[quote=Notes Norton]
I've been audited twice by BMI, so what I'm doing is strictly legal. What I paid for legal advice was worth it.
…
I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me.
I know little about US copyright-related stuff ... this is a UK-related aside.
…
I never understood how playing public-broadcast radio in the workplace could count as an additional public performance of that radio broadcast and justify an additional licence.
I think someone was trying to scam you, brother. I'm pretty sure that the radio station has already paid
I agree, sounds like a scam. You own no money if you are playing a legal radio station that is playing copyrighted music as they have paid any fees required. No matter how many people can hear it.
Not a good idea to give a legal opinion when a) you aren't a lawyer and b) you are wrong.
I'm neither an attorney nor am I practicing law: everything below is easily looked up. I did work in this field a long time.
If anyone is curious, the US Congress passed the
Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1997/1998). It lays out the rules regarding when the a radio or TV broadcast is considered a public performance and when it is not. I know them cold but it isn't germaine to this subject. Everyone thought that the PROs would howl because there were now rules while the PROs were rejoicing because
now there were rules.
Great Britain and the EU have their own laws about this, too, and they are far more restrictive than the US. Again, this is easily looked up if you're curious.
Anyone remember MUZAK? They went bankrupt telling their customers that those rules would not hold up in court (oh boy were they wrong!). As a result, MUZAK was absorbed by the companies that own Sirius/XM who pay the required licensing fees and pass the cost to their customers.
Music on hold is considered a public performance. Again, there are laws and plenty of companies that can keep their customers in compliance with them.