PRS / PPL Music licence issue for a small business.
Discussion
This explains it better - I think thats pretty emphatic
http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/News/PPL-licensin...
Loosk like Italy and the UK have different laws.
http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/News/PPL-licensin...
Loosk like Italy and the UK have different laws.
Rollin said:
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.
So a "see you in court" moment pretty soon then. Probably backed by the BDA.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
From what I gather, in Italian law Joe Public has the right to play music in public, as long as 'equitable renumeration' takes place for the use. The EU ruling was around in what circumstances were equitable.
In UK law, the copyright holder has the absolute right to prevent public performance of their work if they so wish. Thus, the copyright holder has the right to prevent use - regardless of cost, or they can name their own price without intervention on the definition of what is 'equitable' for particular uses.
Given that the ECJ mentions 2 EU Directives on IP and 3 trade agreements I would have thought the rights holders of the EU would have had similar protections throughout - so it is interesting that Italy doesn't give its copyright holders the same protection as the UK ones get here.
Interestignly, I was under the impression that due to international agreements an Italian musician gets copyright in the UK as a UK person would - so presumably he can benefit from better UK copyright in the UK than he does in Italy.
Interestignly, I was under the impression that due to international agreements an Italian musician gets copyright in the UK as a UK person would - so presumably he can benefit from better UK copyright in the UK than he does in Italy.
My 10p's worth.
I started a small business back in 2007 (a hairdressing and beauty salon) which basically made next to F. all in profit, but it quickly seemed to me that once you start a business, everyone else thinks you're making millions, and it appears to be an advert to everyone and everything (including the landlord of the premises and even the local council
) to constanlty bombard you with phone calls, emails and letters trying every trick in the book to get cash out of you.
I got absolutely sick and tired of it. It was ridiculous, some of the tricks and scams people, and companies, pulled in their attempts to extort money with menaces. They make constant 'official' sounding phone calls to my poor staff who don't know better, and send scary - looking and even threatening letters about how you must pay this, that, and the other to avoid further legal proceedings!
All a load of crap.
My staff were quickly instructed that if a phone call came in that was from anyone other than a client, to not say anything to anyone, NEVER give out my name, and if they insisted, then just take a message and phone number and they'll get 'the owner' to call them back. Which of course I never did.
You have to understand, that once you have an advertised business in the public domain, you're now a target for all the blaggers, fakers, money-makers and basterds to do their level best to harrass you for cash that you DON'T HAVE TO part with.
And with regard to the PRS / PPL, I see them in the same light as all the other scammers. We don't have a radio at the salon, but they still keep calling and saying 'according to our records, you broadcast music and hence must pay this / that.'
We just tell them to F off, and they go away for about 6 months, until they try again.
Funnily enough, none of these scamming robbers have actually visited the place in 5 years, or sent me proper court proceedings for their 'violations' or 'non payment of legal whatevers'.
They can all just f
k off - they're all basically in the same camp as 'private parking companies' and 'wheelclampers.'
They play the numbers game in the hope that maybe 50% of people will pay up.
Same goes for the TV licencing retards.
We don't have a TV at the shop either, but doesn't stop them threatening me with 'life imprisonment if I don't pay up after receiving their really quite horrible, emotive and to some people, really upsetting letters!
Just ignore, ignore, ignore.
I started a small business back in 2007 (a hairdressing and beauty salon) which basically made next to F. all in profit, but it quickly seemed to me that once you start a business, everyone else thinks you're making millions, and it appears to be an advert to everyone and everything (including the landlord of the premises and even the local council
) to constanlty bombard you with phone calls, emails and letters trying every trick in the book to get cash out of you.I got absolutely sick and tired of it. It was ridiculous, some of the tricks and scams people, and companies, pulled in their attempts to extort money with menaces. They make constant 'official' sounding phone calls to my poor staff who don't know better, and send scary - looking and even threatening letters about how you must pay this, that, and the other to avoid further legal proceedings!
All a load of crap.
My staff were quickly instructed that if a phone call came in that was from anyone other than a client, to not say anything to anyone, NEVER give out my name, and if they insisted, then just take a message and phone number and they'll get 'the owner' to call them back. Which of course I never did.
You have to understand, that once you have an advertised business in the public domain, you're now a target for all the blaggers, fakers, money-makers and basterds to do their level best to harrass you for cash that you DON'T HAVE TO part with.
And with regard to the PRS / PPL, I see them in the same light as all the other scammers. We don't have a radio at the salon, but they still keep calling and saying 'according to our records, you broadcast music and hence must pay this / that.'
