Party A is the customer at the restaurant? Party B is the waitress? Party C is the customer?
I don't know how anything is being legally extorted from the customer. The waitress agrees to the pay rate from the restaurant when they accept the job. If the customer wants to reward the waitress directly for good service, they can do so. If they don't, they don't. If you only want to use restaurants that pay their waitresses a living wage (and thus don't require a tip from you in order to live), then you are free to do so. You say it won't make a difference, but it will if enough people feel the same way. If a significant amount of people only eat at restaurants that pay living wages, this will affect the industry. It may take the badly paying restaurants some time to work this out, but the chains generally do market research.
I don't see a difference. If you agree to do something (but aren't forced to do it), you must agree with it or why would you agree to do it (you're not being forced)?
If you end up participating in Christmas, birthdays etc., that is your choice. If you still watch the BBC, that is also your choice. Again, you're not forced/compelled to participate.
"I could just not participate in anything I disagreed with but that would be a pretty shitty life"
Indeed, so maybe you should reconsider the things you do/don't agree with, like everyone else does. I don't like spending 40+ hours of my week working for other people, but I choose to do it because it means I can spend the rest of my time living comfortably. I could just not work at all and live a pretty shit life, but I'd prefer not. You've made your choice too.
"Even with copyright, the 'public domain' is supposed to comprise all published works"
Says who, sorry? The public domain is the things that belong to the public, not things that don't. Just because I publish something, it doesn't mean the public can do what it wants with it. If I publish my song with conditions such as a license fee being required to play it in a barbershop, that's my choice. The public has no right to ignore my conditions.
No, I haven't ever worked for PPL, PRS, BPI etc. I was commissioned to do a website for the Music Business Forum, but the MBF was closed down before it got completed. In any case, developing a website for the MBF does not affiliate me with the licensing societies being discussed on this page.
And sure, I do a website for a TV show (via the show's production company) that is shown on the BBC (and another commerical channel too). I deliberately redirect natts.com to my LinkedIn profile because it is the best representation of my work experience, skills and recommendations - I don't need my own website, and I'd rather spend my time being paid to do other people's sites than bother with one of my own. Having said that, I do plan to launch a blog/lifestream style site in the near future. Yes, I've helped artists sell their swag online in the past, and I've even done websites for artists who are signed to major labels.
So how do I work for the music business then, sorry? I've worked for artists.
And sure, I'm working for Clock at the moment on a project for BBC Worldwide. How does that affect the facts about UK copyright laws, sorry?!
"You do realize that copyright is supposed to be a bargain between the public and the creators, right?"
I accept that that was the idea of it when it was set up hundreds of years ago. But morally the public has no right to an individual's work.
"you find no moral problem in the government unilaterally changing that deal at a later date in favor of one party by extending the length of coverage? Even though it explicitly breaks the deal with the public and gives them nothing in return?"
Sure, I don't see why the public deserves anything at all? Creators handing over the rights to their work after 50 years or whatever is a privilege (albeit legally enforced), not a right.
A fairer system for me would be that the copyright expires a number of years after the creator dies (so that their family can still receive income from it to support themselves in the absence of the creator).
"Even if you support copyright extension on *new* works, supporting retroactive copyright extension is supporting a blatantly immoral taking from the public."
That's assuming you think it's moral that the public had the copyright expiry rule in the first place. Which I don't.
"In other words, you seem to be confusing 'copyright' with 'business model'"
Nope, copyright is a way to control what happens to your work, whether it's allowing anyone to buy a copy of it, giving it away for free (at your discretion) or blocking certain companies/individuals from ever using it, or selling copies at a million pounds a time, or only allowing charities to use it, or whatever. If money is involved then sure, it becomes a business model, but copyright is not specifically about money, it's about rights - that's why it's called copyRIGHT.
"It funnels money from venues to the big name artists"
No, it takes annual license fees from venues and pays proportions of them to all of its artists.
"Ask PPL to tell you what percentage of money they actually distribute to artists."
Can you not just tell me yourself, seeing as you're so sure about all this stuff? And if it's really that bad, artists don't have to use them.
"Copyright (even in the UK) has never been about "control." It's always been a bargain between the public and the creators."
Exactly! A bargain between them about the control of/rights to the work!
"Here's two recent articles I wrote highlighting many such business models which don't rely on copyright at all:"
OK, I'm really sorry but I don't have time to read through those fully. But, they do rely on copyright. If there was no copyright and as soon as the artists created their work, the work belonged to the public, the artists wouldn't have any right to sell their deluxe versions because the public owns the works, not them.
Giving away work using Creative Commons means you still retain the rights to and ultimate control of the work, whereas without any copyright, you wouldn't have the right to make deluxe versions of your own work, because you have no rights to it! That's why Trent Reznor has used CC instead of just surrendering all rights - because he's not stupid. If I started selling my own deluxe versions of his work, I'd be breaking the CC license and he could sue etc. as he still has the rights to the work. For the last time, copyright is about control and rights, not just financial income.
"Show me how content creators can earn a living from their content when they don't have any rights over their content (and are not simply selling the rights to someone else) and sure, I'll retract what I said.
Check out the links above, and I await the retraction."
Those links didn't show me how 'creators can earn a living from their content when they don't have any rights over their content' - as they still retain their rights.
Sorry Marcus but I'd never seen this site before - got alerted to this article by a friend on Twitter. Didn't realise I had to be a regular to have an opinion or spell out the FACTS.
If you buy a radio, morally you should respect the wishes of those that create the content that you will consume with it, yes. If they decide they don't want you to play it to the general public or even at your workplace without their approval (in the form of a license that they decide to charge for), then so be it. It's their content, not yours. You only bought a radio, not the rights to everything transmitted over the air. If you think you have any moral (or legal) right to do as you please with things you didn't create that haven't been given away to the public/you, you are mistaken.
So, we're talking less than £250 for a whole year of music licensing. That's really not a lot for a business that should be turning over at least £100,000 (if they have at least a few employees and then rent/equipment costs to pay).
Arrested/charged on what basis? If I didn't owe the money, I didn't owe the money. They would have to have reasonable grounds/evidence to do that, which they wouldn't have.
As for the hairdresser, he claims he didn't know he had to pay a license fee to the PPL, which implies that he would have paid it if he had known, seeing as he paid the PRS one. Anyway, ask him, not me...
Exactly, so they still have a way to gain from their work. They write/record some songs, put them out for free (which they have the choice to do, thanks to the choice given to them by copyright), people like them, so buy their swag/tickets etc. and the creators still get their personal gain. They still have an incentive.
Why should we encourage new business models over the existing ones? There's nothing outdated about having to gain permission to use someone else's work. Just because it's easy to copy it, that doesn't make it right to do so.
And just because you can copy my work to everyone on the planet, it doesn't mean I should receive nothing for my efforts. There are not an infinite number of listeners to my work, and even if there were, 0 is never a 'fair market price' - 0 is not a price at all. And by the way way, my music is a scarce good - only I can make/grow it.
Sure, but if you can't trust the person you're chatting to, there's no point chatting. This is my Linked In page where I state the projects I am involved in at the moment - http://linkedin.com/in/natts
It's both nice and weird to have you guys so curious as to who I work for.
"So you're against the effort to extend performance rights in the UK?"
I don't really have a position on this, certainly not one that is relevant here. I suppose I would extend them if possible, for music at least, because it's now very cheap to license music for commercial use and if you want to use if commercially, that's very different to the public having access to it to help further cultural progress etc. Generally speaking educational establishments can use work for study irrespective of copyright anyway, so the length of performance rights for commercial use has no effect on this.
"The most recent study from the folks at Harvard showed that as copyright law was enforced less, MORE content creation came about."
Interesting, did they have any theories as to why this was?
"...in which he notes that there are many incentives outside of monetary incentives for creation."
Sure, I've never claimed it's all about money, just control.
"We've spent years and years on this site demonstrating business models..."
Please tell me more about them. If the artist has no right over their content, I don't understand how they can make any money from the content.
"So are you willing to step back from your unsubstantiated comment that copyright law is somehow necessary to give content creators the incentive to create? The actual evidence says you're wrong."
Show me how content creators can earn a living from their content when they don't have any rights over their content (and are not simply selling the rights to someone else) and sure, I'll retract what I said.
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:
I don't know how anything is being legally extorted from the customer. The waitress agrees to the pay rate from the restaurant when they accept the job. If the customer wants to reward the waitress directly for good service, they can do so. If they don't, they don't. If you only want to use restaurants that pay their waitresses a living wage (and thus don't require a tip from you in order to live), then you are free to do so. You say it won't make a difference, but it will if enough people feel the same way. If a significant amount of people only eat at restaurants that pay living wages, this will affect the industry. It may take the badly paying restaurants some time to work this out, but the chains generally do market research.
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, the guy said himself that he hadn't paid NOT because he objected, but because he wasn't aware that the PPL needed 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: 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:
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I could just not participate in anything I disagreed with but that would be a pretty shitty life"
Indeed, so maybe you should reconsider the things you do/don't agree with, like everyone else does. I don't like spending 40+ hours of my week working for other people, but I choose to do it because it means I can spend the rest of my time living comfortably. I could just not work at all and live a pretty shit life, but I'd prefer not. You've made your choice too.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
Says who, sorry? The public domain is the things that belong to the public, not things that don't. Just because I publish something, it doesn't mean the public can do what it wants with it. If I publish my song with conditions such as a license fee being required to play it in a barbershop, that's my choice. The public has no right to ignore my conditions.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dear dave n.
No, I haven't ever worked for PPL, PRS, BPI etc. I was commissioned to do a website for the Music Business Forum, but the MBF was closed down before it got completed. In any case, developing a website for the MBF does not affiliate me with the licensing societies being discussed on this page.
And sure, I do a website for a TV show (via the show's production company) that is shown on the BBC (and another commerical channel too). I deliberately redirect natts.com to my LinkedIn profile because it is the best representation of my work experience, skills and recommendations - I don't need my own website, and I'd rather spend my time being paid to do other people's sites than bother with one of my own. Having said that, I do plan to launch a blog/lifestream style site in the near future. Yes, I've helped artists sell their swag online in the past, and I've even done websites for artists who are signed to major labels.
So how do I work for the music business then, sorry? I've worked for artists.
And sure, I'm working for Clock at the moment on a project for BBC Worldwide. How does that affect the facts about UK copyright laws, sorry?!
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
I accept that that was the idea of it when it was set up hundreds of years ago. But morally the public has no right to an individual's work.
"you find no moral problem in the government unilaterally changing that deal at a later date in favor of one party by extending the length of coverage? Even though it explicitly breaks the deal with the public and gives them nothing in return?"
Sure, I don't see why the public deserves anything at all? Creators handing over the rights to their work after 50 years or whatever is a privilege (albeit legally enforced), not a right.
A fairer system for me would be that the copyright expires a number of years after the creator dies (so that their family can still receive income from it to support themselves in the absence of the creator).
"Even if you support copyright extension on *new* works, supporting retroactive copyright extension is supporting a blatantly immoral taking from the public."
That's assuming you think it's moral that the public had the copyright expiry rule in the first place. Which I don't.
"In other words, you seem to be confusing 'copyright' with 'business model'"
Nope, copyright is a way to control what happens to your work, whether it's allowing anyone to buy a copy of it, giving it away for free (at your discretion) or blocking certain companies/individuals from ever using it, or selling copies at a million pounds a time, or only allowing charities to use it, or whatever. If money is involved then sure, it becomes a business model, but copyright is not specifically about money, it's about rights - that's why it's called copyRIGHT.
"It funnels money from venues to the big name artists"
No, it takes annual license fees from venues and pays proportions of them to all of its artists.
"Ask PPL to tell you what percentage of money they actually distribute to artists."
Can you not just tell me yourself, seeing as you're so sure about all this stuff? And if it's really that bad, artists don't have to use them.
"Copyright (even in the UK) has never been about "control." It's always been a bargain between the public and the creators."
Exactly! A bargain between them about the control of/rights to the work!
"Here's two recent articles I wrote highlighting many such business models which don't rely on copyright at all:"
OK, I'm really sorry but I don't have time to read through those fully. But, they do rely on copyright. If there was no copyright and as soon as the artists created their work, the work belonged to the public, the artists wouldn't have any right to sell their deluxe versions because the public owns the works, not them.
Giving away work using Creative Commons means you still retain the rights to and ultimate control of the work, whereas without any copyright, you wouldn't have the right to make deluxe versions of your own work, because you have no rights to it! That's why Trent Reznor has used CC instead of just surrendering all rights - because he's not stupid. If I started selling my own deluxe versions of his work, I'd be breaking the CC license and he could sue etc. as he still has the rights to the work. For the last time, copyright is about control and rights, not just financial income.
"Show me how content creators can earn a living from their content when they don't have any rights over their content (and are not simply selling the rights to someone else) and sure, I'll retract what I said.
Check out the links above, and I await the retraction."
Those links didn't show me how 'creators can earn a living from their content when they don't have any rights over their content' - as they still retain their rights.
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: 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:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TV Licence
http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%2520Tariffs/HDB-2009-11%2520Tariff .pdf
So, we're talking less than £250 for a whole year of music licensing. That's really not a lot for a business that should be turning over at least £100,000 (if they have at least a few employees and then rent/equipment costs to pay).
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: Dave / point 245
As for the hairdresser, he claims he didn't know he had to pay a license fee to the PPL, which implies that he would have paid it if he had known, seeing as he paid the PRS one. Anyway, ask him, not me...
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
Exactly, so they still have a way to gain from their work. They write/record some songs, put them out for free (which they have the choice to do, thanks to the choice given to them by copyright), people like them, so buy their swag/tickets etc. and the creators still get their personal gain. They still have an incentive.
Why should we encourage new business models over the existing ones? There's nothing outdated about having to gain permission to use someone else's work. Just because it's easy to copy it, that doesn't make it right to do so.
And just because you can copy my work to everyone on the planet, it doesn't mean I should receive nothing for my efforts. There are not an infinite number of listeners to my work, and even if there were, 0 is never a 'fair market price' - 0 is not a price at all. And by the way way, my music is a scarce good - only I can make/grow it.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: A few good points
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: dear dave n.
It's both nice and weird to have you guys so curious as to who I work for.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: A few good points
I don't really have a position on this, certainly not one that is relevant here. I suppose I would extend them if possible, for music at least, because it's now very cheap to license music for commercial use and if you want to use if commercially, that's very different to the public having access to it to help further cultural progress etc. Generally speaking educational establishments can use work for study irrespective of copyright anyway, so the length of performance rights for commercial use has no effect on this.
"The most recent study from the folks at Harvard showed that as copyright law was enforced less, MORE content creation came about."
Interesting, did they have any theories as to why this was?
"...in which he notes that there are many incentives outside of monetary incentives for creation."
Sure, I've never claimed it's all about money, just control.
"We've spent years and years on this site demonstrating business models..."
Please tell me more about them. If the artist has no right over their content, I don't understand how they can make any money from the content.
"So are you willing to step back from your unsubstantiated comment that copyright law is somehow necessary to give content creators the incentive to create? The actual evidence says you're wrong."
Show me how content creators can earn a living from their content when they don't have any rights over their content (and are not simply selling the rights to someone else) and sure, I'll retract what I said.
Next >>