PPL Thugs back again

[mhall]

Just had four phone calls in the space of 30 minutes from "Mark" at PPL demanding that, even though we use only royalty free radio, that I pay them for a licence.

Now, I am quite happy to play his silly little game for as long as he wants but others may not be aware. I can only assume they are using another call centre who specialise in ignorant, arrogant call makers. He won't let me ring him back so next time he rings I am going to go on the offensive and demand his full name, his managers name and then rip his voice box out.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Tell you what, let him know that I listen to my radio while in work...

Company Authorized Access ltd.

Let's see him play his silly games with me

 

[ashbash]

Could you tell us more about royalty free radio? I will google it but would appreciate your experiences, thanks.

 

[mhall]

To be fair, good royalty free radio is not cheap- we pay around £6 a month. But I would rather pay that than deal with the idiots at PRS/PPL.

You will find lots of "free" royalty free music but, to be frank, it's hard work having that stuff in the background. The radio might not play Robbie Williams, but the staff have never complained about it and it just means the shops don't sound empty. We use imsradio.net but there are plenty of others.

 

[Esk247]

We are listening to music right now....and we haven't paid for any of it.....not one note





....there's a musician outside our office busking so we get free music every day of the summer Come get us PRS!

 

[thomasm1964]

Just had four phone calls in the space of 30 minutes from "Mark" at PPL demanding that, even though we use only royalty free radio, that I pay them for a licence.

Now, I am quite happy to play his silly little game for as long as he wants but others may not be aware. I can only assume they are using another call centre who specialise in ignorant, arrogant call makers. He won't let me ring him back so next time he rings I am going to go on the offensive and demand his full name, his managers name and then rip his voice box out.

Next time he rings, ask him if he understands his liability under the Protection From Harrassment Act 1997.

The following short extract is taken from the Crown Prosecution Service website. I can't post the URL (I'm a newbie here) but you can find the relevant information via the following path: Home -> Prosecution Policy & Guidance -> Legal Guidance -> S to U -> Stalking & Harassment.

In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim. Although harassment is not specifically defined it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contacts upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.
The harassment of another or others can include a range of offences such as those under: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. It is important when considering this type of offending to look at all relevant legislation when formulating charges.


The chances are that he will not have a clue where he stands legally - so frighten him back.


If all else fails, I have - in the past - used a mountain whistle to deter nuisance callers.

 

[fairdealworld]

I use AKM royalty free music (no connection other than as a satisfied customer). You pay for CDs or downloads as you wish but then can use forever. The CDs/downloads are not cheap by any means but we get many positive comments from customers some of whom want to know where they can buy the CDs!

In the past I used to sell CDs of a particular type of music which were relevant to my business even though the CD sales only ever formed a very minor part of our sales. I used to cough up the PRS/PPL fees because I was playing these CDs in the shop but got very tired of their attitude, in particular they'd call and try to persuade you to pay now even though the renewal was not due yet. This may sound petty but cash flow is the lifeblood of a small shop, all my other suppliers give at least 30 days credit or only expect you to pay at the point at which you place an order which will be with you within 48 hours or so.

I don't begrudge either artists or music companies a fee but it gets a bit much when you are playing CDs with a view to selling them which benefits both the artist and those producing the CDs and downloads and you have to pay a fee for playing them. As CD sales went down as digital downloads became more popular it was obviously time to cut my losses and go over to royalty free music. Searching around I found a lot of royalty free music that I simply didn't like and didn't feel fitted with my business aside from any personal reaction. I don't like all of the AKM music offerings but there is enough acceptable stuff that my customers like and which my staff and I either like or don't find too irritating on a day by day basis. Plus AKM don't pursue me other than by routine marketing emails but I'm okay with that as I can read them or ignore them or click through and listen to sound samples as I wish but there are no calls trying to persuade you to pay NOW and no fears that if a less experienced member of staff is alone for a few minutes they are going to find themselves dealing with a high pressure call from PRS/PPL. Now I buy a CD I have the right to play it in my shop indefinitely.

