[shifuimam]

Via slashdot:

The PRS claimed that Kwik-Fit mechanics routinely use personal radios while working at service centres across the UK and that music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers.

It is maintained that amounts to the "playing" or "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright.

Does anyone else think this is completely insane? What's next - suing people who sit on the subway who have their music loud enough that it bleeds through their earphones into others' audible range?

This is like the NFL making a big shitfest over churches and groups getting together to watch the Super Bowl. It's not like anyone was trying to make money from a Super Bowl party...what happened to just enjoying music or sports?

[Cold Warrior]

That's insane.

[Doofy]

If they ain't paying their dues, they're breaking the law. Nowt new.

Who the bloody hell goes and gets their tyres changed at Kwik-Fit anyways? Bunch of death trap merchants.

[turtle777]

WTF ?

And not even in America...

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If they ain't paying their dues, they're breaking the law. Nowt new.

Who the bloody hell goes and gets their tyres changed at Kwik-Fit anyways? Bunch of death trap merchants.

If that's the case, isn't the title "copyright infringement" a little misleading ?

At any rate, the MI is not doing itself a favor with that kind of PR. Joe Public on the street (mis)understands and will hate the MI even more.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

If that's the case, isn't the title "copyright infringement" a little misleading ?

No. It's actually a copyright infringement, so calling it one isn't misleading at all.

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/p...s/default.aspx

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If they ain't paying their dues, they're breaking the law. Nowt new.

Paying what dues? Do citizens in the UK have to pay a fee to be legally permitted to listen to the radio? At what point does listening to the radio change from fair use into commercial broadcasting?

This was an issue of employees listening to the radio in the garage of the auto shop. Apparently the music industry won't be satisfied until everyone in the world wears earplugs so they don't accidentally hear music on someone's radio or car stereo.

<edit>
I should mention that any auto shop in the US is going to have a radio playing back there so that the guys working have something to listen to while working on your car. This wasn't muzak or an overhead sound system.

And, of course, is the issue of how far the music industry should be allowed to take these kinds of claims. They sued the shop for the equivalent of $400,000! They're already getting a nice fat royalty from the radio stations to play the music...how far should they really be allowed to go with something like this?
</edit>

[::maroma::]

I predict a worldwide copyright law rebellion coming very soon.

Which reminds me, I better copyright the Copyright Rebellion Battle Cry.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Paying what dues? Do citizens in the UK have to pay a fee to be legally permitted to listen to the radio? At what point does listening to the radio change from fair use into commercial broadcasting?

Well, there are communist countries in Europe (e.g. present day Germany) that charges EVERYONE (shops, companies, private citizens) a monthly fee for receiving over the air broadcasts. In Germany, it's called GEMA.

It's absolutely farking non-sense. You even have to pay if you have only have a computer with internet, because you can receive streaming radio broadcasts

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Paying what dues?

Their PRS dues.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Do citizens in the UK have to pay a fee to be legally permitted to listen to the radio?

No, but business owners need to pay a fee to have any kind of pre-recorded music playing in their premises.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

At what point does listening to the radio change from fair use into commercial broadcasting?

At your garden gate.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Paying what dues? Do citizens in the UK have to pay a fee to be legally permitted to listen to the radio?

Yes. In most of Europe public broadcasting is financed by either a mandatory license fee or taxes.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, there are communist countries in Europe (e.g. present day Germany) that charges EVERYONE (shops, companies, private citizens) a monthly fee for receiving over the air broadcasts. In Germany, it's called GEMA.

That's just stupid. But it's also what comes with socialism...taxing the crap out of everything because it's all government-funded anyhow.

It's absolutely farking non-sense. You even have to pay if you have only have a computer with internet, because you can receive streaming radio broadcasts

-t

That's just asinine. The music industry is getting completely out of control, it seems.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, but business owners need to pay a fee to have any kind of pre-recorded music playing in their premises.

That's unfortunate. I'm glad that here in the US, I'm allowed to listen to streaming music via internet radio at work without paying some bullshit fee.

At your garden gate.

So by that logic, anyone who owns a car with a working radio or stereo should be forced to pay a royalty everytime they use it, since driving down the road might result in pedestrians hearing their music.

I still say this ridiculous. The music industry is trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of every song they produce. The billions they already make every year just aren't enough, apparently,

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Yes. In most of Europe public broadcasting is financed by either a mandatory license fee or taxes.

Ah, but does "public broadcasting" just include NPR type stuff, or is that all radio - e.g. the Top 40 station and whatnot?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Ah, but does "public broadcasting" just include NPR type stuff, or is that all radio - e.g. the Top 40 station and whatnot?

Doesn't matter. The presupposition of communist / socialist tax systems is to tax EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, regardless of validity.

-t

[TETENAL]

For the turtle, that thinks Germany is communist:

Soziale Marktwirtschaft: Arm durch Arbeit - die neue Ausbeutung - Wirtschaft - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So by that logic, anyone who owns a car with a working radio or stereo should be forced to pay a royalty everytime they use it, since driving down the road might result in pedestrians hearing their music.

Your car is part of your home, so exempt.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I still say this ridiculous. The music industry is trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of every song they produce. The billions they already make every year just aren't enough, apparently

This has been going on forever. The mechanical copyright laws are nothing new.

And BTW folks, this has nothing to do with the funding of public broadcasting entities like the BBC. Completely different thing.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That's just stupid. But it's also what comes with socialism...taxing the crap out of everything because it's all government-funded anyhow.

As much as I despise socialism, I only give credit where credit is due. Yes there is a fee that goes to the public radio/TV such as the BBC. That's socialism. Bad.

Now that thing called GEMA is protective capitalism at its best. GEMA is just the German RIAA. They have successfully lobbied for insane taxation on individuals.

There are many many virtually similar organizations. Taxation on iPods, CD-Rs, tapes etc all goes to the respective music industry organization.

What bothers Weyland-Yutani corporation about this excessive protectionism is that we can't buy direct shares in these moneymakers. The blood-sucking artists (or the copyright holder) gain most from this.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Your car is part of your home, so exempt.

Haha, LOL, not in Germany.

You have to pay GEMA taxes even if you only own a car radio.
Doesn't matter if you use it or not. Doesn't matter if you only use the CD player.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

What bothers Weyland-Yutani corporation about this excessive protectionism is that we can't buy direct shares in these moneymakers.

Good one, you got me there, buddy

-t

[TETENAL]

You never pay GEMA taxes for radio. You pay a GEZ license fee. And you only have to pay for your car radio when the car is used for business. You don't have to pay an additional fee if your car is privately used only.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

You never pay GEMA taxes for radio. You pay a GEZ license fee.

Semantics.

It's a tax, because you don't have a legal choice to opt out.
You have to pay even if you just own a computer, and never listen to German broadcasts.

-t

[Doofy]

Again, this has nothing to do with licence fees which the public pay for TV/radio. Nothing at all.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Your car is part of your home, so exempt.

So what about the other example I gave in the original post on this thread...

You're sitting next to a guy on a subway or train or bus. You can hear his music clearly through his earphones or headphones. This is in a public space, so should anyone who has an iPod or other DAP have to pay a royalty to be allowed to use it in public places?

The guys in the tire shop were listening to a radio on the shop floor, which I'd have to say falls within the same fair use as having a boom box at a picnic in a park, or listening to your music turned up loud enough that other passengers can hear it. They didn't hook up the radio to a PA system. They were not actively, deliberately broadcasting it for customers. Not only that, but the article mentions that part of the fine cited the fact that their coworkers could hear the radio. So if you have a radio, are you only allowed to listen to it in a non-residence if you are the only person who can hear it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So what about the other example I gave in the original post on this thread...

You're sitting next to a guy on a subway or train or bus. You can hear his music clearly through his earphones or headphones. This is in a public space, so should anyone who has an iPod or other DAP have to pay a royalty to be allowed to use it in public places?

The guys in the tire shop were listening to a radio on the shop floor, which I'd have to say falls within the same fair use as having a boom box at a picnic in a park, or listening to your music turned up loud enough that other passengers can hear it. They didn't hook up the radio to a PA system. They were not actively, deliberately broadcasting it for customers. Not only that, but the article mentions that part of the fine cited the fact that their coworkers could hear the radio.

No, you're missing the point. The individual doesn't pay the licence - the property owner does. In your bus/train example, iPods and the like would be covered under the transport operator's blanket licence.

Playing a radio in the park will be covered by the council's blanket licence.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So if you have a radio, are you only allowed to listen to it in a non-residence if you are the only person who can hear it?

Technically, yes. Unless the owner of the property you're on has a licence.

I don't make the rules.

[starman]

I still don't see why ringtones don't fall under the "transport operator" license. You can play songs from an iPhone just the same as having it triggered by a phone call.

This whole thing is stupid.

[torsoboy]

Wow, I have never heard of something so crazy. You can only listen a radio if you are the owner/operator? Wow. Thank goodness America doesn't have this crazy rule. +1 for America! (we can use all the +1s we can get right now)

[peeb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Doesn't matter. The presupposition of communist / socialist tax systems is to tax EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, regardless of validity.

