PRS / PPL Music licence issue for a small business.
Discussion
Thanks for all the replies so far, i'm not trying to go into a what's right debate, i'd just like to reduce the potential backdated costs!
I'll ring on Monday and check whether it's recorded or not.
So far the invoices are (bear in mind the restaurant is only open approximately 6 months a year!
Backdated Music licence for 2010-2011- £108
Surcharge for not having it- £54.
Charge for this year 2011-2012- £113
Surcharge again, for not having it last year! - £56
Any views as to how the 50% surcharge is justified/should be paid?
'to act as a deterrent to unlicensed public performances of sound recordings, and to compensate PPL for the considerable administrative effort expended in detecting and taking action in respect of these infringements of copyright'.
Hmmm. They sure did put in a lot of effort.
I'll ring on Monday and check whether it's recorded or not.
So far the invoices are (bear in mind the restaurant is only open approximately 6 months a year!
Backdated Music licence for 2010-2011- £108
Surcharge for not having it- £54.
Charge for this year 2011-2012- £113
Surcharge again, for not having it last year! - £56
Any views as to how the 50% surcharge is justified/should be paid?
'to act as a deterrent to unlicensed public performances of sound recordings, and to compensate PPL for the considerable administrative effort expended in detecting and taking action in respect of these infringements of copyright'.
Hmmm. They sure did put in a lot of effort.
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I've also withdrawn implied right of access.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'.
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I've also withdrawn implied right of access.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'.
As before thanks to fergywales for pointing these things out.. but to reiterate:
They are a private company, not a regulatory body of any sort.
The burden of proof is on them. They have no proof. There is no contract.
I really suggest to anyone in this situation to just draft a letter, because when you write it, it hits home just how ridiculous the situation really is.
It's tv licensing all over again.
They are a private company, not a regulatory body of any sort.
The burden of proof is on them. They have no proof. There is no contract.
I really suggest to anyone in this situation to just draft a letter, because when you write it, it hits home just how ridiculous the situation really is.
It's tv licensing all over again.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff