PPL license for the radio - enforceable?

[OptiRick]

I really can't see why nobody objects to MacDonalds fiercely protecting the use of the Big M symbol in circumstances they don't approve of, and a musician wanting to assert the right they already have over their own property? The Beatles, for many years prevented their music being used in adverts, simply because they didn't want it used like that.

I object to the fact that it is being decided that I use this material in a certain way, ie broadcasting it for my benefit rather than merely being part of the audience.

Some may gain a benefit beyond a personal one for having a radio on and maybe they should pay for it, but that's not the point, the PPL & PRS are exploiting the term 'broadcasting' and that's where they are becoming unpopular. In many cases it is ludicrous to suggest that a radio is being broadcast for benefit.

When I used to have the radio on it was simply me listening to the radio in a room beyond a door off our shopfloor. According to the PPL/PRS I should be paying £100s per year for broadcasting material to the public (they would have to have strained to hear it) in this way.

I am assuming that the artists want as big an audience as possible, that's how they ultimately sell records.
And if artists/producers want to be so precious about how their material is used I think it may be time to stop sending it over the open airwaves.

Almost everything we do is controlled in some way

Isn't it just, what joy!

 

[paulears]

I suspect that while getting airplay on radio 2 may well work - the notorious Eva Cassidy effect, but for many - especially younger people, all that happens is that illegal downloads go through the roof, while legitimate airplay brings in peanuts - which may be why so many people are so protective - it's taking the mick!

The publishers are ok with what they call domestic use - and being honest, that's their call, isn't it? If the record company promote the music as free to use for non-domestic purposes, that's fine - but they don't. Copyright can be really expensive to clear. So is fuel - but not a lot we can do about it?

 

[OptiRick]

The publishers are ok with what they call domestic use - and being honest, that's their call, isn't it? If the record company promote the music as free to use for non-domestic purposes, that's fine - but they don't.

If I listen to the radio at home im OK.
If i'm on my own at work with the radio on I believe i'm OK. (is that right?)
If the missus is there then i'm some sort of criminal.

I don't care anyway, I used to only listen to Jeremy Vine and Radio 4. Now I work in peace and don't need to keep jumping on my soapbox.

I agree that people should get what they are due but these organisations aren't doing anyone (except themselves) any justice.

 

[Davek0974]

If I listen to the radio at home im OK.
If i'm on my own at work with the radio on I believe i'm OK. (is that right?)
If the missus is there then i'm some sort of criminal.

I believe it is so, although there is a lower limit of four people which attracts a smaller license fee, above that amount the sh1t really hits the fan and the fees get silly.

Of course, you could both wear headphones

If im going to pay for radio, id like to request the adverts be removed as im only paying for the DJ and the music. Are the adverts for public or private usage?? Why should i pay to be forced to listen to an advert that most certainly would not enhance my working day???

 

[CraigA]

Hi,
I discovered this forum whilst Googling PPL to see if they were a legitimate company etc after been hit with an invoice for a licence for £132.00 (the last year and a year in advance) After reading the thread I decided not to pay and asked my local MP (Andrew Percy) if he could help. He did with a letter to PPL. I now do not have to pay but have to remove my radio from the premises and am told someone will call to check!
What makes even more of farce of this is that they phoned me and tried to deal! Offering to write off the payment for last year so I would only owe the year in advance. It was at this point I told them I would remove the radio rather than pay. Hence no bill. Surely though, if this is the law, then it is the law? How can they possibly be in a position to deal?
I would add we are a small husband and wife business and have no other staff. The radio was in my workshop well away from our showroom and no member of the public could possibly hear it.
If, like me, you have discovered this thread after been 'nobbled' by these predators. Take them on before you offer to pay! Their tactics are immoral and unjust (but sadly legal it seems)
Thanks for the thread
CraigA

 

[paulears]

You've got the bit about the 'law' misplaced. The law does not say you must pay, the law says the copyright owners have control over their property - PPL and PRS act as agents, so can if they wish, within their contract with the owners, make exceptions and modifications. If these are too far from the original, they will need to seek the approval of the members.

So they do have the power to do this. As in you don't have permission to do it, and didn't have permission last year (or whenever) - so if they're prepared to do a deal - if it's a good one take it, and if it's not (from your perspective) then get rid of the radio and call it a draw!

 

[Davek0974]

Or get some headphones

 

[jsaila]

Well done CraigA for fighting the robber barons. It sounds as if you were in the same position as we were. I would advise everyone to do their own research on their particular situation. PPL hide behind vague terms and phrasing and the complexities of copyright, this plus a liberal dose of threatening letters usually intimidates people in to paying for something they never asked for.
If you read back through the threads you will find some very convoluted reasoning from Paulears and Atmosbob trying to muddy the waters. Essentially they are saying if you listen to the radio at work without a PPL licence you are robbing them of their livelyhood, utter rubbish. The argument usually goes on to say if you do XYZ you expect to pay for it so why should you expect to get your music for free. Or - your business is gaining some nebulous benefit blah blah blah. Plus, of course, there is case law so you wont win any way.
WELL WE DID.
Again it took a letter to the local MP, who felt the actions of PPL were outrageous, and before Paul says he probably does'nt understand the law that was his earlier profession.
Needless to say we, personally, did not get a response from the CEO, instead he sent a disingenuous letter to the MP explaining how PPL tried hard to work with businesses. No mention of the bullying tactics they used, or the complete ignoring of letters we sent, or the inaccuracy of their invoices.
I would suggest the attitude of PPL to radio broadcasting actually does the artists harm. Essentially they are getting free advertising, no that's wrong because the radio stations have already paid a license fee, so actually they are getting paid for advertising their product (music) to tens of millions of potential customers. I don't turn on the radio at work to listen to their music but if I heard something I liked I would go out and buy it, as it is we only listen to the mid day news, that is unless the dastardly news station embeds a clip of music.
So in essence all you musicians if you feel you are getting ripped off by some small business don't sell your rights to the broadcasting stations; but I'll tell you something, we wont even notice.
Finally, in response to their threat to check, ban PPL employees, representatives and associates from your premises.
Well done.

 

[Davek0974]

I would suggest the attitude of PPL to radio broadcasting actually does the artists harm. Essentially they are getting free advertising, no that's wrong because the radio stations have already paid a license fee, so actually they are getting paid for advertising their product (music) to tens of millions of potential customers.

Exactly.

 

[ads_9316]

my advice is to pay the license because, PPL's case goes like this
- they only charge radio stations based on how many people are connected to them, this charge includes on average between 1-2 people in a domestic enviroment it doesn't cover the cost of the copyright to the general public.
- because you play to the general public and have made the choice to do so you foot the bill of the copyright of the extra ears listening rather than teh radio.
this would render your case dead in the water, my advice is to pay the bill and then invest in a good pair of headphones. otherwise you will incur more bills. also notify them of the change or they will charge even more

 

[Royalty-Free-Music]

... or find a royalty free (Internet) radio station

 

[Davek0974]

my advice is to pay the license because, PPL's case goes like this
- they only charge radio stations based on how many people are connected to them, this charge includes on average between 1-2 people in a domestic enviroment it doesn't cover the cost of the copyright to the general public.
- because you play to the general public and have made the choice to do so you foot the bill of the copyright of the extra ears listening rather than teh radio.
this would render your case dead in the water, my advice is to pay the bill and then invest in a good pair of headphones. otherwise you will incur more bills. also notify them of the change or they will charge even more

They have no idea if there is one person or 1m people listening to them.

We do not play to the general public, our factory is private not public space.

Are you a musician by any chance?

 

[kulture]

They have no idea if there is one person or 1m people listening to them.
Yes they do

We do not play to the general public, our factory is private not public space.
So campaign to get the law changed, until then obey it.
Are you a musician by any chance?
What has that do do with licence fees

If you don't agree with PPL and PRS licence fees for radios in factories, and I don't either, then try and get the law changed. Sign a petition, lobby your MP.

 

[james86]

A cafe in the building that I work in got around this by placing a radio in the back of the kitchen, saying it was for staff and not customers so they didn't have to pay (wasn't in the front of the cafe any longer). Although you could still hear it everywhere in the cafe.

Any truth to this?

 

[kulture]

A cafe in the building that I work in got around this by placing a radio in the back of the kitchen, saying it was for staff and not customers so they didn't have to pay (wasn't in the front of the cafe any longer). Although you could still hear it everywhere in the cafe.

Any truth to this?

No. Playing a radio at work, licence needed. Playing music so customers in a cafe can hear, higher cost licence. No ifs no buts, they need to pay.

 

[Davek0974]

Originally Posted by Davek0974
They have no idea if there is one person or 1m people listening to them.
Yes they do

Then please enlighten us as to how they wold know that, other than just by guessing??

We do not play to the general public, our factory is private not public space.
So campaign to get the law changed, until then obey it.

Err, I think I'll do as I please and not as you say sir!

Are you a musician by any chance?
What has that do do with licence fees

Because history has shown that those who support it are usually musicians or connected in some way that's why.

If you don't agree with PPL and PRS licence fees for radios in factories, and I don't either, then try and get the law changed. Sign a petition, lobby your MP.

I have fixed my own problem my own way, but have also lobbied my MP

 

[kulture]

Radio stations, and TV stations know about their audiences. How else do they sell advertising space? As for doing as you please, be my guest. I do not care if you break the law or not. No doubt the prs and ppl people will care and will charge and fine you accordingly. As you say, it's your business. As for being a musician, no. Also I do not like the law regarding playing music in the workplace, BUT I at least obey the law.

 

[pbdesigns]

- they only charge radio stations based on how many people are connected to them, this charge includes on average between 1-2 people in a domestic enviroment it doesn't cover the cost of the copyright to the general public.

This is wrong.

PPL charge radio stations based on the revenue they make, regardless of listening figures:

Fees are based on a percentage (currently between 2-5%) of the advertising and sponsorship revenue generated by the station each year

 

[Davek0974]

Exactly, they do not and can not know how many listeners they have, they do take surveys but it's only a guesstimate or even a wish as to how many listeners they think they have.

 

[pbdesigns]

Exactly, they do not and can not know how many listeners they have, they do take surveys but it's only a guesstimate or even a wish as to how many listeners they think they have.

The Radio Audience figures are carried out by RAJAR. They conduct a nationwide survey across the country 4 times per year. All radio stations use this method. It is a fair measure of audience figures - and is not a guesstimate or "wish".

 

[Davek0974]

Unless they poll every single person, it is exactly that, a estimate or as I said, guesstimate. That have no real idea.

 

[pbdesigns]

Unless they poll every single person, it is exactly that, a estimate or as I said, guesstimate. That have no real idea.

And tell me of one survey that polls every single person, except for the census?

I think it's a more than acceptable way of measuring audience data.

RAJAR interviews approximately 110,000 adults 15+ per year (plus roughly 4,000 children 4-14) over 50 weeks. The Christmas and New Year holiday period is excluded from fieldwork.
The survey operates as a sweep, not a panel, which means that respondents only participate for one week. They are asked to complete a one week diary showing all the stations they listened to, for at least 5 minutes, recorded in quarter hour time blocks.

 

[Davek0974]

Ok so 110,000 out of what 64,000,000?? As I said, they only have an idea, an estimate, they don't actually know who is listening as you said they do.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread so I'm done I think.

 

[paulears]

It's a no win conversation. Statistical surveys are a surprisingly accurate method of estimation if the sample is properly managed. In cases like this you would expect people who benefit from a situation to promote it and agree with it, just like you'd expect somebody penalised by it to object. However - until something changes, it's pretty well established in law - and the few fringe questions get forgotten about until it becomes an issue of serious money, and then the legal people move in.

