Performance Rights Society Calls Small Businesses & Threatens Them Over Music Heard In The Background
from the going-just-a-bit-too-far dept
We've covered how various performing rights societies have grown more and more desperate over the past few years -- including going after auto repair shops because their mechanics, out in the garage, played radios loud enough for customers in the waiting room to hear. That, to these societies, represents a "public performance." Reader John points us to an even more insane example. Apparently, PRS, in the UK has even taken to phoning up small businesses, and if they hear music playing in the background, they demand payment:Robson, 75, who was targeted last year, said: "There is usually only me here and I like to have nice relaxing music. The woman said she could hear music in the background. I thought, 'My God, you’ve got good ears.' She asked how many of us were here listening. I said me and sometimes the dog. Eventually, after I made a fuss, they apologised and said I would not be bothered again."Apparently even playing music to animals is considered a potential public performance to PRS:
John Collins, 57, who runs a software company from a room at his home in Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, received letters saying he needed a licence for the classical CDs he played while working. "If my wife Susan brings me a cup of tea and hears the music then I might be liable," he said.
Even dogs and cats do not always escape targeting. Follybridge cattery near Peterborough and Stokenchurch dog rescue centre in Buckinghamshire, which play Terry Wogan’s Radio 2 show to their "guests", were both told they would need a licence in case any workers heard the music.Yes, they're really reaching for that point where you'll need a general license just to listen to music yourself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: businesses, music, performing rights
Companies: prs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Insane... OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insane... OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insane... OMG
Where I live you call the police because it is illegal to play music in a vehicle loud enough to be heard 50 feet away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insane... OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think making performance an infringement back in the 1800s started the downfall of copyrights we're still feeling to this very day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Licence fees should be paid at the source, not the end user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I suppose if my neighbor could hear it, he'd have to pay a third license. And if someone calling him heard the music on the phone, that guy would have to pay a fourth license.
Only in IP does someone expect to be paid multiple times for the exact same $hit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can have my headphones....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
This is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perception
What does this mean? It means that even if it can't be perceived but you come in contact with it and you're at work were other people come in contact with it, you must pay for it. Even though I can't perceive the radio signals, everyone should may for everyone around them. At work with 10 people around you, then each of those 10 people should have to pay for a 10 person license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Radio already licensed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb, Dumb, Dumb
Could there be a business strategy that is more short sighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So because it wasn't worth his time to fight the fees, the fees are OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds
How bizarre, how bizarre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds
*gasp* Copyright infringement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have TV licences in Britain
Sounds like it's either time to licence radios too or come up with a better model. I'm pushing for the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Plain Stupid
Nothing quite kills any sympathy your organization might have like harassing random people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You think they're spending our liscencing fee on cold calls to catteries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would never pay them
Simple justification for it, the radio station is making a public preformance over a signal band I cant hear, im only taking that signal and moving it to a band I can hear. If you want to sue someone making a public preformance, then sue the radio station.
Even better, its analog, not encripted, and payed for by ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would never pay them
Simple justification for it, the radio station is making a public preformance over a signal band I cant hear, im only taking that signal and moving it to a band I can hear. If you want to sue someone making a public preformance, then sue the radio station.
Even better, its analog, not encripted, and payed for by ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well breakin is out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a tree falls ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
liable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if?
Should I make up my own songs instead.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
You have actually hit one particular nail on the head, probably without knowing it.
Bizarrely, the technical answer to your question is, yes, PRS would be entitled to try and licence your workplace, but if you made up your own songs, they couldn't (unless you joined PRS as a member)
On the other hand, elctricty is a commodity that we all pay for once (out of our tax money which is used by the govt to set up power stations and genrating plants) yet our employers are still asked to pay for it again when we use it at work. Nobody seesm to object to that, or water rates, so why object to paying for commercial music; that's just a commodity, like electricity or water.
Create your own, if you want genuinely free musicEveryone should be able to create their OWN music. I'd like to teach the world to sing, in PERFECT harmony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM transciever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FM transciever
Of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listening to Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listening to Music
You brought the music, so the artist's and who ever else got
their royalies, SO PLAY ON!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Few Things
Also, there could be a possible business model to be adapted from a general licence for private people to listen to their own music, but the only way it would work is if for a certain fee each year I was able to have any and all music I wanted for free. People, in general don't have a problem with paying for something, they just have a problem paying for something TWICE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yeah, but....
