PRS / PPL Music licence issue for a small business.
Discussion
To play copyrighted music you need permission from the copyright owner. To do so without will mean you are open to civil action. No contract exists or is needed.
A song will have all sorts of copyright - the lyrics, the vocals, the music. The PRS and PPL collect on behalf of those people.
Technically they could sue her, I spose its a question of whether she wants to put up a fight I guess.
A song will have all sorts of copyright - the lyrics, the vocals, the music. The PRS and PPL collect on behalf of those people.
Technically they could sue her, I spose its a question of whether she wants to put up a fight I guess.
RemainAllHoof said:
From reading the last thread, the artists get 1%. 99% must therefore go on admin. Nice business to be in. Well, if you're working for the PRS/PPL. I'd rather just pay more and play licence-free music; at least you know where the money's going.
PH says 1%PRS says 90%
Who to believe?
The PPL are a bunch of shisters. The problem you have now is they have the legal right to demand money if an offence has been admitted.
I have dealt with these people in the past and been threated in a really unprofessional way regardless of the facts, they never persued me but they never had any grounds to do so.
I would wait until they try to serve notice, otherwise do nothing.
mark165 said:
She admitted on the phone to using the radio and (annoyingly) gave all the details- a mistake i know.
Did they tell her the conversation was being recorded? If not can they use it as evidence? Although she admitted it is there any legally usable proof?Maybe write back and blame it the cleaner...?
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.
Come on guys, she should have had a licence. Unfortunately, she was found without the correct licence and is being fined. No excuse in pleading ignorance. It is up to the small business to find out what is required, be it PAT, Copyright licence, Fire regs, etc. They all must be complied with.
Why not write to them, and explain you had the PRS and understood this to be the correct licence for the use intended. Tell them you are happy to pay the two previous years and will continue to pay but ask if they can reduce or remove the surcharge.
Also play dumb and ask them to explain why you need PRS and PPL, try an make out you are seriously worried you didn't have enough cover and were not just trying to shaft them.
From here on, work out if it is worth the money. For us, it is, as music "fills" a large area with something. Customers don't necessarily notice it there, but it certainly is cold without it. It also makes the working environment better. HOWEVER, if it is a nice establishment, CD music would be better than the radio, IMHO
Also play dumb and ask them to explain why you need PRS and PPL, try an make out you are seriously worried you didn't have enough cover and were not just trying to shaft them.
From here on, work out if it is worth the money. For us, it is, as music "fills" a large area with something. Customers don't necessarily notice it there, but it certainly is cold without it. It also makes the working environment better. HOWEVER, if it is a nice establishment, CD music would be better than the radio, IMHO
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.
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.
Mojooo said:
RemainAllHoof said:
From reading the last thread, the artists get 1%. 99% must therefore go on admin. Nice business to be in. Well, if you're working for the PRS/PPL. I'd rather just pay more and play licence-free music; at least you know where the money's going.
PH says 1%PRS says 90%
Who to believe?
Mojooo is quite correct though - within 2% I believe.
If you think about it, MCPS/PRS/PPL work on behalf of the composers/artists. That is their only remit. Without that backing they could not exist. That said they are almost universally supported, as as members they do get input as to the collection of their royalties. Realistically, would you support an agency who was eating up 99% of your cash?
Don't get me wrong, through my work I deal with them a lot, and I don't think they are a great organisation for a number of reasons. But, let's at least get the truthful parts right.
If it were me, this is what I would write, and this is the advice I give:
Dear PPL:
It is disputed that any surcharge is legally applicable is this situation. It is also noted that the assessed charges are an annual fee, however, our restaurant is only open for X% of the year.
I have therefore enclosed payment in full and final settlement of this claim.
Yours...
It's up to you if you want to push for the reduction based on the fact that the restaurant is only partially open throughout the year. I might try. Worst they will say is no.
The background of this though is that you will be putting easy cash in their hand as oppose to hassle getting the rest. I severely doubt that they would entertain taking further action over the surcharge if they had the cash for the rest.
defblade said:
I'm still waiting for my slice of royalties due to me from them - I often "entertain" customers by whistling "tunes" of my own composition whilst working.
Well, the only royalties due would be from yourself. And it would be a bit pointless charging yourself for your own commercial use of your own work.
The merits of the licensing system and the tactics of the collectors have been done to death.
However, this is a civil, contractual matter. No-one other than a public authority can levy a fine. You can't ordinarily have penalties in contracts.
Like any contract, this is open to negotiation. Your MIL can negotiate on what license fee she will pay for the future, and if she cannot reach an agreement, she can opt to be unlicensed, and not play music that would require a license.
The retrospective payments are most likely an amount she can agree to pay in exchange for a waiver of her liability for past infringement. In other words, she agrees a price and the PPL (or whoever) agree not to sue her for past infringement.
It is open to her to negotiate on that amount too, and take a realistic view on whether or not they will actually issue proceedings and incur significant legal costs, given the evidence they have and the likely payout if they win.
JustinP1's suggested approach is a very sound one - it would be unwise to ignore any communications from them, but similarly there is no need to accept numbers they are suggesting.
However, this is a civil, contractual matter. No-one other than a public authority can levy a fine. You can't ordinarily have penalties in contracts.
Like any contract, this is open to negotiation. Your MIL can negotiate on what license fee she will pay for the future, and if she cannot reach an agreement, she can opt to be unlicensed, and not play music that would require a license.
The retrospective payments are most likely an amount she can agree to pay in exchange for a waiver of her liability for past infringement. In other words, she agrees a price and the PPL (or whoever) agree not to sue her for past infringement.
It is open to her to negotiate on that amount too, and take a realistic view on whether or not they will actually issue proceedings and incur significant legal costs, given the evidence they have and the likely payout if they win.
JustinP1's suggested approach is a very sound one - it would be unwise to ignore any communications from them, but similarly there is no need to accept numbers they are suggesting.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff