Scottish firm sued for blaring radios, infringing copyright

Sure, you may get yourself a ticket from local police if you roll around with that in-car stereo cranked, but at least you're not being sued for £200,000 ($407,680). Unfortunately for the Edinburgh-based Kwik-Fit automotive repair center, it actually is being taken to court for that astronomical amount by the Performing Rights Society, which "collects royalties for songwriters and performers." The PRS alleges that "Kwik-Fit mechanics routinely used personal radios while working at locales across the UK and that music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers." Astoundingly, Lord Emslie ruled that the case could actually be heard, so we guess we'll be relying exclusively on headphones from here on out.

[Via Slashdot]

[Simon @ Oct 14th 2007 5:36AM]

what. the. fuck.

[F11 @ Oct 14th 2007 5:45AM]

ANd i thought the Riaa was f***in' bad, this just takes its to ridiculous levels of stupid.

[r3loaded @ Oct 14th 2007 6:17AM]

Simon, you echoed my thoughts perfectly. I hope that this case is taken all the way up the court chain, to make examples of these greedy bastards. Hopefully, this will be the final tipping point in Music Industry vs. Customers

[Glenn @ Oct 14th 2007 10:55PM]

"Hey, Fergus, I'm headin' down to the Kwik-Fit to listen in on the radio down there 'n' stick it to those bloody PRS 'artistes'--gettin' ma tunes fer free! wanna tag along?"

...oh, yeah, that happens.

[michael @ Oct 15th 2007 2:13PM]

Open and shut, actually. Businesses who publicly play music have needed to pay performing-rights royalties since people had to hand-crank Victrolas.

The silver lining here is that the PRS (like ASCAP and BMI in the US) collects the money for the artists themselves, not the record labels.

Unless the label strong-armed songwriting royalties from the artist, that is.

[Chris Aubeck @ Oct 14th 2007 5:47AM]

So if my noisy neighbors won't turn the TV down, I can report them to the Performing Rights Inquisition. I'm going to have fun with this.

[Nobar King @ Oct 14th 2007 11:42AM]

Yeah, me too. Turn it down already!

[kevin @ Oct 15th 2007 2:01AM]

The laws in the US are dirrerent than what it appears to be in Europe. In the US, the copyright is only infringed if it is performed publicly outside of a private residence and is using more than 4 speakers or is being performed in a space larger than a certain square footage depending if the business is considered a bar or restaraunt or other. Your neighbor cannot be sued for copyright infringement unless he is charging for people to come in and watch or he is having the entire town over for an enormous viewing.

[West @ Oct 14th 2007 6:12AM]

"collects royalties for songwriters and performers"

So like the Music Mafia?

[AdvWar @ Oct 14th 2007 11:47AM]

It is common knowledge that the BPI/RIAA base their business practices heavily on those showcased in "the Godfather".

[andi @ Oct 14th 2007 6:16AM]

wow. wonder why people go berserk and kill the others. stupidity is growing way faster than tolerance.

[Eric @ Oct 14th 2007 6:25AM]

The US equivalent would be ASCAP/BMI, and yes they do spend all their time shaking down businesses for royalties. This has been their MO for decades.

The problem has always been that while radio and TV may be free ( as in beer ) when you use a copyrighted work to advance a for profit business you *may* owe royalties. They various groups use this as an excuse to shake down any establishment where music can even be heard by the customers.

[TerryH @ Oct 14th 2007 2:47PM]

You almost sound like you agree with what they are trying to do.

[hazard @ Oct 14th 2007 6:29AM]

and I thought the US had a monopoly on imbecilic litigation

[Twitchy @ Oct 14th 2007 7:32AM]

Quick - file a patent on 'Patent Trolling' and sue the bastards!

[m4272000 @ Oct 15th 2007 9:56AM]

Well as you see you are totally wrong. It's rampant and only getting worst. Look what's going on with Apple and the iPhone. Who do they plan of taking to court next? The shopping mall and the elevator manufacturers for playing music in them? Fuc*ing morons.

