Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Music Industry Drills Dentists
hereisnowhy writes "CBC reports that the tranquil music that wafts through many dental offices to soothe patients and mask the sounds of the drill may soon be silenced. The music industry is putting the bite on dentists -- demanding that they pay for the right to play it. The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada would also like to extend this policy to 'coffee shops, clothing stores, lounges, elevators -- even radio tunes that people hear on the telephone while on hold.' Are any composers and authors actually in favour of this, or just the publishers?"
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
no composers or authors are in favor of this. None.
It's all the Canadian musicians' associations.
I know quite a few composers/musicians who are forced to be members so they can get by - one of those coercive union things - and since they don't have a say in how it's run they can't change anything.
...is that somebody might actually get paid for elevator music.
Composers and artists can be money crazed too. Although most are simply in it for the fame ;)
Lets not forget the people with their car radio on and their windows rolled down. They are our number one priority man.
I sometimes play music loudly in my car with the windows down. I assume they'd be mad at me for that too.
If so, I'm very, very sorry. Don't worry, it's not the kind of crappy music that you're worried about people hearing for free anyway. This music is good.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
Well, at least we won't hear the annoying loud music pumping out of a riced up car in the middle of the night near our neighborhood soon.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
A couple of years later I ran a bar that had live music and we played CD's. We had to pay ASCAP and BMI nearly $3000 a year to cover CD's and the bands playing cover songs.
VANCOUVER - The tranquil music that wafts through many dental offices to soothe patients and mask the sounds of the drill may soon be silenced. The music industry is putting the bite on dentists - demanding that they pay for the right to play it.
... don't even hear the music."
The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, which collects royalties for musicians, has targeted dental offices in its latest campaign. The group is asking them to cough up a yearly fee if they use copyrighted music to entertain patients.
The fee, a minimum charge of $100, has enraged some dentists.
"I just feel it's a money grab," said Vancouver dentist Kerstin Conn, who recently received a letter from SOCAN at her office. "We paid for our CD and we're using it to listen to, and half the time my patients
Bruce Wilde, licensing manager for SOCAN, said people can listen to CDs for personal enjoyment but infringe copyright if they play them for other purposes.
"The distinction is that the music is not their property," he said. "And if it's being used in a public fashion or any kind of commercial fashion, then [musicians] deserve to be compensated for its use."
SOCAN has battled for years to get commercial and retail outlets to pay for the use of copyrighted music. Under legislation, the music played in coffee shops, clothing stores, lounges, elevators - even radio tunes that people hear on the telephone while on hold - is fair game.
The copyright laws do offer some wiggle room, one legal expert said. "The gray area, I think, is where it's overheard inadvertently," said Robert Howell, a professor at the University of Victoria Law School, "when it is really intended to be private but it is overheard inadvertently by a customer."
SOCAN said it has successfully collected the fees so far, but if someone refuses to pay, it could sue for copyright infringement. Things rarely go that far, the group said.
Conn said she intends to keep playing CDs in her Vancouver office - at least for now. "Well, no, I'm not going to turn off the music. It's wrong."
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
How about just get music which is licensed in a more open fashon such as Creative Commons?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Considering how the courts have handled the music industry in the past, I somehow doubt they will actually let this happen in Canada.
Hi there
If they do something about the sound of the drill, I'm all for it.
to playing music for the sheer artistry of it? I play music, and just the fact of someone WANTING to hear it would make me happy.
Jay | http://oldos.org
I would rather hear the drill than the crap they usually play in dentists' offices.
In the words of Homestarrunner, "That's just ridiculous!"
You little dentist scum better sound off that you love the Canadian Music Industry, or I'm gonna stomp your guts out!
God has a hard on for dentists, because we kill everything we see. He plays his games, we play ours. To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh teeth. God was here before Dentistry, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the industry!
There's a bit of an interesting situation here... the publishers are trying to assert themselves into what presently is a very murky space in copyright land.
Using a broadcast radio station as the hold music on a phone system actually requires a copyright license from the station from which the artists/publishers should be seeking their payment. Of course, since it'd take a lot of work to observe all of the places this is going on, it's one of those bits of copyright law that more or less has been nullified by simple non-enforcement, and therefore slipped into that consumer-friendly category known as "fair use".
Case law has more or less said in the past that if a radio station is being pumped through an amplifier system throughout a building, then whomever is doing that needs to pay because they're redistributing the station. However, if they set up a standalone radio in every room and tune them all to the same frequency, they get the same effective sounds throught the building but don't have to pay because they're not redistributing, but just letting the boom boxes do their thing. But again, that often ends up unnoticed and unenforced.
Major sports venues have to pay for copyright licenses... but your local high school football venue likely uses the same music without paying for it.
Seems like this is an RIAA crackdown just waiting to happen...
Time for the dentists who haven't to switch over to using the radio. http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royal ties7.htm
The radio stations pay the royalties...
I used to work at a grocery store (I believe the title was "courtesy clerk", but I likened it to being the "head b!tch....:) ), and I asked my boss one day about the music that was pumped into the store. He replied that they subscribed to a certain radio feed and that was paid through the grocery company I worked for. It was a special feed, and the store had a tuner for the specific frequency or other.....
I would assume that most of these locations (stores, lounges, etc) follow the same sort of setup. My dentist played his own music, but I figure that would fall under fair-use, right? I mean, he's listening to it while he's working -
No fair use you say? Oh.....
My MythTV HowTo
Next you're going to be telling me they're making dentists pay for their nitrous!
Perhaps the RIAA members will change their tune when they go for their dental checkups, and instead of soothing music, the dentists play recorded tracks of drilling and pulling teeth.
Whats next? Are they going to charge you to have your friends listen to your music when they come over to visit? Or maybe they're going to take our money just for thinking about it.
Hi there
Since playing radio is still legal, would it be possible to design a 'smart radio' which searches and switches to another station if the music is no longer playing (i.e. with advertisement or DJ talking).
With such radio, dentists (or whoever) can preset a couple of like-taste stations and skip all the ads and talking, it'll be like a non-stop music album.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020320
It ain't got a fancy Creative Commons license, but the kid is alright.
Linky.
I particularly recommend "I couldn't find her heart" and "Alarm in the graduate school".
What about the rest of slashdotters? Non-RIAA independently released music you thoroughly enjoy?
The fee, a minimum charge of $100, has enraged some dentists.
That's exhorbitant! While I assume that the article (off a Canadian site) gives the figure in Canadian dollars, that figure translates to $76 USD at current exchange rates. Dentists and others are not making money off of playing the music -- no, it's just background sound to make patients more comfortable. I could understand the charges if dentists somehow profited directly from playing music in their offices, but this is just a money grab.
These guys will never learn -- faced with decreasing revenue and a fouled reputation, what do they do? The logical thing of course, alienate themselves further from the general public and anyone else.
... because the greedier the Music Industry gets, the more demand there'll be for a more repsonsible ogranization to replace them. The more you tighten your grip, and all...
"Derp de derp."
Why are they picking on dentists? Somebody at SOCAN have a bad root canal?
The easy solution? Pipe in Musak to your business. Totally legit, and you can choose either CD distribution or live Satellite feeds. (disclaimer: Is this available in Canada?)
Ultimately, it's probably wrong/illegal for a business to purchase a CD and then play it for its customers. On the other hand, what's the difference between this and playing the radio for them? I can't see why publicly available radio broadcasts should be surcharged for this reason; they record company plays the music on the radio for all to hear anyway, so what's the big deal?
Incidentally, a retail-type business would never do what those dentists are doing anyway. Their music is carefully selected to slow a shopper's pace down and encourage more sales.
Sony ha
Technically, it is infringment to play music licensed by ASCAP, etc. for entertainment or business purposes in the US, as well, including playing a radio station while on hold. Many professional offices, malls, and so on pay a company, such as Muzak, to stream the music to their sound system, phones, or paging speakers. The company pays all the license fees to BMI, ASCAP, and so on, and provides several channels of content.
A buddy of mine is a district rep/salesman for Muzak in South Texas and makes a very good living at it. He gets the bonus for the sale as well as residual payments for as long as the client continues to use the service. It's really not very expensive for a small business, such as a dentist's office, and the artists may get a pittance at least.
I know here in the US, if you play music on "non-commercial equipment" (IE A small boombox from Target, etc) or don't charge a fee, you don't have to pay the fees. But the minute you upgrade to pro equipment or make it pay-to-play, you do.
I found this out whilst doing research for opening a bar, a long term life goal I've had for quite some time.
Overall, even with the fee, it's not THAT much money - especially if you put in a jukebox. I know when I finally open up a place, I'll be more then happy to pay the money - at least until I do more research and find out the artists don't get a cent of it, then I'll be screaming hehe
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
but my dentist is probably the last person on earth I would want to piss off. Maybe the Canadian music execs are secretly dental masochists....
So if you have a radio plugged into your music on hold PBX port and the radio station already pays to play music, wouldn't that be "double dipping"? Isn't that illegal in Canada?
Whats funny is that the article states ""The distinction is that the music is not their property," he said. "And if it's being used in a public fashion or any kind of commercial fashion, then [musicians] deserve to be compensated for its use."
Considering the horrible track-record the recording industry has for paying musicians what is owed them, does anyone think that the musicians will see a dime if such monies are collected. What isn't mentioned is that this may make it illegal for DJ's to play at weddings and bar mitzvahs without paying some sort of fee. How many times do you have to pay for music before you can really enjoy it?
