In a discussion with the landlord of my local last night,
he raised a point regarding PRS payments which surprised
me, to say the least. I'm posting to see if anyone can shed
more light on the matter, although aware that copyright is
one of those areas where the light can be difficult to find.

As with most public premises, they get regular visits from
people from the PRS asking for payments for licences for
the use of various forms of music. So far, so normal.
But I was astonished when they said they have to pay
an extra premium to the PRS because they have Sky TV
in the pub. The argument proferred for this is that
"there's music on the programmes on Sky so you need
a licence for it."

Now, Sky already charge a hefty premium to
pubs for their Sky subscriptions in the knowledge that
the one feed will be watched by many people. Sky also
must pay the original rights holders for the use of
their material in programmes. One might expect that
the premium subscription, which includes the right
to show the programmes in a public place, would take
care of the associated rights payments. The PRS
- or at least this particular representative -
say it doesn't. It's unclear what the contract they
have with Sky says about it.

Does anyone have any knowledge of what's normal here?
We can understand the need for PRS payments if you have
a radio in the bar, or a terrestrial TV (since neither
require you to have a premium licence of any sort, and
so there's no other way the rights holders could be compensated
for the 'performance' that takes place.)

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:20:04 +0000, Kevin ashley put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In a discussion with the landlord of my local last night,
he raised a point regarding PRS payments which surprised
me, to say the least. I'm posting to see if anyone can shed
more light on the matter, although aware that copyright is
one of those areas where the light can be difficult to find.

As with most public premises, they get regular visits from
people from the PRS asking for payments for licences for
the use of various forms of music. So far, so normal.
But I was astonished when they said they have to pay
an extra premium to the PRS because they have Sky TV
in the pub. The argument proferred for this is that
"there's music on the programmes on Sky so you need
a licence for it."

That's typical for PRS.

Now, Sky already charge a hefty premium to
pubs for their Sky subscriptions in the knowledge that
the one feed will be watched by many people. Sky also
must pay the original rights holders for the use of
their material in programmes. One might expect that
the premium subscription, which includes the right
to show the programmes in a public place, would take
care of the associated rights payments. The PRS
- or at least this particular representative -
say it doesn't. It's unclear what the contract they
have with Sky says about it.

PRS has no contract with Sky in respect of end-users viewing their
programmes. PRS charges Sky for the right to use music in programmes
just like they charge any other broadcaster. As Sky is a commercial
broadcaster, their PRS fees will be based on revenue.

Does anyone have any knowledge of what's normal here?
We can understand the need for PRS payments if you have
a radio in the bar, or a terrestrial TV (since neither
require you to have a premium licence of any sort, and
so there's no other way the rights holders could be compensated
for the 'performance' that takes place.)

Even for a normal TV or radio, there's no moral reason why you should
be required to pay. The broadcaster is already paying for the right to
broadcast the music, and it makes no difference to them whether the
audience consists of a hundred different receivers each listened to by
one person or one receiver in a pub listened to by a hundred people.
Sky (and other subscription channels) are slightly different, as their
business model is based on the number of viewers and so if you have
more viewers than the typical household then they can reasonably
expect you to pay a premium subscription. But that's a business
matter, and still nothing to do with PRS.

I would be inclined to tell PRS where to go. The only "right" that a
PRS licence confers is the right not to be harrassed by the PRS. As
such, it's not all that far from being a protection racket.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"There's just too much that time cannot erase"

In a discussion with the landlord of my local last night,
he raised a point regarding PRS payments which surprised
me, to say the least. I'm posting to see if anyone can shed
more light on the matter, although aware that copyright is
one of those areas where the light can be difficult to find.

As with most public premises, they get regular visits from
people from the PRS asking for payments for licences for
the use of various forms of music. So far, so normal.
But I was astonished when they said they have to pay
an extra premium to the PRS because they have Sky TV
in the pub. The argument proferred for this is that
"there's music on the programmes on Sky so you need
a licence for it."

Now, Sky already charge a hefty premium to
pubs for their Sky subscriptions in the knowledge that
the one feed will be watched by many people. Sky also
must pay the original rights holders for the use of
their material in programmes. One might expect that
the premium subscription, which includes the right
to show the programmes in a public place, would take
care of the associated rights payments. The PRS
- or at least this particular representative -
say it doesn't. It's unclear what the contract they
have with Sky says about it.

Does anyone have any knowledge of what's normal here?
We can understand the need for PRS payments if you have
a radio in the bar, or a terrestrial TV (since neither
require you to have a premium licence of any sort, and
so there's no other way the rights holders could be compensated
for the 'performance' that takes place.)