[Marc Mitchell @ Oct 14th 2007 6:55AM]

dude, this is a great system, its payed all us song writers musicians well, there the one authority on the artists side in the uk .. there the music police & there on our side.. you only have to pay if your business has public traffic, so as there shop floor or garage is a place or business & open to the public it is right they pay there ( usually ) £1800 per year blanket license to "broadcast" this music to anyone passing through.. if it were closed to the public or not a place of business no payment would be needed.. every shop , bar, pub & club in the uk has to pay this fee every year & its nothing new.. its an essential revenue for the uk phonographic industry, helping get royalties to the artist not the label & funding colleges , courses & grants to any members of the mcps / prs etc .. you got the wrong end of the stick here guys.. kwik fit need to pay up like every other public business playing music to the public.. its probably a large amount if they have been avoiding it or if they intend to enforce this over there 2000 outlets.. but it should be no more then £1800 per year per outlet..

[Darkest Daze @ Oct 14th 2007 7:17AM]

There's a difference between someone playing a personal radio in their workstation and the store playing a radio throughout the place for "ambiance". If a store uses it for the customers, then that's one thing, but this was the place allowing employees to listen to music while working on people's cars. It can get very monotonous doing that kind of work and since it was in their workstation and now in the customer waiting area, they allowed them to listen to music. The fact that the customer could overhear it, doesn't mean the same as using music for the customer.

If I own a store and there's a development right behind it, do I owe the kid living in the house behind me money because my customers can hear his band practicing? That's about the extent that this case is going with. Just because someone can hear something, doesn't mean they were meant to hear it.

[AdamK @ Oct 14th 2007 7:38AM]

Afraid that's not true, sorry. My dad works in a small factory (maybe a dozen employees at most) and they've just been chased up by the PRS for an 850 GBP (that's about 1700 USD) annual licence, despite being completely closed to the public.
They can't even listen to speech-based or sports radio as a compromise, in case a jingle or music clip is played occasionally. Check out the PRS's website for details of this frankly ridiculous rules: http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx

[Kris K @ Oct 14th 2007 12:45PM]

I have to respond to this.

I don't care what kind of business you own.

The people that collect a fee for use of music in a business that customers hear - the music is a part of their business - Bars, Nightclubs, Restuarants, those kind of places. These places make sure that the customers have the ability to enjoy the music as it help with other aspects of their business. To pay the royalty fee for use of copywrited works (music) is fine when it's part the aspect of your business as that has been the policy for 50+ years now.

This situation - I don't care how loud the music is - the music is not part of the aspect of the business - and the reason it is loud is so the Mechanics who use Air tools, have loud engines running (to troubleshoot them) and a bunch of other noisy aspect to their job - even if the music can be herd by customers - the style of the music is most likely not to the customers liking - so most people just irnore it as background noise (like the air toolds), it don't contribute the the profit of the business (which i think is important) and lastly the excess amount of noise the business has to do get their job done, even if the customer likes the song playing, makes listing to the song more of a hassle then a friendly perk of being at this auto shop. People are not gonna say - hummmm "I don;t like this auto shop - they don;t have good music blairing from the mechanics stations - IM going to another shop where i can hear the music the mechanics listen to"

I personly think that if you can prove the business is using the music (without pay royaltys) to enhance it's ability to make money from a customer level - then they should be subject to paying up (like a bar, resturant, nightclub, even a store like a supermarket, clothing store, ect...) these are places where businessess play music to soothe the customer and enhance the experience - or because it is a major aspect to that places business.

I also think that if there is a 'OFF LIMITS AREA' to customers and a music is being cranked in there for EMPLOYEE USE ONLY - even if the sound leaks into the store - it's not the same as a store playing it for the customers benifits.

If a restuant does not play music for it's customers but the kitchen staff needs to crank the local rock station to get through the day - if it leaks out the kitchen and customers hear it - too bad - it's personal, not something that should be collected on.

IF music is being cranked in a warehouse or a stock room (a place where customers are not allowed) and leaks onto the sales floor - too bad - it's personal, not something that should be collected on.

Lastly this place (Kwik auto place - whatever it's called) - the mechanics garage is deffently an off limits place to customers - so if the mechanics want to blast 1, 2 or 12 boom box's to get them through the day and it leaks into the waiting room - too bad, not something that should be collected on.

IF this place looses this case - we seriously need to reconsider how our society works and perhaps even organise and rebel aganst these music watch dogs. IF you have enough people to stand up to them, i don't care what some judge thinks - a judge is not going to tell 1 Million+ people - sorry you have to listen to them - fuck that I say we forceably remove these people from our society - it's just wrong. It's called revolution - and while the Idea to revolt aganst a govenrment is not new - it is new and can be used to revoldt aganst a business or CORPORATION that is just too powerful. It might be wrong from the view of the gov't but they are not going to protect them when the masses are too big.

Things like this should not even go to court. What gonna be next - the night shift at wal-mart or home depot getting sued becuase they crank their tunes to get through the night (non store hours). Kids getting sued for the 5000 dollar+ stereo system in their car - cranking "fuck the police" - BY NWA - on crenshaw blvd. CAR PULLED OVER - POLICE OFFICER:"Thats too loud so it's public performace" - "Here is your Noise pollution fine, and here is your court date for public performance - you need to pay the record industy to play music that loud on the street"

I find it rediculas. Fuck - I can see a schools getting sued next for doing school plays with copywritten songs in their auditorium - not having a licience for public performance. - Or lastly, and this is the best. I can see these organizations suing the Artist themnself who decides to play a free Concert in a public park or something.

This crap is out of hand. on all aspect's - public performance, downloading, buying, labels and artisit. It just rediculas.

It's 2007 - its a brave new world. Im sorry to those old school organizations that can't keep up in the digital age and need to bring frivilous lawsuits. IM sorry but things change - you just have to accept it. Music is gonna become free in order for a band to get a large fanbase. Digitial distribution is going to rule for many years to come and lastly, old school organizations such as BMG, RIAA, MPAA, SWG, and a million others i can't think of at the moment are going to have to disband eventually as they will no longs carry any weight - especially if enough people get together to defy them.

THis story is sick and makes me sick.

Thanks for reading.

[TerryH @ Oct 14th 2007 2:43PM]

If you don't know the proper spelling for the word THEY'RE, you don't deserve to collect a penny from anyone.

[KiraXD @ Oct 14th 2007 4:45PM]

dont they already get paid royalties by the broadcasting station in order to let EVERYONE WITH A RADIO listen to it?

Whats next? suing people who are whistling copyrighted songs?

[Matias Korhonen @ Oct 14th 2007 6:58AM]

And there was me thinking that radio was meant to be heard by the public.

Playing a radio in a workplace? Wow that's outrageous... I mean anybody might listen in on it instead of paying for the broadcast like they should. Uh, wait a minute...

[dan1el @ Oct 14th 2007 7:11AM]

In denmark, at the company I work in we had similar case some years back.
It's an office where someone was listening to radio so others could hear it, then the company needed to pay a fee for that (Licensing by the danish broadcast) so now the company have a different licensing so we can play all the music we want :)

[needlegun @ Oct 14th 2007 7:16AM]

FFS, why don't they gather up all these thought-police idiots, stick them on the next shuttle and fire them off into space on a one-way ticket!

[Chris Aubeck @ Oct 14th 2007 7:21AM]

There are 570 kwik fit centres in the UK so the fine isn't as high as it could be.

[haggis @ Oct 14th 2007 7:35AM]

In this instance it's not a case of Kwik-Fit "broadcasting" music to it's customers at all it's outlets, it's ONE outlet where the radio was being played by employees at such a volume that it was possible for customers to overhear it.

If you go to that particular branch of Kwik-Fit there is a separate enclosed customer waiting area that does not have any form of music broadcasting system installed, so clearly the intention was not to entertain the public with radio broadcasts. When I was last there, with the door closed the sound from the radio was quite muffled and was only clear when the door was left open.

