If you take the literal meaning of the statement...
Well, that's
one statement out of the entire copyright act. The copyright act also makes allowance for situations where paying public performance royalties would not be required. So, of course, you can't take the meaning of that statement literally.
Anyway, I guess you would probably need to define the words "public" and "private" in terms of this discussion. I would imagine that a party with guests at your residence would be considered private. If you were having a party at your residence and charging an entry fee, that might be another story.
You don't pay an access fee to use an elevator, nor to visit the dentist or go shopping - there is no loss of revenu to the artist.
It has nothing to do with lost revenue. The copyright laws say that the artist is
entitled to this revenue for public performance. The company that is piping music into their public elevator system is required to pay royalties for that public performance. The doctor that is piping music into their waiting room is required to pay royalties for the public performance. Music enhances public environments, making them more desirable. In this respect, music is a product no different than the nice carpet, comfy furniture or pleasing artwork that a doctor puts in his waiting room. It makes the environment more attractive to the consumer, thereby increasing the business owners potential to make a profit.
I guess what I'm saying is where will all this money madness end?
Well, there is a reason they call it the Music
Business.
...they had canned music every friday night at the roller rink (we paid 2.50 to get in) and at every wedding, baptism, funeral and anniversary party...not to mention the garage bands who played covers at birthday parties, block parties etc. I don't recall having to pay a fee to the copyright holder.
The copyright holder is paid by the owner of the venue. You pay an admission fee to get in to the venue. The owner of the venue sets the entrance fee at a level that will allow him/her to cover the cost of the expense of running the venue. Part of that expense is paying public performance royalties. A fraction of every admission you pay to go into a public venue that plays music is used to pay public performance royalties. If you rent a hall to have a wedding reception, part of the rental fee is being used to pay public performance royalties.
Really, though, this is nothing new. It's been going on for quite sometime.
There was, however a greater interset in purchasing the music (if you liked it) and some of those garage bands went on to bigger and better things (the Guess Who, Chilliwack, the Stampeders).
Recording contracts are notoriously skewed in favour of the record company. Very few artists actually see much money from record/tape/cd sales, even when millions of copies are sold. Artists that are able to become extremely wealthy, or even earn a living, from sales are the exception rather than the rule. Most artists usually end up owing the record company money, which is then taken out of the profit (if there is any) on the sales of their next recording.
Rob