The simple fact, that this against constantly try to fudge is that the permission to use copyright material in particular circumstances is in the control of the producer, NOT the user.

everyone gets angry with the agencies who do collection, but if they didn't exist, the time taken to administer your use of the material would make you switch off.

Imagine the possible scenario of a law that requires all businesses to itemise every single piece of music used in the course of their business. Those businesses that currently have to do this - the broadcasters and the theatres, cinemas and other places often have to employ staff to manage the paper. Implementing this would soon cause a huge uproar - at present you just pay a fee, one to PRS and one to PPL if you wish to be 100% legit. Imagine having to deal with every single record company one to one? Nobody wants that - this is why we have PRS/PPL.

Nobody likes to pay - but music is a product, just like any other. I have no idea why people are so unwilling to accept that it is not their to do with whatever they fancy. I'll never convince them.

I'm sitting here attempting to calculate how much I owe for a show over Christmas. It's very, very complicated and quite expensive. It has to be done - no argument.

 

[Davek0974]

As I have said before, it's not paying it that's the problem, it's the amount we have to pay, the situations we have to pay it in, and the worst part, the bit that really ground my 'nads is the attitude of the companies we have to pay it to.

Of course copyright is needed, no argument, but PRS and PPL really need to sort these things out IMHO?

How's about pay per listen? If we old only pay for what we liked.... Oh yes, CDs & mp3's and the fees go ballistic.

Anyways, my only gripe was the radio in business thing that's all.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Are you a musician by any chance?
What has that do do with licence fees

Because history has shown that those who support it are usually musicians or connected in some way that's why.

And why not? It is their property after all.

I think you will find that 'history' has shown that those most against shoplifting are shopkeepers. I wonder why.

 

[kulture]

This thread has entrenched opinions and polarised views. Nothing anyone posts here will change minds. In my opinion no one really likes the tax collector. They are however a.necessary evil. The system is a bit flawed in my opinion. Prs and ppl not only enforce and collect they also get to set the rules. This is where the problem lies. There is no accountability.

The main argument is where to draw the line. Where do you say it is right and reanonable to charge a usage fee in addition to the purchase price. Prs and ppl set this bar too low. It is absurd to charge the retailer in a small shop who listens to the radio whilst waiting for a customer to come. It is absurd to charge a warehouse for playing a radio out loud and not charge if headphones are used. I completely agree with charging if the playing of music helps promote business. For example mood setting. Or to entertain. It is a question of where to draw the line.

 

[paulears]

This is also where a snag drops it - we pay VAT on a tin of paint, no matter if we like it, or hate it. We play music in a shop [full stop] - waiting for a customer? we play it to make the shop pleasant to walk around in, in the hope of a sale. It matters not a jot if there are customers or not. We are using the music. It's these kind of details that encourage the view that it's numbers that are the only thing that matters. They can be - as in a theatre audience, or totally unaccountable like background music in a shopping centre where there is no idea at all how many people actually hear it.

It's all based on setting a market rate that is simple (and cheap) to implement. As it happens, it's not cheap really - but putting turnstiles in shopping centres isn't workable, or even wanted by anyone. There are enough people now selling copyright free/royalty free music as a business to show that there's a market. However, mood music simply isn't as popular as well known stuff.

Youtube have a system where their software identifies music, and depending on the view off the rights holder, targets ads around these videos - which for music popular with the groups who are advertisers dreams works. For music where advertising would be ineffective, they either remove it, or do something else. One of my own non-business videos taken at Eurodisney was targeted like this - that awful small world song was in the background, I get the oh-oh email and ads have appeared - making disney a few quid I guess.

