Vancouver Train System To Charge Buskers Huge Fees To Play In Stations

from the gotta-pay-to-busk? dept

We were troubled last month by reports that SOCAN, a music collection society up in Canada, was looking to get buskers (street performers) to pay performance fees. Now more details are coming out on this story. It really involves TransLink, the Vancouver-area transit authority, and SOCAN, with SOCAN demanding a lot more money from TransLink. Apparently, TransLink quickly caved and agreed to a massive increase in fees, which it is immediately dumping on the buskers themselves -- even though most "venues" cover any such fees themselves. It turns out that Buskers in TransLink stations already had to pay $75/year -- but now if they want to play during the Olympics, that will be a separate $50 fee just for the Olympics, and the new annual fee will probably be around $300. For busking. I wonder what they want to charge you for humming or singing along?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    wonder if..

    People will have to pay a toll simply to go into Vancouver during the olympics? Extra fees at the airport too?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Re: wonder if..

    I wouldn't be a single bit surprised.

    And the IOC wonders why people are beginning to hate the Olympics more and more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:13pm

    Re: wonder if..

    The skytrain system that goes to the airport has additional fees for travel to and from the airport.

    ...just thought it was worth mentioning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Joe, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:17pm

    There's been a number of fee changes lately. I noticed yesterday that when you pay for parking by phone, there used to be a .30 convenience fee, which has been removed. But parking hours have been extended from 8pm to 10pm. Give a little, take a lot.

    Personally, I suspect this has to do with cost overruns on the Olympic Village. The federal government has capped the amount they are willing to subsidize it, and since the financing from the American firm fell out last year, the city of Vancouver has got to be looking at that and thinking, 'geez - how the hell are we going to pay for all this?.'

    Having said that, it's interesting to see all the preparations going on. Temporary structures are sprouting up all over the place. The new Skytrain is awesome. Large pedestrian barricades appeared around the stadium last week. And I just got my tix to INXS :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    cc, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:20pm

    This could be a passive-aggressive way of telling the buskers to stay out of the stations...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Vic, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:22pm

    Lots of related questions...

    Does it only cover music performances? Then, say, mimes or illusionists do not have to pay, right? Wonder what happens if a mime takes a violin to his/her performance... Without any actual music performed, just for the act. Is it SOCAN taxable? How about just playing a drum? There is no melody there, only a rhythm. How about banging your head on the wall? Is that going to be taxed as music too?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:22pm

    The Olympics have never been good for the cities themselves. It's good for the businesses, politicians, IOC family members, etc., but the city itself always ends up with a net loss.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Levi (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    more widespread

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Jimr (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    The buskers (street performers) need to play their own original music or royalty free music.
    If you are not using SOCAN's member's materials then you should not be obligated to pay them a dime.

    SOCAN job is to collect the licensing fee for their member's copyrighted material. If the buskers do not use their material how can TransLink extort this fee from them?

    I can see TransLink asking busker for a fee but there is no way TransLink should just automatically hand money over to SOCAN.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:54pm

    The venue pays a blanket fee that covers all performances whether they use licenced music or not. The venue is passing on this cost to the performers whether they use licenced music or not. It's the same everywhere. In bars this fee is figured in when they decide what to pay the band.

    Also, this has nothing to do with the IOC. Most businesses and agencies within an Olympic city try to take advantage of the situation and overcharge for everything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Bob (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    not all bad

    While this is not necessarily a bad thing, this quote shows that the TransLink people know they are getting the best end of this deal.

    "We want to provide an enjoyable experience for people if they have to wait a bit longer during the Games," said Translink spokeswoman Judy Rudin.

    They are getting very cheap entertainment for travelers they know will need it during expected delays during service.

    This is not your typical busking environment. You are basically hired, ok you audition for this gig. The problem is that they are not hiring these people but just basically letting their own customers pay for it. Smart on their behalf, but if they are auditioning people for this, the least they could do is eat the $880 dollars they have to pay SOCAN.