 

[Royalty-Free-Music]

A friend of mine was hassled by PPL last year and within a week he had a stroke. I don't think the stress of realising he owed an additional music licensing company did him any good.

I would suggest you ask them to put it in writing to you so you can then reply giving details of the royalty free radio station you use but I think my friend asked them to put it in writing and they refused. Might be worth a try.

Another retailer asked for my advice and actually had a letter from them which he was able to reply to explaining he used royalty free music. They eventually stopped hassling them but it took some time.

Clearly it's important to know you are legally covered with royalty free music so you can stop worrying about it and get on with your business.

 

[mhall]

A friend of mine was hassled by PPL last year and within a week he had a stroke. I don't think the stress of realising he owed an additional music licensing company did him any good.

I would suggest you ask them to put it in writing to you so you can then reply giving details of the royalty free radio station you use but I think my friend asked them to put it in writing and they refused. Might be worth a try.

Another retailer asked for my advice and actually had a letter from them which he was able to reply to explaining he used royalty free music. They eventually stopped hassling them but it took some time.

Clearly it's important to know you are legally covered with royalty free music so you can stop worrying about it and get on with your business.

I'm not worried in the slightest but I'm also not going to waste my time and money writing letters. I rang PPL direct and they told me that he shouldn't be ringing and that they would look at retraining him. That was yesterday. He rang again today - idiot !.

He is wasting his time with me but if he wants to send me an invoice he can- I'll see him in court and counterclaim. I will then produce my evidence (not that they will have the guts to get that far). I feel another court win on the way ....... perhaps we should make this our new business model - it's very profitable.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Why not ask for their email address and once received just go ahead and send them an invoice for time wasted/stress etc

Then every day ring at least once asking for payment.

Give it a week or so, see if they stop.

Might not be productive but it sure will be fun to give them grief for once.

 

[Esk247]

Sounds like a rogue employee or one of those who just doesn't get it, even when told to stop they still just have to keep harassing people.

I admire the persons rhino skin though. If i'm told no over the phone i go and sit in the corner and cry for a bit because I've failed.

PPL phoned us a few weeks ago but they were fine. She just asked if we had a license and I said no as we have a busker instead. She said that's fine and she'd just send a bit of information in the post, which she did and that's been the end of that so far.

 

[groovyjon]

there's a musician outside our office busking so we get free music every day of the summer

I hope you at least throw a few coins into his hat now and again!

 

[Royalty-Free-Music]

Why not ask for their email address and once received just go ahead and send them an invoice for time wasted/stress etc

Then every day ring at least once asking for payment.

Give it a week or so, see if they stop.

Might not be productive but it sure will be fun to give them grief for once.

I heard a chap on BBC Radio4 (I think) in the past few weeks talking about how he logs all nuisance calls and puts claims in for wasted time. He actually got about a hundred quid off of one company! He mentioned he was listed as not wanting cold calls. I wonder if PPL are allowed to cold call even if you have registered not to have those types of call. Interesting...

 

[Mayor]

Has anyone actually been prosecuted and punished for playing music without PRS/PPL licences ?

I pay up as it is a hassle I could do without, but I have a friend who blatantly told them to get stuffed, and sent all the paperwork back enclosing a note that he was looking forward to having his day in court, and he never heard another thing ! This was 4 years ago. His reasoning at the time was that he hadn't actually agreed to any contract when they sent him the bill. :|

 

[paulears]

I love these continuous tantrums from people who decide that they are right and others so obviously wrong. Sure - PRS and PPL may well be a bit toothless, but in this day and age of people using their human rights to get what they want, why is it so bad for music producers to want compensation for their work? We don't seem to get cross about tax inspectors descending, or fire officers demanding we spend money on fire precautions, or even H&S inspectors requiring us to do things we don't agree with - but on here we seem to continually complain about legitimate agencies trying to collect dues for their members - who happen to hold the rights for the music people wish to use. On this forum, we encourage people to use their contract terms to get payment, we advise people to use the county court system, and when people argue that X=Y we say "What does the contract say". Yet with music, nobody ever seems to read the copyright notice on a CD or DVD - and with a DVD the copyright info even comes up on the screen.

Sure - people don't wish to pay for their non-domestic use, and it can be expensive - but it's not right! Complain about the expense, complain about how their collection tactics might be questionable - but there are music producers out there who have their music used without any agreement and receive no payment for their hard work.

If your company produced a product that instead of paying you for, they used behind your back would you think this fair? How about if you sent in the debt collectors, to get what you are legally entitled to, and they went on the net complaining about the baseball bat the debt collectors were waving around.

The way it works at the moment is that if you dig your heels in, they'll probably go away. Personally, I wish they actually take more people to court. Plenty of members think this way, while others want them to ease up. Oddly - I have a suspicion that the people who want more action are those who earn very little because they are starting out, while the established producers get a higher percentage automatically.

The PRS and PPL system is not remotely perfect, but when I put on one of my CDs - NO PUBLIC PERFORMANCE PERMITTED - I rather hope people don't do it. If you wish to play one of my tracks in public, I'd probably say yes anyway - but why do people think they have the right to disregard the creators wishes?

If you give your staff a car, or a bit off their mortgage, or a clothing allowance - it's a benefit in kind according to HMRC. Isn't playing music a similar thing? Nice to do, pleasant to listen to. If you have a pay for Spotify account for domestic use, it's a license, just like PRS.

Everyone' argument is to tell them to get stuffed and carry on using the music against the wishes of the people who own it. That seems a rather immoral argument to me.

 

[Mayor]

Maybe if the PRS & PPL modified their approach, they would have an easier time of it. I found the PRS to be very affable to deal with, their approach was benign, and they explained the system, the history, and the reasoning to me. (This was ages ago, though). The PPL, however, came on very aggressively - making sweeping accusations, and threatening all sorts of hellfire and damnation if we didn't pay up. As it happens, I have more than one shop - one plays music all day, as part an parcel of providing the right sort of ambience in the shop (and pays its dues to boith PRS & PPL), the other doesn't play music at all. When I explained this, they utterly refused to believe me, and started presuming that we MUST have been playing music in the staff area, and that it would be audible in the shop, and that we were going to have teams of inspectors descend on us and haul us all of to purgatory. Not a pleasant conversation.

Maybe if they took the line that they were acting as representatives of the musicians and composers rather than some sort of police force they would be better received.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I haven't had dealings with them but I think PRS or PPL contract their money collection to Crapita, the same people who chase TV licences. Crapita must have sent me about 50 rude letters which went straight to the bin. If they had only started with a polite letter I would have replied that I do not watch TV, instead they wasted 50 stamps and ended up sending an inspector.

 

[smo]

but on here we seem to continually complain about legitimate agencies trying to collect dues for their members

They are NOT legitimate agencies.

They are companies, profit making companies who invoice people randomly for goods they assume you have used. There is no contract and there is no legal right to invoice people for what they do. They also have a long record of being obnoxious harrassing baffoons.

Its no different to me getting your company details and sending you a made up invoice for, breathing say, i'm going to charge you for breathing - are you going to pay?? No?? I'm not going to pay for a radio broadcast where EVERY SINGLE ARTIST has already been paid for the PUBLIC broadcast by the radio station.

 

[paulears]

Totally and utterly incorrect!

PRS and PPL are my only method of recovering money that is due to me - there is no alternative, and like the co-op, members of the society rely on them to act on my behalf. Indeed, part of the membership agreement is a legal document that has to be witnessed - as it assigns the agency the right to act on my behalf.

You are also uninformed about radio play. For goodness sake, get wise and read the label on any CD you own. It specifically states that radio or public use is not on! How difficult is it for people to separate fact from fiction just because it appeals to your own belief on what is right. It is VERY different from any of your analogies above. Artistes have NOT been paid for public broadcasting, they get paid for private use only. Anything other than that is extra.

Wanting something to be is not the same as the truth!

You believe what you want - but please, don't promote the total rubbish you just sprouted as how it is - because like it or not, PRS and PPL have the rights to control that music, and what is 100% certain is that you don't!

It always ends up like this - I should be used to it by now, but it really makes me smile when you read topics where people have had their ideas, their patents, their business models pinched, and everyone sides with them and says - sue them, take them to court, they're totally wrong ....... but with music? Hey, it's just music, stuff 'em! If I wish to use it to hell with paying. Talk about reversed attitudes.

It is FINE for people to disagree with the system, but please don't try to pretend that the system doesn't exist. Maybe if so many people didn't think like this, there would be no need for the tough tactics?

 

[fathippy]

I'm not going to pay for a radio broadcast where EVERY SINGLE ARTIST has already been paid for the PUBLIC broadcast by the radio station.

I think this is the key point and one which the PRS/PPL apologists repeatedly ignore or refuse to answer. This is that everyone who listens to radio has paid for this right through that particular business model. The same as commercial television, and many internet content models these days.

I accept that the public broadcast of a CD or mp3 does not fall in this category, however the majority of these arguments that crop up on this forum tend to be shops or offices playing commercial radio stations.

I would be far more forgiving if someone demonstrated to me that in setting the cost of radio station fees, the statistics covering those people in commercial surroundings was removed and the fees were consigned to the private listener only, with PRS/PPL allowed to collect the remainder. However this probably is not the case, with the listener numbers including all the possible end users.

In my book therefore, when PRSPPL do their diatribe they are effectively trying to double charge the same person/people for the same thing. To coin a phrase of an earlier post, does this not seem a little immoral ?!

 

[mhall]

I make it very plain - I am not trying to dodge the law or not pay my dues. IF I played the radio or CDs I would buy both PPL and PRS -that is the legal, moral and ethical thing to do.

However, purely BECAUSE of the subcontracting to whoever by PPL and the thuggish way they harrass us I PLAY ONLY royalty free music. "Jamie" from PPL continues to ring, I continue to call PPL who very nicely apologise and say they will take our number off his list. He continues to call, I call PPL again and Shelia apologises again very nicely and escalates my complaint to Alex. Jamie then rings when I am not there and tries to get a member of staff to implicate me: "I have already spoken to the owner who tells me you listen to the radio at work, can you just confirm that for me" - of course she does- its ROYALTY FREE radio !. Jamie calls again at 9.00 this morning, I am now getting well peed off with his "it was confirmed to me yesterday that you listen to the radio" -HE IS NOT LISTENING

I call PPL at 9.15 again, who apologise again but they haven't got time to talk to me now- they will ring me back ! . I put the phone down. 9.25, the phone rings again and it's Jamie - today is not a day to pee me off.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

The best thing to do to be honest is record him. Tell him he is being recorded and that you will be passing the recording onto his superiors.

Obviously keep your end polite, concise and factual, i.e. you only listen to Royalty Free Music.

Ask for an email address then send them the bill for wasting your time. As the saying goes

Time = Money!

 

[paulears]

Quote:
Originally Posted by smo

I'm not going to pay for a radio broadcast where EVERY SINGLE ARTIST has already been paid for the PUBLIC broadcast by the radio station.

I think this is the key point and one which the PRS/PPL apologists repeatedly ignore or refuse to answer. This is that everyone who listens to radio has paid for this right through that particular business model. The same as commercial television, and many internet content models these days.

But they don't? The music is produced for private consumption. Not a mass broadcasted speculative play, where nobody knows for certain who listens, or plays it at home, at work - for any purpose?

All rights of the producer and copyright owner reserved. Unauthorised copying, re-recording, broadcasting, public performance, hiring or rental of this recording in whatever manner is strictly prohibited. Apply for public performance and broadcast licenses to: PPL..........[\quote]
This is a typical example of printing on a CD.

Clearly the people who own the material set rules. If you don't agree with them, then don't buy them - and maybe some people are happy with the copyright free music you can buy for these purposes. The BBC and others pay for broadcasting to the general public to use privately. They do not pay for business use, or playing in public, or any of the other non-domestic uses. This becomes an issue for the user to satisfy. Close to me, a garage had a visit. They wrote a cheque out on the spot. Other businesses in the road were pretty cross, because they felt that this small business should have held out, but the owner, although not liking it, realised that he didn't have any permission to play the music - which clearly is the core feature.

Do you have the right to use the music in your individual circumstances? If you have - that's fine. Can you meet the statement on the CD? If you can't, you should pay. Seems quite simple to me!

 

[mhall]

Paulears - I totally agree with you - I really do.

I have no real problem with PPL OTHER than they have subcontracted enforcement to a bunch of scumbags. When I call PPL they are very professional and very polite. They listen and they apologise but I know they actually don't give a stuff and do NOTHING to stop the harrasment, presumably because it gets results and they believe upsetting a few people is worth it.

PPL have now rung me back again, they have "escalated" my complaint again and told me he really should not be ringing me as he has all the information he needs (Durr !)

We will see.....

 

[smo]

Totally and utterly incorrect!

PRS and PPL are my only method of recovering money that is due to me - there is no alternative, and like the co-op, members of the society rely on them to act on my behalf. Indeed, part of the membership agreement is a legal document that has to be witnessed - as it assigns the agency the right to act on my behalf.

You are also uninformed about radio play. For goodness sake, get wise and read the label on any CD you own. It specifically states that radio or public use is not on! How difficult is it for people to separate fact from fiction just because it appeals to your own belief on what is right. It is VERY different from any of your analogies above. Artistes have NOT been paid for public broadcasting, they get paid for private use only. Anything other than that is extra.

Wanting something to be is not the same as the truth!

You believe what you want - but please, don't promote the total rubbish you just sprouted as how it is - because like it or not, PRS and PPL have the rights to control that music, and what is 100% certain is that you don't!

It always ends up like this - I should be used to it by now, but it really makes me smile when you read topics where people have had their ideas, their patents, their business models pinched, and everyone sides with them and says - sue them, take them to court, they're totally wrong ....... but with music? Hey, it's just music, stuff 'em! If I wish to use it to hell with paying. Talk about reversed attitudes.

It is FINE for people to disagree with the system, but please don't try to pretend that the system doesn't exist. Maybe if so many people didn't think like this, there would be no need for the tough tactics?

Oh dear, go and re-read and check your facts first.

PPL and PRS are NOT an agency, they act like a government agency but they have no connection whatsoever and are not an agency.

What agreement you have with them have no bearing on them sending invalid and uncontractual invoices to businesses - you can sign you life away to them but I couldnt give a **** as i'm not contractually obliged to pay them anything!

ALL commercial radio stations pay for the music they play for public broadcast over the radio waves - thats a fact, even our TV licence goes towards this too. This has nothing to do with CD's so stop ranting about them.

 

[smo]

But they don't? The music is produced for private consumption. Not a mass broadcasted speculative play, where nobody knows for certain who listens, or plays it at home, at work - for any purpose?

If radio isnt a mass broadcast speculative play then what is it???

Stop going on about CD's, we're talking radio here which is royalty paid by the stations for a mass speculative broadcast to anyone who wishes to listen.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

It's my understanding, as I've had it out with PPL some 3 years ago that the licence is already paid for by radio stations, they're broadcasting to the public... whether we're in business or not - we are still classed as "the public" because we do not work for the radio stations.

I pointed this out to PPL and I also added that this is a small shop where the music is played in the office and not in the shop, the PPL representative then tried to tell me that Public could still hear the music from the office... I asked him how do you know that? you've not been here.

His answer was extremely vague and basic "Music travels".... WHAT?!

I then asked him if he could hear the music from the office through the phone as of which he said (Believe it or not!) YES! I asked him what was playing, and he mentioned a band as of which I said no, the Directors were in fact listening to church music... (I know daft isn't it... but hey ho! )

The phone was put down on his side, and I've not heard from them since.

 

I love these continuous tantrums from people who decide that they are right and others so obviously wrong. Sure - PRS and PPL may well be a bit toothless, but in this day and age of people using their human rights to get what they want, why is it so bad for music producers to want compensation for their work? We don't seem to get cross about tax inspectors descending, or fire officers demanding we spend money on fire precautions, or even H&S inspectors requiring us to do things we don't agree with - but on here we seem to continually complain about legitimate agencies trying to collect dues for their members - who happen to hold the rights for the music people wish to use. On this forum,.

Different senario.

Radio is financed by the advertising or license fee.

Hence the artist should have been paid by the radio stations fee's ,as they have paid for the right to broadcast.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Paulears - I totally agree with you - I really do.

I have no real problem with PPL OTHER than they have subcontracted enforcement to a bunch of scumbags. When I call PPL they are very professional and very polite. They listen and they apologise but I know they actually don't give a stuff and do NOTHING to stop the harrasment, presumably because it gets results and they believe upsetting a few people is worth it.

PPL have now rung me back again, they have "escalated" my complaint again and told me he really should not be ringing me as he has all the information he needs (Durr !)

We will see.....

Call them back and tell them you want financial compensation for your inconvenience, and unless you get it you will be taking the matter up via civil litigation, and reporting them under the various laws with regard protection from harrassment. Don't back off, TELL them you want compensation, make a formal WRITTEN request for compensation for the time and mental suffering caused by their illegal harrassment. tell them you are looking for £500 as minimum.

 

[Esk247]

In this instance I understand we are talking about PPL, PRS, Big Hairy Bob or whoever calling up businesses randomly and pressuring them about a license that they 'may' not need.

I don't give a flying chipmunk about which music producer/artist requires payment from which agency..why?..because we don't play music in the office, or anywhere, at all, ever! Not even on personal devices which are not permitted to emit a tune or even a jingle during the working day.

From what I understand, that's the OPs predicament. Being pressured and hounded to pay a fee for something the OP doesn't even use as they have royalty free music approved by themselves, which is not subject to a license fee. So why are PPL/PRS whoever still calling the OP demanding payment?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

And there it rests, the OP needs to get money out of them PDQ as THAT is the only thing that will stop it. I have had a few £25 compensation payments sent for poor service.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Thinking about it, would it be possible for someone to request a refund based upon the quality of music provided by radio stations?

What about giving them a bell and demanding that you have a refund of £200 because BBC Radio One won't stop playing hip hop? I can only get Radio One on the radio here due to the amount of steel in the girders.

I want my refund!

 

[SillyJokes]

Sooooo, if my neighbour is playing music and it carries and we can hear it.... do I have to pay, or not?

 

[kulture]

I suspect that your neighbour should pay if they are playing so loudly it becomes a public broadcast! Now thats an idea to get noisy neighbours to shut up. Get the PPL bully boys on them.

 

[paulears]

Different senario.

Radio is financed by the advertising or license fee.

Hence the artist should have been paid by the radio stations fee's ,as they have paid for the right to broadcast.

Last attempt - then I will just give up on this one. The artiste gets paid for the personal listening people do the station's output. This is the terms of their license. The BBC, in particular have a public broadcasting remit, they don't have a business one, so don't pay the artistes for this kind of listener. Probably because of all the hassle with intransigent business people who invent their own interpretation of what is legal and what isn't.

Copyright always generates controversy - because people don't treat it as something 'real'. We have PRS, PPL, Getty Images, Disney and others who protect their areas of interest quite fiercly. Why is this necessary? I suspect it's because they view illegal use of their products as not a good thing.

The rights of the individual is protected in law - and not agreeing with it does not change a thing!

That's it from me on this one. I understand I'm a lone voice in the wind. However - if I found a business using one of my pieces without my permission, I'd have no problem in whacking out a county court summons - secure in the knowledge that the law would protect my investment. When people have asked, I've always said yes for good causes - I just hate the the people who don't know, or don't care.

 

Last attempt - then I will just give up on this one. The artiste gets paid for the personal listening people do the station's output. This is the terms of their license. The BBC, in particular have a public broadcasting remit, they don't have a business one, so don't pay the artistes for this kind of listener. Probably because of all the hassle with intransigent business people who invent their own interpretation of what is legal and what isn't.

Copyright always generates controversy - because people don't treat it as something 'real'. We have PRS, PPL, Getty Images, Disney and others who protect their areas of interest quite fiercly. Why is this necessary? I suspect it's because they view illegal use of their products as not a good thing.

The rights of the individual is protected in law - and not agreeing with it does not change a thing!

That's it from me on this one. I understand I'm a lone voice in the wind. However - if I found a business using one of my pieces without my permission, I'd have no problem in whacking out a county court summons - secure in the knowledge that the law would protect my investment. When people have asked, I've always said yes for good causes - I just hate the the people who don't know, or don't care.

Its a scam as well you know it.:|

If what you say were true then the PRS, PPL.e.t.c would be after every listner in the country and not just business's

 

[Hunnie]

Quote
The BBC, in particular have a public broadcasting remit, they don't have a business one, so don't pay the artistes for this kind of listener.

So if I am in my car using it privately I can listen to the radio with no need for a PPL or PRS licence.
But if I am on business and therefor 'a business listener' I have to pay this extra fee?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Why people have such a problem understanding licences I do not understand.

Think of it like your driving licence. There are different licences for different uses. If you have a provisional motorbike licence it does not give you permission to drive a car. You need a car licence to drive a car and an HGV licence to drive a truck.

It is similar with copyright. You need different kinds of licence to play recorded music such as CDs. If you run a radio station you need a radio station licence. If you have a shop or business and you play music to help the ambiance of your premises you need a licence for that specific purpose. It doesn't make any difference if the CD is played by a radio station and you listen to that or you buy a CD and play it yourself.

Likewise, if you buy one of my photo books you have not bought a licence to scan the images and put them on your web site. You own the book but not the right to reproduce it.

 

[Nuno]

Why people have such a problem understanding licences I do not understand.

Think of it like your driving licence. There are different licences for different uses. If you have a provisional motorbike licence it does not give you permission to drive a car. You need a car licence to drive a car and an HGV licence to drive a truck.

It is similar with copyright. You need different kinds of licence to play recorded music such as CDs. If you run a radio station you need a radio station licence. If you have a shop or business and you play music to help the ambiance of your premises you need a licence for that specific purpose. It doesn't make any difference if the CD is played by a radio station and you listen to that or you buy a CD and play it yourself.

Likewise, if you buy one of my photo books you have not bought a licence to scan the images and put them on your web site. You own the book but not the right to reproduce it.

The question is not reproduction (as in copying): "You own the book but not the right to reproduce it."
If I buy your book I can show it to whom I please without buying another licence, or two licences or whatever some money grubbing bodies decides.

So if I pay for the BBC through the licence, or commercial radio through enduring advertising, why should I pay to have other people listen to it? I'm not copying the music and flogging it am I? Royalties and copyright fees have already being paid by the radio station.

This is double dipping by the PPS and others. Copyright is intended to protect and nurture creativity not pay for bureaucratic, parasitical organizations.

 

[Esk247]

Personally the license situation is very clear. I get it. If I play a Gary Barlow CD at the Dog n Duck without a license then sue me.

However, PRS/PPL cannot chase after businesses just because they 'may' be playing Gary Barlow CDs in the office. They have to prove it before they get shirty and start reading the riot act on copyright law.

It's the same with DVDs. You cannot play them for a public audience. You can play them in your own home as long as an audience doesn't gather on your lawn to watch.

People are not quite understanding the original rant perhaps? That mhall isn't even playing copyrighted music, at all, ever. There is NO COPYRIGHTED MUSIC on the premises...so PRS/PPL are bullying and intimidating someone who hasn't even done anything wrong.

We purposefully demand all staff do not listen to mp3 players or iPods or anything as the busker outside already has his street performers license and he's merrily shouting a tune for free.

This post wasn't sponsored by Gary Barlow.