PRS\PPL Music Licensing - Know Your Rights
- Thread starter Azimuth
- Start date
- Original Poster
- #42
This conversation highlights why I feel there is a need for what I suggested in my original post. A resource of knowledge based on facts and legal documentation that is sourced and if necessary political and legal action to seek clarity and fairness for the business community.
It is obvious from people's post around the internet that there is a huge amount of confusion and fear about this and a lot of anecdotal information about bully boy tactics being used to enforce payment.
Do you have a problem with me wanting to provide said people with information and legal and political redress? If so shame on you. I say your are a self interested bigot and need to examine your motives not mine.
There is an awful amount of people's "opinions" here without any legal source... why is that? It's just white noise. Quote legal documents I know exactly what the PRS position is, I don't need it repeated over and over by people with a financial interest in it's continuation.
It seems some posters feel whoever shouts the loudest and has the most emotional outburst is correct. "Musicians must be paid" is not a legal argument nor is just saying "it's the law". What law ?
My motives are to correct a possible injustice here for the business community. I feel commercial interests are deliberately subverting the law for their financial gain and as a citizen I find this abhorrent to witness. If you have a problem with that you have a problem with democracy.
I will be continuing with this action group away from these forums, the angry and intolerant response have convinced me that it is essential to have a forum for people with a different point of view to express themselves.
It is obvious from people's post around the internet that there is a huge amount of confusion and fear about this and a lot of anecdotal information about bully boy tactics being used to enforce payment.
Do you have a problem with me wanting to provide said people with information and legal and political redress? If so shame on you. I say your are a self interested bigot and need to examine your motives not mine.
There is an awful amount of people's "opinions" here without any legal source... why is that? It's just white noise. Quote legal documents I know exactly what the PRS position is, I don't need it repeated over and over by people with a financial interest in it's continuation.
It seems some posters feel whoever shouts the loudest and has the most emotional outburst is correct. "Musicians must be paid" is not a legal argument nor is just saying "it's the law". What law ?
My motives are to correct a possible injustice here for the business community. I feel commercial interests are deliberately subverting the law for their financial gain and as a citizen I find this abhorrent to witness. If you have a problem with that you have a problem with democracy.
I will be continuing with this action group away from these forums, the angry and intolerant response have convinced me that it is essential to have a forum for people with a different point of view to express themselves.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #43
Thanks for the support. To clarify my point about the BBC I was just musing or thinking aloud. Sorry if this was confusing.
It is my understanding the BBC have a right to broadcast to all members of the public in the UK professional and domestic. Therefore it is difficult to imagine that they have signed a license with PRS for playing music on the radio (which I believe they have) for just the non-professional part of their audience, free for PRS to then collect another fee from professional listeners.
This doesn't make sense to me, but I don't know the contracts singed and I doubt anyone on here does either. I was thinking of requesting clarification from the BBC on this matter.
Despite what was mentioned on here before I believe the BBC does pay PRS to broadcast their licensed music on the public broadcast channels like the radio. They describe these channels as non-commercial. However I think that in BBC legal documents non-commercial references their "public service broadcasting" remit not their other commercial activities (e.g selling top gear in the middle east).
@paulears said that radio was free and the BBC had no PRS license for that. This is not correct, in PRS's own literature they state BBC radio is covered by their blanket license.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
The Byre summed this up very well, I thought. There really is nothing complicated because if you telephone PRS or PPL and ask, they will explain exactly what you should do - but like everything, the choice is up to you.
Music is a tradable commodity, just like the stock in a shop, or items sold on ebay.
All this stuff about licence fees is just a side issue, and nothing at all to do with copyright. Is this not like linking road tax to keeping within the speed limit -paying the Government to use the road system, but then ignoring the speed limit on the roads you paid to use?
To be honest, this subject appears as regular as clockwork with exactly the same opinions.
Some people just wish to believe what they want to believe, and think anything else is unjust.
I make money from rights, but equally I also pay them when I use other people's. This is the correct and moral thing to do. Some people will then seek to do the wrong thing. This is perfectly normal for some members of society seeking to avoid what they do not like.
Getty images, PRS and PPL are well known. Less well known are organisations such as the CLA - who do the same for photocopying and ALCS who do the same for written works. Not ever having heard of them doesn't mean they cannot seek to recover money due to their members.
If you cross the line, then having action taken is down to the person who had their rights abused. If some act and others don't, that doesn't mean the ones that do act are wrong.
I always smile when shop owners complain. If somebody walked in and helped themselves to their stock, they'd call that theft - but them using somebody else's property without permission or payment is ok. Double standards, or what?
Music is a tradable commodity, just like the stock in a shop, or items sold on ebay.
