Slashdot Mirror
Listening To The Radio At Work? Prepare To Be Sued
MLCT writes "The Performing Rights Society, one of the UK's royalties collecting societies, has taken a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees are alleged to have been listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers'. The PRS is seeking £200,000 in damages for the 'performances of the music' which they claim equates to copyright infringement. The judge, Lord Emslie, has ruled that the case can continue to hearing evidence, commenting that the key point to note was that music was 'audibly blaring from employee's radios'. Where do the extents of a 'public performance' end? Radios on in cabs?"
It is completely unreasonable to expect compensation for second-hand radio.
Don't the radio stations already pay royalties? Why should the artists collect twice?
Although it's hard to boycott what you don't use.
you know what is next, it'll become illegal for anyone to have only one copy of a cd because other people can hear it.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
seriously?...um...seriously? SERIOUSLY? hold on, let me think about this one a little more...............seriously????
I never knew watching the guys wash your car counted as a performance. I suppose I'm more of a performing arts snob than I thought....
If they lose, sanity prevails.
But if they win, it provides precedent to sue anyone driving by with their car stereo too loud, so at least we get something out of the mess.
I mean, holy shit, that's possibly the stupidest thing I ever heard.
When the hell is someone going to sue the idiots with the car stereos I can hear a mile away?!!!
Damn right -- get the hell off my lawn.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Will this put an end to bad elevator music??
But seriously are people crazy?! its a radio..
I wonder if lawyers for Karen Carpenter's estate are busy preparing nastygrams for the American Dental Association.
Oddly enough, it is the law. This law may make no sense, but if you want it changed, you have to contect your elected representatives and convince them to change it.
On the flip side, this is what happens when record companies get desperate. That is a good thing, it means they're losing.
I'm all for people getting compensated for their hard work, but by any standard, this is ridiculous.
(Are the headphone makers sponsoring this?)
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
As a former restaurant manager, this isn't news to me - though the setting is different.
I was once approached by a BMI agent about the music playing in the kitchen for this same reason. ASCAP and BMI will go after restaurants for royalties from jukeboxes, or bands playing cover songs -- and even your kitchen crew playing their favorite tunes while they work, if it's audible to the customers. That was the stipulation, it had to be quiet enough not to beard from the dining room. Of course, we wanted it that way anyway so as not to interfere with the house music, but on lulls sometimes sound travels.
I thought it had gone too far at that point, without the madness from the RIAA and their relatively recent infringement suits. They've been out of line for a while, folks!
Technology tips and tricks.
Back when I worked for the state government road authority we ran a small call centre for breakdowns, etc. The audio switcher had an input for an on hold message and for a long time we fed in a signal from a commercial radio station.
The theory is that they are broadcasting N copies of their signal anyway, and a few extra listeners are also going to be hearing the advertisements which pay for the broadcast. It scales, so what is the problem?
More to the point, if I listen alone in my car and an advert comes on then I will change to a different station. If I am listening to somebody else's radio then I have to listen to the advert, so by that argument they should be encouraging people to share radios.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
They can collect on "public performances" of the radio when they start paying me for trespassing on my property with all that RF.
This is not a copyright violation as it's "publicly performing" things that were already sent out over public airways. Really, it's almost equivalent to the idiots suing because people used the "hacking technology" of HTTP to get the files they publicly offered.
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
That is why most stores use Muzak so they do not get sued for royalties. I worked for a store in 1986 that had to move in this direction as they were sued by the recording industry and they went to Muzak.
Isn't the point of radio to be listened to by as many people as possible. If your song gets airplay then people might buy your album. Wasn't that the whole point of payola? Plus, they get royalties each time the song is played.
This way they can cannibalize the radio audience for a few bucks and keep charging the same royalties. I think I should patent a business model.
I bet their next action is to sue people selling CDs. They'll go after a big offender like Virgin.
At first it sounded like Slashdot put its usual spin on this article, but then I read it: the situation is exactly as the submission describes it. These people are unfuckingbelievable.
As an American I am both saddened and happy to see this case is in the UK. It is sad that the stupidity is everywhere. It is nice to see our society isn't the only one about to implode under the weight of insane lawsuits.
IANAL -- My understanding in the US, is that it would be ok to listen to the RADIO in this setting, but not to bring in your own CDs and blast them out. The difference being that the Radio station is paying the royalties for a public performance. Any lawyers want to comment?
Think Deeply.
The point of radio is to share the music. The artists have already been compensated and the stations want as many listeners as possible, if you have the station playing in a business, that's even more people whom the advertisers reach. This seems like such a basic function of radio (the only other time people listen is while in the car) that I can't believe they don't see the light. If you can't play commercial radio at work, businesses will end up playing freely available music and everyone will think they are are either on hold or in an elevator...
Kiss
My
Ass
Seriously. WTF do you want? Payment for each and every set of ears that might be in close proximity to a set of speakers that is playing stuff you've already been paid for.
Let me reiterate...
Kiss. My. Ass.
Perhaps they're attempting to set a precedent that will allow them to sue virtually everyone (though I'm honestly unsure if the UK law works that way).
Why not use the old RIAA trick and just sue speaker manufacturers for "making available" the copyrighted material? Deeper pockets there anyhow.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
Remember, there's a fine tradition in the UK of enforcing ridiculous laws to the letter in order to demonstrate how offensive they truly are... and also that at the moment all the judge in question has said is that there is a case to be heard - he explicitly stated that this didn't necessarily mean the PRS was sure to prevail.
And looking at it, that might be quite a good thing. Kwik-Fit's position is that they have a decade-long ban on playing radios in the workplace. In insisting that management must have tacitly permitted playing the radio in the workplace, Lord Emslie would seem to have forced the issue of whether playing a radio is in fact copyright infringement to be tried. If that means a jury trial, it's not inconceivable that the jury could dig their heels in and find for the defendant regardless of the law - the publicity surrounding which would make future trials on such grounds somewhat difficult to win, even if it wouldn't set a precedent.
What are these tools going to do when they find out that people can get radio over the Internet? Open branch offices in other countries?
I've called the police several times because I could hear the music of the tenant in the downstairs apartment! Nothing ever happens. I was hoping for a noise violation, but this seems much sweeter...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I knew of this problem at my own work years ago.
I worked at a newspaper back in 2000-2002. We wanted to just use local radio music for our hold music, but our attorney informed us that we couldn't do that with "just any station". I, of course, am not a lawyer, so I don't know how the decision was made from that point. But in the end, it turned out that a local station owned by clear channel was OK to use for hold music. We didn't have to pay them for it, AFAIK.
What was ironic was that this was a "progressive rock" station. Granted, they never played anything explicit, but still, I'm sure there are some people who might be bothered by listening to it while on hold. We would have expected it would be kinder to the customers to chose an easy listening station or something, but that station wasn't allowed legally.
So in the end, there's nothing special about this case, just that for some reason it happens to be getting attention right now. Without reading the article I'd guess that someone just wasn't familiar with how the copyright laws work for this.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
>Oddly enough, it is the law. This law may make no sense, but if you want it changed, you have to
> contect your elected representatives and convince them to change it.
UK case, has no precedential value in the US or Canada. So it is interesting to watch for many of us, but not relevant. If you are on the other side of the pond: HA--ha!
My local 24hour Tesco plays local radio over the tannoy system during the middle of the night, the music makes shopping a bit more pleasant (that and no crowds of absent minded shoppers getting in the way), so does that mean Tesco have paid royalties or are they due for a big sue?
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Between this and the RIAA's campaign of suing grandmothers and 12-year-olds, I say--more power to 'em!
The more the recording industry engages in these batshit-crazy pursuits of extra money, the more people will come to realize that the entire "intellectual property" legal system needs to be completely rethought. The EFF can only dream of being able to this kind of support; these bozos manage to do the job well enough on their own.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
After reading about the lawsuit against target.com, under the ADA, for the web site not being friendly to the blind, I was thinking - about a lawsuit against the RIAA for not making music accessible to the deaf? Make them publish all the lyrics or something.
I just want to point out, that they are BROADCASTING it on the RADIO. They are 'making available' as the phrase goes. In the US I'd be tempted to call it an attractive nuisance except I think that applies to things that cause injuries, but hey, I'm not a lawyer. Still counts as distribution though.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A radio with a tape or CD in it does violate the rules on public performances. A radio pulling broadcast off an antenna does not, because the royalties are already paid by the radio station. And are being played on public airwaves for anyone to receive.
There are no damages when a radio is played in public, the advertising gets sent out to even more people, and the radio station makes money and the recording company makes money. There can be no damages due to loss, only the Chinese company that makes the radios can claim there was some sort of damage, and that is outside the scope of copyright laws.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with UK case precedence, so like most people on Slashdot, my opinion counts for diddlysquat.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
ENOUGH FUCKING ALREADY!!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
over the last few months, while reading slashdot at work, my fellow employees have been walking by my cubicle, perhaps seeing your comments without me first asking your permission
please don't sue me
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Until now I had suspected the music industry was just run by stupid people. This just makes it look like those running it are deliberately trying to destroy the "music industry". Guy Hands (EMI boss) admitted today that artists don't need the labels for distribution so what are they good for then...
I can only hope that the defense representatives in this case take the court out for a walk around the block to count the number of radios that can be overheard. Someone mentioned suing speaker manufacturers and others mentioned overhearing the radio playing in someone else's car. Anyone with a 200W sub-woofer in their car has a primary goal of "public performance". Someone repairing a car has a radio on to help pass the time and they have it loud because some of the equipment used is loud. So, god help someone that is hard of hearing and turns their radio up to be able to hear it.
Don't you just wish you could go kick these guys in the nuts and tell them to get a life... In the interests of full disclosure I wouldn't be here if I had a life or knew what one was like.
I run a "music listening service". I will, for a fee of $100 per song, agree to listen and form opinions of any track of any CD. Playing a song for me constitutes acceptance of this agreement.
As I see it, I am owed almost a billion dollars.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Actually, not exactly. While radio does pay royalties to the song writer, it is the only major country that DOESN'T pay royalties to the record company and/or performers. Why? Because it's considered free advertising for the sale of that song and the concert performances for the artists.
In fact, to borrow the In The Soviet Union line...
In the United States, Payola goes to the radio station.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They end wherever the "market" ceases to bear the charges.
I expect that sometime soon, the copyright industry will convince courts to let them silently activate (or tap) your mobile phone randomly for several seconds, to tell whether you're hearing (or, eventually, seeing) some autoidentified copyrighted content that your database lookup shows you're not licensed to consume at that time (because you haven't paid for that content for that timeslot). And then automatically charge you damages, or cut off your phone or have you arrested (or just sued and subpoenaed).
The tech will allow it: only the autoidentify is still waiting, and they'll start using that on us well before it's reliable. And then of course they'll do it; rights or other impediments to consumer abuse will never stand in their way. Killing the culture by stifling the free exchange of popular content which underwrites all cultural activity, doing most of the work perpetuating it, won't matter to them until it's well too late.
--
make install -not war
Unless it's a question of paying a radio tax like the British now pay a television tax, there should be no difference at all. It's not like the performing society is getting a cut of every radio sale because it's used to infringe their copyrights or anything.
These people are all just asstunnels!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
blatantly ripped from the IMDB
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
If anyone can suggest any improvements to my scheme, please reply ASAP. The Companies are losing every millisecond you hesitate.
Bottom line, it's not the "broadcasting" of the music but the "reception" of the music by the auditory nerves of customers.
It seems to me it's the burden of proof of the copyright claimant that the customers were taking in this music and deriving substantial enjoyment from it. Suppose that 99% of customers either did not hear the music or heard it but disliked it. Then 99% of the claim should be thrown out, i.e. reduce the claim to L2000.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Clearly, this means that I am going to be required to demand periodic payments from the people in my office who are leeching off the sounds emitted by my radio. Either that, or I'm going to have to install plugs in their sonic receptors.
Stupid judges week.
Hope is the currency of fools
It's illegal to rebroadcast the music so if some one was talking on their cell phone and the person at the other end could hear the music then sue the ass off the person with the cell phone. You get the added benefit of penalizing some one for yakking on a cell phone and annoying everyone in the place.
It made my day. This is the stuff comedy is made of!
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
I hope that the judge is doing what the French did when they voted for Le Penn.
I hope he is going to hear this case because there is reason to. It may set precedent.
I hope that after he has heard it, he will say "Folks, this is a public broadcast. Anyone can listen to it. For free!"
I hope he will then write it up and throw it out, for good. And that will be an end of it.
The Holy Scriptures say, "Limit your communications to Yes or No" It looks like England is in the full spirit of oppression of its citizens, time to move to Burma.
gets thrown out of court with the prosecution being charged all costs and damages for timewasting.
music in the US, must pay licensing fees to ASCAP and BMI.
There's an organisation called "GEMA" who actively look out for their customers' interests, which includes scouting round for shops, restaurants etc. who commit the heinous crime of playing music from CDs, radios etc. they already own.
Note that the basic logic is not entirely off. In that, snarkiness aside, each premise does follow from the others. The hard part for them to claim is that this magic property of sound to travel from speakers to more than one pair of ears is novel and, in some way, something that they were not previously aware of.
They already collect royalties/licensing from Businesses who play music, or who have live performers in their establishments, and have for around 90 years (ASCAP - 1914, SESAC - 1930, BMI - 1939).
