Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Singer In Grocery Store Ordered To Pay Royalties

Posted by samzenpus on from the silence-is-golden dept.

yog writes "An assistant at a grocery store in Clackmannanshire, Scotland, was ordered by the Performing Right Society (PRS) to obtain a performer's license and to pay royalties because she was informally singing popular songs while stocking groceries. The PRS later backed down and apologized. This after the same store had turned off the radio after a warning from the PRS. We have entered an era where music is no longer an art for all to enjoy, but rather a form of private property that must be regulated and taxed like alcohol. 'Music to the ears' has become 'dollars in the bank'."

33 of 645 comments (clear)

  1. What's next? by adeydas · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's next? Concise Oxford charging for words explained in the dictionary?

    1. Re:What's next? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, but whoever publishes it owes songwriters around the world shitloads of royalties for including words from their songs...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:What's next? by reashlin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I admit I'd like to know more about the case - I've not found anywhere detailing what she was singing. But in this case your argument is flawed.

      The woman had already had her radio taken away as the shop did not have a license to broadcast either CDs (which they had paid for) or Radio (which is already paid for - either by the BBCs 'cat all television license' or by advertising). This form of double payment is incredulous at best, in cases such as these where a claim is being made the business should pay extra to act as a proxy for a service designed to increase add revenue to the industry (Why is the music industry not paying private businesses to play the music in promotion?).

      With nothing else to listen too the woman would sing while stacking the shelves. How is that going to encourage business in a local corner shop. I have no doubt she is an aweful singer. Second to that, how is this costing the music industry anything? What losses are they claiming back?

    3. Re:What's next? by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was going to say "bollocks to that", but I'd probably have to pay royalties to the Sex Pistols.

    4. Re:What's next? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's obvious that the big distributors are following Microsoft's strategy. Get popular and crush the competition, then extract money from whoever has big pockets.

      I think you'll find that has been the music industry M.O. for as long as there has been a recording industry. MS is the relative newb when it comes to such behavior.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  2. Totally, irrevocably, utterly batshit insane by rekenner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what this is.
    The idea that fining someone for singing to themself while they work. The idea that this could be in any way the right course of action.
    There's no other words/term for it.

    1. Re:Totally, irrevocably, utterly batshit insane by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Funny

      The answer is yes. Soon everyone must wear brain scanners to make sure that every song you hear in your head is paid for. Also, if you inadvertently hear a song whether it's in a dream or from someone else's radio, the brain scanner will pick that up too and you must pay for that too. If you're pregnant, you must pay for each fetus. The deaf will be fitted with a recording devices so that they can pay for the songs they would have heard if they weren't deaf. If you die, you are required to pay for all the songs you hear in the afterlife with your remaining assets.

    2. Re:Totally, irrevocably, utterly batshit insane by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. This is completely insane. That is why we all need to stop giving money to these people (I will talk specifically about the RIAA in this post but I am speaking more generally about the big nameless, faceless entertainment cartels worldwide). After I got a nice little letter from the RIAA a few years back, I figured I would heed their warning and stop downloading music illegally (I have no moral objection to such activities as they provably cause no harm, but I don't want to get sued either), but I also decided that they don't need any of my money anymore (I was buying between 2 and 5 CDs EACH WEEK from RIAA musicians before, go figure), and decided that I am going to take my music dollars elsewhere. Not only have I been able to avoid giving money to these Nazis, I have discovered that the music being put out by indie labels is infinitely better! You get music that is created by artists who care about their music, rather than their profit margins. This is the only way we can fight this shit -- take your money elsewhere. Vote with your wallet. Don't even share this shit online for free -- that gives them a scapegoat. Dry their profit margins up and make it clear that they have no one to blame but themselves. That is the only way to stop this insanity.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  3. Re:What the...... by Kethinov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, it has to be said - this capitalism is getting out of hand. People are getting stupid.

    Capitalism? Copyright is a form of government regulation on what would otherwise be a free market. It would be more capitalist to abolish copyright.

    (Disclaimer: I do not want to abolish copyright.)

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  4. Re:It's sad... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It already has. It's called rent seeking, and there's no shortage of examples. Certainly, overzealous copyright enforcement, patent trolling, and the like are examples we commonly see here, but they're by no means the only ones. Look at the ISPs that have crushed proposed municipal wifi plans before they could even get started, by bribing^Wencouraging lawmakers to pass laws against it the moment it was proposed. Another example is the desire of ISPs to charge for "all you can eat" plans while then throttling what you can actually do with them. That's the same type of behavior we're seeing here.

    There are plenty of examples outside the tech sector as well. We had an article a few days ago about predatory student loan practices, and that's been studied quite a bit already. Telecom/cable companies' frequent monopoly/duopoly structure in most areas. The inability to become certified in many areas without a college degree even if you can prove your competence (benefitting, of course, colleges). The list goes on and on.

    I'm not honestly sure that's not a consequence of trying to apply capitalism to a resource (information) which is naturally not scarce, and can only be made so through draconian rules and enforcement. With computers, it's not difficult at all to perfectly and quickly replicate most types of information, there's no real scarcity of it at all, only artificial, legally enforced scarcity. If I were in the business of selling nothing dressed up as something, and the only way people paid me was when they were forced to, I guess I might be tempted to overuse force too.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  5. The radio makes senes, but not the singer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which makes it a tool of commerce. Songwriters are the ones who get compensated for this, and rightfully so: people are using the fruits of their labor (music) to help sell merchandise. The supermarket is a business, and licensing the music is part of the cost of doing business. It has been this way for many, many years; we are not entering a new age of PRS thuggery. Without due diligence on this and other fronts, professional songwriters (who are not, by the by, a particularly wealthy lot) would not have an income. And please don't make the claim that songwriters get paid for years for 5 minutes of work, because they write far more songs that get rejected or fail commercially than are successful. It's a job, and not an easy one.

    As for the woman being asked to get a license, yes, that is absurd. Probably the representative of the PRS who made the request was new and overeager to please his or her boss, or was maybe just a douchebag. Who knows. It was a truly boneheaded maneuver.

    Full disclosure: I'm a songwriter and a member of a PRS. The money I make a year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner. Without someone looking out for my interests, I'd make nothing.

    1. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which makes it a tool of commerce.

      Sounded to me like they'd use a radio in the back that just happened to be in earshot of the front. This is opposed to the full speaker array across the store that keeps the place from being too quiet.

      That's more akin to being charged a performance licence for your car radio while your windows are rolled down.

    2. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Informative

      The thing is, the songwriters have already been paid - by the radio station. If it's BBC radio, we've already paid for that music out of our annual licence fee, or it's a commercial station with adverts. Every person in that store has the right to listen to that station already as the broadcast fees have already been paid.

      Now that it's suddenly being able to be listened to while on a store premises, it's a 'new' public performance and more money needs to be paid. It's double dipping for the same performance.

      You want to charge stores that play personal CDs through to customers? Fine. But leave my goddamn radio at my desk alone.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    3. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've worked in the past as a musician and songwriter, and I was in radio for most of a decade. I am a published author and editor, and currently make my living as a writer.

      And I say this is utter horseshit.

      People do not go to grocery stores to hear Muzak. They go there to buy food.

      The radio stations and music services already pay royalties in any case, and places that play recorded music in-house have already paid for those recordings. And that's where it should end.

      To take your model to its logical conclusion is to suggest that, because I can hear some kid's iPod on the train because he's got it cranked up loud enough to turn his brains into jelly, either he or I should pay royalties, which is preposterous. You may claim otherwise, but this is *exactly* where it leads.

      Next, you'll be telling me I should pay a performance fee whenever I read to my daughter from a copyrighted book.

      Disclaimer: 'Muzak' and 'iPod' are registered trademarks of their respective owners, and they are completely welcome to them.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by s-whs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket
      > to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they
      > use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which
      > makes it a tool of commerce.

      Yes, and so is the building itself, the paint to make the walls look nice, and much more.

      Should the builders, paint manufacturers, etc. get 'royalties' because you use their products commercially?

      I don't think so. So "used as a tool of commerce" is just not a valid argument.

      Just as with the building/paint/what's in the building, the radio has already been paid for. Via tax (as in NL) and/or the radio stations which pay to transmit. Everyone can freely listen to the radio privately, so why should anyone have to pay to use it in a store?

    5. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by kramerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Back in college, I worked in a restaurant where initially we played the radio in the kitchen for employees during slow hours. At some point, we received a warning letter, so we got rid of the radio, which only employees could hear, and replaced it with a speaker system that played throughout the restaurant. We then changed the policy so that only cds brought in by employees could be played over the speakers. As far as I know (havent worked there in 3 years), they still don't pay anything for doing so.

    6. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The money I make a year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner. Without someone looking out for my interests, I'd make nothing.

      Let me repeat myself from other posts I've made in the past: the fact that you write stuff down on a piece of paper and send it to somebody does not entitle you to a check. Since this is a tech site, I'll compare this to writing software: just because you wrote some software doesn't mean that you're entitled to receive money. I don't care what the size is of the check is. Software writers are at least ahead of the curve and trying various methods to entice people to pay them directly. What I see from song writers instead is "I wrote some stuff that's used somewhere, pay me forever. And I deserve to be paid enough to not have to do anything else."

      To that I can only say one thing: fuck off. I write a ton of crap. Some of it is good, some of it isn't, but I know it makes a difference. Some of it is specific to the situation and the client, some of it is generic and useful to everyone in the field. I do not expect to get paid in perpetuity for my writing, and I don't expect some third party entity to hunt down documents that kinda look like mine, or people who have something that looks like my document without proof they paid for it.

      That's how it ought to be. You do work, you get paid. Wanna get paid again? Do more work. Which, by the way, is how art used to be compensated. And plenty of awesome work was created through that system - work that is arguably better than about 99.99% of the crap that came out in the last 10 years, when copyright enforcement truly started to get nuts.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by Oneiris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a musician too (albeit not a professional one), and I think it ludicrous to expect to be paid in perpetuity for one piece of work created. As many others have replied, music on the radio is already licensed and songwriters/producers/artists are already compensated by their various royalty collection bodies.

      If you're not getting enough money from your work, find another job. As a software engineer, I'm not paid every time code I wrote 2 years ago is used. Builders aren't paid every time a building they've worked on is sold or let. The current practice of rewarding artists every time their music is played is unsustainable, and more and more people are becoming aware of this fact.

    8. Re:The radio makes senes, but not the singer by SilentMobius · · Score: 5, Informative

      ASCAP are trying to push just that sort or nonsense. Thankfully they got a bloody nose trying it, but it's indicative of the way they think:

      http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/court-rules-phones-ringing-public-dont-infringe-co

      --
      Loop, twist and loop again.
  6. bastards!! by Tomfrh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just for this, I'm gonna download TWICE as many mp3 tonight to show those corporate FAT CATS they can't push around the little guy!

    1. Re:bastards!! by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't forget to delete the songs so you can download them again. Each pirated song is worth $80000, and piracy is stealing, so download enough and you can bankrupt these guys once and for all!

      --
      My webcomic
  7. The company apologized by thomasinx · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, she was ordered to pay royalties. However, shortly afterward, the company sent her flowers, and issued a formal apology (ie, they realized they went *way* too far).

    and I quote the article...
    "In a note attached to a large bouquet of flowers they said: "We're very sorry we made a big mistake. We hear you have a lovely singing voice and we wish you good luck." "

    1. Re:The company apologized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The company didn't realize anything. They were cowed into submission by an understandably outraged public.

    2. Re:The company apologized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are testing the waters.

    3. Re:The company apologized by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the "idiot" is a license salesman paid on commission. S/he has no interest in the rights and wrongs beyond selling as many licenses as possible in order to maximise his/her commission.

      What's gone wrong here is pretty similar with what went wrong with traffic wardens (parking regulation enforcement officers) in the UK. At one time they were employed by the state on salary. And they'd see it as their duty to keep traffic moving. And if they saw someone about to park in the wrong place, they would go and warn them. Now, they are outsourced, and paid on commission by the number of parking tickets issued. So now they act as huntsmen, hiding themselves around the corner from where they know people tend to park illegally, and jumping out to claim a scalp as often as they can. On occasion lying about the offence in order to issue a ticket where none should have been issued.

      People in quazi-official enforcement roles should be seen as impartial appliers of rules and regulations. They should never be paid on commission. That's what's gone wrong here.

  8. I'm just waiting for... by TeethWhitener · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the estate of John Cage to sue everyone all the time for unlicensed performance of 4'33"

    1. Re:I'm just waiting for... by mickwd · · Score: 5, Informative

      You got moderated funny.

      Read the appalling truth.

  9. Re:Silver lining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    when you're happy and you know it, xenu hates you.
    when you're happy and you know it, xenu hates you.
    when you're happy and you know it, and you really want to show it, xenu hates you.

    In all fairness, I should probably be forced to pay people royalties to people who hear my lyrics...

  10. Aweful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You meant "awful", not "aweful". I suppose the problem was that you didn't want to pay Concise Oxford?

    1. Re:Aweful? by noisyinstrument · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was just trying to avoid paying Oxford University Press by using a free alternative.

  11. It's amazing what people accept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To people outside the UK, charging you for playing the radio makes no damn sense. After all, the radio station already pays for the music (if it's a standard broadcast) or *you* already pay for the music if it's satellite or CD.

    The only reason people like the OP can rationalize the PRS is because they're looking at it through the lens of a culture in which it's the status quo. You see this all the time - people rationalizing or even praising elements of their particular culture that MAKE NO GODDAMN SENSE. I'm not sure whether it's done out of a sort of misplaced nationalism, a lack of imagination, or something else. But it's the only explanation I can think of for the defense of the indefensible, whether it's the PRS, the American health care system, or any other country's unique psychosis.

    The irony is that for the vast majority of musicians in the UK, the burden the PRS puts on people is vastly disproportionate to the benefit received. Again, take the original poster - would s/he give up that one dinner a year in order to save business owners the incredible hassle of dealing with the PRS? Not to mention the massive amount of money the PRS must spend on enforcement, which reduces the artists' cut. If the PRS moved to a system where royalties for recording sales and broadcast were higher, and eliminated the tax on playing music in public, how much more profitable would they be?

  12. Re:It's sad... by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're vastly overcompensating for lost revenues.

    Too right, how many people would say "I was going to buy that music but now I can just go and listen to the guy stacking shelves in the grocery store to sing it instead"?

  13. Japan: been there, done that by oheso · · Score: 5, Informative

    A bar owner in Japan was ordered to pay royalties for playing the harmonica for his customers. As far as I know, the decision has stuck.

    http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2006/11/10/elderly-harmoni.html