Progressive Boink

[webber Cooledge]

It doesn't need to be the only reason your business is doing well for the musician's argument for compensation to have merit. It just has to increase sales from what they would have been if there was no music playing. As for whether music actually does this, I can't find anything about it on Wikipedia but I have read quite a bit on various studies that suggest people spend more time in stores if music is playing. Anything that makes people in a better mood is likely to make them more likely to spend their money. There might be studies on APRA's/MCPS-PRS's sites that show the same thing, I'm not sure.

[Captain Hot Stuff]

Well that might be the case with a CD store or a clothes shop but we're talking about a mechanic here. Nobody lingers there longer than they have to, and indeed, the business makes no further money if they do. It's a service, not a store.

The music is being used for the personal enjoyment of the workers, not for anything else.

[emily]

Yeah I have a hard time believing that you're going to find someone who would testify on the record, "well I just went in for an oil change, but once I was there I decided to change my tires lest I miss that second November Rain guitar solo."

I'll concede to understanding your point, Webber, but I certainly can't on any level agree with it. It just seems like insane greed. Where do you draw the line?

[Dollo]

What if they pay for their radio? What if it's like a Sirius Satellite Radio? Does this problem go away?













Also, I have Sirius and think everyone would be well invested to spend the $12 a month. It's the fucking best thing ever. Honestly, I can't even imagine *not* having one now.

[Maynard,]

I've seen studies where playing music raises profit. It fills the space making it more pleasant overall. The type of music playing can bring in customers if it's going after a target audience. The average person wouldn't notice or think about it because it's almost subliminal.

It's similar to people reacting to certain colors differently. While I don't think red does anything different to me than blue, apparently it does. That's why half of children's cereal boxes are red.

I think in this case it's pretty stupid to request money for a mechanic playing music loudly. He isn't broadcasting it in a traditional sense. He isn't attempting to make money. He wants to rock out while fixing cars. Other than a noise ordinance fine, I don't see this as a legitimate case.

[webber Cooledge]

Yeah I have a hard time believing that you're going to find someone who would testify on the record, "well I just went in for an oil change, but once I was there I decided to change my tires lest I miss that second November Rain guitar solo."

No, but it is plausible for the customer to go in, sit down and wait for their car, rock out to some song, have a better time than they would have had if there was no music, and be unconsciously persuaded to return to this mechanic the next time something went wrong with their car.

The other thing is that the music is being played to staff, which provides some benefit. I think most people would agree that a workplace is ten times more boring without music than with one. Providing employees with a benefit like music means that you do not have to provide them with some other benefits (like money) to keep them happy. Therefore music saves money.

I'll concede to understanding your point, Webber, but I certainly can't on any level agree with it. It just seems like insane greed. Where do you draw the line?

I'm not sure I understand you. Insane greed on whose part? Most people who own mechanic businesses earn plenty of money, and can afford to pay musicians for the work they have done (which is like 50 pence/AU$1 a week BTW). Would you say that it is greed that advertising agencies make mechanics pay for their services, too?

[Alan]

Musicians make a lot of money too, I believe they are the greedy ones

[webber Cooledge]

yeah most advertising agencies make a lot of money too, which makes it justified to use their ideas to make money for ourselves and then not compensate them for it

[emily]

But you don't think it sets a dangerous precedent that businesses suddenly have to pay for a historically free service? If this were satellite radio like Dollo said, problem solved. I could even argue in defense of businesses being required to order some sort of paid music service if it were proven that their business is profiting from the music being played. But radio is radio, you turn it on and there it is. If we allow that say, mechanics have t pay to listen to the radio, how long before the rest of us get a radio bill in the mail just like a cable bill? I mean, if I turn on Electric 102.7 and bop along to say, Akon, then I go to work in a good mood and get better tips because I was nicer to the people I served should I then have to pay Akon because I profited from his shitty song?

Its just a scary direction to move towards, in my opinion.

[webber Cooledge]

It's not really sudden. I think the amendment to the UK copyright law that gives performers the right to demand money was passed in 1996:

Right to equitable remuneration for exploitation of sound recording.
182D. —(1) Where a commercially published sound recording of the whole or any substantial part of a qualifying performance—
(a) is played in public, or

(b) is included in a broadcast or cable programme service,

the performer is entitled to equitable remuneration from the owner of the copyright in the sound recording.
(2) The right to equitable remuneration under this section may not be assigned by the performer except to a collecting society for the purpose of enabling it to enforce the right on his behalf.
The right is, however, transmissible by testamentary disposition or by operation of law as personal or moveable property; and it may be assigned or further transmitted by any person into whose hands it passes.

(3) The amount payable by way of equitable remuneration is as agreed by or on behalf of the persons by and to whom it is payable, subject to the following provisions.

(4) In default of agreement as to the amount payable by way of equitable remuneration, the person by or to whom it is payable may apply to the Copyright Tribunal to determine the amount payable.

