Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 ... 4 5
7 8 ... 10 11
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

mel

9,857 posts

160 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Miguel Alvarez said:
What your missing is that at the end of the day. If a customer/employer is hearing music then they are hearing music. It matters not whether its radio, mp3, cd etc. You have in effect become the person broadcasting it. They are hearing it via you.
Then by that logic I am also responsible for broadcasting advertising, as such I deserve to be paid for that but I have no mechanism of claiming that revenue. Perhaps the PRS would be interested in claiming back money from radio advertisers on my behalf? I'd suggest perhaps an equal charge to the one they want for "broadcasting" music?

Miguel Alvarez

4,220 posts

55 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
mel said:
Then by that logic I am also responsible for broadcasting advertising, as such I deserve to be paid for that but I have no mechanism of claiming that revenue. Perhaps the PRS would be interested in claiming back money from radio advertisers on my behalf? I'd suggest perhaps an equal charge to the one they want for "broadcasting" music?
Lol it ain't my system just explaining how they'll see it. I'm no longer an artist but I didn't really agree with it at the time and less so now as its clear these people are grabbing whatever income they can. Like I said if they actually asked what you were listening too I might give them some support but as they don't its all BS IMO.

Mojooo

8,592 posts

65 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Its the copyright designs and patents act that gives the protection to the artists (and these collecting society).

theoretically it may be possible to argue that if you broadcast a radio advert you are broadcastign copyrighted works - of course no one is going to charge you to do is - whereas with music, the artists (via their collecting societies) know that people will pay to listen

renumeration will never be perfect i guess.


JustinP1

11,219 posts

115 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Miguel Alvarez said:
mel said:
Then by that logic I am also responsible for broadcasting advertising, as such I deserve to be paid for that but I have no mechanism of claiming that revenue. Perhaps the PRS would be interested in claiming back money from radio advertisers on my behalf? I'd suggest perhaps an equal charge to the one they want for "broadcasting" music?
Lol it ain't my system just explaining how they'll see it. I'm no longer an artist but I didn't really agree with it at the time and less so now as its clear these people are grabbing whatever income they can. Like I said if they actually asked what you were listening too I might give them some support but as they don't its all BS IMO.
As you mentioned before, it's done on an audit basis - that's done all the way through the system.

Clearly, you can't audit every single song played by every radio station everywhere, you have to take an average. There has to be a point where the admin costs outweigh the need to keep costs to a minimum.

But, I do believe they ask which stations are played in which shops etc, and even jukeboxes in pubs are audited.

Rollin

3,217 posts

130 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Apparently a broadcasting to an audience means more than 3 or 4 people. The audience also have be present for primarily listening to the music which is broadcast.

There has recently been a court case in Italy whose result now allows our receptionist to play the radio in the waiting room and me to play it in the surgery.
Advertisement

sinizter

3,348 posts

71 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Rollin said:
Apparently a broadcasting to an audience means more than 3 or 4 people. The audience also have be present for primarily listening to the music which is broadcast.

There has recently been a court case in Italy whose result now allows our receptionist to play the radio in the waiting room and me to play it in the surgery.
Without paying the cretins ?

Could you please link to the case, or give me any further details ?

I wouldn't mind paying one organisation, but I refuse to pay both, for the same privilege regardless of who or what they represent.

Miguel Alvarez

4,220 posts

55 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
It would be a relative piece of piss to audit every track on mainstream radio. Each station submits their playlists in an excel format to PPL/PRS etc and they then pay out their recouperated costs to each artist who's been played at the end of the month/quarter.

15 songs an hour roughly over 24 hours say 360 songs (at 4 mins a track) allow for some talking and quick mixing. I'd be amazed if some stations get through 500 songs a day most of which will probably be the same songs over and over. According to wikipedia their are 600 licensed stations in the UK. Not all of these will be commerical and not all of them will be playing music 24/7. Say at a generous roundup that there are in a day 300,000 songs being played in the UK. I fail to see how a company dedicated to looking after the music artist can't cope with that.

