Performing rights society licence?

[mogwai_no5]

Hello everyone. Not quite sure where to put this or if even people will know anything about it but thought I would try. Basicaly my dad runs a chinese take away and some times though not regularly he puts the tv in the shop on for customers to watch. Basic TV, non digital channels. Now the other day my dad got a phone call from someone at the performing rights society about attaining a licence of £120 to continue having the TV on in the shop. The shop is small and there is one large semi circular seat for around 6 people plus place for people to stand up though rarely more than 10 ppl at a time in the shop are waiting. Most of the time the TV is not on as its quite troublesome to get it started at it is on a high bracket with no remote control.

 

They have now sent a letter about the matter saying and I quote "PRS do from time to time visit premises in order to assess what, if any, licencing requirements there may be. You may be liable for infringement of our copyright if without our licence you continue to perform or resume performing our musical repertoire on your premises". It seems to me that this would be linked to live performers maybe. They have a website (Performing Right Society Home) though I have looked through and am still unsure what applies to my dad.

 

On a side note my dad is chinese and does not speak english well but he was definitely given the impression him having a TV in the shop was a violation. My Uncle has also had contact from these people. If anyone knows more about this it would be very much appreciated.

[gizmo111]

Yep I remember from when I had a pub that the PRS had to be paid for a tele on the premises, as well as for a juke box. Can't remeber the full ins and outs of it - sorry.

Ring them to clarify.

And they do prosecute if you don't comply.

[mogwai_no5]

ahh no way, but does it matter that the tv isn't like advertised as entertainment for the takeaway and that the number of people is quite low? can't believe that you have to pay for music that may or may not be played during a TV show. Thought that it would surely be covered by the BBC as the broadcasters of the tv shows. Well I think my dad said he would jst take TV down if a licence would be needed, still irritating though.

[gizmo111]

It doesn't matter that it is not for entertainment it is not being used in private.

[mogwai_no5]

ok, thanks for the info. Dad just gonna get rid of TV I think. get the customers in with the fine cuisine instead lol.

[Sidewinder]

We even have to have one for workers listening to the radio in the warehouse. Mind you I have never seen one on display in our local takeaway

[StormWarrior]

Background music in shops, resturants, offices, all need a licence.

[BenScoobert]

Sorry to awaken a 1 year old thread, but.

My friend has a Thai Restaurant and the PRS have recently started to pester him.

He has 3 Thai CDs that he alternates between and am I right in thinking if he has permission from the artist(s) then he does not need this overpriced nonsense licence.

 

£400!!! they really cant be serious.

[1stlifeline]

You definatly need a license whatever you play. I had a call from them and told them that I dont play any music in my place of work although occasionally on a Sunday if I am stocktaking I may play a radio but the shop is closed then. I was told that it dosnt matter if the shop is open or closed, if you have the means to play music or television on the premises you must have the PR licence.

[1stlifeline]

They also told me that they record your phone call and then do spot check calls. I was also under the impression that its nearer £1000 pounds than 400

[robin9342]

The logic behind PRS licensing is that you have gained by being able to play music in your establishment. Fair enough, studies have shown that music can influence your customers in various beneficial ways.

 

However, surely whenever you play an artist's music, particularly new songs, you are advertising that artist's tracks, which of course, benefits the artist. For example, several years ago, I heard some music being played in a clothes shop. I thought it was great music and sought out and bought the album!

 

The whole thing seems to me to be profiteering by an already greedy industry!

[Rob S]

If you go to the PRS website, there are no figures available listing the cost of their licences. Instead you have to fill in an application form detailing the type of business and the intended use of the music before they give a figure.

 

Given that the artists/record companies etc are making money from the sale of the music, plus royalties from when it is played on the radio, you do wonder about the ethics behind charging business for playing background music by the PRS.

[robin9342]

Um, not true. There is a complete list of prices (some of them shockingly high),

for example:

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/Tariff%20RS.pdf

[buzby]

However, it is quite permissible to use 'non-PRS' music and as such can avoid paying them any money. They dislike this intensely, and it only works if you have full control of the source being used to play the music (a TV or radio wouldn't work). ''It is possible to purchase non-PRS music on CD that is exempt from the process, abd showing these CDs to the inspector or proving that the recording/s have been made for or for use by the venue (say, Thai music) this additional licencing can be avoided.

[BenScoobert]

I spoke to PRS today, all non copyrighted music is exempt. Now to go sing a Thai song

[buzby]

They're wrong! It has nothing to do with 'copyright' but how the music is 'published'. All music is copyright, but the PRS acts as agents for the major music publishers, extracting a levy based on the (average) percentage their tunes are used. If you use music with no reproduction fees, it is still copyright of the creator. You could also argue if the Thai CDs are published by the Thai Music Group, they are probably not members of the UK PRS and therefor not subject to any fees.

[BenScoobert]

I asked how much went to Thailand, they said it is distributed equally between international countries..........

[buzby]

Yes, right!! Ask for a financial breakfown to prove it! They operate pretty much the same way as the MCPS (Mechanical Copyright Protection Society) who will want a fee from you should you transfer a CD to a tape or other medium (dunno about MP3 though), basically they grab what they can, keep a % themselves, then pass the rest to those deemed eligible for the aforemention annual payout.

[borisbeaver]

I've just directed a gangshow for Cornwall Scouts and have recently dealt with the PRS. For my show, I have been charged 2% of the ticket receipts +vat. I have had no problem with them.

[buzby]

This is a slightly different issue - live music (as opposed to replaying existing recordings). However, was the 2% calculated on the permission to use recorded music, or to sing (published) songs live?

[Pete Rogers]

It's all a big con. All the radio stations should stop paying the license fee's and instead charge the Artist for playing their songs by way of a promotions fee. Anyone remember when Radio1 wouldn't play any Cliff Richard songs. What a lot of fuss from the record company then. You can't have you cake and eat it. And yes PPL & PRS give about 20% of their turn over to the record companies and Artist so the only people making money from this racket is the Directors of these organizations.

[assisted blonde]

Sorry got to take issue with this.

PRS distribute just under 90% of the fees that they collect to members in the form of Royalty payments, only administration costs are deducted as it is a not for profit organisation

A PRS licence is a requirement under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 as it states that you need to get permission from the copyright holder to perfom music in public. PRS collected the Royalty fees on behalf of the creaters of music (writers) as they have assigned their their rights to PRS to collect the fees on their behalf.

The PRS website has tariffs on it for most industries and the costs are there for anyone to see.

The cost of a PRS licence depends on the type of industry you are in and the type of music used.

PRS have agreements with similar societies around the world which enables them to collect in the UK on behalf of those societies.

If a piece of music is used in public then it is only right that the ownerof that music should be paid for its use.

If a music user does not obtain a licence for its use then PRS can and do take action for infringement of copyright .

[robin9342]

If I were a shop owner and I bought cans of Coke to give away to my customers, should I then buy a "soft drinks" license so that further royalties can be distributed to the industry? Do libraries have to pay publishers extra fees when they lend out books? Its the same principle. If a shop buys a CD to play in store, then the writer/artist/record company have had their profits. Likewise, if the radio is on. Why should anyone have to pay twice? Greed maybe?

[assisted blonde]

Because its a public not a private performance, if music is used in public then it is being used for a purpose to enhance the users business and therefore a fee should be paid to the person who ownbs it. if I for example owned a minibius and someone wanted to use it then I would be entitled to charge them for that use, its exactly the same with music, just because its intangible dosnt mean it isnt owned by someone, and if you want to use it to enhance your business then you should pay for it.

Do you honestly think that it is fair for the owners/writers not to be paid when their work is used? especially when someone is using it to encourage the public to use their service or buy their products.

So its not a con its a legal requirement taking somthing without the owners consent is theft, its exactly the same but by having a Licence you are receiving the consent/right to use it. If you dont want a liocence then dont use copyright musioc in your business.

[robin9342]

No, I think you missed the point. The owners/writers have already been paid when you purchased their music. Why should it be theft if you have already paid for it? To use another analogy, if I buy a pair of Nike trainers, should I have to pay a fee to wear them in public? Similarly, when I buy a copy of Windows, I dont have to pay Microsoft an additional licence fee to use my computer - even if its in public! It may well be a legal requirement to have a PRS licence, but its still greed. As stated (back in 2008!!!), public performance of music BENEFITS the writer/artist with publicity - I heard music in public, liked it and went and bought the album!