UK Music Retailers Ask Why They Should Pay Performance Licenses To Play Music When They're Trying To Sell The Music

from the seems-like-a-fair-point dept

Wed, Sep 28th 2011 2:45am — Mike Masnick

We've had plenty of stories about music collections agencies shaking down various businesses for playing music -- and over in the UK a fight is apparently brewing over whether or not music retailers should have to pay such fees. As you might imagine, the collection agencies say of course such retailers should pay. But the retailers point out that they're trying to sell the music directly and letting them play the music freely will help them do that. Apparently (I had no idea), in the US, record stores have an exemption from paying licensing agencies. But not so in the UK.

"These license fees imposed on record stores are iniquitous and in my view should be abolished," said UK-based Entertainment Retail Association (ERA) president Paul Quirk in a speech to members on Wednesday, while squarely pointing to "industry bodies like PRS and PPL who still pursue record stores for license fees in order to play music, promote music and ultimately to sell music."

Can you imagine running any other business this way? A bakery that wants to sell you cakes, but has to pay a separate "performance rights fee" to the baker? Don't see that working..

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: music, performance license, retail, uk

51 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 2:49am

Yo dawg, heard you like music licences so we put music licences in your music licences so you can pay while you pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 2:50am

Free music promotion is killing music sales....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 2:56am

If they play only cc/pd music in the shop
If they play only cc/pd music in the shop as a protest - that might skew sales a bit and make the rights agencies think twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 3:02am
  
  Re: If they play only cc/pd music in the shop
  Nah, they'll just blame it on the pirates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 5:01am
    
    Re: Re: If they play only cc/pd music in the shop
    indeed. still a good idea though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ethorad (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 7:35am
  
  Re: If they play only cc/pd music in the shop
  Or agree to pay whatever rates the RIAA wants, but charge them twice as much to advertise in their shop, more than cancelling out the licence fees.
  
  Then play cc/pd/etc music
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 3:26am

"UK Music Retailers Ask Why They Should Pay Performance Licenses To Play Music When They're Trying To Sell The Music"
Because if people could actually hear the music they may actually buy it, duh! How dumb are you freetards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 3:53am
  
  Re: "UK Music Retailers Ask Why They Should Pay Performance Licenses To Play Music When They're Trying To Sell The Music"
  Why would people pay for music when they can just go to their local record store and listen to it free?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 4:39am
  
  Re: "UK Music Retailers Ask Why They Should Pay Performance Licenses To Play Music When They're Trying To Sell The Music"
  But surely, if the companies want their music sold, Then it would be wise for them to allow them to play their music in stores for free. It free advertising! In fact, the companies realy should be paying the stores! No wonder they are struggling with logic like this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 5:19am
    
    Re: Re: "UK Music Retailers Ask Why They Should Pay Performance Licenses To Play Music When They're Trying To Sell The Music"
    No, you don't get it. You freetards will learn to pay every single time you hear or interact with music or anything sounding like music. Why do you hate artists?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 5:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "UK Music Retailers Ask Why They Should Pay Performance Licenses To Play Music When They're Trying To Sell The Music"
      But then how on earth would I know what music to buy? You expect people to guess what music is good? Besides, the stores don't even need to play the whole song to get intrest in it, which would mean that if they like the song they will likely buy it, meaning MORE money for the artists. not less. See, I love artists. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DannyB (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I have a solution
        Look. I can solve both your problem and the problem posed by the poster right above you.
        
        Mandatory RIAA/MPAA brain implant chips, at birth.
        
        > But then how on earth would I know what music to buy?
        
        The brain implant chip tells you.
        
        But wait! There's more! It not only tells you which music to buy, but also which movies to watch. Now how much would you pay?
        
        > You freetards will learn to pay every single time
        > you hear or interact with music
        
        The brain implant chip will automatically charge your credit card any time you hear any music, or see any clip or portion of a movie.
        
        There is a small fee for this service. You freetards can't expect to enjoy the convenience of this automated payment system for free do you? Think of the time saved by not having to manually make payments.
        
        Problem solved. Everyone happy.
        
        You are happy aren't you? The brain implant chip tells you that you are happy and love whatever new music and movie is being promoted this week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have a solution
        Do the Artists get one of these too? Or do they get a special version which means any money they make go to the agencies? If so, they should be billed for this helpful timesaving feature. Of course the chip makes them more than happy to do so so there is no problem. Fun times all around!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have a solution
        http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
        
        Scientists are working hard to enable that future LoL
        
        Reconstruction of brain activity
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have a solution
        If you are watching a movie, do you get charged for each song in the soundtrack? What about if you are watching a music video for a song and it shows clips of the movie? Seems only fair to charge a fee on top of a fee for those privileges.
        
