Canadian Copyright Board To Charge For Music At Weddings, Parades

silentbrad writes "The CBC reports, 'Money can't buy love — but if you want some great tunes playing at your wedding, it's going to cost you. The Copyright Board of Canada has certified new tariffs that apply to recorded music used at live events including conventions, karaoke bars, ice shows, fairs and, yes, weddings. The fees will be collected by a not-for-profit called Re:Sound. While the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (otherwise known as SOCAN) already collects money from many of these events for the songwriters, Re:Sound will represent the record labels and performers who contributed to the music. .. For weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows, the fee is $9.25 per day if fewer than 100 people are present and goes up to $39.33 for crowds of more than 500 people. If there's dancing, the fees double. Karaoke bars will pay between $86.06 and $124 annually depending on how many days per week they permit the amateur crooning. And parades, meanwhile, will be charged $4.39 for each float with recorded music participating in the parade, subject to a minimum fee of $32.55 per day.'"

Comments

When you can't innovate

[ttimes]

... then you create a legal scam to charge for everything else. Let's not congratulate this by being silent.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

Re:When you can't innovate

[BronsCon]

Right, I'll get my checkbook, you set up the sound system, and we'll have Soulskill bring his CD collection over.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

I believe that is called "lobbying".

Re:When you can't innovate

[jdgeorge]

Hmmm.... I wonder if the major effect of this will be for people to use more live musicians instead of recorded music.

Re:When you can't innovate

[MickyTheIdiot]

**BUZZ**

We're sorry... your post makes the following common error...

The assumption that paying a record company equals paying an musical artist.

We realize that these common errors are are ingrained into the minds of society, but due to our allergy to bullshit we are compelled to point out the fallacy. Have a good day!

Re:When you can't innovate

[Joce640k]

"You, over there! Stop bobbing your head in time to the music, we haven't paid for head bobbing!"

Re:When you can't innovate

[MickyTheIdiot]

Toe tapping: 1.2x normal fee.

Re:When you can't innovate

[mr1911]

Let's not congratulate this by being silent.

The laws were enacted by elected legislators. You deserve what you tolerate.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Sunshinerat]

I agree, but we must stay away from dancing or else the fees will double.

Why would it be more expensive to listen to a song by an artist when the listeners start moving their behinds to the beat?
And at what point are people dancing? Can that be defined clearly?

Re:When you can't innovate

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a scam is to expect someone to *work*, creating a product you want and then get all snooty when they ask you to pay them for it.

It's not our responsibility to ensure they make money. Going by your logic, it would be perfectly reasonable to make someone pay if they let their friends listen to a CD, and other such nonsense, simply because people supposedly aren't buying their CD. The ends don't justify the means.

They're not innovating by propping up a failing business model.

Re:When you can't innovate

[HornWumpus]

When the Baptist start to complain.

Re:When you can't innovate

[sunwukong]

How many toes do you have?

Also, any discount for diabetic amputees?

Re:When you can't innovate

[Joce640k]

Let's hope nobody invited Jim Carrey...

Re:When you can't innovate

[deathlyslow]

What's a scam is to expect someone to *work*, creating a product you want and then get all snooty when they ask you to pay them for it. And $10 is very reasonable.

Ok then. I helped my brother with his HVAC company for a few days while on vacation from my regular gig. It was a big hotel job 6 floors etc. So by your logic I should be paid each time the AC or the heat is used anywhere in that building? Right, that doesn't make any sense either. You were paid same as I was when you did the work. You're done, you want more money make more music/art/whatever the public will buy and stop whining about it.

Re:When you can't innovate

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Shove your 'work' up your ass - don't want it. don't need it. Troll

Re:When you can't innovate

[MickyTheIdiot]

Just make sure no one is playing a boombox and no one is dancing at the riot. If that happens they will charge you 1.5x normal fee.

Re:When you can't innovate

[tqk]

When you can't innovate you create a legal scam to charge for everything else.

They also create a golden opportunity for previously unknown, unsigned bands. Throw it back in their face.

"Play our music for free and get us publicity."

"Good idea!"

Re:When you can't innovate

[kylemonger]

Most of the people here aren't making their money off intellectual property, they are creating code for someone else, or running systems. Other than being cleaner at the end of the day, it's not much different than turning wrenches or dragging cable.

But that is besides the point. We object to being screwed because we are in fact being screwed. Once music has been purchased, charging us again for every little thing we might want to do with it is sticking your wallet where it doesn't belong.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Githaron]

The dress maker expects to get paid. The caterer expects to get paid. The photographer expects to get paid. The bartender expects to get paid. The band expects to get paid. The DJ expects to get paid. And why shouldn't they? They are all working and using skills they have spent years and decades training in. They have overhead, they have expenses, they have employees... music isn't free to make. Even a simple indie album will often cost about $8k-10k on the low end to produce and that ignores everyone's time and energy to write, rehearse and perform.

First off, assuming the music was legally purchased, they did get paid for their music. It is not like people are handing out the CDs or MP3s at the parties so that everyone can listen to them at their leisure. They are broadcasting the audio over a very limited area and the music must be listened to at that moment.

Second, if you noticed everyone you just listed is performing a service once and getting paid once. If they want to get paid a second time, they have to perform the service a second time. I just checked Canada's copyright length. It is life plus 50 years. What non-intellectual property based job do you know of in which a person can perform a service once not only get paid for their whole life but also most of their children's lives? Why should artists get special treatment? I understand that there are costs to recording music but not 150 years worth. 5 to 10 years from the publication date would be more than reasonable. If you can't make any money in that amount of time, you need to go into another business.

Lastly, as others have mentioned. With the exception of indie music where the artists use their own funds and do everything themselves, very little of the money from copyright actually gets to the artists.

Re:When you can't innovate

[CubicleZombie]

I already purchased a license to use your product for personal non-commercial use when I bought your CD. A wedding is personal use. Doesn't matter how many people are there or what they're doing.

If the DJ is supplying the music, then take it up with the DJ. Not my problem.

Re:When you can't innovate

[zlives]

and is dancing the only activity that causes the fee to double... what if you are taking a dump...

Re:When you can't innovate

[Thud457]

... then you create a legal scam to charge for everything else. Let's not congratulate this by being silent.

© John Cage

Re:When you can't innovate

[gtall]

No, taking a dump doesn't count...unless you insist on dancing during the operation. Then the Dance Police will know about it. They are everywhere you know. And if you sing while doing this too, well, fees could be doubled. And if you have a parade float in there during the operation, well...you don't want to know what they'll do to you then.

Re:When you can't innovate

[gtall]

You gave me an idea for a new startup company: Brain Music Toll Booths. We get this brain implant, see, and put it in the brain part that enjoys music. It tabulates how much you owe as you listen. Periodically, say, driving around the city, we have these chip readers like the EZ-PASS on the NYS Thruway. It automatically siphons the correct amount out of your bank account. Have no bank account? The device causes you to hear only white noise. We can test it out on Dr. Cyborg that theRegister used to feature, he'll try anything cyber.

Re:When you can't innovate

[skovnymfe]

I wonder if it's possible to copyright a protest speech or letter. Anyone wishing to use said protest speech or letter in the future will have to pay big bucks for as long as copyright stays alive. Didn't the Luther-Kings do this with the "I have a dream" speech?

Re:When you can't innovate

[mooingyak]

What non-intellectual property based job do you know of in which a person can perform a service once not only get paid for their whole life but also most of their children's lives?

Nit: You actually understate it. Life + 50 means that anything I create in my lifetime is likely to still be under copyright when my children die, and will still be so as my grandchildren enter their old age. Assume a life expectancy of 70 years (and that's putting it on the low side). I had my youngest child when I turned 30. Assuming she has a kid at 30, that means I'm 60. So my grandchild is 10 years old when I die, and the copyright lasts until that kid is 60. Not to mention that I'm in the US where the term is Life + 70, which would mean that the copyright is still valid when my *grandchildren* die.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Scarred Intellect]

Awesome! So does that mean I get a monthly kickback on all the apartments I've helped build? Or the million gallon anaerobic treatment tank? Or the roads?

Since those were numerous years ago, I expect a nice fat check any day! Yippee!!!

If my friend sells a jar of honey to someone, do they have to pay him for every bite they share? Or how about if they use it in a recipe of their own and sell that? Where's his kickback? I mean, it's only fair if musicians can do it, right?

On a serious note, though; retirement is sort of exactly this...and by "sort of" I mean "could be used to argue the point by idiots."

Re:When you can't innovate

[sa666_666]

Well of course if you dance, you're getting more enjoyment from the music. And if you enjoy it more, you should pay more.

Re:When you can't innovate

[mcgrew]

You remind me of an old joke.

Q: Why won't Baptists have sex standing up?

A: They're afraid someone will see them and think they're dancing!

Re:When you can't innovate

[Joce640k]

If this law goes ahead he could bankrupt you in about half an hour.

Re:When you can't innovate

[mcgrew]

When I buy your CD I've already paid you, you greedy goddamned pig. I shouldn't have to pay you AGAIN to play the fucking CD I paid for! And like all pigs, your greed blinds you to the fact that if I play your CD at a wedding, there are people there who may hear it, like it, and buy their own copy. Fucking moron.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Nidi62]

"You, over there! Stop bobbing your head in time to the music, we haven't paid for head bobbing!"

So never play "What is love" then?

Re:When you can't innovate

[dargon]

Incase you don't realize, next to none of this money will go to the artists. This is the Copyright Board of Canada doing this, the same group of people that demand huge amounts of $$$ from colleges and universitys in Canada because a student MIGHT want to photocopy an article from a book so they can do a report. Their mandate according to their website
---
The Board is an economic regulatory body empowered to establish, either mandatorily or at the request of an interested party, the royalties to be paid for the use of copyrighted works, when the administration of such copyright is entrusted to a collective-administration society. The Board also has the right to supervise agreements between users and licensing bodies and issues licences when the copyright owner cannot be located.
---
So even if they don't know who the owner of something is or can't reach them (ie they're work in the journal / book / magazine / etc was anonymous), they're still going to charge you. Guess who gets that money, not the artist / creator.

