Australian Gyms Swapping Out Pop Songs With Cover Versions To Avoid Ridiculous Royalties

from the and-that-helps-who-exactly? dept

Fri, May 28th 2010 2:41am — Mike Masnick

Just recently, we wrote about how a ridiculous ruling by the Australian Copyright Tribunal, boosted the royalty rates that gyms needed to pay if they played any music covered by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA). In some cases it went from less than $1 per class to $1 per participant per class. At the time, we noted that gyms were switching to music that wasn't part of PPCA, and apparently that includes swapping out popular songs for cheap cover versions. This is, of course, similar to what happened years ago with various music video games when record labels and bands demanded too much money to be in the games. Eventually, they figured out they were doing more harm to themselves by shutting themselves out of a market, but it's not clear if the PPCA is ever going to realize that.

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: australia, copyright, cover songs, gyms, licensing

25 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Blatant Coward (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 3:24am

Next they'll bribe...er...convince a court to include songs that may eventually be covered by the group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 3:55am

I can't stand music (or TV) playing when I'm trying to work out, anyway.

Australia is a tiny market, and it shows in the distorted market economics. Add to it an old school business mentality, straight out of 1950's England, and well, you get what you get.

AU has many nice things. Universal Healthcare, for one. It works because the country's exploitable raw material per capita (and variety) is possibly the highest in the world, it shares a border with no one, and the legal system is based on British Common law. Not because of any particular brilliance on anyone's part. Anyway, it should be good for at least a few more generations, which is all *I* need :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 28 May 2010 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  I know this is off topic, but since it was brought up..
  
  AU has many nice things. Universal Healthcare, for one.
  
  What?? How is that nice? It isn't free, if that's what you think. You're paying for it through confiscatory taxes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tiffin, 6 Oct 2013 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Universal Healthcare
    It means people don't suffer or die just because they are poor. The majority of Australians, myself included, think that is a very good way to run a society AND I am happy to pay the "confiscatory" taxes. Incidentally, Australia has one of the lowest overall taxation rates in the developed world, i.e. we also get very good value from our healthcare system, which outperforms most of the other ones in the developed world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 28 May 2010 @ 4:17am

Hilarious
This was so predictable.

I can't wait for the rest of the world to catch up on this.

Culture is going to be free, whether the content industry likes it or not.

Payment will be voluntary, out of love and appreciation, not coerced or decided upon by underhanded political machinations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: Hilarious
  Amen to everything you said there Yogi. =)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 4:26am

I wish I understood the laws on cover music. Are you saying that someone can make an identical version of the song legally, if they just play it and sing it themselves.

I'm pretty sure you can't just sing a copyrighted song and record it. You have to clear that with someone, right?

If that's the case, an entire market of knock-off songs should emerge. You'd eventually have people competing to be the best cover band, since that would be what people listen to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 4:40am
  
  Re:
  I wish I understood the laws on cover music. Are you saying that someone can make an identical version of the song legally, if they just play it and sing it themselves.
  
  You can sing any song you like in provate - and also record it if you wish. However if you perform it in public or pass on the recording to someone else then you have to pay for a license to the composition. This license is compulsory (i.e. the composer cannot prevent you from performing or selling the recording) but you do have to pay. For public performances this is usually handled via a blanket license provided a rights society such as the PRS in the UK or ASCAP in the US (not sure what the Aussie version is called). The crucial point is that this is a different organisation from the PPCA. Using non PPCA cover versions puts you in exactly the same position as you would be if you hired a band to play the music live.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 4:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    This license is compulsory (i.e. the composer cannot prevent you from performing or selling the recording) but you do have to pay.
    
    btw whenever you see "Song Title" as made famous by "Original Artist"
    
    then you are listening to a cover version. This happens a lot with collections of "Christmas Hits" or "Rock Classics" etc where they don't bother to license the original recording.
    
    Most of the tracks on the first few "Guitar Hero" games were done this way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul`, 28 May 2010 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    APRA is the org if i recall correctly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 4:51am

Go Indie
Get songs from independent artists/bands who aren't tied with any company - free publicity - like advertise their iTunes or amazon page.

Why play covers and risk? eschew major labels if they want to wring us dry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 28 May 2010 @ 6:25am

They arnt supposed to be able to do that. Thats just unfair. The court ruling meant that they HAVE to pay royalties but its implied they also HAVE to use the record industries music. What part of this dont these lousy freeloading Gyms understand?

You have to pay us for use and you have to use our product. period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul`, 28 May 2010 @ 7:02am

They would be paying an APRA fee for playing any music I would assume... Does that mean they would have to pay double to use the PPCA songs despite already paying the blanket fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 8:00am

There is a ton of money to be made here ....
Put together a service that does Creative Commons, covers and indie bands wanting to be promoted. Charge 20 bucks a month for the service, or more if they use the covers. Then let the collection agency choke and fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 8:42am

from the story: "he tribunal raised tariffs for playing original artists' recordings to roughly 85 cents (A$1) per class participant—capped at about $13 per class—boosting the annual tab for the typical Australian fitness center from around $1,300 to more than $19,000" - what i wonder is how many members does that average aussie fitness center have?

the reason i ask is simple. 19k / 12 months is $1500 or so a month. with 500 members, that would be $3 a month. i dont know about aus, by my local fitness centers are all in the $35-$50 a month range (some higher), i cannot see where adding in $3 increase in the next year makes a big difference.

yet, i can see a big difference in using cheesy cover tunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  You don't ever get tired of paying more for nothing? I'd rather the gym played cover versions than jacking my bill for no benefit to me.
  
  It's only music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    it would be about customer experience, which falls exactly in the cwf rtb mantra that is chanted around here like words from god. they could buy cheaper brand exercise equipment, provide cheaper soap in the showers, use lower wattage lightbulbs, close a little earlier, open a little later, and compromise on 101 other things in their business. all of those things have to do with the customer experience. done right, clients will trip over themselves to pay a premium for the right experience. using pop-muzak just lowers the overall experience a bit, which in turn lowers the perceived value.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 12:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "cheaper soap in the showers, use lower wattage lightbulbs, close a little earlier, open a little later"
      
      All of which would degrade the experience a whole lot more than using cover tunes would.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fuzzy, 28 May 2010 @ 3:58pm
  
  Re:
  The McGyms would suffer little. The smaller fitness clubs (and martial arts clubs) would suffer greatly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re:
  "i cannot see where adding in $3 increase in the next year makes a big difference"
  
  The value of something is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Value cannot be dictated.
  
  You may feel that a $3 increase/year (although the article implies it's much more than that, at $1/person/day), but clearly the fitness centers feel that most of their customers are of a different opinion. In this situation, what you're OK with doesn't meant a thing. It's what the customers are OK with that matters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2010 @ 1:57am

The best case against copyright ever is the copyright of DNA code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mesa's Gym, 29 Dec 2010 @ 2:25pm

What Gym Royalties?**?
Royalty Rates? what is this a joke, just having a Gym Membership should cover the music selection...GYMS these day's....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abdur rob, 5 Jun 2011 @ 3:15am

comment
very good site..

http://adf.ly/1ht4w
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abdur rob, 5 Jun 2011 @ 3:15am

comment
very good site..

http://adf.ly/1ht4w
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abdur rob, 5 Jun 2011 @ 3:16am

comment
very good site..

http://adf.ly/1ht4w
[ link to this | view in chronology ]