just come across this article about the Performing Rights Society suing Kwik-Fit , because its employees listen to radios at work.![]()
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7029892.stm
just come across this article about the Performing Rights Society suing Kwik-Fit , because its employees listen to radios at work.![]()
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7029892.stm
_______________________________________________
People know how to read a book with words but not a book without words. People know how to play a stringed instrument, but not one without strings.
If you only know how to recognize something practical and nothing spiritual, how can you appreciate the wonders of music and books.
형성
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.
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.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
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...
[: O |=====|O :] Beyond Fashion Since 1948
Correct apart from the working partOriginally Posted by XTR
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
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.
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!
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.
Last edited by acrobat; 10-10-2007 at 01:19 AM.
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).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)