The PPL and PRS organisations collect royalties from businesses who play their radio at work,on behalf of artists and composers. They receive royalties on the sale of the music and also from radio stations who play the music,I think that is fair business.
But they also expect royalties from businesses who's employees listen to music at work.
I can understand the principle of this when a multi retailer uses music to enhance the shopping experience but the lady in the back of a small florist listening to music,which cannot be heard by the public,is under current law to pay royalties.
The following case was won by an italian dentist versus SCF,the italian version of PPL,this test case will have far reaching implications for lots of small businesses.
Anyone who has been contacted by the deceitful and bullying telephone tactics of both PPL and PRS will value this info.
Relevant to this site-the hundreds of small bike shops across the UK.who have a small workforce working out the back of the shop,who listen to the radio,but that radio is not audible in the shop selling area should question paying PPL or PRS royalties.
Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso
In this dispute between a collecting society and a dentist in Italy, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) made it clear that for the purposes of the Rental Directive (Directive 92/100/EC) the playing of music to patients in a dentist's surgery was not a "communication to the public". In reaching this conclusion the CJEU regarded both the number of people communicated to and the reasons (profit making or otherwise) for the communication to be relevant:
the patients were not "persons in general" (they were a relatively fixed circle, as other people did not generally have access to treatment by that dentist)
they were insignificant in number ("the public" excludes groups that are too small)
they heard the music without any active choice on their part; and
they did not choose to attend this dentist or pay what they paid for treatment because of the music (the music broadcast was not likely, in itself, to have an impact on the income of that dentist - therefore it was not considered profit-making in nature).
This decision of the CJEU is to be contrasted with earlier decisions where it has ruled the playing of sound recordings in hotel rooms was a "communication to the public". Such provision was to a "not insignificant" group and was part of the package of services that enabled the hotels to charge the rates they did.
The British Dental Association's Chief Executive welcomed the CJEU's Del Corso decision and sought confirmation "...that this decision applies equally to the United Kingdom and should take immediate effect" and "assurances from both the Performing Rights Society and the Phonographic Performance Ltd that [they] will refund dentists who have already paid this year's licence".
The PRS and the PPL quickly pointed out they would still be seeking license fees from dentists and similar businesses. This was because they enforced infringement by performance/playing the relevant musical or literary works or sound recordings or broadcasting them (respectively) "in public" as well as or instead of by "communication to the public".
The public playing/broadcasting forms of infringement derive purely from UK legislation and unlike "communication to the public" do not have their roots in an EU Directive. Therefore when considering this type of infringement "the public" means what the UK courts have said it means and not what CJEU said it meant in the Del Corso case.
The UK courts have held that acts, 'in public' mean all acts that do not take place in a private and domestic setting. For example, the owners of a factory that played music broadcasts from the BBC and vinyl records via loudspeakers to their employees were found to be performing/playing musical works 'in public'. This was so even though strangers were not allowed into the factory.
This leaves the rather odd situation where "the public" means one thing in one part of the UK copyright act and another in another part of it. Therefore the UK courts may in future seek to close the gap or a further amendment may be made to UK legislation to bring the two types of infringement into line. Various business groups are lobbying for such a change. If this happens, then the licensing business model of several collecting societies will be significantly affected.
The PPL/PRS
But they also expect royalties from businesses who's employees listen to music at work.
I can understand the principle of this when a multi retailer uses music to enhance the shopping experience but the lady in the back of a small florist listening to music,which cannot be heard by the public,is under current law to pay royalties.
The following case was won by an italian dentist versus SCF,the italian version of PPL,this test case will have far reaching implications for lots of small businesses.
Anyone who has been contacted by the deceitful and bullying telephone tactics of both PPL and PRS will value this info.
Relevant to this site-the hundreds of small bike shops across the UK.who have a small workforce working out the back of the shop,who listen to the radio,but that radio is not audible in the shop selling area should question paying PPL or PRS royalties.
Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso
In this dispute between a collecting society and a dentist in Italy, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) made it clear that for the purposes of the Rental Directive (Directive 92/100/EC) the playing of music to patients in a dentist's surgery was not a "communication to the public". In reaching this conclusion the CJEU regarded both the number of people communicated to and the reasons (profit making or otherwise) for the communication to be relevant:
the patients were not "persons in general" (they were a relatively fixed circle, as other people did not generally have access to treatment by that dentist)
they were insignificant in number ("the public" excludes groups that are too small)
they heard the music without any active choice on their part; and
they did not choose to attend this dentist or pay what they paid for treatment because of the music (the music broadcast was not likely, in itself, to have an impact on the income of that dentist - therefore it was not considered profit-making in nature).
This decision of the CJEU is to be contrasted with earlier decisions where it has ruled the playing of sound recordings in hotel rooms was a "communication to the public". Such provision was to a "not insignificant" group and was part of the package of services that enabled the hotels to charge the rates they did.
The British Dental Association's Chief Executive welcomed the CJEU's Del Corso decision and sought confirmation "...that this decision applies equally to the United Kingdom and should take immediate effect" and "assurances from both the Performing Rights Society and the Phonographic Performance Ltd that [they] will refund dentists who have already paid this year's licence".
The PRS and the PPL quickly pointed out they would still be seeking license fees from dentists and similar businesses. This was because they enforced infringement by performance/playing the relevant musical or literary works or sound recordings or broadcasting them (respectively) "in public" as well as or instead of by "communication to the public".
The public playing/broadcasting forms of infringement derive purely from UK legislation and unlike "communication to the public" do not have their roots in an EU Directive. Therefore when considering this type of infringement "the public" means what the UK courts have said it means and not what CJEU said it meant in the Del Corso case.
The UK courts have held that acts, 'in public' mean all acts that do not take place in a private and domestic setting. For example, the owners of a factory that played music broadcasts from the BBC and vinyl records via loudspeakers to their employees were found to be performing/playing musical works 'in public'. This was so even though strangers were not allowed into the factory.
This leaves the rather odd situation where "the public" means one thing in one part of the UK copyright act and another in another part of it. Therefore the UK courts may in future seek to close the gap or a further amendment may be made to UK legislation to bring the two types of infringement into line. Various business groups are lobbying for such a change. If this happens, then the licensing business model of several collecting societies will be significantly affected.
The PPL/PRS
Last edited:
