Progressive Boink

[withpeninhand]

My upstairs neighbor needs to read this:

http://www.punknews.org/article/25947

Or if you hate cutting-and-pasting:

In what seems to be an out-and-out joke, the UK-based Performing Rights Society has accused a British car repair chain named Kwik-Fit of copyright infringement because mechanics were regularly found to play their radios loud enough for others to overhear the music.

According to their claim, music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers. They claim that this represents a "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright.

The group is demanding £200,000 ($407,000 USD) in damages.

[Rusty Cooledge v2]

ew wow why

Fucking amazing. You'd think radios would be exempt from this.

This is the future kids. Someday you won't be able to hear a single note of music if you didn't give someone money for it.

[Daniel]

is this kind of like how you're not supposed to be able to go into a guitar store and play copyrighted music such as "back in black" and/or "everybody hurts"

[Andy]

Wait so its a joke?

I am not laffing.

[Wes]

It seems that way, through-and-through.

[webber Cooledge]

If shops that pipe music through speakers have to pay royalties for that, why shouldn't mechanics who are doing exactly the same thing?

[emily]

I think a difference of intent comes into play. The shops are piping in the music as a service to their clients, it sounds like the mechanics just wanted to RAWK.

Also getting sued for playing the radio is so I can't even finish my sentence

[Maynard,]

If the store has some programmed CD or music piped in, they usually pay the company providing it. That company would then pay the licensing fees.

If a store plays the radio, they usually don't have to pay. I seem to remember reading about a case in communication law where a store had to pay though. It was ruled that the music was one of the things bringing in customers therefore the store was profiting from their choice of radio station. I might be remembering this wrong though. Maybe an employee was bringing in their own CDs...

[webber Cooledge]

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/Shops_and_stores/Pages/shopsandstores.aspx

The website is not explicit about whether you still have to pay if you are listening to the radio, but the "I have a TV license" section suggests that you do:

A TV licence permits you to receive certain broadcast signals. It is not concerned with copyright material. If you play copyright music in public by any means you are likely to need a PRS Music Licence. PRS licenses the public performance of music that is included on TV such as theme tunes, adverts and music played within films and TV programmes.

As far as I know, you have to pay in Australia if you want to broadcast radio to customers (I can't find anything that definitely says either way though, so I could be completely wrong), so it wouldn't be outlandish for the same to happen in the UK.

[webber Cooledge]

Wait, sorry:

Does it matter how the music is performed?

No, whether the performance is played live or by such means as CD, radio, DVD, TV, karaoke etc, whether a charge is made for admission, or whether the performers are paid, a PRS Music Licence is still necessary.

Also, I don't think your argument is particularly convincing, Emily. I could put the radio on really loud in my store and then claim it was for my own use if called on it, but it doesn't stop me getting whatever benefits having music playing in my store will give me. I think the unfair part of this case is the amount of damages they want, considering the price of a license.

[webber Cooledge]

And really, why is it bad to have to pay money to broadcast music in a commercial environment? Studies have shown that music helps sales and employee morale (if it didn't, why would businesses want to do it?), so why shouldn't the creators of that music be paid for providing that service? If someone was making money off my creation, I would want to be paid.

[withpeninhand]

And really, why is it bad to have to pay money to broadcast music in a commercial environment? Studies have shown that music helps sales and employee morale (if it didn't, why would businesses want to do it?), so why shouldn't the creators of that music be paid for providing that service? If someone was making money off my creation, I would want to be paid.

I think it's getting a little big-brotherish. If Sears has a Muzak mix that they're going to pipe into all their department stores, that's one thing, but if I'm the manager of an auto body shop and I want to bring my AC/DC CDs to work with me, I should be able to. I paid for them and I don't need record labels looking over my shoulder making sure I use them the way they want me to. When I buy a light bulb I don't need Light Bulbs Inc coming over and making sure that I only illuminate spaces that they approve of.

[Rusty Cooledge v2]

Yeah sorry brother but I gotta go with withpeninhand on this one.

[webber Cooledge]

If Sears has a Muzak mix that they're going to pipe into all their department stores, that's one thing, but if I'm the manager of an auto body shop and I want to bring my AC/DC CDs to work with me, I should be able to.

You are able to, you just have to give some money to AC/DC for the benefit that they are providing your workers. Buying a CD gives you the right to listen to it, not the right to broadcast it and make money off that broadcast. The key aspect is that you are making money. If you want to invite your friends over to listen to a CD, that's cool. But if those friends are customers of your shop, then you are using the work of others to make money for yourself, and I think there's a reasonable argument for why the artist should be able to demand royalties.

Movies are the same deal; it's the reason you can't watch a DVD on an oil rig.

[Alan]

what about playing the dvds in an electronics store

[Rusty Cooledge v2]

the smell of strong glade air freshner

you sniff it you buy it

[Maynard,]

The stores most likely pay for the DVDs they play.

[Captain Hot Stuff]

I don't get this. It's the radio. The radio station already pays for licensing/royalties/whatever and is given the right to broadcast to the entire city. That potentially covers anyone within the broadcast range, whether they're listening to it on their own radio or overhearing it at the mechanic's.

This is retarded.

[webber Cooledge]

I think the idea is that radio stations pay royalties because they make money from playing music, but then if you go and make money from playing the same songs from the radio, then you should pay royalties too. If you think about it, it makes some sort of sense. If businesses did not have to pay to play the radio, then the licensing fees the copyright associations charge to radio stations would be much higher, and that means that recreational users get punished because of commercial usage. Better that all commercial usage is licensed, and recreational users have nothing to worry about.

[Alan]

I don't think it can be proven that the music is what helps the business though. It can't hurt, sure, but how can you prove that the only reason your business is doing well is because of the music?