Re:When you can't innovate

[dargon]

BTW, would you be willing to pay a few cents to read a book that you own to your kids before bed? IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING!

Re:When you can't innovate

[Attila Dimedici]

The dress maker expects to get paid.

But they don't expect to get paid for every person who sees the dress, every time the woman wears the dress.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Adriax]

They will decree that using an amplifier is an act of recording the music, and therefor is subject to this.
And the people using live performance without amplification are obviously trying to circumvent this, and therefor copyright law. So those terrorists will go straight to jail.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty clear you could establish copyright to the hum of the fans and whooshing sound of the air

Re:When you can't innovate

[Matheus]

I am Heavily involved in the music biz. A vast majority of my friends weddings have live bands instead of recorded music already.

As an experiment tho I'd love to do the following: Have a wedding DJ that plays entirely my friends' music. See if the Re:sound people try to get their cut and then have them arrested for trying to extort money they have no right to. :-)

As it is I don't live in Canada but as it is with ASCAP here: There are a lot of venues that choose not to pay the yearly ASCAP fees. Some of them take pride in this and make a big deal of telling their artists that the music has to be 100% original as covers are 'illegal'. I don't think I'd be happy if all of the venues were like that ( I like filling out a set with some tasty covers ) but I really like what these places stand for.

Re:When you can't innovate

[frostfreek]

Don't forget to double the fees if the bride dances in the dress.

Re:When you can't innovate

[dimeglio]

In the overall cost of a wedding, I'm not seeing prince being an issue. It will not even be seen by the hosts as the DJ/Orcherstra/Band will included it in their price. In fact, I thought they were already collecting a fee for "performance."

Re:When you can't innovate

[coastal984]

Playing a music CD as a paid DJ is not personal use. It is professional use. You are making money using the product you bought. Now, if it was the brides cousin sticking a CD in and playing it for the reception, I would agree with you, that's "personal". But playing a CD as a paid DJ at an event is definitely NOT personal use.

I would imagine they should make DJ's pay more for songs that come with a license to play in venues for the paying customers. (They may do this, I don't know).

Re:When you can't innovate

[sa666_666]

In case it's not blindingly obvious, I'm being sarcastic here.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Jason Levine]

We've got to extend this. Artists won't have an incentive to create new works if royalties from said works don't pay their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren!

(Sadly, if a RIAA exec read this and had Mod points, he'd rate it +1 Insightful.)

Re:When you can't innovate

[zlives]

damn those floaters...

Re:When you can't innovate

[lymond01]

Apparently we still need the middle-men between artists and the listening community. Radio, CDs, internet -- all those come from high quality recordings made by, you guessed it, the recording agencies. They have people to scout the artists, people to train the artists, people to record the music, people to market the music, people to run around the stores (brick, radio, or internet) and work deals to fill the "shelves" appropriately with the music, set up concerts, etc. The recording industry is why you have rich musicians, period. I'm pretty ambivalent about the wealth of anyone but myself, but any musician you hear on the radio has stood on the shoulders of a giant industry to get there. You can be a great musician anywhere, anytime. To be a well-paid musician, great or not, that's the trick.

All the interesting info about what percentage the artist gets and all the ways the RIAA tries to make people's lives difficult for the sake of money is another story. I'm in complete agreement musicians need a sponsor with more saavy. The internet has done wonders for artists and will continue to do so.

Re:When you can't innovate

[closer2it]

Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

I believe that is called "lobbying".

Or "bribing". Depends on the country, thought.

Re:When you can't innovate

[blueskies]

bq. the music has to be 100% original as covers are 'illegal'.

That's only if the performer hasn't licensed the cover on their own. They guy from One Man Star Wars ,for example, licenses from the Star Wars franchise (not music but a performance).

Re:When you can't innovate

[blueskies]

Are you telling me the people playing the music somehow got music for free? How does the music cost you more to make as soon as i play it at a wedding?

Re:When you can't innovate

[Githaron]

Well of course if you dance, you're getting more enjoyment from the music. And if you enjoy it more, you should pay more.

By that logic, artists should owe me money if I hear their music and it annoys me ... Anyone got Justin Beiber's number?

Re:When you can't innovate

[Githaron]

Artists get special legal and financial treatment because the creation of artistic works is perhaps the highest expression of what is means to be human. Putting it another way a musical work might very well be played and loved long after the dancers at a particular wedding have turned to dust.

Art might be the most easily viewed form of human expression but I wouldn't call it the "highest" form of human expression. Even if it was, I still don't see why they should get special treatment.

Re:When you can't innovate

[chrismcb]

FTS:

For weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows, the fee is $9.25 per day if fewer than 100 people

So no, the major effect of this will be for the DJ to charge $10 more.

Re:When you can't innovate

[chrismcb]

I don't quite understand the argument of "the artist should only get paid once." For one thing, what does this really mean? If the artist performs at an arena, should only ONE guest pay, and everyone else get in free? Should the artist only make a certain amount of money, no matter how large the arena is, or how many people attend?
For that matter, if I write some software and sell it to one person, and then make a couple of minor changes, am I only allowed to sell it to the second person for only a minor amount?
So what if the creator gets paid multiple times? Or perhaps you are just jealous?
The issue here isn't so much the artist is getting paid for not doing anything, but that the DJ is. You say an artist should only get paid when they perform, so does that mean you don't think they should release CDs and iTunes, or allow their song on the radio? Because that is what you are advocating.
What is the artist sells his CD. Then decides to go on a tour. And someone pays $16.99 for the CD, sets up a performance outside the arena and charges admission. Is that acceptable?

Re:When you can't innovate

[davester666]

Payouts to performers have yet to be decided upon. Meetings on this are scheduled for the third Wednesday of Never.

Re:When you can't innovate

[DarwinSurvivor]

Well sometimes at least their props are innovative!

Re:When you can't innovate

[Kalriath]

That's not actually entirely true. Like SoundExchange in the USA, Re:Sound can collect money from you even for playing entirely original tracks, which you then have to claw back as the artist - minus actual collection and distribution costs, of course. The exception is if you actually perform it live. In that case, Re:Sound can't get a cent, even if you're playing Britney Spears songs (since you're paying SOCAN for the composer's rights, and you are the performer).

Re:When you can't innovate

[Kalriath]

Ah, but here's where it gets shit.

Make a CD yourself. Take it to a venue. Play said CD. Believe it or not, if you're in the US or Canada you'll get hit up by SoundExchange or Re:Sound to pay fees for playing music in public. If you point out that you are the holder of the copyright in question, they'll rightfully* point out that this is irrelevant, and you have to pay anyway. You then have to request your money back from them, which will be minus collection and distribution costs.

* in the sense that this is what the law says, not that it even resembles morally right.

Re:When you can't innovate

[Kalriath]

The word you're looking for is "pyramid scheme". Your payments are funding the retirement of rich baby boomers, not yours. And now that the baby boomers are retiring, they're pulling the ladder behind them to ensure you don't get to use it. Keep watch of your local law changes. I bet there's lots of push to "raise the age of retirement" and shit like that...

Re:When you can't innovate

[Kalriath]

Actually no. The law says a private company by the name of Re:Sound collects the royalties, and hands the money (minus "collection" and "distribution" costs of course) to the original performer of the tracks. The board simply supervises the licensing arrangement between "every man and his dog" and Re:Sound. It's identical to the shitty arrangement with SoundExchange in the USA.

Canada... it's like a country...

[gavron]

We can't expect Canadians to have the same freedoms we in the US have.

Freedom to arrest Kim DotCom in New Zealand with no evidence.

Freedom to fine Jamie Thomas millions of dollars.

Freedom to let the MAFIAA do whatever they like.

Welcome to the family, brother Canada,

E

Dancing?

[AkaKaryuu]

I would like to know if they will have representatives to ensure dancing does not occur. What if the event planner specifially states dancing is forbidden and the intoxicated guests ignore their plea? Is there a charge to sing along, tap your foot or air guitar that sick solo?

Re:Dancing?

[trimpnick]

No, they'll probably tack on those fees by supposing you'll dance at a wedding party. There will be no burden of proof with this, not unlike the levy on blank media

Re:Dancing?

[BronsCon]

dancing is forbidden

Looks like ATHF saw this coming?

Re:Dancing?

[a90Tj2P7]

I would like to know if they will have representatives to ensure dancing does not occur.

The career placement team at Geneva College is very excited about this prospect.

Re:Dancing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question mark is key here... as in "You call THAT dancing!".

Everyone knows white people can't dance - and Canadians are even whiter! They should get money back!

Re:Dancing?

[warren.oates]

Reminds me of the old joke: Why don't Canadians fuck standing up? Because god might think they're dancing.

Re:Dancing?

[Dexter Herbivore]

What gets me, is what right do they have to charge for dancing? They're theoretically charging for the performance of the music, understandable... but what the hell does dancing have to do with anything?

Re:Dancing?

[kanto]

There'll probably just be a fatwa Pakistani style.

Re:Dancing?

[paiute]

Canadian Baptists do not have sex standing up. It might lead to dancing.

Re:Dancing?

[sunwukong]

My bad -- someone saw me dance and word got back to SOCAN how I was hurting music sales.

Re:Dancing?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Rather is is always doggy style, since both parties want to keep watching the hockey game.

Re:Dancing?

[HornWumpus]

That makes no sense. The joke was about Baptists.

