This may well have been done before, in which case sorry.
This is not at anything at all to do with avoiding paying performers what they are due. Very happy to do that, with no issues at all.
However, having received a random mailshot from PRS basically threatening me with excommunication, hellfire and damnation if I fail to stump up £100’s for my half a dozen staff listening to the radio, I got a tad annoyed, so I looked into it a bit further.
So does anyone know under what piece of legislation they have the right to do this?
From what I can see they are at best trying to assert very dubious rights by very dubious tactics and at worst are scamming on a grand scale.
Simplest example being who precisely sets the rates and defines what a public performance is? I can’t find any legal basis for these at all.
Radio stations now and always have paid royalties to broadcast music. So in what way is it reasonable to charge again to listen to it?
Etc etc
I'd love to know. They appear to be some sort of quasi-legal non-accountable org. I have looked around on the FSB site, opinions and legal interpretation varies...
As far as I have ever understood it, if it is a closed office where no public has any access then you do not have to pay anything (as it is not a public broadcast) but if public have access (doctor's surgery/car garage etc) then you have a legal obligation to pay.
FSB? Isn't that the successor to the KGB!
Forum for Small Business? Not much different.
I had one of those letters, with only four members of staff, and only one who listens to radio in room where others cannot hear it, I worked out it would have been cheaper to buy a personal radio or MP3 player for anyone who wanted to listen to music than shell out for an unneeded licence. So replied saying not applicable here.
At the end of the day who would know if it is a private office anyway? They cannot exactly storm your premises and if someone did turn up then you press the switch that stops music happening.
create a tape of each of your staff, performing their own special versions of current pop hits, send to PRS, demand they send you money.
There may be some legalality or legalese they can throw at you, but I'm of the opinion that the radio is a public medium, the BBC is paid for by license payers (which most people are) and commercial stations want people to hear their ads. If you're playing a CD, then fair enough, as this could be construed as imrpoving your work environment or making your products seem more attractive to customers. No one has ever said that about chris moyles.
Can anyone else not see the PRS website and the plethora of information it contains?
As with any licensing requirement, it is the responsibility of the music user to understand and meet their legal obligations.Within the UK, everyone is required to comply with copyright law (as defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988).
If music is in used in your premises, it is your responsibility to ensure that the correct licences are in place so that you and/or any person working on your premises can perform copyright music in public lawfully.
PRS for Music has been licensing music use in offices and factories for decades, since after its formation in 1914.
A test case in 1943 upheld PRS’s right to license public performance in the workplace. In the Court of Appeal cases in 1943, Ernest Turner Electrical Instruments Ltd v PRS and PRS v Gillette Industries Ltd, the court concluded that “workpeople are an audience”. It was held that in both cases the performance of PRS music was in public and the employer’s appeals were dismissed.
So - ignorance is no defence and it has been going on for a very long time.
They have actually tried to bill people for singing songs believe it or not! So thats not going to work.
Personally I think their letters are to say the least scandalous. For example this quote :-
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 requires you to gain permission from the copyright owner if you play music in public - i.e. outside the home.
The only applicable reference I can find in the act is this :-
Secondary infringement: permitting use of premises for infringing performance .
(1)Where the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work is infringed by a performance at a place of public entertainment, any person who gave permission for that place to be used for the performance is also liable for the infringement unless when he gave permission he believed on reasonable grounds that the performance would not infringe copyright. .
(2)
In this section “place of public entertainment” includes premises which are occupied mainly for other purposes but are from time to time made available for hire for the purposes of public entertainment.
That most certaionly does not define to me my office, workshop or warehouse!!
Incidentally, your Tootallness, the Act that the PRS are appertaining to in their letter to me is dated 1988, so I'm not too sure what a 1947 case relating to a previous encarnation of that act might have to do with the current act. But having read through it I can't see anything which makes my place of work comply with the two definitions given above.
It was a test case that appears to still be relevant. It states that 'workpeople are an audience' and appears to cover a workplace.
