Another UK Hairdresser Fined For Turning On Her Radio

from the no-more-radio dept

Mon, Jul 12th 2010 9:58am — Mike Masnick

We recently wrote about a UK hairdresser being fined for not paying the PPL license for playing a radio in his shop -- even though he'd already been paying the PRS license. Now, if you follow this stuff, you probably know that PPL and PRS cover different aspects of collective licensing, but it strikes many, many people as being patently ridiculous that they need to pay two separate license fees just to turn on a radio in your shop. That story has a rather epic comment thread (well over 500 comments at this point), mainly involving one very, very insistent UK resident who sees no problem with this setup. Of course, he also states that if something is in the public domain it means no one's allowed to sell it at all -- so he's a bit confused on the subject.

In the meantime, however, it appears that PPL has decided that targeting hairdressers and barbershops is in the best interests of its members. mike allen points us to the news that a second hair salon in the same town has been hit with fines. Like the first, she had no idea she had to pay two separate licenses just to turn on her radio, and thought that when a PPL person called (and wouldn't leave a callback number) that it was an obvious shakedown scam. Unlike the other guy, this hairdresser is refusing to pay, saying that the whole thing is ridiculous, seeing as she already paid for a license from PRS.

Once again, while people who are heavily involved in this stuff understand the difference between the licenses, it's pretty ridiculous for anyone to expect a mom & pop shop owner to do the same. All these actions are doing is convincing everyday folks just how ridiculous copyright law is -- while, at the same time, convincing these shops to just turn off their radios, which helps no one. It's such an incredibly short-sighted view by PPL.

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: hairdresser, licensing, radio, uk
Companies: ppl, prs

62 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 9:03am

Sigh...
"Another UK Hairdresser Fined For Turning On Her Radio"

Christ, here we go again....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:23am
  
  Re: Sigh...
  Well, it's better than going after people for singing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re: Sigh...
    That isn't what I meant. I just don't want to see another abortion of a comment thread like the previous story....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg G, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
      Or you could entertain me again, like in the last comment thread, if the same Delta Alpha starts here....
      
      Or would you rather I give you some duct tape now so you can wrap it around your helmet to keep it from exploding?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
        Duct tape, please....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - IronM@sk, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
      Yeah, on that note, I just went and had a look at that story to see what the fuss was about AND BOY does techdirt not play nice when people get into a nested conversation.
      
      After about 10 nested responses they just turn into one-word-per-line replys that take a couple of flicks with the scroll wheel to read. That's pretty poor site design.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
        Or perhaps your browser window is not wide enough.
        
        (Trying to increase the nesting level for this thread a little bit more with this reply...)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 2:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
        "After about 10 nested responses they just turn into one-word-per-line replys that take a couple of flicks with the scroll wheel to read. That's pretty poor site design."
        
        You can fix this by logging in and setting your preference to variable width rather than fixed width. Alternatively, it's fairly easy to fix with a greasemonkey script.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        martyburns (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 5:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
        Awesome! This has pissed me off for ages. Definitely clicking the insightful button for your response - I bet I don't have to do that for any posts below this one...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
      I think that thread was the opposite of an abortion. ;-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:11am

With this sort of thing getting out of hand I'm surprised shop owners haven't started turning their radios off. And it would probably be better if they did! Or maybe just look for other alternatives to radio... the internet and Jamendo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  It's pretty tough to work in silence like that. This is not about the customers, it is about keeping employees happy.
  
  We need some kind of "Internet Public Radio" that only plays public domain music to help these guys out. I'm sure it could be funded with ad revenue pretty easily.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    What you need is a lobby.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (and by lobby I mean a group of people who influence legislators with laws).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AdamR (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:13am

Next to plate, radio manufactures demand a special license since the equipment is for home use and not commercial use. Since people go to the specific hairdresser because they use only certain branded equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyazuh, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:16am

Would this rule apply to someone playing music off of an iPod? If not, I'm surprised more shop owners don't just set up a stereo system with a plug in for an iPod and use it for music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  I would think THAT needs a license, but what if they are playing public, ad-funded radio?
  
  I'm sure the broadcaster paid quite handsomely for licenses to play that music, so are separate PPL licenses actually needed, or is this some sort of scam?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    its the use not the source that they are trying to get money out of.
    basically, their stance is that anything other than silence is a public performance... so it doesnt matter what the source of that material is, the fact that you are playing anything makes it a public performance (which is a load of BS).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AdamR (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  First they would ask for proof the the songs were purchased legally in its digital format, then say that you would need to still the license as its still considered a performance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
senshikaze, 12 Jul 2010 @ 10:54am

so after the lawyers, it will the PRS and PPL against the wall? im all for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nastybutler77 (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  I remember when you used to use a shift key and make sense, senshikaze. Have you suffered a stroke recently?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - senshikaze, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    i rarely use shift. mostly it is laziness. also i have a problem with not proof reading my comments. besides, does proper capitalization actually matter? grammar, sure, capital "I"? i'm not so sure.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - senshikaze, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      also, at least i don't use CAPS all the time like others...
      >_>
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...being ignorant of how to input italics into this window, I use the caps only for emphasis. Sorry....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nastybutler77 (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure that was directed at you DH. More likely it was that subliterate NAMELESS ONE and a few others who do it frequently.
        
        As for using italics, see the last line of the comment reply box? If you put a "" before the word(s) you want to italicize then a "" at the end of the word(s) it should work. Be sure to Preview before you Submit, because in my browser at least it adds extra tags in that italicize everything in the comment from the start of my italics to the end of the post. Not sure why.
        
        Sorry for the awkward "quote marks" around the tag descriptions, but it I put them all together than they won't show up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nastybutler77 (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dammit! It took out the tag description anyway, even though I put some other words and punctuation between the descriptors.
        
        Um, just look at the "Allowed HTML Tags" at the bottom of the comment box and the "i" one starts italics, and to finish using it, put the same thing but with an "i/" in between those brackets. Sorry if that's not very helpful, but those brackets don't show up as text.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        CrushU, 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wonder if this works:
        and gives
        and
        
        (Previewed... Yes! It works. There you go, DH. For your enrichment. ... Can you send me the girl that gives good helmet?)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        CrushU, 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wonder if this works:
        <i> and </i> gives
        and
        
        (Previewed... Yes! It works. There you go, DH. For your enrichment. ... Can you send me the girl that gives good helmet?)
        (Double post because the preview took away my formatting that made it work and I didn't notice in time.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 2:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I always use <em> and </em>, which works in both plain text and html input.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:03am

If I was a hairdresser in the UK I'd get some from indie music to play. Hell, if this was happening over here I'd make sure my hair dressers get them set up with a bunch of music that no one will go hunting them down for.

Although since this makes to much damn sense there is probably some way for these organizations to bleed cash out of them still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:41pm
  
  Re:
  Hell, if this was happening over here I'd make sure my hair dressers get them set up with a bunch of music that no one will go hunting them down for.
  
  I'm not sure there is any such music. I would be surprised if these collection societies don't try to collect for recordings they don't represent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 5:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They already do, under the pretext that you "might" play infringing music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:04am

This might be a great opportunity...
For musicians who aren't associated with those two collection agencies to start advertising just that. I know its sad that you could even entertain the idea of using, "...but at least you can play our music for free." as a marketing ploy but collection agencies are responsible for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sinrtb, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:14am

Couldn't the hair dresser just have their regular customers 'buy' personal radios to play while they are getting their hair done. It seems radio stations could then sue prs and ppl for breach of contract considering private citizens would not be able to use the radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:16am

What's needed is for people to stop feeding them. Stop buying music. Stop paying license fees. Stop all transactions with the muic industry. Starve them into submission for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:21am

Put up a sign saying
We dont play music that you would enjoy in this store cause copyright is STUPID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P3T3R5ON (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:36am

Hey now
I go to that barber shop and I bought the radio so I can have something to listen to when I am having my hair done.

Thus it's a radio for private use not commercial....

Piss off useless agencies!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:03pm

overall, it begs the question: if the music is not relevant to the business, why have it on to start with? at the end of the day, the music is used to improve the atmosphere of the shop, and make it more desirable. if everyone charges about the same for the haircut, isnt atmosphere something that would differentiate one shop from another?

if it isnt needed, turn off the radio and call it even. how hard is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re:
  "overall, it begs the question: if the music is not relevant to the business, why have it on to start with? at the end of the day, the music is used to improve the atmosphere of the shop, and make it more desirable. if everyone charges about the same for the haircut, isnt atmosphere something that would differentiate one shop from another?"
  
  You know what? You're right! And we ought to take it a step further. Hair cuts really are only there to increase presentability. Shouldn't the hairdresser get a cut of everything improved upon by the haircut? For instance:
  
  1. A cut of the haircut-ee's paycheck. After all, he wouldn't have gotten that big sale w/o that awesome looking faux hawk....
  
  2. A cut of the enjoyment of that family photo. Who wants a portrait of a caveman looking family anyway?
  
  3. A little piece of that bah-dussy I got the other day. My girl told me I looked good the other day after I got my hair cut and promptly performed several sex acts on me (she gives great helmet). It only makes sense that I march her over to the Hair Cuttery so that she can peform the same acts on Monica, my chief of scissor to hair manager....
  
  Or, I don't know, maybe this is all just silly....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nastybutler77 (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 3:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Those are good points. Why aren't all musicians who use a licensed hairdresser, stylist or makeup artist (I'm assuming they have to be licensed in the UK as they do in the States, but I could be wrong) required to pay a fee to the HSCA (Hairdresser, Stylist and Cosmotology Alliance (not real, btw))?
    
    After all don't they derive a significant amount of their fans based on their look almost as much as their sound? Lady GaGa I'm looking at you. If so shouldn't all musicians who use one have to support all these beauticians? Not just the big name well established ones, but the up and coming struggling stylists who won't be able to make ends meet without these fees, right?
    
    What's the difference in these two arguments?
    Answer: Nothing. Both are asinine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - martyburns (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 5:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    You need haircuts?!?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re:
  It isn't hard at all, but it isn't necessary either. Since the radio is a public broadcast there should be no reason for a license to begin with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    it doesnt matter if it is a public broadcast or not, it is being used to bring in business (or as a feature of the business) and is as a result a commercial use. as i said, if the music isnt relevant to making money or keeping people in the place, then just turn it off. no big deal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wasn't there something about record labels complaining over venues NOT playing their music?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2010 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/1527385253.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dementia (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 6:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And if it is used for the enjoyment of the individual who owns the radio?? What then? Are they not entitled to use their personal property at a time and place of their using to listen to a public broadcast? So yes, it does matter. If the hairdresser is using it for their own enjoyment they shouldn't need a license. If their clients happen to listen and enjoy it, too freakin bad. Don't let the radio stations play it and no one will be any worse off, except of course the artist, the label, and the collection society.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re:
  Oh look, TAM fails at reading comprehension again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:12pm

PPL vs PRS
Once again, while people who are heavily involved in this stuff understand the difference between the licenses,

Yes and a recent BBC article about the PRS licence didn't even mention the PPL licence at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7833982.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Ash (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:15pm

Sigh
What's wrong with a low fine? Then people would most likely pay. Heck even a warning is going to be better PR than sueing everyone out there.

Idiots. I'm surprised fine limits are set by the UK government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:22pm

Who-tf reports these violations? Lynch that a-hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Public, 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:19pm

How Much is Enough?
How many times should we pay for the same stuff ?

In the UK we pay a TV / Radio licence fee - no option

Some of that money pays for the BBC Radio stations which pay for the music they Transmit

Then they say but wait Now you need to pay the PRS to play what you paid up for to transmit.

Now the PPL Say Ok So you pay to transmit / Then you pay to play now you need to pay if you hear.

WTF..?

O yes and don't forget that every car in the land that has its windows down and the radio on needs to pay just like a shop.

SO HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re: How Much is Enough?
  The problem is that people in the U.S./U.K. don't protest enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:30pm

Notice that the people who called up this hairdresser's refused to leave a contact number? But then again accountability has never quite been the strong suit of collection societies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:38pm

To use italics here do this.

e.g.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

i>The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog/i>

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

At the end below the comment box there is tags one can use in here.

* Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break br> tag, all other allowable HTML is intact
* HTML: No formatting of any kind is done without explicitly being written in
* Allowed HTML Tags: b> i> p> a> em> br> strong> blockquote> hr> tt>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 6:07am
  
  Re:
  Testing italics awesomeness....
  
  i>Italics/i>
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 6:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, that didn't work. Trying in HTML mode: Italics/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 6:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      SWEET!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CrushU, 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:39pm

Hairdresser effect?
Really, I can't think of any worse business to sue over this than hairdressers.

Barbers/hairdressers are KNOWN for conversing with their clients quite often. If there's a better way to spread hate over copyright laws, I can't think of it.

"Mornin Bob, the usual just a couple inches off the top."
"No problem."
"Hey, why isn't there any music playing? Your radio broke?"
"Nope. Those bloody PPL people..."
"Huh? What're you talking about?"

Ahem. Et cetera, Et cetera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Krash, 12 Jul 2010 @ 7:00pm

AIR
I need a lawyer. I think I will copyright AIR and SCREW the world. Well on second thought.

Being in an pleasing atmosphere (hair dresser, work/slave shop, you get the picture), where you can relax and enjoy the company of your work mates and patrons is better for all involved. So bring on the radio.

Now if you are having a bad hair day, no pun intended, doesn't music help calm the screaming beast? So, why charge for something so physiologically positive?

Now if get the copyright on AIR, I will withhold this precious commodity from certain people unless they pay big time. Then I will return this money back to the little people that got took because of stupid greedy big business IDIOTS.
Do I see robin-hood here, at least Hollywood style?

Few seconds should do it, least till they start turning blue. Don't want them to pass out till they sign on the dotted line.

Brain dead so read between some of the lines and add a little more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 7:22pm

I think those collection agencies are brilliant they are doing for the music business what the unions did for workers in the 90's.

That is, workers had their jobs transferred to other places and lost their jobs, in the same way musicians will find difficult to find promotion anywhere and will loose their other revenue streams.

I'm wondering when people will start banning musicians from posting their music anywhere as people could have to pay licenses to those crook's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isabel (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 12:44pm

So when are they
going to go after football crowds for singing songs at a match or would they be worried they'd have their heads kicked in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FlyBoyMark, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:22am

You Gotta Be kidding!
This is why the UK has become a third rate banana republic instead of the great FREE country it used to be. A sign of socialistic values that destroy greatness. This policy makes me want to vomit and never visit the UK. The ignorant little sheep of the UK will continue on their path to lost mediocrity till their country is gone with the winds of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]