Another UK Hairdresser Fined For Turning On Her Radio

from the no-more-radio dept

We recently wrote about a UK hairdresser being fined for not paying the PPL license for playing a radio in his shop — even though he’d already been paying the PRS license. Now, if you follow this stuff, you probably know that PPL and PRS cover different aspects of collective licensing, but it strikes many, many people as being patently ridiculous that they need to pay two separate license fees just to turn on a radio in your shop. That story has a rather epic comment thread (well over 500 comments at this point), mainly involving one very, very insistent UK resident who sees no problem with this setup. Of course, he also states that if something is in the public domain it means no one’s allowed to sell it at all — so he’s a bit confused on the subject.

In the meantime, however, it appears that PPL has decided that targeting hairdressers and barbershops is in the best interests of its members. mike allen points us to the news that a second hair salon in the same town has been hit with fines. Like the first, she had no idea she had to pay two separate licenses just to turn on her radio, and thought that when a PPL person called (and wouldn’t leave a callback number) that it was an obvious shakedown scam. Unlike the other guy, this hairdresser is refusing to pay, saying that the whole thing is ridiculous, seeing as she already paid for a license from PRS.

Once again, while people who are heavily involved in this stuff understand the difference between the licenses, it’s pretty ridiculous for anyone to expect a mom & pop shop owner to do the same. All these actions are doing is convincing everyday folks just how ridiculous copyright law is — while, at the same time, convincing these shops to just turn off their radios, which helps no one. It’s such an incredibly short-sighted view by PPL.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: ppl, prs

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Another UK Hairdresser Fined For Turning On Her Radio”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
IronM@sk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Sigh...

Yeah, on that note, I just went and had a look at that story to see what the fuss was about AND BOY does techdirt not play nice when people get into a nested conversation.

After about 10 nested responses they just turn into one-word-per-line replys that take a couple of flicks with the scroll wheel to read. That’s pretty poor site design.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Sigh...

“After about 10 nested responses they just turn into one-word-per-line replys that take a couple of flicks with the scroll wheel to read. That’s pretty poor site design.”

You can fix this by logging in and setting your preference to variable width rather than fixed width. Alternatively, it’s fairly easy to fix with a greasemonkey script.

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’m not sure that was directed at you DH. More likely it was that subliterate NAMELESS ONE and a few others who do it frequently.

As for using italics, see the last line of the comment reply box? If you put a “” before the word(s) you want to italicize then a “” at the end of the word(s) it should work. Be sure to Preview before you Submit, because in my browser at least it adds extra tags in that italicize everything in the comment from the start of my italics to the end of the post. Not sure why.

Sorry for the awkward “quote marks” around the tag descriptions, but it I put them all together than they won’t show up.

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Dammit! It took out the tag description anyway, even though I put some other words and punctuation between the descriptors.

Um, just look at the “Allowed HTML Tags” at the bottom of the comment box and the “i” one starts italics, and to finish using it, put the same thing but with an “i/” in between those brackets. Sorry if that’s not very helpful, but those brackets don’t show up as text.

Anonymous Coward says:

If I was a hairdresser in the UK I’d get some from indie music to play. Hell, if this was happening over here I’d make sure my hair dressers get them set up with a bunch of music that no one will go hunting them down for.

Although since this makes to much damn sense there is probably some way for these organizations to bleed cash out of them still.

Anonymous Coward says:

overall, it begs the question: if the music is not relevant to the business, why have it on to start with? at the end of the day, the music is used to improve the atmosphere of the shop, and make it more desirable. if everyone charges about the same for the haircut, isnt atmosphere something that would differentiate one shop from another?

if it isnt needed, turn off the radio and call it even. how hard is that?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“overall, it begs the question: if the music is not relevant to the business, why have it on to start with? at the end of the day, the music is used to improve the atmosphere of the shop, and make it more desirable. if everyone charges about the same for the haircut, isnt atmosphere something that would differentiate one shop from another?”

You know what? You’re right! And we ought to take it a step further. Hair cuts really are only there to increase presentability. Shouldn’t the hairdresser get a cut of everything improved upon by the haircut? For instance:

1. A cut of the haircut-ee’s paycheck. After all, he wouldn’t have gotten that big sale w/o that awesome looking faux hawk….