-t

No, that's the basis of ALL tax systems. I pay taxes for wars, corporate welfare etc whether I want to or not. Paying taxes to support public interest broadcasting is a much better proposition.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, that's the basis of ALL tax systems. I pay taxes for wars, corporate welfare etc whether I want to or not. Paying taxes to support public interest broadcasting is a much better proposition.

In measures, yes. The BBC got it right.

In Germany however, the GEMA "tax" has gotten completely out of control.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Wow, I have never heard of something so crazy. You can only listen a radio if you are the owner/operator?

Or if you're in someone private home. Or if the premises owner has a licence.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Wow. Thank goodness America doesn't have this crazy rule.

I'm betting you do, but just don't know about it. You know that legal notice at the start of DVDs which says you can't show 'em to prison inmates, cruise ship passengers and stuff like that? Same laws.

[ghporter]

So the interpretation is "a personal radio may only be audible by a single individual"? Does that mean that every man jack in the tire shop could have his own personal headset-radio and listen to the exact same station at the same time and that would be somehow different? HOW?

Is there something in the water in downtown London... You know, something "interesting?" It sounds like someone is making a mountain out of a molecule here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

So the interpretation is "a personal radio may only be audible by a single individual"?

No. It's "no commercial property may play commercial music without a licence".

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Does that mean that every man jack in the tire shop could have his own personal headset-radio

No. Health and safety would be there in a flash.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Semantics.

It's a tax, because you don't have a legal choice to opt out.
You have to pay even if you just own a computer, and never listen to German broadcasts.

-t

We can one-up that here: you have to pay your medielicens (Danish version of GEMA/GEZ) if you own either radio, television, computer, mobile phone, or any other object that has the potential capability to access the World Wide Web. That means that even if your mobile phone is an old, pre-WAP phone, you still have to pay. Same goes for a computer, even if you don’t have a network card in it (’cause you have the possibility of buying one and thus accessing the World Wide Web).

And it’s now up to, I think, 1,100 DKK twice a year (that’s $414 or €294 per year). Blood suckers.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

We can one-up that here: you have to pay your medielicens (Danish version of GEMA/GEZ) if you own either radio, television, computer, mobile phone, or any other object that has the potential capability to access the World Wide Web. That means that even if your mobile phone is an old, pre-WAP phone, you still have to pay. Same goes for a computer, even if you don’t have a network card in it (’cause you have the possibility of buying one and thus accessing the World Wide Web).

And it’s now up to, I think, 1,100 DKK twice a year (that’s $414 or €294 per year). Blood suckers.

What happens if you refuse to pay and cite article 11?

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

[Oisín]

Then you’re fined, and they eventually take you to court over it.

They have to be able to prove that you own these devices, though, and to do that, they need access to your place of habitation; and you’re not required to let them in. And if they want a warrant to enter, they need to prove probable cause first, which is hard to do when they have no proof one way or the other without having seen your place.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

In measures, yes. The BBC got it right.

In Germany however, the GEMA "tax" has gotten completely out of control.

-t

Hey at least your GEMA tax on blank media is still acceptable. Our Auvibel tax on blank media is just insane. A 100 dvd-r spindle costs around €90 instead of a normal €30. I need to drive over the fricking border to get a DVD spindle.
And for what ? Backing up MY pictures and data on disc that COULD be used for illegal purposes. I don't download movies illegally. I fsdfjsdfjing hate legalised theft

Online shops that sell blank media won't deliver to Belgium anymore because of this (sellers pay the tax upfront).

But hey if they say that the tax compensates for losses caused by piracy then I can pirate to no end since I payed the compensation tax.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Hey at least your GEMA tax on blank media is still acceptable. Our Auvibel tax on blank media is just insane. A 100 dvd-r spindle costs around €90 instead of a normal €30. I need to drive over the fricking border to get a DVD spindle.
And for what ? Backing up MY pictures and data on disc that COULD be used for illegal purposes. I don't download movies illegally. I fsdfjsdfjing hate legalised theft

That's exceedingly sucky.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. It's "no commercial property may play commercial music without a licence".

Does this mean that the "commercial property" is required by law to police every individual in the establishment, in case someone has a radio on him? The example sounds very much like just an individual using a personal radio, so I have to think that this idiocy is really intended to put that burden on the proprietor.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. Health and safety would be there in a flash.

I can see that, really, but I hope my extreme example came across. How is one receiver being audible by multiple people different from multiple people individually listening to the same radio program on separate receivers?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

We can one-up that here: you have to pay your medielicens (Danish version of GEMA/GEZ)

Yeah, that's not far off from the GEZ. EUR 204.36 per year.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Does this mean that the "commercial property" is required by law to police every individual in the establishment, in case someone has a radio on him?

Yep, pretty much so.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I hope my extreme example came across.

Yep, it did.
But - I don't make the rules. The whole bleedin' place is off its rocker if you ask me.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WTF ?

And not even in America...

-t

We'd never listen to the BBC.

[Sherman Homan]

We have a similar situation in the States. You can not pipe a radio station into your telephone system's on hold sound with out a license. It is just plain not legal. You can not pipe a radio station into your elevators, it is just plain not legal. Yup, the same music that anyone could listen to on their Zune (?!) is illegal to broadcast.
Scary legalese:
SEC Info - Muzak Capital Corp - S-1/A - On�6/3/96 - EX-10.17
English translation:
How to Use Music On Hold Legally, by Easy On Hold, music on hold, message on-hold productions, on hold message system | background music system, royalty free hold music for on-hold messages | free sample music on hold | on-hold equipment and players|

[BadKosh]

I guess a redefinition of fair use is whats needed. Screw ACSAP, BMI the RIAA etc, etc, etc. Lawyers!

The radio station already payed the royalties. The rating services have underestimated the number of listeners. Everyone has underestimated the greed and lizard morality of the lawyers and music companies.

As a protest, next June should be deemed play your music loud month. stick your loudspeakers out the windows and play all your favorites. Make the music as obscure as possible, and keep a list. If you get caught and have to pay, publish your list so the musicians get their cut. Old blues and 1950's artists are the most difficult for the music industry to track down true ownership. Let the Music industry clean up that old mess before starting a new one.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

As a protest, next June should be deemed play your music loud month. stick your loudspeakers out the windows and play all your favorites.

Screw that. What a racket.

And anyways, it'd be perfectly legal to do that.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The whole bleedin' place is off its rocker if you ask me.

That's the way it sounds.

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

We have a similar situation in the States. You can not pipe a radio station into your telephone system's on hold sound with out a license. It is just plain not legal. You can not pipe a radio station into your elevators, it is just plain not legal. Yup, the same music that anyone could listen to on their Zune (?!) is illegal to broadcast.
Scary legalese:
SEC Info - Muzak Capital Corp - S-1/A - On�6/3/96 - EX-10.17
English translation:
How to Use Music On Hold Legally, by Easy On Hold, music on hold, message on-hold productions, on hold message system | background music system, royalty free hold music for on-hold messages | free sample music on hold | on-hold equipment and players|

It has to do with the interpretation of the word "broadcast", and in this context it means "sharing the music with others." Yes, it's a silly thing, but it's less silly than what's going on in the UK. I was involved in the transition from using local receivers connected to PBX systems to a centrally run "music on hold" server-that provided ONLY appropriately licensed content-at my last base. This was part of an overall project to get rid of a large number of small (and expensive to maintain) PBXs, but it was also to keep the Air Force out of legal hot water.

Now, was this because the talent complained? No. Because local radio stations complained? Again, no. It was because BIG MEDIA complained to their (bought and paid for) elected representatives. Clear Channel Communications is in league with the Devil, at least as far as I can tell, and their monopolistic activities include telling me that I can't let someone hear the radio station I'm playing at home while I'm on the phone. SERIOUSLY. There was a "cease and desist" here in San Antonio not too long ago, when a guy had his stereo, playing a local radio station, called someone who was connected to Clear Channel (which is headquartered here). "Dear Sir, turn your stereo off while you are on the phone, or we will sue your pants off because you are illegally broadcasting our radio station while you are on the phone" is the basic gist of it.

Am I a bit testy about this? YOU BETCHA! Do I patronize Clear Channel-owned media? Not if I can help it.

[Oisín]

Am I a bit testy about this? YOU BETCHA! Do I patronize Clear Channel-owned media? Not if I can help it.

Depends on which definition of ‘patronise’ you’re going by

[shifuimam]

Thank goodness the good morning/afternoon traffic station on the AM band in Indy is owned by Emmis.

[AngelaBaby]

How about just playing classical music from dead composers? It's great and who cares about paying dues, they're dead.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by AngelaBaby 

How about just playing classical music from dead composers? It's great and who cares about paying dues, they're dead.

It's not that easy.

You can PERFORM classical music yourself, free of charge, since the music itself is public domain.

HOWEVER, a pre-recorded version of public domain music is still COPYRIGHTED, as it is a work of art. So you would be infringing the copyright of that orchestra / performer.

-t

[peeb]

Yep - it's an interpretation, not a verbatim copy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

T "Dear Sir, turn your stereo off while you are on the phone, or we will sue your pants off because you are illegally broadcasting our radio station while you are on the phone" is the basic gist of it.

If it didn't come from you I'd not believe it. That is just obnoxious. How can these people LIVE with themselves?

Am I a bit testy about this? YOU BETCHA!

Seems like you have a reason to be. A very valid one.