All this stuff about licence fees is just a side issue, and nothing at all to do with copyright. Is this not like linking road tax to keeping within the speed limit -paying the Government to use the road system, but then ignoring the speed limit on the roads you paid to use?
To be honest, this subject appears as regular as clockwork with exactly the same opinions.
Some people just wish to believe what they want to believe, and think anything else is unjust.
I make money from rights, but equally I also pay them when I use other people's. This is the correct and moral thing to do. Some people will then seek to do the wrong thing. This is perfectly normal for some members of society seeking to avoid what they do not like.
Getty images, PRS and PPL are well known. Less well known are organisations such as the CLA - who do the same for photocopying and ALCS who do the same for written works. Not ever having heard of them doesn't mean they cannot seek to recover money due to their members.
If you cross the line, then having action taken is down to the person who had their rights abused. If some act and others don't, that doesn't mean the ones that do act are wrong.
I always smile when shop owners complain. If somebody walked in and helped themselves to their stock, they'd call that theft - but them using somebody else's property without permission or payment is ok. Double standards, or what?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #47
@Jeff FV The "Domestic and Non-Domestic" terms are used in PRS literature only and not in copyright law. I personally prefer professional/non professional. But it is up to you what terms you use as the copyright law makes no reference to the setting in which the "public performance" takes place. However some legal cases may use different terminology but I haven't read them yet.
To clarify I am not a no-copyright advocate as some people here are making out.
I think in some professional settings PRS has the right to enforce copyright for its clients such as a nightclub or festival where the music is to an extent a "public performance" - the term actually used in the 1988 copyright act.
However in other scenarios such as mechanics in a workshop or someone playing music in a van I think this is outside the scope of their copyright enforcement area as it is not a "public performance". As a purchaser of the CD/tape/record they have a right to play the music in this setting I believe.
@paulears You continue to explain the reason behind copyright laws but this, I repeat, has never been disputed. I am challenging the PRS/PPL interpretation of the law, if you want to defend their stance you need to actually use legal arguments based on legislation and case law not your personal opinions or vague proclamations.
Your suggestion that people phone PRS for guidance when receiving an invoice/demand from them is like telling someone to phone car clamping companies when their car is clamped. Yes it is useful to know what their opinion is but other sources should be consulted to allow consumers to challenge what they are saying.
Given that they have misleading information on their website (saying copyright is 70 years when for music recordings it is actually 50) I think my argument that the business community needs an alternative source of information and potentially redress is entirely justified.
Here's food for thought, the latest relevant case related to this argument was in Italy (granted not UK but we have ratified many EU copyright laws, I need to do more research to see how this could be used in UK courts) they found in favour of a dentist playing the radio in a waiting room. The dental practice were liable to pay nothing...
To clarify I am not a no-copyright advocate as some people here are making out.
I think in some professional settings PRS has the right to enforce copyright for its clients such as a nightclub or festival where the music is to an extent a "public performance" - the term actually used in the 1988 copyright act.
However in other scenarios such as mechanics in a workshop or someone playing music in a van I think this is outside the scope of their copyright enforcement area as it is not a "public performance". As a purchaser of the CD/tape/record they have a right to play the music in this setting I believe.
@paulears You continue to explain the reason behind copyright laws but this, I repeat, has never been disputed. I am challenging the PRS/PPL interpretation of the law, if you want to defend their stance you need to actually use legal arguments based on legislation and case law not your personal opinions or vague proclamations.
Your suggestion that people phone PRS for guidance when receiving an invoice/demand from them is like telling someone to phone car clamping companies when their car is clamped. Yes it is useful to know what their opinion is but other sources should be consulted to allow consumers to challenge what they are saying.
Given that they have misleading information on their website (saying copyright is 70 years when for music recordings it is actually 50) I think my argument that the business community needs an alternative source of information and potentially redress is entirely justified.
Here's food for thought, the latest relevant case related to this argument was in Italy (granted not UK but we have ratified many EU copyright laws, I need to do more research to see how this could be used in UK courts) they found in favour of a dentist playing the radio in a waiting room. The dental practice were liable to pay nothing...
Upvote
0
Given that they have misleading information on their website (saying copyright is 70 years when for music recordings it is actually 50) I think my argument that the business community needs an alternative source of information and potentially redress is entirely justified.[/QUOTE]
Actually they are correct. While the copyright in a particular recording may last 50 years the copyright on music lasts 70 years, which is what they say on their site.
Actually they are correct. While the copyright in a particular recording may last 50 years the copyright on music lasts 70 years, which is what they say on their site.
Upvote
0
70 years in the UK, 50 years, both from the death of the composer.
Azimuth - it is indeed my own opinion, based on the results of reported cases, since I became interested. Nothing in my opinion seems to have produced a contrary result I'm able to find, however, if you are a legal professional with contrary evidence to outweigh my experience, I'm happy to read it and vary my opinion.
You do seem, based on what I read, to have a selective approach to considering history.
Totally fine with me, I'm used to it, and I just like to read the legal reports in the PRS communications we get where people have lost cases in court.
As for Private vs Public - I find little difficulty putting cases in the categories. It's a shame payment for determining status cannot be used - because that would have made the waiting room scenario easier.
Azimuth - it is indeed my own opinion, based on the results of reported cases, since I became interested. Nothing in my opinion seems to have produced a contrary result I'm able to find, however, if you are a legal professional with contrary evidence to outweigh my experience, I'm happy to read it and vary my opinion.
You do seem, based on what I read, to have a selective approach to considering history.
Totally fine with me, I'm used to it, and I just like to read the legal reports in the PRS communications we get where people have lost cases in court.
As for Private vs Public - I find little difficulty putting cases in the categories. It's a shame payment for determining status cannot be used - because that would have made the waiting room scenario easier.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
Poor old @Azimuth - he has a for-year-old start-up with his brother, selling software, yet he does not yet understand copyright law!
I strongly suggest that he mugs up on copyright law, before someone buys a copy of his software and starts spreading it around, or making it available to others for a small fee, or porting an on-line version as a free-bee to promote a digger-hire company.
Or otherwise commercially exploiting his property.
I strongly suggest that he mugs up on copyright law, before someone buys a copy of his software and starts spreading it around, or making it available to others for a small fee, or porting an on-line version as a free-bee to promote a digger-hire company.
Or otherwise commercially exploiting his property.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #52
@paulears I am pleased to hear you are willing to listen to the legal arguments.
@The Byre I challenged you to come up with legal arguments backing your claims and instead you decided to do a KGB style background check on me and post personal details not relevant to this discussion. This behaviour is unacceptable and you should be ashamed of yourself. If it continues I will report you the the UKBF owners.
@The Byre I challenged you to come up with legal arguments backing your claims and instead you decided to do a KGB style background check on me and post personal details not relevant to this discussion. This behaviour is unacceptable and you should be ashamed of yourself. If it continues I will report you the the UKBF owners.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #58
Even listening to talk radio you are not exempt according to PRS as they contain jingles, advertising music etc... The problem is their interpretation of the law gives them the right to suggest they have a claim for everything involving music. It goes against consumer choice and is in my opinion an open abuse of the near monopoly they have on music copyright. Imagine if every copyright holder behaved like PRS you could get 100's of invoices from the myriad of different copyright holders who get radio time for turning the radio on at work...
This would not only be impractical but also unfair as if you are entering into a contract you must be forewarned of the costs and radio broadcasts come with no such disclaimer.
"BBC Radio 2 - Jeremy Vine ... By listening to this broadcast you agree to pay unspecified additional costs to all copyright holders of songs played during this broadcasts if listening in a non-domestic setting... so onto Sally Traffic"
Clearly public radio is a totally inappropriate medium to enforce copyright on a per listener basis. It is my opinion that the only reason PRS get away with it is due to the public misconception that they are a government body and can be compared to the musical equivalent of the TV licensing authority or DVLA etc...
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #59
I agree. I can use the Companies House database too, but is it appropriate for me to look up other posters business interests, make assumptions about family connections and then post them to score points on a debate about music copyright enforcement in the workplace?
I hope I will find wide agreement that this is at best rude and at worst a sinister attempt at intimadation.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
1. Everything about you is posted on Google. Who you are, where you are, what you do and even your annual returns are precisely two clicks away. If somebody wants to do business with us, we check on who they are. If someone wants to abuse my property and even wants to start some bonkers initiative to systematise that abuse, you can bet your bottom dollar I am going to see who I am dealing with.
2. I assumed from your apparent lack of regard for copyright law, that you were something like an auto-repair shop, a business that seldom, if ever, has to deal with copyright law. To my amazement, I discover that you deal in software and that copyright law lies at the very core of your business.
3. You made the bizarre statement " It goes against consumer choice" conveniently forgetting that you are not a consumer. As a consumer, you can download, remix, share, play, listen and hold wild parties to music as much as you like. As a consumer, you can buy and sell faulty goods on eBay, give someone £5 for doing you a favour, let friends use your property, lend them books, post long excerpts from those books, photocopy workshop manuals and make remix tapes for all your mates and play them at parties. A business can do none of those things.
2. I assumed from your apparent lack of regard for copyright law, that you were something like an auto-repair shop, a business that seldom, if ever, has to deal with copyright law. To my amazement, I discover that you deal in software and that copyright law lies at the very core of your business.
