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.
Now, this just in. If you listen to music, while someone other than the person who bought the CD is in the room, you must pay $20 annually to RIAA.
That is all.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
That's almost more outrageous than the tarrifs you have to pay when entering and exiting San Fransisco in a taxi. Sheesh!
...they sing to the customer in the backseat? Would they still have to pay royalty fees?
"the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached to it." - Grandpa Simpson
this is something that people _joke_ about please tell me this isn't for real?
at least this isn't in america... but what is this world coming to? What's with all these fee's tacked on to everything?!!
One thing I've noticed is that a "$35/mo" cell phone plan isn't even questioned when the bill arrives for $40.83... That's $5.83 in taxes and fees! 17% taxes/fees... plus you pay a sales tax on the phone in most states... and an income tax on the money you used to buy the phone...
At least in Sweden when you pay the 90% income tax up front you know you're getting hosed.
How will the authorities know if the taxi driver had the radio turned on or off? Will they have a sting operation where an undercover officer hails a taxi, gets in, and then busts the the driver if they turn on the radio but haven't payed the fee?
The slashdot editors owe me a buck for everybody that reads this comment.
Man, this is getting to a level of stupidity that makes me wonder if I should go back home to Pluto ...
I mean, is there a trust fund for starving Finnish Artists?
This borders on the most absurd story I have ever heard.
What about elevators? Is that a separate suit?
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?
Radio stations already pay a hefty fee so the music is free for everyone to hear. Maybe in the future when RIAA pays off congress i'll have to turn down the music in my "pimpin" car because someone might overhear it.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Well then they can ask the passenger if they want to listen to the radio, then charge them a minimal fee for the royalty. As long as it is REPORTED.
or add 1 cent/passenger.
That shouldn't be too expensive.
But IMHO, it's ridiculous to impose this ordinance.
This is getting out of hand. Will someone please punish these people and send them to bed without their royalties?
If you use copyrighted materials for public performance for benefit of the business, you have to pay extra.
It's the same thing as running a TV or radio in the waiting room of a business. The business is getting a benefit from the music, so they have to pay a cut.
There's also a group of old ladies who go to restraunts and pretend that one of them is having a birthday. If one of the employees sings "Happy Birthday" a copywrited song, they sue. This apparently keeps them in bingo money.
I hate it too, but that's the law. If you don't like it, get filthy stinking rich, and buy new ones.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
RADIO listens to you!
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
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!
for me, I drive a taxi thats not quite done.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Depends on the copyright of the songs. If they were all public domain, no.
Now, all the driver would have to do is prove it. Annually. With expensive lawyers.
Yes, he would have to go to court to prove it, because the local RIAA clone would want to make it expensive to buck their system. To that end, they would benefit from spending several thousand to bring doubt into the mind of a jury that he really didn't stick to public domain music only.
Then, after 'proving' him a liar, they'd hit him with punitive damages as hard as possible to keep all the other sheep in line.
Things are getting bad, and they're only going to get worse. This crap will continue.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, responsible for such hits as "Hound Dog" and "Jailhouse Rock," are among the plaintiffs and were in the courtroom Monday. The song writing duo said illegal copying of music and movies was costing artists millions and would ultimately stifle creativity.
Oh yeah, like anyone'd pay money for these songs otherwise... If anything, these guys are stifling the creativity of brand new artists by locking up the business of music in the name of the labels.
This makes me wonder how the taxi driver fits into this picture at all, economically speaking. Are the taxi drivers making money off of the radio? Do they charge people extra to listen to the radio? Do people frequent taxi services that play the radio more often than those who don't? Probably not, so why are they being forced to pay up? It just seems wrong.
is who do they pay these royalties to? Are they divided up equally among all artists? FUBAR -M@
Phew... that's a load off my mind... cause I'm sure the RIAA or their equivalent in Finland (unlike cab drivers) are *really* hurting for money... and I hope this serves as a precedent for anybody that plays music in their workplace... because God forbid, when I go see my accountant, and he's got the radio playing in the background, that filthy pirate is stealing the fruits of hard labor by the record executives...
-jag
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
This includes the radio too? If this were satellite radio (that requires a subscription) that would sort of make sense. (Note: I'm not saying I endorse it, I'm only saying it makes sense.) Open air radio, though, is paid for by listening to the ads. Unless Finnish Taxis have some magic radio-ad-filtering technology I don't know about, then a passenger listening to the radio is paying for it by listening to the ads.
Submitted under the wrong article. Sorry folks.
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?
I believe they want to charge cab drivers because taxi services are businesses that make money. By playing the radio, you are "enhancing" the taxi ride experience, and the music industry thinks they should be compensated. I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy, so don't flame me please. Just thought I'd point out what the issue is really about.
Vote for Pedro
Any business establishment that plays music (retail stores especially) in earshot of all customers must pay royalties (figure unknown to me). Not everyone pays, it mostly is enforced against large retail and department store chains. The upshot of the law is a clerk can have a small radio at their station, but if you broadcast music over the store speaker system, then you must pay.
Theres roughly a 0.00003% chance of me getting into a taxi in finland and the driver playing a cd of his own band. Get real. You have a better chance of winning the powerball lottery. This is nothing more than a socialist government wanting a cut of something.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Now imagine if the taxi driver is listening to Metallica...
Not that I'm not concerned for the social implications and rights and such, but:
So, they can't afford $20 a year? I think the other part of this story is why do Finnish cab driver's make such a crappy salary?
Well, yes they get divided equally based on a Byzantine formula ensuring that (a) the label won't have to pay anyone anything because of the tiny fractions and (b) that the administrative fees and other overhead accumulated in simply processing the payment, keeping track, etc. results in a small charge against each artist's account - deducted from royalties due.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
If you sing well, you'll only get sued by RIAA for stealing their copyrighted words.
If you sing badly you'll still get sued by RIAA, but then your customer will probably sue you as well for emotional duress.
Maybe if you just humm the music out-loud... no, thats probably patented somewhere.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
You rape record label!
Anytime you use music (that you don't own the rights to) in a business environment, you have to pay. This includes if you play the radio in a retail store or other business, or if you have music on hold, etc.
This is because it's considered a public performance.
In the US, most businesses are using music services like Muzak, AEI (now part of DMX) or others which include the royalty fees as part of their service fees.
Should cab drivers be allowed to show movies in their cabs? What about a bar? If you think they should be allowed to without paying any royalties, then why shouldn't I be allowed to open my own second run movie house with a video projector and lots of DVDs?
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!
If you play music at your place of business you pay for the license anyways, so why should a taxi be any different?
The UN has just welcomed its newest member, the Recording Industry Assosciation (formerly known as Finland). The RIA spokesman stated "We are so glad to be here, and by the way we have evidence that Saddam Hussien is illegally listening to Britney Spears in his bath tub and as such have ordered a preemptive first strike".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A limo is a kind of a taxi, right Robin? Do limo drivers in Finland have to pay this also??
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Don't let the America part of their name fool you. Every other recording industry association in the world is extremely influenced by the RIAA, hell they're more than likely run by the RIAA. The RIAA seems to have this feeling that they can control the world and everything that happens in it, but ten years from now when music is completely free and their business model is shot, they'll be sorry they imposed all these stupid fines, fees and taxes.
The article also says "Recently, two Finnish churches refused to pay royalties to the country's copyright society for the performance of Christmas hymns. The congregations won their case in a district court, but the society has appealed.".
/. story, but is was in the article and is just as much an issue.
Surely most hymns are written by long dead classical composers, so any copyright would have expired?
I know this wasn't the
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Recently, two Finnish churches refused to pay royalties to the country's copyright society for the performance of Christmas hymns. The congregations won their case in a district court, but the society has appealed.
OOps... must pay Milton Bradley $30,000 for the right to say "Monopoly".Sex - Find It
When commercial radio plays, the radio station usually pays whatever fees are associated with the music they are playing. Those fees are often paid by the sponsors who also have their advertisements played on those same airwaves.
The fees are already paid whether or not someone listens to it. This is double taxation... paying for something that has already been paid for. What kind of moronic nonsense is this?
And you have eyes so you should pay the MPAA.
Gee... Maybe the art of conversation will return to cab drivers. And for more than what re-run wasn't watched on TV last night.
The reaction NOT seems to be the one expected, quiet acceptance while the pockets are being picked, but one of "Fuck 'em I'll read a book and talk to you instead...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
.. could taxi drivers lease portable radios with headphones instead?
If I have my own portable radio with headphones, can I use it in a taxi without the driver having to pay?
I've got a few laying around if they need any.
Stop Whistling!
Or pay, uh, $20 annually!
Yeah, that's right, that's the ticket!
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
So the Finns think they can just make ridiculous legal decisions like this and get away with it? Only the U.S. court system is allowed to make rulings as cockeyed as this. What is going to happen when just any old roomful of judges can sit down and issue rulings as hilarious as this one? Why it's just not right I tell you! Here's hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't let this one slip by and gets in touch with the folks at The Hague, ASAP. I mean, after all, this is a matter of national pride.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I used to think it would be cool to live in Finland. I thought they were a mellow, friendly, low-key kinda country. They are hard asses. Check out this link about traffic some fines in Finland... HARDCORE. Looks like they base their fines on a percentage of your YEARLY income... doh!
I seriously wish other countries would be equally harsh. It encourage people to actually drive responsibly. Perhaps it would the 50000 odd annual traffic deaths in th U.S.
If a taxi driver plays the radio, and noone from the RIAA is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Hmmm
Unfortunately, no one can be told what my sig is...
Finland's 9500 cab drivers should band together, generate some tapes or CD's of independent artists (or get the artists to submit them) and play those for their customers' listening pleasure. They could have a menu of artist names and song titles posted in their cabs. There would be no royalties to pay and free captive audience promotion for the independent artists. Sounds like a win-win to me. Oh and a middle-finger salute to the music business. Make that a win-win-win.
The harder the entertainment industry make it, the faster they will expire.
Yeah, that's the ticket. (© Jon Lovitz, SNL Entertainment and NBC Broadway Video).
Sigs are bad for your health.
As long as the money goes towards deoderant, I support this tariff for NYC cabbies...
Sorry, that comment was right on the money.
Not prejudiced...
--Joey
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.
20$... That's less than 2$ a month, hardly an outrageous fee.
Does this mean those kids with the loud bass now have to pay as well? After all if you can hear it for two blocks it must be a public performance!
From article:
Recently, two Finnish churches refused to pay royalties to the country's copyright society for the performance of Christmas hymns. The congregations won their case in a district court, but the society has appealed.
They sued churches. This blows my mind. What do they want as punishment, to get to kick the old ladies in the congregation? Or maybe conjugal visits with the church nuns? Surely payment for the right to carol isn't enough to deter these Christian fiends from violating copyright law again...
My head hurts. I'm going back to watching Buffy. Her world makes more sense.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
This logic already exists in the US, but it's not the territory of the RIAA, it's the territory of ASCAP/BMI.
This is the toll-master of the music publishing business. Whenever a song by the artist formerly known as Prince (but now again known as Prince) has a song played, he gets a clink in the bank. If Tom Jones remakes another one of his songs (God please no), then Prince gets more money as his music is published through ASCAP/BMI.
ASCAP/BMI assures that those who write music are paid for it when it is used, regardless who sings it. It's actually not a bad system because it assures that song writers like Burt Bacharach keep churning out music, and bad singers keep recording them.
Where it goes horribly wrong is that the record companies themselves seem to be pretty much exempt from the ASCAP/BMI fees. ASCAP/BMI seems to concentrate on radio stations, the music-on-hold for businesses, bars, Muzak and now, Finish taxicabs.
Now and again, when you walk into a dance club or bar, you'll see a yellow sticker proudly displayed with the letters ASCAP. It means that this bar owner actually paid his yearly fees.
Finland is the country were you might get a $103,600 speeding ticket for driving 25 km/h over the speed limit, so $20 for some music... no problem...
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 law is not written in C. Unless you used the C to write a fuzzy logic processor and then used.... well never mind. It's not simply black and white. Remember that next time lament that all is lost.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Everytime I got out in public, shouldn't people be charged money for my presence? I believe they should. If the music industry can do something like that, why can't I?
I think she was finnish before she ever got started.
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.
...in a very general way: http://www.bmi.com/licensing/business/groupc/faq/b owling_answers.asp
Perhaps those cabbies should install a bowling lane, they'd get reduced rates.
In any case, the theory is that playing music in an establishment enhances the music making ability of the business, and it is not being used for strict personal enjoyment, and thus the business must pay up.
Most cab drivers play the radio for their pleasure, not the passenger's. I can't remember the last time a driver asked me what I'd like to hear; and their tastes always differ from mine. So we already know that they aren't "adding value" to their facilities.
Intellectual property is self-maximizing: if something can be charged for, it will be charged for; and property holders will always seek out more opportunities for extortion (e.g., Licensing 6).
What the media cartels are trying to do here is look for every venue where licensing could conceivably apply, regardless of how absurd. Cafés, I'm sure, will be next (Starbucks already licenses the tracks on their playlists, then redistribute/resell them as compilations; other coffeehouses subscribe to satellite radio. The way I see it, every place of business that plays something other than Muzak will be charged for the privilege of advertising the cartel's content.
Should Avis have to pay royalties to RIAA because they allow me to listen to their radio? And would Hertz be elligible for a waiver?
... like the cost of bribing a politician, which seems to be much lower these days.
-lj
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
hums a tune?
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Yes. And if I were advertising a product on the radio, I'd be pissed as hell. I'm not going to see a dime of the money collected from the taxicab drivers, and I've got fewer people who are going to hear my ad. I've stopped being surprised when the little guy gets screwed by a dumb government decision, but in this case, business is getting screwed too.
Also from the article: An ASCAP spokesman says "Kumbaya" isn't on its list, but "God Bless America" is.
You know, seeing the U.S. Congress struggle through a spontaneous rendition of 'God Bless America' on TV while downtown Manhattan went up in flames outside my window last September really disturbed me. the idea of ASCAP suing Congress for royalties actually gives me a strange sense of justice.
is if they start a royalty rate for all people present in the car during a car pool. Everytime you buy a CD, you must fill out a form stating how many friends you have and how often they drive with you while listening to music. ...RIAA is just getting out of hand... when is someone going to stop them??
to listen to the radio inna cab?
4 per year.
Thats a finny joke, no?
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
In the near future, our world has become unlivable because of the fleet of lawyers unleashed by the music industry. Ever since ASCAP published the sheet music for the aleatoric masterpiece "Circadian Rhythms," every man, woman, and child...heck, every multicellular organism on Earth has been subject to paying royalties.
Earth cries out for a savior...
...and finds one in the Church of Latter Day Saints, who raises up an elite force of commandos from within their priesthood. These LDS clergy, later referred to as the Clerics, wage a holy war to wrest control of humanity from the minions of the music industry, and, against overwhelming odds, succeeds!
In the aftermath, it is agreed than not only must lawyers be banished from the earth, so must artists, musicians, authors, and scupltors. Enforcement of the prohibition is handed over to the Clerics. Any form of art deemed to promote the the practice of law is to be purged. Humanity achieves an...equilibrium...that it had long thought lost forever.
What happens next? Wait until December 6th to find out! Oh, wait...I'm in Cleveland. Goddam! Well, move to LA, New York, or one of the top 20 markets and find out on December 6th.
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
A more accurate description would be:
Party A pays Party B for the right to make the commodity availabe for free to anyone.
Party C and D both have free access to the commodity, but Party B charges a fee to Party C for letting Party D share the free access that Party D could already get for free.
Advanced users are users too!
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.
DEAD HORSE beats YOU!
Cab drivers don't get a set wage. They have "gate fees" to pay and until they make that during their shift they are in the red the whole time. Once the gate fee is passed everything above that is what they keep. The only reason they can't charge more to get more is because of local fare laws.
Cab drivers have to be pretty good to make a living doing it.
--- I do not moderate.
Humm it with me, "God Bless America, my home sweet home!" Now pay up, sucker.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
that, not only did they go after the taxi drivers, but they even went after churches. You know, I'm not terribly religious, but I did go to Catholic school once:
1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Theese record execs are clearly worshipping MONEY. I mean...Jesus! The word AVARICE doesn't even come close! It's things like this that make he hope and pray that a place as Hell realy exists (though having had a Jesuit "don't take it literally" education I'm woefully unsure of that fact). If anyone has it coming, these record execs do.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
... and if you quote me, that's $5 a quote.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Don't worry, folks. I'm in the process of securing trademarks for "Copyright" and "Trademark" .. and the patent office is about to approve my requests for patents on "method for obtaining compensation for others' transgressions" (lawsuits), and "method for securing rights of use for a model, practice, or invention" (obtaining patents).
/.-reading lawyers wanna get rich with me?
By mid 2003, I'll be ready to sue the bejesus out of the RIAA and MPAA and any other abusive company that's been pissing us off along the way. On that note, any
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
What if as a taxi driver, I have the radio on for my OWN enjoyment, and don't give a flip if the customer listens or not? What if I put the customer in a soundproofed rear compartment? What if I only listen to "talk radio" that never plays any music?
Given this decision, it follows that if I have a business of ANY sort, and if I ever have the radio on, I must pay royalties because after all a customer MIGHT come in and hear the radio.
In fact, this absurd decision might plausibly extend to charging royalties to people who work at home and are self-employed (with NO customers who can EVER hear their radio): "You use the radio to increase your productivity -- therefore you owe us royalties!!"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The Finnish equivalent of RIAA gets a certain fee from each sale of a recordable media
The same happens in the United States and much of the world--sad, but true. On the other hand, when you copy a friend's CD, you don't have to worry that the RIAA didn't get paid. The artist is another story, though.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Imagine that a customer walks out of a record store, having bought the latest Britney Spears CD and jumps in the cab.
The radio is playing one of the very tracks that feature on the CD in the passenger's hand.
Now the recording company is scoring three times:
Once when the radio pays its public performance fee
Again when they charge the cabby his annual fee.
And once more when they sold the passenger his Britney Spears CD.
Boy, talk about tripple-dipping!
We also have to pay "tape license's" from every blank cd tape or anything where fits music.
Cool, so if they haul your ass off to court and charge you with copying a mate's CD you can tell them to get stuffed because you've paid a royalty tax on the blank CDR you used right?
I strongly suspect that this would not be a viable defense eh? More double dipping then from the recording industry.
Don't you just know that any industry that is allowed to extort money in this way, with the protection of legislation, must be dishing out a heap of back-handers to their favorite politicians.
If I had my way about it, any taxi I rode in would only play Free (i.e., "copyleft") music. No need to travel down the corporate music road...
No Laughing Allowed!
In Afghanistan, disallowing all music as they did, this would make them happy. A drab, grey city like Helsinki, with not even music in the taxis is like some Stalinesque vision of the future.
I can see the RIAA and the MIAA going bankrupt in the next 10 years with their continual pushing of court cases against people who play music. People in the future will simply not economically be able to afford to play music as it seems that the fucking greedy bastards of the big music companies are stupid enough to push it far enough that you will have to pay a licence to even play your own instrument, because "you could possibly play a copyright protected song, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?"
Fuck them and may they burn in hell for their greed.
.. can't John Cage then sue, since we are playing 4'33 on repeat?
No, because he's dead.
I think I am going to start a movement to go on strike against the big record labels. This has got to stop somewhere and where best by starting a music-hunger strike against them.
Think about it. A week in the western world where no music is played in bars,restaurants,businesses (even Finish taxis) or on the streets. A movement like this would bring the record labels to their knees, although you can bet that they would try a Microsoft type of action of trying to legally enforce you to pay for and listen to their music.
May they burn in hell for their greed
www.teosto.fi
Please, Slashdot them!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Surely, the RIAA will argue that this is required as it "protects artists and ensures creativity for generations to come". And, they are right---surely every taxi driver in Finland will start recording thier own home grown tunes just so they can listen to music (thier own) in thier cabs! Many of them will then become famous, and not have to drive taxis anymore. The RIAA is just brilliant I tell you!!!
Real men don't need signitures!!!
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.
This is a topic that has already been beat to death, but I feel I must go on the record. (No pun intended).
The RIAA and its memeber companies are fighting a battle they can not win. Bottom line. Their product is not worth paying for. People will (as the quoted person says) ride around in silence before they will be bullied into buying something that the majority of true artists in the world are willing to give away for free. I personally give'em less than 5 years and we will see airline style chapter 11s in the recording industry. Plenty of honest work out there entertaining the public for the employees so I say..."Hasta La Vista Baby"...
(Ooops that is a quote...now the MPAA will get me.)
Anytime your neighbor keeps you up with the radio, what do you do, call the police, yes. And the police should charge the RIAA with $200 bucks for it, since its their system, their fault. Same with television. But don't stop there, get a lawyer, and sue them for sleep deprivation, and get workmanship compensation, payment for psychologist visits, etc.
Hear a song you hate, drive you crazy, and can't get what you need done? Do the same damn thing.
Your children listening to music with cussing and violence, and they start it to, it the RIAA's fault! Get yourself a lawyer, these are the people promoting it and making money, why should you be the parent. The RIAA should have been the ones there to make sure kids aren't listening to it, like they monitor everything else.
The point of all this is the golden rule, Do unto others as they do unto you, the RIAA should not have it both ways when they start slithering this low.
You should know that here in Finland, we pay royalties in every cd-r, dvd-r (and other format medias), video cassette or whatever media we buy. Yes, if your company provides you with a signed certificate saying that you are going to use the media you buy for storing only work-related material, you get a discount but still the system sucks. Teosto, our trustee for supervising the interests of artists, is trying to get this royalty for hard disks also. Also, if you broadcast music legally via radio and stream your broadcast via internet also, you have to pay a "media conversion fee" of some sort.
The secret to a successful
- according to the ruling, that specific taxi driver had to pay 22 euros, because
e usneuvosto/neuv_lausunnot/1997/tn9705.htm
a) there weren't many people travelling at one time
b) because the trips had been short
c) because of the number of fares he'd had that year
d) Taxi is a public place because anyone can get in one, meaning that the taxi driver and the passenger(s) are not listening to music but the taxi driver is _performing_ music.
The ruling doesn't mean that all drivers will have to pay 22 euros but that now they know how to calculate it. So as the taxi driver tried to convince the judges that he hadn't "performed" that much, it might actually hurt the other taxi drivers as the fee will be much higher for them.
Link to the ruling(Finnish): http://www.kko.fi/ennakkoratkaisut/2002-101.htm
And to make this more fun for all you non-Finnish, previous rulings in Finland include
a) if a prisoner watches TV it is a public performance
b) performances in a teaching situation are public performances
c) playing music in physical care institutions are a public performance
and finally my favourite...
d) showing a photograph in a meeting of the local "club" for retired people (10 grannies gathered around to drink coffee) is a public performance of the photo. No joking here.
Source: http://www.minedu.fi/opm/asiantuntijat/tekijanoik
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!
for a similar project to Project Gutenberg, to provide access to untainted versions of classical music (scores and lyrics) so that some megacorp can't claim that they actually wrote Bach's toccata&fugue in d minor etc.
Maybe I need to pay a fee if I sing a song while walking down the street. (``demand payments for any public performance of copyrighted material'')
... and be sued for siging Bob Dylan songs.
Maybe I should invoice the song writer for promoting the meme that is his song.
Maybe I could point this out to the next obnoxious git that sits next to me on a train with a zzz zzzz zzzzz coming out of his walkman -- peace at last.
Maybe this isn't in the long term interest of the song writers. If guides/scouts don't sing the songs, then the kids won't learn them but will learn other ones. These are the ones that they will remember in later life and want to buy the records/....
Maybe we ought to organise a public rally/demonstration
Maybe we ought to write Open songs and publicise them.
Maybe we ought to get RMS to write the GNU Public Song Licence.
Maybe this could lead to a resurgance in classical music, most of which is out of copyright. There are performers who allow their interpretation to be played without fee.
Maybe cab drivers should include a 'hire of radio' as part of their fee. It is then up to the passenger to choose to play the radio that is (for a few minutes) theirs.
Maybe cab drivers should invoice the local radio station for increasing their audience figures and thus what they can charge their advertisers.
Maybe this sort of thing is a good thing. People will become so fed up with it that the politicians will see lost votes in it.
You seem to be missing an important part of how cabbies make money, i.e., tipping. A cabbie who has the benefit of nice music may make a modest amount more than a cabbie who doesn't, by virtue of tips. A cabbie who asks you what station or genre of music you want to listen to may make even more.
Did you just miss this, are you intentionally ignoring it because it doesn't support your position, or are you one of those jerks who always stiffs the poor sap who's driving the cab 16 hours a day to feed the family?
I have friends who have driven cabs here in Chicago while getting their businesses off the ground and you couldn't be more correct. Letting the passengers choose their genre of music brings in significantly more tips than inflicting upon them silence or, worse, whatever it is you happen to be listening to. Why you were moderated down is beyond me (the moderator in question needs to put the crack pipe down and learn to think coherently). In any event, I have a +1 so hopefully those browsing at +2 will see my quote of your post despite the aforementioned idiots.
(Don't mod me up, mod the insightful parent post back up to where it belongs.)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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...
Radio is a form of advertising -- when you hear songs playing on the radio, what you're hearing is an advertisement for the album (or single) the song is on, and is also an advertisement for the band's tours ("Listen to this great music! Isn't it great? Now come buy our album and watch our performances!"). (It's not necessarily paid advertising, of course, although as I understand it, quite a lot of radio airtime is indirectly paid for by the labels.) A taxi driver plays music while driving around fares? That's free advertising, kids! The passenger is listening to your music, which (if the music does its job) will cause him to go buy it. And you want to CHARGE for the privilege of advertising to people? What the fuck is wrong with these chimps?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Hrm, ok, I'll give it a go. 'Plz' is an abbreviation used by lazy idiots like you who can't be bothered to use the more polite, full version of 'please'.
Anyone who can't be bothered to put some effort and courtesy into their questions doesn't deserve an answer. So you can just sit there and wonder what that whole IN SOVIET RUSSIA thing is until you fucking puke, you fucking puke.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
If I were a cab driver in Finland and I played a CD of music of my own composition, i'd scare my passengers away!
Latest update of the situation: Due to pressure from France, Russia and China, the country formerly known as Finland temporarily agreed to a "music-for-oil-program" while inspectors determine exact locations and magnitude of copyright violations.
Meanwhile, the U.N. security council is considering amending its resolution on Iraq to include copyright violations alongside biological, chemical, and long range ballistic missiles. The spokesperson clearly pointed out to the press that "copyright violations rank in the same area, if not higher than any of the weapons stuff."
While these discussions continue, the inspectors are hard at work, and will soon be equipped with the new "piracy detectors" jointly manufactured by the country formerly known as Finland and the RIAA.
I would assume that the people at work are listening on 'standard radios' BUT your post made me ask myself..what about thise companies that put a radio station as their telephone hold music. Are THEY liable for copyright payments?
You are simply wrong. The RIAA indeed extorts businesses which play broadcast radio stations on their premises. They consider it "public performance."
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are orginizations that represent the composers of music. They collect performance royalties for music and distribute them to their members.
What we need is a larger, more comprehensive public domain. If I were an artist, I would seriously consider charging for public performances (where I am *actually* performing, not legal bullshit), and placing all recordings of my music into the public domain. Copyright is just a form of licence, and when the "business" practices of licence granters become too ornerous, an open-source model can be applied to public benefit.
So, what would it look like in the music industry ? Well for starters, we could have free music. Not just royalty free. If something is recorded, it would be put into the public domain. This could possibly include the separate tracks (typically for various instruments) which comprise a typical recording. Public performances are one-time events, and they could (and usually should) be charged for. Artists would make money primarily from actual public performances, not from the playing of recorded music, like it was before the "recording industry" existed. The recordings of performances, both live and possibly studio, would be distributed WIDELY. The main reason for this would be to raise the artist's profile.
So what is stopping this model right now ? Money. Oligarchy. Technology will overcome these things, which is why the copyright industries are feeling threatened. We will have a Richard Stallman for "content", just like for "code". Maybe one which doesn't insist on it being called GNU/Britney Spears. It will happen, it is only a matter of time. When enough talented people get sick of being force-fed crappy, lackluster product from arrogant, greedy companies (or company), shit hits the fan. No "business practices" can overcome the open source model once it gets enough momentum. I'll be ready when the first shot is fired. Music, books, and eventually even movies will fall under the open-source model. Us geeks simply have less patience for mediocrity, which is why we've seen it here first.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
To nitpick, an office doesn't count, because the people being entertained are not clients, but employees, so the causal effect from listening to music and making money is harder to show. Restaurants and dept. stores, however, would be liable. Most restaurants and dept. stores don't broadcast public radio stations. They probably already pay royalties for their music loop tapes.
Vote for Pedro