If a letter drafted in 1988 is still accurate, refers to extant regulations and doesn't need updating, does it need a new date?
Fight the power all you like - but they have been doing what they do for a long time. Get legal advice if you disagree.
Incidentally, your Tootallness, the Act that the PRS are appertaining to in their letter to me is dated 1988, so I'm not too sure what a 1947 case relating to a previous encarnation of that act might have to do with the current act.
Old caselaw is often relevant in interpreting subsequent legislation.
You can see the wording which I copied directly from the act quoted in their letter in my previous post. How that applies to offices and warehouses beats me. The act is not consolidating previous acts, it is a new one, so supercedes what went before. The previous case law may well be relevant, but only if the new act doesn't supercede it. The definition given clearly does not apply to workplaces and restrooms unless they are from timne to time hired out for public performances. Do you see what I mean?
SO scam then??
wow, bb, i can only assume you've been playing your music in a cave seeing as how you've missed this (i'm just adding this link as you appear to be a small business).
http://www.fpb.org/news/1885/Music_in_your_workplace?_You_may_be_liable_to_pay_for_it_.htm
you'd think you might get around by playing classical music but no, that constitutes a performance!
i like your notions about what the law defines to you. you should go to court with that. they love that sort of stuff
Berm Bandit - the CDA doesn't make what cynic-al said wrong.
Even when, for example, the rules against finalcial assiatnce in the Companies Act 1985 were removed in the 2006 Act, there was (and continues to be) significant debate about the extent to which the pre-existing common law rules on maintenance of capital contiue to apply.
Ergo, never read legislation and think it tells you the whole picture.
Not all radio stations that we can listen to - especially internet radio - is based in the UK; those based abroad (or on ships in the North Sea) will not pay a fee to the PRS.
To get round this, PRS charges everyone that wants to play music - recorded or live - in a "public" place in the UK a licence fee. I think other licencing organisations are available...
You don't pay the fee, the artists don't get their royalties and the world is a sadder place because fewer artists would bother to record anything for you to listen to for free
So they want to charge us *all* because *some* people listen to music from outside UK law jurisdiction?
i like your notions about what the law defines to you.
Swiss mate, read the thread. I've now repeated three times that I've quoted verbatim the Act quoted by the PRS as to what the definition of a public perfromance is. That is not my "notion" that is what the statutory instrument to which the PRS refer says in black and white.
Check for yourself here :-
[url= http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1g24 ]Read this before spouting off[/url]
ourmaninthenorth - Member
Berm Bandit - the CDA doesn't make what cynic-al said wrong.
Presumably you also didn't read what I posted then?
The act is not consolidating previous acts, it is a new one, so supercedes what went before. The previous case law may well be relevant, but only if the new act doesn't supercede it. The definition given clearly does not apply to workplaces and restrooms unless they are from timne to time hired out for public performances. Do you see what I mean?SO scam then??
Mastiles - yes.
You like to get paid for your work, don't you? Why should musicians be any different?
Much of legislation is 'catch all' to prevent previous loopholes from being exploited by the less scrupulous
The bigger issue here appears to be what exactly defines "public"
BB... Is this not the section that you should read?
19 Infringement by performance, showing or playing of work in public(1) The performance of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.
(2) In this Part “performance”, in relation to a work—
(a) includes delivery in the case of lectures, addresses, speeches and sermons, and
(b) in general, includes any mode of visual or acoustic presentation, including presentation by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme of the work.
(3) The playing or showing of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.
(4) Where copyright in a work is infringed by its being performed, played or shown in public by means of apparatus for receiving visual images or sounds conveyed by electronic means, the person by whom the visual images or sounds are sent, and in the case of a performance the performers, shall not be regarded as responsible for the infringement.
Not all radio stations that we can listen to - especially internet radio - is based in the UK; those based abroad (or on ships in the North Sea) will not pay a fee to the PRS.
Actually the PRS works in tandem with other nations organisations who also charge their radio stations at source, so in fact all of these are billed at source for what they transmit.
