performing rights society... R-soles.....

DCodd

phlogeston wrote: »

You don't need a precendent in law if to prove a statute exists, the precedent is merely an interpretation of how a statute is applied.

The law exists - no one has successfully argued in a court of law that it doesn't exist. Therefore, there is no precedent to support your argument.

Exactly! and none to support the PRS stance unless you agree that the Farmer, who was charged, should have been charged beacause his COWS could hear the music!!!

The statute you claim exists is based on part of the act NOT being applicable!

phlogeston

DCodd wrote: »

Exactly! and none to support the PRS stance unless you agree that the Farmer, who was charged, should have been charged beacause his COWS could hear the music!!!

The statute you claim exists is based on part of the act NOT being applicable!

The music is being played in a public place. Therefore, the act applies. It is quite clearly worded.

No one has yet successfully challenged the application of the act, therefore there is NO precedent to indicate that it does not apply.

You are merely contradicting what I say without giving any reasoned argument. I am sure anyone can trawl the Sun or Daily Mail and find umpteen silly stories on any subject one cares to mention. However, in themselves they are not a cogent argument against:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

19 Infringement by performance, showing or playing of work in public



(1) The performance of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.
(2) In this Part “performance”, in relation to a work—
(a) includes delivery in the case of lectures, addresses, speeches and sermons, and
(b) in general, includes any mode of visual or acoustic presentation, including presentation by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme of the work.
(3) The playing or showing of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.
(4) Where copyright in a work is infringed by its being performed, played or shown in public by means of apparatus for receiving visual images or sounds conveyed by electronic means, the person by whom the visual images or sounds are sent, and in the case of a performance the performers, shall not be regarded as responsible for the infringement.


Exemption under s.72 only applies to the copyright of the programme or the recording - not to the copyright of the author of the work. In any case a shop could be argued to fall within the ambit of s.72(2)(b)(ii).


Until such time as someone successful challenges the interpretation of the Act, then the Act can legitimately be applied as written.

marleyboy

Personally, I will go with the instructions on the box of the radio, if it says "can be played" too right I will play it to my hearts content, it is after all what it is paid to do.

DCodd

phlogeston wrote: »

The music is being played in a public place. Therefore, the act applies. It is quite clearly worded.

No one has yet successfully challenged the application of the act, therefore there is NO precedent to indicate that it does not apply.

You are merely contradicting what I say without giving any reasoned argument. I am sure anyone can trawl the Sun or Daily Mail and find umpteen silly stories on any subject one cares to mention. However, in themselves they are not a cogent argument against:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

19 Infringement by performance, showing or playing of work in public



(1) The performance of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.
(2) In this Part “performance”, in relation to a work—
(a) includes delivery in the case of lectures, addresses, speeches and sermons, and
(b) in general, includes any mode of visual or acoustic presentation, including presentation by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme of the work.
(3) The playing or showing of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.
(4) Where copyright in a work is infringed by its being performed, played or shown in public by means of apparatus for receiving visual images or sounds conveyed by electronic means, the person by whom the visual images or sounds are sent, and in the case of a performance the performers, shall not be regarded as responsible for the infringement.


Exemption under s.72 only applies to the copyright of the programme or the recording - not to the copyright of the author of the work. In any case a shop could be argued to fall within the ambit of s.72(2)(b)(ii).


Until such time as someone successful challenges the interpretation of the Act, then the Act can legitimately be applied as written.

No one on here is disputing that if the music is being played to a listening public that a fee has to be paid, what is being debated is the interpretaion of the act. The radio stations pay a fee to broadcast to the public and so this is met. What the PRS are saying is that if more than one person (and that can include COWS) can hear that broadcast from a radio in a non-domestic environment then a second fee has to be paid. The act at no point says that listening to a radio broadcast requires the payment of a fee. In fact sections 25 - 27 state that for a secondary infringement of the act to apply the premises must be a place of entertainment or hire as a place of entertainment.

phlogeston

DCodd wrote: »

The act at no point says that listening to a radio broadcast requires the payment of a fee.

The act does not require anyone to pay for listening, nor do the PRS charge anyone for listening.

The fee is for public performance and is covered in the act.

DCodd

phlogeston wrote: »

The act does not require anyone to pay for listening, nor do the PRS charge anyone for listening.

The fee is for public performance and is covered in the act.

Incorrect - The letter received from the PRS to the company I work for states " Do you LISTEN to the radio at work"

sharnad

Tell them that you will turn it off when the public come into the takeaway and it is for your own personal enjoyment while waiting for customers

dacouch

Tell them they can go whistle for their licence, come to think of it don't say that as they will want you to have a seperate licence for that as well

marleyboy

phlogeston wrote: »

The act does not require anyone to pay for listening, nor do the PRS charge anyone for listening.

The fee is for public performance and is covered in the act.

Totally wrong, we were TOLD specifically by these henchmen, that the playing of a RADIO is included in the fee if more than 1 person can hear it.

phlogeston

marleyboy wrote: »

Totally wrong, we were TOLD specifically by these henchmen, that the playing of a RADIO is included in the fee if more than 1 person can hear it.

So you are being charged for playing the radio!

Your employees are not charged for listening to it.