PPL & PRS . . .

[khushy]

we play music in our shop from CD and we pay for both a PPL and PRS licence - are there any streaming music radio stations for unsigned music where we would NOT have to pay the licences - the cost is just getting ridiculous and we get calls almost everyday asking for updated details AND PPL have just undergone a makeover too.

What a waste of the licence fee - surely they should spend the money they get on the artists and not on makeovers and telesales dolls and dollies!!!

khushy

Edited by khushy on Saturday 14th March 08:56

[Eric Mc]

The TV licence has nothing do do with copyright issues.

[khushy]

??? huh ???

[AdeTuono]

Eric Mc said:

The TV licence has nothing do do with copyright issues.

There's no mention of the TV license in that post. I assume the OP means the recent influx of letters from the PRS demanding you let them know if you have the gall to listen to either the radio, or CD's you've paid good money for, at your place of work. If you don't reply, the subsequent letters get more and more threatening. I'm currently on Rev.3, which will go the same way as the previous two. Twunts.

[JustinP1]

If you ignore the letters they escalate things to sending someone undercover to your shop.

If you ignored or lied you can often get a bill backdated for years. There was a recent case in my local paper. A bill for a few hundred quid a year which was ignored ended up being ten grand by the time the court case was over.

At the end of the day the licence is there to ensure the songwriters and artists are paid for their work that you want to use. The reason why music has gone so downhill in the last few years is due to the lack of funding because a generation of music users now believe that music is not owned by someone is runs freely through the air like a breeze, or indeed down a filesharing site.

When you buy a CD you buy the licence to listen to it, not copy it or broadcast it.

You obviously get a business benefit from playing music at work or in a shop otherwise you wouldn't do it. That benefit has a price you can either say is worth it and you pay, or the cost isn't worth the benefit so you are free to stop having the benefit...

[Eric Mc]

AdeTuono said:

Eric Mc said:

The TV licence has nothing do do with copyright issues.

There's no mention of the TV license in that post. I assume the OP means the recent influx of letters from the PRS demanding you let them know if you have the gall to listen to either the radio, or CD's you've paid good money for, at your place of work. If you don't reply, the subsequent letters get more and more threatening. I'm currently on Rev.3, which will go the same way as the previous two. Twunts.

He says "what a waste of the licence fee" and THEN goes on to citricise certain types of TV programming. I took it that he was confusing the Performance Licence with the TV Licence.
Maybe he was just confusing me.

[AdeTuono]

JustinP1 said:

At the end of the day the licence is there to ensure the songwriters and artists are paid for their work that you want to use. The reason why music has gone so downhill in the last few years is due to the lack of funding because a generation of music users now believe that music is not owned by someone is runs freely through the air like a breeze, or indeed down a filesharing site.

When you buy a CD you buy the licence to listen to it, not copy it or broadcast it.

You obviously get a business benefit from playing music at work or in a shop otherwise you wouldn't do it. That benefit has a price you can either say is worth it and you pay, or the cost isn't worth the benefit so you are free to stop having the benefit...

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that 'suffering artist' bullst. The record companies ripped off (the majority) of their artists for many years, and now that the cows have come home to roost (sic) they want to take their ball home and not let anyone play. The statement that music has gone downhill has everything to do with quality and not quantity. There is still plenty of good stuff out there, you need to know where to look. And surprise surprise, it's not on 'Wonderful Radio One'.

As far as listening to the radio at work goes, would you object to paying the PRS to listen to the radio in your car? We have a radio at work, but only one person listens to it; no public access, so why should we have to pay £x00's to have it on in the background? And I can't see that it's a business benefit.

[JustinP1]

AdeTuono said:

JustinP1 said:

At the end of the day the licence is there to ensure the songwriters and artists are paid for their work that you want to use. The reason why music has gone so downhill in the last few years is due to the lack of funding because a generation of music users now believe that music is not owned by someone is runs freely through the air like a breeze, or indeed down a filesharing site.

When you buy a CD you buy the licence to listen to it, not copy it or broadcast it.

You obviously get a business benefit from playing music at work or in a shop otherwise you wouldn't do it. That benefit has a price you can either say is worth it and you pay, or the cost isn't worth the benefit so you are free to stop having the benefit...

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that 'suffering artist' bullst. The record companies ripped off (the majority) of their artists for many years, and now that the cows have come home to roost (sic) they want to take their ball home and not let anyone play. The statement that music has gone downhill has everything to do with quality and not quantity. There is still plenty of good stuff out there, you need to know where to look. And surprise surprise, it's not on 'Wonderful Radio One'.

As far as listening to the radio at work goes, would you object to paying the PRS to listen to the radio in your car? We have a radio at work, but only one person listens to it; no public access, so why should we have to pay £x00's to have it on in the background? And I can't see that it's a business benefit.

With regard to 'ripping off' artists, are you saying that the majority of artists chose to sign a contract which ripped themselves off and was no benefit to them? Without a record company to invest in the risk that an artist will sell you wouldn't have a single CD on your shelf.

Notwithstanding that, the PRS has nothing to do with record companies. They collect funds for the songwriters, nothing to do with record companies at all, they don't get a penny.

If its is not a business benefit then turn it off!?

However, I would also suggest that if the radio is only listened to by one person with no other access then you probably don't need a licence. So instead of ignoring them, maybe just spend a couple of minutes explaining your situation and they will get off your back and confirm you don't need a licence?