God isn't in the business of collecting license fees. Granted she's not in the business of preventing dancing (except for techno 'music' that crap is from the devil).

Re:Dancing?

[interval1066]

I heard something about a new agency called the "Dance Enforcement Agency" around parliment today. Dismissed it, sounded too absurd....

Re:Dancing?

[flatt]

For all of the terrible dystopian possibilities that Canada could have chose for their future- 1984, A Brave New World, Soylent Green, etc., it's interesting that they have opted for the horrors of Footloose. Kevin Bacon must be spinning in his grave.

Re:Dancing?

[Dexter Herbivore]

dancing is a derivative work performed publicly.

If it was done it a professional sense, then yes. I hardly think an amatuer 'performance' qualifies.

Re:Dancing?

[tqk]

Why don't Canadians fuck standing up? Because god might think they're dancing.

That makes no sense. The joke was about Baptists.

Yup. And demonstrably untrue. I'm Canadian, and they loved it. That's all I have to say about that.

God isn't in the business of collecting license fees. Granted she's not in the business of preventing dancing (except for techno 'music' that crap is from the devil).

I thought that was rap, and Justin Bieber.

Re:Dancing?

[tixxit]

What? Is there some stereotype about Canadians and dancing that I'm missing?

Re:Dancing?

[HornWumpus]

Careful, count the years. She's got PMS again.

Re:Dancing?

[DarwinSurvivor]

I *AM* Canadian and I didn't get this one. I think he somehow got Canadians and Baptists mixed up, which doesn't make any sense either.

Re:Dancing?

[DarwinSurvivor]

Ah yes, poor late Kevin Bacon, sadly passed away in the year.....wait a minute!

"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[dstyle5]

What if people are smiling, double the fee again? Its sunny outside, only 1.5 times the fee? Liquor is served, 4 times fee? Its a Saturday...? Great, can't wait to see the RIAA, err SOCAN creeping up your friends wedding.

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[Lithdren]

This struck me as rather absurd as well. Why, excatly, can they double a fee because people might dance along to the music? I can understand they wanting to be reimbursed for the playing of it, but why on earth do they get to decide what you can do with music already paid for to play?

Be like charging you 3 dollars for a big scoop of Ice Cream, then carging to twice that because you wanted to eat it..

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if they start sneaking up to weddings it is a good reason to bring back shotgun weddings.

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[ohnocitizen]

Perhaps it is more a supply and demand thing. Less Canadians want to dance, so to balance that scarcity the fees rise. Then again, maybe by charging Canadians to dance, they are hoping to avoid the trouble their American neighbors ran into a few years back when a young Bill Clinton forever changed the south: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwBbMXYDsXw

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[Kn45h3r]

I'm just waiting for the first wedding to be called off because the way the bride moved up the aisle, in time to music, could legally be considered a type of dance.

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[Anonymous Coward]

Because dancing is illegal, didn't you see Footloose?

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[Hatta]

Because, Fuck You, that's why.

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[AnalogDiehard]

"Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it"

Back in the 1950s, New York City enacted a dance tax. Any club or hall that had floor space for dancing had to pay the tax.

The clubowners' response was to fill the dance floors with tables and chairs. With no place for people to dance, they evaded the tax.

Music performers would get booked under the condition that they do not play music that could be danced to. This gave rise to bop and other forms of improvisation jazz.

Needless to say the "dance tax" was revoked.

Besides the proposed dance tax, the wedding/parade tax is beyond absurd and is a greedy power grab by the copyright industry. First off unlike a hall or club, there is no admission being charged for a wedding or parade.

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[Widowwolf]

You do Realize in a lot of states you need to have a permit to open a place with a Dance Floor..It is not gone, now you need a permit..California is one of those states

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[blueskies]

And this permit causes them to be taxed?

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[Widowwolf]

See here for just 1 cities policy: http://www.sgpd.com/html/dance_permits.html and Another: http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/so-they-think-they-can/content?oid=2477936

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[chrismcb]

It is more like... "That will be $3 please. Oh wait you want to ENJOY it? then that will be $6 for you."

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double."

[cstacy]

"Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" Back in the 1950s, New York City enacted a dance tax.
[...] Needless to say the "dance tax" was revoked.

Actually, they still have it (or brought it back). Well, the last time I was dancing in NYC was around 2001. It was called a "Cabaret License".

Ice shows?

[Brentyl]

Posting from Arizona where ice is a mythical substance, but...

wtf are ice shows? Apparently they are big enough they need to be specifically enumerated in this law. Cracking me up.

Re:Ice shows?

[grimmy]

Figure skating is pretty huge up here for some reason, also things like disney on ice, and probably the music played during tv breaks at hockey games.

Re:Ice shows?

[Brentyl]

That makes sense. I was picturing some spectacle like the Westminster Dog Show except with different strains of ice - "Wow Bob, look at the crystalline structure in that one." "Yes, Ted, exquisite. Truly the cube standard."

Re:Ice shows?

[jedidiah]

I would expect any venue for any sort of "show" to already be covered by ASCAP licenses and whatnot.

Trying to tax weddings is a really low blow.

Re:Ice shows?

[camperdave]

Well... There are shows like that as well

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/icemain.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/boscobridalexpos/2584212567/
http://jetsetta.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ice-sculpture-1.jpg

No dancing?

[Daas]

" If there's dancing, the fees double."

PLEASE PEOPLE, SIT DOWN!

Re:No dancing?

[Maximum Prophet]

If the kids can't dance, I guess they'll have to screw...

Re:No dancing?

[tekrat]

Where's Kevin Bacon when you need him?

How about instead

[hort_wort]

We charge them those prices for advertising their music to everyone and associating it with a positive memory?

Solution:

[a90Tj2P7]

I, for one, welcome (y)our new mayonnaise-on-fries-eating cover band overlords.

Re:Solution:

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Hey mayonnaise on fries is awesome.

Re:Solution:

[tqk]

I, for one, welcome (y)our new mayonnaise-on-fries-eating cover band overlords.

Mayonnaise on fries?!? You just about made me throw up! I've never heard of that in Canada. Now, Poutine (cheese and gravy on fries?) is another thing. I've never had it, but have heard of it.

Some of the things US' fast food joints come up with is far more disgusting than anything we do.

Re:Solution:

[uninformedLuddite]

Do they have chicken salt on chips in the US?

Sing Song

[JustOK]

If I sing the praises of this, will I be charged? If I'm arrested and they make me sing, will I be charged again?

Re:Sing Song

[dtmos]

If I'm arrested and they make me sing, will I be charged again?

It depends. Are you going to sing a new tune, or just the same old song?

Re:Sing Song

[VortexCortex]

Nooobody knows the trouble I've seeen, Noooobody knows but jeeebus...

ToW

[Anonymous Coward]

By coming to or viewing my wedding, you lose any right to charge for the music played.

Why stop at weddings?

[Tharsman]

I can see the future... in a few years, you will have to slide a credit card to enable use of your car's radio if someone is sitting in the passenger sit (be the front or back sits!)

Re:Why stop at weddings?

[cpu6502]

>>>if someone is sitting in the passenger sit (be the front or back sits!)

Eh?

Re:Why stop at weddings?

[MickyTheIdiot]

They called Phil Dick a paranoid. Turns out he was the only one with a proper sense of reality. Go figure.

Re:Why stop at weddings?

[Mister Whirly]

"It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane." - Philip K Dick

Re:Why stop at weddings?

[Sulphur]

I can see the future... in a few years, you will have to slide a credit card to enable use of your car's radio if someone is sitting in the passenger sit (be the front or back sits!)

Of course, if it can be heard 100 feet away, then it is being rebroadcast.

Re:Why stop at weddings?

[mcgrew]

Not everyone here is a native speaker. I'd assume English is a second language to him, and he did a far better job than I would if I were writing in Spanish. Mi Espanol es meirde.

Re:Why stop at weddings?

[IAN]

Also: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

How desperate, and appropriate.

That's way too low...

[bugs2squash]

let's say there are 1000 guests and 50 songs are played. This clearly means that 50,000 record labels will never be able to make money again. The fees should be at least 47 trillion loonies per event.

Re:That's way too low...

[quacking duck]

The fees should be at least 47 trillion loonies per event.

Wow, $47 trillion loonies is a LOT. That's like, what, $500 trillion US!

(ah, how we don't miss the days when the joke went the other way...)

Oh Fer Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting from Arizona where ice is a mythical substance, but...

wtf are ice shows? Apparently they are big enough

If you ever make it up yonder to Minnesnowta, yep.

My only thought

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is this crap?

Who is receiving the money?

[Herkum01]

I could support something like this IF, VERY BIG IF, the money goes to support the people actually produced the music. Not Copyright Board of Canada, the MIAA, or RIAA, or Sony, or any of the big companies out there. It needs to go to the artists. Otherwise it is just becomes another organization gaming the laws to become a bureaucracy that is a parasite upon other peoples works.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[Missing.Matter]

Sorry no. If you're an artist, you should make money by, I dunno, making art that people want to buy. If I pay you $15 for your CD, I'm going to play it whenever, however, and for whomever I want. I paid you your $15. So if I want to pop it in the CD player at my wedding, I don't owe you anything. This whole concept of "royalties" where an artist gets money for the next 70 years every time someone wants to sing or play his song is completely asinine, and counter to the way art/music has worked since the dawn of humanity.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[hidden]

Actually, it does. The people in the recordings do in fact receive royalty cheques from SOCAN. Mind you, I'm not sure exactly how fair the split is, or how much of it goes to "administrative fees"

The other thing that isn't very clear from the article is that this system is NOT new. SOCAN has always collected fees for radio play, and recorded music at public functions, shows, etc in Canada. All that's happened now is that the fee structure for certain types of event has been updated. (simplified, I think?)

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[WeatherServo9]

I'm going to go with NOT OK still, even if 100% collected goes straight to the artists. I'm fine with artists getting paid, but this is getting really out of hand (especially the dancing clause mentioned! Seriously?!). I'm ok with artists getting paid when they sell a CD or a download (whatever their contract works out to for that), I don't care so much that this goes on for long time after the recording is made, they should get paid for live performances, probably even for commercial use such as in a movie or tv show, but I see no reason they need to get paid for every single playing of the song - this seems completely unreasonable to me and appears as nothing more than a greedy money grab that does little other than make me annoyed. The DJ bought the song/album, that's it; he should be able to play it whenever for whomever after that, the whole "public performance" thing is pretty much bullshit to begin with. My no-name cover band should be able to perform it without paying fees, and so on...The ridiculous ways they're trying to scrounge up every last penny is really getting to be tiresome (ok, never mind getting to be....is)

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[jd]

In the US, the split is notoriously in favour of the labels with the labels more often than not never bothering to forward the artist's share. Labels in the US also charge artists for just about everything under the sun (plus interest), so even when there is a nominal payment it often goes back to the label to cover costs imposed on the artist. It's the perfect scam.

Maybe Canada is better, but it's dubious.

Public functions, yes, but weddings would surely be private events. You would normally have to have an invitation to attend. To charge private events for royalties is definitely a major expansion.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[cpu6502]

>>>The people in the recordings do in fact receive royalty cheques

Except when they don't. The Canadian companies were caught copying songs over onto "greatest hits" CDs or collections, and not paying the artists. They owed almost a billion in unpaid royalties.

Here in America the companies owe 10s of millions in unpaid royalties. I think artists/actors actually get screwed with royalty/residual contracts. They'd be better-off to get paid a flat hourly wage like other producers of copyrighted works. Like engineers and programmers.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

So what do you do, as an artist, when you think that the 15-year-old with a $20 weekly allowance should only have to pay you $5 for your CD whereas a DJ who makes his living playing the same CD at weddings should pay you $100.

If you always charge just $5 for your CD then it can be purchased by 15-year-olds, but then other people that make money off of just playing your CD in public are getting a huge discount when you did all the hard work. But if you always charge $100 now the 15-year-olds, who you want to be able to afford to experience your music, can't afford to?

That's why we have different licensing agreements for different forms of usage for intellectual property, particularly that which is hard to create and easy to duplicate.

Yes, there are plenty of problems with IP and IP law but the solution is not necessarily to just throw it all away.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Don't know about this new "Re-Sound", but the US version of it, "Sound Exchange", in order to collect your share of the royalties they collect, you have to pay $50 annual "membership dues". And then they still take a percentage as "administrative costs". (And if your recording is released through a label over than your own, your share gets filtered through the record company as well.)

(You can avoid Sound Exchange taking a share by directly licensing each and every one of your recordings to the DJs (or other people) playing your recordings. BUT, if your license can in any way be interpreted as a "blanket license", then SE gets to collect statutory royalties.)

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[UnderCoverPenguin]

SOCAN has always collected fees for radio play, and recorded music at public functions, shows, etc in Canada. All that's happened now is that the fee structure for certain types of event has been updated. (simplified, I think?)

This article implies that it is being expanded to include private functions as well. Weddings are almost always private.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[Missing.Matter]

The line you're towing is the recording industry's, not the artist's. The recording industry are the ones who don't make money off of live performances, so they're the ones who need to make money off of the 15 year old and the DJ, so they're the ones offering the different licensing agreements, etc.

AS an artist, if people aren't listening to your song, they're going to listen to someone else's. That's just a fact. Therefore its in your best interest to get your song played in as many places in front of as many people as you can. After people hear it and like it, then you hold a series of concerts around the country where everyone hearing your song gets to hear you play it live. And that's how you make your money: actually being an artist, creating and proliferating art. This whole, write once, rake in money forever scheme that's being perpetrated is complete nonsense.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[c0d3g33k]

Do businesses pay more for a chair (produced by hard-working designers, made from raw materials harvested by hardworking producers, assembled by hardworking craftsmen and factory workers, shipped by hardworking truckers and sold by hardworking retail salespeople) to put in the lobby than the person that puts the chair in their living room?

No, I didn't think so.

I find no evidence that the arts are harder to produce than other goods, this deserving of payment in perpetuity. None.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

If the business's business is to rent out their chairs to others they probably aren't buying the same chairs that you do in your own home. Or if they're using the chair more it'll likely wear out faster than yours and require replacement more often. It's also non-trivial for you to make two copies of one chair. If it's a fine chair then most of the cost is in the actual production rather than the design. Even if it's a mass-produced chair then material costs probably dwarf design costs. This is not true of IP. CDs cost pennies, if that, to press. MP3s even less.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

I didn't say anything about artists doing gigs, did I? I'm purely talking about CDs and playing those CDs here. I'm not a lover of the industry and I don't think that our current IP laws are the right ones, but I do see value in allowing different pricing structures.

If your accounting calculus says that you'd make more money by giving away MP3s and charging for gigs there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Some bands, NIN if I recall correctly, actually made that bet with a pay-what-you-want system for one of their albums. However, I don't think it's wrong to want to sell performances (license the usage of a CD) rather than the medium on which a performance was fixed (selling a CD without further restriction). I don't think it's technologically feasible to enforce or always economically the best move, but I will defend the right to do it.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[silentbrad]

The article specifically mentions that these are new fees being paid to Re:Sound in addition to the fees paid to SOCAN. And, as others have mentioned, the fees are being expanded to private functions, as well.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[Missing.Matter]

I didn't say anything about artists doing gigs, did I?

No you didn't, which is why your position makes no sense. If the only way for an artist to make money is through CD sales, yes, it makes some degree of sense for an artist to charge X to a 15 year old and Y to a DJ (Y>>X). But this is ignoring the fact that the DJ is in fact not a consumer of your music, but more along the lines of a marketer of your music; the more the DJ plays your song at clubs/parties, the more 15 year olds will buy your CD. Ultimately that's what you want, since the population of 15 year olds is much larger than the population of DJs.

But even all of that ignores the fact that artists are not making much money at all from their recordings: record labels are. Historically, artists made their money from either patronage or live performances. Only very recently, thanks to technological and legal conditions, have artists been able to make money by performing once and selling that performance for the rest of eternity. Why are artists so special that they can do work once and get paid for it forever?

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[tqk]

In the US, the split is notoriously in favour of the labels with the labels more often than not never bothering to forward the artist's share.

Canada's collection societies have recently been determined to be doing the same. Michael Geist probably has a story on it. I've read the same story or something much like it from Europe, UK, and Australia. Sometimes they pay only the big players and if your share is under a certain minimum, you get nothing. It's a corrupt, rigged game. Artists should give collection societies and labels the bird.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

I'll respond in reverse order:

Why are artists so special that they can do work once and get paid for it forever?

They're not and they're not doing work once and being paid forever. They're doing work for thousand, hundreds of thousands or millions of customers and getting paid by all of them incrementally instead of all at once. Wouldn't you rather pay $5 for a CD and get it now rather than put your $5 into a fund that once it gets to $1M goes to the artist to create the work of art to then be disseminated?

[A]rtists are not making much money at all from their recordings: record labels are.

Yep. I hate record companies and think they're parasitic middle-men. Doesn't mean that you have to completely change the way industry works instead of just reducing the amount they leech off of the creators.

But this is ignoring the fact that the DJ is in fact not a consumer of your music, but more along the lines of a marketer of your music; the more the DJ plays your song at clubs/parties, the more 15 year olds will buy your CD. Ultimately that's what you want, since the population of 15 year olds is much larger than the population of DJs.

I think the product at a club or wedding, when it comes to music, is the entertainment at the actual event. People don't go to clubs to find new music; they go to clubs that play good music. The DJ is using the music as bait to line their pockets with cover charges and drinks markup not doing the artist a favor. Radio and internet streaming are very different in that people do use them to find new music. In this case they are doing the artist a favor (so long as they don't entirely supplant other income streams) but they also make a profit off that music from advertising, so maybe they should pay something and maybe they shouldn't. I'm not an accountant and don't know all the inputs there.

If the only way for an artist to make money is through CD sales, yes...

I don't think CDs have to be the only income form for it to make sense to charge for CDs and replays through DJs. There will be a complex curve where cost of your recorded music affects spread of that music and spread of that music affect attendance at gigs. It's unlikely that $50 a CD is the maximum profit potential and it's entirely possible (and I would say probable) that $0 a CD is the maximum profit potential. The industry seems to think that $1 a song is pretty close to maximization. Now, of course, if you only wanted to maximize spread of your music and not profit of your music something close to $0 a CD (probably name-your-own-price I think) would be the best you could get, but unless you're independently wealthy it's not feasible to /only/ focus on market share.

So, to sum up my argument:
If the user of the recorded music is making money off the music because the music itself is a draw, they should pay because they're not really providing anything else to the artist.
If the user of the recorded music is an advertising channel for the music, they should pay less, possibly nothing.
If the user of the recorded music is using it for personal entertainment, they should pay less, possibly nothing.
How much you make from playing live gigs will probably depend on your market share which will probably depend on the cost to play your music.
The record labels are parasites.

I think there's a healthy middle ground here and we're currently too far into the "recorded music needs to be very expensive no matter what because labels need to make their cut territory" but I don't think the correct response is to shove the lever all the way into the "recorded music should be free no matter what" territory at full speed.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[mcgrew]

So what do you do, as an artist, when you think that the 15-year-old with a $20 weekly allowance should only have to pay you $5 for your CD whereas a DJ who makes his living playing the same CD at weddings should pay you $100.

I'd say you should see a shrink. That's like charging Hertz $500,000 for the very same car that a private person can buy for $10,000. It's insane, and so are you for thinking it's rational or reasonable.

It also says you're an idiot for not realising that hearing your CD is likely to result in more sales for you.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

So let's say you have a loaf of bread and in front of you stands Bill Gates and a homeless man.

As a humanitarian is it right to charge each of them $5 for that bread or is it better to charge the homeless man $1 or $0 and Bill Gates $20?
As a capitalist would it maximize your profits to charge each of them $5 or would it be better to charge the homeless man $1 or $0 and Bill Gates $20?

And car companies do get more from Hertz when Hertz buys the car Well, more accurately, the car company gets a much more reliable customer.

Hearing a CD may be more likely to get you more sales. If you're in a club and the DJ plays a really good song do you go ask the DJ what that song was? Does he announce what he just played? No, not really. If you're listening to the radio, however, they do attribute the songs they play.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[fotbr]

If you're listening to the radio, however, they do attribute the songs they play.

That's rare around here anymore.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[blueskies]

So if i set up a mini AM radio station and give out AM radios to all of my wedding guests, the music is suddenly free?

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[jd]

Didn't Joan Jett do that? Hmmm, come to think of it, didn't work out too shabbily for her.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[DarwinSurvivor]

You are free to give discounts where you see fit, but to charge rich people more (and I say this as someone who is NOT rich) is BULLSHIT. Bill Gates is just as free to pay the normal advertised price for that bread as any other person. Rich people already pay more taxes (whether it's enough is another issue) and tend to buy more expesive bread anyways.

Does Home Depot get to charge more for a bucket of paint if it's going to be used on the outside of a business than homeowner who's painting his shed?!?

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Home Depot is entirely within their rights to but it's extremely difficult to enforce so they don't. It's not worth it to try.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[mcgrew]

Me, I'd give the bread away to the homeless man and charge Gates whatever I charged everyone else. As a capitalist? Nope, that's not my religion, even if it is my country's predominant one. You can't both be a capitalist and treat others as you would wish to be treated.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[DarwinSurvivor]

No they are not, when you see the pricetag next to the item (or better yet ON the item) that is a legal contractual offer. When you bring that item to the cashier you are accepting that legal contractual offer. They cannot change or resind the offer after you have accepted it.

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

You're assuming they're putting the price tag on the item in this case. I did say it's difficult to do...

Re:Who is receiving the money?

[retchdog]

what the hell is the difference?

Once you provide CC-BY(-SA) music

[tepples]

That can happen once you provide original recordings of original music under a license for free cultural works as a replacement for major labels' non-free music.

So glad.....

[Lumpy]

That you Canadians are doing what the United States is telling you to do.

Good lap dog!

And yes, I am trying to enrage you, why are you people not fighting the corruption that is bleeding over the border from our country? The more you just let this stuff happen, the more they will try and roll over you.

Re:So glad.....

[interval1066]

Agreed. I think I feel more angry about it than our Canadian friends.

Re:So glad.....

[UnderCoverPenguin]

4 if you are playing recordings. Sound Exchange is the arm of the RIAA that the US Copyright Board has authorised to collect statutory royalties for recordings.

Re:So glad.....

[khipu]

This "corruption" didn't start in the US, it started in Europe. The US fought it for the longest time and only finally fully implemented the Berne convention in the 1970's. Even today, European copyright regulations are far more restrictive than American ones. Europeans pay far more for blank media, membership in many copyright societies is mandatory, and laws and enforcement are draconian, often subjecting you to thousands of dollars in fees without benefit of a court proceedings. Most European nations don't even have a concept of a "public domain", and some rights remain with authors in perpetuity. And much of the copyright lobbying in the US is done by European publishers and producers.

You can't fix the copyright problem if you bark up the wrong tree. Europe is at least as much to blame for the world-wide copyright mess as the US, if not more.

Re:So glad.....

[quacking duck]

Give it time. The student protests in Montreal, Quebec are continuing, there hasn't been such a prolonged and significant turnout at protests in years. It was originally over rising tuition fees, which most of the rest of Canada roll their eyes at because Quebec has the lowest average tuition of all provinces--in some cases 50% less. OTOH, Quebec taxes are among the highest, so the two kind of balanced out until now.

The provincial government's response, Law 78, tramples on fundamental freedoms enough that over 500 lawyers--lawyers!--marched on the streets to protest.

And so the student protests have morphed to also protest against Law 78, and student groups in other provinces are starting to demonstrate too, but nowhere near the level or intensity of those in Quebec.

I don't support either side in this, but have to hand it to Quebec--the French have a lot more guts than English Canada in standing up for their rights (possibly because they've been standing up to Canada for decades), and aren't as afraid to put themselves on the line to do it.

Summon the Dance Police

[Maximum Prophet]

Nothing I do could ever be considered "dancing", so I guess I'm safe.

I guess now we will have the dance police ready to come down hard on scoflaws.

Of course the kids will just make up something new to do to music that no one over 30 would ever call dancing. I propose we call it MusicF*cking.

Why karaoke?

[cob666]

Almost every karaoke machine I've ever seen, the music is NOT the original artists recording. Why then are the original recording artists entitled to a per performance fee. I would think that the mechanicals have been paid when the karaoke company licensed the song to be included in whatever package they purchased.

Also, in the states, bars are already required to pay fees for music performed in the venue which includes karaoke.

Re:Why karaoke?

[dwye]

Almost every karaoke machine I've ever seen, the music is NOT the original artists recording. Why then are the original recording artists entitled to a per performance fee.

The original artists of karaoke music probably aren't the artists who became famous from their version of, say, Knocking On Heaven's Door, but are certainly some band of session players put together by some label which paid for the rights (to release a version) to the original publishers (i.e., of Bob Dylan's musical scores, not his record company nor G&R's). Therefore, the karaoke publishers owe fees to the music publishers for each for-pay performance, which they probably don't bother to collect.

Re:Why karaoke?

[witherstaff]

Time for an open-karaoke website, upload music for anyone to use.

Re:Why karaoke?

[king neckbeard]

The production of karaoke CDs would fall under mechanical royalties and be paid by the record label to the publishers, and the karaoke bars would pay performance rights to the relevant PRS (ASCAP, BMI, or in Canada, SOCAN). The performance rights for a master recording should go to the karaoke record label if anybody, but I would think that the sales of karaoke CDs and whatnot include implicit licenses for public performance anyway.

Hahaha. F*** off!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to Hell. No, seriously.

Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[cpu6502]

Nothing us average, ordinary folks need to worry about. The DJs will just pay the record companies through the payment service they are currently using.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[c0d3g33k]

How about mandating *in contract* that the DJ playing at your wedding will play NO Re:Sound or SOCAN music that incurs this "fee"? You say 'ordinary folks' need not worry about this, but if the DJ passes on the licensing costs to the customer (surely the provide an itemized bill that lists this expense), the ordinary folk may care more than you think. If the DJ plays said music and gets flagged by the copyright observers, he/she can personally pay out of pocket as stipulated by the contract. In a free market, this would provide an incentive to artists who produce enjoyable music that doesn't impose these ridiculous fees on a private event.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[idontgno]

And what makes you think the DJ will actually get out of paying these licensing fees by not playing music licensed by "Re:Sound"? I'll bet anything that the DJ will be charged on the basis of his mere presence with equipment at a function, regardless of the contents of his playlist. These "rights agencies" have a track record of extorting their fees whether or not they have any legal rights to the music being played.

So a contractual pledge to avoid such music simply guarantees that the customer won't be getting what they have no choice but to pay for, since the DJ for damn sure isn't eating the unavoidable license fee just because the customer thinks they can avoid it. It'll be buried in the overall fee.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[c0d3g33k]

Record the event (weddings are usually documented for posterity anyhow). Ask anyone attending who recorded a video with their mobile phone/tablet/e-glasses to send you a copy of the video for the compilation DVD. Provide a copy of said material to the DJ to provide evidence that no 'infringing' music was played so no fees are warranted. Demand proof for claims that infringing material was played. Should it have happened, pay only for that, not a general fee for the event. Etc.

Don't passively give in to extortion just because vocal cynics don't have the fortitude to and want you to do the same.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[MickyTheIdiot]

**BUZZ**

Assuming rationality. That's always a bad assumption!

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[c0d3g33k]

The only way I know how to live. Or want to. Sucks to be me, I guess. On the other hand, being rational hasn't worked out so badly for me, so maybe the irrational assumption that rationality is bad is in fact wrong.

Heh.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[tqk]

Record the event ... Ask anyone attending who recorded a video with their mobile phone/tablet/e-glasses to send you a copy of the video for the compilation DVD.

Yes, so merely by implementing this new policy, the cost of doing any of these things has gone up, whether you play their stuff or not. Now you need to document the entire event from start to end, and keep that recording until the statute of limitations runs out? Multiply that by the number of potentially infringing events.

What happens if some little girl at a wedding hums an infringing tune? The event infringes; minimum payment is due. "For the artists."

Progress. Full employment for moochers and lawyers. Thanks. This is nuts.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[c0d3g33k]

What happens if some little girl at a wedding hums an infringing tune? The event infringes; minimum payment is due. "For the artists."

Nope. The little girl is not a registered (or paid) performer, just a private attendee. The event isn't infringing. No minimum payment due, or the plaintiff is required at own expense to prove in court that the the little girl is a paid actress contracted to provide "crowdsourced entertainment".

Stop giving these people the benefit of the doubt by accepting every scenario they present as valid and thus proof that there is no need to resist. Fight back for god's sake!

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[colesw]

I'm too lazy to read it, but if you have a volunteer play your music you don't need to pay? (my co-worker was my DJ)

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[mcgrew]

It won't work. There was a bar owner here in Springfield, IL who hired bands that played folk music; music that was no longer under copyright, and bands that played their own compositions. The organization that collects fees for songwriters (sorry, I can't remember the evil organization's name) from bars who hire cover bands and use jukeboxes refused to pay their extortion fees, and the cost of defennding his rights in court bankrupted him. His bar is no longer in business.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[c0d3g33k]

Right. So let's just give in to an unjust system because it's inconvenient. Why can't bars join together to form a legal defense fund to fight this, then, so no individual business is forced into bankruptcy? The choice is clear: just bend over and give in to this shit, or join forces and fight it. If you think it's wrong that a group who DID join forces won an unjust court case, then why not form a group that plays the game by the same rules and beats them at their own game?

Fighting this CAN work - just figure out what the game is and fight on those terms. Groups against individuals is the game currently being played, so instead of laying down and giving up, raise the ante and play the game on the same terms. Or remain a sheep, but stop bleating resignedly about the unjust but inevitable shearing and eventual slaughter.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[chrismcb]

From TFA:

It's up to organizers of public events or owners of wedding venues or bars to pay those royalties

So basically the owner of the venue will just charge you $10 or $20 extra, whether you play music or not, or dance or not. Would be my guess.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill

[divide overflow]

The organization that collects fees for songwriters (sorry, I can't remember the evil organization's name) from bars who hire cover bands and use jukeboxes refused to pay their extortion fees, and the cost of defennding his rights in court bankrupted him. His bar is no longer in business.

That evil organization was probably either ASCAP or BMI.

That's a really nice culture you have there...

[ebunga]

It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Three observations

[Dzimas]

I wouldn't have an issue with this, except for three things: (1) This money won't find its way into the pockets of artists. It'll end up in the hands of publishing companies, lawyers, managers and the record label because of the onerous contracts that performers are required to sign to break into the business. (2) Songs played at weddings tend to be mass market tunes or old classics. Handing over an extra few thousand dollars to Lady GaGa or whatever company holds the rights to Frank Sinatra's tunes does absolutely nothing to support up and coming Canadian musicians. (3) The government department responsible for collecting and disbursing this fee will cost taxpayers millions of dollars for the "benefit" of collecting and forwarding revenue to foreign entertainment companies.

Re:Three observations

[alphax45]

Well said and I agree with you 100% on all three points.

Re:Three observations

[sandytaru]

Apparently, it's not a government agency, but a separate non profit organization. Still, I agree that this entire law is garbage. Unfortunately, most wedding planners will just shrug and append the fee to the total invoice. For weddings, which cost $2000 on the rock bottom end, an extra $10 won't make too much difference.

Re:Three observations

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Why wouldn't you have an issue with this? It's fucking insane.

There is no need, absolutely none, to promote the creation of music. Human beings have made music since there were human beings. You could attach a death penalty to making music instead of a paycheck for your great-grandkids, and people would still make music. Everybody who has ever made a song has made that song based off of every song they ever heard. I challenge you tell me how having superstars instead of the multitude of bands that would replace them benefits society in a way that's worth all the shit we put up with to protect their millions.

It's crazy, and you're stupid for even considering accepting it.

Re:Three observations

[c0d3g33k]

a separate non profit organization

Follow the money. Someone is profiting, I guarantee it.

Re:Three observations

[Bob9113]

I like your post, and would add one more that I think should be an addendum to every discussion of copyright in the current context:

(4) Without any empirical data showing that current copyright expenditure is lower than the optimal level.

The purpose of copyright is to make our world a better place by rewarding creatives for an activity that the free market cannot naturally price. We choose to create artificial scarcity to establish a profitable market for creative work. When the government steps in to create an artificial market, to set an artificial price, it is a necessary function of the government to seek to set a price that is market optimal.

The degree of copyright enforcement, strength and duration, is how the government establishes the artificial market price. In a perfect free market, that price naturally reaches the optimal level through competitive supply and demand. In a government established artificial market, that price must be consciously selected. We are not making that selection based on empirical data or market measurements. At present, we are blindly accepting the labels' supposition: "More, because we say so."

Do we need more culture? Are we Sparta, powerful but lacking in a cultural record, or are we late Rome, growing weak because of excessive expenditures on entertainment and cultural excess? If the former, we would make our society better by increasing copyright strength and duration. If the latter, by decreasing it.

Re:Three observations

[chrismcb]

1) If the money isn't going to who it is slated to go to, then something should be done about it. Not throw your hands up and say we shouldn't do this. 2) This is about the performs and artists getting paid for their work. Not about supporting up and coming artists. If you want to support up and coming artists then buy their songs, or go to the gigs. 3) A portion of the money collected should go to paying for the collection. And if millions are spent collecting additional taxes, then there is something wrong.

creeping bureaucracy

[Walt Dismal]

You do know that's public air you're consuming? You;re lucky I'm not writing this ticket for breathing heavily, that's a moving violation. I'm going to let you off easy this time but don't do it again. Sign here. What? Oh the fine. It's $148.

Canadian National Athem at the Olympics?

[tekrat]

I hope Canada doesn't win any gold medals at the Olympics this year -- because if they play the National Anthem, ... I mean, there's gotta be at least 50,000 in attendance, plus millions watching on TV, the fees could bankrupt the planet.

Re:Canadian National Athem at the Olympics?

[chrismcb]

and goes up to $39.33 for crowds of more than 500 people.

I hope the planet can afford $39.33 (ohhh wait there might be dancing, better make it $79.66)

not-for-profit?

[MSesow]

The fees will be collected by a not-for-profit called Re:Sound.

That is misleading to say that Re:Sound is not-for-profit, when the apparent function of the organization is to ensure more money comes in to the music industry. And since I cannot imagine that much of that revenue is needed to fund Re:Sound, it seems like most of the money is simply profits. Which, to me, makes it seem like it exists solely for profits.

TL;DR - Company lies to try an look better. News at 11.

Re:not-for-profit?

[Maximum Prophet]

Not-for-profit just means that there aren't shareholders that expect a payout. The executives can get paid all they can get away with, and it still be not-for-profit.

There may be precious little left over for the real artists.

Re:not-for-profit?

[chrismcb]

It is not misleading to call a not for profit company "not for profit." "Not for profit" doesn't mean the company doesn't make money. Or do you think "not for profit" means everything the company does is for free?

Teen Open House Parties

[metarox]

Can't wait for them to crack down on teen open house parties!

Complete comedy of errors

[geekmux]

I don't know what sounds more ludicrous to me...

The concept of "music police" running around trying to enforce such nonsense, or...

trying to convince anyone that any organization affiliated or representing the record labels would be considered a "not-for-profit".

Give me a break.

Re:Complete comedy of errors

[Zaelath]

If I have a company that turns over 5 million a year, pays 4 million to "news" organisations to publish my "facts" and me 1 million a year in salary, it's a not-for-profit.

Check out what the CEOs of most of the big charities make (other than the Salvos).

ASCAP/BMI

[kidgenius]

Anyone want to explain how this is different than ASCAP/BMI requiring you to have a license to play music in public? For instance, any DJ should have paid licensing fees to ASCAP/BMI to be able to play music at weddings, gatherings etc.

Re:ASCAP/BMI

[UnderCoverPenguin]

This article is about collection of royalties for recordings. They seem to be expanding the scope of events to include private events. This is in addition to any fees you have to pay to SOCAN/ASCAP/BMI/SESAC.

Fun ...?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these groups and laws are doing is sucking the pleasure out of music, movies, etc. They are destroying their own industries.

Re:Fun ...?

[tqk]

All these groups and laws are doing is sucking the pleasure out of music, movies, etc.

No, they're not. I've already got all the music I want. I bought it long ago to play in the cassette deck in my car. I haven't heard much recently that I'd want to buy.

Pink Floyd, Mike & the Mechanics, Buena Vista Social Club, Tananas, Sipho Gumede, Carlos Santana, Miles Davis, Joni Mitchell, CSN&Y, Joe Jackson, Yes, Tom Cochrane, Allman Bros., Van Morrison, Luba, Steely Dan, Loreena McKennitt, Bonnie Raitt, Boz Scaggs, not to mention a boatload of classical (Mahler, Bach, ...), ... I don't need any more, and with the limitations placed on how they want to sell it today, no thanks, pass.

They are destroying their own industries.

That, I agree with. The sooner, the better.

So, just use live music then

[rossdee]

At the church you have the organist and the choir, and hire a band rather than a deejay for the reception.

Re:So, just use live music then

[UnderCoverPenguin]

A decent band usually costs more than even a professional DJ - even if it's your friends/siblings/cousins/other who are playing "for free" as you end up compensating them in other ways. IF you are evening getting a DJ at all. Most of the parties I've been to in the past 3 years, the host(ess) set up a play list in LinAmp/iTunes/other and left the music on auto-pilot.

Re:So, just use live music then

[dwye]

At the church you have the organist and the choir, and hire a band rather than a deejay for the reception.

Actually, unless the choir director pays the scores publisher a fee for the performance (which they usually don't, except maybe the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) they are violating the copyright. Likewise if, as my mother did for her choir, one copy of the score was purchased then xeroxed for each choir member.

If only uncopyrighted music is played after being learned by listening to another playing it then imitating the first, then you are free of all worry about copyright fees. Otherwise, include a rider in the contract making the band and choir responsible for all fees for their performances, and let them tote them up.

No dancing?

[LazyBoyWrangler]

Certainly narrows down the activites available to drunken bridesmaids. Should be easier to get them to shed the one-time-only dresses now that dancing is off the agenda. Perhaps this is a good development.

Downfall

[ThatsNotPudding]

Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

Reminds me of the Downfall parody about Disney and Steamboat Willy Forever. One woman starts crying and the other one says to her: 'Don't cry; they own the rights to that emotion.'

Gotta wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder when I will have to start paying these asshats for singing in the shower!

It's only a matter of time.

[mosb1000]

I know this was meant as a joke, but it's really only a matter of time.

Boom Boom Boom

[Nethead]

They need to charge a fee for loud car sound systems. About a dollar a watt would be about right.

Re:Boom Boom Boom

[T-Bucket]

Shit, I don't know if you've ever built a decent car audio system, but at canadian prices, a dollar a watt for a decent system would be WAY cheaper than what it currently costs.

Re:Boom Boom Boom

[Nethead]

I was actually thinking of $1/watt/mile music tax.

Oh, and I've built decent car systems but I've never overbuilt a car system like most think they need to these days.

Enforcement

[michaelmalak]

Enforcement will be via Predator drone.

How would this apply for me?

[scubamage]

Just curious if something like this happened in the US... we're not planning any dance music (neither of us enjoys it, despite being in our 20's we may as well have been born in the 20's). My fiance (a music teacher and professional classical saxophonist) and I have decided we're going to have a string quartet for the ceremony, and a live jazz band playing standards for the reception. So, would they still try to shake us down?

Re:How would this apply for me?

[dwye]

This covers performing recorded music for events, not live performances. Those are covered by other, pre-existing, "shake downs" which your bands should already be playing, if you play copyrighted music (Wedding March from Lohengrin isn't, On Eagle's Wings, famously sung by Bett Midler is). For that matter, they probably have to pay a fee to the publisher to use his transcript of pre-1920 classical scores, too. The jazz standards, however, all are likely covered by copyrights.

The solution is simple: As comedian Gary Muledeer used to do in his act because he was (or claimed to be) unable to afford the license fees, party like it's 1899! Have your jazz band play Campdown Races, or Buffalo Gals (Won't You Come Out Tonight?), or the like. Scott Joplin's stuff may be out of copyright, but Stormy Weather certainly isn't.

Re:How would this apply for me?

[chrismcb]

My guess is yes. The venue is responsible for the fee. You might be able to convince the venue, that you are playing only live music. But really what is going to happen is, the Venue is going to charge to a little more.

Re:How would this apply for me?

[scubamage]

Haha, I agree wholeheartedly! I am referring more to the fact that modern music confuses and infuriates us. Both of us detest pop music in general.

What happens if you don't pay?

[i_ate_god]

I don't get it. You don't enter into any kind of legal agreement when you purchse a CD. You don't sign anything at all.

So how can an entity just arbitrarily send you a bill? does this mean there is precendence in canadian law that would allow me to charge SOCAN a processing fee that will always be twice the cost of what they are charging me?

They forgot to mention campfire songs!

[kawabago]

Campfire songs are probably one of the biggest threats to the music industry today! Every weekend in summer there are thousands upon thousands of illegally sung songs, it's absolutely criminal! Once we stop that we'll have to work on the next big threat, humming. People have been humming tunes to themselves for generations and not a single cent has been paid to the writers for these illegal performances. It is criminal and must be stopped! Soon the technology will be available to read what people are thinking, and finally the music industry can put a stop to people remembering a tune. Remembering a tune you have heard is actually an illegal copy and people should rightly be imprisoned for illegally remembering music!

Re:They forgot to mention campfire songs!

[MickyTheIdiot]

Summer camps that sing some of the "popular" christian songs (like the Christian pop music you sometimes see being sold on TV) have to pay songwriters fee and additional fees if they want to do things like show lyrics on an overhead projector. That's no joke. They pay these fees by clearinghouses that are like BMI and ASCAP that specialize in collecting the fees from the church community.

crossing border to avoid...

[k6mfw]

whether it be dodging the draft in 1960s or go where you can make booze in prohibtion era. Canucks have their weddings in USA to dodge music payments (before it's too late as MAFIAA will want to implement same in USA). Now if Mexico were to implement same laws.... not sure how they will enforce them (may be kind of rough though).

A few words for the Canadian Copyright Board

[jd]

1. "Footloose" is NOT a documentary on how to impose regulations on dancing
2. "weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows" are all private events, so unless the lawyers got tickets or invites, they're not allowed to attend
3. Charging people who go to karaoke for artists' time is amusing given that any karaoke tracks I've heard are just MIDI renderings of the score and never involve artists at all
4. Karaoke attendees are suffering enough and therapy is expensive

Lions share

[portwojc]

> represent the record labels and performers who contributed to the music

Who will get the most out of this... Hmmmmm?

Oh look, welfare

[Nanosphere]

What do you call it when you collect additional money without performing additional work?

Does your boss continue to pay you for work he already paid you for years ago?
Can you bill your neighbor again for mowing his lawn years ago when he already paid you once?
Do manufacturers get to continue billing for parts that were manufactured and paid for years ago?
Does the waiter come to house and ask for another tip for the dinner you had months years ago?

Why is it IP owners are the only people that get to keep charging for a work they were already compensated for? I'm sorry but if you want to make more money you have to perform more work and get paid for that.

If it's illegal to effortlessly copy a work it should be illegal for everyone including the IP owners. Why should they make profit without performing additional work if no one else can? Stop demanding free handouts.

Re:Oh look, welfare

[chrismcb]

Why do you care? There are some people who make money, and they didn't do anything at all. While my boss may not pay me for work that he already paid for me... he does make money based on work he did years ago, as he owns the company.
How do you think the performer should get paid? Just the $15 you paid for the CD? Just $15 once? Why should you get to listen to the music forever for free?

Good for Live Music!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this can open the door for more live music at weddings! Speaking as an organist and string quartet member, I'd not mind!

Live musicians have to pay for the I.P. already. It levels the playing field a bit. I buy sheet music, which can be extremely expensive. Sometimes it comes with a performance license, but usually not, unless it is public domain. If playing music still under copyright, I send ASCAP money everytime I make money. So, for every wedding I have played "how do you solve a problem like Maria" for brides named Maria, Rogers and Hammerstein still get their cut.

I, for one, don't mind sending cash the composer's way for music I profit by performing. In fact, one of my motivations for pushing great music when I can is to send the cash to great songwriters and composers rather than corporate shills. (Arvo Part makes great pre-formal-event music, for example) Why should it be different for a DJ?

I can see getting pissed off at this if we are talking about the bride's brother plugging in an iPod. Weddings and other events listed do tend to hire pros to do the sound. They are making a profit. That's when things change from more "fair use" to actually being a problem.

I expect most DJs already pay their I.P. fees already.

We Need Kevin Bacon...

[superflippy]

...to do a Protest Dance.

If there's dancing, the fees double.

impossible to distribute monies fairly

[Khashishi]

I was trying to think of the logistics of tracking which artists get paid based on which recordings the venue decides to play, and basically, it's impossible to do with an umbrella organization like SOCAN or Re:Sound. There's no way for SOCAN or Re:Sound to keep tabs on this stuff, so my assumption is that they just plan on cutting a check to the various record corporations. Really, if you wanted to compensate the artists, a "fee-collecting agency" isn't necessary. Pay them directly. This is just a ruse to cash in on other people's work, i.e. theft.

What the hell is going on up there???

[Loosifur]

Does this only apply to events held at venues, or will Mounties start riding up to backyard barbecues with their hands out?

Come on, Canada. WE'RE supposed to be the running dogs of corporate interests, YOU'RE supposed to be the hippy-dippy socialized medicine peaceniks.

It can get more scary than that

[paranoidd]

In Brazil there's an agency called ECAD which already does that. However, the fees can get much higher than those mentioned in the article. Sometimes agents from ECAD show up at weddings and charge a fee based on the number of people attending it, or based on the physical size of the room, or as a percentage of the price paid for the rental of the place where the wedding is happening. It's common to see couples having to pau more than US$ 1k on that.

There are many cases of people who didn't have cash to pay when ECAD agents shown up on their wedding, and who were then ordered to stop the music and the event. They are very frequently sued, but yet they continue to charge that (and get richer).

Hopefully the same won't happen in Canada.

Dancing is double?!

[erroneus]

Seriously? I can't believe this would wash at all. Maybe it's because this is Canada, or maybe it's because other businesses seem to feel they can tell you what you can, can't or how to make use of what you buy, but telling me I have to pay more if I dance?! Not that I would dance... I don't dance unless I'm trying to make someone laugh derisively... but that's not the point. Simply charging more because someone thinks they are getting more enjoyment??? Okay, can it go the other way too? Someone didn't like the music so we can discount the original charges? Like maybe "no charge if someone didn't like it?"

This crap has simply got to end... that and charging extra for wifi tethering on my mobile phone. I already paid for the data. Now I just want to use it. It's not for them to ask me HOW I will use it.

Don't use Canadian artists

[ISoldat53]

Then SOCAN has no one to pay.

Not perfect, but...

[thereitis]

Can't we just get some offshore talent to re-sing our favourite tunes? ;)

It's moot...

[CohibaVancouver]

It's all pretty moot anyway. If some DJ is spinning Loverboy at a wedding at The Legion in Moose Jaw on a Saturday night in February, how is Re:Sound gonna even know?

SOCAN?

[lazlo]

What dyslexic idiot made up that acronym? They're clearly SCAMP of Canada, though I'd personally prefer SCAM Publishers of Canada, but I could see SCAMP-Can as well. In order to arrive at SOCAN, you have to completely ignore most of the words and then either cherry-pick letters from the middle of the remainder, or give preference to the minor parts of speech that are usually left out when constructing acronyms (unless they're needed to flesh out the word you're trying to spell).

So they violated all rules of sanity to achieve the acronym SOCAN. Really? SOCAN? I mean, I'd give some leniency to an agency that managed to make their acronym something like Awesomeflonium or Lazerpants or something, but SOCAN?

