If You Play Your Radio Loud Enough For Your Neighbor To Hear, Is It Copyright Infringement?
from the maybe-so dept
In the past, we've wondered about the business logic of various music performance societies suing restaurants and bars for playing a music without a license. However, we never denied that it was well within their legal rights to go after these places for not getting a license for performance rights. It just didn't seem very smart from the business side of things. Still, it's not hard to go from the question of whether or not restaurants should pay for performance rights when playing music to rather ridiculous situations. Take, for example, the case that reader El Nege points us to in the UK, where a car repair firm is being sued because its mechanics listened to their personal radios too loud.It's not difficult at all to figure out what's going on here. The mechanics working out in the garage have radios playing while they work, and there's plenty of noise in the garage, so they're likely to turn those radios up. Customers in the enclosed area next to the garage are certainly likely to hear that music... but is it really a public performance? The Performing Rights Society in the UK certainly thinks so, which is why they're suing. The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, performance rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What a waste of UK Taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/20765
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Users of wireless equipment next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Users of wireless equipment next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Users of wireless equipment next
Probably not the most reliable source of news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh no...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't matter much.
I think that the only way to make ass holes go away is to piss them off and make them cry.
So if everyone would just stop buying packaged music for a year...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't matter much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doesn't matter much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't matter much.
just like the monopoly games from fast food joints
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't matter much.
So everyone just stop buying music in any form, for one year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Next
Give me a break - people have been purchasing items and sharing the use of the items since the beginning of time. At this rate, in a few years we will see all of the churches being sued for sharing the use of the Bible and its members being sued for quoting scripture and sharing information from the Bible with people that have not purchased a Bible for their own personal use.
Lead 'em own ole devil - lets see how crazy the legal system is in the US - it must be a joke to most of the world - We have confused the legal system with the lottery system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Next
"...it must be a joke to most of the world - We have confused the legal system with the lottery system."
Sadly the legal system has not been *confused* with the lottery. It has been turned in to a form there of... an unfortunately lucratively form of it with no signs of slowing down any time soon. Sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as burning your own copy of a CD, I saw an interview with the president of RIAA and he said they weren't concerned with that for personal use, though it still may violate the copyright.
The way to change all this is to support independent artists and encourage them to use licensing such as Creative Commons. If the artists are really concerned about their own Intellectual Property, then maybe they should show it by taking ownership of the process as well, as opposed to putting a bunch of pinhead bureaucrats in charge of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My hammer
No, because the designer is not a greedy b***ard.
Performing Rights Society (UK) and the RIAA (USA) are just leeches living of the backs of the performers. They are doing more harm than good.
Fortunately there are signs that the new bands are moving away from the main stream model. Maybe in a few years the leeches will have no clients as the will all move away. I do hope so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd rather see civil resolution to this, of course, but nobody seems interested in that - there's no money in it that hasn't already been extracted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But....
Secondly, surely it could only hold up in court if it can be proved that these loud radios are attracting a crowd of people who are hanging around specifically to hear free music. Perhaps these people hanging around are also recording the music and selling it on or distributing over the internet. What evil people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but only if they enjoy it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Einstein was so very, very, very right..
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue Happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gods' legal dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Gods must be Laughing
I think the recording artists should stop selling records to the public and record their songs for their own listening.
Regarding the incident this blog post mentions in the beginning, about infringement of copyright by mechanics who played their radios too loud, I can think of no more silly-er stuff that's expected of the honchos sitting there to protect the intellectual rights of performers.
First of all, when it comes to radio, the radio station has already paid for the broadcast rights of the said content.
Second, how loud the customer plays the radio is completely his or her personal choice and the right lies on the customers' own sweet will (unless ofcourse you are crossing the levels of noise-pollution in your jurisdiction).
Third, even if it's a pre-recorded audio CD in place of radio, the customer must have the right to let any number of friends and relatives to share the content with. Why else did the customer pay for the original disc. He should better have gone for a pirated copy.
I feel it is unjust to expect the garage mechanics to get licenses for performing rights in this case since they do not receive any monetary benefit from the guys who happen to be outside listening to the piece of the music.
Another point of common sense is that, if I'm playing a radio loud enough for the people outside my house to hear, it could simply be that I have a hearing problem. Haha.
This issue is quite a nonsense. Not anything expected from those people at high places.
There still are many artists who barely make a living by selling music. And there are many who make a gigantic more than that. Come to think of it and you'll find many many many instances where you have been made to pay for singles that are absolutely worthless. Did you run to sue a music company or an artist for selling those crap music? Did you have the right?
Yes, I agree with Adam, its time we actually start supporting independent artists. Shun the other recorded songs.
edNPm.071006
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound of Silence
pardon me for my blatant copyright infringement there but it seems rather prophetic with the way the music industry in particular is changing the way we percieve that we are allowed to enjoy music and other forms of art. The reason songs are written is to be sung, heard and enjoyed. If only the writer of a song is allowed to sing it, we lose the fundamental enjoyment of the music. If only those that the singer allows can listen, more is stripped away until all we have is silence.
I'm feeling profound now - boy let me tell you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now if I am out back playing with the dog and listen to a cd, will my dog get in trouble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, if you hum a tune to yourself, one you haven't purchased, are you violating copyright? What if you just think it? If I run through lyrics in my head (of a song I haven't bought) should I turn myself in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The garage is a place of business, none of your examples are.
You should circumvent the argument that the business could be indirectly profiting from "entertaining" customers. It's clear that that's not the case here and this is just ridiculous litigation. But I think your examples should expose how silly that reasoning is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's another idea
Suppose I then think it's a great song and go buy the CD. Heck, I think it's so good that I buy CD's for my friends as well.
I bet if this scenario happened, the industry would be happy about this "public performance" and would be promoting how this free advertising leads to more sales.
Instead, they're so focussed on the "now" that they can't see any value in letting go of a few "free" items.
How long until radio itself is shut down because it's a "public performance"? Yes, I know that radio stations pay to play the music (or whatever the arrangement is), but how long will it be until some RIAA exec gets the idea that these songs are being given away for free... and these "free songs" are hurting sales of CD's?
Not likely, you say? Then again, who could have predicted that these people would sue a garage for playing songs too loudly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suffice it to say I later learned what he was playing and subsequently bought the records/CDs. An otherwise inconsiderate act turned promotional. Take that, RIAA and your ilk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As of this week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealers
Same thing.
Same thing. In fact many places have recognized this threat to artists rights and have now made it illegal to play your car radio loudly enough to be heard so many feet from your car.
See above.
Silly? You think this is silly? Go ask Jammie Thomas how "silly" it is. She wasn't smiling too much in the last picture I saw of her! (Ha ha, serves her right!)
Because people don't buy what they can get for free dumbass. If that garage wants to entertain its customers with music while they wait they need to pay for a license so that the artists get paid, not just steal it off the radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Music
I'm trying to get a movement going to make music free. I know this sounds a little off, but just take a look at what I've been thinking.
Here
and here.
Now, I know I'm no fantastic musician, and some people may even hate what I've done. But, I think my ideas make sense. This business with the RIAA and other media dictators has gotten far too out of hand. It's time to stop this ridiculousness. None of it makes sense. The whole system is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F*** off, RIAA
...unbelievable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Napster anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS seeks Darwin award
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elevator music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Elevator music
http://music.muzak.com/whymuzak/default.aspx
" * All licensing fees (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) included "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: elevator music
Wedding planners are also expected to pay performance royalties. It is considered a public performance after all.
Even when a band plays 'covers' at a club, the club has to pay for performance rights.
Is it fair? probably not.. but that's how it works: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties4.htm
I you're playing music at a public event or in a BUSINESS loud enough for your customers to hear it, you have to get permission from both the songwriter and performer, usually by paying some money to some agency that supposedly represents them. If you happen to know the songwriters and performers personally, you can skip dealing with the agents and come to some direct arrangement. Like perhaps give them a few free beers after the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wowwwwwwwww
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who pays what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Closely related to public performance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame it on the ARTIST
It would be much better if they all got together and created CD's that had a combo of artist on it. For instance, we could have theme CD's; Driving Music, Inspiring Music, Hate Music (or getting over a love), etc. For every mood there is or should be music out there to help people feel it and move on. These whiny artists need to stop being so damn self and start working with other artists to fix the problem; we don't like an entire CD of the same hoo-humm music anymore. So, STOP MAKING THEM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call for an Amendment to copyright law!
The recent court decision, that making audio recordings available to be copied is a form of unauthorized distribution whether or not anyone actually copies them, spells the end of the internet as we know it, if that decision is upheld in higher courts. Why? Because the internet potentially devalues audio recordings, and the artificial monopoly of audio recordings is one currency of the legal copyright cartel. If that decision stands in the Supreme Court, the internet will be shut down because the basis of the internet is the free sharing of data between computers. In its place will be a corporate power sharing system which excludes any unauthorized connections. That is the logical extension of the current legal threats to peer to peer sharing.
And why would this be perceived to be in the best interests of the copyright cartel? Because their copyrights are worthless if audio recordings are exchanged without paying them any money. Just as, the US dollar would be worthless if US citizens would exchange goods without paying the Federal Reserve any money. The value of the US dollar translates into the ability of the Federal Reserve to tax exchanges between US citizens and the value of audio recordings translates into the ability of the copyright cartel to tax copies of audio recordings.
We do not need to pay anything to copyright holders in order to make copies of music, nor do we need to pay the Federal Reserve in order to exchange goods. The belief that we must, is the basis of their power. But the Federal Reserve is not necessary for the government to print currency; and a copyright cartel is not necessary for original works to be valuable. We can make up money in our minds and we can make up audio recordings on computers. Neither one has any intrinsic value, only the value we attach to it socially, politically, psychically.
Copyright law permits a limited monopoly on original works; but the copyright cartel collects the rights to copy original works by buying them. They decide the value of their recordings, and eliminate any threat to that value, and absorb any competition to their monopoly. That system worked well for the copyright cartel while the means of recording audio remained largely in their ownership. But today the situation is changing because audio recordings can be made and copied using freely available technology, without paying the copyright cartel. If they are cut out of the loop then they are powerless, but they may yet be able to use their power to write themselves legally into the loop. That will happen if the Supreme Court upholds the decision, that making recordings available to copy regardless of whether they are copied is a violation of copyright. Then, the copyright cartel can authorize a private police force to enforce their law or just employ the US military. They will outlaw unauthorized connections to the internet and seize any computers used to make unauthorized connections.
But the Constitution allows a limited monopoly by the creators of original works to make copies, and that is not the same as a monopoly of the rights to make those copies. If we, the people, permit the copyright cartel to continue on its course then we are authorizing fascism, and this situation will follow its logical extension. The alternative is that we make a new Amendment to the US Constitution that explicitly forbids the legal transfer of copyrights and outlaws the monopoly of copyrights. The legal monopoly permitted by the constitution is the limited monopoly of original works. That is twisted by current law into meaning the unlimited monopoly of purchased rights. By the Constitution, rights cannot be purchased and are unalienable. Among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The new Amendment should explicitly add to that list the right to own and copy your own original works. All second-hand ownership and alienation of the right to own and copy original works should be obliterated.
The propaganda against the practice of sharing digital copies of recordings without exchanging money, alleges that creators and copyright holders cannot make money or continue creating if they are not paid for every copy. But sounds themselves are not audio recordings and pictures themselves are not video recordings. Long before modern recording technology was invented artists and inventors made money, for example by soliciting sponsors for their work. The internet is a valuable means of publicity and sponsorship. Musicians, filmmakers, other artists and inventors will not be put out of work by unauthorized distribution of their works. Rather, the wider their works are disseminated, the more publicity they have and the more opportunity for sponsorship.
Once upon a time, an original work could be hijacked by changing its name and attribution. Before modern technology, to make a copy meant the same thing as taking credit for its creation. An unauthorized copy could take the place of the original by making the original more obscure. But plagiarism is a threat to the livelihood of an author only if the counterfeit copy can be passed off as the original and the pirate can be passed off as the author. Today the original work does not become more obscure than the copy; the copy and the original coexist with one another. The internet permits multiple methods of checking attribution and determining the origin of a copyrighted work. Therefore copy control is not necessary to fight plagiarism.
On the other hand, the copyright cartel operates by taking credit for the creations of others, and that is the very definition of piracy. The music labels print their names on the works of others that they distribute and that is a form of counterfeit. They buy the right to own somebody else's work and pass it off as their own, and that is a form of plagiarism. Under the current system, the cost of copying and distributing is often exchanged for the right to own the work, so authors no longer control their creations. But over the internet, copying and distributing no longer costs anything. Copying no longer necessarily means taking credit for a work.
Curiously, taking credit itself has come to be accepted as a form of work. But the work of taking credit is worthless if copying costs nothing. There is no motivation to plagiarize if the attribution of a copy cannot be changed. There is no such thing as counterfeit if copies have no value besides publicity for the original.
Today, corporations are abolishing national sovereignty by buying people's rights. Banks are buying the right to print currency. Copyright cartels are buying the right to own original works. Medical associations are buying the right to practice medicine. News organizations are buying the right to freedom of speech. If this keeps going, soon there will be no nations, only corporations. The United States will be ruled by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations. Freedom will be a trademark of Democracy, Incorporated.
The internet is not just the connections between computers, it is the connections between people through those computers. As long as corporations manufacture the computers, they exercise great control over the internet. But they do not yet completely control how we use the internet. The internet is the only worldwide forum capable of democracy, and it holds the potential to unite the people of the world and preserve their freedom to associate and exchange information freely. But if corporate powers take control of the internet under the guise of protecting copyright, we will no longer have freedom of speech or the freedom to associate. The people of the world need to take ownership of their own works away from corporations and make themselves the owners of the internet.
Thought itself is at stake here, because the technology to share data is the technology to share our thoughts. Ideas, like flames, can be copied without diminishing the original and without replacing the original. But like flames, ideas can die out without any medium to burn. Our lives are a net of shared beliefs and activities centered around those beliefs. If we wish to remain in control of our lives and not become slaves even moreso than we are today, we must be able to control our own minds. Words, thoughts, and culture must be free to share without commercial interruption.
Please forward this message widely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA HA Big Music
Cheers to raido head!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
... *opens BitLord*
... *opens DC++*
... *puts middle finger up*
Yup. Welcome to my world! :)
Have fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Playing Music annoyance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stores might not have to pau
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
loud music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]