3. You made the bizarre statement " It goes against consumer choice" conveniently forgetting that you are not a consumer. As a consumer, you can download, remix, share, play, listen and hold wild parties to music as much as you like. As a consumer, you can buy and sell faulty goods on eBay, give someone £5 for doing you a favour, let friends use your property, lend them books, post long excerpts from those books, photocopy workshop manuals and make remix tapes for all your mates and play them at parties. A business can do none of those things.
Upvote
0
I think their power needs reigning in. Most of the adverse reaction is from their heavy handiness and the perceived unfairness of some of the tariffs. For example a PRS licence is needed even for a TV playing public performances. Two examples
TV used in a staff canteen showing news channels only. PRS claimed that music was used in the commercial breaks.
TV used in a lounge to show football matches properly purchased from SKY. PRS claimed music was used to enhance the football and also in the commercial breaks
How fair is this??
In each case i would claim that music was incidental to the purpose
TV used in a staff canteen showing news channels only. PRS claimed that music was used in the commercial breaks.
TV used in a lounge to show football matches properly purchased from SKY. PRS claimed music was used to enhance the football and also in the commercial breaks
How fair is this??
In each case i would claim that music was incidental to the purpose
Upvote
0
At the risk of being boring - I am quite happy to pay for any license to pay for the music we play in the shops- artists deserve to be paid well for the great stuff they produce. In truth, I would happily pay around 10% more than we do.
However, I detest with a passion the ignorant, arrogant approach that PRS take, especially the call centre in Liverpool (I believe) that they use to harass and threaten people, even those of us who already pay ! They certainly do lie about the "powers" they have I can only imagine they are on some sort of bonus when sending out invoices.
However, I detest with a passion the ignorant, arrogant approach that PRS take, especially the call centre in Liverpool (I believe) that they use to harass and threaten people, even those of us who already pay ! They certainly do lie about the "powers" they have I can only imagine they are on some sort of bonus when sending out invoices.
Upvote
0
I'm having some difficulty with PRS and PPL at the moment.
We have a hall owned and run by a charity and both PRS AND PPL each want 1% of the turn over (2% total). Turnover is more than £10k.
The charity itself has no reason to play any music and the the people hiring the hall do very little as well. I understand that the people who hire the hall who do play music already pay something for PRS/PPL licenses (the odd DJ for a party or exorcise class). When we speak to PRS, in their typical style they conclude we must pay under pretty much any circumstances. It is this approach which loses them credibility as they just sound like a scam.
2% (1+1) fee is incredible, you reach the point where you feel that the charity would be best just refusing to allow anyone to use music in the hall (even when they claim to have already paid for a license for what they do).
The theme throughout these types of threads is that PRS and PPL seem to demand to be paid over an over again for the same thing, their strategy being just to maximise income regardless of their legal entitlement.
Any advice as to how to handle this and mimise the burden would be helpful?
We have a hall owned and run by a charity and both PRS AND PPL each want 1% of the turn over (2% total). Turnover is more than £10k.
The charity itself has no reason to play any music and the the people hiring the hall do very little as well. I understand that the people who hire the hall who do play music already pay something for PRS/PPL licenses (the odd DJ for a party or exorcise class). When we speak to PRS, in their typical style they conclude we must pay under pretty much any circumstances. It is this approach which loses them credibility as they just sound like a scam.
2% (1+1) fee is incredible, you reach the point where you feel that the charity would be best just refusing to allow anyone to use music in the hall (even when they claim to have already paid for a license for what they do).
The theme throughout these types of threads is that PRS and PPL seem to demand to be paid over an over again for the same thing, their strategy being just to maximise income regardless of their legal entitlement.
Any advice as to how to handle this and mimise the burden would be helpful?
Upvote
0
Well, my seats sold for the current production are well over 70,000 at prices from between £12 and £35 so PRS and PPL is a subject I know all about. In our case, we also need to itemise every single piece of copyright music we play, and I have to provide this within a very short timescale to enable the calculations. However, while the 1% is correct, it is 1% of the box office revenue, but only for music content. If you have a play, with no music content, you pay nothing whatsoever, unless you wish, for paperwork reasons to agree a blanket charge with them. One theatre I look after does do a percentage of the box office on everything, but you only have to pay for what you use.
The venue is responsible for paying the money. However, many will simply contra this back to the hirer, as they do with credit card charges and extra staff payments they have to make.
If you have a show that is 50% music - so a running time of say 120 minutes, but with only 60 minutes of copyright music then you pay HALF of the 1% figure. I keep records of exactly how long, to the minute, each show is - there are 77 I think in this run, and each varies in length - BUT - the music is played to tracks, which mean each song is always the same length. PRS and PPL represent the people who have rights in the music, and our musical supervisor wrote one of the songs, so despite being paid for his role, he also gets PRS payments for each time it's played. This is simply how it works, and with 70,000 people paying a fair bit, the PRS payments are high, but have to be factored into the budget.
PRS/PPL do not charge again and again. They simply charge what their members are due. The fact you are a charity is irrelevant if you use music and have members of the public hear it. PPL and PRS simply represent two sets of people with a legal claim for the music, depending on how it is used.
For information, many ethical DJs pay a licence for having all their music in their computer systems. However, the venue are the ones who let the audiences hear it.
PRS do expect that music using venues understand money. Advertising, wages, rights payments, insurance etc. If you don't, you should always check with your accountant or legal advisor, because it's very easy to get it wrong - as I just have. I found out by accident I should have a licence for something we do here all the time, and we simply didn't know. I contacted them, explained my mistake and asked what to do - it's being sorted. PRS often do special arrangements with venues who were accidentally ignorant. One common one is where a venue didn't know they should have had a licence for some years, and as going back is impossible as records don't exist, they will often levy a blanket 1%, not the 1% of the music content, in order to recover money lost in the past. Maybe this is what they have done to you? If you have the records you could enter into discussion, but it sounds like you have not been keeping any details, and perhaps don't even wish to do so in the future - so the 1% of the box office is what it will cost you for being a bit lazy. If you can prove what you used, then I'm sure you could be on the better scheme. I'm guessing, but if when they talk to the venue it's clear everyone is a bit clueless on the rights laws, then their simple scheme is the only option they have - because as you say, rights are expensive, and that money belongs to their members, not them!
The sums we pay will be many thousands of pounds, so the percentages really matter to us, meaning lots of work for me - but that's what I'm being paid to do.
The venue is responsible for paying the money. However, many will simply contra this back to the hirer, as they do with credit card charges and extra staff payments they have to make.
If you have a show that is 50% music - so a running time of say 120 minutes, but with only 60 minutes of copyright music then you pay HALF of the 1% figure. I keep records of exactly how long, to the minute, each show is - there are 77 I think in this run, and each varies in length - BUT - the music is played to tracks, which mean each song is always the same length. PRS and PPL represent the people who have rights in the music, and our musical supervisor wrote one of the songs, so despite being paid for his role, he also gets PRS payments for each time it's played. This is simply how it works, and with 70,000 people paying a fair bit, the PRS payments are high, but have to be factored into the budget.
PRS/PPL do not charge again and again. They simply charge what their members are due. The fact you are a charity is irrelevant if you use music and have members of the public hear it. PPL and PRS simply represent two sets of people with a legal claim for the music, depending on how it is used.
For information, many ethical DJs pay a licence for having all their music in their computer systems. However, the venue are the ones who let the audiences hear it.
PRS do expect that music using venues understand money. Advertising, wages, rights payments, insurance etc. If you don't, you should always check with your accountant or legal advisor, because it's very easy to get it wrong - as I just have. I found out by accident I should have a licence for something we do here all the time, and we simply didn't know. I contacted them, explained my mistake and asked what to do - it's being sorted. PRS often do special arrangements with venues who were accidentally ignorant. One common one is where a venue didn't know they should have had a licence for some years, and as going back is impossible as records don't exist, they will often levy a blanket 1%, not the 1% of the music content, in order to recover money lost in the past. Maybe this is what they have done to you? If you have the records you could enter into discussion, but it sounds like you have not been keeping any details, and perhaps don't even wish to do so in the future - so the 1% of the box office is what it will cost you for being a bit lazy. If you can prove what you used, then I'm sure you could be on the better scheme. I'm guessing, but if when they talk to the venue it's clear everyone is a bit clueless on the rights laws, then their simple scheme is the only option they have - because as you say, rights are expensive, and that money belongs to their members, not them!
The sums we pay will be many thousands of pounds, so the percentages really matter to us, meaning lots of work for me - but that's what I'm being paid to do.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Community buildings joint licence for PRS and PPL
https://www.prsformusic.com/licences/ppl-joint-licence/community-buildings-joint-licence
https://www.prsformusic.com/licences/ppl-joint-licence/community-buildings-joint-licence
Upvote
0
I don't think that will cover a venue that has a public entertainment licence, or the similar one attached to an alcohol licence. If it's simply a room hire then the 1% of income is a fixed fee, which I don't think is variable if the music content changes. If your income is under 10 grand, at the high end, that's a pretty decent discount, and at the bottom end, 50 quid isn't bad is it? If your income is say 20 grand, you're still only paying two hundred quid, which surely can't be grumbled at? I don't know if PRS and PPL have an even split, but neither is getting rich and able to pass on big sums to the members.
I often get accused of being a staunch PRS supporter, but due to their sampling system, my own music licenced through them generated £0 last year - not a penny. I could be grumpy about that, because I know it's been used, but that's the luck of the draw, so if anything, I should be cross with the system, but in truth, it's the one collection system that works for people like me, unless you are Benny and Bjorn when you can do better yourself.