So I guess breaking the rules to achieve a mediocre end that no one actually really wants is a foundational part of their institutional composition... which makes this action a whole lot less surprising.

Next, it's

[P-niiice]

It'll be coin-slots on our home appliances. Swipe cards on our tv's.
And one day when i';m singing in the shower a hand will stealthily reach around the shower curtain for money.

Really?!?!

[shoehornjob]

Has the music business sunk to such lows that they have to monetize every last usage of their property? A bunch of greedy sons of bitches I tell you. Mark my words, next they will be going after grannies downloading gangsta rap over .......damn beat me to it. Seriously though WTF is wrong with these greedy motherfuckers? You can't get blood from a stone. I hope it becomes cheaper to hire a local band to preform at weddings. I'd like nothing better than to have their revenue stream cut off.

Why should it matter how you use it?

[epp_b]

I don't get this.

In what other industry is the creator or seller of a product allowed to tell you how you can and cannot use the product and charge you extra at a whim because of some imaginary perceived value?

Ford cannot charge you extra for carrying passengers in your car. Stihl cannot charge you per tree you cut down with your chainsaw. Microsoft cannot charge you for each piece of software you install on Windows. Nikon cannot charge you for each picture you take with your camera.

The examples are endless. I cannot think of any other industry that actually expects to create one product and have it carry them for life without updating it, adding to it, improving upon it and replacing it with a newer product.

Copyright needs to end so we can weed out these useless culture saps, leaving only those willing to actually work for a living. Art and culture will be better off for it.

Re:Why should it matter how you use it?

[chrismcb]

If copyrighted ended professional art would effectively die. We would end up with a bunch of worthless hobby artists. Yeah some will be good, but most won't be.

"Braveheart" Weddings Now?

[BlueStrat]

Will Canadians have to resort to secret weddings deep in the wilderness now to avoid being coerced into paying protection money to the CBC, akin to how Mel Gibson as William Wallace in "Braveheart" did to avoid "Primae Noctis", the right of a lord or king to sleep with commoners' brides on their first wedding night?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart#Plot

FREEEDOOOMMM!!

Strat

Re:"Braveheart" Weddings Now?

[ancarett]

Especially apt considering that the idea of medieval lords enjoying the right of prima noctis or droit du seigneur was faked up by later writers. Lords might have abused women on their properties, but it wasn't a legally enshrined right. Somebody just sold you a bill of goods, rather like the Copyright Board's doing here. . . .

Re:"Braveheart" Weddings Now?

[BlueStrat]

Especially apt considering that the idea of medieval lords enjoying the right of prima noctis or droit du seigneur was faked up by later writers [wordpress.com]. Lords might have abused women on their properties, but it wasn't a legally enshrined right. Somebody just sold you a bill of goods, rather like the Copyright Board's doing here. . . .

What in my post allows you to assume that I was not already aware of it?

Would I not, if I believed it was historical fact, provide a historical cite, rather than the semi-fictional movie cite that I did provide? You cited to writers, I cited to movie plot. It's even right there in the URL, '#Plot'

I think rather you've sold yourself a bill of goods.

Strat

Song Nazi's...

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Re:Sound just became the most hated "non-profit".

music is dead to me

[epine]

I pack my emotions in a light travel bag. I can find new vistas to invest my sentiments faster than the cretins can erect the toll booths under a model of cost recovery. It's really not that cheap to roll out the jack-boot meter maids. Even patent trolls are obligate ram breathers: if the revenue stream from the current shake-down dries up, there isn't much of a war chest for the next pirate mission.

Liberty means not renting your affections in a binding context.

Too bad we can't tax the divine musical pleasure many people seem to derive from the "tough on crime" political message. It must sound like an orchestra of a thousand Harpers. Ching ching.

As A Photographer, I Want In!!!

[ryanisflyboy]

First, I will charge you the sitting fee. Then the printing fee. Then I'll add a special fee on blank printing paper to cover my losses every time someone steals one of my pictures. Part of that is your fault, obviously. Then I'm going to charge a fee for delivering the print to you. A charge for placing it in your album. A fee for placing it on Facebook, another one for your iPhone, another one for your digital picture frame, another one for... well, you get the point. I'll charge yet another fee _every time_ you look at the picture for the next 110 years. Finally, if you show the picture to someone else I'm going to charge you double. If you show it to 5 or more people then you'll need to pay $100. If you describe the picture, you'll need to pay a fee. If you use part of my picture in another picture, fee. If you want to re-interpret the picture, fee. If you want to digitize the picture - HELL NO! Not allowed. I'm going to hire lots of lawyers to threaten you with lawsuits if you break any of these rules. I will also be hiring private investigators to pose as your friends to try and trick you in to showing the pictures. If you show them my picture of you without paying the fee, then off to jail with you, you dirty crook. When the police raid your home to search for your criminal copying device (printer), I will be there with them going over all your albums. I am sure you are a thief. When I find the unauthorized images I know you stole, you'll pay $10,000 per violation. If you place any of my images of you on the Internet, then your ISP will be shutting off your connection, confiscating all your website addresses, and barring you from even seeing a computer for years. Simply looking at my image of you without a license is theft, and you are a no-good-rotten-thief deserving shame, public ridicule, and jail time. You are making me, the lowly artist, starve! Oh, by the way, I am not actually going to do any of this. I'm going to sell all the rights to my images to a large multi-national global corporation with incredible political power who will do all of this. Not for me or on my behalf, but for them. You can pretend it is for me, if that makes you feel any better.

Now, who would like to sign up for a session with me? You know you want my goods and services! If I don't have a line out the door by end of day, then it is because all of you are all STEALING my work. I suffer at least... $2 billion... in losses a year (yeah, that sounds right). If you weren't stealing my pictures, then I'd clearly have plenty of customers. It is all your fault my business is suffering, you rotten crooks... er, I mean customers!

Venues Pay the Royalties When You Sing

[theshowmecanuck]

Generally (at least in the U.S. and probably Canada), the venue is responsible for paying royalties for music played in the establishment. It is usually a monthly or yearly flat rate based on how many patrons you can accommodate. It covers live and recorded music that is copyrighted by someone else. So a live band, a DJ, a juke box, whatever. Most places are supposed to have a small sign up to show they paid the dues. If the band records the performance and it includes cover songs, then they have to pay royalties based on how many copies they sell. So the bottom line is that unless they are recording and selling the recording, the performers don't have to worry about fees. And if the songs are originals, they don't have to worry about fees when recording either. Unless they like suing themselves.

Re:Venues Pay the Royalties When You Sing

[dryeo]

Yes that is how it was in Canada, now we've got a new copyright law and they're adding this on top of the previous payments. This one is supposed to go to the recording artists, which translates as the record companies whereas the previous payment went to the composers, which of course translated as the record companies.
Anyways, the government assures us that this is a good copyright law as it is now definitely legal to time shift, backup, play media on different devices including transcoding as long as we don't break DRM. They did swear that they'd never enforce that part of the law if used non-commercially but they sure refused to write it down.
Bastards

Re:Venues Pay the Royalties When You Sing

[rtb61]

Which of course means wedding videos are subject to copyright fees for the licensed music contained within. This will be the obvious next step asserting copyright bans on all privately recorded content not matter how little prior copyrighted content they might contain, background music, a distant billboard image, an accidentally hummed tune, a passing resemblance in plot in part or in whole to copyrighted content. Watch out if you make a phone call with music playing in the background, expect to pay a licence fee for broadcast or be instantly cut off.

Re:Venues Pay the Royalties When You Sing

[theshowmecanuck]

Your tin foil hat is showing.

If you have a wedding

[Hentes]

order a live band. It's worth the extra cost.

Has anyone got sued for singing "Happy Birthday" ?

[Cutting_Crew]

Imagine the cops following the trail of balloons and signs to a house advertising a birthday party...and the getting a warrant without the homeowners knowledge so they can listen to make sure no one sings the *song*.

It has ALWAYS been like this

[scharkalvin]

If you buy a CD you must pay for each time you play it in certain commerical settings. If you own a radio station you must pay a fee each time you play that CD on the air. If you are a DJ you have to pay a fee each time you play the CD at a gig. The key here is that you are making money by playing that CD. OTOH if I throw a party it's a not for profit setting (unless the purpose of the party is to promote a product or service) so there shouldn't be the need to pay. Playing background music in a restaurant also requires paying for the use of the music as it is in a for profit setting. All CD's are covered by ASCAP or BMI provisions on this.

DJ license already covers this

[metoc]

Most of these events have DJs and commercial DJs are licensed, so unless SOCAN is double dipping his is a waste of a news article.

Re:DJ license already covers this

[chrismcb]

From TFA:

While the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (otherwise known as SOCAN) already collects money from many of these events for the songwriters, Re:Sound will represent the record labels and performers who contributed to the music.

Great way to lose money, I think...

[O'Bunny]

I occasionally do sound reinforcement for a non-profit arts-promoting organization. I used to play music before events, just to fill the dead air. Gave me an excuse to buy interesting CDs to play that fit with the events. After an event a while back, the organization got a nastygram from Re:Sound, telling them that per Tarriff 5 they must pay a *percentage of the gate* for events where recorded sound was used.

The result? No music is being played before events. No CDs being bought. No musicians being hired to play pre-show tunes. Lose all around.

It may be a good thing...

[derito]

If it forces people in public transport to lower the volume of their headphone so the rest of us can't hear the music and thus avoid the tax.

Whistling

[virtigex]

Whistling will be charged at 5 cents per minute.

Those who do not learn from history...

[Hyperhaplo]

... are doomed to repeat it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalties-from-girl-scouts-and-regrets-it.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

upsurge in folk music urged by governments

[multicsfan]

I see a resurgence in folk music and classical music and anything no longer covered by copyright. I wonder how they will handle filksongs?