We just tell them to F off, and they go away for about 6 months, until they try again.
Funnily enough, none of these scamming robbers have actually visited the place in 5 years, or sent me proper court proceedings for their 'violations' or 'non payment of legal whatevers'.
They can all just f
k off - they're all basically in the same camp as 'private parking companies' and 'wheelclampers.'They play the numbers game in the hope that maybe 50% of people will pay up.
Same goes for the TV licencing retards.
We don't have a TV at the shop either, but doesn't stop them threatening me with 'life imprisonment if I don't pay up after receiving their really quite horrible, emotive and to some people, really upsetting letters!
Just ignore, ignore, ignore.
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Just ignore, ignore, ignore.
Your ten penneth is your own, but that advice, if you know you are publicly performing music is very poor because not only is it illegal, but I have seen cases taken to court and won with the venue picking up costs.I have made my position known that while I agree with the law, I don't agree with some of the PPL/PRS revenue collection methods. That said, if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem telling them the truth.
Ironically, I am quite sure that the heavier tactics to stop companies getting away with it stemmed from an ignorant demographic who think 'music is free, so I ain't paying', so will bend the truth to defend their beliefs, or companies who use a tactic of deliberate ignorance.
JustinP1 said:
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Just ignore, ignore, ignore.
Your ten penneth is your own, but that advice, if you know you are publicly performing music is not only illegal, but I have seen cases taken to court and won with the venue picking up costs.I have made my position known that while I agree with the law, I don't agree with some of the PPL/PRS revenue collection methods. That said, if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem telling them the truth.
Ironically, I am quite sure that the heavier tactics to stop companies getting away with it stemmed from an ignorant demographic who think 'music is free, so I ain't paying', so will bend the truth to defend their beliefs, or companies who use a tactic of deliberate ignorance.
So I'm annoyed by the fact that they continue to try to harass / extort money, ASSUMING that we must be playing music!
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
JustinP1 said:
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Just ignore, ignore, ignore.
Your ten penneth is your own, but that advice, if you know you are publicly performing music is not only illegal, but I have seen cases taken to court and won with the venue picking up costs.I have made my position known that while I agree with the law, I don't agree with some of the PPL/PRS revenue collection methods. That said, if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem telling them the truth.
Ironically, I am quite sure that the heavier tactics to stop companies getting away with it stemmed from an ignorant demographic who think 'music is free, so I ain't paying', so will bend the truth to defend their beliefs, or companies who use a tactic of deliberate ignorance.
So I'm annoyed by the fact that they continue to try to harass / extort money, ASSUMING that we must be playing music!
You advice is that nothing happens if you 'ignore, ignore, ignore'. Mine is if you are using music and you do that, you can end up in court, not only paying fees in full, but court costs.
JustinP1 said:
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Just ignore, ignore, ignore.
Your ten penneth is your own, but that advice, if you know you are publicly performing music is very poor because not only is it illegal, but I have seen cases taken to court and won with the venue picking up costs.I have made my position known that while I agree with the law, I don't agree with some of the PPL/PRS revenue collection methods. That said, if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem telling them the truth.
Ironically, I am quite sure that the heavier tactics to stop companies getting away with it stemmed from an ignorant demographic who think 'music is free, so I ain't paying', so will bend the truth to defend their beliefs, or companies who use a tactic of deliberate ignorance.
judgement said:
Those criteria include, first and foremost, according to the case-law of the Court, the indispensable
role of the user. The user makes a communication to the public when it intervenes, in full
knowledge of the consequences of its action, to give access to a broadcast containing the
protected work to its customers. Second, the Court has identified certain aspects of the concept of
public. Thus, the term ‘public’ refers to an indeterminate number of potential listeners and a
fairly large number of persons. Third, the Court has held that the profit-making nature of
'communication to the public' is also a relevant criterion. It is thus understood that the public
which is the subject of the communication is both targeted by the user and receptive, in one way or
another, to that communication, and not merely ‘caught’ by chance.
In the light of those criteria, the Court holds that a dentist who broadcasts phonograms free of
charge in his dental practice, for the benefit of his clients and enjoyed by them without any active
choice on their part, is not making a ‘communication to the public’ for the purposes of EU law.
role of the user. The user makes a communication to the public when it intervenes, in full
knowledge of the consequences of its action, to give access to a broadcast containing the
protected work to its customers. Second, the Court has identified certain aspects of the concept of
public. Thus, the term ‘public’ refers to an indeterminate number of potential listeners and a
fairly large number of persons. Third, the Court has held that the profit-making nature of
'communication to the public' is also a relevant criterion. It is thus understood that the public
which is the subject of the communication is both targeted by the user and receptive, in one way or
another, to that communication, and not merely ‘caught’ by chance.
In the light of those criteria, the Court holds that a dentist who broadcasts phonograms free of
charge in his dental practice, for the benefit of his clients and enjoyed by them without any active
choice on their part, is not making a ‘communication to the public’ for the purposes of EU law.
Rollin said:
I think that the important bit of the Italian judgement is it's definition of playing in public.
Yes, the definition of playing in public, specifically to do with the Italian law which revolves around remuneration for doing so:"In the exercise of its activity as agent, SCF conducted negotiations with the Association of Italian Dentists (Associazione Dentisti Italiani) with a view to concluding a collective agreement quantifying the relevant equitable remuneration for any ‘communication to the public’ of phonograms, including such communication in private professional practices. As those negotiations were unsuccessful, SCF brought an action in the Italian courts against Mr Del Corso, seeking a declaration that he was broadcasting phonograms protected by property rights as background music in his private dental practice in Turin and that such activity gave rise to the payment of equitable remuneration....
...Therefore such an act of transmission does not entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration."
In the UK you can prohibit public performance if you wish - a public performer has no right to expect a fair price. However, Italian law can expect to pay a fair price. EU law allows both to be lawful.
And the full judgment makes reference to the terms of reference of the judgment: The different between the two directives are the absolute right of the copyright holder, and the second the right for remuneration:
"It is clear from a comparison of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 and Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100 that the concept of communication to the public appearing in those provisions is used in contexts which are not the same and pursue objectives which, while similar, are none the less different to some extent."
The judgment is effectively about the right of remuneration only - it doesn't figure with relevant to the absolute right of the copyright holder.
I believe the PRS/PPL stance is the same - IF there was in UK law the right for Joe Bloggs to pay copyrighted work as in Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100, then this judgment would be relevant as it is all with relevance to this Directive, as this is what the judgment is relevant to:
"Accordingly, the answer to the fourth and fifth questions is that the concept of ‘communication to the public’ for the purposes of Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices..."
The judgment specifically makes the differentiation between that at the absolute right to prevent public performance, as is in UK law. Thus, under UK law a copyright holder can still say "You're not playing that unless you pay X."
Edited to add a pedantic but important point - in any case, the ruling makes clear the judgment only had relevance to the excepting the performance of 'phonograms within dental practices' for being liable to this remuneration.
In short:
This isn't applicable to UK law, and the only relevance to EU law is in countries with a similar law as described regarding 'equitable remuneration', and in any case only phonograms (not radio) only in private dental practices.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 4th May 00:30
"The Performing Rights Society (PRS) announced in March that it would not charge a licence fee for music played at some community events celebrating the Queen‟s diamond jubilee. To be eligible for this exemption, certain criteria must be met. It must take place between 2-5 June 2012 inclusive, be organised by unpaid volunteers, be provided for the local community, and have a capacity or audience of 300 or fewer (other conditions apply)"
http://www.dentalpracticemanagement.co.uk/uploads/...
Thundersports said:
So if you get caught do you get a warning or is it straight to court?
They will let you pay with a 50% surcharge.This is mentioned on the website - if paying after starting to use music on premises, there is 'higher' royalty (50% surcharge).
If paying before beginning to use music, you get the normal rate.
Thundersports said:
Rollin said:
Ask them for a contract.
Excuse my naivety what do you mean?But, I too would like a clear answer from Rollin, since his posts suggests that he plays music in his dental surgery and does not pay PPL/PRS.
The way copyright law works is this:
The person who has the copyright i nsomehting has exclusive use of it.
If you start using their copyright without permission then the law says they can sue you.
They do not need a contract as it is written into law. The amount they can sue you for could be quite a large amount.
The PRS/PPL basically act as agents for many musicians and say 'you can use our music if you pay us X amoutn a year' - having that contract then allows you to play the music as you wish.
By not entering into an agreement with the PRS/PPL and continuing to play music you run the risk of them suing you for copyright ifnrignement for a potentially larger amount than the contract would have been.
The person who has the copyright i nsomehting has exclusive use of it.
If you start using their copyright without permission then the law says they can sue you.
They do not need a contract as it is written into law. The amount they can sue you for could be quite a large amount.
The PRS/PPL basically act as agents for many musicians and say 'you can use our music if you pay us X amoutn a year' - having that contract then allows you to play the music as you wish.
By not entering into an agreement with the PRS/PPL and continuing to play music you run the risk of them suing you for copyright ifnrignement for a potentially larger amount than the contract would have been.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff