Shop Radio License? scammers?

DCodd

121 signatures!! Need 500!!!!

Blagsmid

LilMissEmmylou wrote: »

yeah shame on them indeed paying artists money - tsk tsk, what IS the world coming to...

Wayerl LilMissEmmylou aintchajustgottherightofit hunnybunch?

Too right artists should be paid. Young artists selling few CDs but getting the odd Radio1 airing (like my daughter) should get paid. Artists being played over the tannoys of companies and so turbo-boosting our already rip-roaring economy and cash-rich companies into financial orbit should get a cut of the massively increased productivity. Artists played relentlessly down telephone lines should get a cut for the immense pleasure they bring in these "Public Perfomances" to their "audiences". Ad nauseam.

But should *anybody* be paid twice for the same goods? (CD royalty, PRS license).
And should "artists" be paid for employees listening to Talk Radio like Radio4?
And should artists be paid once by somebody for listening to a CD in her sitting room and then again for listening to it in her study where she runs a home business, alone?
And should an artist be paid a fee levied on a garage because a customer drives in with his car radio on?
And should an artist be paid a fee levied on a stables owner for playing radio to her horses?
And should an artist be paid in fees levied on a Piano Tuner because he tunes pianos?
Real demands such as the above demonstrate that PRS are making the law on the hoof to their own advantage. They are poacher and gamekeeper because the law and regulation are inadequate.

Nobody is saying artists should not be paid for their work. The problem is that when it comes to PRS artists are being paid for a great deal more than their work. They are being paid the fruits of extortion on top. Ordinary, decent people are being screwed.

DCodd

Blagsmid wrote: »

Wayerl LilMissEmmylou aintchajustgottherightofit hunnybunch?

Too right artists should be paid. Young artists selling few CDs but getting the odd Radio1 airing (like my daughter) should get paid. Artists being played over the tannoys of companies and so turbo-boosting our already rip-roaring economy and cash-rich companies into financial orbit should get a cut of the massively increased productivity. Artists played relentlessly down telephone lines should get a cut for the immense pleasure they bring in these "Public Perfomances" to their "audiences". Ad nauseam.

But should *anybody* be paid twice for the same goods? (CD royalty, PRS license).
And should "artists" be paid for employees listening to Talk Radio like Radio4?
And should artists be paid once by somebody for listening to a CD in her sitting room and then again for listening to it in her study where she runs a home business, alone?
And should an artist be paid a fee levied on a garage because a customer drives in with his car radio on?
And should an artist be paid a fee levied on a stables owner for playing radio to her horses?
And should an artist be paid in fees levied on a Piano Tuner because he tunes pianos?
Real demands such as the above demonstrate that PRS are making the law on the hoof to their own advantage. They are poacher and gamekeeper because the law and regulation are inadequate.

Nobody is saying artists should not be paid for their work. The problem is that when it comes to PRS artists are being paid for a great deal more than their work. They are being paid the fruits of extortion on top. Ordinary, decent people are being screwed.

Thanks Blagsmid, another reality check:T

DCodd

124 Signatures need 376 more!!

stokefan

this is a joke, the chances are that the person who owns the business has a tv licence anyway and the people who shop there/work there, so im afraid this is a joke

DCodd

stokefan wrote: »

this is a joke, the chances are that the person who owns the business has a tv licence anyway and the people who shop there/work there, so im afraid this is a joke

Unfortunately not! A tv licence does not cover the requirement to pay the PRS licence fee or a PPL Licence fee either. if you play music or a tv broadcast to a listening public then you have to pay a fee. What we are saying is that most of the PRS demands against businesses and individuals do not constitute a broadcast to a listening public. The radio stations and TV stations do that, the radio or TV listener is just that a listener and not subject to a fee!

Blagsmid

stokefan wrote: »

this is a joke, the chances are that the person who owns the business has a tv licence anyway and the people who shop there/work there, so im afraid this is a joke

Here's another joke: PRS claim they are legally entitled to charge a "Public Performance" license fee for an employee listening to his MP3 player on earphones to music he bought personally for his own use.
Ho ho:rotfl:? Not if you're on the receiving end of their intimidation and harassment.

rev_henry

Are you all aware that the reason none of us here in the UK can watch music vids on youtube anymore is, yes, you guessed it, the PRS.
Youtube and PRS failed to reach an agreement according to the news source I read. I.e. Google quite rightly wouldn't pay the PRS the, well £X million I presume they demanded, seeing as how youtube is such a popular site.
Yet again some money grabbing fat cats spoil things for the general public.

aloiseb

Maybe we should all pop into Tesco's and nick some coffee and cakes to go with our free music? After all it's a big company, nobody really suffers do they?

Oh sorry, people who create music and films are meant to be poor - I forgot!

Blagsmid

aloiseb wrote: »

Maybe we should all pop into Tesco's and nick some coffee and cakes to go with our free music? After all it's a big company, nobody really suffers do they?

Oh sorry, people who create music and films are meant to be poor - I forgot!

Maybe we should all sound off in forum postings without reading the thread? After all it's more fun putting up silly stereotypes of your opponents'views than reading what they've written isn't it?

Oh sorry, forums are for sounding off - I forgot!

PS See my item a few contributions back - nobody is saying artists shouldn't be paid.