-off, but these people are legally entitled to payment for using their products.
Music is always treated as somehow a product that should be free. Small businesses do have many licensing issues to take into account - that's just a downside to being in business. Try selling Disney products without a license if you wish to see how rigidly copyright is enforced. Using images from Google in your advertising can be a much more expensive problem if you use Getty Images without permission - their recover costs are very high, and they protect them fiercely, which again people complain about. Ignorance about any aspect of the law isn't good to rely on as a defence, and the trouble seems to be people believe not having to pay for some things is right.
It's much simpler to simply do an automated country court summons, and leave it to the judge to rule. They probably have no option but to find against people, because the legal question is so watertight. Did you use the copyright material in the course of your business, and if you say yes, but ......... you are guilty - and costs can be high!
Not liking a law isn't an excuse for not complying with it. Oddly I can't think of any musicians who would think the law is wrong. I work a lot with the Musicians Union, and there are clear rules on extra payments when people do extra things with their work. Music, photographs, video, art, even knitting patterns all have copyright restrictions, as do trademarks and patents. When somebody develops a new drug, they don't give it away free - just because it will save lives. When Ugg design a new boot, do they go after the Chinese factories that copy them. If you have a shop, would you sell counterfeit goods? All these things come down to ownership of rights.
If somebody opened a tea shop near you, and borrowed your menu, or colour scheme or logo - would this be ok? Do you have to take out a license from the local authority to be able to sell alcohol, and have food safety certificates, all separately?
People just object to paying for music - I understand, but get very agitated when they try to defend it. All laws are unfair to some people - like locally the guy who complaining about having to pay for water AND sewage, saying this is unfair and he's paying twice for the same product. Daft, but not so different from what we're talking about here?
