Dave Nattriss 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (236)
-
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
-
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 01:34pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dear dave n.
OK, so given that I don't work for the PPL or PRS, nor ever have, where is the conflict of interest here?
I, like pretty much everyone online these days, am someone who creates content, both personally and through my paid work. I'm not a licensing society, nor do I work for one. Sure, I have 'connections' to the music industry, as does anyone who's ever heard a licensed song or bought a CD. In no way does my work void or nullify what I have to say, nor the facts I am stating.
What is the relevance of his intent, sorry? The UK copyright law states that if you want to play a recording in a public/commercial place, you need permission of the owner of the work or their representatives. He got his PRS license and for an unknown reason assumed that he had done all he needed to. Perhaps the wording of the contract implied it, or more likely, he just assumed it. As I've said many times now, it was an unfortunate mistake - he will have no doubt learnt his lesson. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 01:22pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 'immoral' I meant was the general feeling of the public, such as how most people believe it's morally wrong to physically hurt or kill someone. But OK, you're right. So let's just give up arguing about morals altogether then, please?
He broke the law, he got fined. Some people thought this was fair, some didn't. There is no objective/morally right/wrong as you say, so let's never discuss it again... -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 01:12pmRe: Come on Dave, this is getting ridiculous!
1. TV licensing is not the same as commercial PPL/PRS licensing. All members of the public need a TV license to watch TV broadcasts, whereas the public has no concern with PPL/PRS music licenses. If an 'average Joe' starts a business, he/she needs to do their homework and research the laws regarding every part of their business, or face the consequences. The rights for businesses, are thankfully, not the same as for individuals. And with the Internet age, you don't need a lawyer in most cases, just a search engine.
2. That would be nice I guess, yes.
3. That's a US case, not a UK case. More importantly, there's no mention of kids or anyone being arrested or taken to court at all. Based on that article (which apparently it would be illegal to post if posting links to content without permission was illegal), you're speaking rubbish. Did you post the wrong URL?
4. What on earth is ridiculous about that? I never said it was simple, but if you don't like the laws of where you live, get them changed, go elsewhere, or shut up! In the UK, you can always leave if you want to.
As for Rosa Parks, what was offensive, sorry? I think what she did was great - she stood (or sat down) against a law that made no moral sense. I still don't get how it compares at all with this case though. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 01:01pmRe: Whoa!!
OK, yes, my work is being broadcast to your property based on a license that my licensing society has arranged with the broadcaster, that lets them broadcast my music to private locations (i.e. non-commercial or public spaces) in the UK in return for an agreed fee.
You have bought a radio that allows you to play those broadcasts in the UK. You could have made it yourself, so your buying of it is irrelevant here, as is the role of radio manufacturers.
If you play a broadcast of my work in a non-commercial or public location in the UK, that's fine so long as the broadcaster has the appropriate licenses.
If however, you play a broadcast of my work in a commercial or public setting, that is not fully covered by the license of the broadcaster, because that's not the agreement my licensing societies made with them (as explained above). So in this case, you'll need to get the appropriate licenses if you want to do this legally. Or you can just not play the broadcasts of my work. Or you can break the law and risk getting fined.
What right do I have to two payments? Well, firstly, the first payment was from the broadcaster, not you. The reason why I feel that payment is due is because they will either be playing commercials around my music and making a profit from it, and so I feel I should get some share of this, or they are funded by the BBC license fee and again I should be entitled to a share of this. As for the second payment, this is along the same lines - if you're broadcasting my music on your commercial premises, you will be getting something from doing so (be it increased sales income, decreased sale income, better staff morale, worse staff morale, or whatever), or else you wouldn't be doing it, and so I again feel that I should be due to some kind of share of the money that your commercial operation is bringing in.
You say if I want to get paid again, sell it to a different audience. Actually, that's exactly what I 'did'. I sold it to the radio to be broadcast and played in non-commercial or public settings. And then for commercial/public settings, I am selling you, not the broadcast, a different kind of license.
You talk about your taxes paying for regulation of the public airwaves. Are you confusing the UK and the US again?
And no, asking for anything is NOT theft. Theft/stealing is taking something without the owner's permission. I suppose forcing someone to pay something could be described as theft, but it's only forcing if they are forced to do it. You are NOT forced to listen to the radio. If you don't like the licensing systems in place, just don't listen. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 12:42pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, an analogy is the argument that two separate things are similar or the same.
Smoking and licensing fees are not the same, or similar. Your analogy failed. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 12:29pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
Actually, if you must try to sum me up in three words (not really a fair thing to do to anyone, nor to call them a 'fucking moron' either), my mindset is: UK-copyright-law-is-fairly-fair.
-
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 12:24pmRe: Again, REALLY?? C'mon Dave!
