When A Fourth Of Small Businesses In England Complain About Collection Societies, It's No Coincidence

from the gimmie-gimmie-gimmie dept

Mon, Nov 24th 2014 8:59am — Timothy Geigner

Copyright collection organizations, among the most prolifically corrupt and hilariously dirty organizations as far as some of us are concerned, are reportedly now building themselves quite a reputation among business groups as well. In England, we're finally starting to see some formalized push-back against the collectors from the small business community. From research done by the Federation of Small Businesses, we learn that a quarter of businesses have reported a complete lack of clarity, transparency, and understanding when it comes to how all this insane music licensing is actually supposed to work.

Research from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) shows that 24% of small businesses have complained to the regulator regarding a lack of clarity when it comes to obtaining music, media and design – which are often used for promotional purposes – with issues surrounding licence payments and potential copyright infringement being prominent. The industry body says that copyright collecting societies, which protect the intellectual properties of said industries, lack clarity when it comes to rules and regulations.

Think about what that means for a moment. For a quarter of small businesses, those that can least afford to be dinged by not properly complying with copyright laws, don't have a full understanding of how to stay compliant. Beyond that, even those working with the collection societies, ostensibly in the business of protecting artists and ensuring compliance, aren't made to understand how this all works. How can that be?

Well, the answer is, of course, that collection groups aren't really in the business of compliance or protecting artists. They're in the business of collecting money and making a fee for those collections. It is simply not in their interests for there to be a wide understanding of how music is licensed, should be licensed, and should not be licensed. Far better for these agencies that they simply be able to stroll into a small business, declare them to be infringing, and collect their cut of the fees.

John Allan, national chairman of the FSB, said: "An unexpected demand for licence payments to allow you to play music in your business can be a very unpleasant shock to some small businesses, and the industry should be sensitive in how they approach the issue.

"For trust to be built, they need to make sure they are very clear on why a licence is needed and completely transparent on how charges are calculated."

That'd be nice, but it's certainly not how this works in the real world. There's no patient description of why certain licenses are needed in certain situations. And, oh, by the way, why is clarity and transparency amongst this convoluted mess of a copyright system a better solution than simply cleaning up the mess and streamlining the whole thing?

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, shakedowns, uk

27 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:16am

As a somewhat humorous aside, I recently discovered that the store where I game has the collection societies' licenses included as part of the rent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:30am

24% of small businesses have complained to the regulator regarding a lack of clarity when it comes to obtaining music, media and design

...and the other 76% are infringing and don't know it yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 9:37am

Dirty leeching bassas...
The music business? the sooner the better it implodes the better..
How many times do people have to pay?
You listen to Spotify (or one of their ilk)---they get paid
You listen to the radio----they get paid
You listen to the muzac in say a shop----- they get paid.
You buy(or if digital, licence it) the music----they get paid.
Where does it end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mark, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:05am

PRS
A fried ran a club night and the PRS tried to claimed that they visited the club at a certain time they played a whole load if pop music. unfortunately for the PRS the times they claimed this was happening was when he was playing his own compositions live, they were told to shove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:38am
  
  Re: PRS
  I'm sure it was an honest mistake. The PRS droid must have heard the guy's original compositions and thought to itself 'hey, this sounds good! It must be something we own! This sounds better than anything I've seen in our catalog!'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Felix Atagong (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: PRS
  It happens everywhere. Sabam in Belgium routinely asked (and still asks) copyrights fees for amateur performers performing their own songs, threatening to close the gig down if they don't pay beforehand.
  Needless to say that these performers never see their money back...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Nov 2014 @ 1:52am
  
  Re: PRS
  Fairly typical tactic from what I've seen. They make a claim, assuming that most people play major label music anyway. Occasionally, they'll hit a target that can prove that they didn't, or can prove that they only play music not covered by the agency. But, most of the time, they get paid for their lies regardless.
  
  This is fraud, of course, but they get to claim "fighting piracy" as an excuse, so they get away with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 25 Nov 2014 @ 2:51am
    
    Extortion to legal 'collections' in two words flat
    As long as you can slip 'because copyright' in your claims/lawsuit somewhere, it's amazing how otherwise clearly illegal actions suddenly become 'legal', with the full support of the courts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tim Griffiths (profile), 27 Nov 2014 @ 2:44am
  
  Re: PRS
  He should actually claim money back from them just to spite 'em, they are after all responsible for collecting the music license his venue should be paying to him for the licence to play his music live in his venue in order to redistribute it to him. Funny old world...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:06am

Whistle past the graveyard - (idiomatic, US) To enter a situation with little or no understanding of the possible consequences.

Now doubly meaningful as the whistling attracts the attention of collection societies rather than the more traditional graveyard ghouls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:16am

the best approach is the one coming from or that needs to come from the government! instead of falling over themselves to do whatever the entertainment industries want done, the politicians involved should start to think about the harm that is being done by this continual assistance! it amazes me that these politicians think they are aiding to fill the various government coffers by performing like this. all that is really happening is that more money is siphoned off by the collection agencies, into their own pockets and a pittance going to the artists and/or studios. nothing then goes to the government at all because of the 'accounting' methods used! talk about stupid!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  nothing then goes to the government at all because of the 'accounting' methods used!
  "The politicians involved" don't care if money goes to the government, as long as money goes to "the politicians involved."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alien Rebel (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:26am

$$ Ecosystem
Don't forget it's not just music, there's also a parallel world of dark shadows involving printed works. I'd love to hear from someone who's a better researcher than I am about IFFRO, and particularly the Copyright Clearance Center in the U.S., as I haven't been able myself to track down just how much money flows through them to the likes of the Authors Guild and Graphic Artists Guild, and other so-called "artists rights" groups, who's business frequently involves poisoning the well of copyright law. As bad as it would be if the money was going to publishing execs buying yachts, it's the question of just how much becomes political dark money that really bothers me.

I recall reading somewhere that the CCC redistributes hundreds of millions, but damned if I've ever heard of anyone being able to track what the real amounts are, or who gets it.
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: $$ Ecosystem
  I recall reading somewhere that the CCC redistributes hundreds of millions
  
  That goes to the labels, who are the copyright holders tat the collection societies work with. The labels should pass royalties on to the musicians, at their usual measly rate, after deductions of advances of course. Net result, the musicians see very little if any of the money, and have to pay the collection agencies via venue fees when they perform live.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alien Rebel (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re: $$ Ecosystem
    The devil's in the details. There are "title specific" reprographic royalties that are supposed to go to copyright owners who's works were recorded as having been used. Then there are "non-title specific" royalties, which are some portion of the licensing fees paid by licensees, but not attributed to the use or copying of any particular work. These funds are then distributed to entities in the "arts community" where the theory is that they are at least helping creators in a general way. Over the years the piddly little Graphic Artists Guild has received a considerable percentage of its revenue via the Authors Coalition, part of the CCC's stream of non-title specific reprographic royalties. GAG, being on paper a labor union, files LM-2 financial reports with the Department of Labor / OLMS (file # 513-583) and its reprographic royalty income is revealed in those publicly available reports. If they're getting tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, ($276,123 in 2013 alone) then how much non-title specific money winds up in the pockets of all these other so-called advocacy or "artists rights" groups? I'd love to know.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:42am

If the system was easy and transparent, we wouldn't need the collections agencies. Their goal is to create the problem for which they are the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:27am

I heard that licensing companies in the US were wanting to be paid for truck drivers listening to the radio while they drive because it was a workplace. Anybody know how that turned out?
When I was a kid the record companies realized that airplay=sales and they paid the DJs to play their songs in what was called the payola scandal. While that in itself wasn't ethical, when did these greedy bastards forget that exposure means more money for them in increased album and concert ticket sales. Now they are going to make pre-1972 music so difficult to license that many will just stop playing it. That will really help them find new fans for artists that haven't been on the charts for over 40 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 1:00pm

24% of small businesses have complained to the regulator regarding a lack of clarity when it comes to obtaining music, media and design.

That's why we do it now you have to hire a lawyer to figure it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  That, or just accept the bill that they give you, which is probably cheaper than consulting a lawyer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tqk (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 1:00pm

I'm hearing the theme song from The Godfather going through my head.
Remember the early scenes from the movie when the young don was watching his poor neighbors being fleeced by that protection racket thug? Perhaps the MafiAA should be introduced to the real Mafia. They'd show 'em real infringing on their turf!

Didn't one of these outfits shake down a woman who was playing music in her barn for her horses? Isn't that a bit like expecting cotton plantation slaves to pay taxes?

It never ceases to amaze me that all of this atrocious behavior actually managed to get implemented, and it manages to continue to happen with so many tales of travesties showing up in the news. Who's protecting these bums?

Don Vito Corleone was a saint in comparison. The real Mafia only snuffed the competition when they tried to muscle in on their turf. These collection societies have politicians handing them entire countries as their designated turf, with all the citizens and businesses within considered their plantation slaves. That's a pretty sweet racket!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:08pm

You say 'Bug', they say 'Feature'
For a quarter of small businesses, those that can least afford to be dinged by not properly complying with copyright laws, don't have a full understanding of how to stay compliant.

If a company doesn't know when they need to pay, they also don't know when they don't need to pay, which means if they want to avoid being sued into oblivion when a 'collection' agency comes knocking, they'll be better off paying out even if they don't have to. And what do you suppose happens to money gathered for bands that don't exist? Who do you suppose gets that money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re: You say 'Bug', they say 'Feature'
  If a company doesn't know when they need to pay, they also don't know when they don't need to pay ...
  
  Nice. This's Kafka's "The Trial", updated. Brave New World. More Soma?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:10pm

Their in the business of making someones life miserable, of the LESSER extreme.....for the eqivalence of a crime as jay walking

Another racket in the making, and government endorsed.......out of the goodness of their heart im sure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:50pm

It's not hte first time there's been these kind of results. if you remember, I pointed this out to the UK Intellectual Property office during their consultation on this topic. They redacted all this on the grounds of libel law, despite it being reported (and linked) fact.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120729/02544819867/uk-government-censors-copyright-consulta tion-submission-about-how-awful-collection-societies-are.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 Nov 2014 @ 12:50am
  
  Re:
  That was your mistake though, you read 'consultation' and thought they wanted honest opinions and facts to back them up, but what they were actually looking for was statements and claims to support the position they had already decided on.
  
  /s
  
  (Does it still count as sarcasm if I'm joking, but they were dead serious?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2014 @ 1:29am

And when small businesses realize that their money isn't going to artists, but to fill the coffers of organizations that fleece them of even more money, expect that number of discontent businesses to rise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2014 @ 6:06am

PRS & PPL
It's about time something started to happen. In my place of work we listen to BBC radio. There're 15 of us, we each pay our TV license (which pays for the BBC, who pay the respective labels for the music they play), the business also pays for a TV license and we're forced to pay both the PRS and PPL license because listening to BBC radio in out private office is a "public performance" despite the fact we're not open to the public.

By my reckoning we're each paying for the same thing 4 times over. It's legalised racketeering and it needs to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]