PRS / PPL Music licence issue for a small business.

[JustinP1]

larry1977 said:

RedLeicester said:

Apparently so, particularly given membership is £30.

That's the minimum membership.
If the hapless musician takes his guitar and a laptop to duplicate his CDs, then gets on his motorbike to do a tour of 20 European countries during the Summer, he'll be charged £ 2500 for RBS to recover royalties from foreign businesses who play his CDs.

http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/memberresource...

Extreme hypothetical case?
Not as extreme as when the RBS wanted to invoice a sales assistant thousands of pounds for singing at work
And no, I did not make it up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_ce...

So one entirely one made up example, and one where they admitted they made a mistake?

Again, I make no bones of the fact that the collection tactics of the organisation are not the best - but they fulfil an important function for their members, and this is partially, and even more so now what is making the music industry viable.

[528Sport]

Fishburn Hedges has been brought in to encourage small businesses to buy a licence to play music at work.
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/1130784/fish...

just another tax......

There is one option, play non coryright music.
If anyne wants to know more please PM me. (PM to avoid pistonheads advertising rules)

[JustinP1]

528Sport said:

Fishburn Hedges has been brought in to encourage small businesses to buy a licence to play music at work.
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/1130784/fish...

just another tax......

There is one option, play non coryright music.
If anyne wants to know more please PM me. (PM to avoid pistonheads advertising rules)

How is it a tax when it doesn't go to the government whatsoever, and the organisation has a mandate to serve its members - the people that have done the work!?

[Miguel Alvarez]

528Sport said:

There is one option, play non coryright music.
If anyne wants to know more please PM me. (PM to avoid pistonheads advertising rules)

This is my point as a once musician. How do they know what's been played is copyright music or not? For all those people who are paying the license fee. Who has ever been asked what you're listening to? It could be Classical FM or Broke-Wannabe-Gangsta FM. They don't care its a con.

ETA - Not having a pop as it reads back.

Edited by Miguel Alvarez on Thursday 10th May 14:50

[528Sport]

JustinP1 said:

528Sport said:

Fishburn Hedges has been brought in to encourage small businesses to buy a licence to play music at work.
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/1130784/fish...

just another tax......

There is one option, play non coryright music.
If anyne wants to know more please PM me. (PM to avoid pistonheads advertising rules)

How is it a tax when it doesn't go to the government whatsoever, and the organisation has a mandate to serve its members - the people that have done the work!?

ok tax being the wrong word.. its a cost small business can do without.
Look at it this way.. UK radio pays PRS/PPL to play music to the public. Artists NEED radio to play the music otherwise the music would not be heard. Now shop owners are being charged to play the radio what do you think happens? The radio gets thrown out, radio figures go down and music does not get heard.
PRS PPL collect fees on behalf of artists not much of that goes to the artits. Last time we (I work in radio and have done for 18 years) looked at the money PRS/PPL collect only 1 penny from every pound collected gets back to the artist.

Edited by 528Sport on Thursday 10th May 15:00

[528Sport]

Miguel Alvarez said:

This is my point as a once musician. How do they know what's been played is copyright music or not? For all those people who are paying the license fee. Who has ever been asked what you're listening to? It could be Classical FM or Broke-Wannabe-Gangsta FM. They don't care its a con.

ETA - Not having a pop as it reads back.

Edited by Miguel Alvarez on Thursday 10th May 14:50

Good point. As someone previously said radio stations have to do PRS logs and send them off. If prs ppl want to charge fairly so the right money gors to the right artist/producer then all shops should fill in prs/ppl returns.

One of the businesses I work with provide non copywright music to businesses, our playout system recors logs and generates payments direct to the artists. Our system is fair PRS/PPL is not.

[RedLeicester]

528Sport said:

ok tax being the wrong word.. its a cost small business can do without.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

Businesses could do without paying for the goods they sell. But they don't just take them do they?
They could do without paying the rent for their shops or restaurants, but they don't do they?
They could do without paying the council tax or business rates for the premises, but they don't do they?
They don't just steal the paint that goes on the walls to make their shop or restaurant or whatever all shiny and inviting do they?

How is it that they can just "take" a product away from someone else without paying for the privilege?

I never understand the utter backlash at the idea of someone getting paid for what they do. Go ahead, ignore it, refuse to pay, tell you what, I'll just "take" half of your monthly wage packet shall I? I'm sure you won't mind, after all it's not really money now is it.....

[528Sport]

RedLeicester said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

Businesses could do without paying for the goods they sell. But they don't just take them do they?
They could do without paying the rent for their shops or restaurants, but they don't do they?
They could do without paying the council tax or business rates for the premises, but they don't do they?
They don't just steal the paint that goes on the walls to make their shop or restaurant or whatever all shiny and inviting do they?