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Why should government be a debt collector for the music industry anyway? Why should the music industry get paid several times for one product?
The way around this in the US is to use broadcasts.
And no... you don't have to use AM/FM radio broadcasts.
Hook up an iBook to your DSL connection and audition some internet radio streams, if you can't find a reliable stream with content you like, you can also use the broadband radio stations on Cable/Satelite TV tuners, I know a couple local restaraunts that use those to get around licensensing and the music can be pretty good. And while I haven't checked it out, XM (satelite) radio might have some good alternatives as well.
I buy a CD, I'm buying the ability to use that disk, which means reproducing the sound of that music. I don't care what these assclowns say, but if I buy their music, I can play that music, weither I hear it or I and 500 people hear it.
This just shows how much this really isn't about lost profits or dwindling sales, but about control. They want control over the industry, which is going away. But the harder they squeeze, the harder we fall through their fist. Already another industry of alternative music is rising up, and if that kind of legislation goes down, they'll completly lose to the alternative industry who doesn't charge gobs of money for their music.
And since I'm up here, I might as well plug Tales from the afternow ( www.theafternow.com , free download on the site, 24 and 128kbps). If you listen to that, from beginning to end, you'll know how they're going to try to implement the control.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
My chiropractor got a call from the canadian recording industry association. They wanted to know the square footage of his clinic, and then tried to send him a bill for about 100 dollars a month for his "public performace" of the music (radio usually), or CD's.
I'm not sure what actually came out of it, but this isn't new.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For steady soothing music, surely it would be possible to have synthetically created music by machine?
Alternatively, dentists could always provide patients with a CD player and a set of headphones (my Canadian dentist used to do that).
Alternatively, they could always charge anyone from the music industry an additional "music played while undergoing treatment charge".
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I don't agree with what they are trying to do, but there is an important distinction between playing the music from your car radio and the music at a dentist's office. The dentists's office is a commercial establishment, so it is possible to claim that the music is being used for something other than personal use.
Any dentist I've ever gone to sure makes enough money: big house, lots of property, nice cars ...oh, and the big in-ground swimming pool -- that's a must. I've known a couple of dentists. I realize I'm stepping outside the main point, but if there's one profession that can afford to pay the petty few hundred bucks for music it's most definitely the dental profession. Of course if a precedent is set then everybody will be affected, both rich and poor.
Every time I've gone to the dentist the radio has been playing. I've always thought that's the case with most dentists.
Since the Radio is already payed for by radio advertising (which the dentist is subjecting his customers to), this shouldn't really be a problem. And I'm sure if this is enforced, dentists who currently play CDs would just use the radio. I doubt any royalties would be made.
It's great that The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada stands for:
The SCAM Publishers of Canada!
What's worse is it spells scam-PC.. Like they're pioneering new and politically correct forms of extortion.
I read all kinds of stories on Slashdot like this about someone being upset that someone else is enjoying some form of art without paying for the privilege. It always makes me wonder about the goals of the artists.
It seems to me that a true artist would want as many people as possible to enjoy their creation. The internet and file-sharing should be a great enabler for this, as anyone anywhere with internet access can see, hear or read their art. It is truly liberating and democratizing, making art available to all instead of only those who can afford it.
Whenever I hear an artist complain that too many people are enjoying their work without paying, I smell a rat. If you are creating art to get rich, you're not really an artist, at least by my admittedly narrow definition. Art should be its own reward. A true artist would create and distribute their work even if there was no compensation for it and they had to work a day job to make ends meet. There are countless examples of this. The passion for their craft drives them, not a desire for monetary gain (though this sometimes is a byproduct).
As to record companies and other copyright holding entities, I understand that for their business to survive, they must try to protect their assets. I just happen to think that their business model is hopelessly outdated in the midst of the digital revolution.
We are at a turning point of the information age. Will information become truly free or will access to it be controlled by "information barons"?
Lets hope that they push it even harder. Yes, I when they are fleecing everybody, then we can point to the politicians that gave us this wonderful situation and oust them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
commence operation: keep our business model floating! The harder they resist change, the harder it'll be for them to embrace it when their resistance crumbles.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
They'll want a tax on amplifiers and subwoofers, because if you have a loud stereo in your car all kinds of people will be able to hear the music without paying for it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
dont take the piss man. I live off the stuff I did for job centres in the uk.
The artist gets paid only if he/she was the songwriter. Performance royalties are paid for the song only, not for the recording (two seperate copyrights), so the record company doesn't see a dime either. The only people who get paid are the songwriter and the publisher (at worst a 50/50 split, if the songwriter runs his/her own publishing, and many do, the songwriter gets it all)
I have to hope that no dentist is playing Weird Al's song, that's about dentists, and features drill noises and screaming in the background.
Because besides having to pay SOCAN now, they'd be chasing people away.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
For a few years we stuck an old am/fm radio with a headphone jack plug into our phone system. It'd play the radio on the hold music.
Someone reported us / they figured out we'd been doing it and sued the employer. They 'offered' to settle if they were contracted to write up a commercial type thing. That was part of the legal 'settlement'. Complete gang rape RIAA style in the early 90s.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
For years and years, denists have been causing massive waves of pain in my mouth, needlesslly drilling holes in abnornmally soft teeth that don't even have enamle from use of powerful teeth cleaning devices in use by said dentists... GO DRILL THE DENTISTS CDI!!! Make them hurt!
err.. *cough cough*
sorry, I hate dentists just slightly more than I hate the music copyright industry. Normally I would be all for defending these guys, but the tools they used to clean my teeth invariably lead to the need for drilling. Regular brushing can only do so much when you have no enamle on your teeth anymore...
I'm going to hum a tune, and you can pay for the pleasure of hearing it. Then again, maybe its no longer even legal for me to hum the tune to start with, unless I bought the album, and its being hummed on an approved playback/humming device....?
This is just plain greedy.
I think we already have this kind of thing here in Australia?
Then I wouldn't have any problem paying the fee. From everything I've read on it, the fee is quite small compared to what it could mean to the business that pays (revenue from a jukebox, more patrons who come for the music and stay to spend, etc)
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
I only know of one artist personally that gets ASCAP/BMI royalties. His opinion was that this stuff was indeed important to him. He wasn't a star by any means, playing mostly local gigs and had a small number of albums out on a minor label. He wasn't getting rich by being a musician, and considered these quarterly royalty checks an important part of his work as a musician.
Dentist: Hello there, mr... what was it again?
Bruce: Bruce Wilde
Dentist: Hmm.. where have I heard that name before... you work for SOCAN?
Bruce: Uh huh.
Dentist: (wringing hands) Eeeeexcelent. Mr. Wilde, your root canal today is going to be a very special one you will remember for a long time.
Bruce: (Suddenly sweating profusely) Gulp.
"Oops, sorry, thought I'd given you the anesthetic....too late now, let me turn on some soothing music to take your mind off the pain....oh, wait, sorry, can't do that anymore"
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
People pay for the right to advertise other's products all the time.
...and when it comes for a checkup I guarantee only heavy metal at full blast will be able to silence the screaming hehehe
Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
every front desk shall run this script:
#undef ELEVATOR_MUSIC SOFT_CLASSICAL_PTR
#define ELEVATOR_MUSIC SILENCE
"Wireless : LAN
The poster asks:
My experience in talking to musicians for my radio show is that this is largely the publishers -- the large corporate publishers, at that. Smaller publishers and the musicians I've spoken with are overwhelmingly interested in increasing exposure and driving up sales through increased exposure.
This tends to jibe with the push for extending the term of copyright in the US and the advocacy for the status quo during the Eldred v. Ashcroft US Supreme Court case. It was publishers (most notably Disney) and organizations of publishers (such as the MPAA) who want longer and longer terms of copyright so they don't have to publish as much new work but can continue to capitalize on commercially successful works from the past.
Digital Citizen
I once read that the Boy Scouts in the US have a list of copyrighted campfire songs they are forbidden from singing because ASCAP took them to court over it.
THAT is scraping the bottom of the litigious barrel. Seriously.
TOO MANY LAWYERS.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Yeah, I would *love* for my bands' music to forever be associated with dentist drilling and pain.
If you look at it that way, the music industry should be paying the dentists to not plays their music.
the consortium? Most music, I would imagine, falls outside of it.
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
And let me tell you: You'd better get it right in one take. 'Cause like I say, it's a high-paying gig. If you can't hack it, there's a line of musicians out the door looking to take your seat.
This is a standard shake-down in the U.S. Entertainment and IP lawyers get calls all the time from business owners asking "Can they do that? Do I have to pay these bastards money for playing my fsking radio?"
The answer is usually, yes. The exceptions are very narrow.
(Ever wonder why restaurant chains sing hokey made-up songs instead of the nominal "happy birthday?" Licensing fees -- money -- that's why.)
One exception, in the U.S. at least, is to play only material that is in the public domain, not subject to (ascap/bmi) licensing. As an example, Fry's in Sunnyvale plays classical piano music which is free of licensing. In the U.S., there are collections of CDs full of such material.
Of course when a business takes such an approach, the licensing authorities (sic) will make the assumption that you are a crook, and they will watch carefully and wait for you to screw up -- and then sue your ass (arse, in Canada).
Consult an attorney familiar with these rackets. I imagine that there exists or will soon exist a standard set of recommendations for Canadian businesses who wish to remain free of licensing fees (and don't expect that guidance to come from the licensing societies).
...especially young musicians hate, and I mean *HATE* the music industry; the notion that our art, the thing we spend the bulk of our lives trying to get inside and understand, the thing we dedicate ourselves to so completely to the exclusion of almost everything else, should be controlled by a bunch of pencil pushing nitwits is rediculous.
Canadian musicians, and by musicians I mean people who dedicate their lives to music not the idiots who try out year after year for "Canadian Idol" (yes, we have an "Idol" show too... yes, it sucks just as much here as it does there), look forward to the access that the internet affords us; we (and I speak for myself as well as my professional colleagues who are consumed with the creation of music, not just selling it) don't see the internet as a hinderance to our earning potential, we see it as a platform for expression.
We think of it as a big megaphone that everyone gets to use, one that music executives CAN NOT CONTROL.
They hate it, we love it. What's more, we love that they hate it AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
Keep sharing, keep talking to each other, keep looking for content, keep creating content.
Keep listening.
And if you want to support the artist who created music you love, *then* buy the album, or better yet *GO SEE THE MUSICIAN'S WORK PERFORMED LIVE*. *THAT'S* where *real* musicians live; in the concert halls, jazz clubs, bars, garages, etc... We don't hide in the studio.
"We will also be attacking auto shops,
billing some breakfast nooks,
complaining about co-ops,
demanding at doctor's offices,
enjuncting eateries,
freaking out flyers,
grabbing from greenhouses,
holding up hotels,
infringing on rights at investment offices,
jostling Jeep dealers,
kneedling some knitting stores,
leavying against lawyers' offices,
meddling at muesems,
nosing around news stands,
offending offices,
prodding price-clubs,
questioning Quick Stops,
requesting of restrants,
shaking-down a few sugar shacks,
troubling travel agents,
unhinging uppolstry shop managers,
video-taping vacuum stores,
wringing out waterparks,
X-Raying Xerox service centers,
yelling at yogurt shops,
and zig zagging around zoos. "
Good thing nothing like this ever happens in the US. *sigh*
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
...if dentists are getting drilled by this, what's happening to proctologists?
This is because music played in public serves as an advertisement for that music.
As an electrician, I am going to begin placing counters inside light switches that I install, so that for years after the switch is installed and would otherwise be forgotten, the customer will have to pay me royalties, a pay-per-flip sort of approach, for the use of that switch.
If I thought my music were good enough I'd gladly give it to any dentist, elevator, etc who'd have it. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there making music who'd freely let it be used for this stuff maybe someone should make like a "sourceforge" for music and just let anyone use it who wants with a basic "gpl" of music. Maybe require a short "and now by " (or request it require is a strong word).
Is there something like this already maybe? I'm not a musician so music type things are not foremost in my mind.
--- www.f-theocean.com
... depending on your point of view.
Wasn't there a story about some music publishing group in some country to make cab driver pay royalties if they played music in their cabs. In that instance, if memory serves, the group was claiming that the car was a commercial establishment so the cab driver was supposed to pay royalties. I'm sure somebody out there remembers a URL to that story. (I would be surprised if /. hadn't covered that one.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Dentist-chair saxophone noodling sets my teeth on edge, no pun intended. After they do this, I might get to hear something that's actually relaxing--I'm thinking Palestrina.
If only it would be silenced.
A man walks into an electrical store to purchase a stereo. The salesman walks up to the man "How may I be of assistance today".
"Why, I would love to purchase a new stereo system. Can I listen to the quality of these two, to compare?" replied the man.
"Sure, let me just get a CD."
The salesman returns with the CD, plays it in both systems, the man chooses and the sale is complete.
NOTE TO MR RIAA: It could be possible that the CD that was used to create profit for the company was licensed to them by YOU for "personal, non-commercial use only". Please Mr RIAA, save us from this theft.
In the not too distant future:
A man walks into an electrical store... blah blah blah.
"I wanna buy a stereo, what does this one sound like"
Salesman: "I'm sorry sir, under new Government regulations, it is an offence for you to listen to any music that you have not licensed in triplicate from the RIAA."
"As an agent of the RIAA*, I am required to report this attempt of illegal theft of the RIAA property. Please stand still and wait for the authorities to take you away."
Salesman: "BTW, how do you want to pay for the stereo?"
*In this future reality, as a clause in the license to listen to music, you, the licensee are required, by law, to report any attempt of theft or unauthorized use of the RIAA works.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
honestly how much is music really worth?
and this one thing is done on purpose.
So do whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
It's cheaper to pay them than it is to go to court.
End of story.
I'd hate to have to pay to play all those CDs I'm trying to sell on the record company's behalf...
how about we don't play anything, which in turn means we won't buy it, which in turn means no-one will get to listen to it.
ObBias: I'm married to a dentist.
Firstly, I won't deny there is some truth to your point, the pay for dentists is high. But there are a couple things you've forgotten.
1) Setting up as a dentist costs a _lot_ of money. At least $100k in training, and more than that for the practice. Sure, you might die rich, but I think it takes 15 years before you're better off than someone who leaves school for a job at McDs. Of course, you don't have to buy a practice, but pay rates for associates are quite a bit lower. I know we had a lot more disposable money now than we did a couple years ago, and I expect we'll have more in a few years.
2) Your argument is used by pretty much everybody to lump costs on dentists. Guess how much it costs for the piece of paper saying you can use the radiograph, a rubber-stamp with no checking that has to be renewed every? How much for the annual practicing certificate? How much for litigation insurance? How much for continuing eduation (some courses cost $1000/day). Roughly speaking, for every $100 you pay your dentist, they will get $15 cash they can spend.
Corrin (Pissed off because we bought an iPod yesterday for my wife to use at work)
When they outlaw music only outlaws will have music.
Sounds like the RIAA wants to be able to extort everyone even if they just hum a tune.
Damn, did not mean to give them yet another idea to get more money to continue feeding the lawyers.
New bumpter sticker coming to a beat up old dodge near you, "They can take my radio when they pry it from my cold dead hands."
When RIAA executives go in for a checkup, the dentists pay them! Even with the flouride and X-ray...
both ears, at the same time? THAT"S CRAZY THE PENISSESSES WILL TOUCH! WHat are you, gay? WHat are you, gay? WHat are you, gay?
fuck that. Fucking laws and rules are bullshit.
No Politics
No Religion
No Standards
-Folkstorm 1999
They wanted to lend me a discman, but since I had my own MP3 player with me, I used it instead.
I did notice that they had a cd holder full of CDRs though. But that's ok, since this is in Canada and we pay fees on blank CDRs for that, eh.
Since it's illegal to pay for US TV & Radio services in Canada, but legal to listen/watch them if they're unencrypted... ...DishNetwork CD audio channels to the rescue!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Just more Anti-Dentite propoganda for you.
God spoke to me
What? People are going to the dentist to hear music instead of buying it themselves? Give me a break, this is free advertisement!
If the dentists supplied headphones for their patients could that be legal ?
The big question is, though, how much good music comes out of Canada anyway? Maybe the dentists will get mad and stop playing Gordon Lightfoot, Anne Murray, and... uh, Chilliwack, and opt for imported tunes?
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Most of the places here that have background music playing (or at least most of the big stores) get their music through the Muzak service. Muzak has filing-cabinets with all the paperwork on their licenses to do exactly what they're doing with the music and records of payments for those licenses. Try this stunt on one of their clients, said client will just call them and give them your name and their lawyers will pay your lawyers a visit.
What fool is representing this group?
Aren't XM and Sirius satellite radio also available over the Internet - about $10 a month? BBC.co.uk is free. Muzak services Canada I would think.
What gives???
Stuff that matters.
I was pretty shocked to say the least, but if you can believe it, even the 'on hold' music qualifies as "public entertainment" in the view of these idiots. Where most businesses used to be able to just tune a radio and plug that into the telephone, that practice has now effectively been outlawed. In fact, he's never played CDs in his office - he's only used the radio (nevermind that the stations have already paid the 'public entertainment' tax), and that appears to be a no-no as well.
The unfortunate solution to this whole mess was to:
stop playing ANY music in the office
replace the 'on hold' radio with a paid-for recording which has royalty-free music in the background
In the end, SOCAN didn't get much money from him, I don't think, because the royalty-free music was composed in-house in the firm that recorded his fancy new telephone greeting for waiting callers. But the whole idea riled him up so much I think they've lost the whole family in customers when it comes to buying music in the future. Go figure.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
We'll have to do it Wayne's World style - all dental procedures to be performed at a Kenny G concert.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
I really appreciated the above story in that it demonstrated that it is not just the US that is having this music copyright debate (debate/problem/issue ... you choose your wording).
It seems like every time something bad happens here (in the US) all these Canadians chime in about how trouble free their existence is... and I partially believe that it is in fact better (on some levels at least), but at the same time it always sounds very very one sided.
In retrospect it seems pretty safe to assume that if you are the little guy, it probably sucks somewhat everywhere
What strikes me funny as the "outrage for having to pay for music" story goes another round on
I think there are two reasons:
commerce has pretended to give music to us for free: music is an expected part of the background in any store, at any event, for any time spent on hold. Radios broadcast the stuff for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.
Wait a second, no one does that. Strike that. Radios broadcast music for free because they receive ad revenue, and it is therefore in their economic interest to broadcast music without charge. Funny, stores do the same: a store with a soundtrack feels more polished to us because we aren't troubled by the chaos of other people's conversations. I suppose the ultimate example of soundtrack-polishing is Nordstrom's, with their live pianists.
So despite appearances music is not like air, but is used as a means of enhancing commerce. But we *think* it is, because of its ubiquitous presence in our lives.
Second, the commerce model followed by RIAA and friends stands in stark contrast to the professional model followed by classical music. In general, pop music pays by a royalty system. Concerts do provide some revenue, but the primary income stream even from concerts comes from royalties for sales of CDs and T-shirts. By contrast, classical musicians are salaried or payed per gig. (Can you imagine Perlman being payed a fee for every T-shirt sold at a Kennedy center concert?) So why does this matter? Because a salaried musician is far less likely to look for ever-more oppressive ways to squeeze revenue from his art. His salary is thus-and-so, and if he doesn't like it, well then, he negotiates with his employers.
But in a royalty system, the "employers" are the consumers. The revenue-squeezing tactics we see here are really ASCAP's way of trying to re-negotiate their salary. The RIAAs talk of "fairness" really is just rhetoric to get the foot in the door, and the squeezing will never stop.
So what is the solution? I think we all need to first acknowledge that our belief that music is free like air is simply wrong. Downloaders who expect to sample for free before paying have an unworkable expectation.
But, the royalty system for music needs to go. The industry's expectation of being paid for every "instance" of their intellectual property is unsustainable. Instead, musicians should be salaried, should make most of their income from actually performing concerts for people, and should release on CD only if they fully expect their music to be copied by others. Instead of concerts being a hook to get people to buy CDs, CDs should be a hook to get people to go to concerts. That would mean higher concert prices, but it would return some sanity to a currently insane system.
/ramble
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
sorry but this has to be the biggest crock of shit these idiots have cooked up so far.
Those lawyers need a new hobby and the publishers need to be more creative about generating revenue. Here is a novel idea, why not encourage and publish artists/songs people actually want?
We Canadians also already pay for the music we supposedly steal regardless of whether we actually illegally download music each time we buy an MP3 player or blank CD-Rs/CD-RW/DVD-R/RW/+R/+RW/RAM etc... in the form of a blank media levy. It does not matter if we are using them to backup non-media related data.
The music industry in Canada and the CRIA can go and f*ck themselves. We have already paid many times over by buying your crappy Audio CDs of music and in blank media levys.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
SCAMPC
Is it supposed to be a politically correct scam?
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Oddly enough the Dentists replied with "Bite me".
gives me nitrous, fuck mp3s, it's about pain. i can't handle the novacain needle jabs into my gums. that's all i have to offer. YMMV.
Serenity now, insanity later.
... so how much actually does trickel down from the publishers to the artists? More then 1%??
The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada...
S.C.A.M.P.C... how fitting.
Are any composers and authors actually in favour of this, or just the publishers?
I asked my wife, a musician, the above question. She replied with "No, that's stupid!" In addition to thinking it was stupid, she also seemed to feel that it was more important the people heard her music than that she was paid for every time it was played.
After asking her about the 'other sides' opinion that the artists need to get paid fairly for their work, she reminded me that even though she is a musician, she won't ever receive the royalties. In her case, she plays with an orchestra. This means that it is not her that is the artist, but the orchestra. And it is not her that can complain, but rather the orchestra director and (possibly) the conductor. But more likely the recording label, not the actual orchestra.
So, OK. The orchestra gets paid. That means that she gets more money because the royalties trickle down in her paychecks. Wrong. She is paid a fixed salary, independent of how much revenue the orchestra makes.
OK, so she isn't exactly a rock star, nor does she make millions with her music, but she is still a recording artist and the law does not benefit her, nor will it ever.
the second or third time someone like you, shoots the music company executive extort^H*6touring local small business in the face, society in general might start to take interest in the debate. Who's willing to do 25 to life? Or 7 years for stopping to take their anti-psychotic medication?
Thank you.
The Mothership
Metallica will likely not be included in this.
Here are some of the other tariffs charged by SOCAN.
Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music - Fee per day: $32.55 for each day on which music is performed
Skating Rinks (Roller & Ice Skating) - 1.2% of gross receipts from admissions exclusive of sales and amusement taxes
Comedy Shows and Magic Shows - Fee per show: $36.60 where use of music is incidental.
Aircraft - Fee per quarter, based on seating capacity:
a) Take-off and landing music - ranging from $40.50 to $82.50 per aircraft
b) In-flight music - ranging from $162.00 to $330.00 per aircraft
Telephone Music on Hold - Fee for one trunk line: $94.51, plus $2.09 for each additional trunk line.
Background Music - Annual fee: $1.23 per square metre or 11.46 per square foot; half the annual rate for establishments operating less than six months per year. (In all cases, minimum fee of $94.51)
..I'm damned happy for this.
Maybe this will finally convince them to turn the shit off.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
An hour ago there was a comment on this article where someone said it served dentists right. The poster accused dentists of intentionally weakening teeth in order to make more money off of more appointments, or something like that.
Now, this comment seems to have vanished without a trace. What the fuck? Even though it was probably BS, it's certainly no worse than some of the other crap that gets posted...
there are 2 reasons someone becomes a rock star: money and chicks (even the women.... lilith fair casualties the lot of them). The more money, the more chicks. Plus, if most rock today is art, then Jackson Pollock is Raphael.
The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
As a musician, I must say I don't agree with this idea at all.
:)
:P maybe I should sue them )
Firstly and foremostly because I don't like the idea of charging people money to play music, whether it be helping their business or not. I want my music income from my records and from my live shows (primarily the latter), that said, I currently have negative income from both sources
Secondly, the vast majority of musicians will never receive money from this because the small percentage of royalties collected that aren't used to pay administrative costs and for the law suits against p2p users, is divided between musicians based upon how many records they have sold, as it is impossible to ask people to actually state what music they were playing and for how long.
So you see the only people who are going to make any large amount of these forms of royalties are the musicians that have already sold a rediculous amount of records, in which case, they are unlikely to need the money any way.
[/rant]
ok, umm I should probably add that this post has been complete heresay and I am no expert on the law as it relates to music at all. Maybe I have a trust fund building up from that time I had a recording played on my local radio back in high school (they played it at schools, at least 300 listeners over a week of recesses
In this line of thinking the recording industry had better be careful about targetting the urologists... talk about the potential for backfiring!
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
I thought they played the music the did in elevators, phone, etc because it was in the public domain.
We put the SCAM in SCAMPOC!
Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, ...
Did you realized the soundtrack of Harry Potter movie is Tchaikovski?
There you are, staring at me again.
So it actually makes me happy when ASCAP or BMI tries to get some money whenever music is played. I may not see one cent of it personally, but I think people should get used to the idea of paying for intellectual property rather than to always expect the artist to subsidize their art through "a day job."
In order to make it palatable, the dentists need a publicist to headline a few high-profile cases where poor dentists are shown losing everything because nobody is buying new dental work anymore. Picture it: a few talking heads discussing how this will eventually devastate the economy, how billions will leave the country to futher line the pockets of foriegn magnates. Forclosures, bad credit card debt, dentists leaving the industry for better prospects in other industries..how the brain-drain is sapping innovation, how the masses are now beginning to suffer from a death of dental professionals...
They should then push for important new legislation to stop all gray-market dental work from being done: The Dental Millenium Universal Hygiene Act. Of course the name has been chosen to impicitly ironic, suggesting that the welfare of the commoner is being looked after.
Oh great, I have to run. The company that makes the turbofan cooling my video card proccessor chip is here with a subpoena demanding I pay for the traquil whir i've been listening to all this time, or else.
So generate computer music.
If algorithems can be discovered that make non-obnoxious, mildly soothing music randomly then you could just have that play all day. There would be no copy right. Perhaps there would be an issue with ownership of the composition algorithems? That's why it should be open source.
I wouldn't know about this sort of thing, but maybe someone out there can whip up random elevator music?
recorded at your local highschool orchestra concert where they play shubert, or mozart;
what's wrong with being local -- we could use
more of this anyway.
The problem a lot of these establishments have right now is that they feel that they have to play current, hit music. If anything, some music only appeals to certain demographics. I don't want to hear Eminem while having my teeth cleaned or furniture shopping. Play classical music pieces like Mozart or other things that are in the public domain. Last I checked, some of this music is $2.00 a CD in the store!
... so will everyone else .... the gov't .... that's right taxpayers.
The other problem is that the RIAA hasn't tried to sue the US gov't. I would love to see them try and sue the Pentagon, DOJ or the Whitehouse for playing tunes to guests or workers. Big political no,no that you'll never see. But then again, when everyone else pays
This is old, but it still applies... In fact, perhaps now, more than ever.
The End of the Internet
http://mymac.com/showarticle.php?id=494
(Some time in the near future)
I finally found a way to make money off the Internet. I did it by writing a book about how the Net died.
Not that I made any money while it existed, you see. No one did.
Oh, like everyone else, I loved the Internet for all the freedom it gave me, and the wealth of information and idea exchange, where everyone profited from that free flow of thought and information. But, you know how Man is. Never underestimate his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
Why did it end? Simple: It was greed.
First it started with the Spammers. There got to be so much Spam, that even Congressmen were snowed under with the daily deluge. No one could get their legitimate mail because of the thousands of fake letters these inventive Spammers were sending out with their Web bots. Congress finally made a law strong enough that any of them could be shot on sight. Some hacker then posted on the Web a public list of the lot of them, and soon they were all dead.
The public, long laboring under all that Spam, liked what they did so much, that they killed off all the hackers too. This had a profound effect on people taking computer science and engineering classes, did you know that?
That was the first nail in the coffin of the Net. We should have all paid attention to it. But no one did. We were all too busy trying to make a buck off of the Net.
The next coffin nail came when the Music and Movie companies finally paid Congress enough money to have the copyright laws changed. It was easy once Disney got them to extend copyright privileges another hundred years. The new law that Congress passed was very comprehensive! In fact, no one could listen to the music without breaking the new laws!
Now it was a Federal offense to even read or see anything that was copyrighted. If you did, there would be an unauthorized copy in your brain that you could access just by remembering. Oh, you could legitimately purchase a copy of anything copyrighted in the stores, but you could never open that copy and view it or listen to it. Tough law!
That's why all the libraries in the country were permanently closed. Right after that the schools and colleges were all shut down, and their teachers and administrators put away for using copyrighted materials in their classrooms. Students, however, were forgiven their offense in this, but all their books and notes were confiscated and burned.
The next nail came with the legal view of computer hardware. That legal POV stated that the desktop, palmtop, or laptop computer you were using could also hold, however briefly, yet another copy of any copyrighted material you might put into it, for transfer to a CD, or perhaps downloaded off the Web. Congress just attached this to their Anti-Terrorism Bill for Secure Systems Standards. Remember, these devices were considered guilty until proven innocent, just as their owners were. It seems the very existence of these machines was now suspect, because someone, somewhere, might use them for pirating copyrighted material!
Therefore all these computing devices became illegal to even own. No more Computers!
The music companies, having now gotten their way with Congress, finally had a law written that was so powerful, even they were locked up! They were all sent to prison for having a copy of their own music, which they had bought (or rather stolen) from the artists. Just deserts!
Then the movie producers and the owners of movie theaters were locked up for the same violation of this powerful new copyright law! They were sent away for distributing more than one copy of their movies.
Then the music artists and singers were all locked away for the same reason. Worse, for under the new law, many were sent up the river for playing their own songs too many time
yup, in Australia people are expected to pay to put customers on hold. The Australian music monopolists have decided that even a phone call deserves a usage tax.
-AD
Magazines? Some organization could form to 'protect' the copyright holders like Time or People or whoever, against doctors offices and other waiting rooms for having their copyrighted printed materials available for public viewing. I'm sure there are others... Oooh. The video stores at the mall that sell movie DVD's and have the movies playing from start to finish on the TV's!
Who else shall pay the price for common sense???
I had a sucky sig.
Outsource Music!
I'm sure we could get music cheaper if we outsourced the creation to a country like India. I mean, sure there's a bit of a language and culture gap to cross, but the lower cost of creation is surely worth some retraining.
I'll feel more sympathetic when someone tells me how I can make a living by creating what I want to create, instead of having to work for someone else. I don't really see that happening though.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
I work retail, and you don't know how bad 8 hours of frickin' pop music per day really can be unless you've worked retail. It is endless mind numbing drivel, made worse by the fact that it is the same 30-40 fscking songs played over and over, EVERY DAY. I would honestly prefer the hum of florescent lights. I know, as a good /.'er, I should be outraged, but if I never had to hear 'Better shop around' again, I would hand them a perpetual copyright on the song in a heartbeat.
My Dentist (big hairy jewish guy) and his really hot hygenists (this is why I deliberately give myself cavities) sing showtunes to me while they do their thing. Its wonderful...
i thought that canadians were supposed to be rational so that we (americans) didn't have to be
This is one more reason to not support the record Industry in anyway! I refuse to buy music. Don't give me the BS that I'm stealing from the artists. I go to approx. 12 to 18 concerts a year, and feel that I support the bands more from buying a ticket! When buying a CD all I support is a record label who steals from the band (this is why so many bands have taken record labels to court or refuse to use record companies).
Record companies don't give 2 shytes about the artists. They care about piracy because they loose money, and this is one more way to squeeze another dollar out of people.
In my opinion, if the record labels want a charge a yearly fee for such 'services' I beLIEve dentist should be allowed to get as many CDs they want for free -- after all they'll be paying for their customers to listen to their music.... Who am I kidding -- this will never happen. The music industry will make dentist (and others) pay twice!
Your analogies are flawed: it's not about paying to look at a painting, or a copy of it, it's about paying to display a copy of an original work of art.
Similarly, with music it's not about you paying to hear the radio (or whatever) when you visit the dentist, it's about your dentist paying for the right to publicly broadcast music to an audience. This applies regardless of whether or not the audience is there for the music or not.
Whether you like it or not, music that's not purely for private consumption must be licensed from the copyright holder. If you were an artist and some store was playing your CD over and over wouldn't you want to be recompensed in some way? After all, there's basically little difference between that and the music being used in a TV commercial, and you wouldn't argue that the artist doesn't deserve anything if their music is being used in an ad, would you?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
How could the parent be modded troll? His "Full Metal Jacket" reference (or is that a standard Marine Corps statement?) is absolutely brilliant and should be rewarded with +1 Funnies and +1 underrateds. As for me, I'm prepared to be modded down mercilessly to fight for what I feel is right, so let it begin.
"Wait a second, no one does that."
Three letter counter argument: NPR. Radio financed by tax dollars, not ad revenues. Funny thing, they play classical and jazz music that isn't copyrighted and there's not a huge payola scheme to play.
As for listening before you buy, why is that an unreasonable expecation? If I wish to buy art, I can go to a gallery and for free or at most a small fee to the gallery (not the artist) go and look at works I might like to own. I pay for the work when I want a copy of it, not for looking. Most I can even see on the Internet. I see the whole "no free previews" argument as going like this if applied to paintings:
Sycraft: "I saw a painting by artist X that looks interesting. I think I'd like something similar by him, if he does the same sort of work."
Art Guy: "Ahh yes, all of X's work is desert scenes like the painting you mention, we have many I'm sure you'd like, would you like to purchase one?"
Sycraft: "Probably, let me see some of his other work. I'm not after the one I've seen, but something like it."
Art Guy: "I'm sorry, but you need to buy one to see it."
Sycraft: "?"
Art Guy: "It's simple, you need to pay to see the painting. I mean X worked hard to create it, you can't expect to get something for free, now can you?"
Sycraft: "Look, I don't want a free print, but I need to SEE the print before I commit to buying it."
Art Guy: "But you've already seen one of his paintings and you know you like that."
Sycraft: "No I said I was interested, I don't want that one. If he has something like it, but different, maybe, but that one isn't the others."
Art Guy: "Well sorry, you have to buy it to see it."
That seems to be the philsophy. They play the one song on the radio they want you to hear, and you are expected to decide if you want the album based on it. Er, no. I want to hear more of the album to decide if I want the album. I shouldn't have to pay to hear it before I buy it. I was allowed to test my car before I bought it, I toured my house before I bought it, I looked at all my art before I bought it, why can't I hear the music before I buy it?
One solution would be to get your music from Magnatune.
http://magnatune.com
All Magnatune music is licensed under the Creative Commons license with terms of Attribution, NonCommercial, and ShareAlike.
http://magnatune.com/info/openmusic
I just studied the "Licensing" page, and I think that playing music for your customers is a "commercial" use and you would need a commercial license from Magnatune. But they offer their whole catalog for commercial use, and if you license from them, you know that 50% of whatever you pay goes straight to the artist.
I'm not sure how much they would charge for a dentist to play music for customers, but the "Public Space" license (e.g. for playing music in the dining room of a restaurant) is $45 per year for one album.
P.S. I'm a happy customer of Magnatune; I admire what they are doing and I hope they succeed. I have no other ties of any sort to them.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
If I could get my music played in a dentist's office, I'd let it go for free. One way or another, it's people hearing my music. I think all these "helpful" artists' organizations are getting a little out-of-hand and out-of-touch with the artists...
Royalties are paid to the writer of a piece of music, not the performer or recording artist (unless they are one in the same).
If, for example, a band releases an album of cover tunes, the mechanical royalties from the pressing, as well as the performance royalties from airplay, go to the songwriters. If one of the songs is used in a movie, the synchronization royalties go to the writer. If a song from the album is used in a commercial advertisement, the transcription royalties go to the songwriter.
The only revenue stream a band would see from an album of cover tunes would be those contractually agreed upon from the label (a percentage of net sales less holdbacks like reserves, giveaways, and breakage).
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
While the copyright has expired on classical music, it has not nessicarly expired on the recording. Now if you were to take some sheet music and make some midi files from that, it's yours to do with as you please.
Would this allow you to play music publicly without getting a license to do so? You'd have to check with your local laws on the subject, but chances are not. It shouldn't be a problem if you have good solid evidence that you have the permision of the copyright holder, or if you are the copyright holder, but when I was looking into the subject, it seemed that a license would be required to play all forms of recorded music regardless of ownership of the copyright. After all, someone might accidently put in their own CD and *boom* public peformance.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
One solution would be to find software that is free for commercial use. I'd suggest looking through the Internet Archive:
http://archive.org/audio
I think some of the stuff in there might be free even for commercial purposes, at least in some countries. They have recordings made from really old records (1927, for instance), and there might be some newer public domain stuff in there.
I did find this:
http://www.pdinfo.com/source/TtlRFree.htm
Music you can license for a one-time only fee.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Here in Aus we have no free use provisions in copyright law. This means if you run a business (or for that matter you are simply playing to the public, as a private citizen) and you want to play music for your customers, you pay for a permit to do so. End of story.
It doesn't matter what your business is or whether or not you use the radio or your own collection of recorded music. You have to buy a permit. And if you are in a shopping strip etc, they do check.
Welcome to our world.
Q: What do you call 10,000 on the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
...here in germany...
you have to pay the "GEMA" (like the RIAA in USA) in germany if you do any of the listed things. playing music in shops / bars / playing music on the phone / playing music on parties that are open to the public...
heck you even have to pay when you hire a live band that plays cover songs!!!
We attached an MP3 player to our phone system and play various selections of music through our phone system which is heard by our clients on hold and occasionally by our employees if they choose to turn on the background music at the desks.
We're not changing and we're not paying. I double dare the SOCAN folks to force us to pay. Our company legal counsel is waiting for your challenge and she rarely loses...
We're in Toronto BTW...
This happened in Finland a couple of years ago. Even though the prices are not too high, they are ridiculous.
For example, a kindergarten, solarium, beauty parlor, swimming hall, physical therapist or barber shop pays from 8.56 to 39.26 Euros per month (depending on the size of the premises) and taxi has to pay from 26 to 40 Euros per month (depending whether it has just a radio and CD player or a TV/VDO).
Po- lice State. Canada, we can do better than this. If they want to charge when someone hears a radio station in a business environment, why dont I get paid to look at billboards? Or to wear a shirt with a logo? It's always backwards when it comes to the people who want the money - thats all they want, they dont want to dish it out.
Im amazed in glancing over these posts that no one has asked the question "who gets the money here". If you ask me SOCAN sounds like a corrupt union. Every musician has to be in it (or pretty much must agree with it), and they collect royalties etc. Who gets the money they earn from billing these people?
.of course by then none of us will realize it.
I understand albums are expensive to produce etc, but how can you arbitrarily grab a chunk of money for playing this music, and redistribute it? Does everyone get the money equal? That wouldn't make sense as there aren't many dental offices playing death metal. Do artists who released a single cd 2 years ago get a check in the mail for $.75? I would understand the system better if a company had to buy special more expensive cds to play over their intercoms etc (with companies paying a different overhead percentage based on square footage or something weird). While still annoying, it would make sense as it would set up a form of accounting for where this money is going.
Where is the accounting here, there is only one group that has something to gain from this, and its SOCAN. The artists are an afterthought. Thats what I don't understand about these RIAA lawsuits fines like this etc. I haven't read anywhere that says where this money is going, except to go to further enfoce copyright law. Seems that if this is the case it needs to continually find new targets to devour.
This has past beyond the point of the artists getting funded, its an industry swimming in its own corruption trying to fight back. Is it working? It appears to, just look at how things are being done.
I guess the music industry has grown up in the ranks, and can now grow up to be as successful as other massively corrupt unions. Maybe some day they'll compare to the teachers union. .
Phil
This is allready practiced in Norway. Taxis, coffee bars, shops, the lot. Everyone has to pay royalties to TONO. It sucks ass. They even has to pay for listening to the radio, even though the radios allready pay for playing music. And btw, I'm an artist. Not anything big at all, but still.
Why is the a seperation between "Take-off and landing music" and "In-flight music"?
This is bordering on insanity.
-AC
This is simply a money grab by the Recording companies. I'm sure little if any of this will ever go to any artist.
Since Canadian copyright law was clarified a little while ago, the only people they can sue are people using music in some sort of public way.
This is sort of the same thing as file sharing in that it is actually a great marketing tool right in front of them that they instead choose to fight. If you wear a nice cologne and someone asks you about it, there is a good chance they might go buy the same cologne. Would it not work the same way with music?
Do you realize how much more money record companies could make if they just stopped trying to fight all these advances and put a little thought and inginuity into using them as TOOLS like they are for their own benefit. They can't fight the future forever, they're gona lose eventually. People are not going to just simply stop using these new, convenient, easy to use tools simply because the record companies say so.
By suing everyone in sight and constantly telling people they are theives they have only alienated their customers and made people completely distrust them.
I guess Allastair Mclean was a visionary.
Or an activist...
...Remembering music in your memories and listnening to it? If music industry only could force you to forget, or to detect that you are at the moment "listening" inside... they would squeze money out of you.
...) from producers, with agreement that producers won't cut their buyers' (brokers') prices by selling bellow them, or even that they would not make another sell at all, for some fixed, agreed upon, period. That clause is, of course, voluntary and seller's fail to comply, treachery, would hurt seller's bussiness credibility and future prices hard (I am sure that, in case of traceability of trust breach, there could even be a court case).
I suggest people who are sick and tired of this make organised "silent listening" parties in protest of stupid note counting: Get together, mention the title, no, title could be a trademark, run a chain of asociations to the part, untill everybody say "I got it" (don't bring clueless friends with you), then someone makes the "start" gesture (whatever it may be) and everybody "listen to the music together" (some very sync people could even dance to it) in ridicule of conduct of music industry and demonstration of the fact that hearing music once is owning it forever.
Where this heads, soon you would be required to use headphones (with real head detection) to stop accidental leaking of their music to someone who did not pay. Loudspeakers would be illegal, unless all precautions are met to keep all the sound inside the room, and everyone in the room payed the playprice. (Not so bad after all... then none would bug you with loud music any more or they would be sued by RIAA for unauthorised handing out of their property).
The point is that information can only be sold the way secrets are sold (remember, by definition something is information for you only if you haven't already knew it). That goes for all new (software, video) and old (written stuff, music, even patents) flavours of information. Any other attempt to price and deal it in material kind of way is like trying to hold the water in the basket, plow the sea, or heard the snails.
Information is precious and should be priced very high accordingly, but any attempt to steer it afterwards is pointless, doomed, expensive, troublesome and, as most of us feel, tiranic. Get your money now and keep your nose out of my business! The problem they (information producers and dealers) have with this natural state of affairs is twofold: 1) they wish to sell directly to great number of people who hasn't got that kind of money, but as there are so many of us, 'en masse' ('the market') we have huge amount of it (and they think they shold get all of it and more) and 2) they are huge machinery wich pays its own record manufacturing. The solution is so obvious and natural but, hidden behind the long rooted law system, information industry doesn't want to change and subsidize itself:
First, the information carrier imprinting (record production) industry should be separated from information producing industry.
Second, there should be information exchange market, like there is stock exchange market. The information brokers would buy brand new (and expensive!) information (music, software, films,
Of course, the buyers will have to be very cautios who they get into business with. Maybe some of their co-buyers can make fast sell into their target market and close them out (think "first newspaper to publish the news"). But, going large scale may be too expensive. New owners of information can choose to sell several copies to other interested parties, at more affordable (medium or small businesses affordable) price covering their expenses plus profit in sum.
At some pont, record producing industry will buy the information and publish it at very affordable price (i.e. like Linux or BSD distros of today), but of course they will compete and try to get it sooner then competition do. Still, somewhere, very soon, you will be able to get it for smaller price, home
There are plenty of out-of-copyright recordings of classical music (and not only that but you can buy them on CD, too - though I'm not sure if the touching up and remastering creates any new IP). Many of them are excellent performances, too. You can, for example, listen to Rachmaninov playing his own musing in recordings from before 1920 through to the 1940s. Some of them are a bit scratchy, though, and most are in mono.
Actually, it's not uncommon for reviewers to rate some of these old recordings above more recent recording.
RIAA: I 'ork 'hor 'theee 'aarr'eeeaaaay
Dentist: What?
RIAA: *spit* the RIAA, you know...
Dentist: hmmmm....
*zzzzzzzzzzzzgrrrrrrriiiilllzzzdddmmmmmmmmmm*
Subsonic drill noises
Sounds of delicate enamel being drilled
*Blood curdling scream of agony*
Oh yes, you have chosen to piss off all the wrong people now, you overpaid music execs... next time you feel the drill penetrate your sensitive nerves, or you get stuck in the lift listening to Avril Latrine... you will know...
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Come on... you might as well get the job done right and piss everyone off.
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
What's it like listening to your own music while you sign on?
Ever since I started visiting and participating here on Slashdot, I swear I can actually SEE the decline of society in action. I mean, holy shit! I'm an American and I love this country, but I SERIOUSLY am beginning to think that it's all downhill from here. I mean, at what point do I start paying a fee to Ford and Chevy for changing my own damn oil? When do I start paying Mossimo, Billabong and Levis for wearing their clothes more than the allotted number of times? And when do I start paying Slashdot for every time I request the index page?! This is ABSOLUTELY INSANE!
What is your penile percentile?
Tell SOCAN to snarf off. An Expressvu commercial account will run $593.64/year for minimal (46.97/mo includes all fees, but not taxes.) programming that includes the Galaxy stations. (variety of music) (you have to take some TV programming now according to the CRTC, which seems kind of silly) Cost of equipment is minimal, installation isn't that expensive (no freebie specials for commercial establishments unfortunately) and.. it is a tax writeoff. Hmmm, I wonder how they would proceed in court over someone just having the radio going? It is free off the air, just like someone having a bar and putting a TV in with a plain old antenna doesn't have to pay.
See here
Every public performance of music has to be paid. And there are special "GEMA-taxes" on blank tapes etc.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
In Denmark the RIAA equivalent started taxing kindergardens for using copyrighted material in communal singing.
Ze damn kids are STEALING from us with their seemingly innocent singsongs.
How do lawyers face themselves? In 4k$ gold framed crystal mirrors, I guess...
... composers do support this. SOCAN is run by a board elected from its members, which are mostly composers. Not everyone agrees with this sort of thing (especially really grey areas like in this case), but many do.
;-) For a dentist, that's hardly going to break the bank.
A few things that people should know about SOCAN:
Unlike its US counterparts, SOCAN pays relatively decent royalties to composers and authors. They're certainly not at the level of European rights agencies, but they're not the pittance that gets payed south of the border, if that. So the money is going to artists, or at least most of it.
The fees involved are actually pretty trivial. Like as low as $90 Cdn a year. (I think that's about $5.75 US at this point
SOCAN also runs a foundation, which supports artists and helps create new music of all types.
So they're not exactly a draconian institution grabbing money for themselves. They are in my opinion often overzealous in their pursuit of their members rights, but they are after all (among other things) an advocacy group, and are supposed to take a biased stand. This is usually balanced out by groups adopting an equally biased but opposing position, and in the great Canadian tradition of compromise, something reasonable hopefully results.
As well, I rather doubt that any dentist has too much to fear here, as the line in this case between personal and commercial use is pretty blurred. This would be almost impossible to police, and I don't think anyone's being taken to court over $90 Cdn a year. But maybe those who are conciously using it commercially will be made aware of the licensing situation.
Does one have to pay royalty if all one plays are the works of Mozart, Beethoven and the like?
I mean, after reading an uplifting article like this, I want to do all that I can to support the industry. The music industry is a well-meaning group of underpaid folks who are simply trying to put food on the table for their kids. It's not a blood sucking bunch of pariahs who are consumed and controlled only by their greed. No, it's just folks like you and me who have to make the next mortgage payment. Of course, in their case the house is worth fourteen million, but that's beside the point.
I have purchased one cd in two years. That one disk was purchased from the musician for a reasonable fee and very little money (if any) found its way into the hands of the record company execs.
This is another example of why people steal music and feel absolutely no regret. Note that I did say "steal" because I know that copying my friends' and the library's disks, and downloading music are all examples of theft. The problem that the record companies have is that they make people like me feel good about stealing or at least they do nothing to make me feel bad about it.
Meanwhile, yesterday at Wegmans (the greatest supermarket on the planet), the cashier was all done with our order when I remembered that my daughters and I had each eaten a corn muffin while shopping. I told her about it and she added them to our total. I would have felt lousy about stealing from Wegmans, a company that puts customers ahead of their interests (or seems to). Stealing from them is and feels wrong. Not so much with the Jack Johnson disk I just took out of the library.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
All joking aside, will there come a point in the near future where you will have a payment or royalty for all of the musical ring tones on cell phones? You have to wonder when this starts if any of that money will go to the original artist, I highly doubt it.
I would hate to be one of the RIAA executives or lawyers the next time they need some dental work done.
Never ever fuck with people who provide YOU with essential services. It will come back to haunt you in the end.
you sir, are the first person in awhile to have me agreeing in any way with a non-free music future. bravo.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Here in Belgium, as in most EU countries, dentist already have to pay. I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.
But the real scandal:
Even if my dentist ONLY plays CREATIVE COMMONS licensed music, he STILL must PAY. And Creative Commons artists have no way to get their fair share of these retributions from the monopoly (http://auvibel.be) that collects them.
...music drills dentists. Yes, I know it's very corny.
An elderly woman was tackled and gang sued by a roving band of music industry lawyers, when she was heard at a grocerie store humming a popular tune to herself.
The woman is being held on a million dollars bail, and is facing capital (records) punishment after the passage of the new UberMuzik Restriction Laws written and pushed through legistaltion by Senator Orin Hatch. The woman was facing two felony violations, the first publically performing a copyrighted song, the second, listening to it with properly paying the publishers.
A new series of Public Service commercials will be televised this month nailing the theme "Hum a song. go to jail!!!".
Genda
Artists have to eat...off of gold plates, sitting in a mansion, drinking $3000 dollar a bottle wine.
... its called GEMA. However, it applies only to musicians who distribute ALL of their work trough this maf^ZOrganisation
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
Free as in beer? Add your own rhythm section to a bassline? upload as version 1.1, Joe the drummer can download, add drums, upload version 1.1.2. Fuck, I'd do it.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
My dad was a dentist in the US and just had an FM tuner; even cheaper than CDs and free for over 30 years.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
This SOCAN charge to Dentist offices also covers Reception Halls too! Having recently gotten married I discovered this outrageous fee.
First you pay the SOCAN surcharge when you buy the music and then you pay the SOCAN charge again when you play it! Its outrageous!
So I eased my conscience by freely downloading all my music that I played. Who cares...SOCAN was already getting their cut to pay to the musicians.
For those Americans who have never heard of SOCAN...its Canada's equivalent to the RIAA.
Do this practice target also audiologists offices?
At a rebate rate?
Achille Talon
Hop!
The day the muuuuuuussssssiiiiiic died.
-------------------------------------
Technically, we are beyond survival.
Since I hate the background music, will this make it go away? Hmm, the argeement with the publishing industry as I recall is that you are allowed to listen to music you buy "for your own personal enjoyment". Maybe this means the cops can confisgate the getto blaters and throw the bastards that own them into Jail!! hahaha.
What irony.
Turn your stereo down folks or face the music cops.
Funny.
So the dentists and staff just start bringing "their own" CDs to listen for "their own" enjoyment while they work - just as millions of people in other professions do.
They'll just have to tell the patients to not listen.
MM
In one way, this is wonderful.
Why?
Well, I'm a songwriter with a day job and no desire to pursue music for material gain -- the current record business is just stacked too far against little guys like me, so I just do it for pleasure.
But, if dentists and whatnot can't play the big boys' music without paying license fees, a whole market for creative-commons-type music will appear. Now by market, I don't necessarily mean money will change hands, but people (like myself) will write and share music, and other people (like the dentists) will seek resources that give them access to this music.
Perhaps, after a bit of time, my dentist might be able to surf to www.freetoshare.com and download many, many hours of free music to play in his office.
So one day I might walk into my own dentist's office, and hear my own music playing. That would make me happy. It would also do an even better job of taking my mind off the drilling, as I would be obsessing about "gee, I wish I'd written that part differently..." (grin)
Can't you just bring your own CDs to the dentist and play them in office that your currently occupying. That way, just the dentist and you are rockin' out to your tunes. Nothing wrong with that...
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
This might mean an end to that cheesy muzak that you can't avoid no matter where you go...
Oh wait... I accidentally took my wife's I-pod.
I had a song a few years ago that was in rotation at American Eagle. I never got a penny for it. And I don't care. How many of those people would have heard my song otherwise? Probably none of them - the band wasn't even together anymore.
I suppose we could have put up a fuss about royalties, and perhaps gotten $30-$40 per band member. Then we would have been pulled out of rotation, I'm sure.
And for all of you keeping notes, the song was Sure Shot, by the Mixers, released by Moon Records on a compilation in 1995. I think Moon just gave Am. Eagle the disc, and let them pick some songs for really cheap.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
SOCAN does a number of good services for the music community in Canada. This article presents them as a cash grabbing organisation but they do fairly represent the artist. Their members are primarily artists of all walks of life (Brian Adams to little indie nobodies). They collect the royalties and send the cheque to the musicians that create the music hasssle free.
While its really really sad they are going to this new low, they are legally sound.
:)
Playing the music to your customers ( or employees ) is a form of 'public broadcasting', and that requires special licensing..
Now if the American RIAA would go after these idiot kids in their cars under the same thinking....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Having recently signed up for an xmradio account, I was surprised to see they have accounts for business users (listeners) at a significantly higher fee. Their FAQ states it is to cover royalty fees.
j.
Sounds like some greedy person wants to pad their back pocket by double charging people for music.
Most places I have been in, play the radio in the background. Radio stations already paid for the music. If someone wants to play radio in the background, there should be NO EXTRA FEES!
Retail chains have their own corporate radio station that plays music for their stores, once again already paid for...
It all comes down to greed of the power mongers, taking advantage of musicians hard-put, and hoping noone notices that they are double charging for the music.
About 1 1/2 years ago, a company (not sure which one) was sending people to different (small) business's in Minneapolis Minnesota. Most of the businesses were non chain coffee shops, cafes, and restaurants. They basically said that they would be fined if they were playing music if they did not have a subscription to digital radio. Just about every place I used to go to had to switch, because no one wanted to get fined., or fight to defend their rights to play music in their location. Some people did try doing different things, like playing music off music channels on cable, but for the most part, no more local bands, no more local music, nothing but mainstream music off digital subscription. It will happen in your city soon if it hasn't happened yet, it worked so well in Minneapolis, im sure they will force everyone onto it.
TruePunk | Games
And the Trees were all kept equal by Hatchet, Ax, and Saw.
There are not many federally regulated monopolies left that can charge what they like - the fee should be proportional to what is consumed, and one should be able to buy things in 4 hour blocks, or per song or better - no pocket gourging minimums. Fair use, fair play, and common sense, appears to have gone awol.
when the canadian music authorities hear the sound of drills that will run through their teeth !
...could someone who IS please explain the boundary line in the following cases?
1) a dentist listening to his own radio in the exam room while he works? (like a boombox, not a portable headphone radio)
2) me sitting in my cube in the backoffice and listening to music while I work? (presumeably, at least 3 other people can hear it)
3) the receptionist at the dentist's front desk listening to her own radio while at work? (where, presumeably customers could hear it)
4) the receptionist, the dentist, and each of the couple of assistants all listening to their own radios while they work, all tuned to the same station?
-Styopa
This could be an excellent way to help local musicians. Contact them and offer to play their music for free with a blurb about the band. By-pass the RIAA alltogether. Think about it, a little sign out front "Today you're listening to John Doe and The Strangers" or something.
ASCAP and BMI have been doing this for years in the US. I used to manage a retail store and we had to
prominantly display our ASCAP and BMI stickers, according to corporate policy.
Looking at their site, they already have numberous tarrifs approved by the Copyright board of Canada See section 15A Background Music: Annual fee: $1.23 per square metre or 11.46 per square foot; half the annual rate for establishments operating less than six months per year. (In all cases, minimum fee of $94.51)
... to get your IP address.
Tag lost or not installed.
Most offices currently buy the music they play in the background, remember Musak? This is who you should sue if they are not licensing the music.
If you play the radio, is that broadcast not already paying the royalties for people to listen to the music?
this moment of silence brought to you by the Canadian Music Industry
A Firefox Dictionary Search found some interesting and appropriate definitions of SCAMP:
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (c) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)
SOCAN pays royalties to composers. If they are double charging, then they are double paying the artists, not taking advantage of them.
Sounds like a fantastic opportunity for new-age independent artists to sell unlimited-rights packages of songs to thousands of offices. I'm sure they could make a better deal than the mega-publishers.
But here in Canada, it doesn't matter if you play a radio station or a CD in a commercial space, the same extortion fees apply. It doesn't matter if you bought the CD, or the radio station plays commercials, or you subscribe to a digital sattelite audio feed. SOCAN says that is for "personal enjoyment" and if a lot of people are hearing it then it's "public exhibition" and you have to pay more...over and over.
;-)
Dentists, shops, fast food restaurants and such do not directly generate any money from musical presentations--not unless perhaps they have juke boxes. If cutomers had to explicitly pay for the music, then they can have their cut--otherwise I'd tell them to get the hell out of my office/store/etc.
Someone mentioned how stupid this all is and wonders where it will end, asking "What's next, will taxi drivers be charged a fee for playing the radio while carrying a passenger?" This issue has been simmering for about a year here--last fall I was listning to a radio phone-in show and someone asked that same question of the SOCAN rep.
His answer about taxis? To paraphrase, "We have legitimate reason to apply fees in such a case. We are considering rate structures for various situations and should a rate be established for taxi operators we would certainly make an effort to enforce it". Not the exact words but something to that effect. SOCAN's stance was basically this: if you are involved in ANY sort of commercial activity, and for any significant time play copyrighted material from ANY source within comfortable hearing distance of your customers at ANY time, then SOCAN is entitled to exact a fee for the artist and itself.
From what I gather, the commercial aspect is what they focus on. These cases would not be subject to SOCAN fees:
* Playing music within your home for yourself and any number of family or friends--unless of course you charge your family and friends admission to enter your house
* Listening to music in your personal vehicle or in a public space on your own personal player--even if other can hear it. For example, playing tunes while you barbecue in the back yard within earshot of neighbours or the street, or plyaing music on your personal stereo on the bus ride to work (so long as you're not the bus driver I suppose).
* Playing music in a commercial office, so long as customers are not in hearing range for significant amounts of time (ie. playing music only for the purposes of enhancing employees' working environments). Should customers (potential or paying) frequent the premesis, then you are thought to be enhancing their experience as well, and as such adding value to your services. It doesn't seem to matter how intangible that value is, SOCAN seems to think it knows how to quantify it in dollars and cents.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of though process that develops when lawyers are permitted to congregate unsupervised by those outside the legal profession for too long. Oh well--don't suppose it would be very easy or morally correct to exempt lawyers form the constitutional right of free association...
I live in Canada, wonder if its the same thing here.
Sounds like these ascap people certainly need a cap in their ass...
In the case of a radio station, that radio station has already paid royalties for that music. In the USA, if there are radio waves going through your property, you have a right to receive it. This also applies to cable by the way. If you pay for basic cable, you have a legal hookup. You can therefore grab all the other channels legally based on that 1933 FCC law. Again in Canada, your mileage may vary.
It would seem that they are going to try to hurt those of us who listen to the music until we hurt them. We should organize and not buy one single CD, DVD or anything else for a month and let them know it is because of the RIAA, MPAA and the other idiot groups. If they try to be jerks about it, go to 6 months and then a year. Cost an industry 100's of millions to billions of dollars, they will change fast. We have them by the short hairs, lets start twisting! Otherwise they won't stop until we are all criminals one way or another.
I'm listening to the radio right now, at work... and I'm not paying for it. So why should the dentist? The Dentist and myself are not making money from playing music... at least not in any obvious way; could you claim my productivity goes up; Would you charge me to listen to the radio if it did? Lets assume you charge me to listen to the radio, because I'm making money when my productivity goes up... so I stop listening to the radio, and the radio station goes out of business because they don't have any listeners, so the folk getting the law changed don't make money... Yah, thats blathering... but so is the industry going after the dentists. silly. I'v got an idea, I'll sing my own song in the presence of the industry reps, then bill them for listening to my original music.. and if they don't pay I'll sue them for violating my copyright. Clearly pure greed.
if they need a radio with nothing but indies and such, radioaid's gonna be a happy camper with a decision like this'n :D
Blame the people responsible for wielding those lawyers - ASCAP, RIAA, SCO, etc. for illegitimate or aviricious purposes. Lawyers don't (and can't) sue people without a client telling them to do so. If you want to place blame, you're going to have to blame ASCAP and the people they're beholden to - artists who want to get paid for their work. BTW, ASCAP charges $1 per Girl Scout camp per year. That's per camp not per camper. I think they have some similar agreement with
It used to infuriate me that more judges don't use Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the state equivelants to fine lawyers who file lawsuits that have no merit (lawyers are required by law to do some investigation before filing suit). But when you actually deal with cases you find that facts are uncertain because real life is very complex.
in switzerland it's already like that
``Using a broadcast radio station as the hold music on a phone system actually requires a copyright license from the station from which the artists/publishers should be seeking their payment.``
/. has a terrible way of amplifying misinformation, and it has to be nipped in the bud.
I don't know where you got this information, but it's completely inaccurate. In the USA, if you play music in your public space, be it a dentist office, mall, etc, you have to pay BMI and ASCAP, the US equivalents of SOCAN. This has been the case for many decades.
Perhaps your thinking of the subscription commercial music services like DMX or Muzak who provide music and bundle the licensing fees to the retailers- but radio stations are not licensed to resell music for playback in stores or on hold!
(The RIAA has nothing to do with this. BMI and ASCAP represent the performance copyright, where the RIAA represents the sound recording copyright.)
Sorry to sound so crass but
In a sane world Mozart would not have died a pauper.
And to prove the complete idiocy of all this, SOCAN recently went after another type of retailer for playing music in their shops. That type of retailer?...wait for it...record stores!!!
I don't know how they faired in that crusade. I just hope they got the failure they so richly deserve.
the music industry is doomed to failure. It's shooting itself in the foot. And when one day it notices it doesn't sell a single cd and no one is listening to the radio, they might finally get it.
My Gawd WTF...
1. ASCAP doesn't collect any money for purchased CDs.
2. Radio stations NEVER buy CDs. The labels give them free ones along with the payola.
3. Most retail locations don't have to play if they are airing broadcasts..
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Thats just dumb, it's not like they are transmitting it via RF, they arn't broadcasters. but the music industry is just trying to line their pockets w/ more money. however usually music they play at dentists/doctors, makes me more nervous, and my dentist usually just has a local radio station on anyway.
Unless we have uncommon commonsense, which I greatly doubt, it will fail there too. Industry execs, pull your head in....(the window of your porsche)
-- Howto: Get +5 (1) Whine about M$ (2) Namedrop Gentoo (3) Casually Abuse Mods (4) Namedrop Early Computer Model
So wouldn't you think music publishers would be happy that the licensed stations are playing in stores where a lot of people walk in and out?
The catch is, publishers don't make a dime more if the radio is blaring through every possible radio within broadcast range than they do if the deejay's mom is the only human listening. The local advertisers pay the radio station--not the publishers--for airtime. In fact, the publishers are probably NOT happy about it, since they are less likely to sell a record that you already feel like you hear everywhere you go.
The fee for playing a radio broadcast in your business is paid to the radio station as well, just like a bar that has televisions tuned to a football game or pay-per-view boxing match. The original broadcast is meant for private viewing, that's why they read the copyright notice somewhere during every NFL game. It can easily be argued that the advertising is now reaching more potential customers, but the broadcast is being used by a third party business to draw more money into the bar. If a bar owner makes $50 extra with the radio, I see no problem with giving the station $5.
To tangent a bit more, Lars Ulrich was right when he said radio isn't free. I saw him at a press conference during the entire Napster thing (I think he's an ass and Metallica handled it very poorly) where someone asked a question that ended in "...but radio is free?" He disagreed, but the footage I saw cut before he gave his explanation. Radio is free only from the perspective that you don't pay the radio station money. To use an old pun in a serious context, you pay attention. That was the only thing I heard him say that made any sense. And I'm a musician too. It's a good thing this is three days old, because Napster is still good for spawning a huge debate.
I heard a statement regarding TV once that really clicked, and it applies to broadcast radio as well:
Television doesn't exist to bring programs to the viewer; it exists to bring client base to the advertisers.
It's truer than we want to admit. Music isn't free when you get it over the airwaves, because you listen to all the crap in between.
You're right about the music industry corporate greed tho.
Mom says my