No, because if you have headphones on, for instance, you are not broadcasting it to others, and more importantly, there are various exceptions to the legislation:
Note that they do do exceptions for some shops (section 4).
Would it be different if someone brought in a portable radio? Probably not.
If I write a song and I let the PPL take care of my publishing royalties (for a fee out of the income they obtain for me), then they have the authority to act whenever any recordings of my song are broadcast.
He tried to comply by signing up with the Performing Rights Society, but not with Phonographic Performance Limited. It was an unfortunate mistake but a mistake nevertheless. I don't think any legal speak hid anything from him - we don't know how he found out the PRS but he ought to have found out about the PPL at the same time. Or maybe the PRS should have reminded him about the PPL. But it's not their responsibility to do that - it's his.
I've made the odd mistake with my own company, and I've paid for it. I didn't go to the media about it though.
In the UK we have the HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs).
If they say they owed me back taxes but I knew 100% that I didn't, I would send them evidence of this and the matter would be dealt with. It wouldn't get to the point of me having to pay, or refunding and going to jail. I would just get on with resolving the issue.
But in this case, the barber doesn't appear to have objected to the PPL fees at all - he's never said he disagreed with them, and didn't say he thinks they weren't fair or right. He was just a bit shocked because he was ignorant about having to pay them, and so he got a larger fine instead. He made an unfortunate mistake, and maybe now he'll take more care running his business.
"So you believe there is no problem with denying an individual the ability to make use of their own products (radio) to capture public goods (radio waves) on their own property?"
It's irrelevant really as that's not what's happened here. Radio waves specifically sent by someone are not 'public goods', they are copyrighted intellectual property, just like physical or digital recordings.
As for what you can do on your own property, the law has never worked like that. In neither the US nor the UK nor many other countries can you murder someone on your own property, for instance (there are sometime exceptions for self-defence but they apply whether in public or private). If you are in a country, you have to obey the laws or face the consequences.
"You say this as if before he bought the radio he had to sign an agreement. He did not."
He didn't need to. UK laws regarding broadcast of copyrighted work to the public already exist. It is every individual's and every business's responsibility to know the laws of the country they are in. Ignorance does not hold up in court (unless you are very lucky!).
"When the Mafia stops by your shop and says you need to pay up for "protection" to make sure "nothing bad happens," does the store owner who pays up "agree" with the mafia?"
This has no relevance to this case. Nobody forced the barber to play the music. He just got fined for not having the legally required license for it. He chose to play the music.
"My point all along has been how nonsensical the law is. You have not responded to that. Any time anyone calls you on it you resort back to "but that's the law!" That's not an answer."
OK, so why do you think it is nonsensical, sorry? Do you not agree that copyright holders should be able to charge as they like for the use of their work? Do you not agree that broadcasting copyrighted work in public should be treated differently than doing so in private?
"Yes, and once we had a law that said slavery was okay and that alcohol was not. And you would have been among those who said "the law is the law, so deal with it."
No, I'd've said if you don't like it, simply don't partake in it. Comparing slavery and prohibition to music broadcast licensing is ridiculous though.
No, their existence didn't make them right, moral or ethical, but they still had to be upheld until they were stopped.
If they obeyed the laws *AND* didn't make any attempt to do anything about them, then yes, they effectively agreed with them. Nobody forced them to put up with the laws.
And as history tells us, they didn't put up with them, and so the laws got abolished:
"Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Clarence Mitchell, Jr., Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., working during the period from the end of World War II through the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 supported by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many of their efforts were acts of non-violent civil disobedience aimed at disrupting the enforcement of racial segregation rules and laws, such as refusing to give up a seat in the black part of the bus to a white person (Rosa Parks), or holding sit-ins at all-white diners.
By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and by 1970, support for formal legal segregation had dissolved. Formal racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support."
So what got things changed? Disobeying the laws. Whereas simply obeying them did absolutely nothing.
So if the barber was against the principle of having to get both a performance and publishing license to play commercial music in his public commercial premises, pay one of the license fees was not the best way to show it. But at no point has he said he was against the principles - he said he hadn't paid the PPL because he didn't know he had to, not because he objected to it. He hasn't said anything about having already paid the PRS fee because he didn't agree with it - in fact he had made sure that it was paid, implying he was comfortable with it or else he wouldn't have done so.
If there were actual double dipping taking place, then I would agree that it's wrong. But as I've explained, it's not. The PRS license that the barber legally requires is not the same as the PPL license that he legally requires, nor are either of those the same as the PRS and PPL licenses that the radio station is required to have.
If you can't/won't recognise the difference, arguing with YOU is a complete waste of time.
And there is no issue here of anyone charging for music that they are not the rights holder of. As in the original article that this page is taken from, the barber was found to have been playing particular tracks that were the PPL *WAS* a representative of.
Firstly, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE U.S.! Please will you Americans realise that you are not the only country on the planet. So anything we discuss now about US copyright law has no relevance to the larger debate about the UK barber.
Secondly, limiting the copyright on an artist's work for them is *not* going to encourage them to make more work for the public. If they want to create work for the public, they can just do that and give away the copyright to public bodies straight away.
I understand what you are saying about the wording, though the fact that it is securing the exclusive rights for the authors/inventors, even if only for a limited time, shows that it is about respecting that they do have rights to their work. In the UK, copyright generally expires 50 years after the work is published/released:
No, that wasn't what I said at all. I just said you should do something about it instead of sitting back, paying the charge and accepting it. Apparently you are doing something about it, so that's great.
A public place is one that members of the general public have access to. Or in other words, it is any place that is not private. Commercial premises that are open to the public, like a barbershop, are public places in terms of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.
No, he only paid the performance license, not the publishing license. In the UK, they are split up like that because often the person/people who wrote the music is not the same as the person/people who have performed on the recording of it. He's not being made to pay twice, but for two different things.
The barber has to pay for performance and publishing licenses because if he rebroadcasts the radio broadcast on his commercial premises, that is not covered by the radio station's license (which as I said is just for the station to broadcast DIRECTLY to individuals, not through a business).
You would murder if you thought you could get away with it? I think you need to be committed to an institution and not arguing on this site, if you truly believe that.
With BMI and ASCAP, they claim they do collect royalties for their members ("ASCAP is the only performing rights organization in the U.S. owned and run by songwriters, composers and music publishers", "Broadcast Music, Inc. collects license fees from businesses that use music, which it distributes as royalties to songwriters, composers & music publishers"). Are you saying they are liars?! How exactly did you find out that they weren't paying artists?
Of course he had a choice. He didn't have to play the music at all. Then he wouldn't have to pay. HE HAD A CHOICE!
"Agreeing to a contract at the point of a gun (i.e., the threat of a huge fine for doing something as simple as turning on the radio) is not the same thing as a mutually beneficial transaction agreed upon by mutually consenting parties."
It's quite easy to simply not turn the radio on, Mike. There was no gun-point hold-up - you are being ridiculous now. If you don't agree with the terms of what you're paying for, DON'T PAY.
"That absolutely is double and triple charging. The very same broadcast -- which has already been paid for -- is being paid for again. It's the very definition of double and triple charging."
No, what was paid for was the license to broadcast the music to individuals in domestic/private places, not in commercial public places. There is a difference, whether you like it or not.
"Indeed, but PRS and PPL already get paid from the radio station broadcasts. This absolutely is double dipping."
No, because they are being paid for a different thing by the radio stations than by the business owners. Personal and commercial licenses rarely have the same cost. If I want have Sky Sports (satellite) TV in my home, it costs around £25/month. If I own a pub and want to show it there, it costs hundreds a month. The license that I am paying for is different depending on the place that the broadcast takes place. As a listener, radio stations are kind enough to pay the license fee for the music they broadcast so that I don't have to personally pay it (but if the technology existed, they could charge me instead, just like with pay TV). But the fees they pay for this do not cover public broadcasts, and the law states that the owner of the public place has to pay for the different license for this.
"Music in shops is not about selling more at all. It's about keeping the staff from going nutty in the silence."
Fine, so play it for that reason instead, but accept that the public will still hear it, whether or not they want to, and thus an appropriate license still needs to be paid.
If an artist creates something and they decide that they want to license it (i.e. a license is required, which may have a fee depending on who is using it and what they're using it for) when being played in a public place, what's wrong with that? Nobody forces the owner of the public place to play the artist's work.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988#Miscellaneous
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: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/Pages/do ineedalicence.aspx
Note that they do do exceptions for some shops (section 4).
Would it be different if someone brought in a portable radio? Probably not.
If I write a song and I let the PPL take care of my publishing royalties (for a fee out of the income they obtain for me), then they have the authority to act whenever any recordings of my song are broadcast.
He tried to comply by signing up with the Performing Rights Society, but not with Phonographic Performance Limited. It was an unfortunate mistake but a mistake nevertheless. I don't think any legal speak hid anything from him - we don't know how he found out the PRS but he ought to have found out about the PPL at the same time. Or maybe the PRS should have reminded him about the PPL. But it's not their responsibility to do that - it's his.
I've made the odd mistake with my own company, and I've paid for it. I didn't go to the media about it though.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
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: (@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: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
If they say they owed me back taxes but I knew 100% that I didn't, I would send them evidence of this and the matter would be dealt with. It wouldn't get to the point of me having to pay, or refunding and going to jail. I would just get on with resolving the issue.
But in this case, the barber doesn't appear to have objected to the PPL fees at all - he's never said he disagreed with them, and didn't say he thinks they weren't fair or right. He was just a bit shocked because he was ignorant about having to pay them, and so he got a larger fine instead. He made an unfortunate mistake, and maybe now he'll take more care running his business.
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?
It's irrelevant really as that's not what's happened here. Radio waves specifically sent by someone are not 'public goods', they are copyrighted intellectual property, just like physical or digital recordings.
As for what you can do on your own property, the law has never worked like that. In neither the US nor the UK nor many other countries can you murder someone on your own property, for instance (there are sometime exceptions for self-defence but they apply whether in public or private). If you are in a country, you have to obey the laws or face the consequences.
"You say this as if before he bought the radio he had to sign an agreement. He did not."
He didn't need to. UK laws regarding broadcast of copyrighted work to the public already exist. It is every individual's and every business's responsibility to know the laws of the country they are in. Ignorance does not hold up in court (unless you are very lucky!).
"When the Mafia stops by your shop and says you need to pay up for "protection" to make sure "nothing bad happens," does the store owner who pays up "agree" with the mafia?"
This has no relevance to this case. Nobody forced the barber to play the music. He just got fined for not having the legally required license for it. He chose to play the music.
"My point all along has been how nonsensical the law is. You have not responded to that. Any time anyone calls you on it you resort back to "but that's the law!" That's not an answer."
OK, so why do you think it is nonsensical, sorry? Do you not agree that copyright holders should be able to charge as they like for the use of their work? Do you not agree that broadcasting copyrighted work in public should be treated differently than doing so in private?
"Yes, and once we had a law that said slavery was okay and that alcohol was not. And you would have been among those who said "the law is the law, so deal with it."
No, I'd've said if you don't like it, simply don't partake in it. Comparing slavery and prohibition to music broadcast licensing is ridiculous though.
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:
If they obeyed the laws *AND* didn't make any attempt to do anything about them, then yes, they effectively agreed with them. Nobody forced them to put up with the laws.
And as history tells us, they didn't put up with them, and so the laws got abolished:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#United_States
"Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Clarence Mitchell, Jr., Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., working during the period from the end of World War II through the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 supported by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many of their efforts were acts of non-violent civil disobedience aimed at disrupting the enforcement of racial segregation rules and laws, such as refusing to give up a seat in the black part of the bus to a white person (Rosa Parks), or holding sit-ins at all-white diners.
By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and by 1970, support for formal legal segregation had dissolved. Formal racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support."
So what got things changed? Disobeying the laws. Whereas simply obeying them did absolutely nothing.
So if the barber was against the principle of having to get both a performance and publishing license to play commercial music in his public commercial premises, pay one of the license fees was not the best way to show it. But at no point has he said he was against the principles - he said he hadn't paid the PPL because he didn't know he had to, not because he objected to it. He hasn't said anything about having already paid the PRS fee because he didn't agree with it - in fact he had made sure that it was paid, implying he was comfortable with it or else he wouldn't have done so.
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:
If you can't/won't recognise the difference, arguing with YOU is a complete waste of time.
And there is no issue here of anyone charging for music that they are not the rights holder of. As in the original article that this page is taken from, the barber was found to have been playing particular tracks that were the PPL *WAS* a representative of.
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:
Secondly, limiting the copyright on an artist's work for them is *not* going to encourage them to make more work for the public. If they want to create work for the public, they can just do that and give away the copyright to public bodies straight away.
I understand what you are saying about the wording, though the fact that it is securing the exclusive rights for the authors/inventors, even if only for a limited time, shows that it is about respecting that they do have rights to their work. In the UK, copyright generally expires 50 years after the work is published/released:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988
I don't know (or in this particular case care) what the period is for the US at the moment.
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:
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:
Now calm down.
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:
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:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
You would murder if you thought you could get away with it? I think you need to be committed to an institution and not arguing on this site, if you truly believe that.
With BMI and ASCAP, they claim they do collect royalties for their members ("ASCAP is the only performing rights organization in the U.S. owned and run by songwriters, composers and music publishers", "Broadcast Music, Inc. collects license fees from businesses that use music, which it distributes as royalties to songwriters, composers & music publishers"). Are you saying they are liars?! How exactly did you find out that they weren't paying artists?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Of course he had a choice. He didn't have to play the music at all. Then he wouldn't have to pay. HE HAD A CHOICE!
"Agreeing to a contract at the point of a gun (i.e., the threat of a huge fine for doing something as simple as turning on the radio) is not the same thing as a mutually beneficial transaction agreed upon by mutually consenting parties."
It's quite easy to simply not turn the radio on, Mike. There was no gun-point hold-up - you are being ridiculous now. If you don't agree with the terms of what you're paying for, DON'T PAY.
"That absolutely is double and triple charging. The very same broadcast -- which has already been paid for -- is being paid for again. It's the very definition of double and triple charging."
No, what was paid for was the license to broadcast the music to individuals in domestic/private places, not in commercial public places. There is a difference, whether you like it or not.
"Indeed, but PRS and PPL already get paid from the radio station broadcasts. This absolutely is double dipping."
No, because they are being paid for a different thing by the radio stations than by the business owners. Personal and commercial licenses rarely have the same cost. If I want have Sky Sports (satellite) TV in my home, it costs around £25/month. If I own a pub and want to show it there, it costs hundreds a month. The license that I am paying for is different depending on the place that the broadcast takes place. As a listener, radio stations are kind enough to pay the license fee for the music they broadcast so that I don't have to personally pay it (but if the technology existed, they could charge me instead, just like with pay TV). But the fees they pay for this do not cover public broadcasts, and the law states that the owner of the public place has to pay for the different license for this.
"Music in shops is not about selling more at all. It's about keeping the staff from going nutty in the silence."
Fine, so play it for that reason instead, but accept that the public will still hear it, whether or not they want to, and thus an appropriate license still needs to be paid.
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:
If an artist creates something and they decide that they want to license it (i.e. a license is required, which may have a fee depending on who is using it and what they're using it for) when being played in a public place, what's wrong with that? Nobody forces the owner of the public place to play the artist's work.
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 promotes music because it means artists get paid for their work in the way they have chosen to.
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:
Next >>