Marc Allinson: Are PPL charges fair?

This week we have seen the contempt with which those at the PPL treat the licensees with a huge legally enforceable fine for late payment.

I think that the entire concept of the PPL is a con. You are effectively paying for the right to use something that you own.

When I brought this up during my last renewal period, I was told that it was to protect the musicians. How is this the case? I have bought the music legally, the artist has been paid for the work, I don't charge customers to listen to it, if anything it is giving a showcase for the latest music that my customers can then go out and buy for themselves.

Fair enough if I was not buying music and if the money was for a service such as with Sky where the content is not owned by me and is simply streamed to the pub.

The lady on the phone told me that I was paying as it was there as a benefit for my customers.

I compared it to the analogy of the bar stool. It is there for the benefit of the customers at no extra charge, it was designed by an artist (in this case a designer instead of a musician), it is a copyrighted item, it was mass produced, I bought it. Can you imagine if we had to pay a yearly tax to allow the customers to sit down? (don't give them ideas)

The same could go for almost everything in the pub, the floor, the toilets, the ice machine etc.

My PPL also means paying more to have a DJ, even though this for me involved a member of my bar staff playing music from the same selection, only via a mixer deck. Due to this, I reduced the number of DJ nights.

There is then a charge per TV, and then an extra charge for having Sky. I asked for justification, and was told that sometimes during programmes and adverts, music is played and the artist needs payment, surely they were paid by the broadcaster, and it is a commercial subscription.

Each of these activities happens in place of another. If Sky sports are being shown, the music is off, if the music is being played via the DJ, it is not on the regular music system, why should the charges be added on top?

Surely this is not fair. One possible way around this is perhaps a rule whereby music for public performance has to be a little more expensive when first bought with a commercial licence, and this could be policed by the same people who police copyright materials already. However it is done, the rule should be that you only have to pay for it once, regardless as to how it is played since you own it.

If you want the latest music, you pay more, if you are happy to stick with golden oldies, then once you have paid the initial commercial licence, you pay no more, its not like the artist has not already been paid for their work.