UK Music Rights Group Demands Payment From A Pub That Isn't Playing Any Music Because It's Closed Due To COVID

from the nature-is-healing dept

It's been a while since we last wrote about PRS for Music, the UK music collection group that is somewhat infamous for its overly aggressive demands for payment from anyone playing music anywhere in the UK. There was the children's charity that was ordered to pay royalties for singing Christmas carols. There was the auto mechanic who was told they needed to pay up because the mechanics in the garage had a radio on loud enough that customers inside the waiting area could hear and enjoy the music. There was the horse owner, who realized that her horses were calmer when classical music was playing, and PRS declared this was a public performance and demanded she pay up. Or how about the grocery store that PRS said needed to pay up because a staff member was singing while stocking the shelves? PRS is nothing but a shakedown business. It came out that its "investigators" are actually considered to be salespeople inside the organization -- meaning they have revenue targets to meet. In other words, they'll look for anything to demand a license. Indeed, another report we had pointed out that they would call random small businesses and demand payment if they heard any music in the background.

Most of those reports came about a decade ago, but it appears that PRS for Music has continued its assholish ways. The Harlequin Pub in Sheffield hasn't been playing music lately because it's closed. It's been closed because there's a pandemic going on (you may have noticed). There certainly isn't any live music happening at the pub. But, no matter, PRS and the other big music collection agency in the UK, PPL, demanded payment anyway:

After the pub complained about the issue on Twitter, back in December, PRS passed the buck, saying it was actually an issue for its subsidiary organization, PPL PRS (a confusing joint venture of the separate organizations PPL and PRS). PPL PRS chimed in to say they'd resolve the issue in Twitter DMs (which... seems odd).

In a later tweet, PPL PRS insisted that no businesses that had to close would need to pay for their music license.

Of course, if that's the case, why is the organization sending out shakedown demands in the first place? Shouldn't they have checked first to make sure the business was open and actually playing music in the middle of a pandemic?

Either way, it appears that the promises from PRS and PPL PRS to not demand payments were, like so much coming from music collection societies, a lie.

Exactly a month after PPL PRS promised not to charge the Harlequin Pub... it passed the payment demand onto a debt collection agency which began to bug the closed pub for money.

Harlequin Pub's full comment on Twitter reads:

hi @pplprs - thanks for getting a debt collection agency to contact me i wonder if you could provide me with a list of dates/events that you think you're owed money for please? i hope you can understand that i'm not keen on handing money out to companies for no reason. at your request, i have been chatting with someone from your company via direct message, and explained that we've been closed in line with national and local lockdowns, and furthermore that we cancelled all live music from march 2020 onwards. for some reason, though, this hasn't been sufficient for you. unless your company is all of a sudden collecting fees from pubs for opening their doors, or selling take-outs (which i suspect is slightly out of your remit?) i fail to see why you think i owe you anything? i know i'm not the only venue that you are using these tactics on, and am fairly certain that the money you collect should be going to musical artists rather than bullying an industry that is on its knees by engaging debt collection agencies to collect spurious debts. anyway, a breakdown of dates and events to justify the c. £1600 fee plus the presumed impact on my credit rating would be lovely, if you can manage it. cheers - happy new year!

As I write this, there appears to be no response from PRS or PPL PRS.

I know that many musicians rely on collection societies to earn money, but these increasingly appear like traditional organized crime operations, shaking down small businesses for cash.

Filed Under: collection society, copyright, covid, debt collectors, licensing, shakedown, uk
Companies: harlequin pub, ppl, pplprs, prs, prs for music

Supreme Court Makes Debt Collection Robocalling Illegal (Again)

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

While the US government often makes a lot of noise about their efforts to crack down on robocalls, the reality is they never actually do all that much. While the FCC often goes out of its way to advertise "record" fines levied against smaller companies and scammers, the vast, vast majority of those fines are never actually collected. The Pai FCC has claimed to have made great strides fighting the menace, despite the fact that most of its recent and well-hyped countermeasures are neither new nor effective.

One big reason for our failures is that the government often likes to turn a blind eye to the fact that the biggest and most annoying robocallers aren't scammers, but legitimate companies and debt collectors, many of which call customers (that they know can't pay) upwards of dozens of times a day. In testimony a few years back, consumer advocate Margot Freeman Saunders offered a breakdown of which organizations and companies are the most prodigious robocallers:

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 prohibits the majority of robocalls, but Congress, in its infinite lack of wisdom, in 2015 amended the law to add an exemption for debt collectors trying to reach you on your cellphone. The problem is that debt collectors, as Saunders noted in her testimony, utilize many of the same tactics (spoofing, etc.) as shadier robocallers, and are certainly no less annoying and unscrupulous in their tactics. In many instances they're simply attempting to extract blood from a stone, but the government and FCC routinely like to pretend otherwise.

This week, in a bit of good news, the Supreme Court struck down that exemption entirely (pdf), making it illegal again for debt collectors to embrace robocalling.

It's a beneficial outcome to a case that started with less noble intentions. The original case stems from an attempt by telemarketers and political robocalling organizations to strike down the TCPA entirely, under the basis that the 2015 government debt exception unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political and other speech. But, flipping that case on its head, the Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 that the 2015 Congressional update to the law "impermissibly favored debt collection speech over political and other speech, in violation of the First Amendment. From the opinion, written by Brett Kavanaugh:

"As the Government concedes, the robocall restriction with the government-debt exception cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. The Government has not sufficiently justified the differentiation between government-debt collection speech and other important categories of robocall speech, such as political speech, issue advocacy, and the like." Government-backed loans affected by the ruling include student loans, home mortgages, veterans' loans, farm loans, and business loans."

In a joint statement, Senator Ed Markey and Representative Anna Eshoo praised the ruling as a win for consumers:

"The court rightly found that government debt collectors aren't entitled to a special exception to the TCPA's ban on robocalling. We applaud the court's decision to side with American consumers, protect our right to privacy from these abusive calls, deter countless scams that target our most vulnerable populations, and ensure that our phones will remain usable."

In short, it's a positive outcome to a case that started with the goal of eliminating robocall restrictions entirely. And it does, albeit not entirely intentionally, a nice job deflating the government's often lazy effort to conflate robocalling harassment exclusively with "scammer."

Filed Under: debt collection, debt collectors, robocalling, supreme court

It's Apparently Easy To Pretend To Be A Cop, Grab Location Data From Cellular Carriers

from the ill-communication dept

While Facebook tends to get the lion's share of (deserved) criticism, the telecom sector continues to make its case for being the absolute worst when it comes to protecting your private data. Scandal after scandal have highlighted how wireless carriers routinely collect and store your daily location data, then sell that data to a universe of shady middlemen with little to no oversight as to how the data is used. Users sign one overlong privacy policy with their wireless carrier, and that policy is being read to mean consumers sign off on the practice, which they certainly haven't.

This week journalist Joseph Cox again highlighted the problems on the location data front, reporting how many stalkers and debt collectors are able to get access to this data without paying for it. How? By pretending to be law enforcement officers:

"...bounty hunters and people with histories of domestic violence have managed to trick telecommunications companies into providing real-time location data by simply impersonating US officials over the phone and email, according to court records and multiple sources familiar with the technique. In some cases, these people abuse telecom company policies created to give law enforcement real-time location data without a court order in “exigent circumstances,” such as when there is the imminent threat of physical harm to a victim.

In addition to cellular tower location data, carriers were also recently busted selling A-GPS data, which is supposed to be protected by FCC data rules. Despite significant reporting on this subject and carrier promises to stop collecting and selling this data, this practice is still ongoing. Like Facebook, these are companies that are staring down the barrel of looming regulation -- and still somehow can't seem to find the motivation to behave. Regulators at the Ajit Pai FCC have also sat on their hands and have yet to issue so much as a warning to cellular carriers.

At least one skiptracer told Motherboard that wireless carriers remain several steps behind in trying to crack down on the practice:

"So many people are doing that and the telcos have been very stupid about it. They have not done due diligence and called the police [departments] directly to verify the case or vet the identity of the person calling,” Valerie McGilvrey, a skiptracer who said she has bought phone location data from those who obtained access to it, told Motherboard. A skiptracer is someone tasked with finding out where people, typically fugitives on the run or those who owe a debt, are located."

In many instances the third parties are exploiting telecom company procedures for "exigent circumstances," allowing them to request and receive real-time location data by fabricating law enforcement data request documents telecom operators aren't properly verifying. Of course as the New York Times noted more than a year ago, law enforcement officers have also been busted abusing this system to spy on judges and other law enforcement officers.

Like so many sectors, wireless carriers were so excited by the billions to be made selling your daily habits, they forgot to actually protect that data. As reporters like Cox continue to dig deeper, you have to think that many cellular carriers are scrambling hard to clean up their mess as inevitable class action lawsuits and regulatory investigations wait in the wings. This scandal is getting so ugly, even the carrier-cozy Trump FCC may, at some point, be forced to actually do something about it.

Filed Under: bounty hunters, data sharing, debt collectors, exigent circumstances, impersonation, law enforcement, location info, privacy, stalkers, telcos

Chinese Innovation: Nude Photo Loan Platform Adds Uber-Style Debt Collectors Feature

from the uberizing-everything-everywhere dept

Back in June, Western media picked up on a sordid tale involving the Chinese company Jiedaibao, a platform which facilitates loans between individual lenders and borrowers. Because of the private nature of the deals, loan sharks came up with a new twist on securing collateral for the money they lend out at exorbitant rates, described here by China.org.cn:

They often ask female students to pose naked with their ID and use these photos as collateral in their practice. If a student defaults on the loan, the loaners will threaten to show the nude photos to her family and friends.

In exchange, the students who agree to send nude photos can have a higher loan amount, ranging from 2 to five times as much. However, the loan interest rate can be as high as 30 percent a week.

Being able to borrow even more money at these ruinous interest rates just means the women get into deeper trouble even faster. When criticized for allowing this sexual and economic exploitation, Jiedaibao initially said:

The usury and nude collateral practices are part of a private trade deal between users. As a result, the company cannot interfere, and assert that users have to shoulder these risks by themselves. However, if these scenarios get worse, they urge users to contact the police.

Perhaps realizing that this didn't really sound too good, the company later tweaked its response slightly, as the Guardian reported:

A spokesman for Jiedaibao condemned the "naked loans" and said the company would work with the police on any investigation of such practices. "This kind of naked loan is actually taking advantage of the online platform to operate an illegal usurious offline business," they said.

Despite that (feeble) condemnation, and the outrage this modern-day usury provoked in China, the abuse seems to have continued. Last month, China.org.cn published another article on the topic, where it noted that some women have been been coerced into prostitution in an attempt to pay off the money they owe to unscrupulous lenders. According to a more recent story in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), Jiedaibao's size -- it has more than 128 million users with a cumulative turnover of about $12 billion -- and lack control over the private deals made using its platform have led to the development of a serious problem:

Without proper credit risk assessments, many of the loans have soured, raising demand for debt collectors. Online chat groups have sprung up offering advice on recovering the money. Tips include repeated calls to debtors, calling debtors' relatives and paying "beggars" to protest near a debtor's home.

To address this issue, Jiedaibao has come up with a rather remarkable new feature for its platform:

Users of its app can apply to recover debts owed through the platform by uploading their ID card number and a photo.

After a "verification" process of about a week, successful applicants gain access to overdue borrowers' phone numbers, addresses and even ID numbers, with commissions of up to 40 per cent of the original loan for recovering the outstanding amounts.

Some may applaud Jiedaibao's idea of creating an Uber-like crowd of private debt collectors, but the scope for abuse is clear. And those suddenly finding themselves on the receiving end of these amateur debt collectors are unlikely to be so enthusiastic about Jiedaibao's innovative approach.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: china, debt collection, debt collectors, gig economy, nude photos
Companies: jiedaibao

Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

from the win-win? dept

We've been quite reasonably bothered by the FBI handing out its seal to copyright holders to falsely imply that mere personal copying is a criminal offense that might get you sent to jail. However, it appears that this handing off of government law enforcement threats to private parties goes much, much further. Over the weekend, the NY Times wrote about the amazingly common practice of local district attorneys' offices allowing debt collectors to send threat letters on their stationary and signed by the local DA -- effectively threatening those who, for example, passed a bounced check, with potential jailtime if they don't pay up.

The DAs office, it appears, is literally selling the use of their stationary. In exchange for letting debt collectors appear both a lot more official and for falsely suggesting that law enforcement is pursuing criminal action, the debt collectors "sell" a "financial accountability" class, from which some of the proceeds get kicked back to the DAs' offices.

The practice, which has spread to more than 300 district attorneys’ offices in recent years, shocked Angela Yartz when she was threatened with conviction over a $47.95 check to Walmart. A single mother in San Mateo, Calif., Ms. Yartz said she learned the check had bounced only when she opened a letter in February, signed by the Alameda County district attorney, informing her that unless she paid $280.05 — including $180 for a “financial accountability” class — she could be jailed for up to one year.

The NYT includes images of some of the documents in question, and they really do look quite official, despite the fact that the DA's office usually is not even aware of the particulars of anyone's case, and is unlikely to pursue any sort of law enforcement activity. As you can see, it certainly looks likes it's coming from the DA's office, and looks extremely "official" even though it's only down in the fine print that it's mentioned that it's actually sent "on behalf" of the office by a third party. Even then, unless you were really aware of what was going on, you would probably think this was law enforcement going after you.

What's really ridiculous is to see various DAs offices defend this kind of thing.

“I view it as quite a win-win,” said Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger. “You aren’t criminalizing someone who shouldn’t have a criminal record, and you are getting the merchant his money back.”

Scott Greenfield's response to this ridiculous claim is dead on:'

Check bouncers should be held accountable. But only in a way that the law provides, after the people in whom we repose trust and responsibility ascertain that a crime has been committed, and after the accused has been afforded the opportunity of a full and fair hearing before a neutral magistrate. Whether the merchants deserve to get money back or not is the end result, not the starting point. It's a burden to do things right? 'Tough nuggies. That's why they pay you the big bucks.

He similarly finds offensive the claim from another (former) DA in the article that these shakedown programs are fair because actually having law enforcement would "overburden the court system or the resources of the district attorneys." Again, Greenfield points out that you don't get to avoid due process just because it's a hassle:

After all, who would want to "overburden the court system or the resources of district attorneys" by expecting them to do their jobs? Who would want courts and prosecutors to afford citizens due process? Instead, let's defer to the excellent judgment and trustworthiness of businesses and debt collectors. They would never lie. They would never get it wrong.

We've talked a lot about problems with forms of "crony capitalism" where businesses have undue power over government, and it happens at pretty much every level of government these days. But, at the very least, we shouldn't just be handing over the power of law enforcement to private parties. Law enforcement agencies are already prone to abuse. Giving it to private, for-profit companies? You're just asking for serious trouble.

Update: Liberty McAteer points out that the offices doing this likely are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a very, very big way... Update 2: Some more comments point out that there appear to be direct exemptions in the FDCPA for this kind of thing. Doesn't make it right, but probably not illegal under the act.

Filed Under: bad checks, debt collectors, district attorneys, shakedowns

Bill Collectors Targeting Kids' Social Networking Profiles?

from the getting-a-bit-desperate,-eh? dept

We've discussed in the past attempts to serve court documents via Facebook, but apparently others are making use of such tactics as well. A few people alerted us to the story of a bill collector, apparently hired by JPMorgan Chase, who supposedly tracked down the MySpace account of the daughter of someone who was behind on some car loan payments, and posted the debt collection notice on the kids' MySpace page. In the past, people would stop answering the phone or the doorbell to avoid debt collectors. Will they start locking down their social networking profiles as well?

Filed Under: bill collectors, debt collectors, social networks
Companies: jpmorgan, myspace