Plymouth beauty salon banned from playing music by the High Court
A ST Budeaux salon owner has been banned from playing music at her business by a top judge.
Deana Thornton, who runs Creations Nails and Beauty Salon in Victoria Road, was summoned to the High Court where it was heard she had been caught playing copyrighted music on the premises without a music licence.
-
She now faces a legal costs bill of £1,768 and was warned she would face a heavy fine or even prison if she disobeyed the order, the court heard.
Mrs Justice Proudman banned Thornton from playing music at the salon until she got her music licence up-to-date.
Thornton was not present or represented in court.
The judge was told inspectors from Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) visited the premises on October 3 and heard recorded tracks being played in public.
He said solicitors had sent letters to the premises telling Thornton of the nature and extent of PPL's repertoire and that playing recordings in public without PPL's licence or permission is an infringement of its copyright, and inviting her to get a licence.
The court heard she didn't do this and PPL's solicitors served notice of this claim on her.
Thornton's ban applies to all forms of recorded music such as records, tapes and CDs in PPL's repertoire.
Music licences can cost hundreds or even thousands of pounds, depending on the size of the venue and the audiences involved.
PPL is the UK-based music licensing company which licenses recorded music for broadcast, online and public performance use. It was established in 1934 and carries out this role on behalf of thousands of record company and performer members.
Deana Thornton was not available to comment.
21 Comments
View all
by stripeysox101
Wednesday, February 15 2012, 5:56PM
“@mark1964: Playing a radio station she would still have to pay them as she is broadcasting the music by members of PPL.
@MickBarb: The only way to "beat" them is by using an 'alternative' site which expressly tells you you don't need one because the artists are signed exclusivly to that site and cannot become members of PRS/PPL -- and believe me the 'quality' is not that great
These organisations, PPL and PRS for Music (a similar company) do tthis to all small businesses across the country. The costs of licenses from each are around £200 and often it is calculated by square inch floor space then you pay on top for things like multiple relay points (ie speakers), special demonstrations, special events and so forth. It is truly outrageous that these companies can see you charged for the download/CD, the CD player, and then the right to play the music again. They are secretive and when I recently contacted them as part of an investigation into their methods and purposes they made it plain they are more than happy to accept the powers conferred by statute (Copyright Designs & Patents Act) but not to accept the responsibility of accountability to the public which ought to come with the use of such power (presently it only does so where the body is established by statute).”
by stripeysox101
Wednesday, February 15 2012, 5:54PM
“@mark1964: Playing a radio station she would still have to pay them as she is broadcasting the music.
These organisations, PPL and PRS for Music (a similar company) do tthis to all small businesses across the country. The costs of licenses from each are around £200 and often it is calculated by square inch floor space then you pay on top for things like multiple relay points (ie speakers), special demonstrations, special events and so forth. It is truly outrageous that these companies can see you charged for the download/CD, the CD player, and then the right to play the music again. They are secretive and when I recently contacted them as part of an investigation into their methods and purposes they made it plain they are more than happy to accept the powers conferred by statute (Copyright Designs & Patents Act) but not to accept the responsibility of accountability to the public which ought to come with the use of such power (presently it only does so where the body is established by statute).”
by MickBarb
Tuesday, February 14 2012, 1:58AM
“Larry quote- "These ppl people are a very powerful group and you cant beat them"-unquote
I hear there are ways..;)
No wonder there's such a thriving CD counterfeiting industry, everybody hates their guts.”
by crazypenguin
Monday, February 13 2012, 9:53PM
“Am I missing something here? have the business in question not paid for the music when buying the cd/download? can anyone name any other products where you have to pay the same people twice? once for buying the product then once for actully using it, pure record company greed, in my mind once youve paid for an album you should be able to use it however you wish, you could argue this woman is not even using this cd to make a profit...unless people go to a beauty salon for the music? highly doubtful, record companies fleecing small business owners thats all this is.”
by nickthompson
Monday, February 13 2012, 9:14PM
“SollyAtwell, if you believe that businesses should be allowed to use a product produced by somebody else for the enjoyment of their customer's without paying for that product,where do you suggest that songwriters,producer's,recording studio's,etc,etc,receive payment,they have to live as much as saloon owner's,perhaps they should be paid from from our Council Taxes?
I suspect such a proposition might change your mind.”
by marc1964
Monday, February 13 2012, 6:45PM
“what a waste of tax payers money, all she has to do is play an all music radio station . job done”
by SollyAtwell
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:38PM
“nick
As the judge said to the salon owner "don't split hairs with me about this"
"I was listening to music,the fact that it can be heard by others is unfortunate"
Same could be said for the salon owner.
With regards the license, I was recieving a transmission the fact it can be overheard by others is unfortunate.”
by nickthompson
Monday, February 13 2012, 1:10PM
“SollyAtwell.
These chavs are not playing music for the general public to listen to,their defence in court would be "I was listening to music,the fact that it can be heard by others is unfortunate,(although if I had my way their vehicle would be confiscated).
With regard the TV licence fee, this entitles you to recieve transmissions, NOT to use them to entertain other's.”
by SollyAtwell
Monday, February 13 2012, 12:42PM
“What about the chavs driving around in their souped up bean cans playing loud music to the public?
Presumably they should require a Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) licence?
Incidently isn't a portion of the TV licence used in order to listen to a radio?
Meanwhile, crime in Plymouth spirals out of control”
by nickthompson
Monday, February 13 2012, 12:36PM
“by MickBarb
Monday, February 13 2012, 6:47AM
.
"How petty-minded of the music industry!"
Not at all Mickbarb, the music Deana Thornton's customer's enjoy,was written,and recorded by other people who earn their living by doing just that, what would Deana think if you went into her shop expecting beauty treatment FREE of CHARGE.”