I often get accused of being a staunch PRS supporter, but due to their sampling system, my own music licenced through them generated £0 last year - not a penny. I could be grumpy about that, because I know it's been used, but that's the luck of the draw, so if anything, I should be cross with the system, but in truth, it's the one collection system that works for people like me, unless you are Benny and Bjorn when you can do better yourself.
Upvote
0
Sole proprietor here. Paying both PRS and PPL. Also a guitar player...I get that musicians need protection (and payment). However, its the use of the word exploitation I disagree with. I have a local radio station playing. Its a commercial one so there are adverts constantly.
When customers come into my barbershop, its not the music that pulls them in, its the lure of a decent haircut. I honestly don't think there's any exploitation going on here. Customers will read a paper whilst waiting, a DJ will witter on in the background and an occasional hit song will warble about. If anything, I'm doing the artists a favour by having a radio on, as well as the advertisers. Occasionally, a customer will say "Thats a nice tune, might buy that!". They wouldn't have heard it otherwise.
Public performance? The music is coming from a crackly old medium wave radio that can be barely be heard over the buzz of the clippers. Exploitation? I'm a Spotify subscriber, have a large CD collection and I still buy vinyl. I've never objected to paying for music. I love music but I honestly don't reckon I'm exploiting anybody. If your participation in the music biz is based on making a decent living, you perhaps should've thought about becoming a plasterer or a brickie - thats where the decent livings are made (certainly not as a barber-should've listened to my Dad!) - or negotiating a better deal with your label.
The interaction I've experienced with both of the abovementioned organisations has been extremely negative. Unresponsive to requests for clear information, they are both subtly threatening and clearly only interested in rolling you for as much poppy as possible. There's not much a small business can do when loomed over by these behemoths other than pay up...or turn off. Oh well...
When customers come into my barbershop, its not the music that pulls them in, its the lure of a decent haircut. I honestly don't think there's any exploitation going on here. Customers will read a paper whilst waiting, a DJ will witter on in the background and an occasional hit song will warble about. If anything, I'm doing the artists a favour by having a radio on, as well as the advertisers. Occasionally, a customer will say "Thats a nice tune, might buy that!". They wouldn't have heard it otherwise.
Public performance? The music is coming from a crackly old medium wave radio that can be barely be heard over the buzz of the clippers. Exploitation? I'm a Spotify subscriber, have a large CD collection and I still buy vinyl. I've never objected to paying for music. I love music but I honestly don't reckon I'm exploiting anybody. If your participation in the music biz is based on making a decent living, you perhaps should've thought about becoming a plasterer or a brickie - thats where the decent livings are made (certainly not as a barber-should've listened to my Dad!) - or negotiating a better deal with your label.
The interaction I've experienced with both of the abovementioned organisations has been extremely negative. Unresponsive to requests for clear information, they are both subtly threatening and clearly only interested in rolling you for as much poppy as possible. There's not much a small business can do when loomed over by these behemoths other than pay up...or turn off. Oh well...
Upvote
0
The trouble is that Spotify, iTunes and the others pay tiny, tiny payments for the music they provide, and while I don't feel I get exploited, I do see PRS and PPL as the ONLY method I have of getting money for people who might occasionally play my music. In fact, when I was younger and I heard one of my tracks being used in theatrical performances, I was pleased. Later on I started to get jittery - where did they even find that music? They'd tell me they found it on a CD left behind from a previous show, or it was given to them by somebody who is a friend of a friend of a friend - that kind of thing. Sometimes I'd ask if they'd paid for it? The look was always shock. Pay? Its just music? The amount of my kind of music around is increasing, and the use of my own. declining - that's how it is. If you play music on a crap player or a mega hifi, you're using it. Your customers could be played lift music, or copyright free stuff, but you choose to play music you have selected, or what a radio station has selected. There's a cost. If you don't think it good value for money, don't play it and don't pay PRS/PPL. That's a choice you make. If you choose to play but NOT pay, that's different.
I pay my taxes, I collect VAT on behalf of the Government and I have a TV licence. Plenty of people don't but it isn't right.
As for helping the artist by playing the music? How does that work? They can't get the PRS/PPL if people don't pay! Radio stations pay to broadcast to the general public, business use is not included. Sky do the same with pubs and football - as I understand that, their domestic use is regulated by the football people. Football being shown to an audience in a pub means a different licence - and I guess you could say that a pub who will not show an Everton game because their clientele are Liverpool supporters shouldn't have to pay.
I know people hate paying for music, but hating it doesn't make it right!
I pay my taxes, I collect VAT on behalf of the Government and I have a TV licence. Plenty of people don't but it isn't right.
