Shop Radio License? scammers?

uktyler

vikingaero wrote: »

The PRS are just another self appointed quango type organisation created to fund their own importance. If you look at one of their letters it says that of all the amount of revenue collect 58% of it went to artists and musicians that they paid less than £250 each.

So this tax is elective is it?

Can we choose what taxes we want to pay and which we don't, hust because we don't like them?

uktyler

BagpussBoy wrote: »

Yes, I often think to myself that musicians are getting less and less money when I'm watching "Cribs" on MTV. Some have to limit themselves to 3 or even as little as 2 vehicles.

The stars mega lots of money, like star footballers.

Session musicians don't get the same sort of money, who would be interested in Cribs if it featured a small East London bedsit?

superscaper

uktyler wrote: »

So this tax is elective is it?

Can we choose what taxes we want to pay and which we don't, hust because we don't like them?

It isn't a tax, it comes under the copyright designs and patents act for asking for license payments. As for choices it's interesting that we already have been given permission by the BPI to consciously break part of that law under certain circumstances. I.e. we can break the law for certain circumstances and the BPI fully support and given promise of never prosecuting for it. People are breaking that law every day quite "legitimately" and so while technically illegal we've been given permission to do so until that specific circumstance is brought into law as legal. So it's not all quite as black and white as saying "it's illegal" necessarily as you're making out.

(Note: one of the main circumstances I can think of is ripping CDs to your computer, still actually illegal in the UK but yet legitimate/socially acceptible as far as non prosecuting and public intention of those that would be responsible for prosecuting goes)

uktyler

superscaper wrote: »

It isn't a tax, it comes under the copyright designs and patents act for asking for license payments. As for choices it's interesting that we already have been given permission by the BPI to consciously break part of that law under certain circumstances. I.e. we can break the law for certain circumstances and the BPI fully support and given promise of never prosecuting for it.

The BPI have not given permission to play radios in the workplace without paying for the privilege. I can't understand why people will break the law regarding radios in the workplace, as if it is their right to do so.

If you don't want to pay the money, turn the radio off.

superscaper

uktyler wrote: »

The BPI have not given permission to play radios in the workplace without paying for the privilege. I can't understand why people will break the law regarding radios in the workplace, as if it is their right to do so.

If you don't want to pay the money, turn the radio off.

I never said they had. This isn't personal either so the last sentence is pointless and irrelevant (you're approaching it as if this is some kind of self justification for our actions when at least in my case it isn't). Also there doesn't seem to be any clarity of what counts as a workplace. Suppose you telecommute or are self employed? Would you then need a license for your own home? I can understand the logic if you're playing it the public, for instance in a shop as it's then akin to broadcasting, but if it's personal then I don't understand. I mean is this license also needed if your mobile phone goes off merely for hearing the ringtone? There's far more questions than answers here and although you choose to only address the radio it's far more encompassing than that as far as I can see.

meester

uktyler wrote: »

The BPI have not given permission to play radios in the workplace without paying for the privilege. I can't understand why people will break the law regarding radios in the workplace, as if it is their right to do so.

If you don't want to pay the money, turn the radio off.

You are quite entitled to have the radio on, please don't get into misinformation.You need permission to play music. If you don't play music, no licence fee is payable.

uktyler

superscaper wrote: »

There's far more questions than answers here and although you choose to only address the radio it's far more encompassing than that as far as I can see.

I'm only addressing the radio side of it, as that was the start of the thread, people complaining about having to pay for something they have not been paying for years.

I agree it is a complicated arrangement, A radio licence with money paid to the musicians would be a far better idea.

What annoys me is that the OP clearly state he is ignoring them, instead of paying them.

gordonstights

superscaper wrote: »

Also there doesn't seem to be any clarity of what counts as a workplace. Suppose you telecommute or are self employed? Would you then need a license for your own home? I can understand the logic if you're playing it the public, for instance in a shop as it's then akin to broadcasting, but if it's personal then I don't understand. I mean is this license also needed if your mobile phone goes off merely for hearing the ringtone?

This is my point exactly. The PRS seem to be giving people the impression that they need a licence to play anything on work premises. During this thread there have been stories of employees not being allowed to listen to an mp3 player or a person sitting alone in their office listening to a radio.

Some people seem to think small businesses want to play chart music in their shops for customers to hear and not pay the licence. I don't think this is the case. This thread has been more about personal use of radios in their workplace being the problem. Why can't I sit on my own at my desk and listen to the radio when it's not for anyone elses benefit but my own sanity?! As meester points out, there has been some confusion over playing music & listening to a radio, but this confusion (I believe) is the fault of the PRS!

Small businesses need to know their rights regarding playing music in public places and it appears they are not getting accurate information so far.

superscaper

uktyler wrote: »

I agree it is a complicated arrangement, A radio licence with money paid to the musicians would be a far better idea.

So are you proposing that everybody now has to pay, surely that's even worse, making people who simply use a radio anywhere now pay money when money is already being generated for artists.

Paddy2eyes

uktyler wrote: »

Maybe its time to reintroduce radio licences. The rules state that the artist gets money from his record sales, radio royalties, and from People who play the radio in workplaces and shops.

With the increase in pirate music in the digital age, the musician is getting less and less money.

IMHO the system is very flawed. With CD sales or downloads it is easy to work out how much revenue each artist is due. To the best of my knowledge broadcasters keep records of what they play and revenue can be allocated accordingly to the artists. Who keeps a record of what I play in my office, and how can I ensure that Cliff Richard gets no payments from my PRS fees?