just come across this article about the Performing Rights Society suing Kwik-Fit , because its employees listen to radios at work. :surprised:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7029892.stm
Printable View
just come across this article about the Performing Rights Society suing Kwik-Fit , because its employees listen to radios at work. :surprised:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7029892.stm
This will be some miffed solicitor that has been charged 5 grand for an exhaust.
The PRS says you have to have permission to play every song - surely this permission is the fact that the radio station pays royalties every time they play a track, and that allows them to broadcast the music freely to any place which has a radio tuned in to that station? If the offending establishment were playing the music from a CD, then I could see the technicalities falling in the PRS's favour.
They really aught to be going after all these senseless people who play music in their cars with their windows down. How dare they let other people overhear some music.
This is getting stupid. What ever happened to common sense ?
Whats next - charging people because they play mp3's on their headphones too loud so they are effectively "broadcasting" it to a local area?
Craziness...
Actually that would be really nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee @ SCAN
The amount of people with **** headphones on the tube. I can only take some solice in their defening themselfs.
My worst offender was Mr Evenessence. Imagine a fat blond 18 year old man listening to the same fricken track again and again. I'm not generally a fan of christain rockers on the whole. Let alone repeated all the way from east finchley to bloody old street.
To be honest, if they are listening loud enough that you can hear them on the tube, they are paying a much higher price... with their hearing. No matter how much the headphones leak, I can't imagine that level of volume at prolonged volume not cause some irreversible hearing damage.
What a load of balls...
We have the Radio on at work, as it forms an active demo of our car radios. Should we be sued?
We do having something about PRS in the window though...
Is the PRS the equivalent of the RIAA in the UK, or what are their relations? Anyway, I also find this case to be ridiculous. Since the case is not getting thrown out, I assume that they have some legal ground for the lawsuit, but I think there is very little ethical ground here for the lawsuit in my opinion.
mechanics don't have personal radios for goodness sake they just "test" the customers car radios out, thats why your car stereo controls are always covered with mucky fingerprints when you pick it up :)
For sure. Or whose wife ditched him for a muscley young mechanic with a massive...... wrench :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Clunk
And yeah, this is indeed stupid. I'm surprised its not been thrown out yet. You are allowed to listen to the radio with your mates... so you should be able to listen to the radio with your workmates too. If they aren't charging people for coming in to the garage and listening to the radio, then it seems like a stupid case.
Also, if they get done... a billion other businesses are probably in the exact same position. Loads of offices all over the country allow staff to listen to music, hair dressers, electronics shops, macdonalds, all the supermarkets, etc.. They all play music.
Well, apparently, you can't get better than a Kwik Fit Fitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by acrobat
lol
Well, no. The broadcasters are broadcasting to the public, but that confers no right on commercial organisations to play those broadcasts to the public. Any organisation can, however, get a licence that would permit such public performances, and they aren't expensive. Under £100, as I understand it, or to put it another way, under £2/week!Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilWeevil
Personally, I have NO sympathy for Kwik-fit. Every time I've been into my local branch, the radio has been blaring out, and it's been going on for years. And it's not been just the one branch.
I'd guess that it's a very widespread habit. And it's so common that I can't see how management, both local and national, can fail to have been aware of it. Therefore, regardless of whatever official policies they may say they have, their failure to stop it comes across as tacit approval, and the existence of an unenforced company policy banning it suggests mere lip-service to a law they knew about but thought was ignorable.
I'm not particularly familiar with this aspect of copyright law (as it doesn't affect me) but as I understand it (and the judge seems to agree) there does at least seem to be a case to answer.
EvilWeevil, I can't see how you can draw the distinction between the radio and CD. Any use of a copyright-protected work is done either with permission from the rights holder, or under some statutory exemption (such as time-shifting, news reporting, academic/study purposes, court reporting, etc) or under licence. The first two categories wouldn't apply in this case whether it's radio or CD, so it comes down to what the Copyright Act says about unauthorised public performances.
Copyright holders, be they artists or record companies, have to right to be remunerated for use of their property. Yet, it seems, Kwik-fit is too tight to be prepared to pay £2/week to licence it for one of their branches. And while I haven't studied the cost structure, I'd bet that comes down on a per-branch basis for multiple branches.
Well, if they're too tight to pay for what they use, they shouldn't use it.
So ..... if there's a case to answer, and the judge thinks there is, then there should be the ability for the copyright holder to bring the case.
Oh, and Acrobat is right .... a lot of other businesses could find themselves in this situation. At a rough guess, that's a major reason for the case .... to set an example for others.
So, businesses .... fork out the £85-ish a year, or turn the radios off.
Oh, and the PRS is not the RIAA.
I think a lot of them will already be paying that annual sub. I used to work in a food place that did that because they wanted to play cheesy easy listening music on CD's for the customers. If companies aren't paying that, they should or they are technically ripping off peoples music.
I dunno about Kwik Fit though. If they are playing it to their customers out of proper speakers or whatever, then they are being naughty. But if this is just a bunch of mechanics in their work shop, listening to a little radio while they work or whatever, then I dont think they should be required to pay extra. But I suppose it does cross over if they are playing these little radios so loud that its partly for the cusomer's benefit.
The law is most likely saying something completely different, but from my moral perspective, I believe that intent and the value-added of the music playback needs to be weighted.
For instance, if the owner of a local barber shop plays the radio in the shop while waiting for a customer to pass time (intent), then I do not really think they should be paying for the privilege of not having to switch the radio off once a customer put their feet through the door. The customer probably did not enter the shop for the enjoyment of the music, and I'd argue that the use of the radio there has limited value for the purpose of the environment.
I purposely left out the word 'commercial' out of 'value' in that example because I would have an issue with, say, someone set-up an free event in the middle of a park with a radio being played through loudspeakers used in gigs. Okay, it's a stretched example, I can't quite think why anyone would do that (and doubt they'd get the permission to do so), but even assuming that there is no commercial purpose to that, the 'intent' is obvious and value (despite it being non commercial, the whole 'show' is based on the public broadcast).
Of course, proving 'intent' and gauging the value-added of music in any environment is a lot of work, and it is easier to just have everyone, from the local newsagent to the department store pay for a licence instead. But I know it would sit better with me.
Personally, I am not sure if I've ever set foot in a Kwik Fit (don't have a car, rarely travel in one). So I've got no particular love or hate for them. I do not think that they are playing music with the intent of attracting customers, nor does it sound it has such effect (may even be an annoyance).
The Performing Rights Society (PRS) is UK version of the RIAA . From what the head of litigation for Sony BMG been saying recently this is just the beginning :
Quote fromQuote:
Pariser believes in a very broad definition of stealing that is echoed by many supporters in the RIAA. She believes that users who buy songs are entitled to one, and only one copy. Burning CDs is just another name for stealing, in her mind. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'."
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9218
I personally think this is madness , say for example I need to borrow a hammer from a mate to fix some thing . Does it mean that my mate will get sued because the who ever made the hammer lost out on sale of a hammer ?
I'm sorry it's just arse. To charge people who listen to the radio as well as those who play music on it is double-charging and is usually illegal, unless the government do it through stealth taxes on motorists.
If the customers had their own radios on it wouldn't be illegal, but because a mechanic does it is a re-broadcast? It's very dubious logic.
Next will be Taxi drivers and http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?...e=pp&pid=10978 :P. I think it's all a bit crazy really...
...I hear they're the boys to trust, oi!Quote:
Originally Posted by Clunk
http://images.scotsman.com/2003/09/28/sb2809kwikb.jpg
If (in my opinion) this were about a few mechanics ignoring a company rule, or just acting off their own bat, then I'd agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by acrobat
I think the problem arises because :-
1) It seems to be so widespread as to be tantamount to effectively be company policy.
2) Kwit-fit management apparently have a rule saying "no radios" but it seems to be totally and absolutely ignored.
I mean, why do KwitFit have a rule saying "no radios"? There seems to be a limited number of plausible reasons. One might be that a radio blaring out could be a health and safety risk in what is, with cars moving about and ramps going up and down, a dangerous environment. But if so, it's a health and safety risk that's widely if not completely ignored. I certainly don't see them claiming that in their defence.
Or perhaps their reason for the rule is that they're miserable beggars that don't want to give their staff or customers a bit of entertainment. I don't see it, personally.
Or, perhaps it's because they're aware that they need a licence, don't have one and are too tight to pay for one. In which case, they should ensure branch managers enforce the rules. But I'd say that, as with a lot of aspects of company law, it isn't just what notional rules you write that matter but whether you act, in practice, in the way your rules say you should. In other words, they'll be liable for their actions, not just their rules. They can't eliminate liability by saying it's against the rules with putting procedures in place to ensure the rules are followed.
But they don't ensure that even their own rules are enforced. If, and I repeat IF a court is convinced that their failure to enforce their own rules amounts to tacit approval of the use of personal radios, then they are both legally and, in my view, morally liable.
It's worth pointing pout that the PRS haven't sued the mechanics. They sued the company. I would infer from that that if ad when this case goes to court, they will be required to prove, to the required standard, that the company is liable. Nor, in my opinion, would this court action be happening if the overall situation was that radios aren't used, but it's a rule that breached here and there on an occasional basis.
The problem is that they need a licence (or so it's argued) to play music, and don't have one. The ONLY thing they need to do to avoid this case is to buy a cheap licence. Or, of course, not break the law by doing something they need a licence for without having one. They could have enforced their own rules, and if they had, they wouldn't be in this situation.
But in any event, I'd stress that the judge has said there's a case to answer. That does NOT mean the RPS will necessarily win. Kwik-fit could. That's why we have courts.
No, because the rights the broadcasters have paid for is to broadcast. They haven't paid for other companies to publicly perform. That's (partly) what the RPS is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucelles
The RPS is a UK body doing broadly the same thing in the UK as the RIAA does in the US, yes. But your thread title says this is for the RIAA making money. It isn't. The RIAA aren't anything to do with this, so why accuse the RIAA .... unless, of course, it's the usual anti-copyright whinge by those that don't want to pay for what they take ... often by downloading. Any old excuse to bash the RIAA, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by HyeongSeong
What does the PRS do with the money it makes from these licenses? is it any music or just copyrighted
I hope the PRS gets hit with a massive bill for being so stupid. They won't win because it will mean that everyone who has a radio that might be heard by anyone else will be breaking the law. It makes me want to pirate music or firebomb their headquarters.
Can we just clarify what "perform" means in legal terms?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
No, it doesn't mean that .... quite. But arguably, it comes close. However, the law has been as it is now for many, many years and there has been no attempt to use it in anything like that broad a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
This case is about a large and apparently thriving business not buying a licence that it seems that they damn well knew they needed, and neither would they stop their employees breaking the law, repeatedly and persistently over a period of years. They deserve to get clobbered.
If and when the PRS try to interpret this as covering an individual playing a radio as they walk down the street (though technically it may cover that), or even singing a song themselves, then moan about that then. But that is nothing like what this case is about.
Technically, if you walk up to a stranger and tap them on the shoulder to ask them the time, you've committed a battery (and perhaps assault) .... but have you ever heard of the law being used that way?
It distributes the money to the holders of the copyright music, as royalties. The PRS is a not-for-profit organisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumagoro
In theory, every time a musical work is created, the creator automatically owns the copyright. And that copyright will last a considerable number of years (70 if I remember correctly). There are exceptions, such as when the creator creates the work during the course of their employment, in which case the employer owns the copyright. The same applies to other creative works, too, like photographs, websites, paintings, poems or novels, and so on. Oh, and for music, it isn't just the musical creation that has copyright, but the recording too.
So if you write some songs, form a band, and play the songs in the local park, you don't need a licence because you own the copyright. Now suppose you record those songs and sell CDs. Again, you own the copyright to the music on the CD and if you've recorded the CDs, you'd own the copyright to the recording too. But if you signed a record deal with a company, it's likely the record company will own the rights to the recording.
In order to sell as many CDs as possible, it's likely that you'd want your work played on the radio. But that could mean hundreds of individual playings on dozens over radio stations over many years. Would you want to chase the radio station for a royalty payment every time they played one of your songs? The paperwork and admin would be horrendous.
Enter the RPS.
The RPS collects payments, on behalf of musical creators, from the users of that music and makes payments to the rights holders. The MCPS does broadly the same in relation to the recordings, and the two work together.
Of course, musicians don't have to join the RPS or use their services. And the RPS can't collect royalties on behalf of those that don't.
So ... instead of individual rights holders all trying to collect their royalties in relation to every individual use of their work, it's done on a sort-of aggregate basis by the RPS and MCPS. Any user of copyright music, ranging from the BBC down to a cafe playing a radio, is supposed to buy a licence. Exactly what that licence costs depends on the nature and extent of the usage it's being put to, with some licences being a simple flat fee, and others (such as radio broadcasters) being a rather more complex formula. After all, a radio station playing music 24/7 will be a rather heavier user of music than one running primarily chat shows, but where two or three tracks an hour may be played. The fee basis, therefore, varies accordingly.
As I understand it, it means the playing of music. Public performance relates to performances occurring, essentially, outside the home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiternoise
But to answer your question, "perform" means (I believe) playing a radio or CD, staging a concert, or even simply singing a song.
But .... the (legal) issue is when you are or are not allowed to make such a performance without infringing copyright, because it's not actually the performance per se that's getting Kwit-fit sued, but the copyright infringement. And copyright law can be quite complex. There are many situations where an act infringes copyright unless it falls into one of a series of exemptions. For instance, copying computer software. Generally speaking, copying software is against the law .... but there's a specific exemption that allows the authorised user of a piece of software to make necessary backups. Similarly, broadcast TV shouldn't be recorded, even for home use .... unless it's for "time-shifting". Copying a section of a published work may be infringing, but there's an exemption (of sorts) for academic study ..... and for news reporting. And so on.
Exactly where the exemptions for public performance of music are or are not, I don't know.
I drew the distinction as the purchase of a CD confers a license for the purchaser to play it in a private environment, and not to broadcast it in any public fashion, whereas I assumed that the radio station pays-per-play to give it the right to broadcast to radios throughout the land, and whoever hears the music is purely incidental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
This conclusion was drawn purely on common sense rather than legal knowledge, however, and I bow to your superior command of the rulebooks :)
Also, wouldn't common sense dictate that in order for Kwik-Fit to be liable, the music would have to be having a beneficial effect on their profits? As I doubt auto workshops attract much passing trade, it would seem that the radio was not being used as a commercial device.
The PRS isn't the same as the RIAA at all. What you need to understand here is the difference between the copyright of the publisher of a song and that of the entity that owns a particular recording of a song. Every piece of music carries two distinct copyrights: the copyright in the music and lyrics, and the copyright in the actual performance. That's why most CDs have two copyright marks, © and P in a circle.
The PRS protects the rights of composers, song-writers and music publishers, and has no association with recording companies, apart from taking money from them and disbursing it to the relevant artists or publishers. It is the public performance of works that Kwik-Fit are being sued for, this case has nothing to do with the copyrights of any recording company.
Basically, a song-writer typically assigns his copyright to a publisher, who licences the song to a recording company for mechanical reproduction and returns the royalties to the song-writer minus an admin fee. The publishing company, through the MCPS-PRS, also collects royalties on any cover-versions of that song, and any public performances (which includes playing any recording of the song to the general public).
[Edit]If you play CDs or other recordings in a public place, then you also need a licence from the PPL, which handles the copyright in the actual recorded performance, and pays royalties to the record companies. You are exempt from this requirement if you only play radio.
That was why i questioned what "perform" means in this sense, perform to me implies tangible benefit for the company involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilWeevil
That isn't important under the law though. Any performance of a copyrighted work in a manner which can be heard by members of the public needs to be licensed, no matter whether there is any commercial gain or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiternoise