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?"
How about just get music which is licensed in a more open fashon such as Creative Commons?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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 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
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....
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.
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"?
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'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?
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.
ascap will sue your bar even if you only have artists playing their on (non-ascap) original material. its an extortion racket and everybody knows it. they certainly have the legal clout. they claim that 84% of their royalties go directly to the artists (mind you, much of it distributed based on radio airplay, regardless of the money's source).
however, 16% of $1.6 BILLION pays for a LOT of lawyers.
for example, if you only do public domain material, "trad arr." and all that, they'll still sue you because they can decide that your arraingment wasn't original, but based on an arraingment that is ASCAP protected. you can't win.
and a restaurant DOES have to pay ASCAP licensing, even if they only play the radio. all stores do.
yes, that means ASCAP gets paid 3 times over. 1) the radio station purchases the CD to play, at a higher rate than our retail version, and ASCAP gets their cut. 2) the radio station pays its broadcast license. 3) the restaurant or retail location pays a broadcast license based on the # of customers they have on average in the store at any time.
nobody wins except ascap. period.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
/. CBC? It got sluggish on 9/11, but /.'ing CBC is well, like /.'ing /.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
True, but I can't imagine anyone actually suffering through a dental appointment just to listen to some free music. I suspect this would easily qualify as fair use. Obviously commercial establishments where people actually go to listen to the music (bars, clubs, etc.) would have to pay, but a dentist??? One could even argue that a clothing store might attract more customers by playing music, but a dentist??? Yikes, talk about picking on the wrong group.
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).
I have to wonder why they want to charge the recievers when it would seem easier to charge the transmitters.
Although, I guess charging the transmitters would cause a lot of radio stations to go under while charging the recievers is more likely to provide an incoming flow of money.
What if I put a system in the company panel van and blasted it? Can a taxi cab driver have the radio on without paying up? Where will the insanity end?
... 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
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)
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.
Yes, they are a commercial establishment but that music is for the enjoyment of both guests and staff and it is not being sold as part of the service nor is it a true "performance". Even so, many establishments subscribe to digital music services sold specifically to businesses to provide ambiance. Simply put, it is bought and paid for already.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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
They're no more making money from the background music than they are from the posters on the wall, or the carpet on the floor.
Does the Carpet Industry Association of America demand licensing fees because customers walk on the carpet, so the dentist is clearly making money off their carpet?
Of course not, because that would be assininely stupid.
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.
They can play classical music or maybe some old jazz tunes from 80 years back?
Although the music itself may be in the public domain, most performances of it would not be. Perhaps some conservatory students could start putting out free performances?
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!
Coming in and cold-reading a part is commonplace. That means you show up and are expected to nail something you've never seen or heard before on the first or second take. Simple song or not, it takes skill to be able to play it that quickly.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
"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?
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.
Most conservatory students I know would prefer to get paid for what they do : it's indeed a very difficult job and they cannot afford to give their work away.
Last year, we interepreted Mozart's Krönungsmasse with some students and they categorically refused to have their work uploaded and available for free.
If you want somebody to give away free music, you'd better ask somebody who has a name, time and money.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Maybe if "the artists" actually kept the rights to their own music they could possibly have some say over this. For the most part, this is not the case. To be a main stream artist on a major label requires selling ones soul, and of course giving up pretty much all rights to ones own work. Thus, if the artist gives up all rights to the label, of course they won't have any say in what's done with their work.
Artists have choices too, and unfortunately choosing to make lots of money usually goes hand in hand with giving all of your work away. It doesn't have to be this way, and most of the artists I love and support don't take this road.
No Comment.
Oh, please...you think all musicians conform without deviation to some ISO-6969 protocol for musical jargon? I've heard the word "cold" used many times in the context of sight-reading. Get over yourself; you'll make better music.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Yes, but that is true of a number of things, like the colour they paint their walls. You only have to pay for the paint once, when you buy it. It's not like the dentists aren't paying for the music -- they do buy the CDs in the first place.
What's missing here is the intent of copyright law. Any time anybody plays music without headphones they are broadcasting it, but that's not the intent. The intent of the broadcast rights is when the music itself is the commercial attraction, i.e., people listen to radios or go to clubs to hear the music. People don't go to dentists to listen to music. I think this clearly falls into fair use, but I am neither a lawyer nor judge unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view).
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?
Ok...lets say you are that artist. Did the store in question pay for your CD when they bought it? Yes? Then STFU...you got paid. Now you just want to be paid again for someone adverising your CD in their establishment. Funny...I would have thought free advertising would be welcomed by artists. It's not as if they are burning copies in the back and handing them out to everyone. They are simply playing it. YOU should probably pay the store owner for playing your CD in their store. Because it's not like you are the only one with a CD out, and I'm sure someone would appreciate the free advertising...