Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bebop]

So, have you heard the latest?  the music industry now wants to charge people who listen to music in the workplace...be it an office, shop, whatever.  Since they lost their case in the attempt to  force cable/internet providers here in Canada to give them info on persons suspected of downloading/uploading music from sites such as Kazaa, they have turned to those who use ambient music in their workplace.  They are attempting to charge approx. 12 cents/sq. ft. of office space.  so far, their collection activities have amounted to "strongly" worded letters.   Now I know that we Canucks are pretty easy going, but come on...all the offices I know or have ever worked at...use music that either their employees bring from home or are listening to the radio.  What's next...charging one to listen to the radio....home parties being raided because they are playing tunes?   Singing in the shower?  The playing of music has always been a "given" and this really frosts me!!!   Ok, I'm better now.
PS...i am one of those persons who pay for music...in fact I usually spend around 4 thousand/year for tunes.

[LonWar]

That's funny...    Could you picture a music store (HMV) not being able to play music? Or a place like Future Slop....

That would be a lot harder to enforce then the Internet P2P thing...

[bebop]

Yup, and I know that 12 cents/sq ft. doesn't sound like much, but you have to realize that here in Canada we already pay a tax on all recordable media, regardless of it's use (ie:  backing up office data, music or your family photo's).  this justs adds insult to injury in my opinion.

[pipsqueak]

thats a new one.

its currently US law that any public venue over 4000sq feet (i think) has to pay to play music - but thats mainly bars, large department stores, nightclubs etc. Private areas such as home / office space as well smaller shops are exempt from these regulations.

very interesting battle if they try to change that.

[bebop]

Around five years ago they started charging people who had functions in a rented hall a fee if they played music at the function, and we thought they were going too far then. We discovered this when we had to pay SOCAN a fee for our 18th anniversary party (back in'99).  We held it a a place called Crystal Gardens here in Victoria and the venu had to have proof that it was paid before we could go ahead with the party!!!

[JimH]

This isn't anything new.  It has long been customary to pay for "public" performance of copyrighted works.

[bebop]

I certainly don't have a problem with paying a fee for a large venu (which up until that time there was no fee paid when you had a wedding etc. held in a community hall or whatever and used your own music ), but since we are already paying a tax on all recordable media  regardless of use, there should be no need to charge to play music in an office situation.   And they were talking about charging for all venus...both public and private as well as for listening to radio stations in the workplace ( and here again they would be getting paid twice - radio stations, I believe, already pay a fee to broadcast).  And as I mentioned before,  they are getting paid via the purchase of the music as well as from any office supplies bought to store and backup datatfiles. This appears to be nothing more than a money grab with little or nothing to do with the payment of fees to the artists who created the music (not that I believe that they get fairly paid in the first place).  Here's the link to one of the articles.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1082656025423_78065225/?hub=Entertainment

[paulr]

I am curious about something.  Does Canada have Muzak?  If so, is that exempt?

I can, sort of, see their point when it comes to a professional's office, like the dentist.  Although I think that the music industry as a whole benefits hugely by having their music *heard* by as many people as possible...  It's not like someone is going to record the ambient music in a dentist's office and sell it.  There's really no theft here, especially if it's the radio, or a service like Muzak.  But on the other hand...  If the only market for that kind of music is office buildings, then that's another story. (I don't know enough about it.)

But, there's another solution.  http://www.archive.org has freely available music in many forms.  Some live, some open source....  I'd just tell the music industry to screw off and play some of that instead.  In this situation, they don't even get a *potential* sale from people hearing the music because it's free to begin with.

[bebop]

They even want to charge for muzak! And thanks, Paulr, for the advice.  I'll pass it along to the CDA here (hubby is a pediatric dentist, so this  issue is very relevant to me).   I guess what really ticks me off is seemingly  double standard .  They want the fees that accompany every purchase of a cd and the  tax  revenu (which goes directly to Socan) from all  blank recordable media purchased in Canada as well as this new fee.  However,  you don't see them reimbursing the people /offices/shops who only use the  blank recordable media for non music/video related stuff.  In other words, they are receiving income they are not entitled to and have no intention of giving it back to the consumer but have no qualms about dinging the consumer over and over again. That just doesn't sit well.

[rocketsauce]

Generally, musicians/composers are entitled to receive royalties for three different types of copyrights. One of them is public performance, which includes playing prerecorded music in public places. I think the copyright laws are pretty similar in both the U.S. and Canada.

SOCAN website:

http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/need_to_know.jsp

http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/copyright_intro.jsp

Canadian Copyright Act:

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html

They even want to charge for muzak!

There's a difference between muzak (used to denote any sort of unobtrusive background music) and the company known as Muzak. Any company or business that plays Muzak is already paying for that service.

Rob

[bebop]

Rocketsauce..so, the consumers rights are limited to  private listening only according to Socan :"Buying a CD or other recording only gives you the right to listen to it in private. The public performance of these musical works is subject to copyright law and therefore requires a SOCAN licence."  If you take the literal meaning of the statement it  technically means a person is in violation if he/she plays music at a house party, or pipes it into their backyard while out enjoying the garden or for a bar-b-que,  in their cars with the windows down  and a boom box  at the beach is also a no-no  (others can hear the music, ergo it is no longer "private"). According to the literal version of this the only time a person can listen to music they purchased is when they are alone or using headphones.

I may be nieve about this, but I always thought the law was there to protect the rights of the copyright holder from having his/her stuff played at functions where the listeners had to pay for access and from people other than the copyright holder making and distributing copies for a fee as this , indeed, would be lost revenu.  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.

  There is such a thing as the "spirit of the law" opposed to the letter of the law.  