    Hopefully the tips these performers will more than outweigh the license fee they have to pay. The fee has less to do with recouping the license fee and more to do with trying to add value to the license. That said, the smart thing would have been to not raise the fees, take the cheap entertainment and everybody wins.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Olympics not good for the city

    When Atlanta hosted the games, there was a huge 'greening' effort, to plant trees everywhere, without regard to their proper care. Many of the trees were planted in large pots, with nowhere for the roots to grow.

    Now, there are numerous dead, or dying, trees all over the city. At least we don't have all those poor tree roots to blame for our crumbling water and sewer systems.

    The ONLY thing that I can think of that helped was the money shovelled into traffic cameras and roadway sensors. At least I can look at an interactive map to see how backed up my commute is ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    davebarnes (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:33pm

    I used to have a positive view of the Olympics

    and a negative view of the IOC.
    Now, I just have a negative view of everything Olympics-related.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:39pm

    I wonder what they want to charge you for humming or singing along?

    Unless you are making money from it, nothing. Your comment is sarcastic as heck, and really adds nothing to the discussion.

    Buskers are making a living off of performing music, mostly other people's music. Why should they get a free ride, when if they perform in a night club, there would be fees?

    As for the facility paying the fee, it is pretty much the same here. The rent for space has gone up in accordance with costs. Clubs do the same thing, just showing it differently, perhaps paying a band $100 less a night, or claiming the first 30 ticket sales as "rent".

    The real world is very different from 2 minutes at a white board, isn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Casey (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Re: wonder if..

    They're encouraging everyone to use public transit for the time the olympics are here, yet they're saying to expect up to 2 hour delays because of how many extra people will be utilizing the system. And if you have to drive (like me) then you have all the road closures to deal with. Thankfully I have underground parking at my work, but the hub for all the GM vehicles (hundreds) is right behind my work and things will be a gong show here regardless. Meh, a lot of road improvements that were long overdue have been completed because of the olympics. Temporary inconvenience is going to equal a long-term benefit for the city.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:52pm

    Re:

    What about the musicians that play their own original music and nothing else? What about the artists (like myself) that play either their own music or music that they have permission to use freely? Should they (we) be charged as well?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Re:

    performance rights are different from usage rights. The collection agencies would collect, and pay back the writers by the formulas in place.

    It is pretty much impossible to monitor each performance and figure out what is what (considering the costs involved).

    How much does it cost? Even if the 100% of the $300 went to fees, which it does not, it would be about $1 per day (5 day week, plus some weekends if you so desire). play 10 songs an hour, play for 4 or 5 hours... say 50 songs. Net cost, 2 cents per song.

    in the end, the amount is so little as to be laughable. If they can't busker up 2 cents a song average, perhaps it's time to stop.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 2:18pm

    The olympics haven't been about sportsmanship since WWII.Its all about selling ads and sponsorships. Why do you think they added extreme snowboarding ? I half expect theatrical wrestling to be added to the acrobatics competitions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not saying it can't be rationalized into something tiny. I'm saying that by lumping everyone together they are doing a disservice to the people who are performing their own music. Why should someone every have to pay to play their own music, even if it is a laughable amount?

    What if I put together an organization that charged $0.83 a day to everyone in the world in case they were profiting from my music? How do I know they aren't? How do I know you aren't at work right now singing a song I wrote and your co-workers aren't tipping you for it? Better to be safe than sorry, right? It's a laughable amount, so you should pay right up, right?

    The truth of the matter is that I'm not even trying to be an ass right now. I remember what it's like playing for my supper and it wasn't fun. That's why I'm not a full time musician. I feel bad for the guys out there busting their hump and paying for their "stage" (which I don't see a problem with), then on top of that having to pay some unrelated company for the privileged of playing music they created. It shouldn't matter how small and laughable the actual amount is, it's the principle. It's the fact that someone who had nothing to do with the music at all gets to collect money on it from the people who wrote and performed it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    compgeek, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 2:46pm

    Re:

    "Buskers are making a living off of performing music, mostly other people's music. Why should they get a free ride, when if they perform in a night club, there would be fees?"

    thats like saying the people who buy the computers i build and sell to them should pay me a monthly fee to use the computer i built. after all like a musician i usually dont make much profit from them at all. those people are using "my" computer.

