If You Play Your Radio Loud Enough For Your Neighbor To Hear, Is It Copyright Infringement?

from the maybe-so dept

Fri, Oct 5th 2007 7:35pm — Mike Masnick

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

82 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

J, 5 Oct 2007 @ 8:35pm

Talk about insanity. Don't they have better things to pursue?
What a waste of UK Taxes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bing bong, 5 Oct 2007 @ 8:52pm

if you fart and someone smells it are they violating your butt?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zenmiami, 5 Oct 2007 @ 9:09pm

soon, they will go after bands playing cover songs. dweebs, they are all dweebs....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here goes the common sense, 5 Oct 2007 @ 9:16pm

Users of wireless equipment next
I bet it will not take much longer until the MAFIAA in the EU and US is going to sue people for transmitting shitty 99 cent music via wireless equipment. Just think about all those new wireless speakers, headsets and phones on the market, not to mention wireless access to remote harddisks etc.. Perhaps the MAFIAA is already studying GESTAPO manuals to figure out how to infiltrate your home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2007 @ 9:16pm

Re:
heh, heh.. you said dweeb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 5 Oct 2007 @ 9:24pm

oh no...
i was just listening to this really good song and my roommate walked in and heard it i hope they dont come after me. lol, next thing you know every one is going to have to wear headphones to prevent copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2007 @ 9:45pm

If I buy a copy of "Guitar Hero", or "Rock Band", and only I personally paid for the copy, but then played it multiplayer around the TV with a few friends playing/watching.... Does that count? I don't wanna be sued, guys! It'd be ever so upsetting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
longbow, 5 Oct 2007 @ 10:10pm

Re:
*flips the RIAA and MPAA the middle finger and continues on to what i was doing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 5 Oct 2007 @ 10:16pm

Doesn't matter much.
The only reason people are mad at the RIAA is because they are ass holes.

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 thread ]
luvcnu, 5 Oct 2007 @ 11:16pm

What Next
Once the Record Co's have finished adding more single moms and kids to the welfare programs by taking away the little income they have for living expenses for sharing 24 songs maybe General Mills or Campbells Soup will begin suing moms for sharing recipes taken from the back of their product packages and preparing the recipe for dinner using a store brand product to substitute for the more expensive brand name product.

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 thread ]
Adam Garrett, 5 Oct 2007 @ 11:48pm

In the US, the thing about restaurants has to do with BMI and I used to think that the number of speakers that are being used had some bearing. That seems to no longer be the case. Of course the way to void these things is to just play the radio. That way someone else is paying BMI.

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 thread ]
jason, 6 Oct 2007 @ 12:57am

Wow what a great article, too bad that shop is too chicken to stand up for the sake of what is logically a right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jermaine, 6 Oct 2007 @ 2:06am

Re:
hahaha u made my day with that hahahahahahahahahah. olol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul, 6 Oct 2007 @ 2:23am

My hammer
So, if I lend my friend my hammer, am I liable for not paying the designer a royalty on the design?

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 thread ]
fishbane, 6 Oct 2007 @ 3:02am

From a strictly selfish perspective (and what else do we have today?), I wouldn't mind this being enforced against the "broadcasters" in my neighborhood here in Brooklyn. I could do without the various base thumpery driving by, or some of the parties. (The reasonable ones are fine - I accept that urban environments make noise. Just don't be a dick.)

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 thread ]
Pe'er, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:13am

Re: Doesn't matter much.
Maybe they should start issuing all suspects with a scratch card that either reads 'guilty' or'not guiltiy'. Then we could stop having all these annoying long and expensive trials. It would be mcuh fairer since everyone would have a 50% chance of not being guilty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boris Jacobsen, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:39am

But....
Firstly, this is TOTALLY ridiculous.

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 thread ]
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:52am

Yes, but only if they enjoy it...
Enjoying music is the real core of the issue. Keep the RIAA happy and hate all music. Don't hate the musician, hate the song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shmengie, 6 Oct 2007 @ 6:35am

and let's not forget the judge, lord emslie, who refused to throw the case out. well, at least the legal system in great britain is as screwed up as it is here in the united states. gives me the warm fuzzies...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dreadnought, 6 Oct 2007 @ 6:36am

Re:
Don't laugh, they already do...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shmengie, 6 Oct 2007 @ 6:37am

Re:
oops, not great britain. scotland, UK, whatever. next time, i'll use an atlas...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dreadnought, 6 Oct 2007 @ 6:38am

Re:
Here's a link:

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/20765
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 6 Oct 2007 @ 6:58am

Hold Music
Hold music needs to be licensed as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meoip, 6 Oct 2007 @ 7:06am

I
I predicted this when the controversy over using your neighbors wifi broke. It's the same thing borrowing signals from another person. It's all garbage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 6 Oct 2007 @ 7:16am

Yeah, I should be careful in my car too - I should keep the windows up tight and the music down really low, lest someone else hear it.

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 thread ]
GLo65, 6 Oct 2007 @ 7:38am

Sue Happy
Its seems if someone can think of a way to sue someone else over something, regardless of its nature, it will happen. The good old USA taught the world that and now other are picking up on it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
m morgan, 6 Oct 2007 @ 8:21am

this is God, stop quoting me in church, or i will send down my legal department
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 8:38am

Re: Sue Happy
the world is always copying the US. Even our crappy ideas. Shame on you world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patrick, 6 Oct 2007 @ 8:50am

I can play my radio as loud as I want as long as I'm not disturbing the peace. The radio station has already paid the public performance license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 10:15am

Re: Re: Doesn't matter much.
But the RIAA would print both boxes on the scratch card as guilty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ddasedN, 6 Oct 2007 @ 11:43am

The Gods must be Laughing
This is ridiculous. And utmost absurd.

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 thread ]
Dan, 6 Oct 2007 @ 12:11pm

Sound of Silence
Simon and Garfunkle wrote the lyric "people writing songs that voices never share and no one dares disturb the 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 thread ]
rebecca, 6 Oct 2007 @ 1:09pm

Ok I think I got it. I can still sing in the shower as long as I shower alone. correct?
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Doesn't matter much.
and make one out of a million a "winner" not guilty,

just like the monopoly games from fast food joints
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don Jones, 6 Oct 2007 @ 2:23pm

RIAA
These guys are like the old horse and buggy crowd. Desperately trying to hang on to a dwindling market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PVP, 6 Oct 2007 @ 2:33pm

Hmmm, could this be the answer to my problems with noisy anti-social neighbours? The other night I could clearly hear the Eurythmics at 2am. Clearly a 'public performance' even if this particular member of the public didn't want to hear it. How do I get the Performing Rights Society on the case?

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 thread ]
think critically, 6 Oct 2007 @ 2:50pm

If you are going to cite a bunch of examples such as an apartment with thin walls, you should make sure that example doesn't leave out a key point.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 3:16pm

Re:
LOL. This one is cool!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John (profile), 6 Oct 2007 @ 3:30pm

Here's another idea
Suppose I get my car repaired at this shop. Then suppose that I hear some of the songs that are being played in the shop.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 4:22pm

This got me thinking back to my college days...for several months, some guy five floors below me in the residence hall quite regularly played his stereo at full volume. The act of playing his music loud wasn't so annoying; what he he was blasting was great to listen to but thoroughly unknown to me.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:37pm

As of this week
In the US as of last week it apparently could be. A US judge ruled this week that just making copyrighted material available in a way that it could be copied is copyright infringement whether any copying actually takes place or not. So, by playing your radio loudly enough for someone else to hear it you would obviously also be making it possible for them to record it. Whether they actually do so no longer makes any difference, you are still liable for copyright infringement by making it available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:40pm

Re:
I can play my radio as loud as I want as long as I'm not disturbing the peace. The radio station has already paid the public performance license.
That only covers that radio station. If you want to rebroadcast it you need your own license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artist with Rights, 6 Oct 2007 @ 6:11pm

Stealers
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?
Of course! Keep it to yourself, don't help your neighbors steal. Why would your neighbors buy their own copy if they could just listen to yours?

What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls?
Same thing.

What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open?
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.

What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music?
See above.

At which point do we realize how silly this becomes?
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!)

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.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 6:15pm

See it's bullshit like this that makes me want to take a dump on some government office's front steps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GodKillzYou, 6 Oct 2007 @ 9:20pm

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 thread ]
Jason, 6 Oct 2007 @ 9:39pm

Re: Doesn't matter much.
You read my mind completely. To go further I think that we should all stop buying any form of music for the next year. Besides everything that comes out either isn't that good or copies something old anyway. I turn on the radio but always find myself going back to music I bought in the past.

So everyone just stop buying music in any form, for one year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Julian, 6 Oct 2007 @ 10:08pm

F*** off, RIAA
Seriously, get a grip on reality!
...unbelievable...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
novernetsbandit, 6 Oct 2007 @ 11:11pm

Napster anyone?
IRC, NAPSTER, MORPHIUS, BEARSHARE... Its old way but for some reason i see it all coming back with more power then ever before.. Thanks USA for creating software/music pirates and creating jobs for most of the people that post here. Oh wait my mirc just beeeped my download is done im gonna listen to this music now enjoy the rest of your day... Can they really sue everyone? last i checked over 1 million users on irc... over 2 billion files availble for download on morphius why is this still a story? its getting old it got old years ago.. let it go or move to a country that doesnt give a fu**.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Y Pennog Coch, 7 Oct 2007 @ 2:08am

PRS seeks Darwin award
The PRS should be careful what it wishes for. If this becomes the standard interpretation of the law, then the only music that can be safely played at any volume will be . . . music released under a Creative Commons or similar licence. And once there's no need to collect performance royalties, we won't need a PRS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LesterRay, 7 Oct 2007 @ 6:51am

Well, I finally stopped reading way up there and no one yet has said anything about that damned elevator music or shopping music in the mall. What the hell is this attorney thinking by saying radios were banned for ten years. If you get me then I am going to countersue for making me listen to all this shitty music and if I might go one step further, telephone music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LesterRay, 7 Oct 2007 @ 6:56am

If I might be so bold as to mention one more thing, in regards to my own musings...I would be willing to bet that the elevator going up to the very court room for this hearing does this very thing...Attorney, take the judge, jury, and prosecutors out to the elevator to make your point, and watch the judge defend his right to hear a public performance on the elevator.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 7 Oct 2007 @ 7:45am

Re: Re:
Acutally, no Terrestrial stations don't pay royalties. The Record companies treat them as marketing avenues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 7 Oct 2007 @ 7:46am

Re: Elevator music
There is a high probability it's unlicensed work
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 7 Oct 2007 @ 10:06am

I work for an audio company in Southern California. My boss told me a story about where a company, the owner of the property, and the planner for the wedding all got fined by ASCAP forcing the audio company out of business for playing music that was protected under ASCAP. Not only were they playing it loud, they didn't have a license to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 7 Oct 2007 @ 2:28pm

How can these people claim damages in any of their cases? Are they ASSUMING that everyone is willing to buy their music? I bet you won't see these mechanics running out to purchase performance rights for their CD collections.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2007 @ 2:34pm

OY VEY!!!!! I have paid and paid and paid over the last 40 years for the music I listen to...and if I want to share it, I will. So there! I'm old, I'm cranky, so leave me the hell alone!! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Victor, 7 Oct 2007 @ 4:57pm

Then they should really go after the radio makers because they allow the radio to go up that loud, this is just playing stupid to get money. Somebody somewhere is paying for it, if it isn't the radio station then its a cd that somebody paid for. Performance of what?, there is only but a handful of people around that could hear it, isn't there a defined amount of people to what is consider a crowd performance? This whole thing is stupid!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David L, 7 Oct 2007 @ 5:20pm

Wowwwwwwwww
Music is becoming more valuable than gold, it seems. Just shows you how fucked up materialism has become.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zcat, 7 Oct 2007 @ 8:26pm

Re: elevator music
Elevator operators are expected to pay performance royalties to play that music. So do companies that have Music On Hold on their PABX. Usually the music is provided by a 'muzac' company that deals with the royalty payments, but chances are when you hear music in an elevator, department store or when you're on hold on the telephone somebody has paid royalties to use it.

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 thread ]
zcat, 7 Oct 2007 @ 8:36pm

Re: Re: Elevator music
There's a good chance it's provided by a company that specializes in background music (muzak) and handles the _mandatory_ royalty payments as part of the service;

http://music.muzak.com/whymuzak/default.aspx

" * All licensing fees (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) included "
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jack Shappa, 7 Oct 2007 @ 8:52pm

If your neighbor can hear your music playing, then you should be sued. Not for copyright infringement, but for being an inconsiderate jerk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2007 @ 9:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
Acutally, no Terrestrial stations don't pay royalties. The Record companies treat them as marketing avenues.
Actually, US radio stations do pay public performance royalties to the songwriters via ASCAP & BMI. The UK may be different, I don't know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KC, 8 Oct 2007 @ 2:09am

Who pays what?
Well, why won't the record companies go after those companies that manufacture playback equipment? Afterall, the devices they manufacture help to promote piracy. While they are at it, please go after computer makers like Apple and Dell too, for making computers that we can use to download content illegally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pissed Audiophile, 8 Oct 2007 @ 4:13am

Closely related to public performance...
If we look at this link: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-mu sic-you-own-is-stealing.html We can understand where the so-called entertainment industry is going. That is to say, make the customer pay and pay and pay again for something he has been paying once to listen to and transfer over many means (Vynil, tape, 8-track). Originally the CD was also another such means, which is just an extension of fair use. Right? Wrong. Now any transfer is stealing and according to this yutz one is supposed to pay and pay and pay again for any copy over any means. This is baseless and stupid. For me, I'm not buying any music over any means for 360 days in protest. I suggest similar actions to send the following message: "any industry that believes its *paying* customers are thieves does _not_ deserve my business, nor will it have my business *ever* again".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2007 @ 6:51am

Blame it on the ARTIST
How do they think I become interested in other types of music? How does the artist think I have ever heard of them, more less want to spend my money on a CD? Here's how it works in my world; I am driving in my car and the car next to me has the music up soo loud, I turn mine down to see what they find so entertaining. If I like it, I do the radio scan to find it and to see who the artist is. If it's a new artist, I do a search at home to find other music. If they have more than 3-5 songs I like on an CD, I will buy it. If not, I can wait for it to come back on the radio.
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 thread ]
Tim, 8 Oct 2007 @ 6:57am

Re: Gods' legal dept
So that's what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tao, 8 Oct 2007 @ 9:33am

They already do go after people for bands playing music that they didn't write... they go after the business where it was played. Where I live an agent of the MPA (I think that was the acronym) came to town and documented what the bands were playing. Anything that wasn't original material was put down as a violation and they "fined" the business owners where the band played the song. No shit. True story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fugli, 8 Oct 2007 @ 11:51am

Does the government pay when they blast music in hostage situations??? If that's not a public performance I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2007 @ 3:06pm

Re:
Does the government pay when they blast music in hostage situations??? If that's not a public performance I don't know what is.
In case you haven't noticed lately, they're above the law these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Newob, 9 Oct 2007 @ 4:57am

Call for an Amendment to copyright law!
Fascism, under the guise of protecting copyright, is gaining power exponentially in the United States. If we, the people, do not do something to stop it, corporate powers will dissolve all nations and make all people everywhere into wage slaves. One crucial step in this process - the corporate control of the internet - is coming to a head, but if we are smart we may be able to do something about it.

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 thread ]
Mike, 10 Oct 2007 @ 6:52am

HA HA Big Music
Anyone else happy that big music companys are going down? The artist are taking back the way thier music is deliverd & packaged
Cheers to raido head!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2007 @ 11:30pm

hoooowdy oh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd, 5 Nov 2007 @ 12:21pm

Re: What Next
Excellent comment!

"...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 thread ]
Dale Hay, 25 Nov 2007 @ 6:45am

Hmmm...
... *opens Limewire*

... *opens BitLord*

... *opens DC++*

... *puts middle finger up*

Yup. Welcome to my world! :)

Have fun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
willowstar, 7 Dec 2007 @ 10:03am

As I shake my head sadly at the stupidness of the world I go back and download another 100 songs from limewire that I will burn into a cd and listen to and maybe give to a friend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kassi, 9 Jan 2008 @ 12:15am

Playing Music annoyance?
They sound pretty stupid to begin with! what's in the water over there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kassi, 9 Jan 2008 @ 12:20am

Re: Users of wireless equipment next
I heard on infowars.com that the establishment is trying to get control of your household thermostat to control the heating in your home. Seems like they have lost all sense & decency, they have forgotten that they work for us!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 10 Dec 2008 @ 1:21am

stores might not have to pau
You are wrong, in US, if your firm joins ASCAP, which everyone who wants to play music should, there is an easy exemption for up to 8 speakers, in not more that 2 rooms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
siri, 20 Aug 2009 @ 2:13pm

loud music
you are all missing the point. The music was so loud it was disturbing the people next door. Perhaps the mechanics had been asked to turn it down and did not. We are fortunate in that we have the right to listen to whatever type of music we enjoy but WE DO NOT have the right to force others to listen to what we enjoy. Just turn it down or get some wireless headphones. Respect other people's space and do not intrude into their lives with your noise. I am sure they will be thankful and leave you alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob. thats all you need to know, 5 Dec 2009 @ 9:50pm

Re:
to be honest, your right. this is getting past a joke its liek when you say "oh jesus christ" soon you'll have evil lawyer ghosts after you for saying his name >.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob. thats aqll you need to know, 5 Dec 2009 @ 10:10pm

Re: Re:
to correct you. they THINK they are above the law, no one is above the law its near impossible to be. they probobly have a law that being above the law is illigal (how that would work i dunno but ya know what im saying)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sophie101, 11 Sep 2018 @ 5:37am

Re: Re: Users of wireless equipment next
> infowars.com

Probably not the most reliable source of news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]