The PRS seems to be more interested in trying to jump on the litigation bandwagon and attempting to make an example of Kwik-Fit rather than applying commonsense, probably in the hope that Kwik-Fit will settle quickly to avoid any adverse publicity. Personally I can't see that it's going to earn the PRS any respect from the listening population or from many of it's members. I know sevral artists who rolled their eyes when they heard this and said "they can't be serious!".

[crypt @ Oct 14th 2007 8:37AM]

This has been happening for years in Australia. In fact a few years ago there was a big debate on whether or not a hair salon could put the radio on, because it was viewed as a business tool that entertained the customer.

What I want to know is, if the music is being played, and people are gaining entertainment from said music. Where do they cross the line as to whether or not the customer is being entertained by the music.

I for one, know that most of the music that I hear in shopping centers, aren't my form of entertainment, yet the law is so vague (within Australia) that they can demand that any music played, at sufficient levels to other people could be seen as copyright infringement.

Just my 2 cents

[spam_free @ Oct 14th 2007 8:39AM]

Businesses should start boycotting these music mafias and place a large sign where customers can see that reads "We apologize for the lack of music due to the outrageously high licensing fees and litigious music labels. Please enjoy the copyrighted magazines and newspapers. Oh, wait..."

[Chris @ Oct 14th 2007 1:45PM]

Yeah because they got those magazines and newspapers for free right?.. Oh wait...

[JamesR @ Oct 14th 2007 11:40PM]

The radio stations have ads to pay for content. It's not "free".

[bugmat @ Oct 14th 2007 8:42AM]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. They will be suing ppl with car radios and CD players next for playing music with more than one person in a car!! Idiots!

[Legodude522 @ Oct 14th 2007 10:32AM]

Next the will sue a board of ed for having the radio played on the school buses.

[fourthletter @ Oct 14th 2007 8:56AM]

This has been law around the world for a long time, the point behind the article here is that Kwik-Fit obviously didn't want to pay for its customers or workers to listen to the radio, so it let it's employees bring in personal radios that were playing loud enough for everyone to hear, that does break the law, not a new law a law that has been around since at least the 50's so why all the Geek-Whining ? Did the big nasty copyright man take a large business to court for avoiding a license that nearly every other bar, restaurant and work place have had since your grandparents were working for them ? Have you ever been to Kwik-Fit ? they are the biggest rip-off artists in car repair I certainly won't be sheading a tear for them.

[Marky @ Oct 14th 2007 9:04AM]

I agree. This is an old law and nothing new - not really worthy of a blog entry to be honest as companies in the UK are penialised all the time for this. Fact is if you have a radio on loud enough for 'customers' to hear you must pay for it.

[Jeremy K. @ Oct 14th 2007 11:29AM]

This may be old news for those of you in UK, but for those of us in North America, we've never heard of a law like this before. I'm pretty sure if we had a law like this in USA, people would be PISSED.

[robjennings @ Oct 14th 2007 12:34PM]

@Jeremy K.
No, this exists in North America. In the US, ASCAP administers licensing, and in Canada, SOCAN.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this. Just ask anyone you know who runs a small business that receives customers. They probably pay ASCAP or SOCAN fees.

[Shane @ Oct 14th 2007 6:25PM]

The difference with the ASCAP/BMI laws in the US, however, deal with whether or not a business actually has a music system installed for the express purpose of reproducing music for the customers or if they just casually have a radio on which might happen to be heard by customers.

Some might try to argue this but the licensing fees in the US don't apply to just casually having a single radio playing regardless of whether or not that radio might be heard by customers.

If that radio is connected to a series of speakers in a public area, however, that is something completely different.

[kakapo @ Oct 14th 2007 9:03AM]

So... I have this song floating around in my head because I awoke to it this morning because I have my iPod set up as an alarm clock. Whilst I am softly humming it to myself on the bus to work the person next to me overhears my humming and asks me what the name of the song is. I reply that is "blah blah blah" and he says, I don't know that one can you hum sing a few words to the chorus. Being a nice guy, I oblige. He immediately has me arrested for public braodcast of a copyrighted work. (My own - by the way) and I am fined for squillions of dollars. Ten years later I receive a notification that the governing body has collected these fees and I was to be compensated for the public use of my song but with all the legal fees and such there wasn't any money left.

Yes, protection of the muso is so spot on!

What a crock of shite!

[Fank @ Oct 14th 2007 9:12AM]

I guess we'll see about a thousand lawsuits like this tomorrow in America, huh?

[eurobloke @ Oct 14th 2007 9:19AM]

Sound to me like where the Finnish version of RIAA, Gromex ordered taxi drivers to pay 20€ (around US$25)per year so they could listen to their own radio in their own car. This due to the fact customers could hear it, even if the taxi drivers and customers have payed the TV tax of over 200€ and hear commercials on the commercial stations.

[Andrew @ Oct 14th 2007 12:35PM]

The fact that they hear commercials has nothing to do with it. The commercials benefit the radio station, the fee you are talking about (20 Euro) is for the *artists*. And, no, not the labels or companies pushing their albums - but the actual real-life people that make the music.
The TV tax is also not related to any entertainment company but a government fee for *owning a TV* so it makes no sense for you to bring that up. (I'm from Scandinavia).

[Zhalfim Deyn @ Oct 14th 2007 9:40AM]

just a thought...

isn't this the reason that Apple is making people buy the musical ringtones? as far as I remember (and understood) that's because apparently it is a form of unauthorized broadcasting or something or the other...

in the end though, this is just plain stupid...

now if they were blaring it too loud, that I can understand, or playing inappropriate music (which is kind of stretching it, but it is a semi-public area, I can kind of justify the thoughts there)...but a personal music station thing? that's just stupid...

just a few thoughts, thank you for your time...

[Josh L @ Oct 14th 2007 12:35PM]

Using a short clip of a song you already own (either the CD or the digital form you bought legitimately) as a ringtone is covered under Fair Use. I can't imagine...

Well, I was about to say I can't imagine anyone winning a court case to the contrary, but then I came to my senses. Apple forcing customers to buy their songs twice by locking down their iPhones is a scam, no doubt about it, but I suppose no company -- or private citizen -- can ever cover their asses thoroughly enough in today's world.

[Zhalfim Deyn @ Oct 14th 2007 7:52PM]

here are the two articles that might be relevant:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/know-your-rights-how-does-fair-use-work/

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/07/know-your-rights-is-it-illegal-to-make-my-own-ringtones/

while neither look really all that favorable for our sensibilities, I still think this whole situation is stupid...

[Deluxe @ Oct 14th 2007 9:51AM]

This is fucking ridiculous.
I turned my music up extra loud so my neighbours can hear in retaliation.

===== SHARE THE LOVE =====

[Biggles @ Oct 14th 2007 10:21AM]

I would be interested to hear the Radio Stations thoughts on this, it could have an impact on their listening figures and advertising revenues. But i really don't think anything will come of this.

[Legodude522 @ Oct 14th 2007 10:35AM]

Whats weird is that a lot of radio stations promote having people play their station in their work place and sometimes give out prizes to workplaces that play their station.

[Glenn @ Oct 14th 2007 11:20AM]

I remember seeing that movie "About A Boy" where Hugh Grant played this guy whose father wrote this Christmas song that became famously played every year and he lived very well off just the royalties from that song... I thought, "Huh?". Now I know how that could be true.

Ludicrous. The PRS and all such groups are nothing more than some Music Mafia. They and the artists/performers they represent and "front" can all go straight to .

[Darkest Daze @ Oct 15th 2007 4:21AM]

In real life, Hugh Grant would still be poor while the music label makes millions of dollars off of his song.

What's funny is that, without knowing about this, my mom told me that BMI called her store to let her know that if they have a music system with more than 4 speakers, they need to start paying them for playing any music at all. Whether it's a cd, radio, or anything else.