Slashdot Mirror
Finnish Taxi Drivers Must Pay Music Royalties
jonerik writes "According to this story from Ananova, Finland's Supreme Court has ruled that taxi drivers must pay royalty fees of about $20 annually if they play music in their car while a customer is in the backseat. According to the article, 'Lauri Luotonen, chairman of the Helsinki Taxi Drivers' Association, says the ruling is likely to force most drivers to keep their radios off.'" This includes if they play the radio, which ostensibly already pays such fees.
Or do music interests in Finland not care about their 'art' and only profit? Does anyone know how music in Finland is copyrighted with such vehemence? What's the deal?
I don't know how the airwaves work in Finland, but in the US I would assume that's why they are called public airwaves. The stations pay royalties and in turn collect advertising revenue. Whatever.
Anyway does this apply to only music stations? What if they listen to the Finnish equivalent of NPR? Or the BBC?
sig
More proof that the RIAA is ripping off artists. When Napster was required to remove all songs under RIAA copyright, the RIAA was supposed to provide a list. They couldn't. IIRC, they just insisted that Napster should somehow *know* which ones were and which ones weren't.
Perhaps this will be used as an argument for DRM, Hollings Style!
is who do they pay these royalties to? Are they divided up equally among all artists? FUBAR -M@
...yeah, and soon you'll get charged for hearing the music blasting from the sub-woofer-on-wheels passing through your neighborhood! Time to get out the plugs and blinders!
Okay, say you're in a carpool to and fro work. Everyone chips in for gas and whatnot while you listen to your latest mix CD, you're travelling for business - but not as a business. Probably, no - you won't pay. But what about a business trip?
But what if you're using a company car to go pick up Vinnie The Venture Capitalist at the airport and you play a mix of his favorite music. Do you have to pay then?
What about a birthday party for little Alex? Do I have to pay for playing his favorite mp3 playlist over my home stereo?
oh, but it is!
Girls Scouts must pay to sing songs...
"Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers has informed camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the four million copyrighted songs written or published by Ascap's 68,000 members. Those who sing or play but don't pay, Ascap warns, may be violating the law."
the story
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
As fscking absurd as it is, if you did that you'd already be paying if you burnt your music on CD-Rs you bought here. The Finnish equivalent of RIAA gets a certain fee from each sale of a recordable media - CD-Rs, tapes, possibly even harddrives. Fortunately I don't know how big that percentage is - I'd probably go insane if I did... It really pisses me off since the money is supposed to go to Finnish artists (probably just the RIAA equivalent) to compensate for illegal copying of their works and I don't even listen to Finnish "artists" (yes the quotation marks imply what I think of 99.9% of Finnish music...)
Karma. Moderation. Is my
Billboards, my friend. Billboards.
Winston Churchill: THE WAR SITUATION: HOUSE OF MANY MANSIONS, broadcast, London, January 20, 1940
So, here we are back at the Dark Ages!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here in the USA the copyright laws regarding the radio are quite a bit more liberal. They state that you may play a radio in your place of business without paying a royalty if the radio is: "self contained and unmodified". In other words, it must be a standard radio without extension speakers such as a boom box that uses it's own internal speakers. I would assume that a factory installed car radio would also qualify though an aftermarket one would probably fall into a gray area. The court case (what else?) that decided this is known as the "Gap" case, after the clothing chain of the same name. They had installed component stereos with multiple speakers in all their stores and got pinched for playing the radio through them. They were found liable because they were using multiple extension speakers. These days, many retail establishments and restaurants don't play the radio. Instead they sign up for a service such as Digital Music Express (DMXmusic.com)that pay blanklet rates to Ascap, BIM and Sesac. A side to this story is that yesterday two commonly owned radio stations in Pittsburgh got pinched for infringing on Sesac's copyright to the tune of 1.5 million dollars.
I had to destroy a recording of Handel's Messiah. I handled the recording and also played in the bass section. Our orchestra scores were clear, but the choir sung from sheets that were "arranged" after the end of copy rights, 1922.
Go to the Harry Fox Agency and you will find dozens of people claiming copyright on Handel's Messiah one way or another.
It was for a small run, fund raising CD and the licensing hassles outweighed the benefits so we destroyed the recording. Still its great fun to perform it. If anyone asks you, you should accept.
Hymns have similar problems. You need to work from a pre-1922 hymnal to be clear, but you can't buy those.
I have a similar problem with traditional folk music. Everyone and their dog that ever published an album for a label with a traditional song claims ownership. I have to find documentation that the song predates 1922 to use it royalty free.
The church where I go pays an annual fee so that we can sing copyrighted praises to God. I tell the deacon we should sing open source music only (as I think the new stuff is mediocre anyway). Now ain't that a hoot?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The royalties for the public performance have already been paid by the radio station. So why should the cabbies have to pay them again? Its not a replay of a broadcast, its the origional broadcast. This makes no sense whatsoever.
The same thing goes for playing the radio in a restarant or other business. They are trying to doubble dip, and collect royalties along every step of the way. What, are they going to start charging per ear that is listning to the music?
It would be like having to pay Federal income tax, then state tax, and then a local tax... Oh wait, we already do that... Nevermind then, it must be a great idea.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
We were in this really old diner, and every booth had holes in the wall above the table. I asked my dad why that might be, and he said for the jukebox. He said that a long time ago every booth was wired for its own speaker, and had a coinbox - patrons could put in coins in the box, punch up a song, and the speaker delivered the music right to their table. They made a lot of money, so of course a lawsuit ensued.
The restaurant owners wanted to keep the money, because they paid for the equipment to be installed in their restaurants. The record companies wanted the money because, without them, there would not have been any music to play. They reasoned, that the patrons were paying for the music, not the use of the music delivery system. Furthermore, the music brought in customers to the restaurant that it would not otherwise have had. Therefore, the restaurants owed them.
Ultimately, the music companies won the lawsuits and the fancy jukeboxes were ripped out. Thus the holes in the wall above the table.
FWIW, my dad said that the music companies (and later jukebox service vendors) were often run by organized crime. That was a long time ago.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
Stores already pay for playing the radio. In fact MUZAK was born from this.
Think of the music as artwork that a store buys to enhance shoppers experience.
Did you ever notice that Muzak is crappy renditions of songs? Hence Muzak owns the copyright from the musicians playing the wordless songs.
I always hate having to ask the cabbie to turn off the damn radio. I feel bad because I've already asked him to get off the cell phone, and I'm lowering the tip by a dollar for every request I'm forced to make. This makes absolutely no sense since the radio is obviously only for the drivers benefit, it being in the front of the cab after all. I could see some people paying an extra 25 cents for turning on a back seat radio, but the cabbie's radio is just a nuisance for the rider.
The problem with that story is that it has crucial flaws that make me disbelieve the whole thing.
To wit:
"How about Ring Around the Rosie'?" another Elf asks. The directors veto it.
Now, Ring Around the Rosie is a centuries old nursery rhyme that most know dates back to the time of the Black Death. I won't go into the details, but thats what it is about.
It isn't copyrighted. And it taints the entire story with a dose of FUD. Or perhaps it's just satire.
My daughter is a brownie. Her leaders know nothing at all about this supposed case.
Does anyone have a reputable report of this?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
>> It's the same thing as running a TV or radio in the waiting room of a business.
I've noticed when I go to a bar/restaurant, the game is usually on the tube as usual, but the sound is off, closed captioning is on. I assumed this was because noone needs the chatter.
The other day I happened to look closer at the TV. There's a little sign saying something like "This TV cannot be used with the sound on, due to public broadcasting restrictions", or some such.
Can anyone clarify? I'm not talking about PPV events here, either, but the football game on fox sunday, etc.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
ASCAP uses "spies" to find this kind of thing. They literally pay people to go into bars/stores/restaurants etc. and listen for music. If they hear music, and you're not paying, you get a nasty letter from a lawyer. This happened to my favorite bar a while back (it was a hole in the wall, the patrons held an auction once a month to keep the lights on and the door open, lets put it that way... but we liked it. Dartboard, pool table, Guinness) I think we found out who the infiltrator was, but the legal threat and resultant bills were just another of the straws that broke the camel's back. Here's the kicker: they weren't pissed about the jukebox, and there wasn't a radio. Just a TV that was on when it was slow and the bartender was bored (although they would probably try to charge you for the customers hearing the background music on the car commercials). No, they were upset because there was a small, unknown, local startup band that did a gig in there. They did (what they thought) was an old Irish folk tune. Nope. That song was on the list, busted, if you don't want to fight us in court pay up. Fucking bastards. We couldn't afford to pay everyone that wanted a cut, it was sort of a bar that was just there for people that liked it and no one really wanted to change it; it was just one of those places that had been there forever. Done. Gone. Dead. Could the patrons afford to keep the landlord happy? Yeah. Could we keep the city off our back? Yeah again, did both for a while. Could we afford a lawyer to fight the recording industry over inadvertant infractions that we had no control over? NO. If you have live music, it seems, you have to know every song on the playlist, know who if anyone has the rights on it, and pay accordingly. If you don't know and you can't afford legal help, you can't have live music once they sic onto you. Then your establishment dies if that's what brings people in. A big FUCK YOU to the recording industry is in order here. And of course, no suggestions on what should be done to ASCAP infiltrators if their cover is blown, although I'm sure you can imagine some :)
In a previous life I was a taxi driver here in .au, I took the time to speak to the relevent authorities here (apra) who informed me that because the passenger could ask for the radio to be changed that there is no performance therefore no fees to be paid.
Why is it that so many comments bring up either the fact that the radio already pays royalties, so it's insane to force the cabbies to pay double taxes OR the fact that other businesses already pay royalties for having a radio?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're the first person to equate royalties with taxes.
You can't have a rational debate if you're drawing false equivalences.
In Italy, the probably-worst ruling regarding these matters is in force.
Anybody who simply owns any device capable of playing music (or displaying TV content) must pay a tax, which is higher in case he does it in a public place. Presumably, cabs are considered to be public places.
This tax is mainly destined to the Ministry of Telecoms. Also, any music station and singer are required to pay relatively high fees to the SIAE when playing a piece. SIAE is a structure that should defend music right owners... but I let you imagine how it actually is an instrument to reduce the possibilities of independents... and music is not getting anything better!
As a Finn, I am shamed by this court decission!
...and it was the last one in the World that I trusted...
...maybe the next step is to ban people from listening radio in any public space, unless the owner of that space has paid royalty fees to the music industry?
It just goes to prove that the Finnish court system has failed!
The point being: The radio station broadcasting the music has to pay royalty for the music they play. This I understand, and think is reasonable. But what I don't understand is that the taxi owner has to pay again for the same music that was already paid by the radio station. AND The court even noted that the reason they lowered the earlier decission of 40 Euros/year to 22 Euros/year, was because "the music has no significan value in forming of the customer-service provider relationship."
So, even the court admitted that people actually don't choose a taxi by the music they play. (Shockingly I actually take the first one available!) So, why would they have to pay again for the music that's already been paid for?
On an other note: If the taxi has no radio installed (or the one preinstalled is ripped out) they don't naturally have to pay. Even if all the passangers would listen to the radio with their mobile phones or walkmans...
Yet another note: This may not after all be such a shocking news in Finland. We actually have to pay royalty for each empty CD-R we buy, just because it MAY be used to copy music! So, we actually pay royalty for an act that would be criminal to do...
If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
The Life is out there...
I'm entirely with you in thinking that this is a stupid ruling, but I can see the logic behind it.
The taxi driver is charging for a service, the main one being moving your lazy ass from one place to another. You take a taxi as it's faster than the bus and cheaper than a limo - you balance the service you want against what you'd get in return. Having music in your cab could be seen as a service you offer to your passenger increasing the value of the ride. If you're exploiting somebody's desire to listen to music whilst they ride to put money in your pocket then it's fair that some of that money should go to the producers of the music.
Perhaps this is easier to see if instead of considering music which we have the ingrained notion we should be allowed to listen to freely for video. Maybe the Taxi driver likes watching his DVDs on a little screen as he gets trapped in traffic jams - that would be fine. Maybe his passengers watch them over his shoulder? Maybe he puts a screen in the back so they can get a better view? Maybe his customers ask for his cab when booking one as he's "the cabby that shows the films".
Should the cabbie be allowed to increase his income by showing the films?
Whilst we're mentally following this thread why shouldn't we all set up cinemas in our living rooms - rent a few DVDs and charge the passing public a few dollars to watch them.
And yes, if you want to you can put any broadcast radio station on in your establishment without paying the royalties as the RADIO STATION is "supposedly paying them"
Ummm... WRONG.
Playing the radio at a store is a great way to get a visit from the RIAA. This happened to a store I worked at back in 1983.
Honestly, why do you think stores play Muzak? Because the employees and customers like it? No, because Muzak takes care of paying royalties and you get a single bill from Muzak.