[bebop]

I guess what I'm saying is where will all this money madness end?  Being of the "ancient" variety and having grown up in the 60's and 70's where 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.  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).  

[rocketsauce]

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

[bebop]

Rob, if one chooses his/her dentist on their office decor or the music they play then they are not very informed consumers.    None of our patients come because of the decor, the music or wheather or not the staff are good looking. They come for one simple reason:  the kids trust us.  They know they are the most important thing in that office and that we are there for them.  We don't advertise.  There has never been a need to, nor do I expect there ever will be.  Our staff's expertise, compassion and caring are what keep our patients coming back (we not have third generation patients) and by word of mouth alone we have always been booked to the max.  And yes, we purchase music to play at the office.  But we also purchase blank Cd's to back up all the patient data, accounting, etc.  We pay a tax to Socan for each and every cd/floppy/tape that we use for this backup.  Is this fair?  They should be re-imbursing business for these funds.  They are not due them in any way, shape or form.  Socan is concerned with MUSIC - so why the blanket charge??  I don't see them rushing to pay any of the millions they made in this fraudent manner, so why should the public have any sympathy for their grab for more?  If they did repay these funds, I don't think anyone would really be too upset about paying to play music in their offices.  As I said, we Canucks are a pretty laid back bunch, but we have our limits of injustice.

[rocketsauce]

Rob, if one chooses his/her dentist on their office decor or the music they play then they are not very informed consumers.

Well, I certainly wasn't suggesting that should be the only (or main) criteria for choosing a dentist, but as they say, "Poise counts".

None of our patients come because of the decor, the music or wheather or not the staff are good looking.

And you know this for sure? It's been my experience that people generally make decisions based on all sorts of weird, illogical criteria.

And yes, we purchase  music to play at the office.

But the royalties you pay when purchasing music (which generally go to the record company as the distributor of the copyrighted work) are separate from the performance royalties that you are required to pay when broadcasting that music in a public area (which SOCAN collects on behalf of the composers and publishers of the copyrighted work).

...we also purchase blank Cd's to back up all the patient data, accounting, etc. We pay a tax to Socan for each and every cd/floppy/tape that we use for this backup.  Is this fair?

It seems the Canadian government thought it was fair, since they're the ones who made that tax legal.

They are not due them in any way, shape or form.

Apparently they are, according to Canadian copyright law.

Again, though, this is not a new development. In the article you linked to in a previous post, it says:

...SOCAN has always pursued the collection of such fees...

Rob

[bebop]

Rob...this was a tariff imposed by the industry...my error calling it a tax.  and since it started last year, there has been a lobby by the people to have it removed.  This is on going.

Governments aren't always right.  Laws aren't always right or just.

Always? This is the first the public has been made aware of this in the past 30 years.  Why now?  After allowing this type of usage for so long, didn't they realize that it would not make them any friends in the general public?  Times are hard, granted, and there is a real squeeze on every penny and there are those out there, like me, who would rather quit listening to cd's at work (thus saving those $ for more toys for the kids, or even fishes!).  I can even stop purchasing music altogether.  That is my choice.    And the ability to have choices and opinions that are as diverse as the people populating the Northern Hemisphere is what it's all about.  You are right on the literal interpertation of the law, I perfer  the spirit.  

As for the musicians, I totally agree, the industry has really worked them over and seems to me they should be selling their stuff in a more direct manner now that it is so easy to reach so many.  

 I will end my ranting now and  regress a little here and tell you something that a couple of cowboys told me when I was a little kid at a fancy "do" at my Aunt's...something to the effect that getting paid for doing what you love is all very nice, but the real payoff for a musician is to spread the love of music.  You may have heard of these guys...Mr. Wilf Carter and Mr. Hank Snow, two corner stones of the Country Music scene.  They sure started a passion for music in my life and I just keep sharin' the love.  

Thanks for the good chat.  B

[bebop]

Oh yes, about how our patients choose us...the great majority (over 90%) of our patients are referred by other parents/caregivers based on how their kids found the whole dental experience or by  other practitioners ( some just because they don't like dealing with kids - can you imagine?! or because of a specific need of the child) - this I know because they fill out a form.   Our office, though rather plain and ulitarian by some standards , I am very proud to say, has built a fine rep for being a place where the kids actually like to come back to. In fact, we have trouble convincing many of them it's time for a  adult dentist once they hit 16.   As an aside:  can one  even actually hear  the music when you have a room full of 30 - 50 kids between the ages of 3 and 16?  

Thanks again for the chat.  Bet

[Sir Alan]

... or pipes it into their backyard while out enjoying the garden or for a bar-b-que,  in their cars with the windows down  and a boom box  at the beach is also a no-no  (others can hear the music, ergo it is no longer "private"...

[moan/]Well, I should be quite happy if those people are charged for the "public performance" - and as much as it takes to stop them being such a complete pain.[/moan]

[bebop]

 Sir Al, I agree that those boom boxes at the beach are annoying...personally I always use my headphones when at the beach.  And just  what is with those cars that you can hear from blocks away - talk about noise pollution.  I like my music loud, but am aware of the hearing damage that one too many concerts have caused.  Those poor kids are gonna need hearing aids long before I do - and I'm no spring chicken!  

[lise]

I thought this was pretty funny the first time I encountered it.

Ever notice that more and more family restaurants have their own unique "birthday" song?  "Happy Birthday" can't be used in public without paying... You may notice that films that use the song credit it at the end of the movie.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm

[bebop]

lise, that is nuts...guess I'm a outlaw now 'cause we just warbled  the tune today at dance class for our instructor!  You learn something new everyday.