UK: Performing Rights Society (PRS) fining shops

[Nickygoat]

Wrong. The theory is that the music makes the place a more convenient place for customers. This is a public performance in oder to increase one's profit. You need a license to use the songwriter's intellectual property for this.

Er, no actually.

There have been a number of cases of the PRS fining, or threatening, businesses that are playing music in areas with no customers, including Lancashire and Cleveland Police Forces.

Indeed, the PRS themselves (links to PDF) say that it improves morale (scroll down a bit).

I've already noted that if it's in a public area then businesses have to pay; I'm referring to areas where no customer has access to.

 

[alFR]

Wrong. The theory is that the music makes the place a more convenient place for customers. This is a public performance in oder to increase one's profit. You need a license to use the songwriter's intellectual property for this.

If you choose your hairdresser based solely on the music they play you're going to end up with some sadass haircuts.

 

[Raid]

I don't know the law in each country, so of course I'm just going to state my opinion here. Yes, the local Starbucks should have to pay a licence fee. It's the right thing to do. They're playing music over the speakers to give their coffee house a certain ambience. Customers come for the coffee, but stay for the ambience. Nobody stays because the furniture is nice. The nice environment also attracts customers to come back and relax at their nearest Starbucks again.

I used the Starbucks example because often the music they play is a direct result of a commercial negotiation (I assume between the label and Starbucks corporate) and would probably include the right to play that music within the stores.

Really it's all assumption and theory, but the idea is that there's more that one reason why this PRS "fee" could be a lot of B.S.

Also I'd like to see the PRS come out with an economic model that evaluates the economic benefit/damage to an artist when a private business plays a radio broadcast that others in the premises can hear... you know over and above the royalties paid by the radio station. To me it sounds like double billing.

 

[weckart]

It's not true. A venue needs a blanket music license. Part of the license's cost goes to the organisation that dishes out royalties.
If the venue doesn't have a licence, royalty payments are the least of their worries.

Correct. Even if you only play your own composed music, you still need to pay the music licence from which a part will go to pay the likes of Britney Spears even though you have never played any of her music or are likely to. Unfair? Most certainly. However, any other form of licensing adds a layer of administration, which only serves to push up costs and consequently the cost of the licence. The only way to mitigate this is to sign up with the PRS, so that you can pay yourself in a roundabout way.

 

[whooleytoo]

If I had a small business such as this, I'd ask a neighbour to turn on the radio really loud in their apartment, so my customers can hear it.

Then they can't claim license fees for the store, since the music isn't being played on that premises.