How is it that they can just "take" a product away from someone else without paying for the privilege?

I never understand the utter backlash at the idea of someone getting paid for what they do. Go ahead, ignore it, refuse to pay, tell you what, I'll just "take" half of your monthly wage packet shall I? I'm sure you won't mind, after all it's not really money now is it.....

As above radio stations pay prs/ppl to broadcast the radio to the public why should prs ppl collect a payment becasue people want to use to the radio?

Edited by 528Sport on Thursday 10th May 15:34

[sinizter]

528Sport said:

As above radio stations pay prs/ppl to broadcast the radio to the public why should prs ppl collect a payment becasue people want to use to the radio?

This is how I feel, regardless of how the law may be 'interpreted' in their favour.

[mel]

We're going round in circles again but as yet none of you can justify the charge when I put it as below.

mel said:

We get that, but it still doesn't negate the two bites of the apple. If I buy a CD (or whatever medium) and wish to "perform" it for my commercial gain then yep fairy muff I should pass on some of that gain in the form of payment to the artist that facilitates it. Which is my understanding of how radio stations operate.

Radio Stations "buy" their music and then pay an additional charge to the rights holder each time they "perform" that music, their commercial gain comes in the form of advertising revenue (with the exception of the BBC and the unique way it is funded ) which funds the operating costs and rights payments. Both the advertising revenue and rights payments are directly derived from the exposure or number of listeners who hear either the adverts or the music.

So by that logic if I allow a commercial radio station to broadcast into my place of business and be heard by my staff and customers then they are gaining by the increased listener figures to be able to earn more advertising revenue and equally pass on a % per listener figure for the music played. I admit that I too gain commercially by playing the radio station and giving my staff and customers a nicer ambience, the flip side of this gain for me is that I do not charge the radio station for the benefit they derive from me broadcasting their advertising into the area of which I have control.

Maybe I should start sending the Capital Radio Group a speculative invoice?

[JustinP1]

528Sport said:

JustinP1 said:

528Sport said:

Fishburn Hedges has been brought in to encourage small businesses to buy a licence to play music at work.
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/1130784/fish...

just another tax......

There is one option, play non coryright music.
If anyne wants to know more please PM me. (PM to avoid pistonheads advertising rules)

How is it a tax when it doesn't go to the government whatsoever, and the organisation has a mandate to serve its members - the people that have done the work!?

ok tax being the wrong word.. its a cost small business can do without.
Look at it this way.. UK radio pays PRS/PPL to play music to the public. Artists NEED radio to play the music otherwise the music would not be heard. Now shop owners are being charged to play the radio what do you think happens? The radio gets thrown out, radio figures go down and music does not get heard.
PRS PPL collect fees on behalf of artists not much of that goes to the artits. Last time we (I work in radio and have done for 18 years) looked at the money PRS/PPL collect only 1 penny from every pound collected gets back to the artist.

Can we please, please stop trotting out silly derisory figures for how much the PRS pay out, that are not only incorrect if you check, but you will know are incorrect even if you read the last page or two of this thread... All it does is reinforce an assumed illusion by people with an axe to grind.

It is a cost small business can do without, yes, and if you they at any time can stop USING music.

I run a small business that is in the music industry and although I am not directly funded by the PRS those businesses and artists survive on a simple economy like many others:

When people want to use your stuff they pay for it.

I have seen other businesses go bust and friends with employees of a record label who has had their staff slashed by more than 70% over the last few years. That includes staff across the board - including staff finding and signing new artists, and of course less artists are now signed with more reliance on 'huge' artists.

[JustinP1]

mel said:

We're going round in circles again but as yet none of you can justify the charge when I put it as below.

mel said:

We get that, but it still doesn't negate the two bites of the apple. If I buy a CD (or whatever medium) and wish to "perform" it for my commercial gain then yep fairy muff I should pass on some of that gain in the form of payment to the artist that facilitates it. Which is my understanding of how radio stations operate.

Radio Stations "buy" their music and then pay an additional charge to the rights holder each time they "perform" that music, their commercial gain comes in the form of advertising revenue (with the exception of the BBC and the unique way it is funded ) which funds the operating costs and rights payments. Both the advertising revenue and rights payments are directly derived from the exposure or number of listeners who hear either the adverts or the music.

So by that logic if I allow a commercial radio station to broadcast into my place of business and be heard by my staff and customers then they are gaining by the increased listener figures to be able to earn more advertising revenue and equally pass on a % per listener figure for the music played. I admit that I too gain commercially by playing the radio station and giving my staff and customers a nicer ambience, the flip side of this gain for me is that I do not charge the radio station for the benefit they derive from me broadcasting their advertising into the area of which I have control.