As posted at the top I have absolutely no issue with paying what is due. However, what the PRS are doing does appear to be playing fast and loose with the legislation and basically carrying out a scam. That is no more right than people pirating the works of the people that they represent, and in the long term it will do those people no favours.
In the long term?
[b]They have been doing this since 1914![/b]
i've no argument with you bb.
but if you're so convinced go to court. see how far that'll get you. i've not heard of a single case of someone getting this overturned.
in the (very) old days music was introduced into the workplace as a means of getting the workers to do more work. all that singing shenaningans was done away with when the radio came. if people started singing again would the prs i wonder ensure that, along with the writer of the music getting paid, they would receive a peformer's bonus?
They have been doing this since 1914!
What scamming people? Then it is high time they stopped isn't it?
funkynick - Member
BB... Is this not the section that you should read?
Nope, I think the relevant bit is the bit where the act defines what constitutes a public venue as quoted above.
You like to get paid for your work, don't you? Why should musicians be any different?
Yes I like to get paid, but I expect to get paid once, not multiple times due to some legislation it is suggested here is in place as a catch-all because of broadcasters outside of UK law.
And anyway - how does this money they collect get shared out? How can they know what I listened to and who to pay? Or do B'Witched get the same fee as Led Zeppelin just in case?
Heres another little titbit that I've dug up:-
Licences are needed from the Performing Rights Society (PRS) and /or the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS). These two have formed an alliance but in a given set of circumstances you might need to talk to both. You may also need a license from the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).
From the FSB Forum
Anyone know if its true?
When I first read that I thought it said [b]Pornographic [/b]Performance Limited (PPL).
I would owe them loads. 😉
I agree that musicians should get paid for their work- when they turn up and do some.
Berm Bandit - Memberfunkynick - Member
BB... Is this not the section that you should read?Nope, I think the relevant bit is the bit where the act defines what constitutes a public venue as quoted above.
Now go and read the section you quoted again, and properly this time... ;o)
The definition of 'place of public entertainment' that you seem to be relying on only applies to Section 25 of the Act. It does not set the definition of 'public' for any other section in the Act.
You like to get paid for your work, don't you? Why should musicians be any different?
I always hoped musicians just enjoyed creating music, regardless of whether they got paid or not.
I'd hate to think of making music as "work"
I'd hate to think of making music as "work"
I can assure you that with some audiences, it is most definitely work, not pleasure.
The definition of 'place of public entertainment' that you seem to be relying on only applies to Section 25 of the Act. It does not set the definition of 'public' for any other section in the Act.
funkynick, yep I know that, and said as much when I posted it, ie. its the only applicable reference to a definition of a public performance that I could find. Happy to be proven wrong, but I can't find any other suggestion anywhere in that act that provides that a public performance constitutes a radio in a closed work place, (i.e. not a public place). And that really is my point.
From what I've found PRS seem to take a scatter gun approach and try to draw everyone into the net regardless of any actual legal precedent. So far today I've found a case where they tried to get a shop assistant for singing a popular tune at work, a motor mechanic listening to the radio alone in his own garage, and so forth. If you read their correspondance carefully it is very well worded, and if you actually stump up and then find that you didn't need to they could claim that you did so vountarily, as they don't define anything anywhere, and don't actually say you have to. However, there is a very strong implication that you do, and that your world will come to a premature end if you don't.
The nearest parallel I can think of is these private parking companies that stick an invoice on your windscreen and try to pass it off as a penalty charge notice. When you get down to it they have little or no validity but there is a multi millon pound industry scamming people into thinking that they do. Legal?? Barely???
Please please please:
Stop posting about it on here
Refuse to pay and take it to court
Post the result on here for our education
You like to get paid for your work, don't you? Why should musicians be any different?
The point is that the musicians [i]have already been paid[/i] for their performance by the BBC or whatever broadcaster is transmitting the music. How, exactly, can it be justified forcing people to pay for something that has already been paid for on their behalf? You are listening to a broadcast by a public service broadcaster. You are not broadcasting a performance.
Next they'll be setting up cameras with microphones and number recognition software to nail motorists playing music in their cars with the window open.
Please please please:Stop posting about it on here
Any good reason why I should about from being boring? (not obligatory for you to either read or participate incidentally).
I do actually want to test out by use of this forum if I am in fact wrong in my assumptions. You know? That old concept of argument and counter argument to test out an idea?
BB - its bollocks, they try it on, but choose to ignore S72:
72. Free public showing or playing of broadcast or cable programme
(1)The showing or playing in public of a broadcast or cable programme to an audience who have not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast or programme is to be seen or heard does not infringe any copyright in—
(a)the broadcast or cable programme, or
(b)any sound recording or film included in it.
Do the appropriate musicians actually get the money though?
Surely by playing their music in my shop I am 'advertising' it for them? If no one hears it then how can they decide they like it and go and buy it ( or download it for free...)!
As yet I have avoided paying and am completely guilt free. I do however buy music not steal it when I want an album.
[i]The point is that the musicians have already been paid for their performance by the BBC or whatever broadcaster is transmitting the music. How, exactly, can it be justified forcing people to pay for something that has already been paid for on their behalf? You are listening to a broadcast by a public service broadcaster. You are not broadcasting a performance.[/i]
actually the musicians do NOT get paid by the broadcaster*, that's why the PRS is there - to collect royalties on behalf of the artists.
I assume [i]some[/i] of these rules go back to the days before magnetic tape allowed pre-recording of shows and, ultimately, the multi-tracked records (or whatever you want to call them) that we all listen to these days.
*unless booked to perform on a particular show by the broadcaster, but that's another issue.
[i]Surely by playing their music in my shop I am 'advertising' it for them? If no one hears it then how can they decide they like it and go and buy it ( or download it for free...)![/i]
you're only advertising it if you (or the broadcaster) tell people [i]what[/i] they're listening to and where to get it from
[i]I always hoped musicians just enjoyed creating music, regardless of whether they got paid or not.
I'd hate to think of making music as "work"[/i]
I do it for fun - if it wasn't fun I wouldn't do it - but if I play live or sell a CD or download, I want to get paid for my time as much as the next man, so that it costs ME less to record the next one.
I'd much rather do that than write computer programs, to get paid, but for now it's very much a hobby
Any good reason why I should about from being boring?
You are just putting off paying them or the subsequent court case. I'm no legal expert but the 'STW said so' defence has yet to be tested in legal proceedings. OK then - I'll retract my request - post about it hourly and see if that reduces the cost you'll have to pay anyway.
OK then, any musicians on here? When do you get your money from the PRS?
blatantly ignoring the 'drummer vs musician' jibe:
We haven't yet, I need to get onto that. We've only had stuff out on air and been playing live since February, so they probably haven't processed the claims yet. They're not known for being quick.
an other case of WTF is this country coming to.
what do you mean scraprider?
This system is hardly new - it's been developing since we first started recording and broadcasting music, and while it's not exactly ideal, it's the best they've managed to come up with so far.
Would you rather have to pay a subscription to listen to radio, like you do with Sky TV? Or maybe expand the TV licence fee to cover radio?
no mate , i mean , i dont see how this is a possible problem, for many many years we, my mates, work mates etc etc etc the list gose on,listen to music as we work now it seems if more than a few people can hear it , some one has to pay rights or what ever its called. the work place with out music is a shity place, i think i cant see summit so i must be stupid , im sorry mate it just dont make sense.a radio at work ffs.
like I said, it's not new, it's been this way for a long time.
It's up to the management to sort out the PRS licence in the same way as it would be for a TV licence if you had a TV in the workplace.
john_drummer - you do realise Robbie Williams and Bono get all the money anyway?
I dare say they do.
Radio & TV airplay royalties go to the [i]writers[/i] of any particular song. But TBH radio airplay is small potatoes compared with the earnings a decent stadium tour and multi-million copy record sales can make.
But for your average working band, the recorded material is used to promote the tour, which is where the money is earned; 20 years ago the tour was used to promote the recorded material.
That's how Radiohead can afford to give away their recordings - they make it all back on tour, with interest.
its all about money for old rope
I work in the music industry, so without getting caught up, as i can appreciate both sides of the coin, Ill answer a few quiries!
How do they know what music is played & pay appropriate people, Simple, Neilsen tracking, A computer that listens to all Radio stations & can recognise 99.99% of tracks.
PRS is for the UK, Almost all Western Countries have similar organisations, were similar rules apply, its not just the UK
The money has to go to lots of people, Writers, Producers, Performers, Record Labels etc
I was just thinking about something along these lines yesterday as i listened to BBC radio streamed via t'internet. Who pays for it - I certainly don't ?
How do they know what music is played & pay appropriate people, Simple, Neilsen tracking, A computer that listens to all Radio stations & can recognise 99.99% of tracks.
But my question was if I pay someone to rebroadcast the radio I am listening to in the office, how do they know what I am listening to?
john_drummer - Member
This system is hardly new - it's been developing since we first started recording and broadcasting music, and while it's not exactly ideal, it's the best they've managed to come up with so far.
You're not wrong John, but I think what is new is the aggressive and dare I say slightly unsavoury way in which they are trying to convince everyone that its illegal to listen to a radio anywhere away from your home without a PRS licence. From what I can see that is a very broad and blatantly incorrect interpretation of the act.
And I still want to know what they do with all the money they collect!
fair point.
The TV licencing people will be next on our cases. Actually, they already are.
"We have a list of all addresses that don't have a TV Licence. You'd better get one or we'll send the boys round.
What do you mean you don't have a television? Everybody has a television"
mastiles_fanylion - MemberBut my question was if I pay someone to rebroadcast the radio I am listening to in the office, how do they know what I am listening to?
[url= http://www.rajar.co.uk/ ]http://www.rajar.co.uk/[/url]
That will explain it better than I can, but basically they survey the public to get an idea of listening figures & trends
Right, thanks everyone, the company policy is now this,
The correspondence is filed along with a downloaded copy of the Act. We have highlighted the sections which we believe indicate that we do not need to buy a licence.
We will not reply to the circular letters, as we do not believe that they apply to us.
In the unlikely event that a PRS representative lands on our doorstep we will ask them to indicate which part of the Act defines our premises as a public place, or a place of public entertainment. If they can do so we will happily stump up, if they can’t we will then notify trading standards of what we believe to be at best a misleading, and at worst a fraudulent approach to this matter by the PRS.
I will also make a complaint to Trading Standards as a private individual to test our understanding of the matter.
In all cases if we are wrong we will hold our hands up and stump up, whatever it is that we owe.
(My business partner and I have a side bet on that they have employed someone that used to work for a private parking company or similar, due the simialrity in the approach used.)
what i would do...
We just ignore them
There's no public access to our office & radios can't be heard outside
Before they're done they'll be trying extort money out of companies whose employees have radios in their vans etc
If it makes you feel any better, I have a cheque for around £17 somewhere from the PRS.
As we would have had to split it 4 ways (we were a proper democracy and all that) we just framed it instead 🙂
I think the PRS are desperate to open new 'revenue streams' due to the death of local live music - it's been made pretty unpleasant for a landlord to even consider putting on bands from what I understand, and all these pubs used to pay PRS for the privilege. I guess they still do, but maybe it's considerably less than for live music?
Depends where you are brassneck. No shortage of pubs & bars in Leeds putting on live music
Some places, albeit not many in Leeds, operate a 'pay to play' policy where the band basically hires the venue; others operate a 'flyer' scheme where the band only gets paid according to the number of punters that bring a flyer with them. Both these schemes allow the venue to easily afford the PRS licence, but it's not popular with the bands