As for helping the artist by playing the music? How does that work? They can't get the PRS/PPL if people don't pay! Radio stations pay to broadcast to the general public, business use is not included. Sky do the same with pubs and football - as I understand that, their domestic use is regulated by the football people. Football being shown to an audience in a pub means a different licence - and I guess you could say that a pub who will not show an Everton game because their clientele are Liverpool supporters shouldn't have to pay.
I know people hate paying for music, but hating it doesn't make it right!
Upvote
0
N
Nord20
I normally think your comments are well thought through and spot on, but you've said this a few times through the thread and it's got annoying, so here's my unfiltered rant:
You seem to be forgetting that before any of this music is played, unless you're talking about the one very specific use case of playing the radio, the business has BOUGHT and PAID FOR the music already. We are not getting it for free. We're paying to buy it, making it ours, then we're expected to pay again to actually play it - and pay each and every time we play it.
The arts industries, particularly the entertainment industries have managed to pull off the biggest scam of all time, by convincing us that we should pay every single time we use the product we purchased from them (and music is a product, not a service).
Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Samsung started trying to charge you a fee every time you opened your fridge? How about if you buy a painting - should you not pay the artist every time someone looks at it?
Or, to bring in the workplace part of the problem, if I buy a kettle from Robert Dyas and take it into the office, should I not pay a license fee to Robert Dyas every time I boil said kettle to make a cup of tea for a client. What's the difference? Cup of tea - no license - have some quiet music in the background, license required. Both products, both being used by a client (or the public), yet both treated completely differently.
The law is completely confused, unenforceable (thankfully) and immoral. I do not accept this 'oh, the poor lowly artists need their pennies so they can eat' argument. They get paid by every single person who purchases their music. End of.
And to retort to paulears - I'll wager a lot more work goes into writing the average book than writing the average song (just based purely on the time it takes to produce). I don't hear you saying that authors should be paid every time someone picks up a copy of their book, even if that copy has already been bought and paid for (you mentioned someone finding a CD with your music on it - someone must have originally bought that CD, unless you gave it away). Libraries would overnight become the most expensive places to go to if books were treated the same way that music is.
I actually can't think of another product we routinely purchase that comes with such restrictions on usage. Pretty much any other product can be used as you see fit, safety concerns aside.
The fact that I paid for the CD, and the fact that I can receive money for selling the CD on, should mean that it's mine and I can do what I like with it. Yes, I might choose to use said CD to help make my business more inviting to customers - but that's what the nice decor does too. I don't pay Dulux every time someone looks at my lovely walls.
This system is insanity and self evidently does more for the people at PRS/PPL than it does for the artists they claim to help. Having had a long chat with a writer/session drummer I am friendly with, he appreciates the money, but it really isn't going to pay the bills, but annoyed that they base payments on how many times your music has been played, which of course they have absolutely no way of determining in a lot of cases. It's a joke.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
You paid for the CD. You paid for the right to listen to that CD. You paid for the right to let your friends listen to the CD. You did not pay to commercially exploit that CD by playing it in your business.
As for the parallel with books, you buy the right to read the book. You do not buy the right to read it out on the radio or put a copy out on the Internet.
The average commercial CD costs about £50,000 to produce (mates rates) and another £200,000 to promote and market in the UK and about $3m in the US. It is not a joke, but a business.
As for the parallel with books, you buy the right to read the book. You do not buy the right to read it out on the radio or put a copy out on the Internet.
The average commercial CD costs about £50,000 to produce (mates rates) and another £200,000 to promote and market in the UK and about $3m in the US. It is not a joke, but a business.
Upvote
0
Read the license agreement printed on the jewel case (and sometimes on the CD). It's the same one you see when you play a DVD. Broadcasting is not permitted.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
Movies, patents, paintings by living or recently deceased artists, audio samples, photographs, logos, any and all texts, designs, product names, images of branded products, television formats and of course the big one - all software!
Upvote
0
N
Nord20
Well exactly - all of these (all the ones that make sense - if one buys a design, logo, etc, once can use it as one sees fit) are part of the arts/entertainment industry. Can you think of a product outside of the entertainment industry where such restrictions are routine? I am ignoring "the big one" as software is, on the whole, now sold as a service, not a standalone product - the software will be updated and improved over time, the music on a CD remains the same forever.
And actually, this point doesn't apply to a lot (I don't want to say the majority, but I suspect it is), of software. I have an Adobe license - it does not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use.
It is also worth noting that the vast majority of people, either wittingly or unwittingly, break or just ignore those copyright restrictions on a daily basis, which was the grounds on which I was saying the current setup is a joke. It's completely untenable.
Well that's my point exactly - why? Why does a composer get to have the right to restrict the products use after someone has bought it, but a wallpaper designer cannot? Interesting use of the word exploit, incidentally.
