Charity Forced to Pay Copyright Fee So Kids Can Sing Carols
Written by enigmax on December 09, 2007Christmas is known world-wide as a time for sharing, a time for giving. But for one charity, instead of Santa arriving with gifts, the copyright police turned up demanding money. Why? Because the charity allows children to sing carols on the premises and their kitchen radio is a little loud. You couldn’t make it up.
Be under no illusion, being unlicensed to play music to the public is a very serious situation in the UK. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states that if you use copyright music in public, you have to get permission from every single copyright holder to play their music. Or pay a fee to the right outfit.
Car maintenance chain Kwik Fit is currently tied up in a bitter legal battle with the UK Performing Rights Society (PRS). It’s alleged that Kwik Fit’s mechanics allowed their radios to be played within earshot of the public - a truly heinous crime for which the PRS are demanding £200,000 in damages.
According to a report, the PRS are at it again. The staff at a charity also received a visit from a PRS officer who declared that because a staff radio in the kitchen could be overheard by the public in their tea-room, they would need a license. The charity, Dam House, which was originally set up to save a historic building and offer community and health facilities, had to have a fund-raising event to raise the money for the license.
However, having purchased a license, this wasn’t the end of the matter. The PRS then started asking more questions, and when they discovered that kids sing in a carol concert there at Christmas, they declared that the premises were under licensed. Yes, of course - the PRS wanted yet more money.
“We got really worked up when they told us how much we would have to pay this year” said charity trustee, Margaret Hatton. “They asked us what facilities we had and we think they are charging more because they found out we’ve got a function room.”
The next quote from Margaret really speaks for itself - has the world gone mad?
“They told us the only way to avoid paying to sing the carols is if the kids are told to stick to old songs which are out of copyright.”
Next thing you know someone will be saying ‘Happy Birthday‘ is copyrighted and you can’t sing that to the public in the tea-rooms. Well, unfortunately it is, and legally you can’t.
Elaine Hurst, another Dam House trustee explained: “We know the recording artists need to be paid for their work but this is ridiculous.”
Every TV owning family in the UK has to have a UK TV License by law, the proceeds of which go to fund BBC TV and BBC radio stations nationwide. To charge a charity money because the public can overhear a radio is crazy, especially when you consider the public already paid another license to be allowed to listen to the content coming out of its speakers.
Merry Christmas PRS
Previously: 50 Cent: File-Sharing Doesn’t Hurt Artists, Industry Should Adapt
Next: The Pirate Bay Launches Last.fm Powered Music Section
203 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 » Show All
To Rick Dublin:
that is a disgusting song; I do not even consider it to be a song. I’m sorry, sure I like socially unacceptable music, but it tends to redeem itself by proclaiming _why_ it is socially unacceptable; it acknowledges the fact, then explains itself [ie, "you all got raped by the TV and TV got raped by the FCC"; there does exist an element of valid social comment in there].
But honestly, those lyrics are disgusting to the point of causing readers of this post to discontinue reading subsequent comments, and that really is quite detrimental to the dialogue on this news story.
I am actually tempted to call you a subversive agent favoring the opposition; you post an un-called for string of filth, contribute nothing to the intelligent discourse of the thread (whatever your opinion on the news-story is, so be it), and you attack the continued readability of the thread.
Honestly, Mr. Rick Dublin, if you have an opinion pertinent to “Charity Forced to Pay Copyright Police So Kids Can Sing Christmas Songs”, please by all means do so, from whatever perspective you choose; I look forward to it.
But stop the _un-necessary_ posting of filth.
[quote comment="235640"]I used to run a small shop and one day I recieved a letter from the PRS (addressed to the previous owner) demanding money if (IF!) I played a radio on the premises.
It went on to explain that the artists would suffer by my actions if I did not pay and ended in a very threatening manner telling me that I could end up with a criminal record if I did not pay up.
I threw the (fishing for money) letter away assuming that they sent these out to everyone. I never heared from them again.
They are only picking on Quick Fit because it is a medium size business with enough cash to exploit. Quick Fit will probably pay up just to avoid the bad press![/quote]
This sounds like what you would read in a Ray Bradbury novel.
The PRS makes baby Jesus cry…
Talk about theft of intellectual property. WOW. And by that I mean: The PRS should be taken to task for robbing society of it’s common sense.
[quote comment="236230"]It really is time for revolution… these capitalists, who always try to increase their earning have to get stopped… I mean this really is freaking insane… Maybe its their right… but does that mean its ethical correct?[/quote]
Doesn’t it seem that the more people removed themselves from the river of cash the media gloms have enjoyed until now, the less they realize why?
The beast will poison itself before long.
[quote comment="236753"][quote comment="236230"]It really is time for revolution… these capitalists, who always try to increase their earning have to get stopped… I mean this really is freaking insane… Maybe its their right… but does that mean its ethical correct?[/quote]
Doesn’t it seem that the more people removed themselves from the river of cash the media gloms have enjoyed until now, the less they realize why?
The beast will poison itself before long.[/quote]
I meant the less the gloms will realize why.
