Monopoly Rents: Canadian Collection Society Wants To Massively Increase Rates

from the silence-the-music dept

In the last few months, we've noticed that collections societies around the world are getting desperate for any possible way to collect more money. It's really stunning just how many of these sorts of stories we've seen, all over the globe. It's as if all the collections societies got together and said "how can we squeeze more money out of absolutely anything -- even if it kills off the golden goose," and then set about putting that plan into action. From Australia to Sweden to the UK to the US to Germany, we get story after story after story of incredibly short-sighted collections societies either (a) pushing the gov't to allow them to extort charge larger fees to venues or (b) massively expanding what they consider to be a public performance that requires a royalty. These societies are taking an incredibly short-sighted view. They're causing more and more venues to stop playing music altogether, thus harming everyone.

Mr. Tunes alerts us to the fact that this is now happening in Canada as well, where a smaller collection society, the Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada, is demanding massive increases in fees, as well as an expansion of what's covered. Of course, SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, already collects fees in Canada, but apparently these are different fees -- and they're much higher than SOCAN's. When that fact is pointed out to the NRCC person, his response is simply that SOCAN's rates were too low. Apparently, they'd rather shut venues down rather than have them help promote music. Brilliant.

Filed Under: canada, collection society, music
Companies: neighboring rights collective


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2009 @ 7:25am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I guess my apparent idiocy prevents me from realizing that taking pictures in public should be allowed or not allowed depending on the intent of the user.

    I might suggest a better devils advocate approach as they are noting that taking so many pictures of so many vehicles will make it extremely cost prohibitive to effectively parse all that data into a usable database. So either they are wasting tax payer money by building a completely ineffective system or wasting tax payers money by paying a ton of people tons of hours of work worth of data input.

    But then again I'm a certified idiot and certainly was not pointing out that in that previous case it seemed that Techdirt was concerned more about the pictures themselves being taken and have used arguments of "If it's in public it's OK to take pictures that anyone else can take."

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.