Copyright law gone mad

[FlimsyFeet]

A car repair firm has been taken to court accused of infringing musical copyright because its employees listen to radios at work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

[Dr.Khron]

I am stunned. I had to read that twice to make sure that it wasn't some kind of sick goof.

[Waleska]

This is going too far :mad:

[HyperHacker]

Wait, what? Unless they're talking about satellite stations that you have to pay for, this doesn't make any sense. Someone listening to your radio is no different than listening to their own.

If it is a paid station, then the claim at least makes sense, but is still retarded. If someone else can hear it, even if I'm not aware they can, I'm breaking the law? So if someone spies on me in the shower, do I get busted for indecent exposure? >_>

It's not actually the first time I've heard something like this, though. At some government-owned businesses, they aren't allowed to play the radio in the store because then they'd have to pay royalties. When people could just listen for free from another radio. No sense at all.

[mpucoder]

The key point to all this is going to be whether or not this is a public performance or private listening. public performance of music can be used to promote business, but requires a public performance license and royalties be paid. The claim is that the music is loud enough to be heard by customers of the business.

[mr soft]

Barmy springs to mind. Maybe it’s a publicity stunt _ what am I missing, I’ll have to listen to the radio more_
I’m sure the artists would say otherwise, any publicity is good publicity. At least there’s one CD you can listen to publicly without fear of persecution, Radiohead.
Radiohead will cash in on this , and they deserve it.
It makes sense to send a buck even if you don´t like them , as the future of music could swing this way to our benifit.
The killjoy that walked into that place eh. The only thing to brighten up your day in any workpalce is some tunes, or a radio , I personally don´t care whats playin.

[Waleska]

At least there’s one CD you can listen to publicly without fear of persecution, Radiohead

Point is, who in their right mind would listen to that rubbish?, I'd rather infringe a copyright by listening to someting else, go jail and get raped by a thousand dykes in a row.

For the good or for the bad, Radiohead's "pay whatever you want for it" online CD certainly has some potential for setting a new yet freer standard in the music industry, but at the end it would be just trading laws for fan charity, and I ignore to what extent that would benefit someone.

[foxyshadis]

I’m sure the artists would say otherwise, any publicity is good publicity. At least there’s one CD you can listen to publicly without fear of persecution, Radiohead.
Radiohead will cash in on this , and they deserve it.

Where do you get that idea? Unfortunately, the PPL is alowed to pursue licenses for the public playing of any and all copyrighted material, whether the artists are interested or not. Only public domain material is exempted.

Even if I liked Radiohead, I'd probably still be annoyed that they're getting so much press for something other bands have been doing for years.

[Dark Shikari]

This is nonsense, because the radio station already pays royalties. They're asking for royalties twice.

[Sharktooth]

once i had to pay a fine coz i was listening a CD put in the car stereo at "too high volume"... the reason was ppl could listen to that music without paying the license...

[RickB]

Sharktooth
You were probably trying to act "cool" but instead was being a pain in the **** with the window wound down and was just annoying to people having to listen to the racket. Are you sure you were not done for disturbing the peace

[Mug Funky]

i think here's an example of where copyright law needs to be clarified, and the ubiquitous copyright statements found on DVDs and CDs need to be either removed or qualified.

playing music at work, even if it can be heard, should not constitute public performance. customers are not paying to hear the music, they're paying to get their cars fixed. workers aren't trying to make a dollar off the radio station's licensing, they're trying not to die of boredom at work!

so who's next? commuters whose headphones are up loud enough that you can identify the song they're listening to? radio stations for knowingly contributing to the problem of people listening to music at a volume that can be heard by at least one other person?

do they want us all to get noise cancelling headphones, and ban speakers outright?

if you can't play music at work, we should at least all earn more - i would go crazy if all i could listen to at work were machine noises and clients going on about how they want crushed blacks and desaturation...

[Sharktooth]

Sharktooth
You were probably trying to act "cool" but instead was being a pain in the **** with the window wound down and was just annoying to people having to listen to the racket. Are you sure you were not done for disturbing the peace
not at all.

[Inventive Software]

The words "Sarcy git" come to mind............... ;)

[burfadel]

If I were the employees at that place, you know they'd probably lose so I'd come back and argue that by playing music over their radio's its free advertising for people to buy the songs. Afterall, people only buy music (unless they're fan of a person or group) AFTER they hear it. If it weren't for radio play people wouldn't be buying new music, simple as that. The place isn't recording the music and distributing it, nor are they even playing a bought CD! Even if they were playing a CD, its still advertising! There are a lot of people that go and buy music solely because they hear it in a shop, either piped radio or a CD. Who on here has bought a CD/Album/Single whatever because they've heard it in a store etc? :)

[Shinigami-Sama]

wow
we always had a radio going in the kitchen
and the radio going in the front
no-one ever complained to us about it once
and thats a restaurant's, a much better choice if you're going to target them saying that it was to draw customers

what about stereo stores?

give me a break, if this doesn't get thrown out of court someone needs to be sterilized

[prOnorama]

What about people walking on the street playing music on their mobile phones? Copyright infingement as well?

Actually it would be a bonus in this case, people playing loud music on mobile phones in public places are generally annoying as hell :p

[blutach]

And what of people with home theatres that play their DVDs loud (or going further, where you can spy the video through open blinds)? Or going even further, having a TV on that a passer by can see?

Regards

[foxyshadis]

Oh, your collar will be monitoring that, you'll be charged a per-use TV license every time you walk by a telly, though electronics retailers can prepay your fees to get you inside. The revenue generated will go to the maintenance of the organizations that collect the fees, for the betterment of the Empire...

