Canadian Copyright Board To Charge For Music At Weddings, Parades

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Copyright Board To Charge For Music At Weddings, Parades

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 1, 2012 @05:01AM from the what-about-hockey-playoff-games-oh-wait dept.

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.'"

29 of 349 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

When you can't innovate by ttimes · 2012-06-01 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

... then you create a legal scam to charge for everything else. Let's not congratulate this by being silent.
1. Re:When you can't innovate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 05:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.
2. Re:When you can't innovate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.
  I believe that is called "lobbying".
3. Re:When you can't innovate by jdgeorge · 2012-06-01 05:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hmmm.... I wonder if the major effect of this will be for people to use more live musicians instead of recorded music.
4. Re:When you can't innovate by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-06-01 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  **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!
5. Re:When you can't innovate by Joce640k · 2012-06-01 05:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "You, over there! Stop bobbing your head in time to the music, we haven't paid for head bobbing!"
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:When you can't innovate by Sunshinerat · 2012-06-01 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  Load New Commander (Y/N)?
7. Re:When you can't innovate by HornWumpus · 2012-06-01 05:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  When the Baptist start to complain.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
8. Re:When you can't innovate by deathlyslow · 2012-06-01 05:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
9. Re:When you can't innovate by Githaron · 2012-06-01 06:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re:When you can't innovate by CubicleZombie · 2012-06-01 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  :wq
11. Re:When you can't innovate by mooingyak · 2012-06-01 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Dancing? by AkaKaryuu · 2012-06-01 05:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?
1. Re:Dancing? by trimpnick · 2012-06-01 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
2. Re:Dancing? by BronsCon · 2012-06-01 05:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  dancing is forbidden
  Looks like ATHF saw this coming?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
3. Re:Dancing? by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-06-01 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
"If there's dancing, the fees double." by dstyle5 · 2012-06-01 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double." by Lithdren · 2012-06-01 05:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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..
2. Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double." by Hatta · 2012-06-01 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because, Fuck You, that's why.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How about instead by hort_wort · 2012-06-01 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

We charge them those prices for advertising their music to everyone and associating it with a positive memory?
That's way too low... by bugs2squash · 2012-06-01 05:10 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
Nullius in verba
Who is receiving the money? by Herkum01 · 2012-06-01 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
So glad..... by Lumpy · 2012-06-01 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Three observations by Dzimas · 2012-06-01 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Complete comedy of errors by geekmux · 2012-06-01 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Downfall by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-06-01 05:34 · Score: 4, Funny

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.'
Enforcement by michaelmalak · 2012-06-01 05:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Enforcement will be via Predator drone.
They forgot to mention campfire songs! by kawabago · 2012-06-01 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

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!
Oh look, welfare by Nanosphere · 2012-06-01 05:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.