PRS\PPL Music Licensing - Know Your Rights

[Deleted member 59730]

I think this is where we have differing opinions, how does a shop gain commercially from playing music? I just don't understand this,

If there is no gain then just don't play it! However there is a mass of research that shows that sales increase in a happy environment which music creates. There is also a lot of research into what type of music improves sales in what type of shop.

 

[AntonyLawlor]

If there is no gain then just don't play it! However there is a mass of research that shows that sales increase in a happy environment which music creates. There is also a lot of research into what type of music improves sales in what type of shop.

That's a whole different point though, your presuming people play music for commercial gain. I think there are certain big chains that play certain music, superdry for example play music I like - electronic and housy. What I like might be completely different to what someone else likes. I don't shop at superdry for the music though, I like their jeans!

Basically what your saying is that research shows xyz therefor you must pay £££ because our music is helping your sales! For a bar, club a pub fine I get it! shops though! I don't buy it. Who funded this research as well, is it unbiased?

 

[The Byre]

we really need to be clear on what commercial use is!

Use in a commercial environment - i.e. an office, shop, factory or other place of work or commerce.

I'm curious now about your last point on using samples, if I buy a copy of logic from apple or pro tools from avid (industry standard music creation tools) the samples these programs offer are for private use only, meaning if decide to sell my track I now owe apple and avid royalties / a cut of the pie because I have used their (for private use only) sample? or are you just referring to a track that has been sampled (not royalty free) and used in another track for profit - my sister produces music using these tools and works with a number of people in the industry that's why I am asking.

Apple Logic and ProTools allow commercial use, though the samples must be used as part of an overall new piece of work and not used as a stand-alone sound in any way. The Apple agreement states -

The Apple Software may contain sample content including but not limited to artwork, audio files, audio loops, built-in sound files, graphics, images, impulse responses, photographs, samples, sound sets, sound settings, video files, or similar assets (“Sample Content”). This Sample Content is proprietary to Apple and/or its licensors, and is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws, including but not limited to copyright. Except as otherwise provided, all Sample Content included in the Apple Software may be used on a royalty-free basis to create your own original soundtracks for your film, video, and audio projects. You may broadcast and/or distribute your own soundtracks that were created using the Sample Content; however, individual Sample Content assets may not be commercially or otherwise distributed on a standalone basis, nor may they be repackaged in whole or in part as audio samples, clipart, music beds, sound effects, sound files, sound libraries, stock animation, or similar assets.

The Avid license for samples is similar. Other sample libraries are less generous, Magix for example EXCLUDES all commercial use for its sample libraries and all other packages it sells such as Acid, Music Maker, Vegas and others. It pays to read the T&C before buying and certainly before using any sample libraries. Cheap and free both have a sting in the tail!

The ambiguity over licenses, as well as the fact that if you use them, your music sounds exactly like everybody else's music, means that most professional musicians, producers and engineers I have met, create their own - at least for key sounds. I suppose string pads do not need to be unique, but any 'hook' sounds definitely need to be your very own!

 

[A4Andy]

Take our example.

A business with a retail area, offices, a workshop and a couple of company vehicles.

The license would be calculated on:
- retail area
- office area (or number of people, I can't quite recall and they've now removed costs from the website)
- workshop area
- number of vehicles

Last time we checked (4-5 years ago), the cost was in the region of £650 to £700 and probably now would be closer to £1k. For what financial benefit, precisely?

After the last brush with the PRS, radios have been removed.

If it was just a license - at a reasonable cost - for the retail area, then we'd accept that as it fits a reasonable definition of 'public performance'.

Do we believe it's justified that we'd need to pay a license fee for the office, because music in the retail area can be overheard? No.

Do we believe a license is justified for a mechanic working on their own in a workshop *just in case a member of the public walks in* ? No.

Do we consider that two employees in a vehicle listing to the radio counts as a 'public performance'? No.

That's where the problem lies. Oh, and:

The PRS are a greedy organisation that have stretched the definition of a bit of legislation far beyond where it would reasonably be expected to be.

They refuse to say who they do - and don't - represent, but threaten businesses by pretending to be the same as TV licensing.

Their distribution of revenue (and the way they operate) is massively biased towards the very wealthiest musicians.

The wages they pay their own directors are scandalously high - nearly £1m for the chief executive.