See??? Huh??? See how that works??? See??? You are a pirate!!! See??? Pay up pirate!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ring Ring
caller - Hello ... is that a dog I hear barking Jingle Bells ? Sir I must inform you that you need a license for your dog.
me - My dog already has a license, thank you very much.
caller - No, I meant your dog needs a performance license in order to legally bark Jingle Bells.
CLICK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond unbelievable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
insanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS for music, The Saga continues -.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS hounding
Bl..dy ridiculous, times are hard enough as it is without that. I will just have to remove the radio.
Is there no answer to these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS cold callers
Are these people for real ???
Cant they go and get real jobs?
Why arent they chasing people who subject the public to their
mobile phone/MP3 "music" on public transport?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Idea
If you think that's a good idea, you ought to see my coin operated cell phone. It only takes pennies; just 25 every minute. No contracts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ROyalty Free Music the Alternetive to paying PRS FEES
Thanks Colin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PRS wanting license payment for TV adverts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prs
I am involved with a small members club (football) and we have Sky TV for all the football, rugby, darts which we cannot get on terrestial tv. The reason we need to pay, because of the music played during adverts, the cost, a minimum of £124.00 per year,per set, unless our tv is bigger than 26 inches then it is a wopping £168.00 We pay more for Sky because we are a business, pay business rates, pay public liability insurance, pay for a tv licence, and now they want to charge me for the adverts I have no control over. With regards to them entering your premises, only Police, Fire Brigade, Licencing Officers and Custome & Excise can do this without permission. So dont let them in if they do arrive, and ask them to leave if they already have. If they do ring ask them to send you the legal documents prooving that you need the licence, they tell you to look it up on the website, but there is no actual link to any government legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS pestering small business
On principle, the PRS are right to approach those who use music in the course of their business........BUT, wait a minute, read on.
The PRS management is controlled and directed by its board. Its board, who are the paymasters and policy makers, comprises all the major commercial interests of the entertainment industry; Universal, EMI, Warners, Sony etc etc and some representatives of well known composers' estates and some well known living (rich) composers and songwriters.
They have demanded that PRS increase its licensing activities. Money is tight nowadays and what with the Internet downloading and pircay denuding the industry of income, the current recession and one thing and another, the majors need more money coming in.
The fault lies in inadequate supervision and control of the actual staff who make these calls and who send out the computerised letters. I have criticised PRS (who are my sole source of broadcast revenue, as a professional in the music industry) for two things regarding this matter;
1. The lack of common sense shown in the examples you have illustrrated on your website. Soemone should look at "Old Mother Hubbard's Dogs' Home", or whatever, and be capable of making a reasoned judgement that its not going to be a company with a huge turnover and that it is pointless pursuing such a lost cause for a licence fee.
2. Failure to pursue, with the same vigour, the REAL, big time, villains and copyright infringers who openly use copyright music in their businesses every day and who simply refuse to buy the licence. I am talking about huge satellite broadcasting companies and radio stations who run rings round the PRS with lawyer speak and technical queries, muddying the waters with all kinds of delaying tactics, to such an extent that a major international Television, cable and radio company, operating on a well known broadcast medium for years and years in this country, has not paid a single penny to the PRS for the use of its members (and my) copyright music.
These are the people on whom they should be concentrating their time and effort, not Sid's Shoe Repairs because customers can hear his iPod earphones!
The bad public relations (as evidenced by the very existence of your site) is more costly than the lost income from these small businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS licence for small B&B
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS are still at it
I am appalled that the club who had a larger than 26"TV had to pay more for exactly the same audio content coming out - how utterly ridiculous is that?
As a performer myself (at one time in the 80's) I have every sympathy with the position of collecting royalties. However, this is going way too far. Brian Engel said that he thinks PRS are not targetting the right people, and I agree.
For years we have had the ability within our society to listen freely to the radio, to gather around and enjoy the broadcast, to collect together with a few mates, a few beers and listen to some tracks. Going to the local park to kick a ball around, with some music in the background now constitutes broadcast, and we have to pay.
