PRS / PPL Music licence issue for a small business.

[Simpo Two]

I don't think a non-enforceable £54 surcharge is likely to precipitate court action.

[mark165]

Thanks for all the replies so far. Interesting views.

I've drafted a letter pretty much saying that she'll pay for this and subsequent years with no surcharge. I'm not going to try and get a reduction pro rata as i can't give exact dates at this moment in time.

I've also withdrawn implied right of access.

So it's a fresh start, which is essentially what this situation is.

It turns out she didn't admit as much as first conveyed, she has been paying PRS for years and so her understanding was that she was fully covered. I'm not sure how PPL would have any basis for suing retrospectively on music that 'could have been played'.

[roscopeco]

Hi was wondering if anyone could shed any light on a situation my gorlfriend is having.
She opened her shop just under a year ago and chose not to play music because of the shop being small. A couple of months ago she had a visit from a PPl representative who gave her some information which she said she would keep for future reference should she decide to play music. Throughtout the conversation the only music that was played was when her phone persistently rang which she rejected all calls in fron of the PPL representative.
A week later she was sent a bill for The previos year, this year and a surcharge. The bill stated that her shop had 3 treatment tables when it clearly only had one and that the bill was for radio usage. Obviously she disputed the bill by letter immediatly and asked if they were using her ringtone as evidence and if so how absolutely ridiculous. She heard nothing from them by letter but different people from PPl kept calling persistently asking if she was playing music to which she always responded with no and her reasons for not playing music.
Today she has recieved a letter from PPl saying that the representative noted that there was a black portable radio clearly playing at his visit. My girlfriend is absolutely traumatised by this and has been reading forums on the web looking for answers as to why PPl would say this. As a matter of principle she wants to fight them all the way but with what she has read on the web is fearful that they will win as they are such a big company and she is so small and has'nt got the money to fight a legal battle against them.
Any ideas on what to do would be most appreciated!

[Simpo Two]

Ask them to provide proof?

[Mojooo]

If they want to take her to court they will have to take her to a civil court where they will have to show 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she was infact playing music.

I don't think a judge would just take their word for it so unless she has been playing music I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[Ozone]

Roscopeco, try PMing fergywales he has had dealings with PPI IIRC.

[davepoth]

Ignore them. And remember that they have no more rights than the man in the street.

[roscopeco]

Thanks for your replies its much appreciated. She's beside her self with worry and anything i can find out to help her is gratefully recieved !!

[JustinP1]

roscopeco said:

Thanks for your replies its much appreciated. She's beside her self with worry and anything i can find out to help her is gratefully recieved !!

Be short, and do it in writing.

Dear X,

In reply to your letter, I am afraid if anyone has said that there was any radio playing in my shop that they are incorrect, and a matter I am happy to go to court about, and give evidence under oath.

Please refrain from any further contact with me about this matter, as I have made our position clear. We do not play music, neither do we owe you any money.

Yours,

[D_G]

roscopeco said:

Thanks for your replies its much appreciated. She's beside her self with worry and anything i can find out to help her is gratefully recieved !!

This is par for the course I'm afraid. You need to send a brief and strong letter stating your position, I'm not suprised at all the PPL rep lied about a radio being there.
Tell your girlfriend not to worry as they are trying it on in a similar way private car park fine companies do. She won't end up in court over this.

[mel]

The best advice I can offer is to join the Federation of Small Business (FSB) they are the champions of small business and offer a whole raft of added benefits such a legal defence and advice along with insurance cover against all of the small business bullies such as HMRC, PRS, PPL the blue pallet police (whatever they are called) etc etc, the annual membership fee is less than most of the other licenses and done on a sliding scale dependant on the number of employees and turnover. They currently have numerous ongoing cases against both PRS & PPL and I've found that simply by saying "on advice from the FSB I have been told I do not require a licence" both organisations are off the phone before you can blink and then don't ring back.

[skwdenyer]

mark165 said:

Roscopeco, there is no charge for PPS if the premises is under 50m3. I'm not sure about PPL, i can't remember.

Has that changed recently? The last time I looked (2009 or so), there was a reduced PRS rate for premises with a."listenable area" of 50m2 providing that only "traditional" radio and/or TV was being played.

[Funk]

mark165 said:

I also revoked their implied right of access.

Nice touch, I wouldn't have thought of that.

[fergywales]

roscopeco, sorry to hear of your girlfriends dealings with the shysters. Sounds like their typical methods being employed to scare a few quid out of another small business.

As previously stated, write to them clearly spelling out that music is not being played at the address. You may also invite them to prove the artist details of the music the gestapo officer claims to have heard playing marries with a contract between PPL and the artist they purport to represent. As royalty free music exists, they are required to identify the artist, song and method of performance observed along with a statement from the inspection officer if they wish to escalate the matter.

Any problems, feel free to PM. Always happy to assist small businesses fight PRS & PPL.

[Mr AJ]

fergywales said:

To the OP, as I covered most points on the other thread, I will not rehash them here. If you want any advice specifically in relation to PRS or PPL, get in touch via PM and I will be happy to help.

Just so that it is clear to all reading though, it is not an 'offence' as stated in one of the posts. It is also for the organisation making the claim to produce evidence that they have the right to pursue on the specific material that is being played. If the OP's MIL did not specify material at the time of admitting a need for a licence, that is a defence of a claim. As already covered, if the call was recorded and this was not clearly stated, which is doubtful as it was an incoming call and I have never been aware of either PRS or PPL to open dialogue with "this call is being recorded..."

Both organisations employ shady tactics to gain compensation payment for breaches that often the enforcer has little or no knowledge of. Anything that I can impart to help fellow PH business owners I am only too happy to.

Some good advice RE: admitting material.. Just wanted to point out though that just because there was no message to say the call was being recorded doesn't mean it wasn't recorded! It's only a legal requirement to tell someone your recording the call if you record it with the intention of making the recording available to a 3rd party. This doesn't mean they can't be released to a 3rd party (i.e used in court at a later date) aslong as that was not the original intention of making the recording.

[fergywales]

Mr AJ said:

Some good advice RE: admitting material.. Just wanted to point out though that just because there was no message to say the call was being recorded doesn't mean it wasn't recorded! It's only a legal requirement to tell someone your recording the call if you record it with the intention of making the recording available to a 3rd party. This doesn't mean they can't be released to a 3rd party (i.e used in court at a later date) aslong as that was not the original intention of making the recording.

Can you elaborate?

How can a company explain the recording of a call to later establish an act they are looking to receive a monetary judgement for, whilst still claiming to have innocently recorded a conversation and not advised the person being covertly recorded?

[ringram]

Just use spotify, job done.

[Davidos]

ringram said:

Just use spotify, job done.

From Spotify T&C's (My bold)

3. Grant of license
Spotify grants you a limited, non-exclusive, revocable license to make personal non-commercial use of the Spotify Software Application (including a right to download said application) and the Spotify Service and to receive by stream (and, where you have purchased the Premium Service or the Mobile Service, by conditional download), and in the case of the purchase of A-La Carte Downloads or Download Bundles, to receive Permanent Downloads of the media content made available through the Spotify Service in your home country. You do not have a right to transfer or sublicense your rights under this Agreement.

[mel]

Can you then not claim copyright on the recorded phone call and demand royalties payments if they want to play it to a third party

[Simpo Two]

I get the distinct impression that compaines happily record calls (the old 'training and quality purposes' theme) but that if the information recorded in that call does not later support their position it is not (unsurprisingly) not produced.

Without delving into too much detail, I am surprised and disappointed that an organistion which purports to be upholding certain legal points is so quick to neglect others.