Copyright “protection” at it’s worst: Shop owner ordered to pay for performance license for singing while working…

I often start posts regarding stupid copyright decisions and laws on a negative and cynical note. I figured why not switch it up — this one ends favorably for the accused. So, in the spirit of adventure and trying to always stay fresh, here it is: The accused in this story gets an apology and flowers…that’s it. Whew. Since that’s over, if you’d like to know the reasons why flowers and an apology were warranted, continue on…

How’s this for stupidity — Sandra Burt of Clackmannanshire, Scotland was contacted by the PRS (Performance Rights Society) because of her frequent “performances” at work. Mind you, the only reason she had to sing her days away was because the same organization contacted her employer and demanded a performance royalty for playing a radio within earshot of customers. (Let’s not even begin on how stupid a performance royalty is in the first place as content owners already have several other taxes and royalties that get levied before hand). Since her employers complied with the local Satan, Sandra had no other choice but to begin singing. All seemed well until she herself received a letter claiming she was to pay a performance fee for singing popular music to a crowd. The stupidity is overwhelming though unsurprising from such an organization.

Again, coming back to where we started, all ended up just fine and dandy for Sarah after a mountain of public uproar. After which the PRS sent dear Sandra another letter. This second letter sang a more apologetic tune for “a big mistake” and came complete with flowers to boot. How nice. The question however is how do these sorts of “big mistakes” even happen in the first place? Don’t these organizations of some sort of fact checking or system of checks and balances? Oh well, at least Sandra is free (literally) to sing ’til her hearts content without fear of prosecution.

Don’t you like happy endings…

Slashdot > BBC