APRA fees - do they have rights to fine me?

[Deactivated] on 18/12/2014 - 14:02

Hi ozbargainers

We own a hair salon. We got music in the background , TV in the waiting area for our customers. For years there is no problem. Recently Australian Performing Rights Association (APRA) forced us to sign a licence agreement saying we have to pay them licensing fees for the playing of music and TV at our shop.

Now they don't come cheap, we have multiple devices and they want us to pay $400+ annually . It is just another expense we don't need on top of all the pressure we have from economy downturn
Now we are thinking of just ignoring the invoices because they are just daylight robbery, money grabbing exercise.

Has any business owner out there been fined for not paying the fees? Please share your experience.

Entertainment

Related Stores

apraamcos.com.au
apraamcos.com.au

Comments

      • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2014 - 02:30

        I get it, people need to eat. Artists have managers, stylists, cameramen and a whole load of support crew. Somehow though, I don't think the APRA fee is there to just cover costs. I don't think the industry is struggling that the fee will be redistributed according to how many the can get to pay.

  • c64 on 22/12/2014 - 09:33

    play royalty-free music? classical/really old stuff?

    • lint on 22/12/2014 - 09:59
      +3

      These guys are (profanity) and straight up liars.

      They visited my sister's shop (they seem to be doing a massive sweep of Sydney in recent months) and because she didn't know about these licensing things, they pushed her to get a licence.

      She asked me about it though, and I advised her that if she doesn't want to pay licensing fees, you can find performances of classical music whose copyright has expired long ago AND the performance of which has been released into the public domain. Or, because her friend is a musician, you could get her to perform some classical music pieces and give her the rights to royalty-free public performance and broadcast.

      When these APRA guys called back pushing her to pay the licensing fees, she explained to them that she intended to do that instead, but they told her that it doesn't matter who performed it, she still needed to pay APRA the fees.

      They can piss right off with their bullying and lying tactics. From the research I did, and correct me if I'm wrong, APRA are owned by the major record labels in Australia. They claim to collect royalties on behalf of the artists, BUT they will only pay artists IF artists register with them, in which case they get 50% of the payment. If they artist doesn't register with them, the record label gets 100% of the money. Scam!

      Now, if you still wish to play back copyrighted music at your salon, I would advise you to pay their licensing fees. There's no legal way to skirt around that - unless you choose to only play public domain performances of public domain music, such as those found at https://musopen.org/

      But! If you find that they have lied to you about your rights and what you must pay them for vs what they have no rights to collect money for, I would advise you to consult your solicitor or file a complaint at whatever the appropriate place would be to complain about these arseholes.

      • edrooney on 22/12/2014 - 12:50

        Often labels do collect on the artists behalf and income is paid through. Legally the label has to pay through or they will be in breach on their agreement with the artist.

      • mrmarkau67 on 22/12/2014 - 15:45

        I thought APRA was a not for profit who collected royalties for the creators.

  • burningrage on 22/12/2014 - 11:19

    Further to my comment regarding the use Kpop or similar,

    This is from the APRA website…

    I ONLY PLAY MUSIC FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY. DO I NEED A LICENCE FROM APRA AMCOS?

    APRA AMCOS is part of a worldwide network of music copyright societies connected through reciprocal licensing agreements. This network allows our members rights to be administered all over the world, and the rights of overseas composers to be represented in Australia and New Zealand. For example, PRSforMusic administers Lorde’s rights in the UK, and we administer Ed Sheeran’s here. Your licence fee contributes income to Australasian songwriters and to songwriters from around the world.

    It doesn't quite answer the question but considering I have been increasingly hearing a lot of KPops/Jpops/Manda-Pops, I guess they can't really enforce it.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2014 - 11:27

    My work place used to play music if an iPod. Boss told APRA to go to hell. Now we play online radio through iTunes. No problem. Radio station pays for the right to play music so you don't have to.

    • edrooney on 22/12/2014 - 12:42

      "Radio station pays for the right to play music so you don't have to."

      Not true.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2014 - 21:32
        +1

        True, not the way APRA wants it but true

  • pointless martyr on 22/12/2014 - 12:05

    U can play many xmas songs as they are Public domain/ royalty free. Should be ok til easter that way. Then start up again around may and say u r easing into the festive mood progressively through the year!

    • lint on 23/12/2014 - 11:31

      The songs and tunes themselves may be, but a specific performance is most likely not.

      If you're playing back a recording you made of your local choir group singing Christmas carols, you'll be in the clear.

      But if you're playing back Michael Buble or Mariah Carey or whatever - APRA comes to stuff their finger up your arse.

  • Joxer on 22/12/2014 - 16:12
    +2

    As a lawyer, I'm sick of the APRA, MPAA, etc. types saying someone else did all the work how would you like to do work and not get paid for it? Guess what, I do a crap load of pro bono work which is encouraged by the legal practice boards running around. In fact I do maybe 3 hours of free work for every 1 hour I get paid.

    I'm not a charity and I ain't rolling in it, I make less than $40k a year. so go screw yourselves recording artists. Yes there are people out there that do work for free. Ask anyone in a service industry and I'm sure they'll tell you they have done things for free (especially those self employed).

    Go royalty free or personal use if they are too annoying.

    • mrmarkau67 on 22/12/2014 - 17:09

      How much pro bono work do you do for hairdressers?

    • edrooney on 22/12/2014 - 18:10
      +2

      I believe it's your choice as a lawyer to do pro bono work?

      Before these recording artists "go screw" themselves, maybe they should also be given a choice?

      Less than $40k a year …. you must be quite the lawyer.

      • whooah1979 on 22/12/2014 - 19:07

        did you read the part where zoxer said three hours free and one hour paid. it would be ~160k if joxer got paid for all four hours.

        • syousef on 23/12/2014 - 11:32
          -1

          You should seldom give away your work. If $160k lawyers work for $40k, and scientists with a shot at the Nobel Prize work at the CSIRO for free, what chance does a young person starting out have? You are devaluing the work, even if your intentions are good.

          The only thing worse than giving it away is letting other people collect on your behalf and then keep it. APRA's business model should not be legal.

        • whooah1979 on 23/12/2014 - 12:03
          +2

          @syousef:

          a run-of-the-mill solicitor charges around $400-$450 per hour (the one that i used). if solicitors like joxer can do pro bono work and still be happy at the end of the day, then more power to them. pro bono, volunteerism and philanthropism is something the world need more of, not less.

          apra exists only to legally feed middlemen.

        • mrmarkau67 on 23/12/2014 - 16:16

          @syousef:

          They pay 87% of what they collect to creators.

        • syousef on 23/12/2014 - 18:00
          +1

          @mrmarkau67:

          Sure if by creators you mean middle men and random artists because they don't track what's played very well. My point stands.

        • syousef on 23/12/2014 - 18:03
          +2

          @whooah1979:

          I don't think you understand what's happening here. The way things are going pretty soon labour won't be worth anything. Too many people willing to do too much for free. Why pay anyone? Everything from photography to cutting edge science - it's becoming hard to make a living. The rich get richer, while the poor give it away and their pay and conditions continue to be eroded.

        • mrmarkau67 on 23/12/2014 - 18:56
          +1

          @syousef:

          Handing it out unevenly is a bit different to keeping it yourself.

          The actual artists who have posted in this discussion basically supported APRA even though it isn't perfect. Because being paid is better than not being paid.

          Have you ever worked somewhere where everyone was paid EXACTLY in proportion to the effort they contributed?

        • syousef on 23/12/2014 - 19:38
          +2

          @mrmarkau67:

          Have you ever worked somewhere where your boss refused to pay you more than a few cents a day and kept a small fortune in the efforts of your labour?

          If you take a good look at the amounts distributed you'll see that the lions share doesn't go to the artist. What eventually ends up in an artist's bank account is a pitence…a tiny proportion of what they collect. When APRA say they distribute 87% to the artists I am of the opinion that this is blatantly misleading. Most of that amount goes to record labels and middle men, not the artist. The proof is in the pudding - no artist I've personally known has aspired to make a living from their art based on this revenue stream.

          APRA AMCOS boats that it has collected "$256.2 million to 205, 343 songwriters, composers and music publishers around the world for 783, 070 unique songs and musical compositions."

          Now I'd LOVE to know what proportion of that went to the actual creator and performer, but I can't. There are all sorts of dazzling statistics on their site but not that one. Because they're there to collect on behalf of record companies and music execs, not those artists. Once they've passed it on to the "rights holder" they've done their job.

          This is not what copyright was meant to do. It was meant to encourage creation, not greedy middle men, and not a few already rich artists.

        • whooah1979 on 23/12/2014 - 20:29
          +2

          @mrmarkau67:

          is arpa claiming that their overhead is only 13%. is that 13% the gross of the fees collected or is it the net after admin, salaries, super, expenses, legal, etc? if it's the former, then they must be the most organised, efficient and cost effective organisation in the world. if it's the latter, then one can only guess how much fat there is left to distribute. if there is any.

          getting paid is better than getting nothing. but if the pay is a few cents to a dollar then it's more of an insult than a paycheck.

        • mrmarkau67 on 24/12/2014 - 00:40

          @syousef:

          As a matter of fact, yes. I have worked in a business where my boss and my shareholders made millions off my ideas, and I was paid in the mere 6 figures. Typical.

          And yes, I'd like to know how much of the APRA fees go to middlemen.

          But APRA is actually OWNED by the artists. So I don't think it would be as rapacious as certain record labels.

          I could be wrong. I have seen a few musos on this thread who have said they are happy with the money - do you know of any artists who can come on here and comment on NOT getting a fair shake out of APRA?

        • mrmarkau67 on 24/12/2014 - 00:46
          +1

          @whooah1979:

          is that 13% the gross of the fees collected or is it the net after admin, salaries, super, expenses, legal, etc? if it's the former, then they must be the most organised, efficient and cost effective organisation in the world. if it's the latter, then one can only guess how much fat there is left to distribute. if there is any.

          The 13% is costs. So for every $100 they collect, $13 is "dead weight" and the rest is distributed. Its a not for profit, owned by the musicians and songwriters etc. So no profit is retained.

          I walk past their office in Ultimo every now and again. Its nice, but not grand.

          I think there is a lot wrong with the copyright system - and I don't know how fairly the royalties are distributed. But this company is actually owned by the musos.

        • whooah1979 on 24/12/2014 - 09:07
          +2

          @mrmarkau67:

          interesting. so apra is owned by their members. members being the artists rather than the record companies?

          getting paid a fair income for one's work is important. however, the tactics used by some of these companies to collect this income is nothing short if intimidation and bullying.

          edit
          is apra to music similar to what afact is to movies/tv? i see a lot of shops (hairdressers, surgeries, etc) that don't play music, but rather screen fta with no sound. how does licensing work in situations like that.

        • mrmarkau67 on 24/12/2014 - 09:53
          +1

          @whooah1979: apra is nothing like afact. Apra has hundreds of thousands of memmbers, most of them individuals, but I am sure Madonna herself wouldn't be a member.

          Beyond that I don't know. Maybe you could do some research and share it here?

        • syousef on 24/12/2014 - 13:21
          +2

          @mrmarkau67:

          6 figures is not slave labour. Most artists don't make anywhere near that.

          APRA is not owned by the artists. It is owned by the rights holders. Totally different.

          Plenty of artists come out all the time ranting against their record companies and contracts. Just look it up online.

        • syousef on 24/12/2014 - 14:08
          +1

          @whooah1979:

          APRA board of directors:
          http://www.apraamcos.com.au/about-us/board-of-directors/

          CEOs and heads of various music publishers, with a few sympathetic artists thrown in for good measure. Jenny Morris is the one most over about age 30 would recognise. In contrast here are the publishers represented that you'd have heard of:

          Hillsong Music Publishing
          ABC Publishing
          Mushroom Music
          Universal Music
          Warner/Chapell Music
          Sony/ATV Music (2 members)
          Origin Music (2 members)

          Artists represented by the same companies that have been "representing" them for decades.

        • mrmarkau67 on 24/12/2014 - 15:36
          +1

          @syousef:

          I'm quite familiar with rapacious record companies and horrendously unfair recording contracts.

          You do realise that APRA is a not for profit, and it is owned by lyricists, authors, songwriters and composers?

          AMCOS on the other hand is owned by publishers, and it represents the rights of music publishers.

          Do you mind posting some links from artists complaining about APRA and whether it keeps too much of their money?

        • mrmarkau67 on 24/12/2014 - 15:37
          +1

          @syousef:

          Are you familiar with corporate law and the difference between the role directors and the role of shareholders/members?

        • syousef on 24/12/2014 - 18:43
          +2

          @mrmarkau67:

          Yes I'm quite familiar. Are you? How are board members chosen?

          …and how much more would I dig up that you'd continue to refute regardless of what evidence i present?

  • dvsbastard on 22/12/2014 - 16:37
    -2

    Just tell them you agree with their stance, but unfortunately that you do not wish to pay the license fee so you will happily cease playing their music - then ask them to stop broadcasting their artists music into your private premises and your radio receiver will stop working.

  • berry580 on 22/12/2014 - 22:12
    +1

    You have the choice to not broadcast the music. No one can force you to sign it.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2014 - 22:43
    +1

    Ahh ibet these bleeding hearts have utorrent in the background downloading tv shows and movies.

    last time I checked radio was free to listen and the radio stations provide a service to broadcast said music and advertisments. I think it has to stop there.

    bloody polatics these days ruins everything.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2014 - 23:00

    Doubler

  • wtfnodeal on 23/12/2014 - 07:13
    +1

    I dont understand, isn't all the royalties sorted out at the radio station instead of at your shop? The deal is your turn the radio on more people will hear and know about the advertisement in between each song. It is not like every time there is an ads and you turn off the volume and turn back on when there is another song. If you need to pay for this is ok but if the radio station also agree to pay your shop for helping to advertise their advertisements? Isn't that double dipping? Isn't why there are ads free apps we need to buy and apps with tons of ads show up every click can be downloaded for free?

    • ankor on 23/12/2014 - 18:40
      +3

      When people talk about property, they talk about one person owning it, and doing whatever they wish to it.
      The way in which things differ in respect of music can be demonstrated by the examples below:

      Artist Z produces SongA, which is part of AlbumA.
      The artist, if signed, will assign his/her copyright in SongA and AlbumA to a record label.
      Artist representatives help secure the distribution, airplay, sale etc of said music from Album A.

      When PersonA buys AlbumA, or the single, SongA, then they buy it on the condition that the the work is used only for personal listening/usage. There are usually restrictions in place with respect to copying of said musical items, however in practice not many people follow this.

      When RadioStationZZZ decides to broadcast the music to the public at large, then they are not buying the music for personal use. They are using the music in a commercial setting. They pay to APRA a licensing fee to account for this.

      When ownerIAG of HairsalonA decides to buy a cd, or mp3, it is on the condition that the music from AlbumA (or SongA), be enjoyed in a personal/private setting.
      When owner IAG of SairsalonA decides to play the cd, or mp3 of AlbumA in his hair salon, the music provides atmosphere/ambience to the hairsalon. It may keep staff happy and motivated, and provide a more enriching experience for HairsalonA. However, since the ownerIAG of HairsalonA is now using the music in a commercial setting, there is now a separate licensing fee payable to APRA. This fee comes on top of the cost of SongA and/or AlbumA.

      With respect to property, whether it be land, music, software, or a common fork, there is what is known as a 'bundle of rights' that attaches to it. So other examples:

      Land: You have the right to build X,Y,Z, but not A,B,C due to whatever laws are in place. For example, you might think a block of land is a bargain at $1.00, but then upon buying it, you find that you cannot develop the land because there are 200 rhinos left on this land, and they are the last 200 left in the wild.

      A common fork: you own it, you can do what you want with it. Use it, throw it away, sell it, lend it to someone, try and take a loan out with the fork as collateral.

      music: You have the right to listen to it personally, if you buy it. You get to keep the cd, and the cover art. You are not supposed to make copies of the cd, even across different mediums for personal use. You are supposed to pay different fees depending on how you use it.

      I hope that clears it up for you. I am not associated with APRA, but I support what they do. I think that it's pretty hard already for musicians in terms of income, so $400 or so seems a very small fee for something that provides quite a benefit to a cafe, hairsalon etc.

      I will also say that not all musicians are dolebludgers, and I know many who do this on top of working as teachers, roasters, policemen, claims officers, lawyers. If people put work into something, then they should be adequately paid for it. They shouldn't have to spend significant parts of the year away from the family touring, to try and make life worth living as an artist. On the flip side, having so many different rights attached to music is plainly confusing to many and misunderstood. In addition, it feels like double, or even triple dipping to many people, including myself.

      • mrmarkau67 on 23/12/2014 - 19:00

        Great explanation. I think the term intellectual property is very confusing, because it's not like other property. Might be better to call it "creators rights" or something.

        • syousef on 23/12/2014 - 19:19
          -1

          I believe the creator shouldn't retain right of control. Once released it should be free to use by all. The creator should only retain the right to be paid for it's use. On the surface it would seem this is exactly what APRA does. Only they do it so poorly and in such a twisted way that the whole purpose is completely lost.

          The bottom line is this: Musicians do not get what is owed to them from APRA. The approximate methods used are a sick joke that do not see the money distributed to those who provided the added value. Further it seems every organisation and middle man that is set up supposedly to represent artists is actually just after the majority share of the profit.

        • ankor on 23/12/2014 - 21:46

          Thanks! Hopefully it will clear a lot of confusion in this thread.

  • regenade on 23/12/2014 - 09:32
    -6

    If they tried this $hit in south east Asia,people would be laughing. All the riches of living in a developed country , people find good ways to make money, people are smart and live on the hope of Scaring techniques. Its a huge sheep herd here. And artists getting 2K-3K a year are supporting ARPA, there are much better ways to contribute to the society you artists and one way is not to extort people into paying for music. If youe music is good, it sells well and millions of musicialns have made millions of dollars and are much richer than day to day workers who have to pay royalty. But anyway I will conclude by saying that artists taking dole from ARPA is not going to help. Some day you will own something and pay through your nose for everything and then it will come back to hit you.