The fact is (if this has changed excuse me) but even when I offered to send them magasine cut outs and screen prints of said radio djs playing my song they still wouldn't confirm a payout unless it fell on one of their "audited" days.


JustinP1

11,219 posts

115 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Miguel Alvarez said:
It would be a relative piece of piss to audit every track on mainstream radio. Each station submits their playlists in an excel format to PPL/PRS etc and they then pay out their recouperated costs to each artist who's been played at the end of the month/quarter.

15 songs an hour roughly over 24 hours say 360 songs (at 4 mins a track) allow for some talking and quick mixing. I'd be amazed if some stations get through 500 songs a day most of which will probably be the same songs over and over. According to wikipedia their are 600 licensed stations in the UK. Not all of these will be commerical and not all of them will be playing music 24/7. Say at a generous roundup that there are in a day 300,000 songs being played in the UK. I fail to see how a company dedicated to looking after the music artist can't cope with that.

The fact is (if this has changed excuse me) but even when I offered to send them magasine cut outs and screen prints of said radio djs playing my song they still wouldn't confirm a payout unless it fell on one of their "audited" days.
You may be right.

Auditing has been their system for decades though - but they are responsible to their members, you can always take that up with them?

Miguel Alvarez

4,220 posts

55 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
JustinP1 said:
You may be right.

Auditing has been their system for decades though - but they are responsible to their members, you can always take that up with them?
I never joined. I wasn't getting the spins that would justify a few hundred quid membership fee (when calculated their way). They do offer a system where they can arrange back payments from memory so I keep an eye on google every once in a while though.




Rollin

3,217 posts

130 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
sinizter said:
Rollin said:
Apparently a broadcasting to an audience means more than 3 or 4 people. The audience also have be present for primarily listening to the music which is broadcast.

There has recently been a court case in Italy whose result now allows our receptionist to play the radio in the waiting room and me to play it in the surgery.
Without paying the cretins ?

Could you please link to the case, or give me any further details ?

I wouldn't mind paying one organisation, but I refuse to pay both, for the same privilege regardless of who or what they represent.
Don't have to pay anyone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17379436

Edited by Rollin on Thursday 3rd May 19:07

JustinP1

11,219 posts

115 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Rollin said:
sinizter said:
Rollin said:
Apparently a broadcasting to an audience means more than 3 or 4 people. The audience also have be present for primarily listening to the music which is broadcast.

There has recently been a court case in Italy whose result now allows our receptionist to play the radio in the waiting room and me to play it in the surgery.
Without paying the cretins ?

Could you please link to the case, or give me any further details ?

I wouldn't mind paying one organisation, but I refuse to pay both, for the same privilege regardless of who or what they represent.
Don't have to pay anyone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17379436

Edited by Rollin on Thursday 3rd May 19:07
That would be a rather hasty, and quite possibly incorrect assessment of those judgments.

For example, there was another EU ruling a few days later where in a different case they judged that payment should be made. From what I have seen there 'incidental' or overhearing music would not be chargeable - which does clear a grey area of UK case law up. However, if playing music is part of the 'service' and the numbers of listeners cannot be limited, then it is chargeable.

It'll make for some interesting cases thought if it is tested. I can foresee a hair salon for example having to pay, but a one person office (for example a garage) where an odd customer walking in hearing the radio not being able to be charged.

sinizter

3,348 posts

71 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Rollin said:
Don't have to pay anyone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17379436

Edited by Rollin on Thursday 3rd May 19:07
Thank you very much. Very useful, being a dentist with my own surgery.

Does this apply to the reception as well ?

Also, have you informed PPL/PRS that you will no longer be paying them, and what was their response ?