Yes, you're absolutely right, perhaps books were not the best analogy. But again - why? Why do these products get given a special case where everyone has to pay through the nose each and every time they use them, but not for, say using a flipchart during a presentation? With books it's even worse - copyright restrictions stop the dissemination of information. I literally just heard on the radio about how a new film about Martin Luther King can't actually use the words of his speeches, because someone owns the copyright to them, so they had to paraphrase. How is that good for anyone?
Sorry, but this isn't relevant - every product has an overhead to begin manufacture, music is not a special case in this regard. If I want to launch a new product, I've got R&D, design, manufacturer, distribution, advertising, etc, costs and yet unless that products happens to be one of these special cases, I can only ever sell one instance of that product once, then it is no longer mine. One copy of one song can net the artist a continuous income for their entire life, every single time it is played in one of the restricted locations.
Well yes, self evidently, that's why we're having this debate. My question is: why? Why is that permitted for music but not for kettles?
I still haven't read anything that explains to me why everyone should have to pay over and over just for this select group of products, but not for everything else they use in a business context.
Upvote
0
I just don't get why people try to find 'get-outs' - we're a business forum and we design contracts that fit our needs to make money - and then the other party has a choice. There seems some need to remove music from the free economy and choice?
I produce lots of music - I think I had one brush the edge of the charts back in the 70s, but that isn't what I do. I produce music for specific purposes. Most is there to prevent silence really - so it's not remotely anything anyone would hum along to. I don't sell it, I licence it. If the client needs 2:17 of music for their promo of a new chlorine limited bleaching agent, they get the music for the video and can use it for 5 years, in any territory, on any medium. At the end of 5 yrs, the video is old and out of use, but occasionally they still want to use it, so pay me again (at a reduced rate for another 5 years). Their choice. I also have some stuff that gets used for events - and these are a pay per play basis - like starting an engine. These silly analogies people throw in just make no sense. You can lease a car and if you start it too many times and do too many miles you pay extra? Music is a commodity. For goodness sake - even OFCOM are into trading now - if you have a radio licence, you can sell it to somebody else who wants it. People can make money by selling radio frequencies with the Government's blessing. Music is licensed - written works can be too. There is a photocopying agency - you can copy certain numbers of pages from a book - but if you do more, you pay. Images, and we hear this often, like the music one - are licensed and somebody owns them. Using them without permission will cost. We even have an Intellectual Property court system, because it's real! A Beatles 45rpm record from 1969 has "All public performance, broadcasting and copying of this disk prohibited" prominently printed on the record. It isn't new, it isn't silly or unreasonable - it is business! Of course everyone was recording Pick of the Pops and you might remember how annoying it was when Alan Freeman talked over the beginning and end of each track - why do you think the BBC did it?
Nord20 - your Adobe licence permits commercial use, the version available to students at a reduced price restricts this. I realise you don't like music restrictions, but it's legal and been around for a very long time. It is your right to ignore it - that's fine, but don't expect people who benefit from a system that our business uses to have any other viewpoint that the law should be followed and if you use it, you pay for it.
I produce lots of music - I think I had one brush the edge of the charts back in the 70s, but that isn't what I do. I produce music for specific purposes. Most is there to prevent silence really - so it's not remotely anything anyone would hum along to. I don't sell it, I licence it. If the client needs 2:17 of music for their promo of a new chlorine limited bleaching agent, they get the music for the video and can use it for 5 years, in any territory, on any medium. At the end of 5 yrs, the video is old and out of use, but occasionally they still want to use it, so pay me again (at a reduced rate for another 5 years). Their choice. I also have some stuff that gets used for events - and these are a pay per play basis - like starting an engine. These silly analogies people throw in just make no sense. You can lease a car and if you start it too many times and do too many miles you pay extra? Music is a commodity. For goodness sake - even OFCOM are into trading now - if you have a radio licence, you can sell it to somebody else who wants it. People can make money by selling radio frequencies with the Government's blessing. Music is licensed - written works can be too. There is a photocopying agency - you can copy certain numbers of pages from a book - but if you do more, you pay. Images, and we hear this often, like the music one - are licensed and somebody owns them. Using them without permission will cost. We even have an Intellectual Property court system, because it's real! A Beatles 45rpm record from 1969 has "All public performance, broadcasting and copying of this disk prohibited" prominently printed on the record. It isn't new, it isn't silly or unreasonable - it is business! Of course everyone was recording Pick of the Pops and you might remember how annoying it was when Alan Freeman talked over the beginning and end of each track - why do you think the BBC did it?
Nord20 - your Adobe licence permits commercial use, the version available to students at a reduced price restricts this. I realise you don't like music restrictions, but it's legal and been around for a very long time. It is your right to ignore it - that's fine, but don't expect people who benefit from a system that our business uses to have any other viewpoint that the law should be followed and if you use it, you pay for it.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated: