Finnish Taxi Drivers Must Pay Music Royalties 588
jonerik writes "According to this story from Ananova, Finland's Supreme Court has ruled that taxi drivers must pay royalty fees of about $20 annually if they play music in their car while a customer is in the backseat. According to the article, 'Lauri Luotonen, chairman of the Helsinki Taxi Drivers' Association, says the ruling is likely to force most drivers to keep their radios off.'" This includes if they play the radio, which ostensibly already pays such fees.
At what point do artists intend to step in? (Score:2, Interesting)
Radio isn't free? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway does this apply to only music stations? What if they listen to the Finnish equivalent of NPR? Or the BBC?
Standard RIAA practice. Theft, search and seizure. (Score:5, Interesting)
More proof that the RIAA is ripping off artists. When Napster was required to remove all songs under RIAA copyright, the RIAA was supposed to provide a list. They couldn't. IIRC, they just insisted that Napster should somehow *know* which ones were and which ones weren't.
Perhaps this will be used as an argument for DRM, Hollings Style!
My question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:For listening..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Carpoolers, Biz Travellers - Do they pay next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, say you're in a carpool to and fro work. Everyone chips in for gas and whatnot while you listen to your latest mix CD, you're travelling for business - but not as a business. Probably, no - you won't pay. But what about a business trip?
But what if you're using a company car to go pick up Vinnie The Venture Capitalist at the airport and you play a mix of his favorite music. Do you have to pay then?
What about a birthday party for little Alex? Do I have to pay for playing his favorite mp3 playlist over my home stereo?
Re:this crap makes me sick... (Score:5, Interesting)
Girls Scouts must pay to sing songs...
"Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers has informed camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the four million copyrighted songs written or published by Ascap's 68,000 members. Those who sing or play but don't pay, Ascap warns, may be violating the law."
the story [s-t.com]
Isn't radio a form of advertisment? (Score:1, Interesting)
*Taxi-Driver turns off radio*
Taxi-Driver: Damn, you were not supposed to hear that. Please don't tell my superiors.
Passenger: But I didn't get the artists name!
Re:Standard RIAA practice. Theft, search and seizu (Score:3, Interesting)
No stings necessary, just signs (Score:3, Interesting)
Quoting Winston Churchill: (Score:5, Interesting)
Winston Churchill: THE WAR SITUATION: HOUSE OF MANY MANSIONS, broadcast, London, January 20, 1940
So, here we are back at the Dark Ages!
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:At what point do artists intend to step in? (Score:2, Interesting)
You're allowed to import a certain number of pirated cds "for personal use" from abroad.
You're allowed to copy these pirated cds, but not ones that you've bought. (So this means that I can tell the RIAA equivalent that, hey since I'm not allowed to copy CDs that I buy here I'm forced to import pirated ones!)
For every sale of recordable media (CD-Rs, tapes, possibly harddrives too) a certain percentage goes to the RIAA equivalent and then "supposedly" to domestic artists to compensate for illegal copying. The latter one pisses me off the most since there are hardly any Finnish artists that i like - so regardless of whether my money goes to the RIAA or the "artists" it goes to somebody whom I owe nothing!
Actually, here in the USA.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Also an issue on hymns - arrangements (Score:5, Interesting)
Go to the Harry Fox Agency and you will find dozens of people claiming copyright on Handel's Messiah one way or another.
It was for a small run, fund raising CD and the licensing hassles outweighed the benefits so we destroyed the recording. Still its great fun to perform it. If anyone asks you, you should accept.
Hymns have similar problems. You need to work from a pre-1922 hymnal to be clear, but you can't buy those.
I have a similar problem with traditional folk music. Everyone and their dog that ever published an album for a label with a traditional song claims ownership. I have to find documentation that the song predates 1922 to use it royalty free.
Church Pays Royalties, Too (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It isn't already paid for? (Score:2, Interesting)
The same thing goes for playing the radio in a restarant or other business. They are trying to doubble dip, and collect royalties along every step of the way. What, are they going to start charging per ear that is listning to the music?
It would be like having to pay Federal income tax, then state tax, and then a local tax... Oh wait, we already do that... Nevermind then, it must be a great idea.
Re:The reasoning behind it (Score:3, Interesting)
We were in this really old diner, and every booth had holes in the wall above the table. I asked my dad why that might be, and he said for the jukebox. He said that a long time ago every booth was wired for its own speaker, and had a coinbox - patrons could put in coins in the box, punch up a song, and the speaker delivered the music right to their table. They made a lot of money, so of course a lawsuit ensued.
The restaurant owners wanted to keep the money, because they paid for the equipment to be installed in their restaurants. The record companies wanted the money because, without them, there would not have been any music to play. They reasoned, that the patrons were paying for the music, not the use of the music delivery system. Furthermore, the music brought in customers to the restaurant that it would not otherwise have had. Therefore, the restaurants owed them.
Ultimately, the music companies won the lawsuits and the fancy jukeboxes were ripped out. Thus the holes in the wall above the table.
FWIW, my dad said that the music companies (and later jukebox service vendors) were often run by organized crime. That was a long time ago.
Re:Where does it stop? (wasRe:The reasoning behind (Score:1, Interesting)
Think of the music as artwork that a store buys to enhance shoppers experience.
Did you ever notice that Muzak is crappy renditions of songs? Hence Muzak owns the copyright from the musicians playing the wordless songs.
Finally! They might turn of the damn radio... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
To wit:
"How about Ring Around the Rosie'?" another Elf asks. The directors veto it.
Now, Ring Around the Rosie is a centuries old nursery rhyme that most know dates back to the time of the Black Death. I won't go into the details, but thats what it is about.
It isn't copyrighted. And it taints the entire story with a dose of FUD. Or perhaps it's just satire.
My daughter is a brownie. Her leaders know nothing at all about this supposed case.
Does anyone have a reputable report of this?
Re:This is a public performance (Score:3, Interesting)
I've noticed when I go to a bar/restaurant, the game is usually on the tube as usual, but the sound is off, closed captioning is on. I assumed this was because noone needs the chatter.
The other day I happened to look closer at the TV. There's a little sign saying something like "This TV cannot be used with the sound on, due to public broadcasting restrictions", or some such.
Can anyone clarify? I'm not talking about PPV events here, either, but the football game on fox sunday, etc.
Re:enforcement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not downunder (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Radio isn't free? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the funny bit is that the Finnish Broadcasting Company [www.yle.fi] (the Finnish TLA is YLE) is funded with a similar fee to this taxi thing.
See, there's a pretty thing called the "television fee" (EUR 165.15 per year) in Finland that you have to pay up if you own anything that could ever be used to watch TV. They use this money to fund the YLE/FBC.
And before you ask: yes, there actually are inspectors who go around houses that have not payed and demand to be let in to check if they really don't have TV sets (luckily, of course, you don't have to let them in without a search warrant, which they'll never get).
I bet this taxi thing will work the same way: in practise you have to pay, whether you use the car radio or not.
Then again, bus companies in Finland have been forced to pay a fee like this for years, so this was only a matter of time for the taxis.
Re:This concept exists here in America too. (Score:2, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're the first person to equate royalties with taxes.
You can't have a rational debate if you're drawing false equivalences.
Italians do it... worse, doesn't help music (Score:2, Interesting)
Anybody who simply owns any device capable of playing music (or displaying TV content) must pay a tax, which is higher in case he does it in a public place. Presumably, cabs are considered to be public places.
This tax is mainly destined to the Ministry of Telecoms. Also, any music station and singer are required to pay relatively high fees to the SIAE when playing a piece. SIAE is a structure that should defend music right owners... but I let you imagine how it actually is an instrument to reduce the possibilities of independents... and music is not getting anything better!
Slave to the rythm... (Score:2, Interesting)
It just goes to prove that the Finnish court system has failed!
The point being: The radio station broadcasting the music has to pay royalty for the music they play. This I understand, and think is reasonable. But what I don't understand is that the taxi owner has to pay again for the same music that was already paid by the radio station. AND The court even noted that the reason they lowered the earlier decission of 40 Euros/year to 22 Euros/year, was because "the music has no significan value in forming of the customer-service provider relationship."
So, even the court admitted that people actually don't choose a taxi by the music they play. (Shockingly I actually take the first one available!) So, why would they have to pay again for the music that's already been paid for?
On an other note: If the taxi has no radio installed (or the one preinstalled is ripped out) they don't naturally have to pay. Even if all the passangers would listen to the radio with their mobile phones or walkmans...
Yet another note: This may not after all be such a shocking news in Finland. We actually have to pay royalty for each empty CD-R we buy, just because it MAY be used to copy music! So, we actually pay royalty for an act that would be criminal to do...
Re:For listening..... (Score:2, Interesting)
The taxi driver is charging for a service, the main one being moving your lazy ass from one place to another. You take a taxi as it's faster than the bus and cheaper than a limo - you balance the service you want against what you'd get in return. Having music in your cab could be seen as a service you offer to your passenger increasing the value of the ride. If you're exploiting somebody's desire to listen to music whilst they ride to put money in your pocket then it's fair that some of that money should go to the producers of the music.
Perhaps this is easier to see if instead of considering music which we have the ingrained notion we should be allowed to listen to freely for video. Maybe the Taxi driver likes watching his DVDs on a little screen as he gets trapped in traffic jams - that would be fine. Maybe his passengers watch them over his shoulder? Maybe he puts a screen in the back so they can get a better view? Maybe his customers ask for his cab when booking one as he's "the cabby that shows the films".
Should the cabbie be allowed to increase his income by showing the films?
Whilst we're mentally following this thread why shouldn't we all set up cinemas in our living rooms - rent a few DVDs and charge the passing public a few dollars to watch them.
Re:This concept exists here in America too. (Score:1, Interesting)
Ummm... WRONG.
Playing the radio at a store is a great way to get a visit from the RIAA. This happened to a store I worked at back in 1983.
Honestly, why do you think stores play Muzak? Because the employees and customers like it? No, because Muzak takes care of paying royalties and you get a single bill from Muzak.