Hardware Store That Doesn't Play Any Music Has To Fight Off Collection Society Demanding A License Fee

from the that's-called-extortion dept

Thu, Oct 27th 2011 3:02pm — Mike Masnick

We've written plenty of stories about different businesses being shaken down by various music collections societies, and the one we often hear the craziest stories about is PPL in the UK. Recently, it demanded a hardware store pay for a license. Of course, there was just one problem: the store's owner doesn't play any music in the store, saying that after the store is closed up for the night, he'll turn on the radio to hear the news while he cleans up, but that he doesn't think music is appropriate for the store. Still PPL demanded £199. After he refused to pay, PPL apparently claimed that he owed them money and passed it on to a debt collection agency, who started hounding the poor guy.

The owner, David Sleath, was finally forced to hire lawyers to try to stop the madness -- and PPL's response was to lower their demand to "just" £100, for music he did not play. Eventually, after Sleath was able to get press coverage, PPL "called him up with a grovelling apology and a promise to withdraw all invoices." Still, he's been stuck with legal fees, and is now trying to get PPL to pay them. It seems more and more like this is just a government sanctioned form of extortion, doesn't it?

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: collection societies, uk
Companies: ppl

62 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Thomas (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:09pm

Next thing you know..
they will want a license to play music in your own home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:12pm
  
  Re: Next thing you know..
  It's only fair: if music is played in the home, people other than the original purchaser might hear it. /sarc(?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:39am
  
  Re: Next thing you know..
  Listening to music at home is killing concert attendance!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:38am
  
  Re: Next thing you know..
  I remember their claim that music played in an automobile was a public performance ... or maybe that was just a joke.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re: Next thing you know..
    ringtones were too
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 3:41am
  
  Re: Next thing you know..
  If you can hear it from the street, yeah probably.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:09pm

Court...
He should be able to sue for harassment, court costs and lawyers fees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:14pm

And I thought extortion was illegal in the UK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:18pm
  
  Re:
  but..but... will somebody please think about U2's Lear Jet that needs a new tyre!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re:
  The UK government actually does it to a large scale against people who decide they will not watch (and therefore don't pay a fee for) the BBC.
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/licencefee/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 4:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Same situation here in Ireland. I've got two screens, a standard computer monitor and a 40 inch HD TV, both connected to my computer, yet according to the law, I still have to pay a TV licence, to help pay for RTE. Which I don't watch at all, seeing as how I don't have so much as a free-to-air aerial connected to the TV.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      huh. in NZ the government funded programing is payed for out of regular taxes, and the government 'owned' channels (maybe 1/3rd or so of the free-to-air ones?) pretty much use advertising to pay for themselves the same as the others. only difference is that they're contractually obligated to run election stuff and the like and the government is the one collecting the profits. (end result: we actually get reasonably balanced media covarge most of hte time... not so much when national's in power, sadly, as then you get the 'don't upset those controling our funding too much' affecting one major news channel and blatant pro-rich-people-getting-more-money-is-the-only-thing-that-matters-so-therefore-everyone-but-national -sucks propaganda on the other...)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ilfar, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We used to have a broadcast fee, but that was back in the land of Sleepy Kiwi (I miss you, little guy!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Charles K. (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not the connection to an aerial, it's the circuits that act as the receiver that causes you to pay. That's why the monitor is exempt but the TV isn't.
      
      It's all a pile of shite, but just wait till they classify your PC as a "receiving device", that's when things will get really interesting.
      
      Heh heh, all this brings me back to the time in college when we beat the TV licence inspector by simply cutting the plug off the TV. We couldn't prove it worked so he couldn't make us pay. Ah, memories.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > It's all a pile of shite, but just wait
        > till they classify your PC as a "receiving
        > device",
        
        Or your phone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm in the UK and I do support the licence fee - it produces advert free - free television (and radio and web) which is much less aligned to government than it would be if paid for by general taxes. Also I reckon pretty much everyone benefits from the BBC so the relatively modest fee is good value.
    
    On top of that the BBC has been exemplary in making its back catalogue available freely (and DRM free). It has only been hampered in this by the fact that most of its TV output contains material that others still own copyright on.
    
    Where this is not the case (eg non-music radio and some classical music recorded by BBC orchestras) pretty much everything is available DRM free forever.
    
    It has gone far enough in this to get the record labels to complain so I reckon they do as good a job as is practically possible.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It has gone far enough in this to get the record labels to complain so I reckon they do as good a job as is practically possible.
      
      From the link you provided:
      Ralph Couzens, managing director of the Chandos label said: "We have to pay premium prices to record big orchestras and pay full union rates and we have to pass those costs on to the consumer. If the BBC is going to offer recordings for free, that is going to be a major problem."
      
      Sounds like the orchestral recording business is going to have to stop being such freetards about others making their own orchestral recordings of music that is in the public domain and offering it for free, and get a new business model (their current one is: suckling at the teats of the people forever) because the tide is going out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:31pm

Actually, this particular instance doesn't sound government sanctioned at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:32pm

OMG, I found a story that makes copyright look bad! Quick, write it up and post it!

God, you look so desperate, Mike. Don't you have anything interesting to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re:
  Quick, gotta insult a guy who writes about how a group is claiming money through extortion.
  
  Memo to all sane people here on Techdirt: the new pirate word of the week is pendulum, I kept seeing it over and over on the e-parasite articles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Me too. Odd isn't it? If you didn't know better, you'd swear it was one person posting as multiple people. Or multiple people posting from the same play book. Very odd.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey, if you attach a very wide paint brush to a pendulum you could cover a lot of area with a broad brush.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Grey Ferret, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re:
  And here you read the article and found it interesting enough to take the time to write a comment. Sounds like Mike does indeed have something interesting to say.
  
  Oh, and that's not Mike that looks desperate, that's a mirror.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, I actually couldn't get all the way through the first paragraph. Yawn. Funny how Pirate Mike weeds through all the things going on in copyright to only focus on the negative. Yeah, Pirate Mike is anti-piracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You forgot to call him a slime and to curse at him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 12:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And you're a complete moron. This article has nothing to do with copyright. Just read the title: He didn't play music at all. None whatsoever. Yet, he was still being shaken down for money.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I actually couldn't get all the way through the first paragraph"
      
      That's a shame, because then you'd have gotten to the part where the collections agency were finally forced to admit that the guy had never done anything to require a licence, yet he was still lumbered with legal fees for the false shakedown.
      
      But, that's typical for you. Don't let facts get in the way so you can just call names and accuse people of "piracy". I can imagine you in prohibition-era Chicago, defending Al Capone and attacking Eliott Ness as "pro-alcohol", since he dared to try to point out Capone's criminal actions...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 12:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Actually, I actually couldn't get all the
      > way through the first paragraph
      
      You shouldn't publicly advertise your limitations like that. It's unbecoming.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Angry Puppy (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 8:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are why democracy is failing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  "God, you look so desperate, Mike. Don't you have anything interesting to say?"
  
  It was interesting enough to others, who don't have a hang up in regards to insulting Mike. You know what's funny though? You saying "don't you have anything interesting to say", because the irony is lost on you. You yourself DO NOT have anything interesting to say.
  
  Watch, I'm going to pretend to be you for a moment.
  
  "OMG! A lame story! That tries to make copyright/studios/labels look bad! Let me post it real fast! Teehee!
  
  Man, Pirate Mike, anything to draw people in. Quite pathetic. Boring FUD like usual."
  
  Dismissal of article? Check. Personal attack? Check. Mentioned Mike? Check.
  
  Wow. I could be one of the "troll-type" ACs. No effort or experience (or intelligence) required.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    My point is that Pirate Mike always focuses on the negatives of copyright law. There's no balance on Techdirt. It's all copyright FUD. There's no acknowledgement of the good that comes with copyright law. Pirate Mike's main goal in life is talk shit about copyright law. Post after post after post talking about the bad. It's so obvious that Pirate Mike hates copyright law and isn't anti-piracy. It's HILARIOUS that he keeps denying it. Post after post after post just keeps proving what a lie that is.
    
    And now that I've even intimated that some sort of positive actually exists with copyright law, watch the piranha pounce. This place is awesome fun. I feel like I'm at the zoo watching monkeys mate with penguins.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps then you could start your own blog to advance your point of view. Though, given your general lack of creativity, poor writing style, and complete absence of intelligent arguments, I suspect you would be its only reader.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good burn, sport!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ty, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Feel the zing. Another cause of our merriment is your poor relationship with your father! This is amusing because you come from a broken family.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uncle Pennybags, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My point is that Pirate Mike always focuses on the negatives of monopolies. There's no balance on Techdirt. It's all monopoly FUD. There's no acknowledgement (sic) of the good that comes with monopolistic law. Pirate Mike's main goal in life is talk shit about monopolistic law. Post after post after post talking about the bad. It's so obvious that Pirate Mike hates monopolistic law and isn't anti-competition. It's HILARIOUS that he keeps denying it. Post after post after post just keeps proving what a lie that is.
      
      And now that I've even intimated that some sort of positive actually exists with monopolistic law, watch the piranha pounce. This place is awesome fun. I feel like I'm at the zoo watching monkeys mate with penguins.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - pbarker (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Holy cow, what kind of zoo do you have in your world?
        Monkeys mating with penguins? Really?
        
        Now for the Duh-du-joir - Anyone who starts an argument by saying "( insert topic here ) is all ( insert adjectives )" as in "It's [Techdirt] all monopoly FUD" has just lost.
        
        Nothing is "all" one thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, you flatter me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And now that I've even intimated that some sort of positive actually exists with monopolistic law, watch the piranha pounce."
        
        So go on, explain to us the positive of agencies being able to extort money from people for activities they do not do, for using products they do not use. Explain the upside of legalised extortion on behalf of people who are not entitled to the money in any way.
        
        I'll wait. Bear in mind that this is far from the only example of this happening so the "isolated incident" or "rare occurrence" defences won't work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While we're at it I'd like to complain about these judges who sit on the bench day after day and say how terrible murder, burglary, assault (etc etc) are. Why are they so one sided? Why can't we have a more balanced view of murder, burglary, assault (etc etc)?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My point is that Pirate Mike always focuses on the negatives of copyright law.
        
        There are no positives these days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:52am
        
        Well, here's your chance, then...
        ...to say just what you find positive about monopolistic law. Go ahead, we're waiting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My point is that Pirate Mike always focuses on the negatives of copyright law.
      
      And who gives a damn about an ACs/shill's point?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - athe, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And copyright law (and all its spawn) is just full of balance these days, isn't it? Hah!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe instead of just saying you intimated it exists, why don't you provide examples? You're the one who keeps disagreeing and offering no evidence. Mike has provided plenty, you have provided nothing. Any unbiased third party would have to declare Mike the winner on this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 3:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did your mother have any children that actually lived? Didn't think so!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:28pm
  
  Re:
  OMG, I found a story where Mike writes about copyright gone mad. Quick, write a troll post up and post it!
  
  God, you look so desperate, AC. Don't you have anything interesting to say?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 3:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ask him about his mother. And the milkman.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:05pm
  
  Re:
  "Don't you have anything interesting to say?"
  
  Maybe you could show him how it's done? God knows you've failed so far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike42 (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:33pm

Seriously, how could anyone look at these collection laws and NOT conclude they are shakedowns? I've never seen ANYONE try to justify these taxes on businesses. (Maybe I just don't read past the first 200 posts?)
You paid for the recording of the music. Now you're paying for the right to play it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:31pm

And for each time these out of hand tactics get coverage, how many times do people just pay up to make it stop? You have a rights group running unchecked, because it is assumed they are doing it all for the artists. Much like the DCMA there is no downside for them making bogus claims and forcing innocent people to fight them. They have no proof of their claims, but they are empowered to just demand and are assumed to be correct.

What needs to happen is there needs to be a mechanism outside of the society where those people targeted can tick off a form on why it is bogus. The outside people look at the evidence, and then make a ruling. For each bogus demand by the society they need to be fined $50,000.00. That is a number that should hurt and should make them actually review the situations before launching baseless accusations.
Half should go to the target and half should go to the checker. Now we have someone with their own interest in being paid making sure all t's are crossed and all i's are dotted.
If your found to be owing, then you get a $200 fine on top of what you owe for wasting time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:40pm
  
  Re:
  Half should go to the target and half should go to the checker.
  
  That would be a rather perverse incentive for the targets of claims to always protest, and the oversight authority to always find against the PRO. You want to align the incentives as much as possible with accuracy, not toward one outcome or the other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So its wrong for me to suggest we just flip what they are doing already?
    
    As it stands now there is not a damn thing done to the societies when they get all excited and demand payments they are not actually owed. They get to make the claim, sell it off to debt collectors, and leave the target paying bills and fighting off creditors over a nonexistent debt. The odds are heavily in the favor of them doing this on a regular basis.
    
    It would never come to be, giving the common folk the same broad powers they hand to corporate cronies, but its fun to dream. There should be harsh penalties built into the law for people making false claims. The target in this case has been hounded and hounded and has a pile of legal bills because the society lied. And he is meant to spend more money in a vain attempt to win back what he is out already?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So its wrong for me to suggest we just flip what they are doing already?
      
      Yes. You don't correct an injustice by turning the same injustice on the opposite party.
      
      There should be harsh penalties built into the law for people making false claims.
      
      Agreed, but those penalty payments should not go to the people deciding who has broken the rules. That would be a bit like allowing police officers to keep half of the payments from traffic tickets they write. Where would their incentive lie?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To-mato, Ta-mato...
        is it really injustice, or just re-balancing the scales :)
        And yes I see all of the possible abuse there, but the lawmakers can't see it when they grant it to the corporations.
        
        As to keeping payments from traffic tickets... have you missed the red light camera/photo speed trap stories on here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As to keeping payments from traffic tickets... have you missed the red light camera/photo speed trap stories on here?
        
        So you agree that kind of thing is a bad idea and an abuse of power, right? :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think the entire thing is silly, but if these are the laws they insist we have there needs to be punishment for abusing it. There needs to be a system for people to appeal that doesn't require them having to spend all kinds of moneys to fight the jackals off.
        
        Copyright Trolls, Patent Trolls, Society Trolls...
        all of them threaten you with large sums and big legal bills and it is often just easier to settle. Not because you are guilty, but because a long protracted battle will bankrupt you.
        
        Maybe revise my original idea and have a $50k fine awarded on top of all the legal fees to someone targeted wrongly. If you know your right, and the lawyer knows he is getting paid you will be able to find a vigorous defense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess it's difficult to get punitive damages in addition to legal fees currently? Anyway, that sure sounds reasonable to me. Maybe it would get corps to think twice (or just once, even) before making threats.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:33pm

Looks like these PPL should be locked up in the clink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Local Lad, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:02am

It's entirely reasonable to highlight misuse and abuse of copyright and patent law and ownership. In this case PPL misused their ownership of copyright and got caught in the act. PPL have acknowledged the fact and apologised to the owner of the store.

Nice work highlighting that story Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re:
  You probably made the AC soil his panties! And that on top of the other three loads he was sporting previously. You're pretty heartless, for sure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Janet, 4 Nov 2011 @ 5:02am

Shakedown
Get ready for a lot more of this. Recently-signed ACTA and the copyright laws created to support ACTA have resulted in a regime -- across Europe, North America and Asia -- that supports and encourages this sort of government-facilitated corporate intimidation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
asds, 22 Jan 2012 @ 8:40am

best sport books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]