|
PRS apologizes to singing shop assistant
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 22 October, 2009
Last week, A&T Food store shop assistant Sandra Burt was told by the Performing Right Society (PRS) that she needed to stop singing during work without a performance license or face a fine.
Today, Burt was given an apology letter as well as a bouquet of flowers by the royalty collection agency, a truce after facing extreme criticism around the UK for their move.
The situation started ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
slickwill
Member
|
22. October 2009 @ 16:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is unbelievable, seriously someone must have just made this article up.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
22. October 2009 @ 16:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, we've heard ridiculous before...but this plain STUPID!!!
Does one need a license to sing in the shower now?
If someone tries to put a baby to sleep with a lullaby, maybe should check and make sure a license is not required...
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. October 2009 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
wow....loss for words
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. October 2009 @ 17:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is pretty much why the media cartel only needs to be paid when they do something directly......
|
|
beanos66
Member
|
22. October 2009 @ 18:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
me thinks you mean "singing" signing is what my deaf father does
|
|
EvilDeeds
Junior Member
|
22. October 2009 @ 18:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Maybe Burt should charge them for listening to the performance in future!
Can't believe this happened in the UK... the PRS are taking the PRISS!! ;)
|
Member
1 product review
|
22. October 2009 @ 21:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just a matter of time until they start raiding birthday parties and passing out fines. Last time I looked, Happy Birthday was not in the Public Domain.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
22. October 2009 @ 22:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Unfocused:
Just a matter of time until they start raiding birthday parties and passing out fines. Last time I looked, Happy Birthday was not in the Public Domain.
...An because of that, many resteraunts will not sing it to a child.
This proves yet again that these groups have no scruples, and will do anything that they think they might get away with. She should sue...she now has a letter admitting wrongdoing; it would be an easy case.
|
|
maomao001
Suspended permanently
|
23. October 2009 @ 02:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
SPAM removed
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. October 2009 @ 05:25
|
|
joe777
Member
|
23. October 2009 @ 09:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cyprusrom:
Well, we've heard ridiculous before...but this plain STUPID!!!
Does one need a license to sing in the shower now?
If someone tries to put a baby to sleep with a lullaby, maybe should check and make sure a license is not required...
That has already happened in Finland I think. The baby care center was finned for it.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. October 2009 @ 10:09
|
|
gnovak1
Member
|
23. October 2009 @ 14:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, i'm not singing in the shower anymore.
I don't want the PRS on my back.
But is simple humming an offense i wonder? I wouldn't mind humming a few bars instead.
|
Member
|
23. October 2009 @ 14:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
stop signing
just wanna be a jerk and point out the typo too. Although i knew it would come to the point where they want to sue you for singing a song.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. October 2009 @ 14:25
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. October 2009 @ 00:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gnovak1:
Well, i'm not singing in the shower anymore.
I don't want the PRS on my back.
But is simple humming an offense i wonder? I wouldn't mind humming a few bars instead.
I think they have ownership of every note that can be made by humans or any musical instrument...any sound that you make infringes on them as song writers.
|
|
retailbil
Newbie
|
24. October 2009 @ 06:41 |
Link to this message
|
If it wasnt for all the press coverage I am sure they would have taken her to court, their tactics always have been heavy handed, a bit like the music industry equivilant to wheel clampers!!
Stick with http://www.rfmradio.co.uk like we have and dont pay a penny in fees!!
RB
|
|
JGringo
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. October 2009 @ 10:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's official. The world has gone completely F'n crazy.
|
Junior Member
|
24. October 2009 @ 23:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
WTF!!
|
Junior Member
|
29. October 2009 @ 08:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
It maybe that im just the only yank here, but im surprised that nobody flagged that they first told her to stop playing a radio at work??? wtf?? at this point that does not fly here but hell.... how did you guys ever let them get that far? this one is getting passed around with the header, "It could happen here..."
|
|
hablet
Newbie
|
17. November 2009 @ 21:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Strictly speaking, PRS is correct. The various copyright laws offer copyright holders protection from "unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting" of their material; the shop in which Ms Burt works is a public place and she was (in law at least) giving a performance. However, it only takes the tiniest amount of common sense to realise that this is a case where the letter of the law is best ignored. Glad that PRS did the right thing in the end, but I do hope that they will have a stern word with their clown who caused all the trouble.
So don't panic, all you purveyors of FUD, you can still sing in your shower ... unless, of course, you happen to take your showers in public.
Oh, and another thing. My understanding of the law is that having a radio on in a public place does NOT require a licence because such an act constitutes neither a 'public performance' (which requires a live performer) nor a 'broadcast' (that happens in the studio and at the transmitter). In any case the broadcaster has already paid for the rights by the time the material reaches the radio.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. November 2009 @ 21:51
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
17. November 2009 @ 21:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by hablet:
Strictly speaking, PRS is correct. The various copyright laws offer copyright holders protection from "unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting" of their material; the shop in which Ms Burt works is a public place and she was (in law at least) giving a performance. However, it only takes the tiniest amount of common sense to realise that this is a case where the letter of the law is best ignored. Glad that PRS did the right thing in the end, but I do hope that they will have a stern word with their clown who caused all the trouble.
So don't panic, all you purveyors of FUD, you can still sing in your shower ... unless, of course, you happen to take your showers in public.
I'm a wabbit swlayer.......
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
hablet
Newbie
|
17. November 2009 @ 22:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
@retailbil
I deal with PRS every day of my working life. It is true that in the last couple of years they have become a great deal more hard-nosed and 'commercial', but AFAIK the only cases they have taken to court are the most extreme ones where they felt an example needed to be made e.g serial and large-scale offenders.
|
