UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal

from the the-system-is-designed-to-trip-you-up dept

Wed, Jul 7th 2010 5:54am — Mike Masnick

We've pointed out many times just how ridiculously complex various licensing collection agencies are in the music space, especially when multiple collection societies cover the same music. The whole system seems designed to make it nearly impossible for anyone to actually play music legally. Take, for example, this situation in the UK, pointed out by reader mike allen, involving a hairdresser who had paid for a license from PRS For Music just to be allowed to turn on a radio in his shop... only to discover that he failed to pay the other UK collection society, PPL (home of the infamous CEO who insists that "for free" is a bogus concept). So even though this guy thought he was legit, he still ended up with a fine for £1,569.

In his defense, he claimed that he'd never even heard of PPL, and since he had a PRS license, he assumed (quite reasonably) that he was in the clear. Now, I'm sure that defenders of the system will quickly step up and say that it was his responsibility to find out what music licensing groups you have to hand over a tithe to each year, but all this guy wants to do is turn on his radio. For most people, it's just common sense that you shouldn't have to pay a fee just to turn on a radio in your barber shop. And then, once you're informed that this totally nonsensical situation is, in fact, true, it seems quite reasonable to then assume that one license will let you turn on the radio. Finding out that you need two (or more) separate licenses just to turn on the radio (even though the radio already pays its fees and the music acts a promotion) just seems ridiculous for everyone who isn't a recording industry exec or a long term copyright lawyer.

Copyright is not supposed to work this way.

Filed Under: collection societies, copyright, fines, licenses, uk
Companies: ppl, prs

622 Comments | Leave a Comment

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:11am

DT100
Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 06:59 PM
PRS and PPL are parasites, and the copyright law is ridiculous. Rock FM or whatever station he had on will already have paid a ton of money to these people for a blanket licence to play music, and the BBC have to pay per song played. It's absolutely crazy the end user has to pay AGAIN for something that's already been paid for.

im a pc
Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 06:29 PM
WHAT has the world come to ? how many times do you hear of shoplifters,vandals,no insurance drivers etc in the news in brief that have actually commited crimes and recieved a fine around £200 and a slapped wrists. Do me a favour, this poor bloke is earning an honest living and he gets stung with a £1500 fine!!!!! im sorry but thats ridiculous, i mean how can this be right, there is no justice in the world for hardworking citizens.

Mutch_1938
Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 06:27 PM
If someone creates a cure for cancer or invents an electric car they can charge for this knowledge for 20 years. If someone writes `we all live in a yellow submarine`. They are paid for the rest of their lives. . I have just downloaded `the Eagles Greatest Hits` for free at Torrentz.com. There is no need to pay for any music now. Simply search for the torrent on the internet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Jon B., 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:26am

Re:
Did someone click the link to the article, copy three of the comments and paste them here? Was there a point to that?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:47am

Re:
Sorry but if you're running a shop you are not an 'end user'. You are adding value to the shopping experience of your business by playing the music, which you will profit from in some way, thus you must pay for it. The fact he paid up with the PRS means he agreed with this principle, but unfortunately made the mistake of not signing up with the PPL. If you're running a business you should have a lawyer who can advise on these things - if you don't have one then you run the risk of things like this happening!

TechDirt - you're not reporting this fairly - "you need two (or more) separate licenses just to turn on the radio" - only if you are running a business and playing it to the public. Obviously you don't need them as an individual when listening to your radio in private. Please don't try to make out this is something that it's not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:01am

Re: Re:
So, if everyone in the barber shop had a portable radio and headphones and they are all listening to the same thing privately then its okay? But if they have a single radio playing that the whole shop cna hear then that is not okay?

This makes no sense.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:14am

Re: Re: Re:
If they're playing music as part of their business, as a way to increase custom (just like shops/bars do), then yes, they have to pay the license fees.

If all the customers were listening to the music privately, it wouldn't be the business' responsibility.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
So motive is important?

We used to play the radio in my jewelry store, because the jeweler liked to hear it. It had zip to do with increasing custom.

What if the barber played it because he likes to hear music? It's okay, then? What if it's music that his customers don't even like? Would that make it okay, since it's not increasing his custom?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, not the motive, just whether or not you are a business playing it to the public.

If the barber played the music just because he liked the music... too bad. Whether it increases custom or not, you have to pay if you're broadcasting licensed music to the public, in the UK. As a business owner, you take the decision and thus the risk of paying for a license in the hope of increased custom (or not paying for it but risking a fine!).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So whether or not they're 'playing music as part of their business, as a way to increase custom' is irrelevant?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that's the way the UK law works. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording.

http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Why-you-need-a-licence/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Martin Dykes, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're missing the point anyway - he DID pay for the music! Whats your take on making him pay twice?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he only paid the performance license, not the publishing license. In the UK, they are split up like that because often the person/people who wrote the music is not the same as the person/people who have performed on the recording of it. He's not being made to pay twice, but for two different things.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

duffmeister (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about recorded music that was CC or copyleft, etc? would that require a license?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess not. If he had just played music that was signed up to the PRS or PPL, they wouldn't have been able to fine him.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

duffmeister (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are they even able to accurately track what music they do represent much less what music was played there?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you read the original story, a PPL inspector was in the barbershop and heard songs being played that were definitely under their representation. This is probably the only way they can check if businesses are obeying the law, by visiting businesses they know aren't signed up and listening to what they play, if anything.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Successful troll is succesful
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What exactly is considered "public"?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A public place is one that members of the general public have access to. Or in other words, it is any place that is not private. Commercial premises that are open to the public, like a barbershop, are public places in terms of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By this logic even if I have my own player and listening to it privately, I could still be fined because I am listening to it in a public place.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, because if you have headphones on, for instance, you are not broadcasting it to others, and more importantly, there are various exceptions to the legislation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988#Miscellaneous
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you just stated that playing music to increase custom is important. So which is it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it's important, as it's the likely reason why a business owner might want to play music. But whether or not that's the case, they have to pay.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Crabby (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many people does it take to listen to the music to be considered "the public"? Two? Three? Ten?

So a business owner can't play music if he wants to listen to it as an end user because someone else might hear it and claim that he's holding a "public performance?" This law is just way too convoluted.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In terms of the licensing for playing their music at a place of work, the rule is apparently if there's more than two people (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5061004/Woman-who-plays-classical-music-to-s oothe-horses-told-to-get-licence.html ).

In terms of a public performance, I understand that it's just a member of the public that can hear it, on premises that are accessible by the public, as opposed to employees in a private office.

And yes, that is correct regarding the law. If you play music publicly (i.e. where the public can hear it), as part of your commercial business, you need to pay a license fee or risk a fine.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

David, 4 Apr 2016 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are full of BS. No one chooses to go to a hair dressers because they have a good radio station playing. The main reason the guy would have had the radio on would be to save himself from dying of boredom, the same reason I have the radio on in my office.
These collectors are thugs, and you sound no better than them. Parasites.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:07am

Re: Re:
"The fact he paid up with the PRS means he agreed with this principle"

Sometimes I read things that people write/say and I wonder where one can find a drug that would make one so delusional.

The above statement is one of those things....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:16am

Re: Re: Re:
Well if he didn't agree with it, why did he continue playing their licensed music in his barbershop?!

If you don't agree with the principle of paying to broadcast other people's music, don't broadcast it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't agree with the idea of tipping waitresses, but I tip them, anyway. It has nothing to do with my principles.

All you can gather from the fact that he played licensed music is that... he played licensed music. You can make any other soup from that oyster. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eh?! You tip them anyway? But why, if you don't agree with the principle of it?! It has everything to do with your principles as you're not forced to tip. Very strange...

What I was 'gathering' was the fact the he had already paid the PRS licensing fee, so he was already aware that he had to pay something to broadcast the music. Unfortunately he hadn't done his research properly and forgot to set up an arrangement with the PPL too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

PRMan, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What he's saying is that you can't view an action that he took because of some law-buying parasites that serve no purpose in society as indication that he agrees with the principle...

Apparently, since you have no actual skills except sucking money that you didn't earn like a leech, you failed to understand such a simple concept.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes I can! If he didn't agree with the principle, he would either have not paid and faced the consequences, or not paid and stopped playing the music altogether. He instead decided to pay, because he obviously felt having commercial music played in his business was important and worth paying for.

I've no idea what you are talking about in your second paragraph.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, you're just being silly. Everytime someone pays for something does not mean they agree with the principle of paying it. Parking meters are a great example. In Chicago, we sold our parking meters to a private company who jacked up the prices for them 800% overnight. I think this is an absolutely abhorrent practice and I'm trying to figure out how it's legal to sell public road space to a private company, particularly as my taxes are already paying for that space.

But guess what? I still pay the parking meters, because I don't have any choice. My dogs need to go the dog beach, so every once in a while I'm forced to pay. I could choose to NOT go to the dog beech and let my beloved animals get fat and unhealthy....but I don't want to. So I pay $4.50/hour to park in a public space my taxes already paid for.

See how that works? I DO NOT agree with the practice, yet I have to pay....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm confused - if your taxes already paid for the space, why were there parking meters in the first place?

Anyway, no, you do not have to pay. Catch a bus to the beach. Hire a cab. Ask a friend to take you over. Get 'rid of your dogs! Or as you say, just don't go there. "I don't want to" - exactly - it's your choice. You are not forced in any way to pay.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that doesn't mean I agree with the principle. As to why there are meters: because our city government created bad laws to their benefit. Sort of like alterations to copyright laws....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you continue to abide by the rules, then YOU ARE AGREEING TO THEM. If you don't agree to them, don't go along with them.

With the meters, I was asking because the fact they have them at all shows that the parking spaces are not (fully) covered by your taxes.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"With the meters, I was asking because the fact they have them at all shows that the parking spaces are not (fully) covered by your taxes."

The level to which you are naive and logically simplistic is breathtaking. My city government is double dipping on the parking spaces because they can get away with it, not because they need to. The fact that the spaces are covered by taxes is laughable. When they sold the metering rights to the private company, my city/state taxes were not reduced. GASP! How can that BE!!??

"If you continue to abide by the rules, then YOU ARE AGREEING TO THEM. If you don't agree to them, don't go along with them."

Oh, COME ON! You can't be THAT simple, can you? The whole point of punishment through the law is to get people to obey laws they don't agree with....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't be punished if you simply don't use the parking spaces.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, that's enough. That you ignored everything I said and came back with that silly sentence proves you are no longer worth discussing this with....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that silly?! NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO USE THE PARKING SPACES.

I didn't ignore everything you said, I simply had nothing else to say to it. Grow up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Er, grow up? Uh, okay then. Let's try this ONE LAST TIME:

I already pay for the parking spaces through city and state taxes that go to maintain roads and curbs. I also already pay for the beaches and parks, including the dog beach, where these meters have been put in place. I also pay for the right to use my car in the city in the form of a city stick, and in the state with my license and license sticker. Yet, to take my dogs (which I also had to get a city tag for both of them) to the beach I've paid for in the car I've been taxed on, I THEN have to pay for the parking spot I've already paid for.

Now....AGAIN....I didn't say anyone was forcing me to drive or take my dogs to the beach....but I've already fucking PAID for the privelage of doing so! So, if I decide to put up with my corrupt ass govt. and pay for the meters every once in a while, that DOES NOT mean I agree with the principle behind paying for them. Jesus Christ, how is this REALLY that difficult. I've got two terrible possibilities to choose from:

1. Not using all the shit I've been forced to pay for through taxation

2. Paying the meters that shouldn't be there

Just because I choose one of the two terrible things doesn't mean I AGREE with it....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

The Infamous Joe (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Darky, dude, you've got to let it go.

Is this how angry dude's are formed, when a Dark Helmet goes supernova and then collapses in on his self?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it does!

If you truly believe you've already paid for the parking space and that your city is corrupt, move to another city. If you just go along with it, you are as bad as them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you just go along with it, you are as bad as them."

Well, fuck you very much then, shithead. This is an example of the "if you don't like it leave" mentality that pisses me the fuck off. Just because you happen to agree with how it's done NOW doesn't mean I have to leave or I'm "as bad as them". That pussy shit doesn't get bad things changed.

No. Instead, I decide to continue talking to people about this stuff, rallying support, voting, and generally trying to raise hell over this. And you have the balls to tell me I'm bad if I don't leave? Have you no respect for freedom and the process by which democratic laws are revised, changed, and altered?

Do you have any concept of how insulting it is to tell an interested member of the public that he's "as bad as them" just because he's working to change things internally? Good to see fascism and nationalism is alive and well in the UK....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that wasn't what I said at all. I just said you should do something about it instead of sitting back, paying the charge and accepting it. Apparently you are doing something about it, so that's great.

Now calm down.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Do you have any concept of how insulting it is to tell an interested member of the public that he's "as bad as them" just because he's working to change things internally?"

"No, that wasn't what I said at all."

"If you truly believe you've already paid for the parking space and that your city is corrupt, move to another city."

I mean....are you kidding me, or do you not see how you owe me an apology?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An apology for what? For pointing out that you can always move if you don't like your city?! Get real.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, that wasn't what I said at all. I just said you should do something about it instead of sitting back, paying the charge and accepting it. Apparently you are doing something about it, so that's great."

You do realise that people can scroll up to read what you said, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 4:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
>If you truly believe you've already paid for the parking space and that your city is corrupt, move to another city. If you just go along with it, you are as bad as them.

Seriously, that's your logic? "You're only a victim with your permission?" By that logic, schoolyard bullies that grab you by the arm and smack you with it, yelling "Why'd you hit yourself? Why'd you hit yourself?" should never be blamed since you're going along with it. And if reporting the bugger to the teacher doesn't stop the behaviour, up and change schools.

WTF?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well yeah, if your teachers/school don't do anything about it, clearly there's a problem with the school and you'll get a better education if you go to a different school instead.

Weird example.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you truly believe you've already paid for the parking space and that your city is corrupt, move to another city. If you just go along with it, you are as bad as them."

I don't agree with the war in Iraq. Are you suggesting that I am guilty of the consequences of the war because I don't move countries?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all, because you have no control over the war in Iraq. But he has control over where he parks.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm...should the forefathers of the U.S. have moved to another country then?

No people need to get angry and start disrespecting the law in mass to send a clear message about these kind of thing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Greg G, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DH, ya gotta stop using logic on someone that is void of such. I can see your frustration level reaching astronomical proportions. Hell, mine was going up with each post by Dave that I wanted to flop copious amounts of phallus on his forehead just for being ignorant.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I...can't. I wish I could let insults and stupidity go untouched, but I can't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Grow up and respond with an actual point instead of pathetic insults.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 1:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you continue to abide by the rules, then YOU ARE AGREEING TO THEM. If you don't agree to them, don't go along with them."

Sneaky. Substituting 'with' with 'to', thus drastically changing the meaning. Ain't that a strawman!

Dark Helmet said he doesn't agree WITH the rules, as in doesn't agree with the principle. You are suggesting that because he abides by them that he agrees TO the rules, as in agrees to abide by them. Both are true statements but you seem to have purposefully misinterpreted what Dark Helmet said.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see a difference. If you agree to do something (but aren't forced to do it), you must agree with it or why would you agree to do it (you're not being forced)?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't see a difference. If you agree to do something (but aren't forced to do it), you must agree with it or why would you agree to do it (you're not being forced)?"

I already went over this with you. If you have only two bad choices, choosing a bad choice doesn't mean you agree with it in principle. Why is this so hard to grasp? Is the analogy not extreme enough? If so, let's try another, more extreme analogy:

A psychopath has taken you and your wife hostage, locked you in a room, and told you that one of you has to shoot the other within 30 minutes or else the room will fill with gas and you will both die.

Option 1: You kill her

Option 2: She kills you

Option 3: You both decide that your hopelessly in love and can't kill each other, so you both die

You have a choice in what to do, yet none of those choices taken mean you think that what is going on is right. You simply don't have a "right" choice...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:52am

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Gwiz, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm confused - if your taxes already paid for the space, why were there parking meters in the first place?"

I'm confused - if the music played at the barbershop was already licensed and paid for by the radio station, why does the hairdresser have to pay again?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the radio station didn't pay to allow other businesses to rebroadcast the music on their premises. The radio station just paid to broadcast it to individuals in domestic/private locations.

In the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording. You may not think this is fair or right, but it is the law as it currently stands, and that's why the barber got fined.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Greg G, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OMFG. It's not "rebroadcasting" if I'm only listening.

People aren't getting a signal from my radio to play on theirs. I'm only receiving the signal. I'm not sending it out for others to receive.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it's not only you listening, it's every member of public who enters your premises who you are playing it to.

Read the original story. The inspector, as a member of the public, went into the shop and heard PPL licensed music when the shop didn't have a PPL license.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hate to comment on something this old but ...

God damn you are stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep and that looks like a shake down to me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By using your solution, it's no different from "agreeing" with the law. Did you ever once think that it might, just maybe, be cheaper to use the parking meter than any other "solution"?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 1:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Eh?! You tip them anyway? But why, if you don't agree with the principle of it?! It has everything to do with your principles as you're not forced to tip. Very strange..."

I don't agree with Christmas or birthdays or a host of other things but still end up participating in them far more often than I would like. I don't like how the BBC is funded but I still watch them.

Principles have this annoying tendency to collide with reality, in reality my principles tend to annoy other people or work against my own best interests, that's a pretty basic burden of society. I could just not participate in anything I disagreed with but that would be a pretty shitty life.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you end up participating in Christmas, birthdays etc., that is your choice. If you still watch the BBC, that is also your choice. Again, you're not forced/compelled to participate.

"I could just not participate in anything I disagreed with but that would be a pretty shitty life"

Indeed, so maybe you should reconsider the things you do/don't agree with, like everyone else does. I don't like spending 40+ hours of my week working for other people, but I choose to do it because it means I can spend the rest of my time living comfortably. I could just not work at all and live a pretty shit life, but I'd prefer not. You've made your choice too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Any Mouse, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, sir. Logical fallacy. He paid because the law said he had to, not because of principles. He paid to keep money sucking leaches off of him. This, in any other world, is called 'legalized extortion.'
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he paid because he wanted to be able to legally broadcast commercial music in his premises. He could have chosen not to. You don't have to have music played in a barbershop.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And people wonder why players in the recording industry are having a tough time in the 21st century.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, because lots of business owners and consumers are using their music without paying for it!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is totally understandable, as those entities are double, triple dipping, extorting, threatening and abusing the people under the umbrella of the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are people who don't agree with the principle of income tax. They refuse to pay and attempt to leave the country, and the US seizes their property, anyway. Principle has nothing to do with it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, because paying income tax is part of the US law. They shouldn't have been in the US in the first place if they didn't agree with the principle of income tax. If they remain in the country and refuse to pay, any consequences are their own responsibility.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

nasch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, if you don't like the laws in the US, be born someplace else! Simple.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or to be fair, just blame your parents as they will have decided where you are born...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes I can! If he didn't agree with the principle, he would either have not paid and faced the consequences, or not paid and stopped playing the music altogether."