[mpucoder]

some of these posts are extremly ridiculous. It all comes down to whether the music is being used to enhance the business. Playing a radio in public, if you do not represent a business while doing so, is not being threatened. And stereo stores, big box stores, night clubs, and even the Dunkin' Donuts mobile van all have public performance licenses (if they are operating legally)

Now this case is in Scotland, so their laws are probably different than those in the U.S., but here the royalties collected from public performance licenses are collected by either ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) or BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc). the money does not go to the performers, they get paid from the sales of the recordings, but to the writers.

[Shinigami-Sama]

some of these posts are extremly ridiculous. It all comes down to whether the music is being used to enhance the business. Playing a radio in public, if you do not represent a business while doing so, is not being threatened. And stereo stores, big box stores, night clubs, and even the Dunkin' Donuts mobile van all have public performance licenses (if they are operating legally)

Now this case is in Scotland, so their laws are probably different than those in the U.S., but here the royalties collected from public performance licenses are collected by either ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) or BMI (Broadcast Music Industry). the money does not go to the performers, they get paid from the sales of the recordings, but to the writers.

here in Canada radio is free of licences
but jukeboxes are subject to fees, which seems a little backwards to me
or at least is the case for restaurants

[mpucoder]

The logic behind it, if I understand history correctly, is that radio does promote the sales of the recordings, therefore the performers and studios benefit from public performance and need no compensation. The writers, however, are paid no royalties based on sales, only on public performance.

[Shinigami-Sama]

The logic behind it, if I understand history correctly, is that radio does promote the sales of the recordings, therefore the performers and studios benefit from public performance and need no compensation. The writers, however, are paid no royalties based on sales, only on public performance.

that makes my head hurt
why can't people just be paid flat royalties and be done with all this lawsuit jazz?

[Dr.Khron]

You have to realize that the system Mpucoder describes evolved over time, based on the evolving needs of the business. Complicated as it is, I'm sure that it used to make sense.

Currently though, the music business is in revolution, not evolution, so the legal constructs are completely behind the times.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Terrestrial radio is licence-free in the UK, too.

Interesting quotes from the BBC report:

Lord Emslie ruled that the action can go ahead with evidence being heard.

First, who has copyright on the evidence? :) What if 3rd parties get to hear it....

Second, Emslie may be thinking this whole thing is ridiculous and wants the case to go ahead in order to set a precendent.

The PRS lodged details of countrywide inspection data over the audible playing of music at Kwik-Fit on more than 250 occasions in and after 2005.

This isn't just against a single Kwik Fit service center but across the UK. Interesting that the case is to be heard under Scottish law and not that of England and Wales (the registered office is in Scotland).

The PRS' inspection rate for Kwik Fit seems very high...

Perhaps they should just replace all the radios with a Kwik Fit jingle played over and over and over again...."You can't get quicker than a Kwik Fit fitter." Don't sing it, though, you may get the PRS knocking on your door....

[adam]

There are numerous lawsuits like this that have occurred in the United States. There are also many suits in the tax courts over this issue. As a business, music can be considered a reasonable and necessary business expense, and that is why you have to pay royalties. because you are using it commercially. A garage seems like a stretch to me, but things like waiting rooms or supermarkets are the most common examples. It benefits your business to entertain the patrons why they shop or wait. Its considered part of your service. Yes you have to pay royalties when you use music like this, but you can also write it off as a business expense on your taxes.

These cases have nothing to do with other people incidentally being able to hear the music that you are personally listening to. Its about using the music commercially without a license.

Most of these suits come to light because the company is writing off expenses for the music on their taxes but are not paying royalties. When that happens there's really not much they can say in their defense.

[2Bdecided]

The UK PRS rules have been clear for at least two decades.

IIRC the UK PRS also announced a year or more ago that they were tightening up on previously "overlooked" users which require PRS payment under UK law. This is just one example.

If you want to see the (somewhat frightening) costs, click here:

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/Pages/default.aspx

I doubt we'll have heard the last of this.

Cheers,
David.

[mr soft]

Liking or disliking Radiohead is beside the point.

This new album of theirs is being released without a label, meaning no RIAA ties, no JACK. The PPL and others can sing for their dinner like the rest.
Music is unconditionally for all to enjoy. To own it is another thing. This case will have huge implications for millions of small businesses that can’t afford to play music.
Imagine every time a customer enters a shop,
TURN THE RADIO DOWN.

[foxyshadis]

People hold up radiohead as if they're the first to ever go labelless. They might be the first billion-dollar act, but they're no pioneers.

Anyway, as I said, PPL and PRS have an obligation to collect from you, label or no label, and telling them music should be free isn't going to go far in court. The only way you could likely get around it is to hire a lawyer to draft a business licensing agreement and get them to sign & return it to you, for a fee or not, since they're acting as their own label. All you do is trade institutionalized music fees for lawyer fees, though.

This is something that needs to be changed on the legislative side, or it'll get even more out of hand when people do start trying to play labelless music.

[4Dude]

I heard about this and its sickening!!!

When is it gonna stop??

[MetalheadGautham]

weren't those personal radios? and not unportable satellite radio receiver sets? afaik, personal portable radios can only play free in air channels. their business model itself means more that hear, more money we get. howcome this amounts to copyright infrigment? this means its the broadcasters who will get sued indirectly.


I heard about this and its sickening!!!

When is it gonna stop??


never. its the earth man!

[Doobie]

Next time your neighbor plays his radio too loud, don't just call the police, call the copyright police!