It sounds like a case of entrapment to me: radio lures you in, broadcasts over the public airwaves for everyone to listen, and when people start listening, it sues. *Ok, so it's not radio that is suing, but a UK version of RIAA, but it doesn't change the way I feel about it.
You can't handle the truth.
Contacting your elected representative is covered under patent. Please acquire the appropriate licenses before attempting this. Furthermore, usage of Microsoft software to write a letter to a government address is expressly forbidden somewhere in those 80 pages of crap you said "I agree" to. If you get any ideas about using paper and pen, the lawyers from Bic would like to have a word with you, as well as Greenpeace for wasting a piece of paper on a non-environmental issue. In short, please quietly go back to watching tv and forget you heard anything about this before anything bad happens to you. Oh, but be sure to close the blinds and mute it or we'll take your house. Thank you.
...muzak is explicitly licensed for that kind of use.
Precisely.
BTW, you haven't lived until you've heard the Muzak instrumental version of Pink Floyd's "Run Like Hell" followed back-to-back by the Muzak version of Tom Petty's "Refugee". Absolutely breathtaking.
since many people claim to be sensitive to radio
waves, hence the popularity of aluminum foil
hats, is it true that radio itself, those evil
fluctuations in the aether, is a violation of
copyright?
it is indeed a happy thought to think that, at
long last, modern music will be banished from the
air. give me non-copyrighted music, please.
nothing more recent than G. Mahler.
Kevin O'Kane http://www.cs.uni.edu/~okane/
Seriously...WTF....you can't control how sound travels beyond the speakers. This is laughable, and if the people are found liable for infringement, then we damn well know that the judges pockets are being lined by the record companies.
relly these guys need to burn in hell. brodcasting your cd over the radio is not a volation. this will never hold up in court. maybe if it was a ipod full of stolen mp3s and a big maybe sence none has relly won a case hear or there. hell if it was a ipod full of itunes mp3s it would still be legil. its called fair use well they do a good job to stamping that right out the window these days. if he was offering up cds of what he was listing to then yea they would have something. this shit needs to come to a end i myself have voted with my wallet and dont buy any cds or even download any mp3s. the only way to stop this bs is to make cd sales and pricey both go to 0. then watch them kick and stream a nice bloddy slow death. whont happon thow.
I wrote a small composition in my journal regarding this situation. Does it depict the things that will happen, or only the things that COULD happen? You decide.
I was going to post the same point but (in toitally un-/. manner) checked for someone else having previously made the point. We may not agree with the way copyrights restrict our ability to listen to music but the parent post is spot on as to what the legalities are. I learned about this when complaining about "Musac" (commercial elevator music) back in the 1970s. Things have gotten worse, not better, since then.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
So, instead of puff'n out your chest(s) - show me the links to royalty free "noise" to put in public spaces (or private bars/resteraunts/shopping) so the RIAA can be told to pound sand
If they are going to be this petty.. why not take it one step further.. start suing people for singing to/around another person.. start suing people for quoting/tattooing/anything meaningful stanzas to get their fair share.. start suing people for tattooing band names as those are copyrighted and/or trademarked.
Jesus.. I mean.. seriously.. do they even care about their perception with their customers anymore?
I've been taking it one step further than everyone who refuses to buy RIAA/CRIA/UKIA(?) recordings. I make my living in music and I'm doing everything I can to achieve and maintain my measure of "success" while not succumbing to these measures. Just a few weeks ago, I truthfully walked away from a potential career "discovery" because of the terms and games that would have been required to accept - I wasn't willing to sacrifice who I am, what I believe and what my art means to me. I don't know what I may have missed out on.. I can imagine certainly, but I do know exactly how much I wouldn't respect myself and that's far more important to me.
The whole entertainment industry is disgusting. I hope they keep blacking and withering their essence, they are their own cancer that's going to kill them slowly from the inside out.
Does this mean I can sick the RIAA on the guy in the car in the next lane for blaring his bad taste in music at everyone within a thousand yards of his car? Could be a useful precedent.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
The other day I was costing out some midrange systems and I got some interesting AMD vs Intel results when I factored in the cost, power consumptions, AND chipset features...
Oh crap. Sorry, I thought this was slashdot. My mistake...I wonder where it went...
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
i quit the internet.
It's the same in the US, goes for both radio and tv, there is a license for each to allow "public" viewing/listening
This is just a case of stupid lawsuits by greedy IP holder (they started multiplying not long ago). The radio broadcast has already been paid for, so there claim of copyright breach (or whatever) doesn't hold a closer look. I am also pretty sure that this type of things falls under fair right use. This lawsuit is brought on by greedy stupid people, I hope that the court throws them and there case out.
[IANAL] My first reaction is typical (shock, laughter), but... eh... the more I think about it... the more I'm willing to hear both sides. If a store owner is playing the music loud enough and actually intends for it to be heard by customers, for example, then yeah... he should have to pay. Much like a bar owner having to pay for the music he plays at his STD vector... er... bar.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fuck the RIAA, MPAA, and all that jazz... but, seriously, sometimes groups such as those actually have a valid point. No, I'm not a lawyer and I don't work in the entertainment industry.
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven, I told Bill that if Sandra is going to listen to her headphones while she's filing then I should be able to listen to the radio while I'm collating so I don't see why I should have to turn down the radio because I enjoy listening at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.
Alright, I'm just going to say it.
MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE
This is getting ridiculous. That a crime could take place by the mere proliferation of an artist's work is absolutely ridiculous!
Music is a form of art, and I believe that the artists should expect no more from their hobby than personal enjoyment. If they're doing it for any other reason, then they are hacks. Sure they should be able to accept money for what they do; But if they get on the stage or in the recording studio with something other than fun on their minds, they aren't being true to themselves. Having a special talent and an adoring fanbase is all that anybody could ask for.
Obviously some grandmothers and children don't see a moral problem in downloading music from the Internet. Other than it being illegal, do you really have an issue with it? To put it into the context of the article: Do you feel like you owe the artist something when you listen to his song on your friend's CD? Why not? What's the difference? You benefited from his work, but you didn't compensate him.
To me, availability of music is akin to the Right to Read. Mod me down if you like. I'm just saying what everybody has been feeling but have been too reluctant to say.
Artist to consumer: "I want to express myself with music, but only if you're willing to pay."
Again, I'm not suggesting that an artist shouldn't receive compensation. I would just like to see music-related copyright-infringement de-criminalized (or the civil-equivalent).
Adapt, adopt, or get out of the way!
Easy solution...
Provide every customer/employee with their own personal radio while they're on the premises. Make it tunable only by the staff so they're all fixed to the same station.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
This goes beyond stupid and asinine and directly into batshit insane territory. I really don't know what else to say. I guess they figure all those people should listen to the free broadcast on their OWN radios? That must be it. These guys are shills for the boombox industry.
Watch me get flamed...
Keeping in mind I don't know specific UK law, but as an Australian here is my take on it.
This is NOT new! Public Performance rights belong to the copyright owner (the songwriter) and always have!
This is one of your basic rights as an artist.
This is NOT some new RIAA tactic.
ANY venue that plays artist's work publicly requires a license - be it a cafe with the radio on, a bar with a TV on or a jukebox, and all the way up to a nightclub with a DJ or a live music venue otherwise they are violating the artist's rights and breaking copyright law!
Under Australian copyright law, if you are a songwriter, you are the exclusive owner of your music and lyrics. If people wish to use it they must get permission, and if necessary, pay a royalty. Any public performance of your work requires permission (a license) and royalty payment - this is totally separate from the broadcast or transmission licenses required by radio/TV stations.
APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association) is the non-profit org that manages all these licenses for Australian songwriters and collects royalties on their behalf. Businesses pay APRA a fee to get permission to play music publicly. For a cafe who want to play the radio its like $70 a year (19c a day).
This pool of money is distributed to the songwriters as public performance royalties.
These guys didn't pay their license. So they broke the law.
The only thing that makes this story in anyway newsworthy is that 200,000 pounds is an absurd damages claim.
I know we all have a deep hatred for RIAA type agencies but how this is at all relevant for slashdot is beyond me, maybe someone would care to explain?
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4
Chapter III
Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works
72 Free public showing or playing of broadcast or cable programme
(1) The showing or playing in public of a broadcast or cable programme to an audience who have not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast or programme is to be seen or heard does not infringe any copyright in
(a) the broadcast or cable programme, or
(b) any sound recording or film included in it.
(2) The audience shall be treated as having paid for admission to a place
(a) if they have paid for admission to a place of which that place forms part; or
(b) if goods or services are supplied at that place (or a place of which it forms part)
(i) at prices which are substantially attributable to the facilities afforded for seeing or hearing the broadcast or programme, or
(ii) at prices exceeding those usually charged there and which are partly attributable to those facilities.
(3) The following shall not be regarded as having paid for admission to a place
(a) persons admitted as residents or inmates of the place;
(b) persons admitted as members of a club or society where the payment is only for membership of the club or society and the provision of facilities for seeing or hearing broadcasts or programmes is only incidental to the main purposes of the club or society.
(4) Where the making of the broadcast or inclusion of the programme in a cable programme service was an infringement of the copyright in a sound recording or film, the fact that it was heard or seen in public by the reception of the broadcast or programme shall be taken into account in assessing the damages for that infringement.
---------
The customers have not paid to hear it. They have not paid extra, and they have not paid admission. It is a "free public performance" and therefore not infringement.
This is similar to the case in the States where you need a license to play music through speakers *installed in the building* but not over portable radios/players owned by the employees. The former constitutes public performance and the latter does not, as playing through permanent overhead speakers and such is a part of the business and portable radios are not.
--
BMO
> annoy the hell out of fellow passengers...
..but for sound isolation, I haven't found better than these :
Yeah, because either :
1) it's only just loud enough that you can't quite make it out but it's 'oh so familiar' that it keeps you guessing the song all day. I hate that!
2) it's loud enough that you *can* make it out, but it's something crap, but catchy, and you embarrass yourself by singing it all day at inappropriate times. I *really* hate that!
Closed back headphones should be mandatory on public transport. These are my favourites :
http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm_eng.nsf/root/502188
and these aren't half bad either :
http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/productdetail.asp?transid=502103
http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_SCL3_content
fitted with these :
http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/Accessories/us_pro_PA750_content
I find them very comfortable too.
Max.
So, the next time your neighbours have a noisy party, don't call the police, call the PRS!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
- Apple negotiates with partner labels to allow public performance of iTunes-downloaded tracks at business establishments
- Apple sells or leases an iTunes jukebox system similar to what they are putting into Starbucks, which publicly identifies tracks that are playing/have played over the jukebox to the iPhones/iPod Touchs of people in the vicinity
- If someone buys one of these tracks through the iTunes WiFi music store, the shop-owners get a few cents on the sale
There, that's it. Done. Apple wins, obviously. The shop-owners win. And the music industry wins, because now they have a great, grassroots way for EVERYONE to participate in the distribution of their product. Better yet, make it so anyone with iTunes is allowed this public-play license, and can get in on the few-cents-per-track sales model. Expand it to the iPods/iPhones themselves, even, sort of like Microsoft's Zune sharing features -- but make it automatic, if a user chooses to turn it on (you could even know what people on headphones are listening to.)
I'm sure there are holes in the above idea, but it strikes me that something akin to the above is really the only hope the music industry has to actually grow in the 21st century. The fact that they themselves are not going CRAZY to implement systems like the above tells me that most of their decisions are probably being made by dinosaurs who are likely only vaguely acquainted with technology and the internet, and should be fired by their boards of directors immediately (they can hire me, and I will only ask for a $250,000/year salary.)
I am not, but even I heard of a small case that happened on your shores when a company went to far. Ever heard of the British East India Company? It had to do with some added tax/levy or something being added to tea. I think it caused a bit of a riot in boston, local affair, easy to miss but some people were upset about it.
Offcourse, this involved goverments but since back then the lines between goverment and business was often very blurred (unlike today when we see absolutly no blurring of any kind *cough*) this might be considered a case of a very succesfull (if you are an american) embargo against a company that pushed its customers too far.
Does it work in other cases? Well, note the difference in genetically engineered products in the US of A and europe, the europeans have long since been against any such crap and so companies make it very clear that they don't put it in their products.
More or less any normal business listens to its customers, the problems start to occur when a business becomes more then just trying to sell you a product and becomes a power. Your local supermarket is a business, Walmart is close to being a Power, the RIAA is a power. What do I mean by that? You can easily shop somewhere else then your local supermarket, it has no control over you, if the local manager does something you don't like, it is easy to boycot him. It is far harder to get around Walmart. Or for the dutch, AH. If AH does something bad, you are soon faced with the problem that they own many other chain of supermarkets as well.
The RIAA is even worse, in many cases they ARE music. The have become almost a legal power like the tax offices, they can collect their music tax for any music they like even if the original owner doesn't want them too. This would be roughly the same as the police ticketing people for driving to fast on private property (they can't and don't do this, this is why racetracks can operate).
It is very hard to get around the various music copyright groups because no matter what music you listen too, they have been given control over it.
But succesfull embargo's are legion, blacks boycotting businesses in america, the India rebellion against british rule etc etc.
On a much small scale, there were temporary success against the fur trade. Against whaling and sealing.
Embargo's work, even against semi-goverment organisations, but the "people" need a lot of will power to pull it off. Often the answer is that somebody equally powerfull takes up the fight, in recent years that have been popstars, who through their fame could pull the people into a single group to raise a voice. Bit of a pity that popstars and the RIAA are in the same bed eh?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No intellegent Life here.
They want to come after employees in the workspace for audible radio playing?
Play their game the "backfire" way. Turn the radio off for good and IGNORE their music.
If you can't hear it, you won't buy it. Simple as that.
Listen to talk, listen to sport, listen to 50+ year old music that is out of copyright (in the UK, at least), but let their music wither and die. Find other musical entertainment that doesn't involve their organization.
Get enough people to vote with their pocketbooks, they'll either change their tune (ha, so funny) or they'll sink to the bottom of the sea, blaming file sharing all the while for their loss of revenue.
I have a friend who works in a factory where they blare out music constantly.
He is forced to use an mp3 player with other stuff on just to drown out the endless stream of drivel that is pumped out in the name of pop music. Ok its not all that bad, but I am told that when you hear the same 'hit' several times an hour for weeks on end it does not please. I sort of know what he means, I worked in a factory for a time while at university, and they did the same. I couldn't escape to an mp3 player though.
Stopping this playing of music to an entire factory floor without regard to the people actually working (who cares about the royalties collection people) would not be a bad thing in all cases.
We need to collectively tell the RIAA "No. Die and go to Hell, spawn of satan" by:
- Not buying their tripe
- Not downloading their tripe
- Not trading mix CDs or tapes of their tripe
- Not listening to their tripe for free on the radio
Eventually RIAA members will either embrace a reasonable view of fair use, or they will simply go out of business. At this point in the game I don't think there is any alternative between those two.
The problem is not enough target customers actually follow through on this. You complain whine and bitch and moan about music's being overpriced and the low quality of the vast majority of crap making its way to the market, and yet you keep buying and you keep downloading. Also, you need to educate yourself on Fair Use and realize that when they advertise on CD that you can "own"
a work on CD or DVD, you actually OWN that copy of that work, just like you do a book or a calendar. You are not LICENSED it, you OWN it. You are simply disallowed from copying and distributing it outside the bounds of Fair Use.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
What if the restaurant management handed a pocket radio to each person coming through the door.
If everyone has their own radio, nobody is listening to anybody else's music.
Hos is that different from multiple people listening to the same radio?
I'm still trying to figure out how this makes any sense.
The next step, to follow this to the point of absurdity, would be for this organization to sue radio manufacturers, for manufacturing and selling devices which allow these copyright infringements to take place. Under this logic, only radios equipped with ear-buds would be allowed.
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
-- Cicero
In Finland cabs have to pay royalties already if they have a radio. Also kindergartens have to pay royalties if kids sing copyrighted songs there (sic). Some time ago there was discussion in finnish parlament if churches has to pay royalties for hymns sung there, but it was decided that they don't have to to do that.
I believe this is already the case over here, in Finland. AFAIK, taxi companies do pay some amount to the local copyright agency thingie for the right to have the radio on. As do restaurants etc.
This is seriously the most retarded thing ever. What next? Sueing people for watching TV with the curtains open? I don't see how this is any form of copyright infringement since the 3rd party listening in could do so if they have their own radios anyway since it /already is/ a public broadcast. Seriously, RETARDED.
Make sure to charge the radio station with 'distribution'. Better yet, just outlaw radios and radio stations.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
The following is extracted from the Wikipedia artile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabelle
...Repressive as a state monopoly, it was made doubly so from the fact that the government obliged every individual above the age of eight years to purchase weekly a minimum amount of salt at a fixed price....
France, in the peroid 1286 to 1790 had its own hated salt tax , the "Gabelle"...
(italics added )
END Wikipedia extraction
1. Artificially overprice a commodity
2. Make use of ( actually "payment for") that commodity mandatory
3. PROFIT!
Haverford Student Sued for Music Copyright Infringement http://www.biconews.com/article/view/36
>>Where do the extents of a 'public performance' end? Radios on in cabs?"
That royalty collecting agent has already done that in Hong Kong (it was a British colony) 20 years ago. It may just politically too incorrect to carry out the same extortion campaign back in Britain at that time. They sent undercover agents around to ride taxis, visiting small mom-and-pa shops. Then they show their ID and the recording industry style letter to extort thousand dollars of money. They are greedy bastards.
I don't know for the rest of EU, but in Slovenia, every company that provides means to play broadcasted music to employees or customers (read: has at least one radio in the office) MUST pay a fee to SAZAS (www.sazas.org), a member of cisac (www.cisac.org).
Regarding all music industry bashing here on slashdot:
- why is it OK to download music regardless of a "license", even if legitimate authors haven't decide that it should be available for free and
- why is it evil to ignore GPL - say by include a part of GPLed code in a proprietary software?
For non-UK citizens and our younger readers...
UK factories often had a public address system - often called the 'Tannoy' - from the maker's name on the speaker grilles. These systems were often used to broadcast the Light Programme (National Radio) and later Radio 1 (ditto). This was in the days before private radio stations in the UK. Nor being widespread does not necessarily make something legal in the K (viz. the Speed Limit), but the fact that the BBC made programmes for re-broadcast within factories for years since WWII without this fuss ought to count for something.
Pip-pip!
It certainly won't end at the cabs, as around here in Finland they already pay the local MAFIA, sorry, Teosto, for the privilege of listening to the radio. The royalties are currently set at 32 euros/year, 42 if you also have a tv or other visual playback system.
see http://www.teosto.fi/fi/taksit.html (in Finnish, sorry)
They also have price lists for music in elderly homes, schools etc. Playing music in workplaces is covered, as is singing in the kindergarten and schools. You name it, we've got it. Not forgetting the spiritual side, churches are paying up also.
I'm anxiously waiting for the "whistling in shower" royalty payments.
I am nearly certain that I have been harmed by second hand Jessica Simpson.
I demand compensation.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
Actually Muzak (http://muzak.com) is a corporation, which exists for decades. Their mission is to grace humanity with this fine music you can hear in elevators and shopping malls throughout the world.
"Music" that is filtered and frequency optimized so it doesn't disturb your lift riding -, or shopping experience.
So no, even if a lot of people think so, Muzak is not a slang word for rotten music. Then again: The general public has hardly any dealings with Muzak LLC (apart from being forced to listen to this shit).
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Fuck it. I'm swearing off music. (Instead of swearing AT it.)
These bastards can go bankrupt for all I care.
There was a case in England a few years back of a middle class women raising money for cancer. She put on a party and had a live band playing.
She raised £300 ($600) for a cancer charity, but the government heard about it and charged her the standard tax fee for public performances which happened to be £300. It was a coincidence that it happened to be the amount she raised but this whole public performance nonsense is out of hand. England is already boring enough, now we can't even enjoy some friendly music.
Oh the great injustice of the world if someone doesn't get paid for vibrating my ear drums!
This appartment comoplex is a business, his sterio blasts the local rap station into at least 3 other units...$200000 should end that once and for all
Thanks record jerks, for once you are useful
In the UK, the public broadcast of any music requires a licence from the Performing Rights Society. This law covers shops, offices, restaurants and other places of business and the licence costs depend on the type of organisation and the size of the public area. Shops usually have a small sticker in the window to show they have paid.
For this particular case the cost per annum should be £59.36 + VAT
The money collected is distributed to its members - the rights holders. This includes the big record companies but also independent musicians.
Everything you need to know is here: http://www.prs.co.uk?
It's fairly well known by most businesses that they don't have permission to play radio stations to hundreds of staff/public by default. This is why most UK supermarkets either have their own radio station they pump out to every store or they play a special CD of music licence to be publically played. It may seem a stupid law but you've got to look at it this way: radios pay licence fees based on estimated listening. If a small local station get aired at a concert of 20,000 people without their knowledge when their typical listener base is a couple thousand at a time, the BMI would come up to them and demand 10 times the licence fee which wouldn't be covered by the advertising which assumed only a couple of thousand. This would mean the that broadcast cost them a fortune. It's an extreme example but that's the reason Radio broadcasts are meant for individual listeners, not to be piped over a PA system.
Shouldent they sue the radio station who distribute it for anyone in range to receive.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
First of all, this sounds like Gordon Brown and his Petrol taxes to me. While you are not literally obliged to buy it, you end up having to. Even if you do not have a car you pay for it in every item you buy as its delivery is calculated in the price (after adding VAT on it). While we all grumble, I do not quite see all of us growing sunflower (or something similar) in the backyard and pressing our own diesel fuel out of it.
As far as the MAFIAA is concerned, 99% percent of the population are brainwashed into brand awareness and consumerism before they are potty trained. They are conditioned to react appropriately to stimuli like the Mouse, the SpiderTwat, neon lamps being waved and the like. In fact, if your child is not correctly brainwashed he is considered weird and bullied in school. The likelihood of overriding decades of deep conditioning is very very slim. I do not see that happening. Joe Average consumer will still pay whatever the MAFIAA and its imitators tell him. Just look at the iPhony as a prime example.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
It isn't the employees that are giving the "performance", all they are doing is transferring the radio waves that are ALREADY IN THE AIR into mechanical pulses. It's the RADIO STATION that is actually sending out the offending material.
I'm glad that these ipr issues are solved with intellegence.
In Finland taxis or shops or barber's have to pay to the local Performing Rights Society (TEOSTO) if they want to have radio on so that customers can hear it.
Maybe I'll start writing down the license plate numbers of cars from which loud music emanates and report them to the RIAA. That'll show those obnoxious twits who think everyone within a 100-yard radius wants to hear their hip-hop music. Maybe the RIAA would sue the cars' owners for illegally performing the music - and the makers and installers of car stereos for enabling said activity. Ahhh, the possibilities... Maybe I can get Rush Limbaugh to sue my co-worker because he listens to Rush's show every day and Rush would consider it a "public performance".... :)
Seriously, this does seem kind of ridiculous....
...application of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gowachin legal customs.
by posting something witty about it on Slashdot.
>_
...is for anyone to hear our clients music!
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
Six years ago now I worked for a company who liked to play the radio in the office - soon after we received a demand from the PRS for monies due. Out went the radio. We figured that someone visiting the office (engineer, salesman) had grassed us up. Maybe they get paid for tip-offs.
Is it all bad though? Many retail outlets will play music to attract customers, or to make them feel comfortable in the store. Now if the store paid a DJ to play records, many would expect that the store would pay royalties on those tracks. So why would it be different for the radio? After all, they could be making money due to having a radio in the store, so why not take a cut of it? Pretty greedy, it has to be said, but that's the rationale. No doubt royalties paid by a radio station are only covering personal use. Of course this doesn't adequately explain my office situation, but then if the rule applies to one, it should apply to all.
Yeah, it's crazy-ass, but nothing new. Let's not get this mixed up with greedy MAFIAA yada yada, it's been happening for a long time.
I wonder how a modern day Boston Tea Party might look... Perhaps a bunch of people steals a couple crates of audio discs*, make a video in which they destroy them and state their intention in doing so and then release said video to all major news outlets as well as YouTube (just in case big media isn't interested).
* Maybe even some audio CDs, but given how much the **AA hate the Red Book standard it's rather unlikely.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Not to sound like too much of an old fart, but does this mean no more kids with loud stereos? Can I sue my neighbors little brat for having his stereo cranking when he pulls into the driveway? I don't WANT to listen to his crap, but he forced me. If the stereo plays and nobody listens, does that count as comitting a crime?
If sound waves are created, you as the listener have two options, listen or ignore. If the *AA gets a legal ruling that I "listened" just because I was around when the sounds were made, I would really like them to talk to my wife and explain the diference between hearing and listening.
for listening.
I know someone who's deaf.
She'd be the only person NOT liable for the 'tax on ears.'
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This whole problem of corporate geed comes from the people allowing large corporations to totally control the distribution of , well everything. Twisting copyright, patents, and other laws into "IP ownership" that was never intended.
The end result of this is that all of us are no longer customers to be sold, but consumers to be culled.
The ( big evil companies ) really believe that we owe them money by simply existing.
This is insanity.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Is there currently a radio channel or stream that only broadcasts Creative Commons and public domain music? Or readings of GPL code or something? That might solve the problem?
When are we, the "sane" portion of the population going to stand up and get these 1960's, burn-your-bra types out of their positions of authority? Ever since they've gotten into offices of authority they have systematically destroyed anything considered "normal" and "common sense". These are people who spent their younger days trippin' on acid listenin' to Hendrix in the rain...and we're letting them make decisions that change the course of our everyday lives??? I say, VOTE, and get them out of office. Vote with your money and stop buying their products.
I am a habitual offender. There I've said it. But it is not my fault. I was raised to be this way. Since I was a child I was taught to share. I was physically spanked and sent to my room without dinner if I would not share my toys with my siblings. Sharing was mandatory in school. I could be reprimanded from the principal if I would not share the swingset or fingerpaints or whatever. Phrases like "share and share alike" or "give somebody else a turn" were ingrained in me since I was very young. As I grew up I would watch TV with the WHOLE family on only ONE TV! When I was old enough to drive I would listen to the radio loud enough for everyone in the car to hear. I asked for a tape recorder for Christmas so I could tape the late night DJ's radio shows. *shame* I need help. You see I am all grown up now and this old dog is having trouble breaking these terrible habits. I am afraid if I don't get help soon I could become a threat to society. You see I am now a parent and I am starting to teach my children my evil sharing ways. When my son wants to keep his tinker toys to himself or put headphones on his radio I have been guilty of trying to get him to SHARE! *cries* Can anyone help? Is there a 12 step program for evil sharing people like me? Please help me before I contribute to the destruction of another generation. Stop the madness, be selfish and just keep it to yourself!!
"I reject your reality and substitue my own." ~ Adam Savage, Mythbuster extraordinaire.
Where do the extents of a 'public performance' end?
-----------------------
I think the correct question should be;
What constitutes a public performance?
Does it begin when one or more can hear my radio?
Does it begin when I pass some shmoe with his Iputz on so loud
his teeth rattle and everyone can hear his music?
Or when I charge a customer to come to my Bar and have the local
radio station on?
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
There is no way this is going to get thrown out. The servicing chain will loose, loose big time, and frankly I'm amazed such a big brand has been this dumb.
Fees for playing the radio or CDs in shops or offices are well known in the UK. The law may well be an ass, but this particular law is very well known, and any businessman who claims ignorance or rebellion is going to get squished in court.
Kwik-Fit are the most well-known brand of chain garages in the UK. That they've been stupid enough to let employees play the radio in the presence of their customers, without getting a licence, is overwhelmingly their own look-out, pathetic bloody company I've no sympathy at all </vogon>
Licences and tarrifs are well known, well publicised, easy to obtain and inexpensive.
Personally I find almost all instances of intellectual property rights fundamentally flawed, but I'm not stupid enough to try that as an argument in court against a licence fee which has been collected nationwide, in every corner shop and mall, without exception, for fifty odd years. Pick yer bloody battles, mate.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Only the consumer can stop this insanity. Stop buying the music -- ALL of it! Stop listening to the radio! Stop going to concerts! Stop the revenue flow to the industry. If you cut off their economics, they will have to go away with no money to fund their extortion activities.
Make your own music for a few years. Listen to what you already have for a few years. They will respond to a total lack of money coming in but, the consumer can't expect somebody else to do it -- all consumers need to do it!
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
I know of this second/third hand: An accountant I know has a client (restaurant) who took this to court and lost...It is very possible and realistic that the garage in TFA will lose as well.
As the content owners continue to clamp down, the noise bylaw ticket will pale in comparison to the copyright infringement lawsuit you will face if you blare your music on the deck...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Doesn't the general concept of Radio as a mass media and Radio Stations paying to the royalty collecting organizations kind of cover the idea that more than one person might listen to a radio broadcast?
At least that's what I gathered from my venture into the radio and television buisnesses.
So, evidently what the Performing Rights Society are wanting to have set into brittish legal praxis is the following:
"We are irredeemable idiots, please someone kill us now and spare us the embarrasment of realization."
I'm kind of fine with that message.
If you see a rock violating the law of gravity, then the law is wrong, not the rock!
so how would this be different if everyone had their own radio? they're still not paying for the music...
Cochlear implants connected via a secure encrypted path to an RIAA-authorized epoxy-embedded temper-evident "droud" jack.
Oh, and people with perfect pitch will need to be registered and larynx-tagged.
...if they start charging those mouthbreathers who drive around at midnight with their subwoofers turned up to 11, they might get a bit of public sympathy for a change.
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
It is time for a new approach. Everything could be regarded as a digital signal for the purposes of the following idea. All this business of ineffectually trying to protect so-called copyright on digital media, music software etc. is really old hat now. What a pile of grief this has caused over time. Conventional business models based on the notion that a commercial company can make money reliably from the "ownership" various forms of digital signals on offer, is simply flawed from the outset. Think of the advantages that would stem from the establishment of a Ministry of Digital Signals. This governmental department would be responsible for gathering taxation revenue in the form of a slice of the normal tax that everyone in the country pays. Part of its remit would be the evaluation of the commercial value of a particular digital signal, whether it be a song, a piece of software, an image, a piece of text or whatever. The Ministry would have internal committees that consist of panels of authors, composers, programmers etc who would be in a good position to make these sorts of evaluations, i.e. judgment by ones peers as to what the likely value of a signal really was. At the end of a financial year, the tax take would be divided out in proportion to perceived value to the various registered parties. In this way, both Microsoft AND Linux would get their fair slice of the cake. Same for music composers. Even the music companies could get a fair slice if they really do provide good marketing and distribution of digital music signals. No need now for silly ineffective DRM and whatever. No more insane legal litigation. Sounds like a win-win-win situation to me. Linux development for example, would have more cash than it could ever possibly have dreamt of. I'm only partially joking!
Just a though really:
Can they really Sue? Can they prove People where actively listening to the radio playing? Does make for a counter argument perhaps: I may hear a lot of sound , but I choose what I listed to.
<cheesy-announcer-voice>
And next up, Rico here will be performing an oil change on your car!!! [Queue sweaty Rico covered in motor oil wearing only a thong, dancing to Spice Girls "Wannabe"]
Yeah, I'd totally sue them bastards.
WTF? Everyone who was listening to that broadcast were hearing the commercials as well - which means the content providers ARE getting paid. It MIGHT be different if they were playing their own personal music collection they purchased (or stole!) - but even that would be pushing it. It's not like they're selling tickets...geez. If a radio station is BROADCASTING - doesn't that mean it's a "public performance" generally speaking? Do we live in communism where we have no personal freedom? Should we not be allowed to listen to the radio while at work? This case stinks and it's becoming more and more clear to me that judges and politicians are easily bought and sold.
This means I can shop my next door neighbour.
He play music LOUD, and I can now shop him for breaking copyright by forcing me to listen to his public broadcast of copyrigh material. Can't wait.
Here's the FAQ
If they win, I propose to sue every visitor to the shoppe across the street which installs very loud and very large speaker systems in motor vehicles. I have to listen to the incessant non-stop thump of bass from 9am to 6pm every day. Since these are "public" performances and clearly illegal (lol) I will collect license plate information to turn over directly to the RIAA so that I can be a snitch and survive being sued myself for hearing the public performances.
I'm hoping to clear at least 1 million per incident for my snitching. I should be a billionaire by next Thursday!
-Kinsey
The Scottish car servicing company should counter-sue for putting copyrighted material on public airwaves. This problem would go away if the music industry had a free version of songs on the radio and a longer, richer version for sale.
I managed to, erm, "sell" a really nice house three times in the last six months. Of course in my case I didn't own the property and I did it all through a series of shell companies in the Cayman Islands, but, you know, the principle is the same...
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
All those radio waves in outer space traveling millions of miles away - we need to sue anyone who listens to them as well, right?? Unbelieveable. What about TV? My wife and I watch the same show on 1 TV - do we need to buy a second one and only watch our own TV??? What about cars?? Do we need to drive in separate cars to listen to separate radios in the cars?? Come on...
Stop by and watch a Christmas movie, commercial or cartoon! -->http://www.XmasDVD.com
Why is it possible to sue the shop when they were not charging people a fee to listen to the music in the first place? This is ludicrous.... can the guy with music blaring out of his headphones next to me on the subway be sued also? Should Ice cream truck owners be worried as well?
Seems to me Shakespeare was on the right track with his remark about Lawyers.
blah, blah, blah...
well, i guess in order to protect ourselves, we need to stay away from department stores and malls that play elevator music, or music over the intercom, because then we would be suspects in a copyright scandle that is taking over the world!
>Just a though really:
>Can they really Sue?
Of course they can "really sue." Anyone in the UK can bring any grievance to court for resolution.
The question you should be asking is, "can they really prevail?"
The answer is "no" and the judge in the article is saying as much, going no further than a judge may go in such a public statement.
He's merely ruling that the claims in the case (whatever they are -- we don't know all the details) are *possible*. That means very little.
Say, it's "possible" that the radio is a is a private FM transceiver hooked up to a P2P sharing hub...
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
This has been illegal in the USA for decades. Not sure how this is news. When I worked in fast food almost 20 years ago we purchased rights to play music for our customers. The place I work for now does it also. Today, we get it bounced from a satellite service.
http://www.xmradio.com/commercial/
How is this even possibly news? Might was well be a headline "Get married, go to jail?" With the guts of the story actually being a hillbilly in Arkansas didn't realize marrying your cousin was illegal and went to jail for filing a false marriage license.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The PRS wins.
Radios are banned.
Price of Walkman/iPod/etc goes through the roof.
Steve Jobs becomes Emperor.
World cataclysm is imminent, but the emergency broadcast system has been rendered obsolete to billions of peasants.
The Earth is sent back to the stone age.
Man discovers fire...
Repeat ad nauseum.
Given the music typically played in garages, do you count the customers desperately holding their hands over their ears to avoid it as part of the audience? Or the ones with their heads fully submerged in the fishtank?
hawk, who needs to know
The "Mouse"? The "SpiderTwat"? Lost me there completely. I have no idea what those are supposed to be.
Surely it's possible to express your disrespect in some more coherent way.
Similarly, here in Massachusetts, the state legislature recently passed a law requiring every resident to have health insurance. If you don't have health insurance, you will be fined an amount comparable to the lowest-price policy that's available.
So far, I've heard no discussion at all about whether this is legal, or what's likely to happen to prices. This does have a strong resemblance to that French law requiring that everyone buy salt from the state monopoly.
I've read of a number of similar cases in other countries, but I don't remember the details.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Thank goodness that our societies have by now progressed beyond such a primitive, exploitative, extortionate, stage.
Otherwise, just imagine what sort of subservient dependence could be wrought using... oil. Or food. Or critical medicine.
Or (*gasp*) _Tea_ !
I know that I'm a little late to the table in posting here but.....
When the music was playing to the people in said public place, were not the commercials heard alongside the music?
Is there no consideration for ad exposure in the equation?
Huh?
The next step is to identify everyone within earshot, and hit them with an audience tax. After all, they heard it. Therefore, they must pay. It matters not whether they wanted to hear. They heard. Open that wallet and pay up.
Business is bad for the labels and fee collection agencies. It's getting worse. Things like this will have radio stations losing audience share because radios will be turned off. Music sales will be hurt because fewer people are hearing it, so they don't look for it at the stores.
Business for the labels gets even worse. They are digging their own graves, preparing for the day when they finally succeed in cutting their own throats.
They are succeeding in convincing everyone to turn off the music.
Except that there is no state monopoly.
Oh FFS, this is what radio is for. That's got to be the ultimate definition of vexatious litgation!
:-/
The radio industry spends money on demographic studies to reliably estimate their audience size, then pay royalties to the record labels based on that audience and the songs played. (...and in the case of commercial radio, sometimes the amount of ad revenue gets factored into rights returns, too.)
This case is as stupid as litigation gets, and I suspect even the lawyers don't understand how the law works anymore
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
Aside from the colonialist arrogance that sparked the US revolution
and others internally, the notion of expecting a garage to pay for a
Performing Rights Society license as though it was a dancehall or pub
or concert arena is about as stupid as telling dogs and cats to:
register, pay for, collect and attach their own pet licenses.
The good news is Kwik Fit is a nationally franchised chain with the
financial, and therefore legal, clout to slam PRS up against the wall and
into a dust bin where they belong or under the rock from whence
they slithered.
RR
As taxies are driven a lot, they change the cars every couple of years. And how many new cars you can actually buy without a radio? I know you can buy a Porsche or another sportscar without radio, but I don't think it's even possible to buy Mercedes or Volvo (the most popular with taxi companies) without one.
<trying hard and failing to be ironic> Personally, when I want to hear the latest hits on radio, I always take a taxi! I just get in and tell the driver to drive around the block until I've heared the latest hits. - It's not like I would need a taxi to take me somewhere... </trying hard and failing to be ironic>
If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
The Life is out there...
In best Slashdot style, I haven't RTFA because I don't think that I need to.
It has long been established that playing juke boxes in pubs, or having the telly blaring with news, music or sport constitutes a "public performance" and therefore attracts additional copyright licensing fees. I've even seen people form the PRS coming into pubs and checking their documentation - IIRC on 2 out of the 3 occasions the pub as in compliance and in the third one the landlord's response was to turn the telly off and that the PRS guy could go and fuck himself. 5 minutes after the PRS man had left (and was being shadowed by one of the customers to make sure that he wasn't coming back) the telly was back on.
A typical pub would be one or several dozen punters.
Similarly, for years I've been noticing phrases like "... this DVD is not for public performance, broadcast, presentation in hotels, prisons or oil rigs
Typical audiences on the rigs would be a few dozen or less people.
Having the radio playing where a dozen or fewer customers could hear it isn't even a significant extension of what is already banned.
IANAL, but I'd expect that the case would hinge on whether the radio was in control of the grease monkeys (who were playing it for their own entertainment) or in the control of the management (who were playing it as an inducement to customers). If it's the latter, and the PRS can prove it, then the PRS have got them bang to rights.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Except that there is no state monopoly.
Well, maybe not. But if N businesses get together and "persuade" the
lawmakers to pass a law requiring that all citizens must buy a product
from one of those N businesses, the fact that it's not a monopoly
might not make everyone happy with the law.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.