Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Performing rights society licence?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4255 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone. Not quite sure where to put this or if even people will know anything about it but thought I would try. Basicaly my dad runs a chinese take away and some times though not regularly he puts the tv in the shop on for customers to watch. Basic TV, non digital channels. Now the other day my dad got a phone call from someone at the performing rights society about attaining a licence of £120 to continue having the TV on in the shop. The shop is small and there is one large semi circular seat for around 6 people plus place for people to stand up though rarely more than 10 ppl at a time in the shop are waiting. Most of the time the TV is not on as its quite troublesome to get it started at it is on a high bracket with no remote control.

 

They have now sent a letter about the matter saying and I quote "PRS do from time to time visit premises in order to assess what, if any, licencing requirements there may be. You may be liable for infringement of our copyright if without our licence you continue to perform or resume performing our musical repertoire on your premises". It seems to me that this would be linked to live performers maybe. They have a website (Performing Right Society Home) though I have looked through and am still unsure what applies to my dad.

 

On a side note my dad is chinese and does not speak english well but he was definitely given the impression him having a TV in the shop was a violation. My Uncle has also had contact from these people. If anyone knows more about this it would be very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I remember from when I had a pub that the PRS had to be paid for a tele on the premises, as well as for a juke box. Can't remeber the full ins and outs of it - sorry.

Ring them to clarify.

And they do prosecute if you don't comply.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh no way, but does it matter that the tv isn't like advertised as entertainment for the takeaway and that the number of people is quite low? can't believe that you have to pay for music that may or may not be played during a TV show. Thought that it would surely be covered by the BBC as the broadcasters of the tv shows. Well I think my dad said he would jst take TV down if a licence would be needed, still irritating though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We even have to have one for workers listening to the radio in the warehouse. Mind you I have never seen one on display in our local takeaway :rolleyes:

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Sorry to awaken a 1 year old thread, but.

My friend has a Thai Restaurant and the PRS have recently started to pester him.

He has 3 Thai CDs that he alternates between and am I right in thinking if he has permission from the artist(s) then he does not need this overpriced nonsense licence.

 

£400!!! they really cant be serious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You definatly need a license whatever you play. I had a call from them and told them that I dont play any music in my place of work although occasionally on a Sunday if I am stocktaking I may play a radio but the shop is closed then. I was told that it dosnt matter if the shop is open or closed, if you have the means to play music or television on the premises you must have the PR licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic behind PRS licensing is that you have gained by being able to play music in your establishment. Fair enough, studies have shown that music can influence your customers in various beneficial ways.

 

However, surely whenever you play an artist's music, particularly new songs, you are advertising that artist's tracks, which of course, benefits the artist. For example, several years ago, I heard some music being played in a clothes shop. I thought it was great music and sought out and bought the album!

 

The whole thing seems to me to be profiteering by an already greedy industry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go to the PRS website, there are no figures available listing the cost of their licences. Instead you have to fill in an application form detailing the type of business and the intended use of the music before they give a figure.

 

Given that the artists/record companies etc are making money from the sale of the music, plus royalties from when it is played on the radio, you do wonder about the ethics behind charging business for playing background music by the PRS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it is quite permissible to use 'non-PRS' music and as such can avoid paying them any money. They dislike this intensely, and it only works if you have full control of the source being used to play the music (a TV or radio wouldn't work). ''It is possible to purchase non-PRS music on CD that is exempt from the process, abd showing these CDs to the inspector or proving that the recording/s have been made for or for use by the venue (say, Thai music) this additional licencing can be avoided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're wrong! It has nothing to do with 'copyright' but how the music is 'published'. All music is copyright, but the PRS acts as agents for the major music publishers, extracting a levy based on the (average) percentage their tunes are used. If you use music with no reproduction fees, it is still copyright of the creator. You could also argue if the Thai CDs are published by the Thai Music Group, they are probably not members of the UK PRS and therefor not subject to any fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, right!! Ask for a financial breakfown to prove it! They operate pretty much the same way as the MCPS (Mechanical Copyright Protection Society) who will want a fee from you should you transfer a CD to a tape or other medium (dunno about MP3 though), basically they grab what they can, keep a % themselves, then pass the rest to those deemed eligible for the aforemention annual payout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a slightly different issue - live music (as opposed to replaying existing recordings). However, was the 2% calculated on the permission to use recorded music, or to sing (published) songs live?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

It's all a big con. All the radio stations should stop paying the license fee's and instead charge the Artist for playing their songs by way of a promotions fee. Anyone remember when Radio1 wouldn't play any Cliff Richard songs. What a lot of fuss from the record company then. You can't have you cake and eat it. And yes PPL & PRS give about 20% of their turn over to the record companies and Artist so the only people making money from this racket is the Directors of these organizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry got to take issue with this.

PRS distribute just under 90% of the fees that they collect to members in the form of Royalty payments, only administration costs are deducted as it is a not for profit organisation

A PRS licence is a requirement under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 as it states that you need to get permission from the copyright holder to perfom music in public. PRS collected the Royalty fees on behalf of the creaters of music (writers) as they have assigned their their rights to PRS to collect the fees on their behalf.

The PRS website has tariffs on it for most industries and the costs are there for anyone to see.

The cost of a PRS licence depends on the type of industry you are in and the type of music used.

PRS have agreements with similar societies around the world which enables them to collect in the UK on behalf of those societies.

If a piece of music is used in public then it is only right that the ownerof that music should be paid for its use.

If a music user does not obtain a licence for its use then PRS can and do take action for infringement of copyright .

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a shop owner and I bought cans of Coke to give away to my customers, should I then buy a "soft drinks" license so that further royalties can be distributed to the industry? Do libraries have to pay publishers extra fees when they lend out books? Its the same principle. If a shop buys a CD to play in store, then the writer/artist/record company have had their profits. Likewise, if the radio is on. Why should anyone have to pay twice? Greed maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its a public not a private performance, if music is used in public then it is being used for a purpose to enhance the users business and therefore a fee should be paid to the person who ownbs it. if I for example owned a minibius and someone wanted to use it then I would be entitled to charge them for that use, its exactly the same with music, just because its intangible dosnt mean it isnt owned by someone, and if you want to use it to enhance your business then you should pay for it.

Do you honestly think that it is fair for the owners/writers not to be paid when their work is used? especially when someone is using it to encourage the public to use their service or buy their products.

So its not a con its a legal requirement taking somthing without the owners consent is theft, its exactly the same but by having a Licence you are receiving the consent/right to use it. If you dont want a liocence then dont use copyright musioc in your business.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think you missed the point. The owners/writers have already been paid when you purchased their music. Why should it be theft if you have already paid for it? To use another analogy, if I buy a pair of Nike trainers, should I have to pay a fee to wear them in public? Similarly, when I buy a copy of Windows, I dont have to pay Microsoft an additional licence fee to use my computer - even if its in public! It may well be a legal requirement to have a PRS licence, but its still greed. As stated (back in 2008!!!), public performance of music BENEFITS the writer/artist with publicity - I heard music in public, liked it and went and bought the album!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...