  • MilkDrinker on 23/12/2014 - 21:12
    +2

    Well from reading some of these comments it seems like you already signed the contract for 1 year, I guess you should just put the license as a tax deduction when the end of June comes along. Then like most people say just switch to royalty free music or hope that the individual people with ipods trick works out.

    Don't want to get into a debate about APRA or intellectual property as it does not do a bit of positive difference in terms of your wallet if you want to fight it in any way

  • frostman on 24/12/2014 - 09:45
    +3

    Stop being a tight-ass and pay it.
    There are costs to running a business legitimately, and this is one of them!

  • shaiguy on 24/12/2014 - 12:32

    FYI - a detailed fact sheet:
    http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/191679342…

    An interesting part of the fact sheet is this: "APRA can grant a complimentary licence to businesses with fewer than 20 staff that play music by either radio or television for the enjoyment of employees. To qualify for the complimentary licence,radio and television sets and any speakers must not be located in an area accessible to customers or the general public."

    Although I do agree with IP - the way that they are going about doing it and trying to bully you into payment is not right. One could suggest that you could apply for a complimentary licence by putting the speakers in somewhere not "accessible" to the general public which is intended for the enjoyment of employees.

  • phoenixx on 24/12/2014 - 13:34
    +1

    What makes you think you have a right to utilise someone else's intellectual property - in a commercial setting - for free.

    Shame on you.

    If it's such a big deal to you make up a CD of public domain songs.

    • knk on 24/12/2014 - 15:27
      +2

      Agreed,

      I also don't think $400 per year for a business is unreasonable. If that's breaking the bank, they must be going through some tough times.

      • mrmarkau67 on 24/12/2014 - 15:39

        They should be fine now that Tony has gotten rid of the Carbon Tax.

        • knk on 24/12/2014 - 15:43
          +3

          Only if they're women.

        • Baysew on 24/12/2014 - 15:48
          +1

          Tony announced that his top achievement as The Minister for Woman was getting rid of the Carbon Tax.

          Can't recycle to same achievement to small business as well.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2014 - 14:00
    +3

    Same deal with on-hold music. You are supposed to pay a licence if you pipe through commercial radio. I also got around it by picking good royalty free music from Jamendo and putting that on an MP3 player. Hint: There is great royalty free/cheap non-douchebag music out there that you could be using instead.

  • fez on 24/12/2014 - 22:14

    Like it's been said already
    It's like when u purchase software you purchase an individual licence (in most cases) so its for use by one user or device

    I think the problem with apra is that not many people realise that they actually exist: also why should I pay a fee to play the radio which has ads / in effect you are helping the station reach a broader audience!
    Understand with cd or downloaded music - it's not for broadcast

    Also with apra - how the f do they divi up the pie of funds to artists??? At least with sporify or online music subs they can track who payed what and how many time and pay the artist accordingly

    Not saying apra is wrong, we pay them at my work as we are public venue, but I think the model is flawed

  • Diji1 on 25/12/2014 - 19:08

    Ya know it actually just occurred to me: there is no contract at all when someone is playing something on the radio - do they have any grounds at all to stand on when it comes down to it?

    Like literally all you are doing ultimately is taking something they're indiscriminately broadcasting over the airwaves. So who are they to tell you where you happen to be when you do that, it's really none of their business while they broadcast it without asking your agreement.

    I concede it's a different when you actually purchase an item such as a CD.

    Just food for thought and I am not any sort of legal expert let alone one in this area.

    • mrmarkau67 on 27/12/2014 - 11:13
      +1

      So who are they to tell you where you happen to be when you do that, it's really none of their business while they broadcast it without asking your agreement.

      They are licensed by the ACCC (part of the Federal Government) to do just that.

  • Baysew on 27/12/2014 - 18:48
    +5

    Just pay the fine. Save yourself a lot of hassle .a lot of fare dodgers use the same excuse. Not suggesting you are one, but from the officer's perspective , it is like I heard this story millions of times.

    (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/176155#comment-2458033)

  • Higgs boson on 16/07/2015 - 11:58

    There is a lot of dissatisfaction mentioned re APRA and it is no all that loved by the artists they represent. Nonetheless it is the current method of collection and as such it represents part of a composer and artist income. You don't pay, I don't get paid. It is that simple. APRA now have a method of sampling songs being played which spits out the relevant details. They just need to walk into your business with their phone in record mode to gather evidence. If you don't want to pay you just need to stop playing music. If that causes a downturn in your business then you will discover the true value of the licence.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join