But he doesn't have to have the radio on - he did have a choice, to not turn it on! If he doesn't want to pay, he simply needs to stop broadcasting music to the public. That was the other option that he always had.
It's not necessarily about the music being used to make money, it's about the wishes of the creators/publishers. In this case, they have chosen to use the PRS and PPL, who require businesses to pay for a license to broadcast the music they are responsible for. But of course, no artist is forced to use those services.
And your office space metaphor is actually exactly how the licensing works. Generally businesses pay a fixed amount for their license to broadcast music, not per play of a track or per person that hears it, just like you pay a fixed amount to rent your office each week/month/year. In both cases its irrespective of how many sales you make.
Eh?! You tip them anyway? But why, if you don't agree with the principle of it?! It has everything to do with your principles as you're not forced to tip. Very strange...
What I was 'gathering' was the fact the he had already paid the PRS licensing fee, so he was already aware that he had to pay something to broadcast the music. Unfortunately he hadn't done his research properly and forgot to set up an arrangement with the PPL too.
No, not the motive, just whether or not you are a business playing it to the public.
If the barber played the music just because he liked the music... too bad. Whether it increases custom or not, you have to pay if you're broadcasting licensed music to the public, in the UK. As a business owner, you take the decision and thus the risk of paying for a license in the hope of increased custom (or not paying for it but risking a fine!).
If they are broadcasting licensed music, then yes, they would have to pay extra if not already covered by their licenses. They may well have it included though.
If they're playing music as part of their business, as a way to increase custom (just like shops/bars do), then yes, they have to pay the license fees.
If all the customers were listening to the music privately, it wouldn't be the business' responsibility.
Funny how you blame the licensing rules, instead of blaming the mall for not stumping up for the license fees and pocketing the cash instead. Don't go to the mall (and more to the point, don't spend your money there) if you don't like the lack of good music and maybe eventually they'll learn.
Sorry but while the TV license does pay for all of the BBCs activities, as things stand you do not need to have a TV license to listen to the radio, use the BBC website or play non-live broadcasts on iPlayer.
This case is about broadcasting commercial music in public. The performing rights society (PRS) cover the licensing for actual playing of the recordings to the public, while the PPL look after the licensing of the publishing rights of the songs that are played to the public.
No, the radio is free for private/individual use, but you need licenses to broadcast it and the songs played on it to the public, which is what you are doing if you play the radio in your shop.
Sorry but if you're running a shop you are not an 'end user'. You are adding value to the shopping experience of your business by playing the music, which you will profit from in some way, thus you must pay for it. The fact he paid up with the PRS means he agreed with this principle, but unfortunately made the mistake of not signing up with the PPL. If you're running a business you should have a lawyer who can advise on these things - if you don't have one then you run the risk of things like this happening!
TechDirt - you're not reporting this fairly - "you need two (or more) separate licenses just to turn on the radio" - only if you are running a business and playing it to the public. Obviously you don't need them as an individual when listening to your radio in private. Please don't try to make out this is something that it's not.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not necessarily about the music being used to make money, it's about the wishes of the creators/publishers. In this case, they have chosen to use the PRS and PPL, who require businesses to pay for a license to broadcast the music they are responsible for. But of course, no artist is forced to use those services.
And your office space metaphor is actually exactly how the licensing works. Generally businesses pay a fixed amount for their license to broadcast music, not per play of a track or per person that hears it, just like you pay a fixed amount to rent your office each week/month/year. In both cases its irrespective of how many sales you make.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But generally speaking, most offices are not open to the public.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Happy
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I was 'gathering' was the fact the he had already paid the PRS licensing fee, so he was already aware that he had to pay something to broadcast the music. Unfortunately he hadn't done his research properly and forgot to set up an arrangement with the PPL too.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the barber played the music just because he liked the music... too bad. Whether it increases custom or not, you have to pay if you're broadcasting licensed music to the public, in the UK. As a business owner, you take the decision and thus the risk of paying for a license in the hope of increased custom (or not paying for it but risking a fine!).
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Radio remotes
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't agree with the principle of paying to broadcast other people's music, don't broadcast it.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
If all the customers were listening to the music privately, it wouldn't be the business' responsibility.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Remember
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: TV Licence
This case is about broadcasting commercial music in public. The performing rights society (PRS) cover the licensing for actual playing of the recordings to the public, while the PPL look after the licensing of the publishing rights of the songs that are played to the public.
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: Re:
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:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
TechDirt - you're not reporting this fairly - "you need two (or more) separate licenses just to turn on the radio" - only if you are running a business and playing it to the public. Obviously you don't need them as an individual when listening to your radio in private. Please don't try to make out this is something that it's not.
Next >>