Hi Ron,
"Morality is expressly an individual interpretation of right and wrong or good and evil. Your definition (or anyone else's for that matter) has ZERO bearing on my belief of what is moral and immoral. Neither of us can claim the "high ground" because morals are an individual interpretation."
You then go on to quote a definition, which makes no mention of individuality:
"morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"
So Ron, retraction to your blatantly false statement is hereby requested.
"The point of contention lies in the interpretation that "All laws are right/moral and thus, must be obeyed (regardless of an individual's concerns/beliefs)", which is then self-justified by the "that's why they are laws" claim. Laws are laws so they must be right. Ummm, NO!"
I've never said this and I apologise if you've somehow misinterpreted what I have said to think that.
"Laws are interpretations (not necessarily moral interpretations either) of acceptable or unacceptable behavior for a subsection of humanity (which is why laws have jurisdictions). I sincerely doubt that any statement regarding laws on the whole will withstand the scrutiny on a global scale."
Agreed. Which is why I'm getting kind of sick of most of the commentators on this thread quoting US laws/morals when the whole story is about something that happened in the UK. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 12:17pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are really trying to tell me that zero, i.e. nothing, is of value to a market?! Markets value things, not non-things. If I have nothing in my hand, what's in my hand is not valuable to a market. You're speaking nonsense.
-
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 12:10pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
Hi Mike,
"...your entire response to me is you blatantly lying about the *stated* intentions of copyright law in the UK."
Yikes, that's the most blatant lie I've seen on this page so far. You are making out like I made all the copyright laws in the UK or that I had some part in deciding their intentions. To be honest, I couldn't care about their intentions - the fact is they exist and currently give creators a decent amount of rights over their work.
"If you truly believe that it is not worth discussing this further, as you have no concept of content or creativity. You don't believe in the public domain, which is downright scary and ignorant.
I suggest you read James Boyle's book on the Public Domain. It's available for free online. You might learn something about how incredibly important the public domain is to creativity."
You see, now you're just making things up. I never said I don't believe in the public domain. What I have been saying countless times now is that every creator should have the right TO CHOOSE if their work should enter the public domain for all to use/copy/share/remix etc. as they wish. I am not blind, I am aware of the power of the public domain, but I would rather that an artist gets to control on what basis their work enters the PD, if at all, then have it legally enforced after an arbitrary amount of time. In the UK, that period is usually 50 years, which is just a number. Why not 49? Why not 51? In the interests of creator's rights, it should be when and only when they like. Possibly there could be a legal clause that states if they die and do not make their intentions clear in a will or similar, anything they don't pass on to others goes into the public domain, in the interest of progress, but I have never said I don't believe in the public domain. Please stop making up crap.
"Right there you just lied about copyright. Copyright has always been the privilege. Not the public domain. You are so wrong it hurts"
Says who, sorry? If you make something, it's yours. If you own something, it's yours. Ownership/creativity are not privileges, they are facts of life as part of being the dominant race on this planet.
"Dave, when you die, will your family continue to get cash for the last website you built?"
Yes, they would if I was on profit-related pay scheme, which sometimes I am.
But most websites I build are done on a commission basis where I charge a one-off payment for the work done and nothing further unless there is more work to be done.
However, if I created my own website that had some kind of income stream, similar to recording some of my own music and selling digital copies of it online, then sure, if I instructed in my will that I wanted my family to receive future income from it after I die, then yes, they would.
Maybe try a better metaphor if you really think you can prove me wrong?
"To claim that it's not moral for the public to have access to content is a downright sickening thought. It shows you know little of how creative content works."
No, it just shows how easily sickened you are. I think it's perfectly fine for the public to have access to content if that's what the creators want (perhaps with terms and conditions attached), but I don't think it's an automatic right or entitlement, nor does it need to be. Most artists are not greedy, they will give away their content or at least provide access to it for a price, as they see fit. I don't think you need to worry about a world where creators have control over their work, and it really shouldn't sicken you as that's the world of copyright we already have.
"Can an artist demand that the radio not play his or her music? Can an artist demand that another artist not cover his or her songs?"
Yes, of course they can, assuming they've not already granted licensing to the contrary that they are unable to cancel/revoke.
"If you really believe it's all about control, you have to admit that copyright law today is quite immoral."
How so, sorry?
"It funnels money that should go to small artists to big ones. It's about as immoral as you can get. It takes away money from venues that support small artists and hands that money to PPL execs and big artists."
Please could you explain this properly. If a big artist has their music played in licensed venues 100 times a day over the UK, but a small artist only has their music played once (by themselves?), why shouldn't the big artist receive 100 times more than the small artist?
Smaller venues pay smaller license fees. As far as I know the PRS and PPL splits up the money (after costs) according to how much each artist's music has been played. Are you claiming that that's not true? If a small artist rarely has their music played, you can't blame that on the licensing societies.
I'll admit here that I don't know exactly how they calculate their payments, as like I've been saying, I've never actually worked for any of the licensing societies, so if you have any actual hard evidence of how the UK do it, please do share the information. Otherwise, please pipe down.
"there ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS in the UK because PPL and PRS had a gov't backed monopoly."
Wrong. One option you have would be to go venues, and either sell them a copy of your music (in whichever format) with a license to play it on their premises, to the public, at a price you determine. Cut out the PPL/PRS altogether as you're not on their books. Or instead of selling a copy with a special license, you could give them a free copy that is theirs to own as long as they pay you a retainer over time. So once they get bored of playing your music, they just stop paying you and send back the recording.
Of course, you might find making arrangements like this to be quite time-consuming, especially with every venue in the UK. So, you could instead, sign up with a licensing society and let them take care of all the work for you, for a fee of course. There are a couple of popular ones in the UK, as you know.
The point is, YOU HAVE A CHOICE. Why you keep ignoring that is beyond me.
"No. Dave, learn some history and learn the law. It's a bargain about how to incentivize works to get them into the public domain."
That might be how it was envisaged, but it's really not how it is now. In the modern capitalist world, creators know that they have moral rights to the work that they create - you wouldn't write articles as your occupation if you couldn't make a living from them and have some rights to them (that maybe you pass on to someone else in return for a wage).
"Being in the public domain does not mean no one can sell it."
Sure it does. If something is in the public domain, you have no more rights to it than anyone else does. So if you want to sell it, you need permission from everyone else who owns it - i.e. everyone - and who's going to buy it when they already have the rights to it?!
Now, of course, say it was music - a symphony written by Beethoven hundreds of years ago, for example, where the copyright has now expired - you can make your own recording of the piece and sell copies of that and make a profit, because it's your recording of the piece to sell, and UK copyright allows you do this. But you can't sell the music as simply intellectual property, because it's not yours, it's everyone's! You're just selling a copy of your own recording of it.
"Yes, technically they retain their copyrights because they have no choice under the law. As the law stands, you automatically get copyright. Getting rid of them is nearly technically impossible under the law."
That's complete rubbish, Mike. If you want to give up your copyright to your own work, before it expires by law, you can just do so. Declare it, ideally on a piece of paper that can be legally recognised - "I relinquish all copyright to this work, signed...". There you go - done. Now it's legally in the public domain, because that's what you, the author, have chosen to do with it.
"The point is that they're not using those copyrights. You asked for evidence that business models could exist and people could make money without copyright."
Actually, they are still using their copyrights. They are not surrendering them when if they were really giving their music away, they would be. They are retaining their rights, quite wisely, because they don't know what the future holds, and they are using them to control exactly how their works can be distributed. I asked you to show me business models that didn't use copyright at all - the ones that you showed me do still use them.
Show me an artist who has put their works into the public domain, yet still has a business model with those works. The fact, it can't be done. You need rights over the work you're selling or else you can't (legally) sell it and thus don't have a business model. If the work is in the public domain, sure, you can sell your own special recordings of it or whatever, but then it's the unique recordings that are your business model, not the original work (that anyone can use). -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 08:01amRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
Sorry but just because homo sapiens copied each other's cave paintings, it doesn't mean that they had any 'natural right' to do so, they just hadn't established any globally/nationally accepted rules/laws on the matter.
Are you going to say it was a 'natural right' to steal physical property of others, or to kill others, or even kill out whole races, just because our ancestors could? A 'right' implies that it was deemed to be 'right' to do that - do you have evidence of homo sapiens agreeing upon this? -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 07:55amRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
I'm glad you agree with me on the fundamentals of intellectual properties, Crosbie.
I meant unique creations in the form of intellectual property, not fruits from trees that are grown by nature and thus nobody's to copyright/own :-)
"unethical privilege is when having sold or given your intellectual work (or a copy) to someone you insist on retaining control over what that person does with what is now their property (material and intellectual). That control unnaturally conflicts with that person's cultural liberty, e.g. to share, perform, improve, the work they've purchased."
Unethical in whose view? As you're basically saying the entire practise of the current UK music/film/TV/book/creative arts industry is unethical. When you buy a music CD in the UK, you buy two different things. Firstly, a piece of plastic (and other materials) that has digital information stored on it. Secondly, a license to play/perform the music contained in the digital information/recording as per the conditions specified by the owner of the material. Usually these are basically to only play/perform it in private and non-commercial settings, and to not clone/copy it in any way. If you want, you can sell, lend or give the CD to someone else, and then as the owner of the CD, the license is transferred to them for as long as they own it. That IS how it works in the UK, and you don't really hear of anyone claiming this is unethical. Again, if someone creates something, it's fair for them to control exactly what happens to it, if they want to.
What is this personal cultural liberty you speak of though?
Copyright gives me legal entitlement/favouring/enforcement of having control of my work, but just because the law didn't exist 400 years ago, doesn't mean I didn't have any right to this as a creator. I still don't see how you can find this unethical or how we have any ethical right to go against the wishes of those that create things in regards to those things. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 07:41amRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason I said that is because there are laws about things you can't do, such as killing people (in the worst case), so again, you can never do ANYTHING you like because killing people would be part of that.
Your statement is correct too. My statement would only be incorrect if there were no laws about doing things on your property/business premises, but there are. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 07:34amRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what if it was against the law? It was against the law for the barber to play the music without the required licenses, but he did it anyway.
A lynch mob of white people, I guess you mean? Couldn't the blacks just gather their own mob? And if the lunch mob was so bad, why did Rosa break the rules?
By the way, I didn't start this part of the argument, and I never felt it was a fair comparison with the actual matter this article/page is about. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 07:29amRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi,
Thanks for giving us a definition of what a broadcast is. But you're missing the point - PRS and PPL licenses are not just for radio broadcasts (or the 'performance'/playing of the transmissions), but for all performances/playing of copyrighted music. So a license is needed for the stable whether or not the music is coming from the radio, a CD, an iPod, Spotify or whatever.
"Sorry, getting paid twice does not automatically imply double the value - it is simply collecting ANYTHING more than once. If I pay a dollar and you pay a penny, the receiver gets paid twice but not necessarily double."
I agree, but, you/others called it 'double dipping' - as in, you used the word 'double'. If you don't mean double the amount, don't call it that!
"You keep insisting that the music enhances working conditions or customer satisfaction - what is this observation based on?"
No, I've said it's a likelyhood. What is it based on? It's based on the fact that someone at the business has decided to play the music. If it didn't either enhance the conditions/environment for employees or customers, they would have no other reason to play it?!
"I see an excellent business opportunity here for anyone who wants to broadcast license free or public domain music here! Get yourself an advertising-based radio station in the UK and play only music NOT subject to ANY collection society/agency/racketeer."
I think that's a great idea, maybe it already exists.
"I'd be willing to bet that eventually the industry (lawyers) will find a way, with legislative help no doubt, to get a piece of that as well."
Now you're just being defeatist. There's no way that the industry could get involved if the musicians have opted out of their system, unless laws were significantly changed to take away our rights to do what we want with our works. I can't see that ever happening. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2010 @ 07:10amRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
Sorry but that's assuming you've agreed to allow your music and/or recordings of it to be played by others. You may not have done so.
Are you claiming that the UK government has set a 'statutory' rate for playing/broadcasting copyrighted material? I don't believe that is true (but if you have evidence then my apologies). -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2010 @ 09:55amRe: Re: Re:
Actually, yes you do have the right to do anything you like with your art, within the expiry period. How could you not?!
Zero is not a market value, it's nothing. Digital files are not scarce, true, but the works themselves can be. Just because you can replicate my work for virtually no cost and distribute it to everyone on the planet, that doesn't mean you have permission or the right to do so. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2010 @ 09:52amRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Er, but playing music at a barbershop is not a psychopath/hostage situation, stupid. Your hypothetical has no relevance because you are being forced to do something. I actually said: "If you agree to do something (BUT AREN'T FORCED TO DO IT)". Can you not read properly?!
If you were the barber, your options were:
- get the PPL license and continue playing the music legally
- don't get the PPL license, continue playing the music illegally and risk being caught and a large fine (which is what happened)
- stop playing licensed music
He claims he didn't know he needed a PPL license, but unfortunately for him, ignorance does not hold up in court, so he got the fine. End of story. Get over it. -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2010 @ 09:48amRe: Dave Natriss isn't using a license....
No I don't?!
Trackmap mashes up data from other services (last.fm, SongKick and SoundCloud), which they have given me permission to use. You don't need a license to present data about a track.
Pathetic attempt at an argument... -
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave Nattriss ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2010 @ 09:45amRe: Re: Re:
As far as I know, it wouldn't be fine with individual radios because you'd still be in the office.
Re: Dave = WTF?
Dear Coward,
I do not care whether I'm 'battling' solo or with a large group or whatever. An argument is not won by sheer numbers, but by its convictions.
I am, of course, considering what is being said to me, especially when writing responses. I wouldn't have anything to write if I wasn't doing so.
And yes, if someone is outnumbered, there is a *chance* they are wrong, but that doesn't prove or confirm it.
I didn't mis-represent anything. I said I don't work for the music industry AND I DO NOT. Please don't pretend to know things about me that I do not know. You even say yourself I should consider working for the BPI/PPL etc. which implies that I currently don't. Thank you for confirming that I do not.