    heres a better solution: buskers could pay a one time fee directly to the artist. the artists decide how much they want verses how much they want their music heard. then everyone leaves them alone. this works because how do i know that the person who buys my computer wont make money with it?

    people keep trying to compare IP with physical proprty, yet the ip people themselves dont realize that it's like comparing apples to oranges. i.e.: i (or a musician) build(s) a computer (makes a song) i (or the artist) use individual parts (individual words and notes) and made by others to create something. i pay for the parts (the artist does not) i charge once for unlimited use (the labels charge multiple times for each use). i receive my money based on time and cost of the build (the label gets paid on someone elses time and cost of creation multiple times for each use, gives little to the artist)

    now, if someone steals what i made i no longer have access to it. I (and only i) press charges, pay the appropriate legal fees and get compensated for what was actually stolen. someone "steals" music from the artist by playing said song, the artist still has access to it, but the labels sue the "thief" for much more than the actual value of said song or any "losses" suffered. if anything the labels stand to make more when people like a song a busker plays then buy the song they heard. as is, labels are squandering their support and resources with obsolete business models by pissing off their potential customers

    p.s. making a sarcastic comment after you criticize mike for making one is very hypocritical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    compgeek, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    i tip my hat to you. that is a very good point

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Bob (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

    @compgeek

    Horrible example but you have one good point.

    If I am going to busk or even perform at small clubs, I should be able to contract only with people whoes songs I cover.

    I would prefer this, that way I am not subsidizing the current crop of Autotune "Songwriters" and other "popular" artists that I would choose not to support.

    When I do covers, they tend to be from independent artists. These people are never going to see a cent from ASCAP, SOCAN and the like. Why? Because in the formula, nobody listens to their music so in the formula, they don't get paid.

    Of course the reality of personally contracting with each person whose songs I cover is horrible as well. The only solution, that is just as open to corruption as the current system is to have any ASCAP paying venue require that artists submit a playlist from a set.

    But the real issue on this article is muddied by the involvement of SOCAN. While it is not unreasonable to pay a fee to a venue such as this for the return you will get in return, it is stupid, when the TransLink people could have done better in good will, than they will get in fees.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 4:01pm

    Re:

    The real world is very different from 2 minutes at a white board, isn't it?

    The real world? You mean the one where you'd like to ". . . close down the internet, and inspect every computer system attached to see who has the file. Then we charge the infringer $10 per copy, with no upper limit."

    That real world?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 5:16pm

    Re: Irony

    > he real world is very different from 2 minutes at a white board, isn't it?

    Your comment is sarcastic as heck, and really adds nothing to the discussion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Oh Boy ...., Jan 8th, 2010 @ 5:51pm

    Re:

    "Unless you are making money from it, nothing. Your comment is sarcastic as heck, and really adds nothing to the discussion.
    "

    As much time as you spend here Mr. The Anti-Mike ....
    I would think that you would remember the story about the lady who was singing while restocking shelves at some store ...

    I guess that is asking too much

    Please continue with your baseless demeaning attacks

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 5:53pm

    Re:

    synchronized swimming ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 8:31pm

    Re:

    Unless you are making money from it, nothing.

    Not true. If it's a "public performance", you pay.

    Your comment is sarcastic as heck, and really adds nothing to the discussion.

    Your lies really add nothing worthwhile to the discussion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re:

    "What about the musicians that play their own original music and nothing else? What about the artists (like myself) that play either their own music or music that they have permission to use freely?"

    Pay up.

    Should they (we) be charged as well?

    Should? I would say no, but you would be anyway. Welcome the world of TAM and his ilk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 11:15pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If they want to collect it they need to monitor the performances. That's part of the cost of doing business. A real businesses would decide that the cost is higher than the benefit. If they can't actually work out who should REALLY be paid they should not be collecting anything.

    The formula system is as accurate as polls are.... And it has gotten much worse as more and more performers chose to go independent.

    Using a formula based on guesswork and making everybody pay whether they actually use it or not no longer cuts it. The music business is growing up; it isn't a company store anymore.

    Your argument is like a cel phone provider saying: we're going to use our formula to guess how much air time you use and we'll bill you accordingly. Wait... you say... but I don't HAVE a cel phone... Too bad, everybody pays.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 9th, 2010 @ 6:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Laurel, they don't have to monitor the performances, there system works (and in inexpensive) because it does work on a polling and potential system, rather than long details song by song accounting.

    The cost to account for every song played in every busker spot in every skylink station on every day of the week for the 18+ hours per day that each station is open would be overwhelming, and would take those $300 fees and probably turn them into thousands of dollars, with most of the money going to adminstration, not to artists (which is the gripe Mike tends to hit here).

    Your argument is like a cel phone provider saying: we're going to use our formula to guess how much air time you use and we'll bill you accordingly. Wait... you say... but I don't HAVE a cel phone... Too bad, everybody pays.

    The system works by licensing an establishment, not by licensing individual performances. There are X number of spaces, Y number of buskers, etc. Anyone who doesn't get a busker permit for the skyway isn't obligated to pay anything. They don't have a cel (sic) phone, they aren't paying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 9th, 2010 @ 6:11pm

    Re: @compgeek

    Bob, the problem with your idea of individual contracting is that it creates all sorts of nightmares. One of those nightmares is people who negotiate with nobody, and force the individual song writers to each have their own scouts out checking every music establishment in the country to see if their tunes are being played.

    It also means that you would have to negotiate a legal contract with each of the individual song owners, which would cost your hundreds of dollars per document to do properly (with a lawyer). Every time you appeared in a club, you would also have to negotiate a music rights fee with them, as they may be on a different system than you are on. Potentially, they would have to contact their system and negotiate an exception, or pay some sort of penalty. They could be obligated to keep a list of every act that appeared, every song they played, and every one of them that claims self-created payment contacts with the original song writers. You might be obligated to provide them with notarized documents before you could play, so as to limit their liabilty if you are lying.

    The costs to do it far exceed the benefit for anyone in the system, making the lawyers rich, and creating employment for plenty of paper pushers. It wouldn't get an extra cent to the musicians, and would probably take a ton of money out of your pocket.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jan 9th, 2010 @ 7:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The real irony here is that until the Olympics appeared on the horizon TransLink regularly gave any busker who had the nerve to set up in a Skytrain station the bums rush out of there pronto!

    Then, they went to "acceptable" buskers, I assume for attitude, cleanness and so on so they would be acceptable to the office worker types going to and from their glass towers in downtown Vancouver. Muzak with a guitar case.

    And now SOCAN blows in wanting thier cut of the Olympic gold.

    Back to the sidewalk guys! It's safer out there if you wanna make some pittance from playing music.

    ttfn

    John

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jan 9th, 2010 @ 7:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First of all, you're right about how the rights are charged for in traditional music locales and fair enough.

    Problem is, not many buskers are gonna be in a Skytrain (not skylink) station for 18+ hours a day. In fact licensed buskers are limited to how much time they can play in the location they're licensed to play in.

    Of course, the greatest traffic is between 5 and 9:30am and 3:30 and 7pm as Skytrain exists soley to feed people in and out of Vancouver's downtown core. (The reason for this is geographic as much as anything as downtown is located on a penninsula.)

    There may be other times when the stations are busy such as NHL and CFL games and special events downtown otherwise a busker in a station is more likely to be playing to the insects and rodents running around than a human being. Audience = ~0 most of those 18+ hours, therefore.

    Now tell me, how many buskers will be there during those times instead of out on the sidewalks where passers by can toss coins into (or at) the guitar case.

    And just how does SOCAN (or anyone else) account for this?

    It might work for the Yale but I'm pretty sure it needs a whole new set of calculations for places like Skytrain stations.

    ttfn

    John

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    john lavers, Jan 10th, 2010 @ 9:30am

    Re: busker royalities

    the legislation allows socan to charge just because busker smight play a copywrit song. if you play origional muusic you still have tp pay/ and the buskers can't get the royality for performing their own copywrit material. this legislation and schedule ten is too broad. some of the socan member should show some courage and morality and stop this attack on buskers. they are being driven out of business by socan. when the legislation first came in they said they would never bother buskers, but they are bureaucratic liars

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2010 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: @compgeek

    The costs to do it far exceed the benefit for anyone in the system, making the lawyers rich, and creating employment for plenty of paper pushers. It wouldn't get an extra cent to the musicians, and would probably take a ton of money out of your pocket.

    WHAT YOU'RE DESRCIBING IS THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 10th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: @compgeek

    Sorry, the system I describe would probably move the rights from pennies a song to dollars a song, with most of that money going to lawyers. Can you imagine rights going up 1000% and payouts to artists remaining flat or maybe even dropping?

    Anyway, in the end, I sort of object to this post because Mike seems to think that renting space to Buskers at about $1 a day is a "huge fee". I would hate to think of what he would think of a hotel room price in New York.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jan 11th, 2010 @ 3:48am

    Re: Re: @compgeek

    All of your arguments on the topic sound like whining.

    "We cannot figure out exactly who needs to pay what, so we need to make everyone pay".

    It is stunning to think anyone actually logically agrees that this is reasonable. These collection groups are making money because they claim to be doing the work of collecting the money and handing it out to the appropriate songwriters. If they cannot even start by accounting for who should get paid and who should be paying it, why do we need them?

    I agree that it is completely unreasonable to add the overhead to this system to actually determine who is singing original music and who should be paying up. The problem, however, is the system and it should not be solved by making a bunch of people pay up who really owe nothing.

    This is simply a tax on being a performer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 11th, 2010 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: @compgeek

    Sorry, the system I describe...
    blah blah blah


    I have a better proposal: get rid of it all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2010 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re: @compgeek

    Collection societies are out of control these days the costs to do it far exceed the benefit for anyone in the system, making the lawyers rich, and creating employment for plenty of paper pushers. It wouldn't get an extra cent to the musicians, and would probably take a ton of money out of your pocket.

    Almost a nice quote there TAM, I just added the appropriate piece to the front, and now it makes more sense in 'the real world'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 13th, 2010 @ 1:24pm

    It's interesting how they capitalize on the opportunity to make money were ever possible. For a busker there is not much money involved. Why should SOCAN charge if you play your own songs, how does that relate?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 1:35pm

    !!!

    The problem is that this is an absolutely ridiculous situation.

    In the first place, the very idea of charging buskers royalties is insane. Buskers survive on donations. They can put on a show and not make a nickel.

    In the second place, charging buskers for royalty charges they did not incur is obscene.

    When is SOCAN going to start charging royalties on private homes? OMG someone might be singing one of the songs they represent. (Or even one of the songs belonging to someone they DON'T represent. Because they collect those royalties too.)

    The people who actually create the music benefit the least from these ridiculous extensions of "copyright". The janitor at SOCAN has a better income from the music industry than most Canadian recording artists. Most Canadian recording artists don't want this kind of stuff to happen. Musicians and songwriters (with perhaps the exception of Bono) are some of the most generous people on the planet. They encourage and do their best to help out other artists.

    They sure don't want to put other artists out of business. More important to them than the pittance allotted by copyright collectives such as SOCAN is to have their music disseminated.

    If copyright Collectives want to collect royalties they need to monitor the performances PROPERLY. That's part of the cost of doing business. If it is too expensive a real business would decide that the cost is higher than any potential benefits. And not do it. But copyright collectives aren't real businesses. They simply profit disproportionately from the actual work of overs.

    (Read about SOCAN's secret copyright submission )

    If SOCAN can't actually work out who should REALLY be paid they should not be collecting anything. Anything at all.

    Collecting royalties that are not incurred is theft. A far more serious (criminal even) offense than copyright infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Justin Morales, May 11th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    WOW nyc is NOT like that

    It's a constitutional right to play music in the subway here. You just can't play with an amplifier. So it cost 2.50 to get in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Busking The System, May 11th, 2010 @ 12:38pm

    Check it out

    for more info on Busking in NYC and the laws watch Busking The System. Doc about Buskiers

    www.buskingthesystem.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This