Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Yes, I do. If I put time/money into creating something, I think it's perfectly fair that I have some kind of protection/control of it. Creations don't grow on trees.
Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
If I'm creating something, giving me control over it (for a set amount of time) does give me an incentive to create it. It's no coincidence, for me at least. If I had no control over it, I would be unlikely to bother at all.
No, again, UK radio stations do not necessarily broadcast paid commercials, and even if they do, they are unlikely to be able to gain any extra income having them broadcast at businesses because those radios won't be sampled by the people working out the average listening figures (which can determine the amount that they advertisers pay).
Maybe they could do that, but I don't think many businesses are actually complaining about the licensing fees. The barber's PPL license would have cost £116.20 ex. VAT per year, which is probably about 0.1% of his turnover. Hardly a fortune.
Why didn't they advise him? Because that's not their responsibility. Because they weren't to know whether he already had a PPL license? It's the barbers incompetence, not theirs.
Your classical music advice is great. Or he could just pay the £116.20 annual license fee to the PPL and not have to worry. Hardly an extortionate amount to potentially play over 130,000 licensed tracks over a year.
No, I don't blame the mall. I was suggesting the commenter should blame them because *they* don't like the music being played. I couldn't really care either way as long as copyright is respected.
Why? Because plenty of people reading this thread and commenting have demonstrated that they didn't click the link.
And in any case, I didn't say there needed to be more than 2 paragraphs, I just said that because there were only 2 of them, clearly it was not the whole story.
Apparently for the PRS (not the PPL), it doesn't matter whether or not the public can hear the 'performance' (playing) of the music. So yes, the stable having more than two employees did need a license, hence the news story.
"That's not what you said earlier. You claimed this was all justified ethically and morally because businesses are using music to draw in customers and make money.
Now you're saying it's justified merely because the artist made the music."
In the case of ethics/morals, I'd say both reasons are valid. In the case of the law, the latter is what counts.
"what gives artists the right to get paid over and over again forever for work they did once while no one else in society has that privilege?"
The law does! But I don't agree that nobody else has that privilege. If I start a shop, and then start another as it's going well, and then train my staff to start more stores on my behalf, and eventually end up with a chain, I will get to the point where I get paid over and over again for work that I did at the start of the process.
If I come up with a secret recipe for cookies, and they are so popular that everyone in the country buys them every day, I will 'get paid over and over again forever for work I only did once'. Or if I invent a new clothes hangar that becomes very popular, I will 'get paid over and over again forever for work that I did once'. It's not just 'art', it designs, it's ideas, it's patents... it's all forms of intellectual property. The whole concept of successful business is built upon getting good at something and then 'getting paid over and over again forever for work I did once' at the start of the process. Like a doctor spends years at medical school at great expense so he/she can earn a good salary for the rest of their life once they are qualified. In your example, the doctor would have spent/invested time/money into learning how to set a broken leg in the first place, and then every time she has to do it for a new patient, she gets paid for it again.
"Yet when it comes to art, there's this presumption that it just makes sense to keep paying people for work they did decades ago."
Well, maybe the UK copyright expiry period could be adjusted from 50 years to say, 20 years, or less, but the argument is that if you push it too far, the artists will have less incentive to create new work and society will lose out as a whole.
"but it should be the performers obligation to compensate the writer for their work" - sorry but that's not how it works in the UK. If you write a song for me, I might pay you a fixed amount, say £5,000, to buy it from you forever. Or I might license it from you for, say, £500 a year, to use it as I like, but the rights remain with you. Or I might not have your specific permission to use it, but because you're signed up with a publishing society, a small fee is due every time my recording of it gets played on TV, on radio, online, or performed by me at my gigs. Or you might have given the song to the public domain so anyone can use it without your permission. It really comes down to whatever agreement is in place.
"And the publisher, pretty sure that's the record company THAT THE RADIO STATION IS ALREADY PAYING." - no, not necessarily. Publishers are usually not also recording companies, though sometimes one might own another. But in most cases they are separate and UK copyright law recognises both the writer/creator and the performer of the recording/live performance.
"Those rates are statutory, so the copyright holders are not able to 'charge as they like.' Most would like to get paid more, I'm sure, but those statutory rates are set by law."
Of course they can - they just need to stop using that society. Any rates that have been set by the UK government have been in the case of dispute between the businesses that pay the fees and societies representing the copyright holders. If the copyright holders don't like the rate their society has ended up with, they can just stop using the society and collect the rate they want themselves or using another society instead. They're not forced into those rates.
"Plus, you have mostly ignored the fact that copyright holders have already charged for that broadcast - they charged the broadcasters themselves (the radio stations). Rights holders are getting paid twice for exactly the same transmission. That's the very definition of 'double dipping.' If it's the law, then the law should be changed."
No, that's not true. You're implying that being paid twice means 'double' the amount. The reality is that, for instance, a copyright holder receives around £75 per play of their recording on the big BBC stations, from the stations themselves. Whereas a small business like the barber may only pay £100 or so for the right to play as much music as they like for an entire year. So realistically the artist will receive a few pennies for this, on top of their £75. That is not 'double' dipping.
"The barber shop isn't a 'broadcaster' because they can't select the music,"
Er, yes they can. They can put on a CD, an iPod, fire up Spotify etc. The license that the barber didn't have covered the playing of all music, whether or not broadcast over the radio to the shop.
"can't decide to skip station ID's or ads, etc."
Sure they can, they can mute these if they really want. Or switch to another station. Radio sets *do* have buttons that let you control them.
"Re-broadcasting of a specific radio transmission in public should be no different than doing so in private."
Why, sorry?
And yes, things are different in the UK and US. I'm glad someone's finally picked up on that.
"By the same logic, if I play your song at my business and it gets you attention such that people now what to go to your concert/hire you to write new songs, you are going to pay me right? After all, it enhances your working conditions/salary/living conditions. Nothing wrong with that, right?"
Sure, if we've got an agreement along those lines in the licensing contract. If we haven't, you can attempt to negotiate with my licensing agency if you like. But if they or I decide against it, sorry but that's our decision - it's our music to do what we want with.
"Or, wait, does this only work in one direction?"
That really depends on your negotiating skills, Mike. The ball's in your court if you want to try and get it agreed.
"Can you point me to a single collection society (hell, just PPL or PRS) that lets musicians set their own rates? They don't. The rates are set by the Copyright Tribunal in the UK."
Only when there is a dispute. But the point is, musicians don't have to use collection societies if they don't want to. If they don't like the rates being used, they don't have to use them.
It turns out the barber would have only needed to pay £116.20 ex. VAT per year to have the PPL license to play music from radio and TV at his premises. Hardly a fortune!
"Highly misleading. It is only in the past two years that the European courts rejected national monopolies on collection societies. But because the established players already had a monopoly it's close to impossible for any new entrant to qualify.
Qualify for what, sorry?
"Both had gov't sanctioned monopolies until the courts broke that up recently, at which point it no longer mattered. Why you ignore this, I do not know."
Because as you say, it no longer matters. We're talking about a current case, not an old case.
"There's no free market when you have a government tribunal setting prices, Dave. There's no free market when you have a government granting a monopoly. There's no free market when you have monopoly rights handed out to content creators."
There's nothing stopping the barber using an alternative collection society that represents other artists, or just dealing with the artists directly, or only playing his own music that he records himself at the weekend, or not playing any music at all, or just paying the £116.20 which will probably be less than 0.1% of his business' turnover.
Not at all. She had a moral right to the seat as a white person is no more important than a black person.
But the barber had no moral (or legal) right to play licensed music without the permission of the copyright owner as he hadn't got the appropriate license that the copyright owner had stipulated.
No, what I said was she should have boycotted the service and used another one that wasn't racist instead (or if another service wasn't available, get together with other people affected and start their own service). It wasn't a free bus, was it?! As I said, if everyone affected took a stand, it would get noticed. Businesses care about profits more than anything else.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Comemercials!
Maybe they could do that, but I don't think many businesses are actually complaining about the licensing fees. The barber's PPL license would have cost £116.20 ex. VAT per year, which is probably about 0.1% of his turnover. Hardly a fortune.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: TV Licence
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: TV Licence
Your classical music advice is great. Or he could just pay the £116.20 annual license fee to the PPL and not have to worry. Hardly an extortionate amount to potentially play over 130,000 licensed tracks over a year.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Remember
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: PRS v PPL
And in any case, I didn't say there needed to be more than 2 paragraphs, I just said that because there were only 2 of them, clearly it was not the whole story.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're saying it's justified merely because the artist made the music."
In the case of ethics/morals, I'd say both reasons are valid. In the case of the law, the latter is what counts.
"what gives artists the right to get paid over and over again forever for work they did once while no one else in society has that privilege?"
The law does! But I don't agree that nobody else has that privilege. If I start a shop, and then start another as it's going well, and then train my staff to start more stores on my behalf, and eventually end up with a chain, I will get to the point where I get paid over and over again for work that I did at the start of the process.
If I come up with a secret recipe for cookies, and they are so popular that everyone in the country buys them every day, I will 'get paid over and over again forever for work I only did once'. Or if I invent a new clothes hangar that becomes very popular, I will 'get paid over and over again forever for work that I did once'. It's not just 'art', it designs, it's ideas, it's patents... it's all forms of intellectual property. The whole concept of successful business is built upon getting good at something and then 'getting paid over and over again forever for work I did once' at the start of the process. Like a doctor spends years at medical school at great expense so he/she can earn a good salary for the rest of their life once they are qualified. In your example, the doctor would have spent/invested time/money into learning how to set a broken leg in the first place, and then every time she has to do it for a new patient, she gets paid for it again.
"Yet when it comes to art, there's this presumption that it just makes sense to keep paying people for work they did decades ago."
Well, maybe the UK copyright expiry period could be adjusted from 50 years to say, 20 years, or less, but the argument is that if you push it too far, the artists will have less incentive to create new work and society will lose out as a whole.
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: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"And the publisher, pretty sure that's the record company THAT THE RADIO STATION IS ALREADY PAYING." - no, not necessarily. Publishers are usually not also recording companies, though sometimes one might own another. But in most cases they are separate and UK copyright law recognises both the writer/creator and the performer of the recording/live performance.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Of course they can - they just need to stop using that society. Any rates that have been set by the UK government have been in the case of dispute between the businesses that pay the fees and societies representing the copyright holders. If the copyright holders don't like the rate their society has ended up with, they can just stop using the society and collect the rate they want themselves or using another society instead. They're not forced into those rates.
"Plus, you have mostly ignored the fact that copyright holders have already charged for that broadcast - they charged the broadcasters themselves (the radio stations). Rights holders are getting paid twice for exactly the same transmission. That's the very definition of 'double dipping.' If it's the law, then the law should be changed."
No, that's not true. You're implying that being paid twice means 'double' the amount. The reality is that, for instance, a copyright holder receives around £75 per play of their recording on the big BBC stations, from the stations themselves. Whereas a small business like the barber may only pay £100 or so for the right to play as much music as they like for an entire year. So realistically the artist will receive a few pennies for this, on top of their £75. That is not 'double' dipping.
"The barber shop isn't a 'broadcaster' because they can't select the music,"
Er, yes they can. They can put on a CD, an iPod, fire up Spotify etc. The license that the barber didn't have covered the playing of all music, whether or not broadcast over the radio to the shop.
"can't decide to skip station ID's or ads, etc."
Sure they can, they can mute these if they really want. Or switch to another station. Radio sets *do* have buttons that let you control them.
"Re-broadcasting of a specific radio transmission in public should be no different than doing so in private."
Why, sorry?
And yes, things are different in the UK and US. I'm glad someone's finally picked up on that.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Sure, if we've got an agreement along those lines in the licensing contract. If we haven't, you can attempt to negotiate with my licensing agency if you like. But if they or I decide against it, sorry but that's our decision - it's our music to do what we want with.
"Or, wait, does this only work in one direction?"
That really depends on your negotiating skills, Mike. The ball's in your court if you want to try and get it agreed.
"Can you point me to a single collection society (hell, just PPL or PRS) that lets musicians set their own rates? They don't. The rates are set by the Copyright Tribunal in the UK."
Only when there is a dispute. But the point is, musicians don't have to use collection societies if they don't want to. If they don't like the rates being used, they don't have to use them.
Just found this by the way - http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Playing-Music-and-Videos-In-Public/Health--Beauty/
It turns out the barber would have only needed to pay £116.20 ex. VAT per year to have the PPL license to play music from radio and TV at his premises. Hardly a fortune!
"Highly misleading. It is only in the past two years that the European courts rejected national monopolies on collection societies. But because the established players already had a monopoly it's close to impossible for any new entrant to qualify.
Qualify for what, sorry?
"Both had gov't sanctioned monopolies until the courts broke that up recently, at which point it no longer mattered. Why you ignore this, I do not know."
Because as you say, it no longer matters. We're talking about a current case, not an old case.
"There's no free market when you have a government tribunal setting prices, Dave. There's no free market when you have a government granting a monopoly. There's no free market when you have monopoly rights handed out to content creators."
Sure there is. The tribunal has set the prices for one particular society. Not for all of them. http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Copyright-Tribunal-Refunds/
There's nothing stopping the barber using an alternative collection society that represents other artists, or just dealing with the artists directly, or only playing his own music that he records himself at the weekend, or not playing any music at all, or just paying the £116.20 which will probably be less than 0.1% of his business' turnover.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the barber had no moral (or legal) right to play licensed music without the permission of the copyright owner as he hadn't got the appropriate license that the copyright owner had stipulated.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>