That's me - some of my clients are artists, and yes, I care about creators getting paid for their work in the way that they choose to. If you don't like the licensing agency that the artist has chosen to use (such as the PRS or PPL), fine, just don't use their work.
Because the radio station license is just a blanket rate for privates individuals to listen to the music being broadcast, not for businesses to rebroadcast the music publicly.
No, he paid because he wanted to be able to legally broadcast commercial music in his premises. He could have chosen not to. You don't have to have music played in a barbershop.
I'm confused - if your taxes already paid for the space, why were there parking meters in the first place?
Anyway, no, you do not have to pay. Catch a bus to the beach. Hire a cab. Ask a friend to take you over. Get 'rid of your dogs! Or as you say, just don't go there. "I don't want to" - exactly - it's your choice. You are not forced in any way to pay.
Because THERE ARE LAWS. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you're running a business, you have legal obligations. If you don't understand them, you risk the consequences. That's why most people don't have their own businesses, because they don't want the responsibilities.
If you don't like the licensing laws, simply don't listen to the music that is affected by them. It's very easy to opt-out!
Sorry but yes it does. If you don't agree with a principle, going along with it is the last thing you do. It's not your business' right to be able to broadcast music to the public without a license to do so. If you don't agree with the principle of needing a license, you either stop broadcasting the music, or you continue but risk the consequences. He did neither, he paid up, which meant he agreed with it.
"Copyright is not a mechanism to protect creator's rights" - of course it is! It is about giving you control of what happens to your work, by making it the legal default that you own all rights to it.
"Copyright is a mechanism to get artists to create MORE art for the benefit of the public" - not necessarly. If the artist chooses to use copyright to make money from their work, which means they are more likely to continue creating it (because it's self-supporting), then sure, but copyright isn't only about this.
"The idea seems to be the creators think that if their creations are used to make other people money, they automagically deserve a cut." How is that stupid?! It seems perfectly fair to me. I'm happy to give my work away for non-commercial use, but if someone makes money from it, why can't I get a share?! This is common practise in many creative industries.
Yes I can! If he didn't agree with the principle, he would either have not paid and faced the consequences, or not paid and stopped playing the music altogether. He instead decided to pay, because he obviously felt having commercial music played in his business was important and worth paying for.
I've no idea what you are talking about in your second paragraph.
When you say customers, you mean the public buying the recordings, or the businesses paying to have permission to broadcast them in their premises?
If the agencies are collecting more money, then of course the artists are going to earn more.
Sure, the mall could only play certain artists, that would work too. But in any case, don't blame the agencies for simply carrying out the wishes of their clients (artists).
I don't think anyone would ever claim that protecting copyright does anything towards encouraging learning, promoting progress, facilitating cultural exchange or general enrichment.
Copyright is about letting the owner/creator of the work choose what happens to it, be that licensing it to anyone via the PRS/PPL, deciding that only their friends can ever listen to it, giving it away for free without any conditions, or whatever.
The reality is most creators go down the money route because they need to earn a living. Nothing wrong with that.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: re: Dave Nattriss [I spy for the BPI]
Go into a UK supermarket - there are racks of CDs still being sold. Go onto iTunes, there are millions of tracks being sold.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
There are no 'mafia' actions going on. If you don't like the rules, simply don't use their music.
Whereas the 'mafia' would force you to use the music (and thus pay for it). Completely different.
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: 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:
Anyway, no, you do not have to pay. Catch a bus to the beach. Hire a cab. Ask a friend to take you over. Get 'rid of your dogs! Or as you say, just don't go there. "I don't want to" - exactly - it's your choice. You are not forced in any way to pay.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Happy
Keep up, will ya?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like the licensing laws, simply don't listen to the music that is affected by them. It's very easy to opt-out!
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Copyright is not a mechanism to protect creator's rights" - of course it is! It is about giving you control of what happens to your work, by making it the legal default that you own all rights to it.
"Copyright is a mechanism to get artists to create MORE art for the benefit of the public" - not necessarly. If the artist chooses to use copyright to make money from their work, which means they are more likely to continue creating it (because it's self-supporting), then sure, but copyright isn't only about this.
"The idea seems to be the creators think that if their creations are used to make other people money, they automagically deserve a cut." How is that stupid?! It seems perfectly fair to me. I'm happy to give my work away for non-commercial use, but if someone makes money from it, why can't I get a share?! This is common practise in many creative industries.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've no idea what you are talking about in your second paragraph.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Remember
If the agencies are collecting more money, then of course the artists are going to earn more.
Sure, the mall could only play certain artists, that would work too. But in any case, don't blame the agencies for simply carrying out the wishes of their clients (artists).
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
How is a business owner a customer, sorry? They simply sue the people that steal their music, which is perfectly fair.
And by the way, recorded music is not a dead business in the slighest. UK single sales are higher than ever before: http://www.bpi.co.uk/press-area/news-amp3b-press-release/article/2009-is-record-year-for-uk-singles- sales.aspx
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: PRS v PPL
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Comemercials!
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: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Copyright is about letting the owner/creator of the work choose what happens to it, be that licensing it to anyone via the PRS/PPL, deciding that only their friends can ever listen to it, giving it away for free without any conditions, or whatever.
The reality is most creators go down the money route because they need to earn a living. Nothing wrong with that.
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:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>