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

[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

[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

[HornWumpus]

When the Baptist start to complain.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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?

[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?

[sunwukong]

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

"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."

[Hatta]

Because, Fuck You, that's why.

How about instead

[hort_wort]

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

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?

[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

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

Enforcement

[michaelmalak]

Enforcement will be via Predator drone.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.