(5) A person to or by whom equitable remuneration is payable may also apply to the Copyright Tribunal—
(a) to vary any agreement as to the amount payable, or

(b) to vary any previous determination of the Tribunal as to that matter;

but except with the special leave of the Tribunal no such application may be made within twelve months from the date of a previous determination.

An order made on an application under this subsection has effect from the date on which it is made or such later date as may be specified by the Tribunal.

(6) On an application under this section the Tribunal shall consider the matter and make such order as to the method of calculating and paying equitable remuneration as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account the importance of the contribution of the performer to the sound recording.

(7) An agreement is of no effect in so far as it purports—
(a) to exclude or restrict the right to equitable remuneration under this section, or

(b) to prevent a person questioning the amount of equitable remuneration or to restrict the powers of the Copyright Tribunal under this section." .

Maybe I am misreading the law?

[webber Cooledge]

this is the one thread where james could conceivably back me up and he is nowhere to be found

[James]

i really do not give a shit

[Maynard,]

Webber, people are not disagreeing that this is a law. People are suggesting that the existing law is stupid.

This is another one of those laws that is walking a fine line between being reasonable and being completely ridiculous. I understand the logic behind the law, but it's vaguely worded. What determines a performance? By my understanding of that law, I should have to pay money if I play my car stereo loud enough for the person next to me can hear it.

In this case, I don't see the mechanics playing music as being a "performance."

[Wes]

I think webber has done a fairly good job defending the reasoning for that law. It is understandable.

What if each individual employee were listening to their own radio during work with headphones? Is this more acceptable than playing one radio for all employees to hear?

[webber Cooledge]

Yeah, it is pretty vague. I can't find anything that outlines what is meant by "performance" or "public". However, judging from PRS's website, it seems clear they are only interested in you if you are doing a commercial activity. This is probably because they wouldn't be able to prove a financial loss if you are just driving around with your stereo up, so they wouldn't receive damages in a civil suit.

BTW I was reading about it on Slashdot and this was about the only sane comment there, so I thought I would repost it:

Although I agree that in general the music industry is being massively out of order in its attempts to find new revenue to cover their failing business model, I think this story doesn't really apply.

The summary in this story is a bit misleading to be honest. PRS fees are nothing new in the UK, most big businesses have been paying them for years without incident.

Basically if you play music whether on a PA or an office radio in 'public' then you have to pay performance rights. The cost is a fixed yearly fee. Big chains that play music for their staff or customers pay a fixed yearly fee per place (store, office) that music is played.

The reason this case is going to court is that Quickfit, the firm in question, have a no radios policy for their staff. However they haven't enforced it, so many of their garages have radios in them against company policy. Quickfit argue that because their company policy is to not allow radios, they shouldn't be responsible for PRS fees if their employees break the rules. They haven't really got a leg to stand on though because they're responsible for what happens in their garages and should b enforcing the ban on radios if they don't want to pay the fees.

What if each individual employee were listening to their own radio during work with headphones? Is this more acceptable than playing one radio for all employees to hear?

I find this pretty interesting too. It seems like a real grey area. Judging from the reasoning in the music associations' websites (personal use [i.e. Emily's example above] is fine, within a business is not), it would be ok, but the mechanics in this case are getting penalised for things their staff are doing, which would point to it not being ok.

[Alan]

what about playing dvds in an electronics store

Is this not the same basic idea? They play the movies to help boost sales of the TVs, but they don't have to pay the movie company for 'screening' their film?

[Rusty Cooledge v2]

Movie company's are probably smart and pay the stores to play their movies.

RAWR WE DONT WANT ANYONE HEARING OUR MUSIC

oh boy i just heard that song for free from 50 feet away over a bunch of power tools and yelling now i dont have to buy the album! yayyyyy! permanently stored in the ol brain drawer!

[webber Cooledge]

Is this not the same basic idea? They play the movies to help boost sales of the TVs, but they don't have to pay the movie company for 'screening' their film?

Yes, it is exactly the same idea, but I wouldn't have a clue about whether or not they pay. It would be very unusual (i.e. they would be open to a civil suit, at least in the UK/Australia) if there wasn't some agreement about licensing the use of the films, though.

[Jon]

It seems to me that top-40 radio stations are purely a medium for advertisement, and the songs played are no less an act of promotion/advertisement than the commercials aired. The music industry is all about getting their artists airplay. And if that's true, do you think we'd be having the same discussion if they just played commercials people thought were funny? Sure, as webber said, you can argue that the business in question is benefiting monetarily from it to some small extent, but the bottom line is that the advertisement, being the music itself, is heard by more people. I don't really understand the motive here.

[webber Cooledge]

True, I guess I am focusing too much on the philosophy behind the law (whether it is right to do something), without thinking too much about the practicality (whether it is a good idea to do it).