Maybe I should start sending the Capital Radio Group a speculative invoice?

What's to justify?

If you want to use others work, the law is that you need to ask them. If they say yes, and name a fee, you can choose to take them up on your offer and you can enter into a contract to do that.

If you wish to broadcast Capital Radio's adverts for them, then that is your free choice. By all means you can explain to them the benefits you offer them, and you can choose to stop, you can make them an offer to continue, which they can accept or reject. If they accept you are free to enter into a contract with them.

[mel]

Try justifying why an artist needs to be paid twice to start with?

The radio stations pay the artists each time they broadcast a song which is fair enough, how much they pay is directly proportional to their listener figures so that a small local station pays less than a large national does for each play, again fair enough. By playing the radio station at my place of work I along with others am increasing the stations listener figures and as such the amount of money the artist receives, and yet you think it is correct that I should pay for facilitating the avenue which already increases the artists revenue? Not fair.

You may say that I should pay because I gain by creating ambience for clients and staff by using the artists material, true I do, but I "pay" in kind for that already by broadcasting the adverts which run along side the music, which are needed to fund the radio stations operating costs which allows them to pay the artist.

I have no problem with artists being paid for their work, I enjoy music, and agree that money makes the world go round, without money then no new work appears, all agreed. I just don't see why they should be paid twice.

[528Sport]

So if Im not quoting correct figues fair enough.

go on the phone to PRS/PPL and ask then what percentage of each pound collected goes to the artist and to the right artists. The wont be able to its been tried in court.

PRS/PPL are a business simple as that.

If I pay PRS/PPL for playing music in my business office/shop how do they know what I have played? they don't therfore they can not give the right amount of money to any artist. PRS/PPL= con simple as that.

They get two bites of the cherry when a radio playes a song and its then heard in a local business.

Local radio is dying (just switch on heart, capital ect ect and you will notice how much content is networked from head office becase its cheaper) they cant generate revenue, radio figures are going down becasue people are switching off at work and therfore the local radio cant charge a premium for advertising.
Having been in radio for 18+ years I know what i'm talking about.

[RedLeicester]

mel said:

We're going round in circles again but as yet none of you can justify the charge when I put it as below.

mel said:

We get that, but it still doesn't negate the two bites of the apple. If I buy a CD (or whatever medium) and wish to "perform" it for my commercial gain then yep fairy muff I should pass on some of that gain in the form of payment to the artist that facilitates it. Which is my understanding of how radio stations operate.

Radio Stations "buy" their music and then pay an additional charge to the rights holder each time they "perform" that music, their commercial gain comes in the form of advertising revenue (with the exception of the BBC and the unique way it is funded ) which funds the operating costs and rights payments. Both the advertising revenue and rights payments are directly derived from the exposure or number of listeners who hear either the adverts or the music.

So by that logic if I allow a commercial radio station to broadcast into my place of business and be heard by my staff and customers then they are gaining by the increased listener figures to be able to earn more advertising revenue and equally pass on a % per listener figure for the music played. I admit that I too gain commercially by playing the radio station and giving my staff and customers a nicer ambience, the flip side of this gain for me is that I do not charge the radio station for the benefit they derive from me broadcasting their advertising into the area of which I have control.

Maybe I should start sending the Capital Radio Group a speculative invoice?

You want to paint your lounge.

You want to use Dulux emulsion.

You buy Dulux from B&Q.

B&Q have already bought it from Dulux.

Why should you pay B&Q when they've already paid Dulux?

[528Sport]

RedLeicester said:

You want to paint your lounge.

You want to use Dulux emulsion.

You buy Dulux from B&Q.

B&Q have already bought it from Dulux.

Why should you pay B&Q when they've already paid Dulux?

your not getting it.
Say I own a radio station and pay prs and PPL so I can transmit audio to the public (you) fair enough I pay. Why should you a shop owner have to pay to hear my station? I have already paid fees so you can hear my output.

dulux sell to b&Q so they can sell it on
I am providing you a free service but it's being "taxed" by the licencing agency

If a business owner plays a CD (cd label will have not for rebroacast written on it) in their building then they should pay a fee becase nobody will have paid to broadcast the music. That said the business owner should also be made to fill in a prs return so that they can be charged correctly and not just a fixed amount. This is the whole reason prs/ppl is wrong

Edited by 528Sport on Thursday 10th May 17:47

[ecain63]

mel said:

Try justifying why an artist needs to be paid twice to start with?