Why would he? If people can agree that smoking is bad for them but still smoke then a guy can agree that fees are bad but still pay them. In the case of smoking, the need to feel good outweighs the fact that they are bad. In this case, the consequences of not paying outweigh his opinion of the fees.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Smoking being bad *for you* is not the same as fees being 'bad'.

Anyway, the guy said himself that he hadn't paid NOT because he objected, but because he wasn't aware that the PPL needed to be paid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Smoking being bad *for you* is not the same as fees being 'bad'."

I never said they were. Please tell me you know what an analogy is.

"Anyway, the guy said himself that he hadn't paid NOT because he objected, but because he wasn't aware that the PPL needed to be paid."

Which is entirely beside the point I addressed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 12:42pm

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Smoking and licensing fees are not the same, or similar. Your analogy failed."

They're both unhealthy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
vivaelamor (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: 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."

No, it is not. Please look the word up in a dictionary. In no way is an an analogy the argument that two separate things are similar or the same.

"Smoking and licensing fees are not the same, or similar. Your analogy failed."

I never said they were. I was drawing an analogy between two situations, not between smoking and licensing fees.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do believe that waitresses deserve to earn a living wage. I do not believe that I should have to pay it directly. So I tip, and support legislature that gives waitresses the same minimum wage as everyone else.

You see, my refusal to tip wouldn't have an impact on the situation, except to adversely harm the waitress even more than they're already harmed by the practice. Refusing to tip wouldn't support my principle, just as refusing to pay wouldn't support his principal (if he has any principals about this issue, which is in doubt).

So paying wouldn't be against his principles (if he has any about this issue) and more than my actions negate my principles.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't believe you should have to pay a waitress's living wage, if you use their service?! Again, very strange.

Why not just not use restaurants that don't pay their staff a fair amount, if you care that much about how much they earn? Or do what most people do and tip when you get good service (but not when you get bad service).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You don't believe you should have to pay a waitress's living wage, if you use their service?! Again, very strange."

Ok, now I struggle to take you seriously. Are you covering for TAM on the troll rota by any chance? At least you're better at it, I suppose.

If you're being serious then HAHAHAHA, you're a moron. It is funny that you can grasp the concept of language enough to use grammar, but not understand a word as simple as 'directly'.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what I said, but nice strawman. :) Let me repeat what I said: I do believe that waitresses deserve to earn a living wage. I do not believe that I should have to pay it directly.

If you can explain why an agreement between party A and party B should involve money legally being extorted from party C, please do so. This custom is unfair to the customer.

In addition, people choose their tip based on many factors, only a few of which the waiter or waitress has any control over. This custom is unfair to the waitress.

I don't choose to utilize restaurants that pay a living wage because it wouldn't make a difference. IHOP isn't go to suddenly start paying their employees more because I tell them I'd prefer that. What would be the point of that useless gesture? (That's a rhetorical question.)

You seem to think that a boycott is a cure-all for all principles. You are wrong. Have a nice day. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Party A is the customer at the restaurant? Party B is the waitress? Party C is the customer?

I don't know how anything is being legally extorted from the customer. The waitress agrees to the pay rate from the restaurant when they accept the job. If the customer wants to reward the waitress directly for good service, they can do so. If they don't, they don't. If you only want to use restaurants that pay their waitresses a living wage (and thus don't require a tip from you in order to live), then you are free to do so. You say it won't make a difference, but it will if enough people feel the same way. If a significant amount of people only eat at restaurants that pay living wages, this will affect the industry. It may take the badly paying restaurants some time to work this out, but the chains generally do market research.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well if he didn't agree with it, why did he continue playing their licensed music in his barbershop?!"

How about because under the current iteration of assanine IP laws he doesn't have any other choice if he wants his radio on? That certainly doesn't mean he AGREES with the practice, does it? He simply doesn't have any other options.

I'll never get this idea that everytime something is used to make money, the creators of that something should be paid. It just doesn't make any sense, nor is it used in most other goods in existence. We rent office space, but we don't pay royalties to the real estate company everytime we make a sale. We have VoIP phones, but we don't pay XO Communications every time we bring on a new customer. Most of the hardware we use for our managed services platforms involve manufacturers paying US to use it, not the other way around....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But he doesn't have to have the radio on - he did have a choice, to not turn it on! If he doesn't want to pay, he simply needs to stop broadcasting music to the public. That was the other option that he always had.

It's not necessarily about the music being used to make money, it's about the wishes of the creators/publishers. In this case, they have chosen to use the PRS and PPL, who require businesses to pay for a license to broadcast the music they are responsible for. But of course, no artist is forced to use those services.

And your office space metaphor is actually exactly how the licensing works. Generally businesses pay a fixed amount for their license to broadcast music, not per play of a track or per person that hears it, just like you pay a fixed amount to rent your office each week/month/year. In both cases its irrespective of how many sales you make.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But he doesn't have to have the radio on - he did have a choice, to not turn it on! If he doesn't want to pay, he simply needs to stop broadcasting music to the public. That was the other option that he always had."

I never said differently. But just because he agreed to pay for the license does NOT mean that he agrees with the practice, which is what I took you to mean when you originally stated: "The fact he paid up with the PRS means he agreed with this principle". That's just a pure logic fail....

"It's not necessarily about the music being used to make money, it's about the wishes of the creators/publishers."

And here we go. FINALLY! At least this is an honest position to take, albeit one I simply can't seem to square with the law. Copyright is not a mechanism to protect creator's rights, and these licensing schemes are built upon copyright. Copyright is a mechanism to get artists to create MORE art for the benefit of the public. When these collection agencies twst that law to require double and triple payment for the same thing, like music being played on the radio, they do a disservice to the law, be it UK law or American law or wherever. Honestly, this is just getting silly.

"And your office space metaphor is actually exactly how the licensing works."

I get how the licensing works. YOU were the one that said: "If they're playing music as part of their business, as a way to increase custom (just like shops/bars do), then yes, they have to pay the license fees." The idea seems to be the creators think that if their creations are used to make other people money, they automagically deserve a cut. And that is really, REALLY stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry but yes it does. If you don't agree with a principle, going along with it is the last thing you do. It's not your business' right to be able to broadcast music to the public without a license to do so. If you don't agree with the principle of needing a license, you either stop broadcasting the music, or you continue but risk the consequences. He did neither, he paid up, which meant he agreed with it.

"Copyright is not a mechanism to protect creator's rights" - of course it is! It is about giving you control of what happens to your work, by making it the legal default that you own all rights to it.

"Copyright is a mechanism to get artists to create MORE art for the benefit of the public" - not necessarly. If the artist chooses to use copyright to make money from their work, which means they are more likely to continue creating it (because it's self-supporting), then sure, but copyright isn't only about this.

"The idea seems to be the creators think that if their creations are used to make other people money, they automagically deserve a cut." How is that stupid?! It seems perfectly fair to me. I'm happy to give my work away for non-commercial use, but if someone makes money from it, why can't I get a share?! This is common practise in many creative industries.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He did neither, he paid up, which meant he agreed with it.

No, he didn't because he didn't pay up entirely.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He paid everything he was aware that he had to pay.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Copyright is not a mechanism to protect
> creator's rights" - of course it is! It is
> about giving you control of what happens to
> your work, by making it the legal default
> that you own all rights to it.

This is nonsense, at least regarding U.S. copyright law. The U.S. Constitution sets out the clear purpose of copyright law and it's not to give artists control of what happens to their work:

Article I, Section 8
Congress shall have the power... to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

So you see, in the U.S., the stated purpose and legal basis of copyright is exactly what Dark Helmet said it was: to encourage artists to create MORE art for the benefit of the public.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Firstly, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE U.S.! Please will you Americans realise that you are not the only country on the planet. So anything we discuss now about US copyright law has no relevance to the larger debate about the UK barber.

Secondly, limiting the copyright on an artist's work for them is *not* going to encourage them to make more work for the public. If they want to create work for the public, they can just do that and give away the copyright to public bodies straight away.

I understand what you are saying about the wording, though the fact that it is securing the exclusive rights for the authors/inventors, even if only for a limited time, shows that it is about respecting that they do have rights to their work. In the UK, copyright generally expires 50 years after the work is published/released:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988

I don't know (or in this particular case care) what the period is for the US at the moment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Firstly, THIS
> IS NOT ABOUT
> THE U.S.! Please
> will you Americans
> realise that
> you are not the
> only country on
> the planet.

You didn't limit your comment to any one jurisdiction. You made a blanket claim about the purpose of copyright. I merely pointed out to you that such a blanket claim with no jurisdictional qualification is erroneous. That hardly equates to a belief that we're the only country on the planet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't need to. Right from the very headline of this article, it was about the UK. Not the US or any other country.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Right
> from the
> very head
> line of
> this
> article,
> it was
> about
> the UK.

The article was, but your comment wasn't. At least not facially. You and Dark Helmet had drifted to a more general philosophical discussion of copyright law at that point.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Firstly, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE U.S.! Please will you Americans realise that you are not the only country on the planet."

Coming from someone in the UK, that's absolutely AWESOME advice....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, both English and American copyright law was modeled after the Statute of Anne. Its long title: "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." (Emphasis mine.)

I understand that this has changed over time - for example, the 1988 Act grants "moral rights," which didn't exist in the U.K. previously, and still do not exist in the U.S. at all (except for painting and sculpture).

Still, it seems to suggest that the ultimate purpose of copyright in the U.K. is to increase the works available to the public, by granting finincial incentives to create. Just like the U.S., but unlike e.g. Europe.

By the way: In the U.S., playing the radio in a business is exempt from licensing fees of any kind. (Jukeboxes and CD's are another matter.) The Supreme Court actually decided it, but I'm at work and can't remember the case off the top of my head.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so if that is true, allowing creators to use a licensing system to have their works performed/played in public or commercial places, is part of that copyright purpose that you mention, because it adds to their 'financial incentives to create'.

OK, well, that's great for the US, but it's simply not the case in the UK, which is why this whole incident was able to happen. Again, we're not the same. It's interesting to see how our laws differ, but please accept that this is a different country with different laws, that are not necessarily any more right or wrong than your own.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btrussell (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much do you pay your teachers for everything they taught you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

romeosidvicious (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple really. He read a news story where someone got fined for playing a radio in public, like the mechanic shop who played a radio for their mechanics to listen to while they worked but since the customers could hear it they got fined, and thought he ought to pay the license because he likes playing music and didn't want to get fined. He gave in to the extortion he just didn't give in to enough of it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He should have done proper research into commercial music broadcast law in the UK, then. As I said, an unfortunate mistake.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you even hear yourself? He wanted to turn on a radio. A RADIO. Why in the FUCK should ANYONE have to do any kind of research into that? You press the power button. Voila!

You're multi-dipping on your fees, getting paid by the radio stations, and getting paid by the people playing that music, as well as all kinds of various taxes and other things on top of devices, and you're trying to defend it? Do you have any idea what kind of a scumball you come across as?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because THERE ARE LAWS. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you're running a business, you have legal obligations. If you don't understand them, you risk the consequences. That's why most people don't have their own businesses, because they don't want the responsibilities.

If you don't like the licensing laws, simply don't listen to the music that is affected by them. It's very easy to opt-out!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

ChrisB, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you don't like the licensing laws, simply don't listen to the music that is affected by them. It's very easy to opt-out!"

What about the stories of collection societies coming after businesses that play only UNLICENSED music and INDEPENDENT artists? Is it right in you mind that these parasite collection societies demand payment on music that they have NO control over just because there is a chance that some piece of music that they control [i]might[/i] be played?

These asshats make it so that there is no chance to opt-out.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't heard those stories. If they are true then hopefully the collection societies will have retreated and apologised to the businesses at the very least.

No, I don't believe that's right. What happened in THIS case though, if you read the original article, was that the barber did broadcast licensed music in his shop, which was why he got fined.

You simply opt-out by not playing licensed music. They can't make you get a license if you never play it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Licensed music will go the way of the dodo. Everyone will opt-out and not play music in public. How again does this promote music?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone will opt-out? I doubt it.

It promotes music because it means artists get paid for their work in the way they have chosen to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep pushing and you will see the result :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Gwiz, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Because THERE ARE LAWS."

A large portion of this site and discussions are about unjust, unmoral and stupid laws that need to be changed - obviously this is one of them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is it unjust unmoral or stupid, sorry?

If an artist creates something and they decide that they want to license it (i.e. a license is required, which may have a fee depending on who is using it and what they're using it for) when being played in a public place, what's wrong with that? Nobody forces the owner of the public place to play the artist's work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Gwiz, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you can't see what is wrong with double dipping and charging for music which you may or MAY NOT be rights holder of than arguing with you is a complete waste time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there were actual double dipping taking place, then I would agree that it's wrong. But as I've explained, it's not. The PRS license that the barber legally requires is not the same as the PPL license that he legally requires, nor are either of those the same as the PRS and PPL licenses that the radio station is required to have.

If you can't/won't recognise the difference, arguing with YOU is a complete waste of time.

And there is no issue here of anyone charging for music that they are not the rights holder of. As in the original article that this page is taken from, the barber was found to have been playing particular tracks that were the PPL *WAS* a representative of.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are alot of things wrong with it. Read a few blog articles and quit being so actively ignorant.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like what? Either make your point or quit being so lazy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Because THERE ARE LAWS

In the U.S. there used to be laws that said black people had to sit in the back of the bus, too. (And couldn't eat in restaurants with whites or stay in the same hotels or drink from the same water fountains or go to the same schools.)

Did the existence of those laws make them right, moral or ethical?

Did the fact that the vast majority of black people obeyed those laws mean they agreed with them in principle?

I hope you're finally starting to comprehend the fundamental idiocy of your position.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, their existence didn't make them right, moral or ethical, but they still had to be upheld until they were stopped.

If they obeyed the laws *AND* didn't make any attempt to do anything about them, then yes, they effectively agreed with them. Nobody forced them to put up with the laws.

And as history tells us, they didn't put up with them, and so the laws got abolished:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#United_States

"Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Clarence Mitchell, Jr., Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., working during the period from the end of World War II through the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 supported by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many of their efforts were acts of non-violent civil disobedience aimed at disrupting the enforcement of racial segregation rules and laws, such as refusing to give up a seat in the black part of the bus to a white person (Rosa Parks), or holding sit-ins at all-white diners.
By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and by 1970, support for formal legal segregation had dissolved. Formal racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support."

So what got things changed? Disobeying the laws. Whereas simply obeying them did absolutely nothing.

So if the barber was against the principle of having to get both a performance and publishing license to play commercial music in his public commercial premises, pay one of the license fees was not the best way to show it. But at no point has he said he was against the principles - he said he hadn't paid the PPL because he didn't know he had to, not because he objected to it. He hasn't said anything about having already paid the PRS fee because he didn't agree with it - in fact he had made sure that it was paid, implying he was comfortable with it or else he wouldn't have done so.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Many of their efforts were acts of non-violent civil disobedience aimed at disrupting the enforcement of racial segregation rules and laws, such as refusing to give up a seat in the black part of the bus to a white person (Rosa Parks)..."

Seriously? According to what you said earlier, Rosa Parks should have given up her seat as the local law required! And how is her non-violent civil disobedience any different than those that utilize torrents in part to disrupt the enforcement of laws they see as unjust?

See, you get it, you just don't KNOW you get it....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, what I'm saying is she shouldn't get the bus if she doesn't like the rules of where you have to sit. If all the black people had stopped getting the bus, and perhaps started their own bus service, the racist bus service would have suffered financially and would have been likely to have changed its rules.

It's not like you are forced to listen to music that requires payment, or forced to play it in your shop. If you don't like the charges, just don't use the music. If everyone stopped playing and (licensing) the music, the PPL might look at lowering or abolishing its fees.

But it's not the same as racism. Not in the slightest. Racism is simply unfair. The right to charge what *you* want for the right to broadcast *your* music is not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, what I'm saying is she shouldn't get the bus if she doesn't like the rules of where you have to sit. If all the black people had stopped getting the bus, and perhaps started their own bus service, the racist bus service would have suffered financially and would have been likely to have changed its rules."

Okay, seriously, read a book on Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement, because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 3:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, what I'm saying is she shouldn't get the bus if she doesn't like the rules of where you have to sit.

There you have it. Dave Nattriss thinks Rosa Parks should have walked.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, what I said was she should have boycotted the service and used another one that wasn't racist instead (or if another service wasn't available, get together with other people affected and start their own service). It wasn't a free bus, was it?! As I said, if everyone affected took a stand, it would get noticed. Businesses care about profits more than anything else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They weren't allowed to own businesses so how could they do that?

Boycotting isn't the answer to everything. It's not even the answer to most things. Deal with it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> If all
> the
> black
> people
> started
> their
> own bus
> service,
> the racist
> bus
> service
> would
> have
> suffered
> financially
> and would
> have
> been
> likely
> to have
> changed
> its rules.

Nope. I don't think you understand what was going on then. The requirement for blacks to sit at the back of the bus wasn't a rule implemented by some racist bus owner. It was the *law*. Even if the blacks had started their own bus service, they still would have been required by law to give whites preferential seating.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But they could make their bus service for blacks only. Then the law would have had no effect as there would be no whites on the bus that they would be legally obliged to give preferential seating to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But they could make their bus service for blacks only."

Uh, no they couldn't. First, it was against the law for them to exclude whites, though not against the law the other way around. Second, if they had tried that they would have been met with a lynch mob.

You seriously need to stop this argument. You clearly don't know the history of the American Civil Rights movement in the South and every time you spout this stuff, you're insulting our African American population....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 7:34am

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But they could make their bus service for blacks only."

Like I said, you obviously have no idea what was going on back then.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 6:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh.. I think I'm learning something. Apparently, the 'free market' would have put an end to racism, if only the disadvantaged minorities had had the courage to stand on principle, and voted with their wallets.

When the free market is a perfect market, with perfect information, no friction, and complete access to all...well, then we don't need a democracy, as voting with our wallets will lead to the optimal Net Social outcome.

i.e. Bollocks.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could have, not would have.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 10:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Understand that your argument falls apart if there is a systematic, uneven distribution of wealth that dis-empowers some particular voting blocks.

Voting with your dollars don't mean shit when you (and people who would vote like you) haven't got any.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> but they still
> had to be upheld
> until they were
> stopped.

So basically you think Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to give up her seat?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. She had a moral right to the seat as a white person is no more important than a black person.

But the barber had no moral (or legal) right to play licensed music without the permission of the copyright owner as he hadn't got the appropriate license that the copyright owner had stipulated.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> But the barber had no moral right to play licensed music
> without the permission of the copyright owner

Says who?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the barber had no moral (or legal) right to play licensed music without the permission of the copyright owner as he hadn't got the appropriate license that the copyright owner had stipulated.

I see. Do you believe that if you buy a radio, you have no moral right to turn it on without paying an additional license?

I see a compelling moral argument in the opposite direction. The laws that you support strip me of my moral right to turn on a radio I legally purchased in my own place of business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Jeff (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike,
give it up. You're arguing with a dinosaur. The collection agencies and all the other 'value added' middle-men will soon either adapt to the changing world or be consigned to the dustbin of history. You and all of us on this site have argued with this tool until we are blue in the face. You can't talk sense to a mule - you get a sore jaw, and the mule just gets pissed - so just declare this thread over and realize some people won't 'ever' get it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, the very definition of a bigot!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you buy a radio, morally you should respect the wishes of those that create the content that you will consume with it, yes. If they decide they don't want you to play it to the general public or even at your workplace without their approval (in the form of a license that they decide to charge for), then so be it. It's their content, not yours. You only bought a radio, not the rights to everything transmitted over the air. If you think you have any moral (or legal) right to do as you please with things you didn't create that haven't been given away to the public/you, you are mistaken.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I absolutely have the moral right to listen to ANYTHING that travels onto my property, including radio waves. You don't want me and anyone on my property to listen to it? Don't send it over my property. (Even airplanes have to have an easement...)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine, you have the moral right to listen, but alas not the legal right, not in the UK anyway. It's illegal to tune into police radio channels, for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_radio

And this doesn't affect this case, as it's about commercial property/premises, not private.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Commercial property is still real property. It doesn't become less yours because you use it for business purposes.

And, at a different point in the thread, you said that moral right sometimes transcends legal right, such as with Riosa Parks and other figures in the Civil Rights movement in America. Do you still believe that, or not?

If so, the moral right may supersede the legal right, just as it did with Ms. Parks.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, in the UK, commercial and private property are often treated differently. As soon as you start using (and possibly having your business paying for) property for your business, it qualifies as commercial property.

I believe moral (as in, generally what most people believe) rights can be more important than legal ones and it should be the job of every legal society to keep their laws up to date with what the majority of the public believe. Most people don't believe it's OK to take something from someone, physical or intellectual, without their permission, which is why in the UK we have both laws against physical theft, and also copyright.

You don't have the moral right to perform (play) my music without my permission though, no matter how you get your hands on it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I believe moral (as in, generally what most people believe) rights"

The "moral majority" is rarely either.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is so wrong in so many levels.

What I do in my workspace is my problem, what I choose to do in my business is mine decision alone, how those people got to tell other what to do inside their own property is beyond me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry but in the UK you never have the right to do ANYTHING you like in your business or inside your property. NEVER. There are laws that cover the entire United Kingdom, not just public areas.

You may see this as being wrong/unfair, but it's for the best for the country, and if you don't like it, you can simply leave the country. You can't have it being OK to kill or injure people, for instance, so long as it happens on your property.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Jeremy7600 (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 10:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, thats where you are wrong. As I understand it, in the UK you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT, ANYWHERE YOU WANT, unless its EXPLICITLY forbidden. This works both ways.

So where you say "in the UK you never have the right to do ANYTHING you like in your business or inside your property. NEVER." it should read: "In the UK you ALWAYS have the right to do ANYTHING you like in your business or inside your property, unless explicitly forbidden by law."

Please see http://boingboing.net/2010/06/29/london-cops-enforce.html for my references to this truth. Comments #14, #22, #24.

As others in that post stated, laws don't allow behavior, they generally prohibit behavior.

So, why did you think you were right, again, when you were wrong?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 7:41am

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you buy a radio, morally you should respect the wishes of those that create the content that you will consume with it, yes."

Says who?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says anyone who doesn't agree with taking something (content) that isn't theirs to take.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Says anyone who doesn't agree with taking something (content) that isn't theirs to take."

How is turning on a radio "taking" anything?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 3:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Playing music that you don't have permission to play is taking it from the airwaves and playing it through the loudspeaker.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Christopher Weigel (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Prove I took it.

If I took it, it should be gone, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says anyone who doesn't think that stealing content (taking it without permission) is OK.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 6:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about this. I buy a radio. I'm gonna turn it on in my shop. The music creators/owners can choose to provide their music to the radio stations, in which case it will be played in my shop. As Mike wrote, it is logical that a legally bought radio should not be expected to break any laws by hitting the "power" button. We are not decoding some proprietary signal or intruding on a concert hall without paying a ticket...we tuning in a radio station which broadcasts over the public airwaves that belong to the citizens, and using the signal that enters all of our homes and places of business whether we like it or not.

So I'll turn on my radio to listen to the footie match while I clip some locks.

And, per Dave's logic, if the music creators/owners don't like the above, well, then, they are free to boycott, and not provide their music to the radio stations. If they don't like those choices, they can leave the country...by foot because they don't agree with the principle of airline regulation.

Seriously, Dave, why is it the Barber that has to boycott or leave the country? Who chooses the loser? You seem to think it's fair that the barber must put up or shut up, but the artists/owners/agencies get to call the shots and make no compromises. And this is moral?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"it is logical that a legally bought radio should not be expected to break any laws by hitting the 'power' button"

No. That's like saying it's logical that a legally bought shotgun should not be expected to break any laws when the trigger is pulled.

"we tuning in a radio station which broadcasts over the public airwaves that belong to the citizens, and using the signal that enters all of our homes and places of business whether we like it or not."

Sure, but it's not the receiving of the airwaves that is the problem. It's the performance (playing of recorded) music with (or without) permission of the owner of the recording and the writer(s)/owner of the publishing rights of the music, that matters here. If there was no music on the station that you're tuned to (as can often be the case), you wouldn't have any PRS/PPL issues to worry about.

The barber's choices are not *just* to boycott or leave the country. He can simply NOT PLAY THE MUSIC. If he doesn't like having to get the licenses that the owners require, he can simply NOT PLAY THE MUSIC. If he wants to negotiate with the owners, he can certainly give it a shot - if he made the case that he couldn't afford the license, perhaps some of the artists he wanted to play might give him free licenses to play it. But it's never been about whether he could afford it - just about his ignorance of the schemes that the artists have chosen to use.

Is it moral for artists to call the shots regarding their own work. Yes, I think so!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it would be okay for me to download pirated works in the US, if I have a genuine belief that copyright is immoral?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, your belief on whether something is immoral or not has no effect on whether it actually is immoral.

Thieves usually have a genuine belief that stealing is OK, but morally it is not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 10:47am

Again, REALLY?? C'mon Dave!
"No, your belief on whether something is immoral or not has no effect on whether it actually is immoral."
Another epic logic fail Dave! 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. Retraction to this blatantly false statement is hereby requested.

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

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!

Most individuals with critical thinking skills would see the RED flag "ALL" and immediately analyse the statement/facts. Very few statements can use "All/Always/Everyone/Anyone" without reprisal based on circumstances. Here's one for the crowd: All squares are rectangles. It's an indisputable fact that has been scientifically proven based on the definitions of squares and rectangles. 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 12:24pm

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 9:44am

Re: Re: Again, REALLY?? C'mon Dave!
The definition doesn't need to mention individuality to be valid. The point here is just because a group of people (lawmakers, for instance) say something is illegal it does not necessarily make that act immoral, except perhaps from a legal standpoint.

The point here - which you miserably failed to understand - is morality rests within each individual regardless of what a piece of paper may have written on it. You repeatedly linked laws with morality in your posts as you can see myself and others had the same impression.

[RANT] Morals are strictly an individuals interpretation of the world around them. Sometimes groups of individuals try to define morality for the masses. It's fairly easy to get a consensus on a majority of topics (killing someone is wrong) but circumstances will prove there are always exceptions: killing someone in self defense is nearly universally acceptable. Most of the planet believe in some religion and that the religious writings of their particular faith are the correct "moral" compass for them. Some insist it's for everyone but then we find ourselves right back to your point of having control over others and their actions. However, very few religions are actually tolerant of other religions. Logic makes short work of this fortunately: if the majority of people divided into hundreds subsections believe only they/their group is right, and there is only one actual but unknown truth (that's why it's called faith) then the majority of people are wrong. The sad part is they have no idea who is correct or if ANY of them are correct. If only one group was correct with their interpretation then the (vast) majority are wrong. If none of them are correct about the unknown truth (assume no God of any type) then they are ALL incorrect and as such, their teachings and/beliefs are questionable as well because it is not based on the absolute truth.[/RANT]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, I would absolutely argue that thieves think that stealing is moral. Only Robin Hood thought that stealing was moral, and he had a good point. Most petty thieves absolutely understand that their actions are both wrong and illegal.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 3:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You contradict yourself there. First you say (all) thieves think stealing is moral(ly right), then you say only Robin Hood thought that, then you say he had a good point (which implies you agree, which implies you might be a thief!), then that most petty thieves think that it's wrong! Petty thieves are still thieves, as was Robin Hood.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Christopher Weigel (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She was arguing against the point. Which, if you were a little less hasty on the "asshole" button, you might have caught.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 5:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, your belief on whether something is immoral or not has no effect on whether it actually is immoral."

LOL! Morals are nothing *but* belief. You seem to think your own personal morality is objectively true. There is no objective source of morality that governs all humanity. Some people believe things are right, some believe they're wrong. Neither one is objectively correct.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 1:22pm

Re: 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...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm.... You are a complete idiot. Most of those acts of civil disobedience were completely illegal. MLK, Jr. and his supporters shut down an entire city for days and, by your way of thinking, Rosa Parks should have walked or stayed in her own seat.

Stupid troll is stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Stupid troll is stupid."

You're more patient than me. I didn't even get to civil disobedience before I called him a troll.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By my way of thinking, she should have found another way to travel, or, disobeyed the rule (as she didn't agree with it). Which she did.

Don't tell me what I think.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it would be okay for someone to ignore the law, as long as they are morally opposed to it?

I asked you that earlier, and you said no. Now you say yes? Which is it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 3:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they're happy to deal with the consequences, sure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Almost Anonymous (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hate to be glib but:

"Because THERE ARE BAD LAWS."

Fixed that for you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Quote #1: "The fact he paid up with the PRS means he agreed with this principle, but unfortunately made the mistake of not signing up with the PPL." What evidence do you have that this shop owner agreed to the principle of these fees? Did you interview him? Did you read an interview where he expressed this? Did he post it on the barbershop.com blog? That is an amazing bit of mind reading ability you display here. Just because he paid DOES NOT mean he agreed to anything in principle! Quote #2: TechDirt - you're not reporting this fairly - "Hello kettle? this is the pot, you're black!" If you want to be fair about something then quit double and triple charging for listening to the music on the radio! Quote #3: "You are adding value to the shopping experience of your business by playing the music, which you will profit from in some way, thus you must pay for it." Excuse me? There are many who don't want music being played while they shop. Now you are degrading the shopping experience - do these collection agencies offer rebates or discounts when the music does not enhance the experience? What about commercials? You know, the way the people who are supposed to get paid for their talents, have their bills paid - by the radio station! These commercials also do not enhance my shopping experience! Turning on the radio - really anywhere in the free world - should never have the phrase: "thus you must pay for it." attached to it. Your entitlement mentality (collecting multiple times for something that has already been paid for) is nothing more than simply theft. However, because this is systematically done by an organization I believe it is better known as racketeering. Book 'em Dano!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
The evidence of him agreeing to the fees was the very act of him paying them. If he didn't agree, why would he have paid?! He could have just stopped broadcasting the music to the public, or flaunted the rules.

By paying a fee and essentially buying a license, you enter into a contract with the licenser, which means you have implicitly agreed with the terms of the license. If you didn't then you wouldn't have paid.

Nobody is double or triple charging. Each fee is for a different thing. The radio station pays a license fee to broadcast the music directly to the general public. If a middleman such as a barber wants to come in and change this flow, they have to have an agreement in place too. The radio station has not paid to allow all other businesses to rebroadcast the music. And in the UK the PRS and PPL are two separate organisations - one representing performance/broadcast rights, and one representing publishing rights. They are separate because the artist who recorded a track (and the record label that they might be signed to) isn't necessarily the writer of the track (or the publishing company that the writer might be signed to). Try understanding the music business before claiming 'double and triple' charging.

So if there are people that don't want the music in the shop, don't play it in the shop! It's up the business owner to decide if they want to pay for the music broadcast - whether they think it will make them more sales or less. If you believe it will have an overall negative effect, then that's your view, but this barber wanted music in his shop.

Just because you're used to, as an individual, not having to pay for access to radio stations, it does not mean you have any right to free radio.

It's not racketeering because nobody is being forced to listen to the music. If the business owner doesn't like it, he just needs to stop broadcasting the music!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
The evidence of him agreeing to the fees was the very act of him paying them. If he didn't agree, why would he have paid?! He could have just stopped broadcasting the music to the public, or flaunted the rules.

You keep repeating this point, and it seems like you actually believe it. It's a bit surprising that there really are people this naive in the world. He paid because he had no choice. That does not mean he agrees with it.

By paying a fee and essentially buying a license, you enter into a contract with the licenser, which means you have implicitly agreed with the terms of the license. If you didn't then you wouldn't have paid.

Agreeing to a contract at the point of a gun (i.e., the threat of a huge fine for doing something as simple as turning on the radio) is not the same thing as a mutually beneficial transaction agreed upon by mutually consenting parties.

Nobody is double or triple charging. Each fee is for a different thing. The radio station pays a license fee to broadcast the music directly to the general public. If a middleman such as a barber wants to come in and change this flow, they have to have an agreement in place too.

That absolutely is double and triple charging. The very same broadcast -- which has already been paid for -- is being paid for again. It's the very definition of double and triple charging.

They are separate because the artist who recorded a track (and the record label that they might be signed to) isn't necessarily the writer of the track (or the publishing company that the writer might be signed to). Try understanding the music business before claiming 'double and triple' charging.

Indeed, but PRS and PPL already get paid from the radio station broadcasts. This absolutely is double dipping.

So if there are people that don't want the music in the shop, don't play it in the shop!

I love this line of argument for the sheer naivete of it.

It's up the business owner to decide if they want to pay for the music broadcast - whether they think it will make them more sales or less.

Music in shops has little to nothing to do with it increasing sales. I love this fable that the industry repeats and which has apparently brainwashed young Davey here. Music in shops is not about selling more at all. It's about keeping the staff from going nutty in the silence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"He paid because he had no choice."

Of course he had a choice. He didn't have to play the music at all. Then he wouldn't have to pay. HE HAD A CHOICE!

"Agreeing to a contract at the point of a gun (i.e., the threat of a huge fine for doing something as simple as turning on the radio) is not the same thing as a mutually beneficial transaction agreed upon by mutually consenting parties."

It's quite easy to simply not turn the radio on, Mike. There was no gun-point hold-up - you are being ridiculous now. If you don't agree with the terms of what you're paying for, DON'T PAY.

"That absolutely is double and triple charging. The very same broadcast -- which has already been paid for -- is being paid for again. It's the very definition of double and triple charging."

No, what was paid for was the license to broadcast the music to individuals in domestic/private places, not in commercial public places. There is a difference, whether you like it or not.

"Indeed, but PRS and PPL already get paid from the radio station broadcasts. This absolutely is double dipping."

No, because they are being paid for a different thing by the radio stations than by the business owners. Personal and commercial licenses rarely have the same cost. If I want have Sky Sports (satellite) TV in my home, it costs around £25/month. If I own a pub and want to show it there, it costs hundreds a month. The license that I am paying for is different depending on the place that the broadcast takes place. As a listener, radio stations are kind enough to pay the license fee for the music they broadcast so that I don't have to personally pay it (but if the technology existed, they could charge me instead, just like with pay TV). But the fees they pay for this do not cover public broadcasts, and the law states that the owner of the public place has to pay for the different license for this.

"Music in shops is not about selling more at all. It's about keeping the staff from going nutty in the silence."

Fine, so play it for that reason instead, but accept that the public will still hear it, whether or not they want to, and thus an appropriate license still needs to be paid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Of course he had a choice. He didn't have to play the music at all. Then he wouldn't have to pay. HE HAD A CHOICE!

So you believe there is no problem with denying an individual the ability to make use of their own products (radio) to capture public goods (radio waves) on their own property?

Interesting.

It's quite easy to simply not turn the radio on, Mike. There was no gun-point hold-up - you are being ridiculous now. If you don't agree with the terms of what you're paying for, DON'T PAY.

I see. You say this as if before he bought the radio he had to sign an agreement. He did not.

When the Mafia stops by your shop and says you need to pay up for "protection" to make sure "nothing bad happens," does the store owner who pays up "agree" with the mafia?

No, what was paid for was the license to broadcast the music to individuals in domestic/private places, not in commercial public places. There is a difference, whether you like it or not.

No doubt. We all recognize what the law says. You can stop repeating it. My point all along has been how nonsensical the law is. You have not responded to that. Any time anyone calls you on it you resort back to "but that's the law!" That's not an answer.

Fine, so play it for that reason instead, but accept that the public will still hear it, whether or not they want to, and thus an appropriate license still needs to be paid.

Yes, and once we had a law that said slavery was okay and that alcohol was not. And you would have been among those who said "the law is the law, so deal with it." And you would have been rightly mocked, as you are here.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"So you believe there is no problem with denying an individual the ability to make use of their own products (radio) to capture public goods (radio waves) on their own property?"

It's irrelevant really as that's not what's happened here. Radio waves specifically sent by someone are not 'public goods', they are copyrighted intellectual property, just like physical or digital recordings.

As for what you can do on your own property, the law has never worked like that. In neither the US nor the UK nor many other countries can you murder someone on your own property, for instance (there are sometime exceptions for self-defence but they apply whether in public or private). If you are in a country, you have to obey the laws or face the consequences.

"You say this as if before he bought the radio he had to sign an agreement. He did not."

He didn't need to. UK laws regarding broadcast of copyrighted work to the public already exist. It is every individual's and every business's responsibility to know the laws of the country they are in. Ignorance does not hold up in court (unless you are very lucky!).

"When the Mafia stops by your shop and says you need to pay up for "protection" to make sure "nothing bad happens," does the store owner who pays up "agree" with the mafia?"

This has no relevance to this case. Nobody forced the barber to play the music. He just got fined for not having the legally required license for it. He chose to play the music.

"My point all along has been how nonsensical the law is. You have not responded to that. Any time anyone calls you on it you resort back to "but that's the law!" That's not an answer."

OK, so why do you think it is nonsensical, sorry? Do you not agree that copyright holders should be able to charge as they like for the use of their work? Do you not agree that broadcasting copyrighted work in public should be treated differently than doing so in private?

"Yes, and once we had a law that said slavery was okay and that alcohol was not. And you would have been among those who said "the law is the law, so deal with it."

No, I'd've said if you don't like it, simply don't partake in it. Comparing slavery and prohibition to music broadcast licensing is ridiculous though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

RadialSkid, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"In neither the US nor the UK nor many other countries can you murder someone on your own property"

You can't murder someone, since "murder" by definition is the illegal taking a human life, but many parts of the US currently operate under Castle Doctrines, meaning you can use lethal force on your own property in very broad circumstances. In Mississippi, for example, I can legally kill someone if I catch them vandalizing my car.

And before you start in with more moaning about American centrism, allow me to remind you that you DID say "the US nor the UK."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"In Mississippi, for example, I can legally kill someone if I catch them vandalizing my car."

Really? The state law still thinks that's OK?! Does it happen often?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
OK, so why do you think it is nonsensical, sorry?

We're 250 comments in and you still haven't figured it out?

Do you not agree that copyright holders should be able to charge as they like for the use of their work?

I already asked you in the comment you ignored how a gov't granted agency with gov't set prices has anything to do with your claim that copyright holders get to charge what they want. They do not. Why do you continue to post this strawman?

Furthermore, as someone who believes in an open and free market (as you falsely claimed to), I believe that the market sets the price -- and that's the intersection of supply and demand. A rights holder can try to set the price, but if the product is in abundant supply, then that price gets pushed down by the market. But the government has stepped in and denied market forces in htis situation.

Do you not agree that broadcasting copyrighted work in public should be treated differently than doing so in private?

Turning on a radio is not "broadcasting."

No, I'd've said if you don't like it, simply don't partake in it. Comparing slavery and prohibition to music broadcast licensing is ridiculous though.

No one was comparing the two. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of your "the law is the law" argument. You should read the excellent new book "Property Outlaws" that discusses how civil disobedience has *always* been a key element in reforming property laws. The "just don't do it" argument doesn't play. One of the ways you get laws changed is by showing the ridiculous outcomes -- such as requiring a barber to pay two separate licenses to turn on a radio.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"OK, so why do you think it is nonsensical, sorry?

We're 250 comments in and you still haven't figured it out?"

Nope, I'm afraid not. It makes perfect sense to me that if you play the song that I wrote and my friend recorded to the public at your business premises (which enhances your working conditions and/or your customer satisfaction), that we are each paid at the amounts that we have set, and if we want to use agencies to help monitor this and collect the fees, what's wrong with that?

"how a gov't granted agency with gov't set prices has anything to do with your claim that copyright holders get to charge what they want"

Um, well, the copyright holders have signed agreements with that agency, that's how. Either they have chosen the rates themselves, or they've agreed to the rates of the agency. In any case, an agreement, that they had a choice about, is in place.

"I believe that the market sets the price -- and that's the intersection of supply and demand. A rights holder can try to set the price, but if the product is in abundant supply, then that price gets pushed down by the market. But the government has stepped in and denied market forces in htis situation."

Not true - there's nothing stopping another company starting their own agency. The law doesn't give any special privileges to the PRS or PPL, they are just the most popular services of their kind in the UK and because they cover the vast majority of popular music and have agreements with lots of public venues, it makes sense to sign up with them either as an artist or broadcaster.

"Turning on a radio is not 'broadcasting'."

Sorry but if you are running a business and the public can hear the licensed music on the radio at your premises, then it is broadcasting in so much that you need a license to do it legally. Whatever the term used.

And my 'just don't do it' argument was not 'just don't break the law', but in fact 'don't do the thing that you don't want to pay for'. It's a free market - if you don't like the price of a product (or in this case licensing a product), you don't have to buy it at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
It makes perfect sense to me that if you play the song that I wrote and my friend recorded to the public at your business premises (which enhances your working conditions and/or your customer satisfaction), that we are each paid at the amounts that we have set, and if we want to use agencies to help monitor this and collect the fees, what's wrong with that?

Ok. By the same logic, if I play your song at my business and it gets you attention such that people now what to go to your concert/hire you to write new songs, you are going to pay me right? After all, it enhances your working conditions/salary/living conditions. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Or, wait, does tis only work in one direction?

Um, well, the copyright holders have signed agreements with that agency, that's how. Either they have chosen the rates themselves, or they've agreed to the rates of the agency. In any case, an agreement, that they had a choice about, is in place.

Can you point me to a single collection society (hell, just PPL or PRS) that lets musicians set their own rates? They don't. The rates are set by the Copyright Tribunal in the UK.

Not true - there's nothing stopping another company starting their own agency.

Highly misleading. It is only in the past two years that the European courts rejected national monopolies on collection societies. But because the established players already had a monopoly it's close to impossible for any new entrant to qualify.

The law doesn't give any special privileges to the PRS or PPL, they are just the most popular services of their kind in the UK and because they cover the vast majority of popular music and have agreements with lots of public venues, it makes sense to sign up with them either as an artist or broadcaster.

Both had gov't sanctioned monopolies until the courts broke that up recently, at which point it no longer mattered. Why you ignore this, I do not know.

Sorry but if you are running a business and the public can hear the licensed music on the radio at your premises, then it is broadcasting in so much that you need a license to do it legally. Whatever the term used.

And right back to "the law is good because it's the law." Do you not see how ridiculous that line of argument is?

And my 'just don't do it' argument was not 'just don't break the law', but in fact 'don't do the thing that you don't want to pay for'. It's a free market - if you don't like the price of a product (or in this case licensing a product), you don't have to buy it at all.

There's no free market when you have a government tribunal setting prices, Dave. There's no free market when you have a government granting a monopoly. There's no free market when you have monopoly rights handed out to content creators.

Learn what a free market is before you make yourself look any more foolish.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"By the same logic, if I play your song at my business and it gets you attention such that people now what to go to your concert/hire you to write new songs, you are going to pay me right? After all, it enhances your working conditions/salary/living conditions. Nothing wrong with that, right?"

Sure, if we've got an agreement along those lines in the licensing contract. If we haven't, you can attempt to negotiate with my licensing agency if you like. But if they or I decide against it, sorry but that's our decision - it's our music to do what we want with.

"Or, wait, does this only work in one direction?"

That really depends on your negotiating skills, Mike. The ball's in your court if you want to try and get it agreed.

"Can you point me to a single collection society (hell, just PPL or PRS) that lets musicians set their own rates? They don't. The rates are set by the Copyright Tribunal in the UK."

Only when there is a dispute. But the point is, musicians don't have to use collection societies if they don't want to. If they don't like the rates being used, they don't have to use them.

Just found this by the way - http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Playing-Music-and-Videos-In-Public/Health--Beauty/

It turns out the barber would have only needed to pay £116.20 ex. VAT per year to have the PPL license to play music from radio and TV at his premises. Hardly a fortune!

"Highly misleading. It is only in the past two years that the European courts rejected national monopolies on collection societies. But because the established players already had a monopoly it's close to impossible for any new entrant to qualify.

Qualify for what, sorry?

"Both had gov't sanctioned monopolies until the courts broke that up recently, at which point it no longer mattered. Why you ignore this, I do not know."

Because as you say, it no longer matters. We're talking about a current case, not an old case.

"There's no free market when you have a government tribunal setting prices, Dave. There's no free market when you have a government granting a monopoly. There's no free market when you have monopoly rights handed out to content creators."

Sure there is. The tribunal has set the prices for one particular society. Not for all of them. http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Copyright-Tribunal-Refunds/

There's nothing stopping the barber using an alternative collection society that represents other artists, or just dealing with the artists directly, or only playing his own music that he records himself at the weekend, or not playing any music at all, or just paying the £116.20 which will probably be less than 0.1% of his business' turnover.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Do you not agree that copyright holders should be able to charge as they like for the use of their work?

Those rates are statutory, so the copyright holders are not able to "charge as they like." Most would like to get paid more, I'm sure, but those statutory rates are set by law.

Plus, you have mostly ignored the fact that copyright holders have already charged for that broadcast - they charged the broadcasters themselves (the radio stations). Rights holders are getting paid twice for exactly the same transmission. That's the very definition of "double dipping." If it's the law, then the law should be changed.

Do you not agree that broadcasting copyrighted work in public should be treated differently than doing so in private?

The barber shop isn't a "broadcaster" because they can't select the music, can't decide to skip station ID's or ads, etc.

So, no. Re-broadcasting of a specific radio transmission in public should be no different than doing so in private.

Broadcasting and re-broadcasting are in fact treated differently in the U.S., and we are hardly soft on copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"Those rates are statutory, so the copyright holders are not able to 'charge as they like.' Most would like to get paid more, I'm sure, but those statutory rates are set by law."

Of course they can - they just need to stop using that society. Any rates that have been set by the UK government have been in the case of dispute between the businesses that pay the fees and societies representing the copyright holders. If the copyright holders don't like the rate their society has ended up with, they can just stop using the society and collect the rate they want themselves or using another society instead. They're not forced into those rates.

"Plus, you have mostly ignored the fact that copyright holders have already charged for that broadcast - they charged the broadcasters themselves (the radio stations). Rights holders are getting paid twice for exactly the same transmission. That's the very definition of 'double dipping.' If it's the law, then the law should be changed."

No, that's not true. You're implying that being paid twice means 'double' the amount. The reality is that, for instance, a copyright holder receives around £75 per play of their recording on the big BBC stations, from the stations themselves. Whereas a small business like the barber may only pay £100 or so for the right to play as much music as they like for an entire year. So realistically the artist will receive a few pennies for this, on top of their £75. That is not 'double' dipping.

"The barber shop isn't a 'broadcaster' because they can't select the music,"

Er, yes they can. They can put on a CD, an iPod, fire up Spotify etc. The license that the barber didn't have covered the playing of all music, whether or not broadcast over the radio to the shop.

"can't decide to skip station ID's or ads, etc."

Sure they can, they can mute these if they really want. Or switch to another station. Radio sets *do* have buttons that let you control them.

"Re-broadcasting of a specific radio transmission in public should be no different than doing so in private."

Why, sorry?

And yes, things are different in the UK and US. I'm glad someone's finally picked up on that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Radio waves specifically sent by someone are not 'public goods', they are copyrighted intellectual property, just like physical or digital recordings.

Okay, first, this is hilarious. Second, radio broadcasts aren't sent to anyone specifically. They're sent over public area into public and private property.

So these agencies are absolutely attempting to charge people to use their own physical property to access public property on their own real property.

It seems like the artists are doing way more infringing than the property owners...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
I never said they were sent *to* anyone specifically (although sometimes they are, such as on encoded subscription services, or when used by the police etc.).

And no, the agencies aren't trying to charge people to access public property (the radio waves?) on their own property. They are charging BUSINESSES to PERFORM (i.e. play) music that THEY DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO on COMMERCIAL PREMISES. Not that same at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
You absolutely said 'specifically sent to someone'. I copied and pasted your statement, so there's no use lying now.

The business owner was using his physical property to access public air waves on his real property. It is absolutely the same.

The business owner doesn't lose his right to use his physical property when he walks into a business. The business owner doesn't lose his right to access his air waves when he walks onto his property. In fact, since both the physical property and the air waves were on his real property, his right to use both is strengthened, not weakened.

The agencies attempt to weaken his rights to his own property, physical, digital, and real, is morally wrong, just as asking a black person to sit in a different section of a bus is morally wrong.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Haha, read your very own comment. You quoted me, correctly, saying 'specifically sent BY someone'. Not 'to someone' - 'BY SOMEONE'. You are the one lying, Rose - everyone can see now.

No, it's NOT THE SAME because the law breaking was not the receiving/access of the air waves. Again: the licensing societies are charging BUSINESSES to PERFORM (i.e. play) music that THEY DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO on COMMERCIAL PREMISES. Air waves have nothing to do with it. The same licenses are required to play music from CD, or iPod, or Spotify, or vinyl, or cassette, or 8-track, or whatever.

"The business owner doesn't lose his right to use his physical property when he walks into a business."

That really depends on a lot of things. If you mean the right to use his radio when on commercial property, no, he doesn't. I never claimed he did or that any rights to use a radio were in question.

"The business owner doesn't lose his right to access his air waves when he walks onto his property."

They're not his air waves, but yes, he doesn't lose the right to access them on his property.

"The agencies attempt to weaken his rights to his own property, physical, digital, and real, is morally wrong"

You have completely neglected the intellectual property rights, which he, the business owner, has no rights to. It's not about his rights to use his radio, or to tune into public radio stations. For the last time, I hope, the reason the barber got fined was for performing (playing recorded) music that he did not have the required licenses to play, as dictated by the owner of the music recording and writer of the music.

This has absolutely no comparison with asking (or event forcing) a black person to sit in a different section of a bus based on their race. The barber wasn't fined because of his race! You have lost it...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
So...say there is an agency like the IRS wherever you live.

If they say that you owe back taxes would you pay them (agreeing with them that you owe money) and then attempt to prove that you don't (but wait, if you paid them you obviously owed them money).

Or would you refuse to pay them and end up in jail?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
In the UK we have the HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs).

If they say they owed me back taxes but I knew 100% that I didn't, I would send them evidence of this and the matter would be dealt with. It wouldn't get to the point of me having to pay, or refunding and going to jail. I would just get on with resolving the issue.

But in this case, the barber doesn't appear to have objected to the PPL fees at all - he's never said he disagreed with them, and didn't say he thinks they weren't fair or right. He was just a bit shocked because he was ignorant about having to pay them, and so he got a larger fine instead. He made an unfortunate mistake, and maybe now he'll take more care running his business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
According to your logic...maybe only agreed with one of the fees.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"The radio station pays a license fee to broadcast the music directly to the general public"

The barber and his clients are all a part of the general public. Now... explain to me why he should have to pay 2 diff placed to obtain licensing? Why not have it all under one umbrella and make it simple?

By the way... I'm never going to pay anyone to turn on my radio... Why? because I have come to realize that the laws put in place are there only to benefit the people that enforce them, not the people that actually have lives to live and bills to pay. Most of the laws on the books are no longer based on common sense anymore... They are bases on a fantasy that people give a shit about the government and each other.

Dave... If I thought I could get away with it... I would kill all of the executives of all of the 'licensing' groups and burn the buildings to the ground. They have no purpose on this planet other than to line their pockets with money they did not earn. I used to be a DJ and had to pay ASCAP and BMI. I stopped paying when I found out they were not paying the artists for the work. They kept the money for themselves. Something to think about there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
The barber has to pay for performance and publishing licenses because if he rebroadcasts the radio broadcast on his commercial premises, that is not covered by the radio station's license (which as I said is just for the station to broadcast DIRECTLY to individuals, not through a business).

You would murder if you thought you could get away with it? I think you need to be committed to an institution and not arguing on this site, if you truly believe that.

With BMI and ASCAP, they claim they do collect royalties for their members ("ASCAP is the only performing rights organization in the U.S. owned and run by songwriters, composers and music publishers", "Broadcast Music, Inc. collects license fees from businesses that use music, which it distributes as royalties to songwriters, composers & music publishers"). Are you saying they are liars?! How exactly did you find out that they weren't paying artists?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
You would murder if you thought you could get away with it? I think you need to be committed to an institution and not arguing on this site, if you truly believe that.

I think he was just trying to convey the level of anger that the actions of the groups you are defending have created. If you don't understand why people are so angry then I think you have a problem yourself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Plus - his attitude only mirrors the collecting societies who would triple dip for ringtones, charge the girl guides for singing round the campfire and arrest people for whistling in the street without paying if they thought they could get away with it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Charging fees is hardly the same as killing people. Get a grip!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Charging fees is hardly the same as killing people.

No it isn't - but then again I don't think he was really serious - just exaggerating for effect. The PRS on the other hand were deadly serious about this issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm

right up to the point when they realised what a huge own goal it was...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"right up to the point when they realised what a huge own goal it was..."

On behalf of Americans everywhere, please refrain from making soccer analogies (my bad if that was supposed to be a hockey goal...).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Does sound like a mistake on their part there, but playing recordings is a bit different to singing renditions without accompaniment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
He could have just stopped broadcasting the music to the public, or flaunted the rules.

FLAUNTED ARRRGH PLEASE

the word you are looking for is "flouted". Flaunted means something quite different....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
My mistake. Sorry.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

duffmeister (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Is it a broadcast really? He isn't retransmitting it.

Would it be different if he let someone borrow a portable radio and tune it as they desired?

Why does a publisher have rights to a broadcast even if I buy that argument?

I am confused as to how this is relevant, he tried to comply and because it makes little sense he made a mistake. I am sure if he had all the facts neatly presented up front he may have made a different decision, but we will never know because a cryptic system made difficult through chicanery and legal speak hid that he needed two licenses. He made a decision based on what knowledge he had. This mistake cost him an arm and a leg and he was trying to comply.

Are you able to never make a mistake? If so can I hire you? It just seems excessive for someone trying to be legal.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Yes, it counts, according to the UK legislation:

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/Pages/do ineedalicence.aspx

Note that they do do exceptions for some shops (section 4).

Would it be different if someone brought in a portable radio? Probably not.

If I write a song and I let the PPL take care of my publishing royalties (for a fee out of the income they obtain for me), then they have the authority to act whenever any recordings of my song are broadcast.

He tried to comply by signing up with the Performing Rights Society, but not with Phonographic Performance Limited. It was an unfortunate mistake but a mistake nevertheless. I don't think any legal speak hid anything from him - we don't know how he found out the PRS but he ought to have found out about the PPL at the same time. Or maybe the PRS should have reminded him about the PPL. But it's not their responsibility to do that - it's his.

I've made the odd mistake with my own company, and I've paid for it. I didn't go to the media about it though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

duffmeister (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
So obfuscation is the correct way to make sure customers pay? I'd imagine that if your business is dependent upon people paying you that you might make it easier for someone to notice they need to pay you. This individual went to some effort to comply. Is there a point when "due diligence" is served or must I read 100% of all laws passed and ever passed to be sure I don't break any? (Something most politicians making the laws don't even do)

So by your logic if I walk down the street with a portable radio and walk into a business I need a license from two sources for this "broadcast"?

It seems from the link you supplied like a good number of people in the UK need to be sued for failure to comply. I know I'd protest a law written as such and talk to my representatives about getting it changed. I know I do this now for the laws in the US I see as unjust and out of scope.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Fine, maybe the PPL needs to a better job of making sure everyone is aware that they represent a lot of popular music. But you have to be pretty naive if you just assume you can do what you like with someone else's music just because it's on the radio. I'm not saying you need to read all the laws, but I do find it odd that if he found out about the PRS, he somehow missed the PPL, as they will be listed in similar places.

No, you don't need the licenses - the business does as its their premises!

And it's not really a case of 'suing', they just need to issue the fines, which it seems they are gradually doing at the moment. If people don't want to pay the fines, they can object and only then will the PPL potentially take them to court. The law that comes into play is that you need permission of the copyright holder to play their music in public - I doubt that one is going to be easily changed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

duffmeister (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
So all businesses should have license in case I walk in with a radio got it.

I need to go to the UK and walk around with my radio.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

vivaelamor (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"Yes, it counts, according to the UK legislation:"

Please don't quote the PRS website when referring to UK legislation. That is merely their interpretation of UK legislation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
They are separate because the artist who recorded a track (and the record label that they might be signed to) isn't necessarily the writer of the track (or the publishing company that the writer might be signed to). Try understanding the music business before claiming 'double and triple' charging.

-no but it should be the performers obligation to compensate the writer for their work. And the publisher, pretty sure that's the record company THAT THE RADIO STATION IS ALREADY PAYING.
The radio station pays the publisher/record company, who are suppose to pay the performer and the writers (or the performer is supose to pay the writer, depends on the contract), now if the publisher/record company is NOT paying the performer, well that's a different issue.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"but it should be the performers obligation to compensate the writer for their work" - sorry but that's not how it works in the UK. If you write a song for me, I might pay you a fixed amount, say £5,000, to buy it from you forever. Or I might license it from you for, say, £500 a year, to use it as I like, but the rights remain with you. Or I might not have your specific permission to use it, but because you're signed up with a publishing society, a small fee is due every time my recording of it gets played on TV, on radio, online, or performed by me at my gigs. Or you might have given the song to the public domain so anyone can use it without your permission. It really comes down to whatever agreement is in place.

"And the publisher, pretty sure that's the record company THAT THE RADIO STATION IS ALREADY PAYING." - no, not necessarily. Publishers are usually not also recording companies, though sometimes one might own another. But in most cases they are separate and UK copyright law recognises both the writer/creator and the performer of the recording/live performance.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Dave,

Have you bought, and do you own a refrigerator in your house?

Bad news, then, my friend. You paid Miele for the fridge, but you did not pay the UK Freon Society for use of the refrigerant inside the coils. You should have known.

In fact, you showed that you approved of the principle when you paid Miele, but you obviously didn't do enough research on the entire value chain of home appliances.

Of course, ignorance is no excuse. Before you buy your fridge, you should read every deal, contract, and law put in place around the subject of refrigeration. If you don't like them, then you could simply choose NOT to refrigerate. You could use cubes of ice shipped in, or simply eat at restaurants. You had options - but you chose this willful violation.

It makes perfect sense to me that you should have to pay each company in the supply chain. That is much more obvious than the classic model of just paying the vendor that sells to you. Screw Occam's Razor and any effort of simplicity, transparency, or people's ability to just get on with life as opposed to needing due diligence for every product they buy.

The UK Freon Society awaits your check. If you don't like it, you can move to Sealand. As a side bonus, they have lots of free music there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Nope, I rent a property and it came with kitchen appliances including the refrigerator.

Does the UK Freon Society exist, then? Or are you making it up for this hypothetical?

In any case, in UK law, individuals are given a lot more legal leeway than businesses. The barber was running a business. If I owned a refrigerator, it would likely be as an individual, as my own business doesn't utilise refrigeration at all. If I did own and use it as part of my business, I'll bet there'd be a whole bunch of health and safety laws that wouldn't apply as an individual.

Another weird choice of an example. Can't we just stick to the actual case in hand instead of trying to compare it to something difference?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
"Can't we just stick to the actual case in hand instead of trying to compare it to something difference?"

No. Because people arguing with you are trying to use analogy to illustrate how ludicrous your position is. It is a standard, and even excellent way to make a point.

We, however, are failing nonetheless.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Greg G, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:44am

Re: Re:
Umm, no. There have been reports on here (no, I don't have a link, search for it yourself) where people not running a business, but playing their radios in their garages have been told they have to pay up for licenses.

My response is still the same to anyone that would try make me pay up: Fruit your hole. Leave me alone.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
In which country? Garages as in at their homes, or car mechanic garages? If your garage is private, then in the UK you don't need a license.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

athe, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if you were playing that music to your horse in your stable on your property?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:11am

Seriously?
Are... Are you serious? Surely you troll!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:15am

Re: Seriously?
Whatever you say, anonymous coward.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Davoid, 8 Jul 2010 @ 6:10am

Re: Re:
@Dave Nattriss OK. So What if, as I do, you work in a small office of 10 people. Closed to the public I might add. The radio here is for no benefit to our customers. Bizarrely it's illegal for us to listen to a public broadcast (which we already pay for via the license fee). But if we each had our own individual radios that no-one else can hear we're perfectly fine? Can you tell me where the sense in that is?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: Re:
As far as I know, it wouldn't be fine with individual radios because you'd still be in the office.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I know, it wouldn't be fine with individual radios because you'd still be in the office.

No I 'm pretty sure I've seen legal opinions that say that provided each individual listens to only his own music it is fine.

After all how could "being in the office" make a difference? I have an office at home.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess by 'his own music' you don't mean their own music (that they own the rights to)...?

Being in the office does make a difference because the licenses that the PRS and PPL issue to the radio broadcasters do not cover the music being performed (played) in commercial or public venues/spaces. The owners of the venues/spaces need their own license too for this (see all the messages above!).

I don't know whether they would count a home office as a commercial venue/space - probably not as the rule is generally if there are two or more people working there (see the case mentioned about the stables).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Christopher Weigel (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, am I reading this right?

Because if I am, you just made the argument that if I own a radio, for my own personal use, and my co-workers cannot hear it...

I am still not allowed to bring it onto my employer's property.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

David Winters, 19 Dec 2013 @ 9:46am

Re: Re:
Oh grow up. This is extortion, pure and simple. The music has been paid for already for public performance. Any child can understand this. The recording industry has lost their technological strangle hold on music and it is driving them nuts.
Read the Pirate's Guide to Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights for the straight skinny.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2015 @ 3:02pm

Re:
If I wrote a song and lyrics and didnt protect my creation and then someone heard me humming it or a friend playing it. And they then went away and wrote it down and then protected it with their countries association and then it got used as a jingle for an advert on tv or a band played it on tour etc etc. you get the drift. Then my creation/baby has now made someone money, a lot or a little who knows. I, as the actual creator have made diddle squat. So who is the fool. So most of the companies like ppl or prs are given most the license fee back in royalties to these guys. Not everyone is a famous songwriter or singer making tons of dosh. Even the little guys deserve something for the creation or performing. Wouldnt you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

nasch (profile), 14 Feb 2015 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re:
If I did nothing to try to monetize my tune, and someone else did all the work of arranging, recording and selling it, who deserves the money?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Yogi, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:15am

Happy
I'm thrilled at the thought that Western civilization was saved today by the courageous acts of one collecting society. May the RIAA Bless Them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:25am

Re: Happy
This happened in the UK and has nothing to do with the RIAA. I'm thrilled that you don't know the difference between other countries and your own.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

PRMan, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Happy
I think it is you that fails to see that there is no longer a difference between countries. The music and movie industries are trying to govern all countries through ACTA.

Keep up, will ya?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: Re: Happy
Of course there are differences between the countries. The RIAA is not the PPL or the PRS. They are UK organisations. The RIAA is for the US.

Keep up, will ya?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy
ACTA. Look into it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:29am

Re: Re: Happy
there are other countries???? when did this happen?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:03am

Re: Re: Happy
The UK is a part of Western civilization and Yogi invoked the RIAA to bless the other agency. He wasn't implying that the RIAA was the other agency. You know, just like when someone says 'God bless you.', they're not implying that you're God.

Man, you're dumb.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:00am

Re: Re: Re: Happy
But what does the RIAA have to do with anything in this case?

Man, you're rude.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy
What does God have to anything? It was just a statement. Deal with it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy
Eh? I didn't ask anything about 'God'.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Christopher Weigel (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy
Reading comprehension.

You might want to try it sometime.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

WTF, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:40am

WTF... I cannot believe what i am reading....I work in a small office and we have the radio on, This means that we need to get 2 licenses. The world has gone mad. Copyright laws need to change!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:50am

Re:
No, if you're in an office you're not playing the radio to the public, so you don't have 'performance' licensing to worry about.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

IshmaelDS (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:12am

Re: Re:
Then what about the cases of car garages being fined for the mechanics in the back playing music for themselves?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Probably because car garages *are* open to the public.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most offices are open to the public. My insurance office, my doctor's office (yes, the part with a desk), the Social Security office, all kinds of offices are open to the public. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well then if you are in the UK and are playing music to the public that come into the offices, you do need the appropriate licenses.

But generally speaking, most offices are not open to the public.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Generally speaking, most offices are open to the public.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. Most offices have a public reception area, but then the main private part where people work is not open to the public. Most have security guards/barriers/locks etc. to ensure that only employees can go into the private areas.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So a building isn't open to the public if parts of the building are restricted?

That's funny. I guess that my local mall isn't open to the public, so they can play music all they like.

Of course, the UK agencies have sued companies for playing music for their employees as well, but you can ignore that if you'd like.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, a building can have both public and private parts.

And yes, it turns out that a license is required for playing licensed music for employees in private commercial premises too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're going to go through this thread and write retractions for all of the places where you're wrong?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 2:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I can see/accept that I made a mistake, sure, I'll apologise.

By the way, do a search for the word 'sorry' on this page. Who have the majority of them been written by...?

Now do a search on words like 'idiot', 'dumbass', 'moron'... who wrote them first? Not me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Well then if you are in the UK and are playing
> music to the public that come into the offices,
> you do need the appropriate licenses.

Earlier you claimed that the reason for this is that the business needs to pay because the music draws in customers. Now we're talking about offices and business that are playing music entirely incidental to the business. Who chooses a mechanic based on what radio station he's listening to in the back while he works on the car? No one goes to the DMV because of the music some clerk is playing on her iPod down the hall.

It's a specious fantasy argument drummed up by these collections societies to add a sheen of legitimacy to justify what is essentially an old-style OC shakedown scheme.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 4:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not having music enhances your business/increases your sales, you still need to respect the wishes of the copyright holders of the music you choose to play. If they say they want paying, either pay them or don't play their music.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Whether or not having music enhances
> your business/increases your sales, you
> still need to respect the wishes of the
> copyright holders of the music you
> choose to play.

That's not what you said earlier. You claimed this was all justified ethically and morally because businesses are using music to draw in customers and make money.

Now you're saying it's justified merely because the artist made the music.

Which is it? You're all over the map here.

And while we're at it, what gives artists the right to get paid over and over again forever for work they did once while no one else in society has that privilege?

When a doctor sets someone's broken leg, she gets paid once for it. She doesn't receive a royalty every time that person earns money using the leg which would otherwise have been useless if not for the doctor's work.

The examples are endless of people whose jobs pay them only once for work they do which gives those for whom they do it an opportunity to derive monetary benefit with it. Yet when it comes to art, there's this presumption that it just makes sense to keep paying people for work they did decades ago.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That's not what you said earlier. You claimed this was all justified ethically and morally because businesses are using music to draw in customers and make money.

Now you're saying it's justified merely because the artist made the music."

In the case of ethics/morals, I'd say both reasons are valid. In the case of the law, the latter is what counts.

"what gives artists the right to get paid over and over again forever for work they did once while no one else in society has that privilege?"

The law does! But I don't agree that nobody else has that privilege. If I start a shop, and then start another as it's going well, and then train my staff to start more stores on my behalf, and eventually end up with a chain, I will get to the point where I get paid over and over again for work that I did at the start of the process.

If I come up with a secret recipe for cookies, and they are so popular that everyone in the country buys them every day, I will 'get paid over and over again forever for work I only did once'. Or if I invent a new clothes hangar that becomes very popular, I will 'get paid over and over again forever for work that I did once'. It's not just 'art', it designs, it's ideas, it's patents... it's all forms of intellectual property. The whole concept of successful business is built upon getting good at something and then 'getting paid over and over again forever for work I did once' at the start of the process. Like a doctor spends years at medical school at great expense so he/she can earn a good salary for the rest of their life once they are qualified. In your example, the doctor would have spent/invested time/money into learning how to set a broken leg in the first place, and then every time she has to do it for a new patient, she gets paid for it again.

"Yet when it comes to art, there's this presumption that it just makes sense to keep paying people for work they did decades ago."

Well, maybe the UK copyright expiry period could be adjusted from 50 years to say, 20 years, or less, but the argument is that if you push it too far, the artists will have less incentive to create new work and society will lose out as a whole.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like a doctor spends years at medical school at great expense so he/she can earn a good salary for the rest of their life once they are qualified. In your example, the doctor would have spent/invested time/money into learning how to set a broken leg in the first place, and then every time she has to do it for a new patient, she gets paid for it again.

Yes - and by that token a musician also gets the benefit from all the hours of practicie when they were younger, allowing them to earn money from performing. But then they get a further level of payments without doing any new work at all from royalties on recorded performances that they did years before.

The doctor (along with most skilled/trained professionals ) does get a 2nd order payment - but the only musician gets a third order payment without lifting a finger again. Your justification fails.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you don't think royalties from performances on old recordings are fair? What about old songs that I've written?

What if nobody ever played my record until 5 years after I published it? Would that mean that I shouldn't get any performance royalties at all because I recorded the performance 'years before'?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they want to be paid more than the owners of the air waves want to pay them, they should refuse to play their music on my air waves.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody owns air waves. "Man, you're dumb."

People own rights to their work. If you don't have permission to play my work on your property, you are morally and legally wrong to do so.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 11:05am

Whoa!!
Your work is being broadcast on my property and this device I bought (radio) will play that broadcast and many others. That's why I bought the device in the first place! Perhaps the collection societies should impose a tax on the radio manufacturers?

I didn't ask for the broadcast. It's there because of an agreement between the creator and the broadcaster, who happens to know there is a business opportunity (in selling advertising for instance) between the songs he has paid to broadcast from the creators.

See, the creator gets paid, the broadcaster gets paid, and the listening audience (regardless of their environment) gets (hopefully) entertained.

Where in that scenario does the artist have the right to ANOTHER payment from the audience?

If you want to get paid again, then sell it again to a DIFFERENT audience!! Or, sell it on a closed system (CD, stream, etc.)instead of publicly available airwaves which, by the way, are owned by the audience who make up the population of the country and have a government agency that is "supposed" to work for the public and regulate these things for the benefit OF THE PUBLIC. my taxes are paying for this regulation and you have the gall to ask for another payment outside of the ones already made?! That right there is theft! Fortunately we know your view on thieves:
"Thieves usually have a genuine belief that stealing is OK, but morally it is not."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 1:01pm

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: Whoa!!
"You talk about your taxes paying for regulation of the public airwaves. Are you confusing the UK and the US again?"

You don't pay taxes in the UK?
Your public airwaves don't belong to the public?

A couple of hundred years ago, people on this side of the pond preferred Dutch tea, the British insisted on taxing the Dutch Tea to the point where the only "reasonable" option would be English tea. The Boston Tea party ensued along with a war. Now we have a choice on what tea we drink along with a nice chunk of land - that BP is wrecking as we speak.

Keep taxing/licensing (yes collection societies are basically a tax-type burden in my view) your way right out of existence - it's unfortunate the process takes so long.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the public does own air waves. Radio stations rent the privilege of broadcasting on those air waves from us, the public.

People own the air waves. If you don't want people to hear your music, don't transmit it, or allow it to be transmitted, on public air waves.

Suing someone for accessing their air waves is morally and legally wrong.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I do want my music to be heard, so long as UK copyright law is respected, which is why I'm happy to let my licensing society to license it to radio stations that respect that law. UK copyright law states that you can't perform (i.e. play a recording of) my music in a commercial or public place without my permission, whether it comes over the airwaves or on a plastic disc or flash memory or down a cable. I will give you that permission, so long as you get a license from the PRS and PPL. If you don't want to do that, don't perform my music.

Nobody is being sued (or in fact fined) for accessing air waves. The infringement was for the performance of copyrighted work without permission. Do you understand?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody owns air waves. "Man, you're dumb."

Set up a big transmitter and start broadcasting at high power on the frequency of your local commercial radio station.... and see how long it is before the police turn up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 10:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Understand the difference of what people have been arguing:

- in one case, they are talking about RECEIVING airwaves that are travelling on and through their private property. They are doing NOTHING that affects anyone else, and all their activity remains within their property.

- in the second case, the one you suggest above, they have set up a big transmitter and are pushing their radio waves onto and through many other people's properties. This has the potential to interfere with what other people want, and thus, is subject to scrutiny and regulation based on societal norms regarding the use of shared public resources.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's exactly my point. The radio station has licensed those air waves, but they don't own them Rose was claiming the air waves in her property were hers - "they should refuse to play their music on my air waves" - and then: "People own the air waves".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

ben, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if I have a private office. I leave the radio on when I go home. My office is burgled. Do I get fined because the burglar listened to the music?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if the licensing society could prove that all happened!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

nasch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
There are even cases of a collection society calling a business and asking for money because they can hear music over the phone. So you have to turn off the radio before anyone answers the phone too, or it's a public performance.

But this is all OK, because that's what the law says. And ignorance of the law, and principles, and stuff. How am I doing, Dave?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
In which country/with which collection society are these cases, sorry?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the UK, along with them demanding money from a woman who played music for her horses.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rose...that can't be! Nobody here knows the UK exists, and we only think everything happens in the USA. Remember?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It feels like it in the vast majority of the comments on here.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 11:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Perhaps a couple of comments are US-centric. But by and large, people were knowingly contrasting the two countries, or noting similarities, such as the statue of queen anne.

It is only because you don't like analogy that you find the commenters to be "mistakenly" interpreting the UK case based on US law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Michael, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:18am

Re: Re:
If it is possible for one of your customers to hear the music (by walking through your office to a conference room, or OVERHEARING IT WHILE ON THE PHONE WITH YOU) then, yes - you need to pony up the bucks to these guys or risk a fine.

Moral of the story - listening to music in the workplace has become too much of a hassle and you should stop your employees from doing so.

Oh - and if you are singing, make sure you pay for that as well:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1134566619.shtml
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:29am

Re: Re:
Errr, if you're in an office, you ARE playing the radio to the public - other workers/people in the office!!! People who visit the office etc.!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:34am

Re: Re: Re:
Workers in the office are not considered the general public - they are employees, or freelancers, or partners or whatever. There is a difference.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not according to these agencies. You see why people are so fed up with them? They're entirely unreasonable, even, apparently, by your standards.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually yes, they do consider public performances to be different to private ones (on commercial property). They require licenses for both but they don't say they are just the same.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rabbit80, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re:
In the UK you DO need a license (or licenses) to play a radio in an office. Have a look on the PRS website! A quote from the PRS website regarding music in the office... "The rates in this section vary depending on the number of days in the year music is played in the workplace, canteens or staff rooms; the number of half-hour units per day music is played in the workplace, the number of employees in the workplace to whom the music is audible and the number of employees to whom the canteen/room is available." You can find the tarriffs here... http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/I-2010-03%20Tariff.pdf
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:41am

How did it come about you need a license in the UK to turn your radio on at your place of business? If that's true in the U.S., I haven't noticed anyone bothering about it. Which is as it should be -- ignore the parasites until they go away. Quit feeding them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:11am

Re:
In the UK, they need permission from the government to buy a TV. This is not surprising at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:58am

Re: Re:
Err, I don't know where you got that one from but we certainly don't need to get permission from the gov to buy a TV.

We need to pay a TV licence to watch 'over the air' broadcasts which is used to fund the BBC's radio, television and internet services but not if the TV isn't plugged into an aerial.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

The Baker, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:42am

UK TV Licences
When I lived in Belfast (Yes, it is a part of the UK) I bought a TV and a DVD player to watch DVDs. A month later I got a Nasty letter from the TV licensing folks stating that I needed to pay the equivalent of about $500US for the two color TVs I bought. No amount of explanation by myself or the Solicitor for the company I worked for would dissuade them that the DVD player wasn't a color TV or that the TV was not connected to a antenna or that I was a US resident living there temporarily. I had to fork over the 500 bucks.
Seems to me that the UK TV Licensing Bureau is as bad as the collection agencies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:18am

Re: UK TV Licences
If you only watch recorded material you don't have to pay the license fee. You do have to go through a procedure to assert this - but it can be done. My son avoided the TV license for a set that was only used as a monitor to play games - it can be done.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: UK TV Licences
so the gov't knows when you buy a tv?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: Re: UK TV Licences
> so the gov't knows when you buy a tv?

Not when you buy it, but they do drive around in vans with special equipment that can detect from the street whether you have a TV running in your home. If they detect one that isn't licensed, they send you a fine letter.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: UK TV Licences
so the gov't knows when you buy a tv?

Not when you buy it,

They do know when you buy it. Every retailer selling a TV fills in a little form with your name and address and sends it back to TV licensing. If the name and address don't match an existing TV licence then you get a letter. They gave up on the detector vans years ago because they don't actually work very well (Esp. with digital/LCD televisions).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK TV Licences
> They gave up on the detector
> vans years ago because they
> don't actually work very well.

Thanks for the clarification.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Sheogorath (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:24am

Re: UK TV Licences
No, you didn't have to fork over anything. All you had to do was tell the licensing agency to pay you a visit to check your equipment, then once they'd done that, they'd have left you alone. Worked for me after I bought a TV to use exclusively with a games console.
"The strawman you have erected has not been recognised. Please check and try again."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:57pm

Re: Re:
If you're talking about TV licenses, not quite. You don't have to pay a TV license for owning a TV, only if you're receiving live broadcasts.

Since, you know, if you did have to do that it would imply the BBC owned the patent for TV technology.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:49am

Re:
The rule is actually to play the radio to the public (shops are open to the public), not just to play it at your business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Avatar28 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:00am

Re: Re:
That is only true if the term "public" includes horses. These are the same asshats who tried to sue a stable for not paying a license for playing the radio for their HORSES! Then there was the garage that got sued because a mechanic was listening to his radio while working on cars in the garage area which was NOT open to the public. I could go on and on but it would get boring.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:18am

Re: Re: Re:
Without any evidence of these cases, yes, it does get boring.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Now your showing your true colors
Your inability to listen to real world examples is disingenuous to the conversation. People see a problem and you argue about the technicalities of the law, thus you are right?

Try joining the conversation. We would all appreciate that!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now your showing your true colors
As soon as you give some actual real world examples, I'll listen to them.

P.S. Random recollections don't count.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Doug B (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see:

Horses:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5061004/Woman-who-plays-cla ssical-music-to-soothe-horses-told-to-get-licence.html

and

Garage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi /uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Avatar28 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks, Doug. And, yet, I notice that Dave has yet to post any defense about why those are justified.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jeeze, give me a chance. 22 minutes?!

The horse story is a spin. The license is required because it's a business with more than two people, which is how the UK law currently stands - "Because her stables, the Malthouse Equestrian Centre in Bushton, Wilts, employs more than two people it is treated in the same way as shops, bars and cafés which have to apply for a licence to play the radio... Rather than pay the fee, she now leaves the radio off except on Sundays when she is alone at the stable yard."

Seems fine to me.

With the garages case, I don't see the problem here either. The PRS claimed the music could be heard by customers, which means it was being played in public (as defined by the law).
The company "said it has a 10 year policy banning the use of personal radios in the workplace", in which case, they should pass the fines onto the employees that broke the ban.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When an organisation like the PRS tries to enforce the law to this extreme degree they will lose all public sympathy.

Mind you, even they admitted that they were wrong when they tried to charge a woman for singing to herself whilst she was stacking shelves.

I'm surprised that you think it is OK.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
ac, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but earlier you said

"No, if you're in an office you're not playing the radio to the public, so you don't have 'performance' licensing to worry about."

and

"The rule is actually to play the radio to the public (shops are open to the public), not just to play it at your business."

Is this yet another licensing form where the stable and staff are not considered private?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently for the PRS (not the PPL), it doesn't matter whether or not the public can hear the 'performance' (playing) of the music. So yes, the stable having more than two employees did need a license, hence the news story.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 9:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dave, I do give you all the credit in the world for standing firm and fielding all the inquiries, allegations, and abuse being directed to you, even though you are not apparently any part of this case - kudos for your determination!

BROADCAST - A method of sending information over a network
When is any shop or business ever "sending" anything by turning on a radio? They are RECEIVING a broadcast! Please let's be clear about this simple fact. If they were turning on a transmitter then they would be broadcasting. This is the crux of how ridiculous the laws in question appear. Obviously the law in the UK has avoided this truth about who is broadcasting or what broadcasting actually entails and so the law should be corrected. The law has taken a public transmission and turned it into a selectively closed network based on where and under what circumstances the broadcast is being received.

No one here is claiming the artists or production personnel shouldn't get paid for their work.

Quote: "No, that's not true. You're implying that being paid twice means 'double' the amount."
Epic logic fail. You take a logical argument and attach an unrelated mathematical expression (multiplication) to try and disprove the logic. 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.

Quote: "which enhances your working conditions and/or your customer satisfaction)"

You keep insisting that the music enhances working conditions or customer satisfaction - what is this observation based on? Quit claiming you are selling a business enhancement which is debatable to begin with but ultimately irrelevant according to....YOU!

You go on to say: "Whether or not having music enhances your business/increases your sales, you still need to respect the wishes of the copyright holders of the music you choose to play. If they say they want paying, either pay them or don't play their music."

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'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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 7:29am

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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!

Double dipping refers to getting paid twice for the same thing not necessarily getting paid the same amount twice.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said but you are having difficulty with comprehension which, despite my best efforts, I just can't seem to help you with.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Horses
> Without any evidence of these cases,
> yes, it does get boring.

Here you go. Now stop being an asshat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5061004/Woman-who-plays-classical -music-to-soothe-horses-told-to-get-licence.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:02am

Re: Re:
Right. Just don't pick up the phone where the radio can be overheard....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:36am

Re: Re: Re:
I suspect background music on a phone call (different to 'hold' music) doesn't count as 'broadcasting'.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've lost the context here - DH was referring to the mechanism by which the collecting societies trap their victims.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:41am

Why is there a "system" for turning on your radio? Enough systems already.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:12am

Re:
Dynamic Systems Solutions. Utilizing Best Business Practices to Align Verticals and Leverage Resources!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Schmoo, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:45am

Ridiculous indeed. Ridiculous to the point where I'll now happily 'steal' music just on principle (I pay only for label-free music), and even then the bastards are still using my money to prop up their racket, albeit indirectly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:52am

PRS v PPL
According to the PPL website (annoyingly the part that I am referencing is a flash booklet application), PPL represents recorded music and the interests of record companies whereas PRS represents performing rights. They point out that both agencies need to be paid.

The original article doesn't provide any insight as to the method by which PPL informed the hairdresser of their obligations and gave them the chance to pay. Given that they are a collections agency who are trying to get paid, they presumably start out by trying to get the money. The article doesn't go into any detail about the lengths that the hairdresser tried to defend himself in court. The argument "I didn't know about you guys" isn't going to win any awards as a defence.

The obvious counter to this shakedown is to not use music in any form. No radio, no CD player, no hold music on the phone.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:27am

Re: PRS v PPL
So, your saying that there must be more to the story then this?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: PRS v PPL
Haha, there's always more to a story when it's written in just two paragraphs and is taken from another source.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Any Mouse, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: Re: PRS v PPL
And yet... there's a handy hyperlink to the original story... So why does there need to be more than 2 paragraphs when you can reference the source and read for yourself?

Shall we start calling you TAM Sr. ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: PRS v PPL
Why? Because plenty of people reading this thread and commenting have demonstrated that they didn't click the link.

And in any case, I didn't say there needed to be more than 2 paragraphs, I just said that because there were only 2 of them, clearly it was not the whole story.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:54am

Why the hell do you need a licence to play the radio? Anyone can listen to it it free of charge.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:13am

Re:
You need a license to watch TV, don't you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:25am

Re: Re:
You need a license to listen to the radio in your own home in the UK?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:53am

Re: Re: Re:
No, the radio is free for private/individual use, but you need licenses to broadcast it and the songs played on it to the public, which is what you are doing if you play the radio in your shop.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The first AC asked why there's a license to play something that anyone can listen to for free. AC 2 replied with a comparison to the TV license suggesting that the radio has a similar OTA license. I know they don't, I was just pointing out the fallacy of the comparison.

The first AC still has a valid point. The radio station pays the license to broadcast what they pay to anyone and everyone, why does someone have to pay a second license if anyone else can hear their radio?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the radio station license is just a blanket rate for privates individuals to listen to the music being broadcast, not for businesses to rebroadcast the music publicly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, their license is a blanket license for them to broadcast that music on the public airwaves. They do not purchase a license to listen, they purchase a license to broadcast.

I don't care what country you're in, you should not have to pay to listen to what people broadcast into your own air.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, but their license to broadcast also allows the public to listen to their broadcast, in non-commercial or public places.

Unfortunately for you, the UK law doesn't care what you don't care about.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 9:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Unfortunately for you, the UK law doesn't care what you don't care about."

But you've made the point, earlier, that if enough people are up in arms about this, they could boycott, or argue against the laws. People could vote, lobby, protest, write letters to MPs, etc.

Yet now you tell Rose (whom may be UK based, maybe not) that the UK law doesn't care what she thinks.

So...you say the law is right because it's the law. You say we should just get stuffed, or choose to not 'broadcast' the music in our shops, or choose to change the law, or leave the country. The best choice of those four bad choices would be to waste my time fighting the stupid law...yet you believe that that option is really moot, as the UK law doesn't care what people think.

Welcome to one futile, cynical, mofo world.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rose has made it very clear from her comments that she is not in the UK, and my comment was directed at her.

No, I have not said the law is right because it's the law. That makes no sense.

The best choice is to waste your time? No, I don't believe it's moot, the UK law cares what the majority of UK citizens thinks, but it would take a lot of effort to get most of the country to agree that creators aren't entitled to choose what happens to their work, IMHO.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if your shop is in your home, and your spouse is listening to the radio for their own private use?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A shop is still a shop - i.e. business premises.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it is. You don't believe that a shop is a place of business?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or you could license my music for free, add value to your store, promote me, and skip all of this other crap entirely. Sweet!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Very Big Al, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:28am

Re: Re: Re:
Sorry but you don't.

The UK radio licence was scrapped in the 70's
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2015 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
You only need the license if music is playing to the general public. Not in a domestic situation. I think its more to do with the fact that the music is copyrighted not the way that its played.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

interval (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:13am

Re:
That's what I'm talking about. Its couched as a 'performance fee'. Not one dime, not from me. To turn on a radio? Pfahhhh.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

ac, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:02am

this is ridiculous enough...
to make me want to go on a copyright violating spree. But seriously, the collection agencies aren't appearing to be any different than organized crime. You open a business, pay state and local taxes that go toward law enforcement. You pay insurance to cover your assets. Then the Mafia comes around to get their cut to "insure" your shop doesn't get "accidentally" burnt down. Then the Russian Mafia comes in to get their cut so your shot doesn't "accidentally" get burnt down. Now replace the mafia references above with PRS and PPL, and replace "burnt down" with sued.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:06am

less moneyfrom radio
For years radio stations have been trying to get businesses to play the radio over PA systems. It greatly increases listenership which results in more payments to artists at least some artists, and it promotes the music. Demanding licences for playing the radio only hurts musicians in the long run.

I don't understand why radio stations have not lobbied to protect the ability of businesses to play the radio.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:15am

Copyright is not supposed to work this way.
You're right, Mike, and it doesn't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2016 @ 2:53am

Re: Copyright is not supposed to work this way.
so do all us car owners neec a licence for our car radios then
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:17am

Remember
Remember the days when the Radio would be blasting the latest tunes out of your local store downtown or the tunes blasting from the jukebox at the hamburger stand. Now we get to walk around in sterile malls that play canned crap. Who even wants to go out and shop anymore? I was in the big mall lately to see a movie (legally) and not one song could be heard in the entire mall and you know it's because of licensing. We are turning into a silent society where the only music we will get to hear is what we paid for and is only piped into our registered wifi headphones, so no one else can hear it or copy, even it in their minds.
indie Musicians unite!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:59am

Re: Remember
Funny how you blame the licensing rules, instead of blaming the mall for not stumping up for the license fees and pocketing the cash instead. Don't go to the mall (and more to the point, don't spend your money there) if you don't like the lack of good music and maybe eventually they'll learn.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Michael, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:27am

Re: Re: Remember
Personally, I think most of the popular music these days is somewhat awful, so the mall not playing any music is fine in my book.

However, it's the artists that should be up in arms about these collection agencies and their antics. If you really think the mall not playing popular music will stop people from going there, you are delusional. People don't go to the mall to listen to the music, they go because they have to BUY something. Now, if there was a nice song playing and a sign in the music store I was walking past showing me the cover of the CD that the song is on (and perhaps a T-Shirt), that may be a pretty nice promotion for the artist. Instead, I don't hear their new music, I continue to listen to the White Album, and continue to complain that the new music available sucks.

In the meantime, the collection agency is doing it's collecting, giving a percentage of the money to some artists (just the big ones, because the small guys don't matter) and keeping a big chunk of it for 'looking out for the rights of the artists'. I think mobsters go to jail for the same activity.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:27am

Re: Re: Remember
These agencies are supposed to collect funds on behalf of artists, but their actions are driving customers away. Neither customers nor artists are being helped by this.

You say that the mall customer should boycott the mall because of the lack of music? I say that the mall customer should boycott artists affiliated with those agencies because of their tactics. Then maybe they'll learn. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:51am

Re: Re: Re: Remember
When you say customers, you mean the public buying the recordings, or the businesses paying to have permission to broadcast them in their premises?

If the agencies are collecting more money, then of course the artists are going to earn more.

Sure, the mall could only play certain artists, that would work too. But in any case, don't blame the agencies for simply carrying out the wishes of their clients (artists).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember
Both are customers, and these artists have been pretty outraged over what these agencies are doing, so no, they're not .carrying out the wishes of their clients'.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Pitabred (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:55am

Re: Re: Remember
So what work, exactly, is the "performance" that's happening that you're trying to get paid for? Are you actually doing anything during the performance? So why should you expect people to "stump up" and pay for you to do jack shit and collect money?

The disconnect here is you. You don't seem to realize that a rational, sane person sees no additional value from you added when they play the radio, so they see no reason to pay. As it should be. If you want to keep collecting money, you need to get your ass off the Internet and start actually working.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Remember
I don't think Dave claims to be from the collection agencies, or an musical artist.

So far, I have only read his comments which indicate he is just in agreement with the laws, the practices of the collection societies, and the fact that the barber was in the wrong, and should pay.

I don't agree with Dave in the faintest, but I'm not sure it fits to address him as a greedy musician. Could be...but that is not the debate.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re: Remember
Funny how you blame the licensing rules, instead of blaming the mall for not stumping up for the license fees and pocketing the cash instead.

Hey, weren't you the one that was saying "if you don't like the fees, don't play the music?"

Now they're not playing the music, and you still want to blame them?

Nice catch-22 there, buddy.

Sorry, but if a PRO's fees are too expensive for businesses to pay, so they don't play music, then ultimately it's the PRO's who are to blame.

...On the other hand, all the music I've ever heard in a mall has been utter crap, so I'm OK with silence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Remember
No, I don't blame the mall. I was suggesting the commenter should blame them because *they* don't like the music being played. I couldn't really care either way as long as copyright is respected.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 6:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember
*they* don't like the music being played.

Sorry, I thought they didn't like the fact that music wasn't being played. You could see how I was confused:

Remember the days when the Radio would be blasting the latest tunes out of your local store downtown or the tunes blasting from the jukebox at the hamburger stand. (...) I was in the big mall lately to see a movie (legally) and not one song could be heard in the entire mall and you know it's because of licensing. We are turning into a silent society (...)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2016 @ 1:11am

Re: Re: Remember
Obviously a licencing fan
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

PRMan, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:52am

Re: Remember
Hopefully you didn't walk through the mall for exactly 4'33" or they owe rights fees anyway...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Remember
Quiet you! How can one copyright silence anyway?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

tshirts, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:04am

Re: Remember
I'd rather it be silent than be forced to listen to another Drake or Riana song followed by 15 silly ads when I go to the mall.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

falconcy (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:17am

TV Licence
As the UK has a TV Licence system which afaik covers radio too since it pays for the BBC, I wonder what the Beeb will say about this.

It's high time these "Copyright Pirates" were seen for what they are. The only piracy I can see is what they are doing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:57am

Re: TV Licence
Sorry but while the TV license does pay for all of the BBCs activities, as things stand you do not need to have a TV license to listen to the radio, use the BBC website or play non-live broadcasts on iPlayer.

This case is about broadcasting commercial music in public. The performing rights society (PRS) cover the licensing for actual playing of the recordings to the public, while the PPL look after the licensing of the publishing rights of the songs that are played to the public.

http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Why-you-need-a-licence/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:50am

Re: Re: TV Licence
The performing rights society (PRS) cover the licensing for actual playing of the recordings to the public, while the PPL look after the licensing of the publishing rights of the songs that are played to the public.

So why on earth did the PRS take this guy's money and not advise him that he needed a second license? It must have been really obvious to them that he wasn't playing live music in a hairdressers. Seems to me like they are the really incompetent party here.

Mt advice to him is that in the UK there is now a substantial stock of public domain recordings of classical music that he could play without paying anyone at all.

(At least until/unless the term extensionists get their way - and that hasn't happened yet.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:18pm

Re: Re: Re: TV Licence
Why didn't they advise him? Because that's not their responsibility. Because they weren't to know whether he already had a PPL license? It's the barbers incompetence, not theirs.

Your classical music advice is great. Or he could just pay the £116.20 annual license fee to the PPL and not have to worry. Hardly an extortionate amount to potentially play over 130,000 licensed tracks over a year.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Jeff (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: TV Licence
So - 116.20 for PPL - how much for PRS then? I'm just guessing it isn't as 'insignificant' as you say. Barbershops aren't huge money making ventures - neither are horse stable for that matter. So by taking the 'ITS THE LAW' road, the collection agencies (who's to say there won't be more tomorrow) effectively squeeze this business out... No more money for them... and another barber on the dole... good job!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TV Licence
According to the PRS site, approximately the same amount, depending on how many treatment chairs and what exactly is being played:

http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%2520Tariffs/HDB-2009-11%2520Tariff .pdf

So, we're talking less than £250 for a whole year of music licensing. That's really not a lot for a business that should be turning over at least £100,000 (if they have at least a few employees and then rent/equipment costs to pay).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

mike allen, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: TV Licence
lets put it straight Radio stations in the UK pay both PPL and PRS loads of money I know i work in radio in fact i am in the same city as this guy in the article. So why should the PPL / PRS get another bite when stations pay em loads so people can listen. I still say they should pay us for the promotion but that something else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:19pm

Re: Re: Re: TV Licence
Why? Because the radio stations haven't paid anything for public plays, just private ones.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Davoid, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:23am

Re: TV Licence
The beeb didn't even sit on the fence on this one. Last year, when the PRS collection threats were hitting the news the BBC told everyone, via Radio 1 news, that is was the law and we had to pay it. There was no mention of a second collection agency though!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rex (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:20am

*sigh*
This industry has caused way more problems for themselves and the public than they're capable of realizing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:21am

Good, the next time my neighbor turns his music up loud, I will turn him in to the music copyright collection agencies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:25am

Comemercials!
What about the fact that we are already paying for radio with commercial time!?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:41am

Re: Comemercials!
Has nothing to do with it. The PRS/PPL licenses are between the business and the copyright holders of the music. Nothing to do with the radio station.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 4:46pm

Re: Re: Comemercials!
Except, of course, that they're playing a radio broadcast, not programming their own music. A radio broadcast that includes paid commercials, and none of those payments are going to the businesses.

The law? Sure. A sane and rational law? No.

Maybe the U.K. should set a statutory license for radio stations to pay businesses for playing their broadcasts. I mean, that makes about as much sense as anything going on now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Comemercials!
No, again, UK radio stations do not necessarily broadcast paid commercials, and even if they do, they are unlikely to be able to gain any extra income having them broadcast at businesses because those radios won't be sampled by the people working out the average listening figures (which can determine the amount that they advertisers pay).

Maybe they could do that, but I don't think many businesses are actually complaining about the licensing fees. The barber's PPL license would have cost £116.20 ex. VAT per year, which is probably about 0.1% of his turnover. Hardly a fortune.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 6:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Comemercials!
Okay, but for those stations that do broadcast commercials - if the business is playing them, the ads are reaching more people. Shouldn't the business deserve a cut of the advertising revenue?

If not, why not? If you don't pay for promotion, it's stealing, just like stealing a car. You're one of the "advertising wants to be free" crowd. You obviously believe that people don't deserve to be paid for commercials. Besides, it's not as if the advertisers can't afford to pay. If these guys want to pocket the money instead, they can always just not advertise on the radio.

(Sarcasm, yeah, but hopefully I've made my point.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 3:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comemercials!
Sure, the business and the radio stations could do a deal there. But the stations aren't obliged to. It's like Amazon. I can recommend a product they're selling to a friend and I get nothing. But if I sign up to their affiliates scheme, I can do the same thing and earn a cut. But that's Amazon's choice to offer the scheme.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:42am

Ok - if I patent the act of turning on the radio ("a business process"), I can take advantage of this too!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Grimby, 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:45am

I wonder what would happen if a customer brought a radio into the barbershop. Would the barber be liable at that point, or the customer?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mastro (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:48am

So Mad
This story just pisses me off. I'm so mad right now that the system even is allowed to work this way. I just had to vent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:03am

I think it time to just stop buying there product. Let them take there marbles and go home. Support the artists that give there music away and give them some donations to make more.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Avatar28 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:03am

Radio remotes
This makes me wonder. Many times radio stations (here in the States at least) will do remote units. They will send out a truck and a radio personality to a remote location (often in conjunction with a sale at a store or some other event). When they do they set up a PA system playing their station outside. Would they be expected to pay TWICE to do this? Or would the business end up getting sued for it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:19am

Re: Radio remotes
If they are broadcasting licensed music, then yes, they would have to pay extra if not already covered by their licenses. They may well have it included though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Michael, 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re: Radio remotes
How about if I play pirate radio stations playing unlicensed music
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:31am

Re: Radio remotes
No. They pay to broadcast in a certain area. In other words, if you listen to the radio, it's been paid for by them. It doesn't matter if it's your radio or theirs, they've already paid to broadcast it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Crosbie Fitch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:16am

Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Of course copyright is supposed to work that way.

It's supposed to enable the privileged copyright holder to extort money from the instigators of any cultural exchange involving the covered work.

Did you really believe those glib pretexts that copyright is supposed to encourage learning, promote the progress, facilitate cultural exchange, or actually enrich anyone other than publishers?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:39am

Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
I don't think anyone would ever claim that protecting copyright does anything towards encouraging learning, promoting progress, facilitating cultural exchange or general enrichment.

Copyright is about letting the owner/creator of the work choose what happens to it, be that licensing it to anyone via the PRS/PPL, deciding that only their friends can ever listen to it, giving it away for free without any conditions, or whatever.

The reality is most creators go down the money route because they need to earn a living. Nothing wrong with that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:53am

Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
"Copyright is about letting the owner/creator of the work choose what happens to it,"

God damn it, NO IT ISN'T!!! Even pro-copyright economists agree that the purpose of copyright is a balance between creator and user privelages so as to more greatly benefit THE PUBLIC. The focused beneficiary of copyright is ALWAYS supposed to be the general public, not the creator. Consequentialists concurr.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
So why is it 50 years in the UK (before it expires), instead of say, 5?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 6:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Originally, it was 14 years (with an optional 14 year renewal). But copyright lengths have been increasing roughly every 30 years or so.

Why? One word: money.

Copyright owners come up against a time where their works will enter the public domain. They then spend a lot of money lobbying politicians to retroactively change the copyright laws. They succeed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Well, I'm glad you agree that copyright owners care about their rights to control their work (and make money from it if that's what they want to do).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:58am

Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Copyright is about letting the owner/creator of the work choose what happens to it, be that licensing it to anyone via the PRS/PPL, deciding that only their friends can ever listen to it, giving it away for free without any conditions, or whatever.

The reality is most creators go down the money route because they need to earn a living.

No copyright is all about creating a tradeable asset that can be exploited by middlemen. When it was invented only middlemen were allowed to hold it. Later they allowed the authors to hold it initially - but since the author could do nothing with it it was almost always sold outright to the middlemen who have - until very recently - been monopoly customers of the creator as well as monopoly suppliers to the public.

Most creators go down what you call "the money route" because they have been brainwashed for 300 years by the middlemen into believing that it is their only/best way to make a living.

Nothing wrong with that.

There is plenty wrong with it. It is immoral - there is no moral right to have your cake and eat it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Of course there is. If you make a cake, you can eat as much of it as you like. It's your cake.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 6:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Not if you're copying a chef's recipe. Then it's the chef's cake, and you deserve to pay him when you bake it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
That doesn't stop you eating as much of it as you like.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 8:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Do you understand the proverb?

The point is that you can have your cake, or you can eat it - but after you have eaten your cake you no longer have it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
A cake is a physical entity. Intellectual property is not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

BBT, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:19am

Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
"Copyright is about letting the owner/creator of the work choose what happens to it"

Wrong. Copyright is about providing an incentive for creators to create. It coincidentally happens to provide some limited control over what happens to the work...but not very much.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
If I'm creating something, giving me control over it (for a set amount of time) does give me an incentive to create it. It's no coincidence, for me at least. If I had no control over it, I would be unlikely to bother at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Crosbie Fitch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Well Dave, in 1709 Queen Anne claimed copyright would encourage learning, many (Mike included) believe the Framers of the US constitution eight decades later thought it would promote the progress, and far too many indoctrinated buffoons today believe that without copyright there wouldn't be even half as many novel works published.

Do you really think it's good that any privileged entity (corporation or person) should be able to exert the power of the state against all others to constrain their cultural liberty concerning a given work? Even for a year, let alone a century. Nice to have such power if you're into power, but whether it is 'good' is another matter, especially if you're on the receiving end of such power wielded by a psychopathic corporation looking for statutory damages in excess of a million dollars.

And all you were doing was sharing some music...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Yes, I do. If I put time/money into creating something, I think it's perfectly fair that I have some kind of protection/control of it. Creations don't grow on trees.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Crosbie Fitch (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 2:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Dave,

If you create something it is indeed your private intellectual property, to which you have a natural right - to control, to exclude others, to prevent unauthorised copies, etc.

You have a right to exchange your intellectual work or labour in a free market (a market free of monopolies), for whatever price the market will bear. However, no-one has a natural right to be paid for their work (they may not find anyone who considers it worth the price insisted upon).

Incidentally, some creations do grow on trees, e.g. apples, fir cones, etc.

The point at which you would exert 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.

Your natural choice is to keep your work to yourself, or exchange/give it away. It is only the 18th century privilege of copyright that grants you any further control, and that privilege is a plainly ineffective anachronism in this age of instantaneous diffusion. It's also unethical - as it always was. It's just only now when the people notice its legal constraint upon their cultural liberty that we see all this indignation and agitation fomenting into a civil cyberwar.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Ron Rezendes (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 9:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Excellent point Crosbie, you've easily earned the "insightful" vote I cast on this one!

I twice deleted a similar point regarding the trees! :)

@Rose, Dave is obviously not of the leetspeak troll genre and despite the fact that I don't agree with him, he presented his side with dignity and he honestly believes what he says.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 7:55am

Re: 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Crosbie Fitch (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Unethical in Thomas Paine's view, and by inspection anyone who recognises the individual's natural right to liberty (and no sanction for it to be derogated to profit mass reproduction industries).

Yes, all industries that would enforce copyright's suspension of an individual's liberty are unethical. There are some industries such as the free software industry that do not.

A lot of people believe that copyright is fair, even when youngsters sharing music are fined millions of dollars. That widespread indoctrination that an 18th century privilege is fair makes people believe it to be fair, doesn't actually make it fair.

As to a creator being able to control what they create, of course they have a right to do this (where such creations are created privately, as they so often are). What people do not have a right to is to control other people, to have power over their fellow man. Thus if you make and sell a basket or a poem to someone you have no (natural) right to control what they do with it. As you know, copyright says otherwise and grants a transferable privilege such that the holder can exclude others from making copies. This is an 18th century privilege, an anachronistic hangover from a less egalitarian era. However, it is only now that so many individuals have their own 'printing presses' that they notice this privilege's derogation of their cultural liberty (to share and build upon their own culture).

Of course, having power, being able to control what others do, is very appealing, but that doesn't make such power a good thing. It makes it a bad thing. Copyright gives the holder power over everyone else on the planet. By nature, people don't have power over anyone apart from themselves. The most they can do is to exclude others from their private domain. Being able to control what anyone, anywhere in the world does with your published work is a very seductive power and is why those who covet such power will convince themselves that such power is justly theirs.

What you've got to realise is that copyright is ineffective. Despite its claims to the contrary, it cannot and does not give you the power to control what everyone else on the planet does with your published works. The reason is that the rest of the world would rather keep its cultural liberty and damn your privilege you claim supersedes it. Your published works WILL be shared, illicitly performed, broadcast, reproduced and distributed. They WILL be derived from, incorporated, remixed, edited, translated, and mashed up as others see fit. And that's the best you can hope for. At worst, no-one will touch your work with a barge pole - because it's devoid of any cultural value.

Recognising that copyright is unethical just helps you recognise why it must end, but it isn't the thing that brings it to an end. The thing that ends copyright is people. People who prefer their cultural liberty to a profitable press*.

* Copyright is a lucrative monopoly created for the benefit of the press (to sell copies). Copyright is not necessary for artists to be paid for their art (that's a myth spread by the press).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 5:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
I think your example of youngsters being charged millions of dollars is an extreme one - the fines will have been that hight because of the extent of their copyright abuse. Unfortunately the Internet makes it very easy to abuse copyright on a very large scale very quickly. In the UK, it would be their parents/guardians who would be in trouble as they are legally responsible for their children, just as they would be if they were selling knock-off copies down at the local flea market.

I believe copyright is fair because I value the creative process and intellectual property, not because an 18th century law made it legal.

Actually, if I sell something to someone, if part of the deal is that they can't do a certain thing with it, that's totally up to me as well. If they don't like it, they don't have to buy it. This isn't the right to control your fellow man, it's the right for two people to have a contract between each other that they both agree to. I don't believe there is any such 'cultural liberty' or right to share and build upon existing culture - *that* is a privilege.

"it cannot and does not give you the power to control what everyone else on the planet does with your published works" - of course it doesn't physically stop people going against your wishes, just like laws against murder don't stop people from killing each other, but as it's a law, it does give you legal standing to both discourage the actions, and potentially be compensated for any infringement.

"the rest of the world would rather keep its cultural liberty and damn your privilege you claim supersedes it"

Says who? Have you polled the rest of the world except for me?

"Your published works WILL be shared, illicitly performed, broadcast, reproduced and distributed. They WILL be derived from, incorporated, remixed, edited, translated, and mashed up as others see fit. And that's the best you can hope for"

No, the best I can hope for is that some of those who use it respect my wishes, whatever they may be. And some will. Just because some people infringe copyright, that doesn't mean everyone does.

Copyright is unethical?! How? And without it, how can artists earn a *fair* living? Relying on donations is not fair or relative to the amount that your art is used/viewed/heard/consumed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Crosbie Fitch (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 6:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Dave, just because you sell something to someone that doesn't make them your slave, or subject to you control.

Similarly, contracts are about exchange of goods, not making other people your slaves or subject to your control.

Having power over others is very seductive, so I'm not at all surprised you're in love with the idea and believe it is your right, but those you would control (or fine millions of dollars for disobeying you) aren't too keen on you having that power over them.

If you don't think it's unethical to sue youngsters millions of dollars for sharing music then you should read up on the Milgram experiment - where people allow authority to blind themselves to any sense of humanity. "This is the law. Infringers should be punished irrespective of whether the law is ethical, its penalties are proportionate, and least of all whether they can withstand the punishment."

Something tells me you still believe an 18th century privilege supersedes people's primordial and natural right to share music with each other.

As to earning a living, artists can earn a living the same way they always have, by selling their intellectual work to those who'll buy it from them. Admittedly, manufacturers of copies are going out of business (their monopoly no longer effective), so artists will soon see those customers disappearing. However, artists do have the more interested members of their audience to look to. If an artist saw only 1% of the revenue from 10,000 copies at $10 each, they may well see 100% of the revenue from 1,000 fans paying $1 each. The artist ends up with the same money. It's just that the copyright exploiting publisher no longer gets a 99% cut. That's the understandably aggrieved party - not the artist - and they will thus claim that artists will end up begging in the gutter unless copyright is fully enforced. No, it's the publisher ending up in the gutter (though corporations get struck off - being immortal).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 9:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
"I think it's perfectly fair that I have some kind of protection/control of it"

You certainly do. Keep it a secret, never let anyone else know your creation, or hear your music, and you can happily control it all your life and take it to your grave.

But once you choose to share your knowledge, your music, if flows into the ears of others. It now lives in their minds, and they may find themselves reproducing it, humming it, recalling it, riffing on it. That's the nature of ideas - they can't be "unthought" or "unshared". And they are infinitely reproducible - share your idea with me, and you are not at all deprived of it yourself. That is the free market of ideas, music, stories. That is the oral tradition and the tradition of copying that 400,000 of human civilization experienced without encumbrance.

But that came to an end with the Queen Anne doctrine. As an economist, I can appreciate the argument for a limited copyright. There is the possibility that it will create an incentive to authorship, and thus the public will be enriched. And that was the stated goal of copyright in both the UK and the US: an increase of content in the public domain, and a greater wealth of ideas for us all to enjoy, share, and riff.

The more recent environment of copyright extremism is an aberration, and largely immoral. But many small-minded people, seeing the world only through the lens of "how things were when they were 20" believe the current state of affairs to be as "handed down by god." This thinking is demonstrated by your "the law is the law, and thus the law is right" tautologies.

So, to repeat: people have every right to have some kind of protection and control over their creations. They can tell no other living soul, and exercise full control. Of course, they'd be selfish pricks, but that's their prerogative.

Before you get the wrong message, artists are fully entitled to try to be rewarded for their toil. But their are other ways than the vile, government-enforced, control of ideas and fanciful creations. The double dipping and Orwellian bureaucratic hell the barber experienced just by turning on his Grundig is an egregious example of how the system is flawed. Sure, good artists should get rewards. This blog offers a litany of methods artists can be recompensed, as well as many examples of artists practicing those methods to profitable ends.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 5:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
For the last time, I hope, I've never said "the law is the law and thus the law is right". I've just said that the law is the law and if you break it there are consequences, so if you don't like the consequences, don't break it, or get it changed.

"Good artists should get rewards" - and what defines their goodness, out of interest?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 11:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
"Good artists should get rewards" - and what defines their goodness, out of interest?"

You're going to like my answer here. The market. The market for their valuable free goods, and the market for their valuable scarce goods.

I said you'd 'like it'. But I fear you won't 'understand it'.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Doug B (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
This comment displays your sheer ignorance of the subject. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Consider reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:10pm

Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
I don't think anyone would ever claim that protecting copyright does anything towards encouraging learning, promoting progress, facilitating cultural exchange or general enrichment.

That is supposed to be its purpose. You've been told that the justification for U.S. law is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Now let's look at the rest of the world...

U.K.'s Statute of Anne: "The statute was concerned with the reading public, the continued production of useful literature, and the advancement and spread of education." The full title of the Statute was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned."

WIPO justification for copyright: "The purpose of copyright and related rights is twofold: to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public." (Emphasis mine.)

So, I guess this means that copyright isn't doing what it's supposed to, and should be dramatically reformed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Oh, yeah... Notice anything that is completely absent from any of those justifications?

"Letting the owner/creator of the work choose what happens to it."

This is not even part of copyright law in countries that support "moral rights." They may have some rights in this regard (right to attribution, etc), but those rights are deliberately limited. Because that is not, and never was, the purpose of copyright, anywhere in the world.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
What about "while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence"? Without control, they won't get that value (at an amount determined by them) returned to them.

And I couldn't really care what the purpose of copyright was devised as 301 years ago. Things have moved on, and more to the point, laws have changed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Without control, they won't get that value (at an amount determined by them) returned to them.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up?

Keep in mind that "control" implies a lot more than "publishing rights," which is all copyright is.

If "artists' control" was the intent, then U.K. laws intentionally would not place any restrictions whatsoever on copyright (including fair dealings), they would not be transferable, and copyrights would last forever.

More to the point, there would be no such thing as statutory fees (which are completely out of the control of the copyright holders).

And I couldn't really care what the purpose of copyright was devised as 301 years ago.

The WIPO is hardly 301 years old. And I couldn't find any more recent U.K. laws that specifically change what the purpose of copyright is.

That could be because I'm not from the U.K., of course. Even in the copyright-obsessed U.S., the stated purpose of copyright hasn't changed since the Constitution was written, over 200 years ago.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 3:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Evidence? I'll go with logic. If you don't have control of something, you can't decide/guarantee what happens to it or what value it has.

Copyright is not just publishing rights, it's full control.

What fair dealing UK copyright laws are there, sorry?

Copyrights being transferable is an important part of having control. If I have full control of something, I have the right to transfer the control to someone else if I want to.

As for copyrights lasting forever, as I've said, I don't really agree with this - they should last for the lifetime of the artist at the very least, assuming the artist still has the copyright, and if so the artist should be able to choose who gets the rights after their death too. IMHO.

There are no such things as statutory fees in the UK copyright law, as far as I know (prove me wrong by all means!). There are just fees that have been legally decided for disputes between particular parties.

The purpose of UK copyright, these days, is again, to give creators 'right's over their 'copy'!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:35am

To Dave Nattriss,

Are you some PR person for the PRS or PPL? you seem to promote them very well, LOL!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:39am

Re:
No, I just care about the facts and bad/unfair reporting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:47am

Re: Re: Please care somewhere else
You informing people of the laws does not change your inability to engage this topic critically.

For one you could rightly point out that a "reproduction" through digital or analog means is obviously not a performance. I am not sure how UK law got stretched to this ridiculous conclusion but it is self evident to everyone here except you that there is something inherently wrong with this.

You spew on about the law but the purpose of this post was the question which you can't seem to wrap you head around. There is a way to inform and not stifle or control the discussion. I am hoping you will figure it out someday!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:38am

Re: Re: Re: Please care somewhere else
Laws are laws because laws are right and if you don't want to break the laws that are laws because laws are right then maybe you should just move?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Please care somewhere else
"For one you could rightly point out that a 'reproduction' through digital or analog means is obviously not a performance."

Nope, sorry, playing the recording publicly does count as a 'performance' of the recording. 'Performance', by dictionary definition, can simply mean the act of presenting something, pre-recorded or live.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:13am

Re: Re: Re: Please care somewhere else
And badly, at that. He's refuted himself several times in this thread. It's really very amusing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:43am

You seem to care a bit too much, being the only one here to pretty much side with the PRS/PPL who, let's face it, operate in very mafia-like fashions!!!! LOL! If the music business can't make money selling records/CDs (which is a dead business), they turn to suing their customers - bad/fair reporting?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:48am

Re:
I'm just siding with the truth.

How is a business owner a customer, sorry? They simply sue the people that steal their music, which is perfectly fair.

And by the way, recorded music is not a dead business in the slighest. UK single sales are higher than ever before: http://www.bpi.co.uk/press-area/news-amp3b-press-release/article/2009-is-record-year-for-uk-singles- sales.aspx
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:02am

Re: Re:
They simply sue the people that steal their music, which is perfectly fair.

It is not stealing. It is the infringement of a monopoly right. The monopoly right may be legal - but it is not moral- and pursuing people like this is most certainly not fair.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:44pm

Re: Re: Re:
How is it not moral? The music doesn't belong to the business, so the business has no right to use it without permission.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The air waves and the property used to access those air waves belong to the business owner. So he absolutely does have the right to use them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what? UK copyright laws state that you need permission to perform (i.e. play) recordings at commercial premises. The fact they music came via the air waves makes no difference - the rule applies to all recordings.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if I e-mail you infringing tracks, or mail you a disc of infringing music, then you should have to pay the artist? Even though you didn't have a choice about receiving those items?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I perform (play) them, then yes, I am breaking the law, and you have already broken it by e-mailing them or copying them onto a disc (assuming you meant that as opposed to sending me your licensed CD).

Receiving stolen (stealing means taken without permission) property is an offence in the UK too.

As for paying the artist, that entirely depends on what licensing arrangements they've got in place, if any. If there are none then I am breaking copyright law by default (assuming the work was published less than 50 years ago).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:33am

Re: Re:
I'm just siding with the truth.

...
And by the way, recorded music is not a dead business in the slighest. UK single sales are higher than ever before:

Well be careful to be accurate then. The AC said: The music business can't make money selling records/CDs

Your response relates to downloaded singles - that is a quite different thing from what the AC referred to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure they're still making plenty of money from records and CDs (albums much more than singles), not that it really matters.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 9:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you ever realize / admit that you were wrong? Not just overall, but I'm referring more to the individual points on which you have needed to make retractions, or have been otherwise proven incorrect?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, I already have done on points where I've been proven incorrect. Do a page search for 'sorry'.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: I see your true colors
Ahhh now we see who you really are. Siding with the "truth" as you put it is dodging the obvious. Laws are often wrong and poorly written and you have done nothing to support you stance other than restate the law over and over again.

You really think your engaging people with this? Oh wait! We are all "pirates" and selling CD's isn't dead! Ohhh no, in fact more and more young people are buying CD's everyday. Soon Ipods will phase out because CD players with their physical $20 media was always inherently better.

Alright you have convinced me Dave, you are special kind of idiot.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:47pm

Re: Re: Re: I see your true colors
Read all my comments on this page. I've said plenty about why I think it's fair that the barber should have paid the appropriate license fees to play licensed music on his business premises.

CDs aren't 'dead'. Sales may be declining but that doesn't make them dead. That's all I said, coward.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:14am

Re: Re:
The business owner is a customer of the radio station, dumbass.

Also, why are you only looking at the singles? Should you be looking at overall sales of recorded music? Roflmao.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:25am

Re: Re: Re:
We weren't talking about radio stations, dumbass. The coward was talking about not making money from CDs/records and instead suing their customers (that buy them).

OK, fine, like most industries, the music industry has been affected by the global recession and overall sales of recorded music are down as people tighten their belts and perhaps just buy a single or two instead of buying a whole album. The industry is not dead by any means though, dumbass.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a complete idiot.

This is the conversation that we just had:

AC: Artists are having a problem selling plastic discs, and are choosing to sue their customers as a remedy.

You: The business owner is not a customer.

Me: The business owner is a customer.

You: Not of plastic discs!

Me: The business owner is a music customer. He may not be a plastic disc customer (although he probably is) but the OP didn't say that the lack of plastic disc sales led to plastic disc customer suits. He said that it led to customer suits. You do understand that musicians have many customers who don't purchase plastic discs, right?

In this case, he obviously consumes radio music, which makes him a customer of the radio stations, who purchase music from the artists. That's the same as consuming plastic discs, in which you become a customer of a store, and the store purchases plastic discs from the artists.

God, you're dumb.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not going to respond to this as you're just making stuff up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:52am

re: Dave Nattriss [I spy for the BPI]
Ah of course the recorded music business is not dead Dave, you're quoting the BPI web site - it must be true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:21am

Re: re: Dave Nattriss [I spy for the BPI]
So you think they've just made up the numbers?!

Go into a UK supermarket - there are racks of CDs still being sold. Go onto iTunes, there are millions of tracks being sold.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:37am

Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss [I spy for the BPI]
CDs and iTunes are quite different things - the former is in decline - the latter is increasing. The person you first responded to referred to physical media only.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:48pm

Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss [I spy for the BPI]
Sure, and they said the mediums were dead, not declining.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

nasch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss [I spy for the BPI]
So you think they've just made up the numbers?!

Oh no, recording industry groups would NEVER just make up numbers!! *rolls eyes* You really are ignorant. Or a shill. Or an ignorant shill.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:06am

Dave, can you confirm if you work for any of the PPL/PRS/BPI/RIAA? because you're doing an amazing job for them if you don't. The only guy on here defending their 'mafia' actions so well. If you do and don't want to admit it and lie - is that a moral infringement of this web site?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:16am

Re:
No, I don't work for any of them.

There are no 'mafia' actions going on. If you don't like the rules, simply don't use their music.

Whereas the 'mafia' would force you to use the music (and thus pay for it). Completely different.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mark Hammond, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:12am

re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
Maybe this is the same 'Dave Nattriss', who works for the music business: http://www.facebook.com/davenatts
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:17am

Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
Shocking....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:19am

Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
How so?! I'm a freelancer who believes in an open market where people can do/charge for their work as they wish.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:23am

Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
How so?! I'm a freelancer who believes in an open market where people can do/charge for their work as they wish.

Weird. Then why do you support gov't sanctioned bodies who have a mandate to demand cash from any company playing music, and who do so with gov't set rates?

That's the exact opposite of an open market where people can charge for their work as they wish.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
Because companies DON'T HAVE TO play the music if they don't like the rates.

Artists aren't forced to use those bodies or the bodies' set rates. Artists can charge whatever they like, be it nothing at all, or a million pounds per play. Nothing forces them to use a particular collection society.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
Artists can charge whatever they like, be it nothing at all, or a million pounds per play.

Do you not have any idea what "statutory rates" are?

It is a rate set by the government for use of copyrighted material.

Say you try charging "a million pounds per play." The business can pay that, but instead it says "no, I'll play the statutory rate of a quarter pence per play instead." Presto! It has a license for your music, whether you want it to or not.

Statutory rates are in effect no matter what collection society you use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 7:10am

Re: 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).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:19am

Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
That's me - some of my clients are artists, and yes, I care about creators getting paid for their work in the way that they choose to. If you don't like the licensing agency that the artist has chosen to use (such as the PRS or PPL), fine, just don't use their work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:48pm

Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
If you don't like the licensing agency that the artist has chosen to use (such as the PRS or PPL), fine, just don't use their work.

How are you supposed to do this if you're listening to the radio? You can't choose what artists the station plays.

Incidentally, statutory licensing is exactly like the government saying "your wages will be collected by someone else, and they can't charge your clients more than x per hour." Not exactly something to get behind if you're into an "open market."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:56pm

Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
"You can't choose what artists the station plays."

No, but you can choose not to play the radio at all.

"statutory licensing is exactly like the government saying 'your wages will be collected by someone else, and they can't charge your clients more than x per hour.'"

Except that in this case you have made the free choice to use the 'someone else'. If you don't like their rates, don't use them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
The rates are set by the government, not by the collection agency. That's what makes them statutory. So, you can't "charge your clients more than x per hour" either.

Well, you can try, but they don't have to pay it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
Are you talking about UK statutory rates? We have minimum working wages here, but no maximum.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:17am

Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
You are living proof that college doesn't teach critical thinking.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:19am

To: Dave Nattriss,

Ah, but as Mark Hammond points out (comment 99) - it seems like you work for the music business. Is that Facebook link you/the same Dave?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:23am

Re:
I've done some work for small/medium-success-level artists over the years, but I don't work 'the music business' as such. What's your point though?

The fact is that the barber didn't understand UK music licensing yet went ahead with playing commercial music to the public at his premises, but hadn't paid a license fee and got caught.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:23am

Hi Dave,

I care about creators getting paid for their work. I strongly dislike the greed of record companies and agencies who do their best to extort money out of their consumer base time and time again. The PPL hardly make it clear to shops, businesses etc that they need a licence. Maybe they should enclose a leaflet with each radio sold to let people know what the law is eh? Other industries and laws are made clear, it only seems to be the music business who are so 'grey' and unclear about how to operate. It makes sense now, you work in the music business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:28am

Re:
But the agencies are just acting on behalf of the artists! They take a cut of the money that is raised, with the rest going to the artist. The same is usually the case with record labels, once advances and costs are recouped.

Yes, it would be helpful if the rules/laws were clearer, though if you just assume it's OK to do something with someone else's property (their work), you only have yourself to blame. I don't think anything is unclear if you actually bother to find out, and if you're running a business, it is your legal responsibility to do so.

http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Why-you-need-a-licence/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:24am

Re: Re:
But the agencies are just acting on behalf of the artists! They take a cut of the money that is raised, with the rest going to the artist

Hi Dave. Have you looked at Fran Nevrkla's salary lately? Once you do that, then come back and tell me how much PPL is interested in supporting musicians and how much is about lining the pockets of execs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:00pm

Re: Re: Re:
No, I haven't. I just Googled 'Fran Nevrkla salary' but nothing about a salary actually came up.

But again, if the musicians think Fran is being paid too much, they can renegotiate with the PPL to have the salary reduced, or just stop using the PPL.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 10:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to think that individuals have far more power to enact change than they actually do.

You think that by choosing to boycott something, one can affect change. But the reality is that it takes a massive freaking movement of like-minded, organized people to mount a successful boycott.

Boycotting is a last-resort method of exerting our preferences. You treat it like we should use it for petty issues. And yes, this barber choosing to play a radio in his shop IS a petty issue. It is the ridiculous laws that turn this petty-issue into a lawsuit.

You are also fully unaware of the economic concept of "least worst" decisions, in which one must choose to live in a world, not of his choosing, but of existing constructs and systems. In such a world (ex: ours) a person must make many choices that are the lessor of two evils. There are many compromises. But not in your PRL-owned utopia. In your utopia, one can improve their life by standing rigid on minutiae.

Apparently, I'm supposed to boycott radio stations in my shop if I don't agree with copyright laws. I'm to boycott the mall because they play the wrong kind of music. But the other mall uses the wrong color paint, so I've already boycotted them. I'd drive to the next town, but I'm boycotting the highways because the city and region are charging too much for the parking meters and fuel taxes so I chose not to buy a car. I could buy my swag at Amazon.com, but I'm boycotting them because they use Flash, and I don't like Adobe.

So I just sit in my dark room and urinate on myself, and the world is as it should be :-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 5:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that if something is seen to be morally wrong and affects lots of people, it's much easier to get lots of people to support motions to change it. Democracy, essentially.

There was no lawsuit here. The barber was fined. He paid his fine. End of story.

What's PRL, sorry?

And yes, if you generally disagree with things in your society, your life isn't going to be particularly pleasant. But, as we say in the UK, that's life.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2010 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PRL - i mean whatever the acronym is for the collection society.

" if something is seen to be morally wrong and affects lots of people, it's much easier to get lots of people to support motions to change it. Democracy, essentially."

What about when something is morally wrong and affects few people?

Or when something is morally wrong and affects lots of people, but only by a very small amount such that they can't be bothered?

The system should be designed to also right those wrongs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

jjmsan (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:29am

Re: Re:
So who are you trolling for. You just signed up today,you can't understand the simplest statements and your comments are designed to annoy people. Do you get paid or is this just a personality disorder/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:07pm

Re: Re: Re:
All I've talked about is the truth/reality of the UK law and what happened in this case. The very existence of this article annoyed me, which is why I commented on it. The headline should just have been:

"UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music After Not Getting Required License"

which is the reality of the situation. Or maybe even:

"UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music After Half-Arsed Attempt To Be Legal"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:45am

Re: Re:
If an entire generation, and then some, completely ignore the law (copyright), as is, then I wonder how licensing will work in the future? When an entire generation grows up?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:09pm

Re: Re: Re:
If everyone ignores copyright law, there'll be nothing to license as artists won't have any incentive to create anything. Which will be very sad.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 3:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You realize that people have been creating art and music for thousands of years, right? And that most artists don't create to make money, they create to fulfill an inner need. If they can fulfill their pockets as well, then awesome, but it's not necessary for art to be created.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:27am

re: comment 110

I think BPI distort figures - have a look at this:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/1819236116.shtml

one of many pieces. The BPI are primarily law enforcement over music business - their goal is to sue in simple terms.

re - millions of tracks being sold - maybe!! but for a fraction of the price they used to be when record companies didn't have i-tunes / amazon - 79p for a single now legally when it used to be about £3 for a single in the shops.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:11pm

Re:
True, but there were manufacturing and distribution costs involved with physical sales which aren't present with digital. And sure, CD singles were generally 2 or 3 track packages (for the £2 or £3 price), whereas now the tracks can be bought individually.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mark Hammond, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:32am

re: point 112

My point and it seems the point of everyone else in this post is the PPL/BPI/RIAA/MAFIA are greedy, shady, act 'unlawfully', 'unethically' and as stated at the top of this article header, design a system to trip you (the common man) up. The music business has nasty morals and simply wants money any way it can, even attacking people who made honest mistakes. Please go back and finish your work for your music business clients - they should have enough money to pay you, for now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:36am

Dave, Dave, Dave.
Man, am I late to this game on this one. Question for you, David:

Which scenario is more harmful to an artist?

A) A non-music related business (eg., a hairdresser) plays music which nets them 1 paying customer, however no one who was involved in the creation of said music is paid.

B) A business does not play music.

Think about it. No really, *think*. (That is to say, don't parrot what you've been trained to say in the face of reason.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:31pm

Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
Howabout:

C) A non-music related business (eg., a hairdresser) plays music which nets them lots of paying customers over time, however no one who was involved in the creation of said music is paid over the years.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

CrushU, 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:48pm

Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
Wow! No one involved with the creation of the music was paid?

You should really go after that radio station that's not paying its licenses then.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 7:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
Who said there was a radio station involved? The PPL license is about music played at the business premises, irrespective of whether it comes via a radio station or from Spotify or an iPod or a CD or whatever.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

nasch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:53pm

Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
Nice dodge. Perhaps you should run for public office, you may have the makings of a politician.

In case that is not clear enough: you have completely failed to answer Joe's question.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
I didn't answer his question because neither scenario represented the actual case we have been discussing. I would have thought that was obvious, but obviously not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2010 @ 10:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
"...neither scenario represented the actual case we have been discussing"

You are familiar with what a "scenario" is, right. Because it looks like you're not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 11 Jul 2010 @ 5:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dave, Dave, Dave.
Yes, I am. I'm here to discuss the actual case, not hypothetical situations.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:38am

round of applause to 'The Infamous Joe'
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:43am

Re: point 131
"It's up the business owner to decide if they want to pay for the music broadcast - whether they think it will make them more sales or less".

Do you think the barber is really having music in his shop to increase his sales???? Maybe, he wants to simply play his radio and maybe his customers may like to hear the radio.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:03am

Re: Re: point 131
You've just explained the theory there! "maybe his customers may like to hear the radio", yes, which means they might be more likely to come back, which will increase his sales.

In any case, it's the risk the business owner takes. They don't have to take the risk if they don't want to.

But the fact is, in the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 states that if recorded music is played in public, every play of every recording requires the permission of the owner of the copyright in that recording.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Sands, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:53am

Dave,

On your Facebook profile on 30 May, you shared a link that contained Iron Man film footage and music (that may be infringing copyright). Do you realise that in posting this and sharing it you could be guilty of copyright infringement?

Mike
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Dave Nattriss (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:59am

Re:
Posting/sharing a link to content hosted elsewhere is not copyright infringement, silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Richard (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:27am

Re: Re:
Posting/sharing a link to content hosted elsewhere is not copyright infringement, silly.

If you are right then the Pirate Bay is perfectly legal - as that is all they ever do...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Re:
I don't think he actually cares about that . . . . isn't the Pirate Bay, technically, legal in Sweden?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Mike Sands, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:55am

Oh & on the same day, you did a similar thing with "Lego" & "Les Miserables"; did you have a licence to do that Dave?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal

from the the-system-is-designed-to-trip-you-up dept

Reader Comments

Re:

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: