On 06/07/2010 14:34, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:32:57 +0100,
wrote:

On 06/07/2010 12:46, Paul D Smith wrote:
wrote in message
...
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/hairdresse..._bill_1_806721

He was sent warning letters so had a chance to put things right before
he was taken to court.

That said, I've never heard of PPL but I have heard of PRS and my
initial thought was that he didn't have their licence.

Paul DS.


“We have got a PRS licence. They said this is not PRS, it’s someone
else. It’s like paying for everything twice. At the end of the day, they
can charge whatever they want. We have no say in it.�

I cannot comprehend how these laws came into existence unless there was
some serious lobbying and maybe a few incentives to the lawmakers of the
times? How many times can you charge for the same good/service?

There are NOT charging more than once for the same good/service.

The PRS for Music collects money for songwriters and composers.

The PPL collects money for performers.

If you buy a CD/DVD/download you are free to play it in private. But if
you play it in public you need to pay the songwriter(s), composer(s),
singer(s) and instrumentalist(s). Music publishers and record companies
are also entitled to their cut.

What does seem silly is that there are to separate organisations
collecting the money: PRS and PPL.

As a hairdresser he should lobby for a law that would force people to
pay every time they look at the head of one of his customers, and the
aerial fitters on here should surely get a portion of the licence fee!


Ah thank you for defining the difference between PRS and PPL - and
according to PPLs wikipedia page they manage VPL for music videos!

How many more people can be introduced to the mix that need paying
though? Where should it stop? The manufacturers of guitars could get
together and claim some money, maybe the guitar teachers who taught the
guitar players to play, if the guitar was under patent maybe they could
set up a collection agency too?