Because the radio station didn't pay to allow other businesses to rebroadcast the music on their premises. The radio station just paid to broadcast it to individuals in domestic/private locations.
In the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording. You may not think this is fair or right, but it is the law as it currently stands, and that's why the barber got fined.
If you truly believe you've already paid for the parking space and that your city is corrupt, move to another city. If you just go along with it, you are as bad as them.
The horse story is a spin. The license is required because it's a business with more than two people, which is how the UK law currently stands - "Because her stables, the Malthouse Equestrian Centre in Bushton, Wilts, employs more than two people it is treated in the same way as shops, bars and cafés which have to apply for a licence to play the radio... Rather than pay the fee, she now leaves the radio off except on Sundays when she is alone at the stable yard."
Seems fine to me.
With the garages case, I don't see the problem here either. The PRS claimed the music could be heard by customers, which means it was being played in public (as defined by the law).
The company "said it has a 10 year policy banning the use of personal radios in the workplace", in which case, they should pass the fines onto the employees that broke the ban.
Wrong. Most offices have a public reception area, but then the main private part where people work is not open to the public. Most have security guards/barriers/locks etc. to ensure that only employees can go into the private areas.
I haven't heard those stories. If they are true then hopefully the collection societies will have retreated and apologised to the businesses at the very least.
No, I don't believe that's right. What happened in THIS case though, if you read the original article, was that the barber did broadcast licensed music in his shop, which was why he got fined.
You simply opt-out by not playing licensed music. They can't make you get a license if you never play it.
Yes, that's the way the UK law works. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording.
You've just explained the theory there! "maybe his customers may like to hear the radio", yes, which means they might be more likely to come back, which will increase his sales.
In any case, it's the risk the business owner takes. They don't have to take the risk if they don't want to.
But the fact is, in the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording.
You don't believe you should have to pay a waitress's living wage, if you use their service?! Again, very strange.
Why not just not use restaurants that don't pay their staff a fair amount, if you care that much about how much they earn? Or do what most people do and tip when you get good service (but not when you get bad service).
Sure, because paying income tax is part of the US law. They shouldn't have been in the US in the first place if they didn't agree with the principle of income tax. If they remain in the country and refuse to pay, any consequences are their own responsibility.
The evidence of him agreeing to the fees was the very act of him paying them. If he didn't agree, why would he have paid?! He could have just stopped broadcasting the music to the public, or flaunted the rules.
By paying a fee and essentially buying a license, you enter into a contract with the licenser, which means you have implicitly agreed with the terms of the license. If you didn't then you wouldn't have paid.
Nobody is double or triple charging. Each fee is for a different thing. The radio station pays a license fee to broadcast the music directly to the general public. If a middleman such as a barber wants to come in and change this flow, they have to have an agreement in place too. The radio station has not paid to allow all other businesses to rebroadcast the music. And in the UK the PRS and PPL are two separate organisations - one representing performance/broadcast rights, and one representing publishing rights. They are separate because the artist who recorded a track (and the record label that they might be signed to) isn't necessarily the writer of the track (or the publishing company that the writer might be signed to). Try understanding the music business before claiming 'double and triple' charging.
So if there are people that don't want the music in the shop, don't play it in the shop! It's up the business owner to decide if they want to pay for the music broadcast - whether they think it will make them more sales or less. If you believe it will have an overall negative effect, then that's your view, but this barber wanted music in his shop.
Just because you're used to, as an individual, not having to pay for access to radio stations, it does not mean you have any right to free radio.
It's not racketeering because nobody is being forced to listen to the music. If the business owner doesn't like it, he just needs to stop broadcasting the music!
But the agencies are just acting on behalf of the artists! They take a cut of the money that is raised, with the rest going to the artist. The same is usually the case with record labels, once advances and costs are recouped.
Yes, it would be helpful if the rules/laws were clearer, though if you just assume it's OK to do something with someone else's property (their work), you only have yourself to blame. I don't think anything is unclear if you actually bother to find out, and if you're running a business, it is your legal responsibility to do so.
I've done some work for small/medium-success-level artists over the years, but I don't work 'the music business' as such. What's your point though?
The fact is that the barber didn't understand UK music licensing yet went ahead with playing commercial music to the public at his premises, but hadn't paid a license fee and got caught.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording. You may not think this is fair or right, but it is the law as it currently stands, and that's why the barber got fined.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you truly believe you've already paid for the parking space and that your city is corrupt, move to another city. If you just go along with it, you are as bad as them.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The horse story is a spin. The license is required because it's a business with more than two people, which is how the UK law currently stands - "Because her stables, the Malthouse Equestrian Centre in Bushton, Wilts, employs more than two people it is treated in the same way as shops, bars and cafés which have to apply for a licence to play the radio... Rather than pay the fee, she now leaves the radio off except on Sundays when she is alone at the stable yard."
Seems fine to me.
With the garages case, I don't see the problem here either. The PRS claimed the music could be heard by customers, which means it was being played in public (as defined by the law).
The company "said it has a 10 year policy banning the use of personal radios in the workplace", in which case, they should pass the fines onto the employees that broke the ban.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now your showing your true colors
P.S. Random recollections don't count.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Seriously?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I don't believe that's right. What happened in THIS case though, if you read the original article, was that the barber did broadcast licensed music in his shop, which was why he got fined.
You simply opt-out by not playing licensed music. They can't make you get a license if you never play it.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't ignore everything you said, I simply had nothing else to say to it. Grow up.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Why-you-need-a-licence/
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: point 131
In any case, it's the risk the business owner takes. They don't have to take the risk if they don't want to.
But the fact is, in the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
But in the UK you do need a license to play music publicly - it was made part of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, Mike.
Anything else?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why not just not use restaurants that don't pay their staff a fair amount, if you care that much about how much they earn? Or do what most people do and tip when you get good service (but not when you get bad service).
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
By paying a fee and essentially buying a license, you enter into a contract with the licenser, which means you have implicitly agreed with the terms of the license. If you didn't then you wouldn't have paid.
Nobody is double or triple charging. Each fee is for a different thing. The radio station pays a license fee to broadcast the music directly to the general public. If a middleman such as a barber wants to come in and change this flow, they have to have an agreement in place too. The radio station has not paid to allow all other businesses to rebroadcast the music. And in the UK the PRS and PPL are two separate organisations - one representing performance/broadcast rights, and one representing publishing rights. They are separate because the artist who recorded a track (and the record label that they might be signed to) isn't necessarily the writer of the track (or the publishing company that the writer might be signed to). Try understanding the music business before claiming 'double and triple' charging.
So if there are people that don't want the music in the shop, don't play it in the shop! It's up the business owner to decide if they want to pay for the music broadcast - whether they think it will make them more sales or less. If you believe it will have an overall negative effect, then that's your view, but this barber wanted music in his shop.
Just because you're used to, as an individual, not having to pay for access to radio stations, it does not mean you have any right to free radio.
It's not racketeering because nobody is being forced to listen to the music. If the business owner doesn't like it, he just needs to stop broadcasting the music!
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the meters, I was asking because the fact they have them at all shows that the parking spaces are not (fully) covered by your taxes.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
Yes, it would be helpful if the rules/laws were clearer, though if you just assume it's OK to do something with someone else's property (their work), you only have yourself to blame. I don't think anything is unclear if you actually bother to find out, and if you're running a business, it is your legal responsibility to do so.
http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Why-you-need-a-licence/
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
The fact is that the barber didn't understand UK music licensing yet went ahead with playing commercial music to the public at his premises, but hadn't paid a license fee and got caught.
Next >>