[GPW]

After all The broadcaster already pays PRS fees.

[Wizard]

Originally Posted by GPW

After all The broadcaster already pays PRS fees.

The licence isn't just for radio. It covers any music (also from CD's, mp3's, Spotify etc) that a business might want to use to entertain it's staff and / or customers.

Work places have to pay for other services (waste, water, electrics, etc). Why should they be allowed to use other people's work (in this case music) for free?

The music industry's on it's knees at the moment. The last thing it needs is another lost source of income.

[radioman2]

Originally Posted by GPW

After all The broadcaster already pays PRS fees.

This one's already been done to death a million times.Like it or not I agree with the other post above.If you don't want to pay then don't listen.

[mbessex]

Originally Posted by Wizard

The licence isn't just for radio. It covers any music (also from CD's, mp3's, Spotify etc) that a business might want to use to entertain it's staff and / or customers.

Work places have to pay for other services (waste, water, electrics, etc). Why should they be allowed to use other people's work (in this case music) for free?

The music industry's on it's knees at the moment. The last thing it needs is another lost source of income.

UTTER TOSH -

[overline]

Originally Posted by mbessex

UTTER TOSH -

Why?

[jon craig]

Originally Posted by mbessex

UTTER TOSH -

Thanks for that insightful, constructive and detailed response.

I assume that you will also be going into work on Monday and telling your boss that he can have your services for free? If you ask me this idea about being paid for a service you provide or product you create is overrated - it'll never catch on.

[lundavra]

I don't think most people would object to charging a company playing music over loudspeakers around the building but it gets more suspect when an employee listens to a radio at his place of work. I cannot see any difference between me listening to Radio 2 at home and doing so at work where I used to be often on my own anyway but theoretically the PRS could have demanded payment by my employer.

What about the many people working from home, should their employer pay PRS if they listen to their radio whilst working.

Are they going to go after company cars that are fitted with car radios?

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by jon craig

Thanks for that insightful, constructive and detailed response.

I assume that you will also be going into work on Monday and telling your boss that he can have your services for free? If you ask me this idea about being paid for a service you provide or product you create is overrated - it'll never catch on.

It's not quite the same. If you worked making floggle-toggles then a better comparison would be an equivalent of the PRS going around demanding extra payments from the people who had perhaps bought these floggle-toggles secondhand because they thought someone should pay a second time for their use.

Do the musicians pay the originally maker of their musical instruments again every time they use them?

[johnnyoxford]

Originally Posted by lundavra

Do the musicians pay the originally maker of their musical instruments again every time they use them?

No but it's copyright law. The PRS and all the other copyright institutions didn't just set themselves up from nothing, they were created by the industry to apply the law.

One thing that does strike me in this now digital age as being quite OTT is the cost to the broadcasters, in 2010, £22.71 per minute of music played on Radio 2, on Radio 4 it was £26.40 per minute. Not sure why the differential, I thought it was based on the size of your audience.

Radio 3 £11.07 - Classic FM £4.55

???

[Mapperley Ridge]

Oh god - not this one again. get over it. It's the law.

[Sidechain]

The music business is never on its knees! thats total crap, if it was then there would be no music in the top 40, labels would be going bankrupt left right and centre and festivals, events etc wouldn't go ahead. I think the PRS payment for work places is just silly just another money making scheme.

[radioman2]

Originally Posted by Sidechain

The music business is never on its knees! thats total crap, if it was then there would be no music in the top 40, labels would be going bankrupt left right and centre and festivals, events etc wouldn't go ahead. I think the PRS payment for work places is just silly just another money making scheme.

Can of worms time............

[darkisland]

It's sooo depressing that so many people are so dim that they can't understand this one. Probably the same types who use cracked software and buy pirated DVD's. .

[radioman2]

Originally Posted by darkisland

It's sooo depressing that so many people are so dim that they can't understand this one. Probably the same types who use cracked software and buy pirated DVD's. .

Yepp!!

[Wizard]

Originally Posted by Sidechain

The music business is never on its knees! thats total crap, if it was then there would be no music in the top 40, labels would be going bankrupt left right and centre and festivals, events etc wouldn't go ahead. I think the PRS payment for work places is just silly just another money making scheme.

Labels are going bankrupt.

EMI racked up debts of £1.75billion, before being reclaimed by the banks. Warners had debts of £323 million before being sold.

Virgin records has been all but moth-balled... Geffen UK is closing.

It's pretty bleak. Even Universal (the biggest label) only managed to break 3 UK artists last year - because they're cutting investment in new acts right back.

Events are a different matter. But only the biggest acts make any money from those. There are hundred of others who don't.

They'll always be a top 40 - but what you're seeing is fewer new artists, less money on development and a generally shrinking industry. Not good for diversity.

Bit of background reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011...tal-revolution

[alcockell]

I suppose if the PRS and PPL enabled a one-stop process to apply, and where you could then see immediately how much it was going to cost... then it might sweeten the pill.

Instead, you have the PRS paperwork - then you get a visit from people with tape measures and you get hit with a variable fee... Maybe have the option of loading in a JPEG of your floorplan, and see the costs before purchase?

Might simplifying the paperwork get people more onside?

[Bundyman]

Originally Posted by GPW

After all The broadcaster already pays PRS fees.

If they are playing a radio....yes, as fees have already been paid by broadcasters.

If they are playing Cd/MP3 etc....a fee should still apply

Simples

[Trucker_Rob]

So long as the radio can't be heard on the 'shopfloor' and is just restricted to the store room out back or in individual offices etc., who is actually going to know?

Most punters won't of ever heard of these licenses and I would bet any money that the vast majority of people that have the radio on at work do so without a license.

[mbessex]

Originally Posted by jon craig

Thanks for that insightful, constructive and detailed response.

I assume that you will also be going into work on Monday and telling your boss that he can have your services for free? If you ask me this idea about being paid for a service you provide or product you create is overrated - it'll never catch on.

For putting on a performance yes, for playing CD's or music in public to enhance the surroundings yes. I have no objection to a hotel paying PRS for the piped music system. I think making a garage where two guys work fixing cars to have the radio on is a distortion of fair. I think most fair minded people know and appreciate the difference between when the music being played is being used for financial gain or as part of the experience or of no financial impact.
As the stations have already paid a very fair PRS paying for people to listen is only double dipping.
Airplay helps artists and helps promote and sell music.
If the attitude of PRS continues in this mannor workplace litening is going to suffer and the stations are going to suffer.

I totally believe in paying fair but I think it is unfair and unreasonable to march around emanding people cannot have the radio on at work.
Extracting money from companies that have a radio on is not going to save the record industry from financial issues. And if the industry think that the only way to save labels is through charging people to listen to the radio quite frankly they deserve to go out of business.

[mbessex]

Originally Posted by jon craig

Thanks for that insightful, constructive and detailed response.

I assume that you will also be going into work on Monday and telling your boss that he can have your services for free? If you ask me this idea about being paid for a service you provide or product you create is overrated - it'll never catch on.

In that case why no demand that I have a PRS licence at home for listning to the radio?

[Marcus Bradshaw]

Originally Posted by mbessex

For putting on a performance yes, for playing CD's or music in public to enhance the surroundings yes. I have no objection to a hotel paying PRS for the piped music system. I think making a garage where two guys work fixing cars to have the radio on is a distortion of fair. I think most fair minded people know and appreciate the difference between when the music being played is being used for financial gain or as part of the experience or of no financial impact.
As the stations have already paid a very fair PRS paying for people to listen is only double dipping.
Airplay helps artists and helps promote and sell music.
If the attitude of PRS continues in this mannor workplace litening is going to suffer and the stations are going to suffer.

I totally believe in paying fair but I think it is unfair and unreasonable to march around emanding people cannot have the radio on at work.
Extracting money from companies that have a radio on is not going to save the record industry from financial issues. And if the industry think that the only way to save labels is through charging people to listen to the radio quite frankly they deserve to go out of business.

Firstly, if I read the words 'double dipping' again on this subject I'm going postal. Aside from the laziness involved in generalising about royalties in that way, it simply does not apply.

The practice of charging businesses for music use pre-dates radio station payments by a considerable amount of time therefore it simply is not the case that PRS/PPL charge the radio stations first, then businesses. The whole argument is BS so please stop repeating what others have said as if it is meaningful... it isn't.

That aside, I think we can all agree PRS/PPL need to exercise some discretion when it comes to charging small businesses who occasionally put the radio on. I believe one of the reasons this became an issue was over zealous collection antics when PRS outsourced a few years ago... I think that's changed now.

However, the bottom line is, if you do have music on at work as standard you rightly need a license, which are actually very reasonably priced for small businesses.

As others have said, if you're too tight to cough up, switch it off. It's not a difficult equation.

The sense of entitlement some of the posters here seem to have, especially when it comes to helping themselves to other peoples hard work, is really quite staggering.

[Bundyman]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bradshaw

Firstly, if I read the words 'double dipping' again on this subject I'm going postal. Aside from the laziness involved in generalising about royalties in that way, it simply does not apply.

The practice of charging businesses for music use pre-dates radio station payments by a considerable amount of time therefore it simply is not the case that PRS/PPL charge the radio stations first, then businesses. The whole argument is BS so please stop repeating what others have said as if it is meaningful... it isn't.

The history lesson is really irrelevant.

Go postal if you like, but it is "Double Dipping" that PRS are guilty of.

The radio stations pay to air the songs they play. To charge again for the people hearing the same thing can only be called "Double Dipping"

I totally agree that artists should be paid...& they are, by the radio stations.

[Mapperley Ridge]

Originally Posted by Bundyman

The history lesson is really irrelevant.

As is this thread. It's been done to death last year. The only people "double dipping" are those who insist on dragging it all up again.

[Marcus Bradshaw]

Originally Posted by Bundyman

The history lesson is really irrelevant.

Go postal if you like, but it is "Double Dipping" that PRS are guilty of.

The radio stations pay to air the songs they play. To charge again for the people hearing the same thing can only be called "Double Dipping"

I totally agree that artists should be paid...& they are, by the radio stations.

If you think using glib pointless phrases helps your argument then carry on. Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

[Richard O'Hagan]

It's fair for businesses to pay if they're piping music through a PA system, but c'mon, a small stand-alone radio with an internal speaker is not capable of making a "public performance".

Small radios are just to help staff pass the time, the music does not contribute to the bottom line.

The law is an ass.