2. A cut of the enjoyment of that family photo. Who wants a portrait of a caveman looking family anyway?

3. A little piece of that bah-dussy I got the other day. My girl told me I looked good the other day after I got my hair cut and promptly performed several sex acts on me (she gives great helmet). It only makes sense that I march her over to the Hair Cuttery so that she can peform the same acts on Monica, my chief of scissor to hair manager….

Or, I don’t know, maybe this is all just silly….

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Those are good points. Why aren’t all musicians who use a licensed hairdresser, stylist or makeup artist (I’m assuming they have to be licensed in the UK as they do in the States, but I could be wrong) required to pay a fee to the HSCA (Hairdresser, Stylist and Cosmotology Alliance (not real, btw))?

After all don’t they derive a significant amount of their fans based on their look almost as much as their sound? Lady GaGa I’m looking at you. If so shouldn’t all musicians who use one have to support all these beauticians? Not just the big name well established ones, but the up and coming struggling stylists who won’t be able to make ends meet without these fees, right?

What’s the difference in these two arguments?
Answer: Nothing. Both are asinine.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

it doesnt matter if it is a public broadcast or not, it is being used to bring in business (or as a feature of the business) and is as a result a commercial use. as i said, if the music isnt relevant to making money or keeping people in the place, then just turn it off. no big deal.

Dementia (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And if it is used for the enjoyment of the individual who owns the radio?? What then? Are they not entitled to use their personal property at a time and place of their using to listen to a public broadcast? So yes, it does matter. If the hairdresser is using it for their own enjoyment they shouldn’t need a license. If their clients happen to listen and enjoy it, too freakin bad. Don’t let the radio stations play it and no one will be any worse off, except of course the artist, the label, and the collection society.

Joe Public says:

How Much is Enough?

How many times should we pay for the same stuff ?

In the UK we pay a TV / Radio licence fee – no option

Some of that money pays for the BBC Radio stations which pay for the music they Transmit

Then they say but wait Now you need to pay the PRS to play what you paid up for to transmit.

Now the PPL Say Ok So you pay to transmit / Then you pay to play now you need to pay if you hear.


O yes and don’t forget that every car in the land that has its windows down and the radio on needs to pay just like a shop.


Anonymous Coward says:

To use italics here do this.


The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

i>The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog/i>

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

At the end below the comment box there is tags one can use in here.

* Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break br> tag, all other allowable HTML is intact
* HTML: No formatting of any kind is done without explicitly being written in
* Allowed HTML Tags: b> i> p> a> em> br> strong> blockquote> hr> tt>

CrushU says:

Hairdresser effect?

Really, I can’t think of any worse business to sue over this than hairdressers.

Barbers/hairdressers are KNOWN for conversing with their clients quite often. If there’s a better way to spread hate over copyright laws, I can’t think of it.

“Mornin Bob, the usual just a couple inches off the top.”
“No problem.”
“Hey, why isn’t there any music playing? Your radio broke?”
“Nope. Those bloody PPL people…”
“Huh? What’re you talking about?”

Ahem. Et cetera, Et cetera.

Krash says:


I need a lawyer. I think I will copyright AIR and SCREW the world. Well on second thought.

Being in an pleasing atmosphere (hair dresser, work/slave shop, you get the picture), where you can relax and enjoy the company of your work mates and patrons is better for all involved. So bring on the radio.

Now if you are having a bad hair day, no pun intended, doesn’t music help calm the screaming beast? So, why charge for something so physiologically positive?

Now if get the copyright on AIR, I will withhold this precious commodity from certain people unless they pay big time. Then I will return this money back to the little people that got took because of stupid greedy big business IDIOTS.
Do I see robin-hood here, at least Hollywood style?

Few seconds should do it, least till they start turning blue. Don’t want them to pass out till they sign on the dotted line.

Brain dead so read between some of the lines and add a little more.

Anonymous Coward says:

I think those collection agencies are brilliant they are doing for the music business what the unions did for workers in the 90’s.

That is, workers had their jobs transferred to other places and lost their jobs, in the same way musicians will find difficult to find promotion anywhere and will loose their other revenue streams.

I’m wondering when people will start banning musicians from posting their music anywhere as people could have to pay licenses to those crook’s.

FlyBoyMark (profile) says:

You Gotta Be kidding!

This is why the UK has become a third rate banana republic instead of the great FREE country it used to be. A sign of socialistic values that destroy greatness. This policy makes me want to vomit and never visit the UK. The ignorant little sheep of the UK will continue on their path to lost mediocrity till their country is gone with the winds of time.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...