On that basis, we've chosen not to give them a penny.

Yes, musicians should be paid for 'public performance' of their works - but that does not, imho, extend to charging businesses for a couple of employees listening to the radio in the works van so that the chief executive of the PRS can get paid a million quid a year.

 

[paulears]

Please check your facts - PRS and PPL have an online database that everyone who is a member can use to check ALL the works they represent. This details all the information - who recorded it, when and where - even who played on it sometimes, and who wrote it. It includes details of the record company - the coding applied to each registered work uses an international coding. Details are here.http://www.ppluk.com/en/I-Make-Music/Why-Should-I-Become-A-Member/Record-Companies/What-is-an-ISRC/

I cannot be bothered to waste more of my time trying to convince people of what the right thing is - entirely up to you how you deal with morals and ethics, let alone the law. Consider this? Is an employee of a small, hardly making a profit business to be treated worse than the employee of a multi-national in terms of pay and working conditions? Should the NMW not apply to small businesses?

You can think what you will about PRS (and PPL, because you owe them too). You even have a choice - not to play music controlled by them on behalf of their members. You have no right at all to assert they are greedy. I totally disagree with you because what they generate is on behalf of their members - who signed up to the deal. I'm happy you hate it. It's pointless though. Do we all hate the HMRC because they demand payment for the Government to spend on things they, not us feel are important?

Rant away - it's just noise to those people who like PRS, MCPS and PPL - and as I deal with them as a music consumer too, not just a producer - I try to do everything properly. That's the right thing to do. I cannot help people's warped viewpoint, and I do understand where it comes from. I don't steal from shops who have a hard job making a living, because I find it wrong and unfair they insist I pay for that packet of crisps - when people in the world are starving? Your argument is frankly as stupid as that example.

Their distribution of revenue (and the way they operate) is massively biased towards the very wealthiest musicians.

Yep - that's me. Herbie Flowers the bass player who dreamed up the two baselines on "walk on the wild side" had a choice. A share in the royalties, which would have been from PRS, or a few quid in his pocket as a one off. He needed to pay some bills, so took the money up front. PRS's system is not perfect, but it's the only system I have to generate any money from people using my music without actually asking me. As you aren't a member - you have no right at all to comment on how I get paid, because again, you show a common misunderstanding about rights. It's cool - you're not the only one shouting in the dark because somebody wants YOU to put your hand in your pocket.

 

[A4Andy]

You missed the point.

We decided not to play music and not give money to the PRS because we believe the charges are unreasonable.

If the charges were reasonable, we'd pay. That's a simple decision.


I do have every right to accuse the PRS of being greedy if I believe they're trying to charge me daft sums of money for something I think is worth much less (particularly the charge for listening to the radio in a works van). You have every right to disagree with that.


What, incidentally, is my "common misunderstanding" about rights?

 

[paulears]

That PRS don't represent their members, that they don't show who owns the rights - but mostly because you seem to believe that if something is too expensive, and you still want it - that is wrong?

Incidentally - how much do pubs pay for Sky football, how much Netflix costs? If you don't want Sky in your pub - don't have it. Don't complain how expensive things are - it's called business isn't it? Do you complain because Ford or Vauxhall want nearly as much as a Merc? Your business rates are extortionate but you don't complain that they should be free or even cheaper. Music is a commodity and a something to go on ones side of your accounts as a cost of doing business, or not.

You can indeed complain loudly about PRS to anyone else uninformed who will listen. Have you ever found a PRS member who doesn't thinks like you do? Perhaps I should campaign for PRS to collect more money for me, by increasing the paperwork users have to complete - like it used to be, having to write down the name of every piece of music? That would be fairer for me, but just unworkable, when consumers of music are so intransigent.

I think I worked out the point fine, thanks. Typical user reaction to something they don't like. It's fine I understand your unreasonable attitude. It's quite normal. I just wanted to put you right on some of the content, which was not factual. Enough from me now. I'll wait for it to be resurrected next month - it usually is!

 

[A4Andy]

"unreasonable attitude"?

I don't want to pay the price that someone wants to charge for something, so I don't buy it. How is that "unreasonable"?

Where my grudge comes from is that I don't agree with the PRS definition of "public performance" in *certain* situations. I do agree that the PRS are entitle to charge a fee in many other circumstances.

And I've no idea where I said that the PRS don't represent their members: obviously they do.

