PPL Thugs back again

[mhall]

Thank you Esk. My original post was NOT about the wrongs and rights of the licence - there have been far too many threads on that already. It was purely about the arrogant, bully boy, aggressive contractors that PPL use to harass and pester me and to distress the staff. Coupled to that, the fact that, as professional and charming as they are on the phone, PPL do very little to stop that harassment.

By the way - for future reference, PPL told me that their call centre is contracted to contact you 3 times in total (not three times a day, as in my case). The trouble is, they are on commission and there is no-one policing the three calls rule.

Even if I wanted a PPL license I will NEVER have one while they run their business in this way.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

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.

Not quite.................

The "Money grubbing body" in the case of photos in books is called DACS.
http://www.dacs.org.uk/


The "Money grubbing body" in the case of books is called PLR.
http://www.plr.uk.com/

 

[David1962]

The music industry has it all wrong in this day and age, who on earth pays for something before they've heard it, you may not like it, which it what these licences are basically doing.

Surely the more people that hear the music the more people will buy it, that's why some quite high profile bands have embraced free music downloads.

OK, it's a little off topic but with every other industry you only pay for what you like, not just for the so called privilege of listening to something whether you like it or not. Just because a radio station decides to play that tune. That same radio station has already paid for that tune anyway.

Show me a struggling artist, who needs these fees, who's music is well know enough to demand a fee to listen to? It's a oxymoron.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

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.

Wait...

Gary Barlow is busking outside your shop?

 

[smo]

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?

I have asked PRS/PPL about cars used on business and they are remarkably sheepish. Basically they cant do anything and they know it even if its a company car, yet they claim that if an employee is listening to music on a company provided laptop whereever they may be I should pay a licence, or if they are using their own MP3 player, which is exempt as its only in their ears should they be using my headphones purchased by the company then the license is due.

They're idiots, plain and simple.

 

[SillyJokes]

Don't get me started on students living in shared accommodation needing to all have a TV licence. Now, that's annoying.

 

[Royalty-Free-Music]

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.

The problem I have with describing music as copyrighted or non copyrighted raises ambiguity. Each piece of music will have been composed by someone who either still owns the composition (copyright) or sold or partnered with another body who has part ownership (such as a record label) . Additionally there are rights to consider around the owner of the performance of a son which may be a different person or persons to the composer. Both have legal rights in terms of how their assets are used, just like anything else anyone owns.

So it's best, in my opinion, to look for true 'royalty free' music that is not registered or wavered from any involvement of any composition (eg PRS) or performing (eg PPL) royalty collection society.

Lastly there are a whole range of ambiguities around the use of music in certain circumstances and typically the societies will try to avoid getting involved in areas where licensing is unclear.

 

[Royalty-Free-Music]

Sorry for the typos guys, I did the post above on my phone... duhh

 

[emailblaster]

we get calls from these morons once a week - have done for about a month or so. I always treat them with the contempt that they deserve, they are rude, arrogant and aggressive on the telephone.