Quote:
Sounding the wrong note?



Music in the workplace may make the day pass quicker but it's a benefit that can come with a hefty price tag, as some small business owners are starting to find out.
BBC NEWS | Magazine | Sounding the wrong note?

Just thought this may be worthy of some discussion.


On the one hand, the tone of the article seems to me to reinforce the view that consumers of music don't place value on it like they do other similar commodities (TV licence for example?). It also paints the PRS as the big bad evil corporation.

On the other it's never been obvious to me the rules regarding this. I've heard things to the effect of "anywhere that plays live or recorded music to the public requires a PRS licence to do so". I suspect that this is not made clear to many businesses - especially those who are not providing a service centrally based on playing music.

Is there a way the requirements could be made clearer, or would that be seen as overly bureaucratic and pernickety and work against the PRS?

Perhaps there is another way to fund the PRS without concerning the businesses to take action directly? (Tax? shoot me down! )



I would have thought most people involved in creating music commercially would be in support of the PRS? Is the article likely to damage the income of PRS members? Even improve it? Or is it just another trivial pagefiller?

Would appreciate your thoughts
Thanks!