PPL licence, does anyone here really know what to do?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by hogattan, May 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hogattan

    hogattan UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    8 0
    I've asked a few questions here regarding bills from PPL. It's seems that although the replies have been helpful. nobody on here really knows how to anything other than accept things and pay their bills. If so I'm really surprised.

    Am I correct in this assumption?
    Posted: May 13, 2011 By: hogattan Member since: May 10, 2011
  2. elgunvo

    elgunvo UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    96 13
    Hmm.. I used to own my own internet radio station (with PPL License) so maybe I could help with questions. Unfortunately I haven't seen your posts. Could you send me the links to questions about this and ill see if I can answer them :)
    Posted: May 13, 2011 By: elgunvo Member since: Mar 15, 2010
  3. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    4,531 1,200
    That's generally the advice we have to give, because unless you only play specific material that is outside the control of PPL/PRS, they are entitled to act for their members and collect payment. The tricky bit is that there is not a pay per play system, the system is a license system, so if you only play one piece of music that is under their control, you need a license. Same system nearly as needing a TV license even if you never watch BBC. The rules say you need the license. No TV aerial, no TV receiver - then no license required. No copyright music played, then same again - no license required.

    What advice are you looking for? Some crafty loophole that lets you do it but not pay? If so - I suspect you won't find one as people have been trying to find this one for years. The free solution is to only use music that PRS/PPL don't act for - the trouble is, in general, this is a pretty stiff limitation.
    Posted: May 13, 2011 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  4. elgunvo

    elgunvo UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    96 13
    Oh I did not realize. This is why people keep saying just pay bill. I had my own radio station with PPL license. I thought the inquiry was about the license.

    My advice is that you pay the bill like all have said and then do one of two things. Either, apply for a PPL license like I did and play music you want (lots of things involved like Listener Counts, songs played * how many times played etc...) but keeps you out of trouble OR you dedicate the station to promoting new talent that you find. I wrote in forums asking if anybody wanted to be promoted through my radio station and I got 15 bands that allowed me to play there music for free so as they would get more exposure.

    Yes this means that the music is not top 40 but you would avoid paying PPL in the future and you'd be surprised how much talent is out there but unsigned.
    Posted: May 13, 2011 By: elgunvo Member since: Mar 15, 2010
  5. elgunvo

    elgunvo UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    96 13
    Posted: May 13, 2011 By: elgunvo Member since: Mar 15, 2010
  6. Gavin Harris

    Gavin Harris UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    886 65
    Posted: May 13, 2011 By: Gavin Harris Member since: Dec 13, 2006
  7. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    4,531 1,200
    The prison service can't listen to the radio because the Home Office decided they were not going to pay the PRS license - too expensive for all the prisons, so the irony is that the prisoners can listen to the radio - this is allowable under the rules, as it's their own radio, and their cells are considered the same as your home, but the officers are at work - so they can't listen!
    Posted: May 13, 2011 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  8. Bill Dawson

    Bill Dawson UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1 0
    I Have a P R S licence for playing background in my factorie( music radio) why do I need a PPL licence as well .Thay have sent me invoices from 2009to 2012 £4000-00 based on 4000m with sur charge 50%
    Bill Dawson
    Posted: Jan 31, 2012 By: Bill Dawson Member since: Jan 30, 2012
  9. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    4,531 1,200
    An easy one. PRS are an agency working on behalf of the composer of the music. PPL work on behalf of the artiste or record company who is on the recording. This is why TV adverts nowadays usually feature specially recorded versions of popular songs - NOT the originals. They pay the musicians a flat fee for their work, and the original artiste gets zero. Just as a matter of interest, it's also why if you look at things like the Spice Girls, you see their names as co-writers of their music. Faced with 100% of nothing, or 50% of something, I suspect many composers would happily share the credit.

    PPL were very tardy for years and mis-represented their artistes rights. Seeing PRS kick into overdrive, and targeting 'soft' users successfully, PPL did the same. Most people had at least heard of PRS, but few knew PPL even existed - something that's now changing. This is why people perceive PRS and PPL as new 'tax like' demands for money - when the real facts are that they should have been active in this area for many years and were both lax in their representation. They're universally hated of course by the people who have to pay - but from my perspective (as a producer) they're actually doing what they should have been doing for a long time!
    Posted: Jan 31, 2012 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  10. Arriba

    Arriba UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    6 5
    The musical dentist and the collecting society

    Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso

    In this dispute between a collecting society and a dentist in Italy, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) made it clear that for the purposes of the Rental Directive (Directive 92/100/EC) the playing of music to patients in a dentist's surgery was not a "communication to the public". In reaching this conclusion the CJEU regarded both the number of people communicated to and the reasons (profit making or otherwise) for the communication to be relevant:
    • the patients were not "persons in general" (they were a relatively fixed circle, as other people did not generally have access to treatment by that dentist)
    • they were insignificant in number ("the public" excludes groups that are too small)
    • they heard the music without any active choice on their part; and
    • they did not choose to attend this dentist or pay what they paid for treatment because of the music (the music broadcast was not likely, in itself, to have an impact on the income of that dentist - therefore it was not considered profit-making in nature).
    This decision of the CJEU is to be contrasted with earlier decisions where it has ruled the playing of sound recordings in hotel rooms was a "communication to the public". Such provision was to a "not insignificant" group and was part of the package of services that enabled the hotels to charge the rates they did.
    The British Dental Association's Chief Executive welcomed the CJEU's Del Corso decision and sought confirmation "...that this decision applies equally to the United Kingdom and should take immediate effect" and "assurances from both the Performing Rights Society and the Phonographic Performance Ltd that [they] will refund dentists who have already paid this year's licence".
    The PRS and the PPL quickly pointed out they would still be seeking license fees from dentists and similar businesses. This was because they enforced infringement by performance/playing the relevant musical or literary works or sound recordings or broadcasting them (respectively) "in public" as well as or instead of by "communication to the public".
    The public playing/broadcasting forms of infringement derive purely from UK legislation and unlike "communication to the public" do not have their roots in an EU Directive. Therefore when considering this type of infringement "the public" means what the UK courts have said it means and not what CJEU said it meant in the Del Corso case.
    The UK courts have held that acts, 'in public' mean all acts that do not take place in a private and domestic setting. For example, the owners of a factory that played music broadcasts from the BBC and vinyl records via loudspeakers to their employees were found to be performing/playing musical works 'in public'. This was so even though strangers were not allowed into the factory.
    This leaves the rather odd situation where "the public" means one thing in one part of the UK copyright act and another in another part of it. Therefore the UK courts may in future seek to close the gap or a further amendment may be made to UK legislation to bring the two types of infringement into line. Various business groups are lobbying for such a change. If this happens, then the licensing business model of several collecting societies will be significantly affected.

    Looking at the criteria the judge determined in this case,this would apply to many businesses,PPL have a track record of losing test cases in the past,resulting in them having to return considerable refunds.
    They twist the law to suit their bully tactics but they are going to struggle to fight this one-the case was found for all 27 EC countries including the UK.
    They are currently and incorrectly trying to bully my business into trying to make PPL payments. We are not a small business,28000 customers,48 million website hits and our own legal team.
    If they carry on with their bully tactics I intend to fight them and publicise all elements of the case.
    If your business fulfills the judges criteria you have a good case to reject their claims,don't be bullied.
    Posted: Sep 26, 2012 By: Arriba Member since: Sep 25, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.