Of course the present situation has silly circumstances to some of the decisions - but that's just because we're still using old fashioned terms that lose their meaning. Phonographic performances?? That was playing a 78, as in phonograph! We're still using the term applied to mp3 files - at some point, that will be tested - because the only link now is phon - as in sound, and nothing better has been found. Performance rights themselves make no sense when linked to playing a bit of music on the radio - it doesn't even go to the performers (which is how we understand the term nowadays) - it refers to the performance of a copyright work - as in the music as composed.

It really does need a shake up - something I think we all agree with. Will it happen?

I doubt it - far more critical issues need sorting first.

From my perspective, though - I feel I always have to fight the cause, because as said - it's personal, and it's a little like being robbed feels to others. Until it's happened to you, you can't imagine how it feels!

 

[kulture]

There you have it, the dispute is where the line is drawn.
I live in a house, I listen to some music whilst I clean, I pay no licence. I go through a door into my shop, open up and start cleaning, I keep listening to music. There are no customers. I am meant to pay a licence. A customer comes in, I switch the music off as I do not use it to set a mood in the shop. Should I REALLY be paying? I know the PRS say yes. But this is where I dispute the line.

 

[paulears]

Do you have a TV license for the shop AND your private accommodation? If you have the TV set in your domestic premises, then as soon as you move it to the business premises, then you need another.

I understand the way you want common sense to work - but there is a line between private and business. In this case when the customer comes in, you switch it off - but the presence of the customer is not the decider, it's where it happens - and the customer would appear irrelevant to the argument.

Did you have a radio playing in your shop? says the judge. You start to explain. Yes, but... and the lawyers stands up and says - there we go m'lud, he said yes - and your but never gets heard because the yes was your admittance of guilt!

It's just a bit pointless trying to find these kinds of get outs because even trying them out for real would need you to have deep pockets - and how do you avoid the "yes' case above. You can give all the reasons, excuses and arguments you like, but you still did it.

 

[kulture]

That's just it, as I am aware of the law, and obey the law, I do not play music, or radio, or tv, in my shop. All I am saying is that I do not agree with the law in the instance I describe. I think it is unreasonable to pay twice for one person to listen to the music for their sole enjoyment. I completely agree with you that a business should pay extra when music is played in any way as part of the business.

I merely point out the absurdity that if I wore headphones it would not matter where I was.

 

[jsaila]

I see your still at it Paul, muddying the waters and trying to persuade people they will automatically lose. PPL are acting as judge jury and executioner if you let them. Kulture has a very good case, almost identical to our own. We went through our MP, as have others, PPL backed down. I've been away from the forum for quite a few months and just looked in, only to see the same old guilt stuff about "why should you expect something for nothing", we dont and neither should you, you get your money from the broadcasters so to expect a second helping from a small business person listening to a radio is plain greedy. You claim precedent is set well haven't those of us who got PPL to back down also set a precedent?

 

[kulture]

Hang on, I don't have a "case" as I do not play music in the shop. But thanks for agreeing with my hypothetical example.

 

[fathippy]

Thought I would drag this thread back to the top of the list kicking and screaming!! I posted on the subject a few days ago and was told to search the archives, which I did, and lo and behold there was pages of the stuff!

The points that I do not think have been covered are as follows :

Whilst it is clearly enshrined in the law, this arbitrary distinction between domestic and commercial does not seem to have any justification. It is there because it is, and like many other things businesses have to foot the bill for the collective wellbeing. Just co-opting all business on the tenuous basis that a small subsection may get some value seems somewhat without rigour. But then again businesses have to pay a ransom to get their rubbish removed and get harassed for proof on the subject, whilst joe public gets it for free, even though business rates are about 5-10 times as much as council tax. Given that the assumption is there is a pot of money to raid in "business" why is this not used by the businesses themselves to good effect in lobbying or awareness to fight this exploitation.

A specific economic question on the PPL topic is how many people are being turned off the radio broadcasts by these actions. Clearly many of the musicians are suggesting that they do not see much money from PPL or PRS but are fully behind the principle, however if they were to realise that in acting this way PPL are eroding the listening numbers to radio stations by 10, 20, 30%, and hence severely denting the cash cow payments from radio/advertising/promotion which actually DO pay dividends, then maybe their opinions would change. It is not outrageous to suggest that a large chunk of the listeners to daytime radio would be at work, and if these people suddenly did not listen to the radio, the adverts, or buy any new recordings due to the actions of PPL or PRS, then the net effect on struggling musicians would be far greater. You never know, this behaviour may end up killing the radio industry.

Finally just to re-echo a point made many times, I dont think anyone successfully demonstrated why it was logical for the double payment of the radio station and the business with a radio, or where this happens elsewhere. I dont think the examples provided worked. In most cases they just used the re-selling idea, or some kind of agency system. What we have here is two people paying a third for the benefit of providing exactly the same service to the fourth person AT THE SAME TIME and with no combined added value. This is not multiple items like phones nor multiple people paying royalties or licences to use in different situations - it is exactly the same situation. Do the radio stations remove listeners in any commercial environment from their listening figures in order to pay their fees?? I very much doubt it - they just add up the likely number of people listening. So the PPL are claiming to them that they have benefitted eg 5000 people, and then going after 4000 of those people somewhere else for exactly the same benefit.

I have gone on for too long now, hopefully there will be a little more discussion on this subject as I dont think it has been laid to rest.

 

[paulears]

Of course I'm still at it. I won't get anywhere of course, and I accept that - but interesting snippets do appear that are a bit more solid than the usual - hence why I reply.

Fathippy has thought thing through carefully I think - but the problem I suspect is that people are directing their annoyance at PRS and PPL, when in reality, they should be directing their energy to the people who use them as the agency to collect on their behalf. Individually, even the biggest artistes could not be very effective in collecting their dues for using their products. We don't have the means to do it directly. So PRS/PPL also have to take the flack for being the means of collection. The rules are pretty complex, and for me, I'm also a user of other members material and it can be very expensive - and it's always based on exposure. A 12 minute video could easily cost £800 for permissions to use copyright music on a web site for a limited period. Business users are not domestic customers. The use of this music as background doesn't encourage people to buy it - and that argument is less valid nowadays simply because music is rarely credited. For those old enough to remember how it used to be on the radio, when 'new releases' would be on RCA Victor AE2356, so people could actually order it. Now we rarely even know what we're listening to. Music on iTunes and spotify can be purchased, but you confirm it is for domestic use when you buy it. So many things now just don't allow business use. Maybe it's because insurance companies deem business use a different risk, or because John Lennon just didn't like businesses using his music he said no - it is a choice. Sure, the collection tactics are pretty tough, but although distasteful to some, they are acting on the combined permission of thousands of rights holder. While to the people who should pay, the entire idea is just crazy - and I do understand why they think this, to the people expecting their dues from the use of their music it's the only way to get income from the works they control.

The biggest problem is ignorance. It's hopelessly complicated and as misunderstood as Health & Safety.

If just a few people read my lone viewpoint and perhaps understand just a little why people like me don't see the business users as somehow subjected to injustice, then my efforts weren't totally wasted. Best wishes to everyone. Paul

 

[Arriba]

I have read some of your postings, it does go waffling on-just wondered why you take all this so personally? If PPL and PRS acted with less bullying telephone tactics we all may have more respect for the underlying principles.
But lets be honest these massive salaries to their exec directors are not in line with the principle of 'not for profit',they are using the system to line their pockets. How much of the royaties collected actually finds its way down to the composer or musician?

 

[Arriba]

PPL Refund

PPL have lost their appeal against the Copyright Tribunal decision and now face making millions of pounds in refunds to the pub, hotel, & retail industry.
As a result of new copyright legislation in late 2003, Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) received the additional right to license Radio & TV in a similar fashion to the PRS. By 2005 after a short consultation with the industry, a new tariff for background music in Pubs, Hotels & Restaurants was promulgated by PPL. On the back of the new right, PPL increased the entire range of fees for background music in Pubs, Hotels & Restaurants by in some cases as much as 400%. The BHA and the BBPA persuaded the government in October 2005 to refer the tariff, to the Copyright Tribunal, but the first hearing in November 2007 then led to an appeal on jurisdiction issues in October 2008 which the industry won. The Tribunal’s full decision in October of last year was to allow PPL only a 10 per cent all round increase which reduced the PPL tariff substantially, in some cases by around 75 per cent, but overall by over half. The High Court announced in early February, a rejection of PPL’s appeal against the Copyright Tribunal decision.
The Tribunal decision means that, for example, a hotel, restaurant or bar playing CDs/tapes or radio/TV with an audible area of just under 400 sq m, which would have paid £464.80 for its licence in 2009 under the PPL tariff, will now pay only c £110. Premises with less than 100 sq m audible area and which play only ‘traditional’ TVs and radios will pay about £55. PPL’s one area of success was that the Tribunal agreed to the proposition that they could introduce a surcharge of 50% for late payers.
PPL will now have to refund the excess fees paid since 2006 by hospitality, licensed & retail businesses but, as ordered by the Tribunal, it will not have to pay interest, nor will it have to make a refund to any licensee owed less than £50. PPL will be writing to all affected licensees to ask them to claim their refunds.

On that happy note I can go to bed.
signed-a lifelong PPL hater

 

[Davek0974]

Is there a link to an official source for this info please?

 

[jezrez]

I happen to own a beauty salon in a very "cool suburb" I play cool music in the salon but it is also a wide range of songs/performers, I buy CD's yes buy the CD's & everyone involved in their production has been paid, I do not ring Cafe Del Mar, Cafe Mambo, Robbie Williams, Rod Stewart, Madonna,Lady Gaga, Michael Buble' or any lesser known artist for a penny in advertising their songs as 100,000's of my clients who pick a tune they hear & say "wow who was that" if its from a compilation or they are reminded how much they like a certain song/artist because that song/mood fits in with how well there 20 mins to 1 hour has been at the salon for a treatment.
They then go on to buy or pay to download the track/album blah blah blah
Its 2 way traffic & PPL should be delighted & back off, I often think should I just pay a local singers to do their stuff & sell their cd's in salon & only pay the people who do it??

 

[paulears]

I understand your opinion - it's very common. It's not however PRS or PPL causing the problem as you see it, it is the very artistes you list who have sold you the use of their music on the CD you bought (remember - you do NOT own the music, you simply bought permission to play it domestically). It is them that do not wish you to use their product for business. You obviously pay very expensive rates for your business use of your premises. You could of course do hairdressing from your home and pretend you're just doing it domestically for family and friends. The haircutting will be the same, but it's what you do that matters. You are in business, and have to take the plus and negative points that come with it. You have an advantage in that you can buy your supplies at trade price, and very often your products are strictly to be used by pros - why? The supplier insists on it. They sell you product, but have the cheek to tell you that it is only for in salon use? Might that not fall under your description of unfair practice, if you were a fledgling home hairdresser?

Nowadays we have plenty of rights - some even quite crazy ones, but these rights are enshrined in law. Music copyright is exactly the same. Maybe Robbie Williams doesn't want his music used for business use? It's his music to do with what he fancies.

Incidentally, the concept that playing the music generates more sales has been spoken about for a very long time. The BBC used to be virtually the only mass broadcaster for music, yet the BBC have always paid considerable amounts of money to the record producers to use it. It's also documented now that illegal downloading has had a very big impact on paid for sales, so I don't really find the artiste's attitude to illegal and unauthorised use very surprising.

If you had a unique product that you could market to the rich and famous, would you be very happy if somebody copied your idea and were selling it on ebay? Your example is very simple. They could, if they wished, allow businesses to use the music for free. They choose not to. Isn't that what business is all about?

Not liking something, or even finding it unfair personally, doesn't mean it's wrong?