They must need more money to wipe their asses with. Greedy pricks!!!
I’m gettin’ close to giving up on this country …
That GG Allin song is as retarded as the UK copyright law.
makes me sick
That’s my friends, is bullshit
Your article is incorrect. The majority of radio stations in the UK receive no licence fee and are privately owned commercial stations. Only BBC stations receive licence fees.
The charity has paid nothing for the music they’re piping through the cafe and are using to make money. Just like they’re using the carol service to make money (pretty much all classic carols are out of copyright, what are they singing?). Why *should* a charity be allowed to break the law?
Isn’t “Christmas” a trademark of the Pope? Maybe it’s time the Pope demands fees for (ab)use of this trademark. The economy has perverted the meaning of Christmas anyway. Not that the church didn’t pervert the meaning of Jesus’ message but that’s another story…
[quote comment="237680"]Your article is incorrect. The majority of radio stations in the UK receive no licence fee and are privately owned commercial stations. Only BBC stations receive licence fees.
The charity has paid nothing for the music they’re piping through the cafe and are using to make money. Just like they’re using the carol service to make money (pretty much all classic carols are out of copyright, what are they singing?). Why *should* a charity be allowed to break the law?[/quote]
Yeah, I did notice the kids were singing Christmas _songs_ and not Christmas _carols_ ; think Jessica Simponson and Faith Hill’s Christmas albums rather than Good King Wencelaus.
Is it any different than kids singing “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” by Greenday for money donations to the charity? No, I don’t think so. The record company’s are ~about within their (moral; there is no other kind) rights.
Still, you would think that for one measly shelter/church group/whatever, they could cut them some slack; whatever. The classic carols are the best !!! :P
I was under investigation by the TV licensing national enforcement division earlier this year for NOT owning a tv.
Because I don’t own a tv, and therefore didn’t buy a licence, they assumed I was committing a crime and sent me a series of angry letters and had people come by to verify that I did not own a tv.
Because I didn’t tell them that I didn’t need a license, they assumed me a criminal.
There’s a difference between some kids singing carols, and an establishment performing them. This isn’t some ad-hoc setup - PRS wouldn’t bother, but - just like pubs and clubs have to pay a performance fee, so would a tearoom (where’s the boundary?).
Our church sing modern songs much more than old out-of-copyright hymns, and we make a note of what songs are sung each week, and the songwriter gets a cut, paid from our annual license into the pool. (Not via PRS, but a similar concept).
We need to fight the stupidities of anti-copyright enforcement, but this particular example, though it’s spun as evil bureaucrats stopping kiddies from singing their carols, isn’t a good one to fight. This isn’t “the man”, the PRS is much more pro-artist than the RIAA etc.
[quote comment="238173"]There’s a difference between some kids singing carols, and an establishment performing them. This isn’t some ad-hoc setup - PRS wouldn’t bother, but - just like pubs and clubs have to pay a performance fee, so would a tearoom (where’s the boundary?).
Our church sing modern songs much more than old out-of-copyright hymns, and we make a note of what songs are sung each week, and the songwriter gets a cut, paid from our annual license into the pool. (Not via PRS, but a similar concept).
We need to fight the stupidities of anti-copyright enforcement, but this particular example, though it’s spun as evil bureaucrats stopping kiddies from singing their carols, isn’t a good one to fight. This isn’t “the man”, the PRS is much more pro-artist than the RIAA etc.[/quote]
I disagree;
“The staff at a charity…”
“However, having purchased a license, this wasn’t the end of the matter. The PRS then started asking more questions, and when they discovered that kids sing in a carol concert there at Christmas, they declared that the premises were under licensed. Yes, of course - the PRS wanted more money.”
There is a clear-cut line between personal profit, and charity income. When someone is making a profit, sure, they should pay their dues. But when a charity makes a profit, it doesn’t mean ANYBODY is getting any money; it means that a neglected but worthy element of society is … I shouldn’t even have to explain this!
Suffice to say, if this had been a charity for orphans, street kids, or saving stray kittens, the case would be more obvious.
I think it is just as important to express our opinions say at youtube.com or myspace.com
these are a great place to socialize, rant, make friends…
i’ve been there and it is wild as jungle :D
sharing will never die
because people like me never stop sharing
Happy Birthday is worse! The charges for a spontaneous performance of a copyrighted works are far higher than for a scheduled performance of a copyrighted works.
@ dave LMAO
—————-
These kids are gonna be future pirates because of this.
Ehh, it happens alot. Its not right but there are alot of other things in this world that are more unfair. Ive worked for several businesses and known charities to be targeted.
Thats part of the lifestyle if you choose to live in the UK (i do but i dont intend to stay here forever).
All you have to do to avoid copywright is change a couple of words in the song and for safe measure dont sing in key (not that people do), therefor it isnt the copywitten content your performing. Simple!
I love how the artists don’t give a damn and it’s the publishers that whine and moan about the infringement. Can’t wait for the day when artists stop using publishing companies and just use the Internet to distribute music.
3 references to this post
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 » Show All
Add your response