Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance

from the PROs-are-their-own-satirical-figures dept

Mon, Jan 5th 2015 7:58am — Tim Cushing

It's tempting to open with a caveat -- "performance rights organizations (PROs) can serve a valuable purpose" -- before heading off towards the blithering insanity they've devolved into in recent years. It's tempting, but I won't do it. What I will say is that the notion of collecting public performance royalties isn't necessarily wrong, but the way it's been handled by everyone from GEMA to ASCAP has been a farce -- proof that the narrow line between stupid and evil can easily be erased with a small hit of officiousness.

When PROs collect fees from bars, restaurants and nightclubs, it does make a certain amount of sense. Even if I don't necessarily agree that these "rights" are baked into people's musical creations, there's something to be said for music being an integral part of some of these public venues. But the notion that a public performance right exists at all runs at odds with common sense, as do the actions of the PROs themselves. Any band playing a concert venue will be subject to PRO fees (usually hidden somewhere in the venue's deducted costs) even though they're playing their own music. Somehow, this money will make its way back to… well, generally not the band itself. The money is pooled and divvied up into smaller piles of payouts that rest comfortably on the larger earnings of the top few bands on the PROs' rosters.

Because the PROs will cease to exist without steadily increasing collections, they have branched out. It's no longer limited to BMI shaking down local pubs for high-dollar licensing fees, even if said pub only hosts local, indie artists. No, now it's actions like charging the Girl Scouts for singalongs, charging small auto shops for the personal CDs played in the garage by their mechanics, charging companies for allowing employees to listen to radios in their cubicles and charging hotel rooms for the "public performances" performed by seldom-if-ever-used in-room clock radios.

Now, there's this, via TorrentFreak -- a Swedish PRO going after car rental companies because rented cars contain publicly-performing radios.

Each car rented out by Fleetmanager contains a stereo radio and CD player so that the customer can enjoy broadcasts of all kinds, including music. STIM (collecting society Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå) says that to do so legally Fleetmanager needs to obtain a license but to date has failed to do so.

According to SVD, STIM is arguing that the inside of Fleetmanager’s cars contain members of the public and therefore amount to public places. On this basis the company needs to obtain a public performance license. Fleetmanager disagrees, noting that any music played inside a car is only heard by a limited circle of people.

In its defense, STIM cites previous madhattery by other PROs.

The collection society says that previous cases involving hoteliers have ended with licenses being obtained which enable hotel guests to listen to music while on the premises.

It also trots out the weak game theory routinely deployed by other non-trustworthy entities -- like cops seeking to coerce a confession or your peer group's insistence that a vodka-soaked tampon is a great way to get hammered.

Furthermore, other car rental companies in Sweden have already agreed to pay a per-stereo levy so Fleetmanager should also pay, STIM argues.

The proper response would be to ask if STIM finds mugging weak and stupid people enjoyable. Fleetmanager's response isn't noted in TorrentFreak's article, other than the obvious hints that it's not interested in paying flat-rate fees for one of the worst public performance arguments ever deployed. An in-car stereo is not a public performance, even if it is a rented vehicle. If you take a bunch of friends on a road trip in your own vehicle, you have not created a public performance no matter how many times the radio is turned on. Renting it from a third party doesn't change anything but the name on the vehicle's title.

Without a doubt, PROs are proving to be endlessly creative -- albeit in ways that do nothing for them or a large majority of their artists. Instead, it makes the agencies look like low-rent thugs whose best shakedown ideas are hammered out over amyl poppers, jello shots and Powerpoint decks.

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: collection societies, copyright, public performance, sweden
Companies: fleetmanager, stim

52 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 6:51am

in ways that do nothing for them

On the contrary, it brings more money to their own pockets. It's just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. And even if there is public outrage it's ok, they will still be mandatory by law in the end.

This shit is just one of the many evidence that copyright does shit to the creators. It's just a mechanism to concentrate money into few hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jameshogg (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:04am

Stretching this nonsense far enough, reading an open book on a public train could probably count as a public performance. Since anyone else could read it.

And you never owned that book in the first place. You just owned a license to make a copy of that book via the beams of light that reflect off of it and hit your eyes. Which means you also don't have the right to lend it to anyone else, as it'd be making an unauthorised copy (via the beams of light) in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  You just described the MAFIAA Utopia.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  > You just owned a license to make a copy of that book via
  > the beams of light that reflect off of it and hit your eyes.
  
  Wait . . . . . . those photons used in reading the book are not covered by 'mechanical' or other rights.
  
  Hey! I think you've just identified a new right in copyright that needs to be collected! For the artists and authors of course.
  
  Argument:
  
  Those photons, once they bounce off the text of the book, now encode the copyrighted text of the book for your eyes. A special fee needs to be collected for that, beyond the compensation the author gets for merely publishing a copy of the book.
  
  Furthermore, not all of those photons that bounced off the page will go to your eyes. Some of those photons that are subject to a license fee will scatter in many other directions. Even bouncing off other objects and then eventually into the eyes of other people on the train. Or even people not on the train. After all, a stationary person can see things inside the train as it passes. Therefore photons from the interior of the train manage to escape to stationary persons the train passes. Some of those photons may need a license due to having bounced off the page of the copyrighted book.
  
  First we must get the Library of Congress to recognize this.
  
  Once that is done, we need to consider photons emitted from light sources, such as television screens. If you have ever been riding a bicycle or driving a car, you have undoubtedly noticed the glow of a television through the curtains of someone's window. You might even simply notice the glow of a TV reflected off a ceiling or wall. Nonetheless, those photons may now be copyrighted and subject to licensing. Who pays? The passer by who receives the benefit of seeing those photons? Or the home owner who is allowing photons from their TV to leak into the public space, and thus creating a public performance?
  
  Many lawyers will need to work to resolved these issues. Fortunately for us all, we can be sure that hard working organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA will diligently pursue the legal research required to determine the difficult licensing and collection issues involved. Keep up the good work guys! The licensing is getting too complicated for the rest of us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 2:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Who pays? The passer by who receives the benefit of seeing those photons? Or the home owner who is allowing photons from their TV to leak into the public space, and thus creating a public performance?
    
    Both obviously. The former is a pirate and the latter is a bootlegger. Only a dirty pirate would suggest that only one of them has to pay. Why do you hate artists?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re:
  Stretching this nonsense far enough, reading an open book on a public train could probably count as a public performance. Since anyone else could read it.
  
  That's not a stretch, there have actually been people(well, 'collection' agencies) who have argued pretty much exactly that with regards to libraries offering public readings to children.
  
  "You're reading a copyrighted work to a group of people, which makes it a public performance, which means you need to pay. Cough up the cash or see us in court."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 6:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's not a stretch, there have actually been people(well, 'collection' agencies) who have argued pretty much exactly that with regards to libraries offering public readings to children.
    
    While terrible, that is not the same as reading a book where someone else might be able to see it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:15am

I thought the radio stations one tuned into already paid that performance tax. If so, that would be double dipping, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  If so, that would be double dipping, no?
  
  Yeah, so? Are you a pirate, or a communist or something? Why are you against supporting artists for their creations? Do you realize if you don't pay this, they'll stop creating and your penis will shrivel up and disappear?
  
  We'll need to see some ID, and where do you live?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pat, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  yes.... it is that EXACTLY.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:59am
  
  Re:
  Why stop at double dipping? Everyone should be taxed a music privilege fee for the privilege of being able to hear audio music.
  Deaf people too, those pirates can feel the music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 2:04am
  
  Re:
  Well, collection agencies have already been double dipping in the UK for years, so I guess Sweden simply took inspiration from that. I am so ashamed of my country right now. *looks at the floor*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wise Guy, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:31am

Next these goombahs will hit up the people who make the showers for hotels because people singing in there would also be considered a public performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re:
  Stop giving them ideas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:31am

I wonder how long it will be until the PROs decide people who drive down the street with their car stereos cranked up to the max will have to pay rights fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:42am

By their logic, the loudness of the music in my car must also be a public performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2015 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  If you play your music so loud that I can hear it outside the car, you deserve what you get.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wereisjessicahyde (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:44am

Not moronic just greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:46am

Under their logic, it would seem I'm violating the grocery's store's rights if I buy their groceries, and then sell some food I made with the groceries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:51am

If the car rental company controlled what music was played in the car, they might have a point. You think that in order to be a public performance, you'd have to have some control over what was being performed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonCow, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:54am

Radio stations (terrestrial and satellite) pay a mechanical license. CD makers pay royalties to the rights holders typically through the labels or publishing houses.

So, what copyright holder is not being properly compensated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lurker Keith, 5 Jan 2015 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  The Artists, or Labels*, the PROs aren't paying, & probably wouldn't be passing this on to.
  
  *Too bad I couldn't just stop at Artist, but the Labels still the rights from the Artists... That should be illegal...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lurker Keith, 5 Jan 2015 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    steal*
    
    Don't know what my brain was transmitting to my fingers... @_@
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 1:11am
  
  Re:
  To understand these people, you have to redefine the English language. So, "sharing" is "stealing", "purchase" means that you have a temporary, revokable licence that stops you from modifying what you "own", "compensating artists" means taking a 98% service fee and only giving money to a handful of artists who may not have been involved in the performance being paid for, "public performance" includes playing music to horses or a single person, etc.
  
  Here, "properly compensated" means "as much as we can get". It all makes sense if you just write the dictionary to suit your own needs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonCow, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:57am

They should go after the window manufacturers. If the radio is on and the windows are rolled down, this automatically creates a public performance, so the window manufacturers should have to pay royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 8:57am

When your neighbor has their stereo up too loud for you to hear, they should be charged a public performance fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  Hey, I like that!
  
  Any time a local noise ordinance is violated, the proper police procedure should be to have the proper legal authorities (RIAA, MPAA, collection societies, etc) investigate whether any public performance rights license fees are required.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  quote...When your neighbor has their stereo up too loud for you to hear, they should be charged a public performance fee...endquote
  
  Same for car stereos!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 5 Jan 2015 @ 9:03am

Best argument ever award:

STIM is arguing that the inside of Fleetmanager’s cars contain members of the public and therefore amount to public places

by that logic, anywhere that any person can go must be public.

Also, if I happen to take a dump on their desk in their office, it has been used as a bathroom, therefore it must be a bathroom, so it is ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2015 @ 12:42am
  
  Re:
  Not only that, but you are a member of the public so therefore their office is a public restroom. Anyone else should be able to come on and do the same. If I didn't avoid public restrooms whenever possible, I'd be next in line...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 9:04am

Perhaps they should go after ....
those idiots who play their car stereos at ear blasting volume with the windows down? You could justifiably call that a "public performance." And at the same time they would be doing a public service. But then again, the usual method is to go after the deep pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: Perhaps they should go after ....
  But then again, the usual method is to go after the deep pockets.
  
  More its a way of hiding the fact that they are being charged from the public, many of whom seem to think that the company will pay. They overlook that the company will pass on the charge, plus a generous markup for administration and to add to their profit; which is yet another case of artists making money for other people rather than themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 9:06am

per·for·mance
noun \pə(r)-ˈfȯr-mən(t)s\

: an activity (such as singing a song or acting in a play) that a person or group does to entertain an audience

The playing of something that is recorded should not be considered a performance... period. The performance is done once at the time of the recording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 9:32am

'Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance'

let me just remind you that almost all of the other expectations that have been demanded from the industries have been granted to them! on top of that, had the US government and Congress members had a set of balls, the copyright 'problem' wouldn't exist in the first place and then these 'Moronic Collection Groups' wouldn't have a leg to stand on. the reason it is in such shit order is because those members mentioned were more interested in upping their bank balances and doing 'favors' for ex colleagues than doing their bloody jobs! their failures have meant the 'problem' has spread world wide and is now removing the basic parts of a democratic society, ie freedom of speech and privacy! the way things are going, we may just as well let Hitler win WWII!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Vrooman (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 10:07am

Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance
Our U.S. Government REQUIRES radios in cars. Why should any U.S. citizen pay the music industry anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance
  It does? I couldn't find this requirement in a quick web search. Can you point to the law?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Larry Vrooman (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re: Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance
    I made that comment from memory. As I recall it happened in the 60s or 70s as a 'Safety' requirement. Anybody can correct me, please. (I did an internet search as well & cannot find it either)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 10:29am

Abolish Copyright
Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 10:45am

You gotta wonder...
if they have considered that these companies who doesn't automatically pay the PROs (stupid opposite name if there ever were any) are not automatically evil, but simply have never considered paying because of how utterly, insanely stupid it is?
What is next? Campfire songs?...oh wait, they did that.
Humming a song while outside your house?
"Please give us money as your neighbor heard your music while partying last night. That will be $1000"
"That is a nice happy birthday card with music you got there, but since you opened it while your guests were there, it constitutes a public performance and you now owe us license fees"

How insane does it have to be, before it is crazy enough to laugh and dismiss? Is any of the ludicrous examples you can come up with really that "out there" anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 11:59am
  
  Brain Implants
  Brain Implants are the answer. They should be implanted at birth. Whenever you see or hear anything copyrighted, you are automatically charged and performance rights organizations are properly compensated. This will help them to hire additional lawyers, and to discover new 'rights' that can be split out of current copyright law requiring additional licensing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Brain Implants
    Brain Implants are the answer.
    
    You're trying to solve a social problem with technology.
    
    I believe it would be much simpler to just hand them a phone book so they can call each number and demand they pay. As justification, they're operating a business within an atmosphere, and as sound generally travels through the atmosphere, they're liable. Smiple [sic].
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam (profile), 5 Jan 2015 @ 11:08am

I participate is dozens of car shows every year. I can't count the number of 'public performances' I hear at each one... how long before that must obtain a license?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 7:19am
  
  Re:
  I participate is dozens of car shows every year. I can't count the number of 'public performances' I hear at each one... how long before that must obtain a license?
  
  The venue is most likely already paying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 11:53am

They tried this same scheme in Norway, got a lower court to side with the agency (Gramo), but a higher court sided with the car rental agencies that no fees where to be paid.

Norwegian text about case:
http://www.nrk.no/norge/slipper-a-betale-radioavgift-1.11761580
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2015 @ 4:55pm

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced. Bawk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2015 @ 12:40am
  
  Re:
  AC just loves it when copyright law is abused by the unscrupulous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2015 @ 3:17am
  
  Re:
  Seriously, do you think any of us are fooled when you log out and use your wife's laptop?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2015 @ 2:56am

"Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance"
Ah, Oh! I did not know Germany's agencies invaded Sweden!?!

It would help to add to the article a benchmark including similar (and way older) stupid taxes like the ones in UK and Germany. A BIG colorful gif/png too.

And also all the trouble they generate; like "playing classical music to tame horses" is obviously a public performance in Germany, or also FCKING singing in a church...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2015 @ 10:55am

According to SVD, STIM is arguing that the inside of Fleetmanager’s cars contain members of the public and therefore amount to public places

Why stop at rentals? After all, purchased cars ALSO contain "members of the public". Why not collect this fee from all car stereos, instead of just rented ones? Car doesn't have a stereo? That's OK, we can still collect. It has an electrical system, and that system could be used to run a stereo. (Hypotheticals are clearly OK; they already want to collect based on cars having stereos whether or not they are turned on.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  Why stop at rentals? After all, purchased cars ALSO contain "members of the public". Why not collect this fee from all car stereos, instead of just rented ones?
  
  Presumably that is where they're headed if this sticks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Audio, 28 Jan 2015 @ 10:13am

Too Much
This is just too much, I wonder if this is going to increase the current rates of rental cars.

Paul - Car Audio Installation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kousiga, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:53pm

Chennai To Kalahasti Tour Package
Very nice your article,Chennai car travels cheapest provided for Chennai to kalahasti tour package. The temple is one of the important ancient lord Shiva Temples of Southern India and it is one of the panchabootha lingas which is vayu linga remaining four lingas of nilam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]