Sky pay a fee to the PRS for the use of music in their programs just as
other broadcasters do. The higher fee for a Sky system in a pub reflects
what the market will stand for the privilege of showing all broadcasts not
just music and much of it goes to fund the huge amounts paid to sports
bodies for the privilege. It is related largely to the number of likely
viewers. So the PRS are correct and will take legal action if the publican
does not have a licence.

Peter Crosland

"Kevin ashley" wrote in message
...
In a discussion with the landlord of my local last night,
he raised a point regarding PRS payments which surprised
me, to say the least. I'm posting to see if anyone can shed
more light on the matter, although aware that copyright is
one of those areas where the light can be difficult to find.

As with most public premises, they get regular visits from
people from the PRS asking for payments for licences for
the use of various forms of music. So far, so normal.
But I was astonished when they said they have to pay
an extra premium to the PRS because they have Sky TV
in the pub. The argument proferred for this is that
"there's music on the programmes on Sky so you need
a licence for it."

My father told me recently that he noticed a sign in his hairdresser which
he thought was for musical performance but it turned out to be from the
Performing Rights Society.

This was just for having the radio on, I believe.

Similar situation.

I can't comment on the rights or wrongs - although it is not much different
from the Public Lending Right in libraries - although they don't have to pay
for people who read books in the library.

Nick

My father told me recently that he noticed a sign in his hairdresser which
he thought was for musical performance but it turned out to be from the
Performing Rights Society.

This was just for having the radio on, I believe.

Similar situation.

I can't comment on the rights or wrongs - although it is not much different
from the Public Lending Right in libraries - although they don't have to pay
for people who read books in the library.

Nick

I was telephoned by the PRS to ask if we play any music in the office -
radio or CD/MP3.

Apparently you need a licence even if you are playing music in an
office of only three people.

I don't have music in the office, but if I did what powers do they have
in order to try and prove it.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:05:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:20:04 +0000, Kevin ashley put finger to
keyboard and typed:

We can understand the need for PRS payments if you have
a radio in the bar, or a terrestrial TV (since neither
require you to have a premium licence of any sort, and
so there's no other way the rights holders could be compensated
for the 'performance' that takes place.)

Even for a normal TV or radio, there's no moral reason why you should
be required to pay. The broadcaster is already paying for the right to
broadcast the music, and it makes no difference to them whether the
audience consists of a hundred different receivers each listened to by
one person or one receiver in a pub listened to by a hundred people.

It make no difference to the broadcaster, but it makes a difference to
the owner of the rights.

Sky (and other subscription channels) are slightly different, as their
business model is based on the number of viewers and so if you have
more viewers than the typical household then they can reasonably
expect you to pay a premium subscription. But that's a business
matter, and still nothing to do with PRS.

It is to do with PRS because they act on behalf of the person who is
entitled to licence public performance of the music. A TV in a pub is
providing a public performance. Who the broadcaster is, and who has
paid them for what, makes no difference at all. It is the publican,
not the broadcaster, who is providing the performance to the public.
Broadcast rights, which the broadcaster pays for, are something
entirely different.

I would be inclined to tell PRS where to go. The only "right" that a
PRS licence confers is the right not to be harrassed by the PRS. As
such, it's not all that far from being a protection racket.

I take it you are not a songwriter?

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:05:03 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

So the PRS are correct and will take legal action if the publican
does not have a licence.

Why can PRS take legal action if they are merely agents for the
copyright owner? A company cannot atuhorise an agent to take legal
action on its behalf unless that agent is a solicitor. That's why debt
collectors cannot sue as agents for the creditor; the creditor has to
use a solicitor if he wishes to sue in the court.

--
Alasdair.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:55:03 +0000, "mark"
wrote:

They don't have to prove it, they will enter and if they see broadcasting
equipment, suitably sited, they are going to assume you use it.

I don't believe PRS have rights of entry like gas and electricity
suppliers.

--
Alasdair.

"mark" writes:

....They don't. Largely, of course, we are talking about a 'public' place
which means just that. LargelyEntry by the public means entry by the PRS
representative.
Of course they do not have rights of entry....

On the other hand, a pub landlord has the right to exclude entry to
anyone he wishes (subject to discrimination laws).

Graham Murray wrote:

On the other hand, a pub landlord has the right to exclude entry to
anyone he wishes (subject to discrimination laws).

He's allowed to but is unlikely to recognize the PRS rep, let alone
before he comes in. Also, if the music is loud enough it might be
possible to hear it from the street.