Alas not a single mention of if these songs required a whole different set of licenses to play. The act of changing the song list can lead down to a confusing licensing set as there's at least 4 different licensing authorities, each covering a differing set of songs.
My understanding is that if you ever have considered playing music in a business, you pretty much have to get licenses for all of them. AFAIK, ASCAP/BMI/Whoever don't operate their own services, so you're always at risk, if you don't get licenses from everybody, that whatever service you use will play a verboten song and poof there go your profits for the last N quarters.
At least with the ones above (Soundtrack Business), all that licensing seems to be included at least in US/CA. Sounds really complicated to deal with each one otherwise...
Yes, legally restaurants have seperate licensing requirements and can't just use Spotify for their music.
In reality, most small restaurants and cafes just use Spotify. Bars and larger restaurants tend to be a bit more fastidious in getting the correct rights.
Normally (rant mode on) it is my opinion that most drive-by down-votes are by lazy cowards who think someone's opinion is wrong, but is unwilling to debate (probably because their counter-argument is rather weak, honestly). Too much of this and you get the atypical "mob mentality" typical on most social media networks -- most of which have become intellectual wastelands, replaced by feel-good quick-dopamine-hit memes all focusing on whatever "side" the social media collective has embraced. (Counter-narratives and counter-opinions, beware.)
But this doesn't quite fit the usual pattern. In this case, I must have misinterpreted something, perhaps. But someone is not willing to say what is incorrect.
Interesting! Because, the alternate view is that I'm absolutely right, and the downvoter just had a weird beef with Spotify or restaurant.org. Hard to tell. It's a social media downvote after all.
> A PRS for Music licence also allows you to play live music on your premises (such as in a pub, restaurant or nightclub).
> PRS for Music collects and distributes money for the use of the musical composition and lyrics on behalf of authors, songwriters, composers and publishers.
It’s not about whether the audience is large or small.
Performance rights are about whether it’s public or private and the venue is paid or free. For private use where those present are by invitation only and haven’t paid to be there, I don’t think any further license is necessary, beyond simply owning a copy of the work to be performed.
If you are a group of people reading a book and discussing it in an organized manner you are supposed to pay royalties for it. (Source, I've gotten such money from Sweden)
Sounds like a good reason to stick to classics in such groups.
Seriously, if I knew about such a stipulation, I'd be incentivized not to buy copyrighted books to read for a book club in the first place.
I'm really glad there is a corpus of public domain works; so much good is possible (or positively incentivized) because of it. Too bad it isn't growing much (e.g. Steamboat Willie is still, still under copyright restrictions nearly 100 years later).
