For your information, the MBF was shut down a few years ago and my project for them (building them a website) never got finished or paid for. So you could argue that I might actually have a grudge against them, not be biased towards them.
But again, I'm just pointing out the laws as they stand in the UK, because I'm aware of them (whereas most people commenting on this clearly are/were not).
I didn't answer his question because neither scenario represented the actual case we have been discussing. I would have thought that was obvious, but obviously not.
True, but there were manufacturing and distribution costs involved with physical sales which aren't present with digital. And sure, CD singles were generally 2 or 3 track packages (for the £2 or £3 price), whereas now the tracks can be bought individually.
All I've talked about is the truth/reality of the UK law and what happened in this case. The very existence of this article annoyed me, which is why I commented on it. The headline should just have been:
"UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music After Not Getting Required License"
which is the reality of the situation. Or maybe even:
"UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music After Half-Arsed Attempt To Be Legal"
No, I haven't. I just Googled 'Fran Nevrkla salary' but nothing about a salary actually came up.
But again, if the musicians think Fran is being paid too much, they can renegotiate with the PPL to have the salary reduced, or just stop using the PPL.
"You can't choose what artists the station plays."
No, but you can choose not to play the radio at all.
"statutory licensing is exactly like the government saying 'your wages will be collected by someone else, and they can't charge your clients more than x per hour.'"
Except that in this case you have made the free choice to use the 'someone else'. If you don't like their rates, don't use them.
Who said there was a radio station involved? The PPL license is about music played at the business premises, irrespective of whether it comes via a radio station or from Spotify or an iPod or a CD or whatever.
Because companies DON'T HAVE TO play the music if they don't like the rates.
Artists aren't forced to use those bodies or the bodies' set rates. Artists can charge whatever they like, be it nothing at all, or a million pounds per play. Nothing forces them to use a particular collection society.
Read all my comments on this page. I've said plenty about why I think it's fair that the barber should have paid the appropriate license fees to play licensed music on his business premises.
CDs aren't 'dead'. Sales may be declining but that doesn't make them dead. That's all I said, coward.
"For one you could rightly point out that a 'reproduction' through digital or analog means is obviously not a performance."
Nope, sorry, playing the recording publicly does count as a 'performance' of the recording. 'Performance', by dictionary definition, can simply mean the act of presenting something, pre-recorded or live.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
What about "while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence"? Without control, they won't get that value (at an amount determined by them) returned to them.
And I couldn't really care what the purpose of copyright was devised as 301 years ago. Things have moved on, and more to the point, laws have changed.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: point 142 / Dave Nattriss
Sorry but as I look at this page, none of the points are numbered so I don't know which points you mean.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: @Dave Nattriss
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
But again, I'm just pointing out the laws as they stand in the UK, because I'm aware of them (whereas most people commenting on this clearly are/were not).
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
"UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music After Not Getting Required License"
which is the reality of the situation. Or maybe even:
"UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music After Half-Arsed Attempt To Be Legal"
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
But again, if the musicians think Fran is being paid too much, they can renegotiate with the PPL to have the salary reduced, or just stop using the PPL.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
No, but you can choose not to play the radio at all.
"statutory licensing is exactly like the government saying 'your wages will be collected by someone else, and they can't charge your clients more than x per hour.'"
Except that in this case you have made the free choice to use the 'someone else'. If you don't like their rates, don't use them.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
Artists aren't forced to use those bodies or the bodies' set rates. Artists can charge whatever they like, be it nothing at all, or a million pounds per play. Nothing forces them to use a particular collection society.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss [I spy for the BPI]
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: I see your true colors
CDs aren't 'dead'. Sales may be declining but that doesn't make them dead. That's all I said, coward.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Please care somewhere else
Nope, sorry, playing the recording publicly does count as a 'performance' of the recording. 'Performance', by dictionary definition, can simply mean the act of presenting something, pre-recorded or live.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
And I couldn't really care what the purpose of copyright was devised as 301 years ago. Things have moved on, and more to the point, laws have changed.
Next >>