PRS / PPL Music licence issue for a small business.

[fergywales]

PRS and PPL can be viewed in the same way, from a legal standpoint, as private companies attempting to enforce parking charges. They have exactly the same statutory legal power to enforce, ie NONE.

[lost in espace]

Ignore all contact and if you get taken to court pay up at the last minute if it gets that far, if you do speak to them tell them they spoke to a temporary member of staff with a grudge to bear and admit nothing.

[fergywales]

lost in espace said:

Ignore all contact and if you get taken to court pay up at the last minute if it gets that far, if you do speak to them tell them they spoke to a temporary member of staff with a grudge to bear and admit nothing.

Wait until the last minute and then pay their demand and their court costs? Sounds like a waste of even more money to me.

If they get in touch, you need simply to ask that they produce evidence of a contract with an artist or songwriter that they have observed being performed/broadcast at the business. Until they can do this, they do not have a leg to stand on.

A contract to enforce rights of the artist or songwriter must exist if they wish to enforce it. Without production of said contract, the company attempting to receive a judgement can be seen to be attempting to receive payment by misrepresentation. This is where I have won previously against PRS.

[mark165]

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.

[JustinP1]

fergywales said:

lost in espace said:

Ignore all contact and if you get taken to court pay up at the last minute if it gets that far, if you do speak to them tell them they spoke to a temporary member of staff with a grudge to bear and admit nothing.

Wait until the last minute and then pay their demand and their court costs? Sounds like a waste of even more money to me.

If they get in touch, you need simply to ask that they produce evidence of a contract with an artist or songwriter that they have observed being performed/broadcast at the business. Until they can do this, they do not have a leg to stand on.

A contract to enforce rights of the artist or songwriter must exist if they wish to enforce it. Without production of said contract, the company attempting to receive a judgement can be seen to be attempting to receive payment by misrepresentation. This is where I have won previously against PRS.

This.

They are not scared of court. I remember reading in my local paper where a bar was chased for three years of payments. They knew they were bang to rights, but head buried, and about 40% of the total cost ended up being court fees and legal costs which were awarded against them as they behaved unreasonably.

My advice would be the same as any similar situation where a private company has made a mistake. You have nothing to lose by telling them the truth straight away if you have not played copyright works.

[Mojooo]

Dont the PRS have contracts to represent most big musicians? chances are if you are playing music in your shop at least some of it will be PRS represented artists.....

[fergywales]

Mojooo said:

Dont the PRS have contracts to represent most big musicians? chances are if you are playing music in your shop at least some of it will be PRS represented artists.....

If they have such a contract, they will happily produce this during disclosure should they feel in a strong enough position to take a business to court.

They should, upon request of artist and track being broadcast at the time of an inspection, also produce a written statement from the enforcement officer and confirm within this that the artist is a member by way of a contract and that PRS/PPL have the right to enforce the contract.

Sadly for PRS/PPL, they rarely can.

[Mojooo]

fergywales said:

If they have such a contract, they will happily produce this during disclosure should they feel in a strong enough position to take a business to court.

They should, upon request of artist and track being broadcast at the time of an inspection, also produce a written statement from the enforcement officer and confirm within this that the artist is a member by way of a contract and that PRS/PPL have the right to enforce the contract.

Sadly for PRS/PPL, they rarely can.

I guess that is more down to them not being arsed because most people pay up, rather than not actually being capable?

[fergywales]

Mojooo said:

I guess that is more down to them not being arsed because most people pay up, rather than not actually being capable?

Capable of what?

[Mojooo]

fergywales said:

Capable of what?

I would imagine they are more than capable of documenting evidence of people playing music, providing witness statements and providing copies of contracts

Its just that in many cases it is probably not worth the hassle if they are chasing small amounts of money.

[mph1977]

Mojooo said:

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.

civil courts use the civil standard of proof, based o nthe balance of probability, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the criminal standard of proof.

[fergywales]

Mojooo said:

fergywales said:

Capable of what?

I would imagine they are more than capable of documenting evidence of people playing music, providing witness statements and providing copies of contracts

Its just that in many cases it is probably not worth the hassle if they are chasing small amounts of money.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Their tactics for gaining evidence have been questioned in court (covert recordings, detailing statutory powers they do not hold etc).

I have, on a number of occasions in my previous businesses (pubs, bars & clubs) requested that official copies be produced of contracts with the artists they claim to represent. Not once have they been able to, and this was in relation to requests for thousands, not a couple of hundred quid.

I worked closely with music industry professionals, artists and writers. I've yet, in meeting and discussing PRS/PPL with probably close to 500 potential members, come across one. In the only time I ever reached a court against PRS, I had a band that was playing their own material on the night a gestapo-officer claimed to observe commercial music (undetailed artists and tracks due to observing from outside the premises) appear with me prior to the hearing and, upon PRS's solicitor meeting and spending all of 90 seconds listening to them, they withdrew the claim (and a large cheque to my business arrived about 3 weeks later...)

[Mojooo]

Do the PRS publish a list of all their members? I guess their enforcement officers go on the basis that they cover most music in the UK so said person must be playing their members music.

[fergywales]

Mojooo said:

Do the PRS publish a list of all their members? I guess their enforcement officers go on the basis that they cover most music in the UK so said person must be playing their members music.

If they published a list, it would kind of defeat the object of asking whether or not they represent certain individuals/organisations. They'd be stumped to substantiate their claimed 75,000 members too.

Why should an enforcement officer 'assume' that they are enforcing a contract? That is a road that can only lead to vexatious litigation.

[Mojooo]

fergywales said:

If they published a list, it would kind of defeat the object of asking whether or not they represent certain individuals/organisations. They'd be stumped to substantiate their claimed 75,000 members too.

Its one thing saying you represent artist XX but its another thing proving it. Of course you would hope they were telling the truth, otherwise they would be comitting fraud on a pretty big scale.

fergywales said:

Why should an enforcement officer 'assume' that they are enforcing a contract? That is a road that can only lead to vexatious litigation.

Like I say - they don't need to make sure every single case they pursue is watertight because so many people will pay, or for the really big ones they probably can come up with the required evidence if they had to.

[skwdenyer]

fergywales said:

Couldn't be further from the truth. Their tactics for gaining evidence have been questioned in court (covert recordings, detailing statutory powers they do not hold etc).

I have, on a number of occasions in my previous businesses (pubs, bars & clubs) requested that official copies be produced of contracts with the artists they claim to represent. Not once have they been able to, and this was in relation to requests for thousands, not a couple of hundred quid.

I worked closely with music industry professionals, artists and writers. I've yet, in meeting and discussing PRS/PPL with probably close to 500 potential members, come across one. In the only time I ever reached a court against PRS, I had a band that was playing their own material on the night a gestapo-officer claimed to observe commercial music (undetailed artists and tracks due to observing from outside the premises) appear with me prior to the hearing and, upon PRS's solicitor meeting and spending all of 90 seconds listening to them, they withdrew the claim (and a large cheque to my business arrived about 3 weeks later...)

Just for clarity, with your various pubs, bars & clubs, you didn't pay PRS or PPL at any time?

[fergywales]

skwdenyer said:

fergywales said:

Couldn't be further from the truth. Their tactics for gaining evidence have been questioned in court (covert recordings, detailing statutory powers they do not hold etc).

I have, on a number of occasions in my previous businesses (pubs, bars & clubs) requested that official copies be produced of contracts with the artists they claim to represent. Not once have they been able to, and this was in relation to requests for thousands, not a couple of hundred quid.

I worked closely with music industry professionals, artists and writers. I've yet, in meeting and discussing PRS/PPL with probably close to 500 potential members, come across one. In the only time I ever reached a court against PRS, I had a band that was playing their own material on the night a gestapo-officer claimed to observe commercial music (undetailed artists and tracks due to observing from outside the premises) appear with me prior to the hearing and, upon PRS's solicitor meeting and spending all of 90 seconds listening to them, they withdrew the claim (and a large cheque to my business arrived about 3 weeks later...)

Just for clarity, with your various pubs, bars & clubs, you didn't pay PRS or PPL at any time?

It was paid at venues where PRS/PPL was required due to what was broadcast/performed. It was vigorously defended at venues which were used purely for live music performance of bands and artists who performed their own material and confirmed they were not members of either company.

ETA - At venues where it was paid, it was paid at a vastly reduced rate following negotiations and discussions of the terms either organisation attempted to enforce.

Edited by fergywales on Monday 9th May 00:33

Edited by fergywales on Monday 9th May 00:34

[fergywales]

speeling not what it used to bee!

[williamp]

This is the real reason why there was a royal wedding at the beginning of the tax year: HRH is short this year (cuts, Ma'am) and playing "God save the Queen" upteen times have helped fill her coffers

[JustinP1]

Mojooo said:

fergywales said:

If they published a list, it would kind of defeat the object of asking whether or not they represent certain individuals/organisations. They'd be stumped to substantiate their claimed 75,000 members too.

Its one thing saying you represent artist XX but its another thing proving it. Of course you would hope they were telling the truth, otherwise they would be comitting fraud on a pretty big scale.

fergywales said:

Why should an enforcement officer 'assume' that they are enforcing a contract? That is a road that can only lead to vexatious litigation.

Like I say - they don't need to make sure every single case they pursue is watertight because so many people will pay, or for the really big ones they probably can come up with the required evidence if they had to.

I thought I would chip in here to clarify this.

I deal with the MCPS - the mechanical arm of the PRS/PPL alliance, and I know for a fact that the very large majority of well known artists - at least 95% - have contracts with them to licence their material. I have seen dozens of the royalty sheets and the percentage splits.

With PRS I would also doubt that any famous artist is *not* a member, as it is the PRS who administrate the royalties from radio plays. Especially at the moment when returns from mechanical sales are as low as they have ever been, a considerable proportion of an artist's income does come from radio plays. Otherwise without a contract with the PRS it would mean that not radio station could play their work without obtaining permission from the direct.

So, in short, if you are playing the type of music from artists who get played on the radio you can be pretty certain that they are both members and get monthly payments from the PRS. Are there 75,000? I would suggest that is probably about right, and I see no reason why they would lie as they have little to gain by doing so.

I think it is also useful to point out that fergywales has been able to be so ballsy on the basis that not only is he legally astute he knew before it started that their case was fatally flawed in that he knew (but they didn't) that the music played was by artists who are not members. If it were the case that in the sample music recorded that a cover version was being played, then the situation would have been very different.