If you are a company where someone brings in a radio and plays out music during the day, does the company require a performance licence?. (This isn't a public place, its a factory btw)
The music royalties would be paid for by the radio station and as the company are not providing the radio it seems very odd to have them required to pay for this?.
Any thoughts, people in the know about this type of thing?
TiG
-- Hexus Meets Rock! --
Yes IIRC
AFAIK any place that plays radio without permission for large scale (so in radio buildings they are ok to play their own etc) for public use (i.e. not in your house) need the licence
Yup - there's even a section on the PRS website - http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/p...factories.aspx
Originally Posted by The Quentos
Gimme, gimme, gimme more money. Is that all they think about?
Turn the radio off and don't bother listening to it again. See how they, and their advertisers, like that.
This radio infestation is everywhere with those babbling idiotic DJ's about as interesting as a wet fart in a thunderstorm. I wouldn't pay to listen to that trash.
Yeah, we had to fork out for the workshop or they threatened to strike, really.
[
Hmmm, I should probably bring this up at work too as we have a radio in the warehouse (as much as Radio1 annoys me, I'd get hung if I removed it)
A while back, a shop I ran had a visit from people on behalf of PRS. They were checking all the shops in our shopping centre.
I didn't think we had a license, and trying to fob them off with 'It's all done through our head office' didn't work. After much searching of paperwork I found out that we actually did have a license, more through luck than judgement.
Neighbouring shops got fined though, so it's definitely worth the cost of the license.
Yes, you do. Well, sort-of.
Technically, you need permission from the owner of the rights in the music to use that music in a public performance (and that includes in offices and factories). The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act defines it as an infringement of copyright if you don't have that permission. The PRS doesn't represent all music, so I guess it's conceivable that there could be a radio station that was playing music that wasn't administered via the PRS, and in that case, you wouldn't need a PRS licence, but you'd still need permission from whoever owned the copyright.
In practice, the vast bulk of music is administered by the PRS for various performance rights, and therefore getting permission for those uses requires a PRS licence.
The CDPA essentially reserves all use of copyright material, with certain specific exceptions (like timeshifting for private, domestic purposes). When the broadcaster pays for the broadcasting use, that covers the broadcasting, but doesn't cover other subsequent unlicensed uses, including public performances. So when you listen on your personal radio, it's covered by the broadcast, and when you listen in your private home, it's similarly covered. But when a broadcast is used for non-private purposes, it isn't covered by the broadcast licence. And this actually makes sense, because it allows a variety of charges according to the use made of the music. If you want to use broadcast radio in, for instance, a small public bus or a church group, it's going to cost a lot less than if you pipe it throughout a factory or shopping centre with thousands of listeners, or are sending out an internet radio service with hundreds of thousands of listeners.
Therefore, the PRS administers a scheme where a variety of different types of non-private users can get a licence, with the fee reflecting the type and quantity of usage.
If you are running a business and, as part of that, you're playing broadcast material to the public, you need a licence to do it. That runs from the smallest of guest houses, village halls and tiny pubs up to the largest of factories or public functions. And if you don't, you're infringing copyright according to the CDPA, and could end up in court as a result.
TiG (20-10-2008)
Saracen does it again
Now I am not having a go here mate, far from it, I for one really do appreciate the depth and extent of knowledge which you provide here but I do need to know one thing..
Do you actually have an encyclopedaic memory and can quote verbatim on many subjects or are you one of the few people that actually uses the internet for something other then pr0n?
just wondering?
We're only here for the Banter - The Luvvies - Chewin' The Fat
Violence and Lubrication is the solution to fixing everything, if it still doesn't work, you need more lubrication.
He uses the internet, that's what it's there forSaracen does it again
Now I am not having a go here mate, far from it, I for one really do appreciate the depth and extent of knowledge which you provide here but I do need to know one thing..
Do you actually have an encyclopedaic memory and can quote verbatim on many subjects or are you one of the few people that actually uses the internet for something other then pr0n?
just wondering?.
The added value is that Saracen will include his own interpretation of the legalese you might turn up via googling and often provide relevant on topic example (but making it clear it is personal opinion of course).
Top modding I reckon.
Which, I believe, is not an extortionate amount in most cases.
You should see the the PRS bill to the BBC....
I wanted to check, I knew that i'd get a nice Saracen answer on this, however it is worthwhile being aware of it and it isn't that expensive £90 for a 25 person factory a year.
I wonder how many companies actually pay for it?.
P.S i Don't agree with it, but that's here nor there.
TiG
-- Hexus Meets Rock! --
How about we charge them for the privilege of bombarding us with advertising, noise pollution and inanity? £90 per year seems a fair charge which makes it even. It's impossible to turn off the racket, so it seems fair they should compensate ppl.
They'd soon be paying us to have radios on in factories. I wouldn't give 'em a licence unless they begged me
I do, obviously, use the internet. But it's bit more than that. I've got an interest in many things legal, as well as having relatives in various aspects of the legal system, from the police to the judiciary, and have have lots of conversations on a variety of subjects from a variety of perspectives over a good many years (about 30). I've also got an accountancy and economics background, which puts some of that sort of subject into context, and have been running my own business for >25 years as well. And as a writer and journalist, I've had a lot of interesting contacts over the years, up to and including getting dinner invitations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.He uses the internet, that's what it's there for
The added value is that Saracen will include his own interpretation of the legalese you might turn up via googling and often provide relevant on topic example (but making it clear it is personal opinion of course).
Top modding I reckon.
I've also got a large collection of books, including such interesting subjects as Keynes' General Theory (I know, I need to get a life), and a very large archive of articles, and a library with a couple of hundred Acts of Parliament. I also buy a wide range of magazines, whenever something interesting catches my eye, which include years worth of subscriptions to National Geographic, down to occasional copies of New Scientist or The Economist. And, as a writer and journalist, copyright is a subject that fairly close to my heart, as a substantial proportion of my income for a long time has depended in it, and there've been occasions when it's come close to court action to support it.
So yes, it certainly includes the net, and my memory is certainly far from "encyclopaedic", especially when it comes to detail of some subjects. But it goes a fair way beyond that. I usually know roughly what the situation is, but will often check out implications and details. And yes, I do often try to add my own interpretation but that's one reason why I stress, fairly regularly, that I'm not a lawyer. I'm just an opinionated bloke posting opinions on a web forum. I've usually got a reason for those opinions, but the grounding on which they're based might be pretty solid or fairly flimsy, and it's for the reader to decide how much, if any, faith to put in them.
Very impressive.
I bet your legs have gone numb a few times whilst on the lavatory with your latest literature. Happens to me when I read The Beano in there.
Dinner with the Chancellor? I hope you haven't been giving fiscal advice in the last few months
I didn't say which Chancellor .... or if I accepted the invitations.
But no. The current one, and more relevantly his predecessor, managed to royally mess it up completely without any assistance from me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