        Maybe the chip can be programmed to cause you to go blind or deaf whenever music or movies are playing that you aren't willing to pay for. That way we only have to reject one or two of our senses temporarily to avoid infringing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HuwOS (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:04am
    
    Re: Re: "UK Music Retailers Ask Why They Should Pay Performance Licenses To Play Music When They're Trying To Sell The Music"
    Radio play also sells music, but the radio stations pay?
    
    It isn't surprising given their win-win-win-win historical setup that the music labels and licencing agencies are slow to adapt to the digital era, they've effectively lived in what to anyone else would be fantasy land for the last 50 years.
    
    Who wants to have to leave fantasy land?
    
    Yeah, Yeah Yul might, but hardly anyone else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 28 Sep 2011 @ 4:02am

easiest way out of this is to stop selling music. see how the artists and the labels like it when the sales plummet through the floor and the blame lays squarely at their feet and the feet of the collection agencies that are employed by the labels. cant wait to see what excuses come out then!
this whole pattern/copyright/license thing has gotten totally out of control. wont be long before a license has to be bought so that a license can be bought, so a license can be bought, so a person/shop can then promote and sell the very things that keep these thick industry fuckers alive! unbelievable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 5:03am
  
  Re:
  ......
  
  there's a fundamental flaw in the logic of having a music store follow your plan. see if you can spot it.
  
  (i do agree with the sentiment though.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    i know i know....
    the flaw is that they are selling music in the first place right???
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yep, sleep with dogs and wake up with flees.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re:
  see how the artists and the labels like it when the sales plummet through the floor and the blame lays squarely at their feet and the feet of the collection agencies that are employed by the labels.
  
  You should realize by now that they would just blame piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 4:13am

There's still record stores?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:12am
  
  Re:
  That is the real news here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 4:34am

Biology
Ears are killing the music industry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 4:56am
  
  Re: Biology
  So are mouths! They talk far too much!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 28 Sep 2011 @ 5:07am

That's backwards
In the MAFIAA world, the advertisers pay you money.

I should put up a billboard that's advertising my product, then charge the billboard owners money to advertise my product.

WIN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 5:10am

"A bakery that wants to sell you cakes..."

It's like if GM threatened and required payment from its car dealers for patent infringement for letting potential customers test-drive cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 10:44pm
  
  Re:
  If everyone who entered store bought indie music, labels would still be making money, with these licenses.
  
  So:
  It's like you decided not to buy GM and the government gives them your tax dollars anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HuwOS (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:00am

It's the same in Ireland as well, if you play music in your music store to help sell the music, you have to pay a licence so that the writers,performers can be duly rewarded.
It's insanity.
But then, it's actual an insane concept even for non music retailers, so what's a bit more insanity between friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  I know of one chinese takeaway in Ireland that had a sticker on his front door saying they paid for a music performance license from some acronym.
  
  Odd thing was, they didn't play music. They had a TV in the corner though, tuned to a news channel permanently, but surely that doesn't count.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jimbo, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:08am

until everyone involved with the distribution/selling of anything entertainment industry related actually grows some balls and tell them what is going to happen, instead of kowtowing to the wants/orders of those industries, nothing will change. stop dealing with them completely, start dealing with another commodity. even if the industries deal with everything themselves, do they honestly expect the world to flock to their shops and/or web sites? i think not! people wont pay the prices they will insist in charging. surely even the artists can see the fallacy of what is happening and how much they are losing out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:24am

Collection agencies are just con artists
In my experience, these so-called collection agencies are just flat-out liars and scammers. My wife has a retail shop, and a PPL representative recently visited the shop, asking if they ever played any music. The answer given by a member of staff was that she didn't know. A few weeks later, my wife receives an invoice for around �80 saying the shop needs a performance licence. The shop has no radio or music system, so my wife rang them up and told them she wasn't going to pay.

The PPL then blatantly lied to her, said that staff had been playing Katie Perry in the shop when their agent visited (no radio, or CD player and my wife owns no Katie Perry music anyway), then claimed the the PPL is a Government agency (it's not) and she was legally obliged to pay up. She called him out as a liar and hung up on him. It's been 3 weeks and they haven't followed up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:32am

Why?
The why is because the music industry is run by greedy shits. Any more questions?

Obama 2012 - NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: Why?
  What does a situation that existed before Obama's election (music industry run by the greedy) and a story on the UK music industry have to do with Obama?
  