What if you play in a covers band, Brian, and play the track identically to the original? Who owns the music then? Do covers bands have to pay to play the music on their set list too? What about the fact the music stations pay the fee to broadcast in the first place (OK, there is at least one who doesn't, for whatever reason) and in amongst that fee they declare the intended audience to be a certain number of people. I happen to be one of those people for whom the license is paid, and if I am in a room with others, it's reasonable to assume they are also intended listeners. Why should we all have to pay again to hear what the radio station is broadcasting? Owning a radio doesn't require a license and never should.
In times of war and civil unrest the radio is an essential mode of communication. Government broadcasts about safety, news, important updates are all sent over the air. by licensing radios we are limiting the range of the audience, and marginalising potential listeners. How foolish.
Many have already pointed out that the radio stations, the performers and artists depend on people listening to their work in order to make a living. I do not choose to listen to much of the drivel that plays over the airwaves, but I am still obliged to pay a license for it, apparently. If I stop listening - if we ALL stop listening - what then for the artist? Limited to live performances only, they wouldn't make a great deal of money, would they?
So why are the artists not paid enough by the record labels and publishers? Surely, once paid for a service the product becomes available to all and the channels through which it is promoted are the basis for collecting royalties. The end user sitting in an office with three or four others doesn't constitute a very public performance, and I seriously doubt that PRS are returning the right amount to all of the people they should be. In fact, when I signed up as an artist on their site (and yes, I do have the right to do this as I have material in publication) it tells me very clearly that simply by registering I cannot expect to receive any money. What a fair system they've got...
So here's what we all should do - get access to Grageband (or anything that allows us to make music electronically), create a unique three minute piece and put it on your phone system as hold music. Make sure everyone who calls you gets put on hold for around ten seconds each, and then register as an artist on PRS database. I mean everyone - all 60 million of us in the UK (and preferably everyone else not in the UK, too). And then group together and make music in groups, do the same thing. And keep on doing it as often as you can. Broadcast it on the internet, through YouTube, as embedded music on web sites - make CDs and tapes of it and distribute it to anyone you can.Make it tuneful or not - random noise or catchy numbers, sing on it or don't - it doesn't matter. The important thing is you are a registered artist and that your music is listened to.
Then sue the a$$ off PRS for failing to uphold their agreement to pay royalties to performers, when quite clearly their systems couldn't cope.
I really detest what PRS are doing, the manner in which they are doing it and the people they are targeting - look at the lady singing in her own shop, for example. Why in God's name do we teach children to sing in schools if they are only going to get hit with fines when they do so? I have yet to see any positive thing in this whole debacle. It is counter productive, will ruin the audio industries and create a generation of people scared to perform.
Someone somewhere in a position of power ought to get a grip on this and put it out of our misery, and quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PPL License
"PPL contacted Mr and Mrs Faramus' business ((No.89 Vegetarian B&B)) by telephone on 29 October 2013 and spoke to Mr Faramus. Upon reviewing the call it is clear that unfortunately we failed to apply a PPL licensing policy that would have exempted Mr and Mrs Faramus' bed and breakfast business from the requirement to pay the licence fee.
The tariff that was applied to the business was PPL's tariff for the supply of recorded music to hotel rooms. This tariff was introduced as a result of clarification provided by the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the case of Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited v Ireland and the Attorney General. In this case the ECJ confirmed that where a hotel relays broadcast signals that contain sound recordings from a central aerial to television sets in bedrooms or provides copies of sound recordings and the means of playing them this constitutes communication to the public and is licensable by the owner of the copyright in the sound recordings so communicated. Following the judgment of the ECJ, PPL agreed a new tariff in consultation with the British Hospitality Association and this was introduced on 1 January 2013. While the judgment of the ECJ does not create any exception to the right in respect of small businesses, PPL decided at the time of introducing the tariff to not require a fee where a hotel has less than 25 rooms and does not have any areas that are open to non-residents (such as a bar or restaurant) Although this policy is explained in materials provided to all staff is seems that is was missed on the case. We take this failure to meet the standards that we set for ourselves very seriously and additional training has been planned to ensure that this issue is addressed. Our licensing operations in this sector have been placed on hold until training has been delivered."
The letter is signed by Peter Leathem, Chief Executive Officer
All the best and happy new year to anyone reading this.
Elena and Paul Faramus, No.89 Vegetarian B&B, Bideford
[ link to this | view in chronology ]