The radio stations pay the artists each time they broadcast a song which is fair enough, how much they pay is directly proportional to their listener figures so that a small local station pays less than a large national does for each play, again fair enough. By playing the radio station at my place of work I along with others am increasing the stations listener figures and as such the amount of money the artist receives, and yet you think it is correct that I should pay for facilitating the avenue which already increases the artists revenue? Not fair.

You may say that I should pay because I gain by creating ambience for clients and staff by using the artists material, true I do, but I "pay" in kind for that already by broadcasting the adverts which run along side the music, which are needed to fund the radio stations operating costs which allows them to pay the artist.

I have no problem with artists being paid for their work, I enjoy music, and agree that money makes the world go round, without money then no new work appears, all agreed. I just don't see why they should be paid twice.

Exactly!

On top of this, there is also another issue. As a result of the PRS and PPL taxation i have decided not to listen to music at work. Ive taken the radio home (a radio i paid for - youd think that legally buying a radio would entitle you to listen to it) and now sit in silience as i work. As a result of this i now no longer get to hear new artists and up-and-coming music. Surely, every time a buisness decides not to pay the licences and not to listen to the radio they are effectively reducing the chances of new artists making it in the industry in the first place. If i hear a track i like i either purchase the CD from an outlet or download it off t'internet. A good chunk of that money goes to the artist so im led to believe, so as a result of PRS and PPL they are no longer getting any of my cash. Does this not sound a bit daft.

4 people work in my shop. Since xmas i reckon we have bought a dozen albums between us off the back of hearing new music on local radio. Thats over £150 (probably nearer £200 at todays CD costs) of good money thats gone to the artist in some form or another. If over the next 5 months i buy nothing as a result of the music ban thats now in place we wont contribute anything and the artists end up losing out, probably by more than they would do if you compared it to what they would have got from my PRS and PPL licences. Now expand that by the number of people working at buisnesses in the same situation and you see that the PRS and PPL taxation is doing more damage than its doing good. To me it just looks like 2 buisnesses cashing in on one bad idea and not really putting the music industry first. All they are doing is slowly reducing the number of people who are exposed to music and the advances thereof whilst making a mint and pissing off the country.

[mel]

RedLeicester said:

You want to paint your lounge.

You want to use Dulux emulsion.

You buy Dulux from B&Q.

B&Q have already bought it from Dulux.

Why should you pay B&Q when they've already paid Dulux?

I want to paint my lounge.

I want to use Dulux Emulsion.

I buy the Dulux from B&Q

B&Q have already bought it from Dulux.

I'm happy to pay B&Q as they've already bought it from Dulux.

Why should I pay B&Q & Dulux ?

[ecain63]

JustinP1 said:

larry1977 said:

RedLeicester said:

Apparently so, particularly given membership is £30.

That's the minimum membership.
If the hapless musician takes his guitar and a laptop to duplicate his CDs, then gets on his motorbike to do a tour of 20 European countries during the Summer, he'll be charged £ 2500 for RBS to recover royalties from foreign businesses who play his CDs.

http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/memberresource...

Extreme hypothetical case?
Not as extreme as when the RBS wanted to invoice a sales assistant thousands of pounds for singing at work
And no, I did not make it up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_ce...

So one entirely one made up example, and one where they admitted they made a mistake?

Again, I make no bones of the fact that the collection tactics of the organisation are not the best - but they fulfil an important function for their members, and this is partially, and even more so now what is making the music industry viable.

Has anyone thought that maybe the artists we hear on the radio get paid too much for what they do? Why should they be paid millions for prancing around the stage like the modern day Pied Piper? Its not exactly a job of bravery and courage is it? They are only doing what they enjoy. Sensible wages would make the money go further. Look at football:

Clubs under financial pressure because they pay thier players too much. Who exactly is worth £200k a week? Even £10k a week is massively excessive? Nobody should get paid that much for doing so little, and these clubs who are stuggling because of it have only themselves to blame. Same type of people too. Footballers are just actors prancing about like they are something special. Maybe if they got a sensible wages and bonuses they'd play football in a manner that wasnt so utterly cringeworthy to watch.

I think the whole PRS and PPL thing is completely off the scale and any reason why i should pay a licence fee to a complany who are already being paid for the privelage isnt going to fly. Another example of what is a bloody corrupt country with loopholes for the rich and shackles for the average Joe.

[D1ckie]

As I have noted before I am one of those who continually keeps receiving calls and letters from PPL as well as their solicitors and until they can prove we broadcast music they will get nowhere with me........ does playing Talk Radio stations exclude you from the charge / tax???

After catching up on this thread again and reading a lot of people asking the same questions I have an idea - If I supply everyone who works with me a radio and they all tune the radio to the same station at the same time, then effectively they are each broadcasting to themselves, therefore no charge

I am clever