PRS Demands License Fee To Play Music To Horses 305
An anonymous reader writes "A woman in Bushton, Wilts, has been told by the Performing Rights Society (PRS for Music) that she needs to pay an annual fee in order to play classical music from the radio to the horses in her stable, something that she has been doing for the past 20 years.
The PRS claims that it's not about the horses — rather, it's about her staff of over two people, which puts Mrs. Greenway in the same category as shops, bars and cafes.
'The staff are not bothered whether they have the radio on or not, in fact they don't particularly like my music and turn if off when I'm not around,' said Mrs. Greenway, 62. 'Especially on windy days I try to play it — it gives [the horses] a nice quiet atmosphere, you can only exercise one horse at a time so it helps the others to stay calm. We are right next to the RAF Lyneham air base so it dulls the noise from the aircraft as well.'"
Re:Isn't classical public domain? (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright laws do distinguish between the work, and the performance thereof.
Re:So stop... (Score:5, Informative)
She should simply stop. Get a buttload of dirt cheap CDs in the bargain basement bin for $0.99 each, or better yet, get a lot more stuff off a site such as Magnatune or an Internet radio station, and let the PRS rot in hell in total irrelevance.
The issue is not radio versus personally owned copy. The PRS appears to be claiming that this is a public performance (see that PRS stands for Performing Rights Society). In which case it doesn't matter how the music is acquired, only that the way she is playing it in a way that she is not licensed for.
play public domain music (Score:5, Informative)
What won't the PRS do? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:lolwut (Score:3, Informative)
In the case of classical music; the piece itself may no longer be subject to copyright, but the interpretation and any performances of it are. This is why many old classical pieces are not as freely available as you might think.
Of course, the original copy is not subject to copyright, but musical notation has changed a lot in the last 200 years.
Re:lolwut (Score:3, Informative)
Playing a radio in these circumstances is a public performance under British law and she does need a license.
However, given that it is being played for the benefit of the horses, I do wonder whether we will need to pay more for licenses to play music if our pets listen.
Re:So stop... (Score:3, Informative)
Tune her radio to the BBC. They paid the fee already, and as a tax payer, she is part owner of the BBC like every other citizen. Let the PRS sort it out with the BBC.
The BBC pays its fee, I'm sure. But playing a BBC station where the public can hear it still counds as a public performance, so a further license is still needed.
It can not be that you have to pay a fee to transit the material by radio, and also a fee to convert the radio to sound waves without it ALSO requiring a fee to convert the sound waves to ear-pressure changes.
It could be the case, but you'll be glad to hear that it isn't. Only the first and third fees you describe are payable. There is no longer a license fee for possessing a radio receiver.
Re:In Holland it's even worse (Score:3, Informative)
For Dutch people: look here [vrijschrift.org] for a short FAQ regarding what to do about these letters (summary: ignore them, they're misleading and baseless if you just play music for yourself).
Re:Wilts isn't a country (Score:5, Informative)
It also raises the question of whether you should write England or UK. I was taught to write England as a child, but UK seems to be common these days.
"England" and "UK" are different things. And "Great Britain" is different again. The most general designation is "UK", or, to give it its full designation, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", from which you'll be able to work out that "UK" includes Northern Ireland, "Great Britain" is the rest of the country. Great Britain is, in turn made up of England, Scotland and Wales. Calling somebody from Scotland "English" is likely to go down about as well as calling somebody from the deep south of the USA a "Yankee".
England and Wales have a common legal system; Scotland and Northern Ireland each has its own legal system. So when talking about legal matters, it's best to be specific and say "England", "Scotland" or whatever. When referring to the country, it's "UK". The term "Great Britain" seems only to exist to piss off the Irish, as, for instance, when we refer to our Olympic team as "Team GB" thereby ignoring the Northern Irish contribution.
Re:In Holland it's even worse (Score:3, Informative)
If there is legal backing for at least some of the money they take, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to convince anyone in authority that it is an orchestrated fraud rather than a mistake.
Or, to put it another way, you have to make a lot of mistakes before anyone will suspect foul play.