  Oh yeah, you guys are going to start up your troll circus for next year's election soon, right? Joy. I can't wait to be called a communist because I happen to live in a country that provides adequate health care again...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:35am

Didn't know us record stores were exempt either. surprised more shopkeepers aren't exploiting it. Take night clubs: they need to pay to play music. Buy a lady Gaga CD, put it up for sale behind the bar for $1000. Now you're a record store that just so happens to sell liquor and have a dance floor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:20am
  
  Re:
  Didn't know us record stores were exempt either. surprised more shopkeepers aren't exploiting it
  
  You know what's surprising about this comment?
  
  That record stores have been exempt during their entire existence, and yet you think that the law is a license for shopkeepers to exploit it.
  
  You sound like one of those douchebags who thinks the royalty system for terrestrial radio is "akin to piracy."
  
  Or, you're being sarcastic. That may be the case. It's a sad state of affairs when sarcasm is indistinguishable from genuine sentiment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:38am

"Can you imagine running any other business this way? A bakery that wants to sell you cakes, but has to pay a separate "performance rights fee" to the baker? Don't see that working.."

I don't think this works...I think its more like...

Having a bakery and then having to license the aroma of fresh baked goods because someone copyrighted it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:57am

Meanwhile in France Post-it wars break out with hundreds of copyright infringer's going unpunished for stealing art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ZuUGQipms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:59am
  
  Re:
  Forgot about what I thought about it.
  Are those companies that made those post-it things going to pay anybody for using art they didn't create and putting it on the sides of buildings?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 12:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Are those companies that made those post-it things going to pay anybody for using art they didn't create and putting it on the sides of buildings?"
    
    One word to you mate- Disney.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy7600 (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 8:01am

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/10570810083.shtml

I hope Dave Natriss comes back. That was fun.

No, I really do.

In a pure schadenfreude kind of way :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re:
  I hope Dave Natriss comes back. That was fun.
  
  Dave's fingers might still be in traction from all that furious typing he did on that article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 3:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Holy crap, 600 comments!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:29am
  
  Re:
  I hope Dave Natriss comes back. That was fun.
  
  Shhh! He will appear if you speak his name three times.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qritiqal (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 8:43am

let's see if i have this straight
A music retailer shouldn't have to pay licensing fees because customers hearing the music might BUY the music as a result of hearing it.

So why should ANYONE pay licensing fees for publicly playing music?
Does the customer's distance from a cash register somehow affect the likelihood they enjoy the song and want to purchase it? What, do people just hang out in music stores on the off chance they might hear something they like and go find it on the shelves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re: let's see if i have this straight
  A music retailer shouldn't have to pay licensing fees because customers hearing the music might BUY the music as a result of hearing it.
  
  They shouldn't have to pay because they are playing music for the sole purpose of trying to sell it. It would be like running a TV ad for an album and then charging the TV station a license fee for playing the music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 9:35am

PRS is vicious... the U.S. allows direct licensing for public performance rights. For example, if you have a restaurant and want to play music, and you have an agreement with a musician who happens to own the master, publishing and performance rights to all of his/her music, you can, of course play their music. Ditto if there's a third party intermediary, like a Muzak-style provider who procures such agreements from musicians and labels. In the U.K.? Nope, gotta pay PRS no matter what. They make the jackals at ASCAP and BMI look reasonable by comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 7:10pm
  
  Re:
  I wouldn't term them "vicious", because I have first hand knowledge of what vicious really connotes. Vicious is a word that they would fully understand if they ever came to me for their unjustifiable monetary demands, threatening litigation. Once you sit directly across the desk, or perhaps a restaurant table, from one of these "vicious" individuals, and carefully explain to them the errors of their ways in dealing with you, and the likely consequences of failing to correct those errors, then if they still persist, or display intent to put up resistance, they will get an advanced education in what the word vicious can truly mean. Sometimes, this epiphany will produce incontinence. Not very nice, but sometimes unavoidable. Just another way of resolving business disputes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
j r, 28 Sep 2011 @ 11:32am

If people hear the crap passed off as music they won't buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 11:34am

GOOD IDEA:::::

Take all that RIAA Music and throw it in the trash or send it back.Stock your store with cool Indie type bands and problem solved.There will be no issue as any small band wants exposure and wants an edge to get somewhere.I know the two bands I play in would never bring a lawsuit against someone for helping us out by exposing us to potential new fans.

FUCK UK BIGWIGS !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dwayne (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 2:13pm

So what you're saying is music stores in the US don't pay licencing fees to play music in the store? LOCK THEM UP, THAT IS THEFT REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER LICENCE OR AGREEMENT THESE STORES HAVE WITH THE LABELS! AHHHHH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]