JustinP1

11,219 posts

115 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
sinizter said:
Rollin said:
Don't have to pay anyone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17379436

Edited by Rollin on Thursday 3rd May 19:07
Thank you very much. Very useful, being a dentist with my own surgery.

Does this apply to the reception as well ?
From my reading - yes.

I'd bookmark that to quote should you get more contact!

Mojooo

8,592 posts

65 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
IMO that dentist ruling is basically saying because people only come to the dentist by appointment and in limited numbers and probably don;t care too much about the music as it doesn't add to the experience/service - you are not playing to the public. I agree with that and see where they are coming from, BUT, it opens a whole can of worms.

What about a hairdressers that takes appointments only - are they exempt?

What about a hairdressers that keeps its doors open with music playing out loud and members of the public (and an indeterminate amount) can walk in.

It seems to complicate things!

It also suggests member of public must be 'receptive' to the music - so if you visit your local newsagents for milk do you really care or pay attention to the music? You could argue a newsagents doesn't need a licence but a large shop where a lot of people go, like a supermarket does.


Very odd. What they should have distinguished between was 'free choice' customers like shops and 'forced choice' customers like dentists.

In a lot of situations the music is immaterial to the member of the public.


With regards to the hotel case the ECJ does make a distction between 'choice' - hotel and 'no choice' - dentist.

The real question is - should I change my dentist to one that plays music in its waiting rooms because it will make a wait feel shorter?!?!

JustinP1

11,219 posts

115 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
From what I've read, it seems to suggest the case by case basis is still in force.

It is of note that the judgment is specifically named and made relevant to dentists, and in the case in question it seemed to be music that the dentist was playing himself. The specifics that they seem to point to are:

Very small number of listeners.
The dentist was a visit for a specific purpose, and the fact music was played is not in the 'buying decision' of a client.

If the judgment was about say a hairdressing salon with a dozen stylists, the opposite decision may have been given, since it could be argued that the number listening is larger, and playing music while for example clients are waiting may be construed as a quantifiable benefit purposefully supplied by the salon.

Mojooo

8,592 posts

65 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
I am not an expert but I was udner the impression that previously, if it was being heard by custoemrs it was being played to the public. Not aware of any other case law on this issue but it apepars the main principles highlighted will now have to be used when deciding when something is being played to the public.

Not a problem as such, but it could cause a lot of discrepancies and unusual results.

If you take a newsagents, you could argue that visitors to the shop are 'receptive' but you could also argue it makes no difference to their decision to use the shop or their enjoyment of the goods they are buying - but of course this could differ from shop to shop!

rog007

3,449 posts

109 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
One could conclude that the case for is not watertight, so where there's doubt and lack of confidence by the public the case is all but lost. Time will tell.

sinizter

3,348 posts

71 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
PRS has been quick to disagree with the ruling, mentioned earlier, on their website.

http://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpre...

They say dentists still need PRS Licence.

PPL also have an announcement to say that UK dental surgeries need to pay them too.

Edited by sinizter on Thursday 3rd May 22:03

Rollin

3,217 posts

130 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
sinizter said:
PRS has been quick to disagree with the ruling, mentioned earlier, on their website.

http://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpre...

They say dentists still need PRS Licence.

PPL also have an announcement to say that UK dental surgeries need to pay them too.

Edited by sinizter on Thursday 3rd May 22:03
So a "see you in court" moment pretty soon then. Probably backed by the BDA.

Mojooo

8,592 posts

65 months

[news] 
Thursday 3rd May 2012 quote quote all
Hmm, it appears the Italian ruling was for something slightly different to what PRS adminster. or so they claim.

I believe PRS collect rights for the artistic work that has gone into a song but not the sound (i.e the lyrics and musical notation).

The PPL collect royalties for the actual sound.

Not sure what the Italian ruling covered.

I would have thought though the concept of 'communicate to the public' in British law would stem from EU law and therefore the definition would still apply.
1 2 ... 4 5
7 8 ... 10 11
Reply to Topic