OK, so if that is true, allowing creators to use a licensing system to have their works performed/played in public or commercial places, is part of that copyright purpose that you mention, because it adds to their 'financial incentives to create'.
OK, well, that's great for the US, but it's simply not the case in the UK, which is why this whole incident was able to happen. Again, we're not the same. It's interesting to see how our laws differ, but please accept that this is a different country with different laws, that are not necessarily any more right or wrong than your own.
Well yeah, if your teachers/school don't do anything about it, clearly there's a problem with the school and you'll get a better education if you go to a different school instead.
If you read the original story, a PPL inspector was in the barbershop and heard songs being played that were definitely under their representation. This is probably the only way they can check if businesses are obeying the law, by visiting businesses they know aren't signed up and listening to what they play, if anything.
The purpose of (UK) copyright is both to ensure the creators retain their moral rights to their work with the support of the law for a reasonable amount of time (generally 50 years for the UK), but also to relinquish those rights, legally, after the period so that the works can be used by all for the greater good/education/progress etc.
It's not just one or the other, as if it were just about protecting the rights of creators, progress would be slowed down, but on the other hand, if it were just about make everything available to everyone, there would be little incentive for people to create things if they don't get any personal gain from it. So the UK law provides a balance that most people who actually create stuff agree is fair.
Who says the radio station has advertising? In the UK we have plenty of radio stations that are not funded in that way. Again, what bugs me about this is that most of the people commenting here are not in the UK (where the barber is) and do not understand how things work here.
And for those radion stations that do have commercials, it's highly unlikely that they will be able to increase their revenue based on business/public plays of their advertising because listening figures don't take those plays into account, as they sample the use of actual individuals' radios, not those used in businesses.
Again, the radio stations pay license fees so that they can broadcast the music to individuals who are listening in private locations (homes, cars etc.). They don't have the license, by default, to broadcast the music in public places. So it's the responsibility of the public places (be they shopping malls, shops, barbers, restaurants, bars, garage showrooms, stables or whatever) to get the required licenses to 'perform' (play) them. That's how the law works here in the UK, so this story is really no big surprise/deal.
Sharing links to material online is *completely different* than playing licensed music in a commercial property to members of the public without permission. This is a pathetic attempt at trying to make me look like a hypocrite when at no point have I condemned sharing online links. You DO NOT NEED A LICENSE to post a URL to something else online.
Lending music recordings is perfectly legal in the UK, by the way. It's copying, hiring/renting, public performances (i.e. playing publicly) and/or broadcasting (i.e. over the air or via wires) that are illegal. Try reading the small print on any commercial CD if you don't believe me.
Businesses that use licensed music (whether played from a CD, iPod, online streaming service or from regular radio) to enhance their physical environment, either for employees, customers, or both, should pay for the privilege. This is perfectly fair - recorded music doesn't grow on trees.
C) A non-music related business (eg., a hairdresser) plays music which nets them lots of paying customers over time, however no one who was involved in the creation of said music is paid over the years.
Whether or not having music enhances your business/increases your sales, you still need to respect the wishes of the copyright holders of the music you choose to play. If they say they want paying, either pay them or don't play their music.
Fine, maybe the PPL needs to a better job of making sure everyone is aware that they represent a lot of popular music. But you have to be pretty naive if you just assume you can do what you like with someone else's music just because it's on the radio. I'm not saying you need to read all the laws, but I do find it odd that if he found out about the PRS, he somehow missed the PPL, as they will be listed in similar places.
No, you don't need the licenses - the business does as its their premises!
And it's not really a case of 'suing', they just need to issue the fines, which it seems they are gradually doing at the moment. If people don't want to pay the fines, they can object and only then will the PPL potentially take them to court. The law that comes into play is that you need permission of the copyright holder to play their music in public - I doubt that one is going to be easily changed.
"OK, so why do you think it is nonsensical, sorry?
We're 250 comments in and you still haven't figured it out?"
Nope, I'm afraid not. It makes perfect sense to me that if you play the song that I wrote and my friend recorded to the public at your business premises (which enhances your working conditions and/or your customer satisfaction), that we are each paid at the amounts that we have set, and if we want to use agencies to help monitor this and collect the fees, what's wrong with that?
"how a gov't granted agency with gov't set prices has anything to do with your claim that copyright holders get to charge what they want"
Um, well, the copyright holders have signed agreements with that agency, that's how. Either they have chosen the rates themselves, or they've agreed to the rates of the agency. In any case, an agreement, that they had a choice about, is in place.
"I believe that the market sets the price -- and that's the intersection of supply and demand. A rights holder can try to set the price, but if the product is in abundant supply, then that price gets pushed down by the market. But the government has stepped in and denied market forces in htis situation."
Not true - there's nothing stopping another company starting their own agency. The law doesn't give any special privileges to the PRS or PPL, they are just the most popular services of their kind in the UK and because they cover the vast majority of popular music and have agreements with lots of public venues, it makes sense to sign up with them either as an artist or broadcaster.
"Turning on a radio is not 'broadcasting'."
Sorry but if you are running a business and the public can hear the licensed music on the radio at your premises, then it is broadcasting in so much that you need a license to do it legally. Whatever the term used.
And my 'just don't do it' argument was not 'just don't break the law', but in fact 'don't do the thing that you don't want to pay for'. It's a free market - if you don't like the price of a product (or in this case licensing a product), you don't have to buy it at all.
No, what I'm saying is she shouldn't get the bus if she doesn't like the rules of where you have to sit. If all the black people had stopped getting the bus, and perhaps started their own bus service, the racist bus service would have suffered financially and would have been likely to have changed its rules.
It's not like you are forced to listen to music that requires payment, or forced to play it in your shop. If you don't like the charges, just don't use the music. If everyone stopped playing and (licensing) the music, the PPL might look at lowering or abolishing its fees.
But it's not the same as racism. Not in the slightest. Racism is simply unfair. The right to charge what *you* want for the right to broadcast *your* music is not.
But it's not only you listening, it's every member of public who enters your premises who you are playing it to.
Read the original story. The inspector, as a member of the public, went into the shop and heard PPL licensed music when the shop didn't have a PPL license.
In terms of a public performance, I understand that it's just a member of the public that can hear it, on premises that are accessible by the public, as opposed to employees in a private office.
And yes, that is correct regarding the law. If you play music publicly (i.e. where the public can hear it), as part of your commercial business, you need to pay a license fee or risk a fine.
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:
OK, well, that's great for the US, but it's simply not the case in the UK, which is why this whole incident was able to happen. Again, we're not the same. It's interesting to see how our laws differ, but please accept that this is a different country with different laws, that are not necessarily any more right or wrong than your own.
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weird example.
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:
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: A few good points
It's not just one or the other, as if it were just about protecting the rights of creators, progress would be slowed down, but on the other hand, if it were just about make everything available to everyone, there would be little incentive for people to create things if they don't get any personal gain from it. So the UK law provides a balance that most people who actually create stuff agree is fair.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
And for those radion stations that do have commercials, it's highly unlikely that they will be able to increase their revenue based on business/public plays of their advertising because listening figures don't take those plays into account, as they sample the use of actual individuals' radios, not those used in businesses.
Again, the radio stations pay license fees so that they can broadcast the music to individuals who are listening in private locations (homes, cars etc.). They don't have the license, by default, to broadcast the music in public places. So it's the responsibility of the public places (be they shopping malls, shops, barbers, restaurants, bars, garage showrooms, stables or whatever) to get the required licenses to 'perform' (play) them. That's how the law works here in the UK, so this story is really no big surprise/deal.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
Lending music recordings is perfectly legal in the UK, by the way. It's copying, hiring/renting, public performances (i.e. playing publicly) and/or broadcasting (i.e. over the air or via wires) that are illegal. Try reading the small print on any commercial CD if you don't believe me.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: on a related note
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: dear dave n.
Businesses that use licensed music (whether played from a CD, iPod, online streaming service or from regular radio) to enhance their physical environment, either for employees, customers, or both, should pay for the privilege. This is perfectly fair - recorded music doesn't grow on trees.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
C) A non-music related business (eg., a hairdresser) plays music which nets them lots of paying customers over time, however no one who was involved in the creation of said music is paid over the years.
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
No, you don't need the licenses - the business does as its their premises!
And it's not really a case of 'suing', they just need to issue the fines, which it seems they are gradually doing at the moment. If people don't want to pay the fines, they can object and only then will the PPL potentially take them to court. The law that comes into play is that you need permission of the copyright holder to play their music in public - I doubt that one is going to be easily changed.
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: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
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?
We're 250 comments in and you still haven't figured it out?"
Nope, I'm afraid not. It makes perfect sense to me that if you play the song that I wrote and my friend recorded to the public at your business premises (which enhances your working conditions and/or your customer satisfaction), that we are each paid at the amounts that we have set, and if we want to use agencies to help monitor this and collect the fees, what's wrong with that?
"how a gov't granted agency with gov't set prices has anything to do with your claim that copyright holders get to charge what they want"
Um, well, the copyright holders have signed agreements with that agency, that's how. Either they have chosen the rates themselves, or they've agreed to the rates of the agency. In any case, an agreement, that they had a choice about, is in place.
"I believe that the market sets the price -- and that's the intersection of supply and demand. A rights holder can try to set the price, but if the product is in abundant supply, then that price gets pushed down by the market. But the government has stepped in and denied market forces in htis situation."
Not true - there's nothing stopping another company starting their own agency. The law doesn't give any special privileges to the PRS or PPL, they are just the most popular services of their kind in the UK and because they cover the vast majority of popular music and have agreements with lots of public venues, it makes sense to sign up with them either as an artist or broadcaster.
"Turning on a radio is not 'broadcasting'."
Sorry but if you are running a business and the public can hear the licensed music on the radio at your premises, then it is broadcasting in so much that you need a license to do it legally. Whatever the term used.
And my 'just don't do it' argument was not 'just don't break the law', but in fact 'don't do the thing that you don't want to pay for'. It's a free market - if you don't like the price of a product (or in this case licensing a product), you don't have to buy it at all.
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?
Really? The state law still thinks that's OK?! Does it happen often?
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:
It's not like you are forced to listen to music that requires payment, or forced to play it in your shop. If you don't like the charges, just don't use the music. If everyone stopped playing and (licensing) the music, the PPL might look at lowering or abolishing its fees.
But it's not the same as racism. Not in the slightest. Racism is simply unfair. The right to charge what *you* want for the right to broadcast *your* music is not.
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:
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:
Read the original story. The inspector, as a member of the public, went into the shop and heard PPL licensed music when the shop didn't have a PPL license.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In terms of a public performance, I understand that it's just a member of the public that can hear it, on premises that are accessible by the public, as opposed to employees in a private office.
And yes, that is correct regarding the law. If you play music publicly (i.e. where the public can hear it), as part of your commercial business, you need to pay a license fee or risk a fine.
Next >>