[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by lundavra

That might be relevant if people were making copies of the music and then distributing to customers but many of those victimised just have someone listening to their own radio as they work, something I often used to do though no PRS man would get through our locked door without a warrant.

It's relevant because of the copyright implications of the various acts. If you buy a newspaper you do not breach anyone's copyright by letting someone else read it, but you do breach copyright by republishing it without consent. If you listen to the radio in private you don't breach copyright, but if you use the radio to play copyright material in public then you need a licence.

But we all know that already and no amount of cunning arguments will change that.

[trevgo]

Speaking as somebody who now has a red PRS sticker in the window of my premises, I have re-evaluated my original objections somehwat. Can anyone explain exactly how the revenue is distributed? I cannot imagine.

Personally, my objection to contributing to the sort of popularist, mega hyped, half talents played by the likes of Capital sticks in my craw like a fishbone (they'll only spend it on bling anyhow). They'll be making plenty of cash without my contribution.

How unhyped, more esoteric artists starting out make a living I don't know. The democratisation of music distribution has opened many options for new artists, but making money from it is not so easy. I thought of my PRS sticker whilst reading an interview with the 18 year old genius Jake Bugg. He has 100% talent running through his veins but making music a million miles away from the mass manufactured autotune pap that "hit radio" wants. Sure, 6 Music and R1 evenings are playing him, but how else to get exposure and the cash to pay the rent?

He's every bit as heartthrob fodder as Justin Beiber. 100 times the talent, but following his heart, not big industry dollars. If PRS are helping artists like this, I don't begrudge them at all.

[old pilot]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

It's relevant because of the copyright implications of the various acts. If you buy a newspaper you do not breach anyone's copyright by letting someone else read it, but you do breach copyright by republishing it without consent. If you listen to the radio in private you don't breach copyright, but if you use the radio to play copyright material in public then you need a licence.

But we all know that already and no amount of cunning arguments will change that.

But where do they stand if you only have R4 or a talk station
in your shop or workplace? No need for a PRS licence for speech anymore than an Indian restaurant playing Bollywood tunes.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by old pilot

an Indian restaurant playing Bollywood tunes.

Why did you have to go an mention that?

I've got chronic curry pangs now

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

It's relevant because of the copyright implications of the various acts. If you buy a newspaper you do not breach anyone's copyright by letting someone else read it, but you do breach copyright by republishing it without consent. If you listen to the radio in private you don't breach copyright, but if you use the radio to play copyright material in public then you need a licence.

But we all know that already and no amount of cunning arguments will change that.

But many of the cases have been people at work listening to a radio and the PRS have hit their employer because a member of the public might overhear it. By that principle the employer of any van driver listening to the radio with his window open should pay up.

[JELLIES0]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

It's relevant because of the copyright implications of the various acts. If you buy a newspaper you do not breach anyone's copyright by letting someone else read it, but you do breach copyright by republishing it without consent. If you listen to the radio in private you don't breach copyright, but if you use the radio to play copyright material in public then you need a licence.

But we all know that already and no amount of cunning arguments will change that.

I still fail to see any difference in principle whatsoever between a newspaper left, for example in a dentist's or optician's waiting room, and the transistor radio on the receptionist's desk.
Can you explain please Inkblot ?

[danrichards]

Originally Posted by lundavra

A play is different though, the theatre charges people to watch the play.

If it was controlled by the PRS then you might have to pay a tax on every copy of the script bought and pay for a licence to cover any premises where the actors rehearsed as well as their homes if they learnt the script there.

If the head is earning such a huge sum of money then I would not be surprised if he gets a bonus on top of that as well as a large pension.

It is and it isn't.
To my mind, and I'm happy to be corrected, I pay £30 for a seat to watch the play or I pay £30 for a radio to hear the song. In either circumstance the 'performer' has paid a licence to present it to me.

I think what I was trying to say was it's partly down to misconception. The misconception that buying a CD or paying your licence fee allows you to use the product you receive for whatever purpose.

[danrichards]

Originally Posted by trevgo

Speaking as somebody who now has a red PRS sticker in the window of my premises, I have re-evaluated my original objections somehwat. Can anyone explain exactly how the revenue is distributed? I cannot imagine.

Personally, my objection to contributing to the sort of popularist, mega hyped, half talents played by the likes of Capital sticks in my craw like a fishbone (they'll only spend it on bling anyhow). They'll be making plenty of cash without my contribution.

How unhyped, more esoteric artists starting out make a living I don't know. The democratisation of music distribution has opened many options for new artists, but making money from it is not so easy. I thought of my PRS sticker whilst reading an interview with the 18 year old genius Jake Bugg. He has 100% talent running through his veins but making music a million miles away from the mass manufactured autotune pap that "hit radio" wants. Sure, 6 Music and R1 evenings are playing him, but how else to get exposure and the cash to pay the rent?

He's every bit as heartthrob fodder as Justin Beiber. 100 times the talent, but following his heart, not big industry dollars. If PRS are helping artists like this, I don't begrudge them at all.

The relevance of whether you LIKE the music is a totally different argument.

However.

The 'half talents' that you're referring to are still performing a service. You pay for the right to play music to the public - which artists you choose to play are (predominantly) under your control. If the guy you mentioned is PRS registered then a proportion (although admittedly smaller than that of million selling chart artists) of the money brought in will go to him.

Without wanting to go off topic, the music Capital and similar stations play is dictated by what people buy. I also suspect that if he's reminiscent of 6Music then it doesn't fit with a CHR demographic anyway. End of the day, in 2012 this guy has every chance of performing, being signed and being played on a larger scale. His next single could just as easily go to number 1 as the next artist - it's just down to people buying it.

I'm sure the generations before you said the same about things you listened to in your youth too

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by JELLIES0

I still fail to see any difference in principle whatsoever between a newspaper left, for example in a dentist's or optician's waiting room, and the transistor radio on the receptionist's desk.
Can you explain please Inkblot ?

Many things are subject to copyright. The difference is in what acts will constitute a breach of copyright.

As I understand it, the content in a newspaper is protected by copyright in that no one is permitted to reproduce that content without permission. Letting someone read your copy of the Metro does not breach copyright because you are not reproducing the content.

The music played on the radio is likewise protected by copyright in that no one is permitted to play that music in public without permission. The PRS licence grants the holder permission to play the music in public (i.e. to the public or to employees in a workplace).

[CeeO]

But playing it in public isn't making a copy of it any more than letting someone read your newspaper is making a copy of the paper.

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by CeeO

But playing it in public isn't making a copy of it any more than letting someone read your newspaper is making a copy of the paper.

Exactly! You can let someone read your paper but you can't use the content in the paper without permission. You can let someone listen to your radio but you can't play it in public without permission. In both cases it's the content that is protected by copyright.

It's not rocket surgery, whatever anyone here may try to say.

[Wizard]

Originally Posted by trevgo

How unhyped, more esoteric artists starting out make a living I don't know. The democratisation of music distribution has opened many options for new artists, but making money from it is not so easy. I thought of my PRS sticker whilst reading an interview with the 18 year old genius Jake Bugg. He has 100% talent running through his veins but making music a million miles away from the mass manufactured autotune pap that "hit radio" wants. Sure, 6 Music and R1 evenings are playing him, but how else to get exposure and the cash to pay the rent?

He's every bit as heartthrob fodder as Justin Beiber. 100 times the talent, but following his heart, not big industry dollars. If PRS are helping artists like this, I don't begrudge them at all.

PRS have a number of initiaves aimed at supporting new artists, including their M magazine, and 'Almost Famous' showcases.

New artists can also claim performance royalties when they play gigs in live music venues.

[old pilot]

The term broadcasting sums it up. Transmitting to the masses.

However PRS have spotted a method to charge twice.

They collect a fee at the front of the house but now want another fee to listen.

I'd call that double dipping. If they want to charge at both ends the fee at the broadcasting fee must go down.

There is an interesting legal argument here that can probably only be resolved by lawyers on a no win no fee basis.

[JELLIES0]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

Exactly! You can let someone read your paper but you can't use the content in the paper without permission. You can let someone listen to your radio but you can't play it in public without permission. In both cases it's the content that is protected by copyright.

It's not rocket surgery, whatever anyone here may try to say.

It's not rocket surgery it's mumbo jumbo and I think you know it Inkblot
You play the radio in a shop or a waiting room for the amusement of staff and customers, you leave a number of newspapers for them to read, is there any material difference ?
I think the answer is "no".

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by JELLIES0

It's not rocket surgery it's mumbo jumbo and I think you know it Inkblot
You play the radio in a shop or a waiting room for the amusement of staff and customers, you leave a number of newspapers for them to read, is there any material difference ?
I think the answer is "no".

I think you are mistaken.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

The music played on the radio is likewise protected by copyright in that no one is permitted to play that music in public without permission...

Can we look forward to the PRS people going around stopping people playing loud music in cars, either from a radio or CD or MP3. It is being played "in public".

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by old pilot

... There is an interesting legal argument here that can probably only be resolved by lawyers on a no win no fee basis.

I am sure someone who could afford expensive lawyers could beat them which is probably why they go after small businesses.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by JELLIES0

It's not rocket surgery it's mumbo jumbo and I think you know it Inkblot
You play the radio in a shop or a waiting room for the amusement of staff and customers, you leave a number of newspapers for them to read, is there any material difference ?
I think the answer is "no".

Careful, you might find the PRS signing up to get a commission for charging doctors and dentists for licences to have those old magazine for their customers to read.

[old pilot]

Originally Posted by lundavra

Careful, you might find the PRS signing up to get a commission for charging doctors and dentists for licences to have those old magazine for their customers to read.

You can joke but what you say illustrates a good legal argument.

The people who read those features in old magazines are secondary to the original purchaser. Hence technically a breach of copyright. But what about all the free copies of the Metro lying around on the Tube?

In fact what if I hear PRS music from a nearby passengers headphones? Or a music ring tone heard by hundreds on a station platform?

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by old pilot

You can joke but what you say illustrates a good legal argument.

The people who read those features in old magazines are secondary to the original purchaser. Hence technically a breach of copyright. But what about all the free copies of the Metro lying around on the Tube?

It's not technically breach of copyright, because the person who breaches copyright is the one who copies or publishes the material without permission, not the reader. If you read a newspaper with a story lifted word-for-word from another source without permission, would you be breaching copyright? No. The newspaper would.

[darkisland]

The unwillingness to comprehend a fairly simple concept re music on the radio is so depressing. I'm out.

[Richard O'Hagan]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

the person who breaches copyright is the one who copies or publishes the material without permission

If so, if I ran an exhaust place and the fitter put his own radio on for his own entertainment (not to draw
customers) he'd be breaching copyright, not me, right?

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by Richard O'Hagan

If so, if I ran an exhaust place and the fitter put his own radio on for his own entertainment (not to draw
customers) he'd be breaching copyright, not me, right?

I am not a lawyer but I assume that the responsibility for obtaining a PRS licence for premises lies with whoever is responsible for the business which occupies the premises.