 

[sands1967]

Well written @A4Andy. @paulears again refuses to consider other viewpoints or actually read and understand what is being written.

No issue with legitimate revenues being collected, bu t this a effectively a private company operating however they wish without apparently, any form of scrutiny.

The way they go about this is tantamount to bullying and harassment. And Paul, Don't try and tell me you've been on the end of one of their calls, because if you did I don't believe you would defend them as you do. (unless you're as stupid as you are trying to make out the dissenters are!)

 

[Deleted member 59730]

No issue with legitimate revenues being collected, bu t this a effectively a private company operating however they wish without apparently, any form of scrutiny.

Well, it didn't take me long to find on their website that they have been having public consultations about their tariffs. I hope you and Andy have spent time providing them with your feedback.

Perhaps you can tell me what other company has scrutiny over their pricing? BMW? Apple? Google?

 

[sands1967]

Perhaps you can tell me what other company has scrutiny over their pricing? BMW? Apple? Google?

Well if we start with competition law. All of the ones you mention!

Appple https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-s...apples-bid-for-music-app-shazam-idUKKBN1HU24Q

BMW https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-e...tion-as-daimler-claims-immunity-idUKKBN1CP26U

Google https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-eu-competiton-commission-threat-margrethe-vestager-search-monopoly-anti-trust-laws-a8273961.html

Where's their competition, who can we complain to about their tactics??

If I go to a restaurant they have to have their menu and prices displayed outside by law.

These guys don.t even have their pricing on their website. You visit their website and then thanks to their tracking software. You get a call an unsolicited call from their commissioned agents!

Making sense yet?

and yeah, "it's all about the artists!" Dont make me laugh.

 

[The Byre]

MCPS and PPL are launching a new 'Music License' https://pplprs.co.uk/faqs/ which will simplify things and hopefully alleviate some of the claims of harassment that one hears.

I have been at the end of one of these calls and they come from call centres where staff are more used to selling PPI schemes, investment plans or other bogus products. If you are not using music in your business, you can deal with these calls in the same way.

If on the other hand, you are using commercially recorded music then that is someone's property and a modest fee is payable.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Where's their competition, who can we complain to about their tactics??

Complain to the EU then. Oh sorry, we are leaving.

 

[sands1967]

MCPS and PPL are launching a new 'Music License' https://pplprs.co.uk/faqs/ which will simplify things and hopefully alleviate some of the claims of harassment that one hears.

I have been at the end of one of these calls and they come from call centres where staff are more used to selling PPI schemes, investment plans or other bogus products. If you are not using music in your business, you can deal with these calls in the same way.

If on the other hand, you are using commercially recorded music then that is someone's property and a modest fee is payable.

@The Byre totally agree.

 

[sands1967]

Complain to the EU then. Oh sorry, we are leaving.

So no answer to your own question then?

 

[Dimo]

Let's say I released a record a few years back and it gets played on the radio now and again. Down the road Barbara Bloggs hairdressers keeps the radio on and annually pays the PRS and PPL fees. Can someone kindly explain precisely how any proportion of Barbara Bloggs' licence fee ends up in my pocket?

 

[The Byre]

Easy - they send you money.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Can someone kindly explain precisely how any proportion of Barbara Bloggs' licence fee ends up in my pocket?

I think you will find its on the PRS website. Firstly you have to join as a composer then PRS handles the rest.

Something similar happens with the photographs in my books. A levy is made by all library, university and school copying machines and low and behold I get sent money by an organisation called DACS.

 

[Dimo]

And how is the sum due to me precisely determined? Suppose there are 4 hairdressers listening to the radio? Suppose there are 4000 across the UK? Maybe there are 4 million subscribers overall. Are you suggesting the PRS and PPL pay me an arbitrary amount irrespective? I cannot see that the number of subscribers to these outfits tallies with the royalties received by each recording artist.

Besides, they charge organisations for the commercial usage of the work; they also charge businesses listening to it. They take 12.5% commission before paying my royalties. The number of subscribers apparently has zero bearing on the royalties paid so it appears like a licence to print money.

My point again being that the hairdresser listening up the road has no bearing on my royalties from airplay. The PRS/PPL have already received payments from the broadcaster, from which my royalties are derived. Thus, their attracting additional income levied on people merely to listen is tantamount to a scam.

Maybe someone would like to buy one of my framed pictures for £75. Hang it in your lounge and whenever a guest looks at it pay me a royalty of £1. Okay with that?

 

[The Byre]

The PRS/PPL have already received payments from the broadcaster, from which my royalties are derived. Thus, their attracting additional income levied on people merely to listen is tantamount to a scam.

In a strange way, I agree - but only because the broadcasters are given a 'free-ride' pretty much at everybody else's expense.

The rates for 'needle-time' are pathetic. R1 & 2 pay about 50p per song, if played in full. So even if you have the No.1 song for a year and get daily two plays on R1 and be just £365 richer! Other stations pay even less. This is the compensation paid to the owner of the copyrights for domestic, non-commercial listening.

However, these lists of what is played and by whom are used to calculate the fees that you pay for commercial listening.

To say that the system needs reform, is to state the blindingly obvious. We could start by getting rid of the £150 BBC-tax and making it function along the lines of the many Channel 4 stations - also a public broadcaster, but an efficient one!

Secondly, broadcasters should be paying a more realistic sum and that should include domestic AND commercial use, negating the need to set the dogs of war at call centres onto small businesses.

 

[alan1302]

Where does the 50p per song figure come from? I've found a £13.63 per minute figure listed for PRS.

 

[The Byre]

Brain-fart on my part! Sorry! The figure should have been £11 per minute for R1 and £22 for R2. It remains an unreasonably low figure when we realise that it forms the very core of their programming.

Radio sends less than £50m p.a. to the PRS and because BBC's audience share is falling for all stations, the sums paid fall year-on-year with it.

 

[Jeff FV]

I think that there is significant merit in shifting more (all) of the burden for radio and tv on to the broadcaster.

Why? To my (simple) mind there are two reasons:

1.) it streamlines the whole system - no need to spend money chasing/charging “Bob’s auto repairs” just because they have the radio on in their 2 man workshop.

2.) the second, and more compelling reason, is that it introduces a dilemma for the broadcaster that will act as a check on them fiddling their figures: if the broadcaster pays PRS (or whoever) based on audience figures then there will, inevitably, be a pressure to under declare those figures. However, their advertising revenue will be dependent on those same audience figures and there will be pressure to over declare audience numbers. As a result, we may end up with realistic numbers.

Just FYI, I have no skin in this game, I am neither an artist or business that needs to pay. Just an interested£ observer.

 

[danbumble]

Hi I have read all 8 pages with alot of interest and after I received a very harassing call yesterday I would like some clarification.

this is from PPL own PDF doc.

If your factory or office has an audible area of 100m2or less and you only use "traditional" radio or television broadcasts, you may be eligible for a concessionary licence fee of 50% of the annual fee in the 600m2 band. By "traditional" radio or television broadcasts, we mean only the following broadcasts (however delivered):
> BBC national and local radio stations;
> all Independent National Radio stations and Independent Local Radio stations (

I have the following questions
1) As we already pay a TV licence fee, the radio station has a licence to broadcast music with PPL then why do I pay twice to listen to a radio?
2) if the radio is owned by an employee who wishes to play their own radio, do I need a licence.
3) if i need a licence, how does PPL determine what radio station I am listening to so they can distribute the licence fee accordingly to the artists.
4) If the BBC/Independent broadcaster has already paid PPL a fee for the copyright of the music and i have paid a tv licence, why are we being charged twice?
5) if we have a CD player/radio and listen to any music pre 1968 or only listen to Classic FM ( i.e music older than 1968 ) then do we need a licence to listen?
6) if we only listen to local bands which are not signed and bought their CD's from a local gig, do we need a licence.

The man I spoke to was aggressive and insistent that we need a licence and would come down and check our business property, he was very threatening. He stated that if I have my personal iPhone that I played and someone was in earshot, then I need a licence. If i was in a company vehicle and played my music that others could hear, i need a licence, even if I own my own car yet was on business with a client i need a licence.

I find the whole thing confusing, and the law states it must be laid out clearly.

We pay our taxes, we pay a tv licence, business rates etc... this is just another tax that is unregulated.

 

[danbumble]

ps

our radio is tuned exclusively to LBC, its a talk radio station. do I still need a licence?

 

[mhall]

I think PPL have either renewed their telesales contract or had some new staff in as we have had a series of very aggressive calls over the last two weeks. We used to have a license but stopped many years ago in favour of royalty free music (which still costs quite a bit up front but is a one time costs that gives nothing to these extortionists). After the third daily call we asked them to stop harassing us. Their response was "it's only harassment if I call you three times a day", so they are ignorant as well as aggressive. Their latest call was to demand to see "proof" that we play royalty free music. They really are above themselves. Bring it on PPL, I am being bullied by no-one and will happily see you in court on harassment charges - done it before and will gladly do it again, it will cost me nothing and will cost you at least £2,000 to defend. I love a good fight in the quiet months.

 

[Davek0974]

They are very aggressive and also clever - they will be listening when they ring and if they hear music at all they get even more assertive.

I have no qualm about paying a royalty fee for pre-recorded music say if we played Pink Floyd albums all day in the factory, but i have a serious issue about paying to listen to BBC R2 which is a public broadcast and they [BBC] would already have paid royalties so why should i pay again.

 

[NickGrogan]

I got an email from them telling me that they were going to call and then nothing, no calls.

Oh well.

 

[Davek0974]

I got an email from them telling me that they were going to call and then nothing, no calls.

Oh well.

No doubt they will, at some random time, one day...

 

[The Byre]

1) As we already pay a TV licence fee, the radio station has a licence to broadcast music with PPL then why do I pay twice to listen to a radio?

Because the money paid by you and the various broadcasters covers domestic private use only.

2) if the radio is owned by an employee who wishes to play their own radio, do I need a licence.

Yes.

3) if i need a licence, how does PPL determine what radio station I am listening to so they can distribute the licence fee accordingly to the artists.

RAJAR figures.

4) If the BBC/Independent broadcaster has already paid PPL a fee for the copyright of the music and i have paid a tv licence, why are we being charged twice?

Same as Q1.

5) if we have a CD player/radio and listen to any music pre 1968 or only listen to Classic FM ( i.e music older than 1968 ) then do we need a licence to listen?

Classic FM uses re-releases that are under new copyright - so yes.

6) if we only listen to local bands which are not signed and bought their CD's from a local gig, do we need a licence.

No. That would be the same as royalty free, assuming that none of the local bands had filed their music with MCPS, PRS.

They really are above themselves. Bring it on PPL, I am being bullied by no-one and will happily see you in court on harassment charges - done it before and will gladly do it again, it will cost me nothing and will cost you at least £2,000 to defend. I love a good fight in the quiet months.

I wish you would, as the attitude they have is creating a great deal of bad blood and they need to see the necessity of changing the way they gather rights fees.

The people they use are in some call centre and it strikes me as a counter-productive way to gather anything! If you are not using copyrighted music in a commercial setting, tell them so and then put the phone down.

 

[glendahomelands]

Dear all, my husband and i run a guest house in England with 5 rooms and we pay a tv licence for the 5 tv we have, one per room. We don't play any music in the house, we don0t have any radio in the rooms or cd or dvd players. These guys kept calling us and sending invoices stating that we should pay for the music songwriters rights as they may be in the tv channels! this is crazy! we dont even have sky or other things, just the basic ones and no music channels....paying already the tvt licence we are covered but we d really would like to know if there is a law about it as nor the council or citizen advisor nor tv licence people were able to say something useful. They seem parassites taking advantage of people and we are not stupid. Please give us your opinion...thank you all!

 

[Scalloway]

This is the official guidance from PPL on hotels ad guest houses.

http://www.ppluk.com/About-Us/News/PPL-Announces-Revised-Small-Hotels--Guesthouses-Tariff/

Owners or managers of small residential hotels or guesthouses will now be able to purchase a licence from PPL to cover the use of background music in communal areas (including via TV/radio) for £66.56 plus VAT. A licence to cover the supply of music to hotel bedrooms will cost £50.33 plus VAT. Businesses will only be charged for the licences that are appropriate to their specific needs and PPL’s licensing support team is on hand to offer advice and guide licensees through the process.

 

[glendahomelands]

Thank you for posting the above link for us. However we are aware that a PPL licence is needed in case one wish to have background music or so. We don't! we only have tv in each private guest room and not even music channels for we pay simply the tv licence! so why do they insist we should pay a PPL or any music lincense just cause of the tv? thanks

 

[Scalloway]

As far as PPL are concerned it is not what you do, it is what you might do. Remember nowadays digital tv includes several radio channels.

The quoted price of £50.33 is fairly low compared to what PPL charge for some services. The places that I have been involved with have had to pay several hundred pounds a year.

 

[Dimo]

As I've intimated before, this whole thing is a farcical scam. If you pay them for your TVs in hotel rooms they do not and cannot have any clue who is watching what. They will get your money and have no means of knowing to whom royalties are due (before they take their 12.5% cut of course).

I see no accountability insofar as any accurate distribution of music royalties go. I'm amazed so many people are falling for it.

 

[Nord20]

Incidentally - how much do pubs pay for Sky football, how much Netflix costs? If you don't want Sky in your pub - don't have it. Don't complain how expensive things are - it's called business isn't it? Do you complain because Ford or Vauxhall want nearly as much as a Merc? Your business rates are extortionate but you don't complain that they should be free or even cheaper. Music is a commodity and a something to go on ones side of your accounts as a cost of doing business, or not.

You can indeed complain loudly about PRS to anyone else uninformed who will listen. Have you ever found a PRS member who doesn't thinks like you do? Perhaps I should campaign for PRS to collect more money for me, by increasing the paperwork users have to complete - like it used to be, having to write down the name of every piece of music? That would be fairer for me, but just unworkable, when consumers of music are so intransigent.

I think I worked out the point fine, thanks. Typical user reaction to something they don't like. It's fine I understand your unreasonable attitude. It's quite normal. I just wanted to put you right on some of the content, which was not factual. Enough from me now. I'll wait for it to be resurrected next month - it usually is!

If I ran my business with this attitude to the people who are my customers, I'd be out of business in a week.

PRS get away with behaving like this purely because they have a monopoly and people are all but obliged to engage with them (and pay them). Avoiding having music altogether is practically impossible (plenty of inadvertent licensable moments provided above - I love the 'if you're listening to your ipod and someone overhears, you need a license).

In fact, the way the system works right now, if I stand in the street with a loudspeaker, I, as a private citizen, don't have to pay anything. But all the businesses that find themselves within earshot will be obliged to pay PRS a fee, as they having audible music going on in their premises.

You gotta hand it to them, I literally can't think of any other product you can buy that you have to pay an individual fee for every time you use it.

 

[paulears]

People truly believe they shouldn't have to pay, so this impacts on their reasoning. Of course PRS are a monopoly! For goodness sake - have you never heard of individuals or groups using agents to carry out services they are unable or unwilling to do? You use an estate agent to handle a house sale because you really would struggle to market your property on your own. They get you your sales fee, and keep some of it. So do PRS. PRS have the law on their side. People steal music they are not entitled to all the time. Most are just ignorant. Some do it systematically. If you consume music you have no legal right to, then how could I as an individual take action? I couldn't. PRS can. I don't care if people feel indignant, or feel it is unfair. Tough! It is a commodity like everything else. It can be marketed, and it can be stolen, misappropriated, or 'borrowed'.

Nobody reads licences. You buy a CD, and records before them and if you read the label, you find you don't own the music at all - you just have permission to use in in quite narrow circumstances. In a hotel, the music, on the radio or TV is still a controlled product and the TV licence doesn't overrule any copyright restriction. You're providing the product for people to consume outside of the terms and conditions of what the broadcasters have agreed with the owners, or owner's agent. Therefore you pay.

You gotta hand it to them, I literally can't think of any other product you can buy that you have to pay an individual fee for every time you use it.

You didn't buy it, you took out a licence but want to use it for non-domestic purposes. This applies as we know to photographs, artwork, logos, poems, typography, and other common things. OFCOM are a good example of a licence issuing organisation. Buying a licence to do a specific job normally prevents you doing other things. If you buy a licence for a radio in your boat, it doesn't allow you to use a radio in an aircraft. Nobody finds that unfair - they're different. If you buy a driving licence, it doesn't mean you can drive everything does it? When you buy a CD, you busy a piece of plastic. The music on it is not yours!

I must learn to ignore these posts because they're so lacking in the basic facts. people believe in something so they are right! Even the vote in the topic makes no sense because the real legal status isn't covered. Pay your PRS fees, keep the musicians who wrote the music in business - and then pay PPL, who represent the rights of the recording studios - you need to pay both these agencies, and frankly - I hope PRS and PPL crack down on as many unauthorised users as they can find and show them that copyright theft is serious, and wanting something to be legal doesn't;t make it so. Many musicians who hear their music being abused report the place using it to PRS. I've done it a few times myself.

Professional music users do it properly - I know I do. I understand the ignorance but her we have people who have been told how it should work and they either ignore it, or encourage others to deliberately set aside other people's rights. As I have said before, if a homeless person went into a shop and took some food because he was hungry that's OK? After all, the money wouldn't go to the grower, but to the big chain. How about a corner store, owned by a family? Would that be different? Is music different to food? It's a product. It costs to make it, and the person who makes it wants a return. Some people like to give their work away to anyone to do anything with. That's a nice choice for them, but their choice is not for everyone - and if I see people stealing - I react.

Maybe theft is a strong word? What else would you call using something you have not paid for? You pay a few quid which is the price for a domestic use CD, but if you want to use it for anything other than domestic use, maybe the price would have been £50. You don't know, because you didn't bother to ask.

Basic definition of theft. (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

Sounds right to me. You avoid paying for some music you play in your cafe, thinking they'll never find out? Sounds like theft to me!

 

[simon field]

Sorry but that's complete nonsense.

Three simple facts.

The radio can be on but that doesn't mean you're listening to it.

You're not 'permanently depriving' a band of the sound they made with their song.

When you hear the sound of a band playing a song on the radio, it's an advert. It's how they sell records, you know - make money? Designed to make you want to buy the album (if you like it).

 

[Mr D]

Sorry but that's complete nonsense.

Three simple facts.

The radio can be on but that doesn't mean you're listening to it.

You're not 'permanently depriving' a band of the sound they made with their song.

When you hear the sound of a band playing a song on the radio, it's an advert. It's how they sell records, you know - make money? Designed to make you want to buy the album (if you like it).

Would the radio being on not imply intention to listen to it?

I don't know about you but lots of songs I've listened to on the radio (and still do) I've enjoyed. No intention of buying the song / music and no intention of attending a gig (Elvis gigs are so expensive these days in Des Moines what with having to buy his burgers).
The music I listen to is intended as entertainment or creating a response.

 

[paulears]

More innacurate information. I wish people just read what PRS have on their site. Of course you are permanently depriving them - you intend looking at the records of what was on, and volunteering this to PRS? You used it. You forgot about it. You have no intention of paying. The thing is about making hot available for consumption - in effect, broadcasting, which is determined as one-way communication with no feedback. two way communications is not possible, so listening is NOT part of the system. The BBC transmit programmes, and you pay irrespective of you watching or listening - established for years.

When you hear the sound of a band playing a song on the radio, it's an advert. It's how they sell records, you know - make money? Designed to make you want to buy the album (if you like it).

This is the ignorant response. The end product of the process is the music, giving it away for promotional use is a choice. Playing it to the public is the entire purpose because THIS generates the income stream. It is not advertising. Going back to the forties, promotional white label copies of new songs are given in very strict quantities to the people who might play them. This, and only this stage is the promotional activity stage. When you take out a licence to use music, these promotional copies are strictly limited in quantity, and detailed in the licence.

It's fine - ignorance of the subject is so commonplace, I shouldn't get cross, but I make much of my income from music - mainly now downloads, and in my case paid for downloads, yet people still share my quite specialist music. People get download links, and very often one download takes place and then a couple of days later, people try to use the same download link, as they have shared it in an email - luckily these time out. The buyers mainly run dance schools, so are 'nice' people, yet one person spends fifteen quid, and then tries to give it free to her friends. When the download link fails, they no doubt send it to each other as mp3s! We live with it, cannot police it, and just grumble at these 'nice' people stealing my music. The only thing I have that is marketable is the music, yet people think it OK to share - presumably, like Simon - they feel it is advertising it? I certainly don't. I object strongly to people stealing, and frankly I cannot think of a more appropriate word, my property. The CDs say NO PUBLIC PERFORMANCE, then you go to an event and they are playing it to an audience of 1400 people, who all paid for admission. The percentage of the entire show that my music is - is the percentage of the box office income, so the fact that I would have received £4.75 is clearly not the point. Our PRS income is only going be to be massive if it was played on Radio 2. The money the end creators get is very very small - but it is ours!