Listening To The Radio At Work? Prepare To Be Sued 486
MLCT writes "The Performing Rights Society, one of the UK's royalties collecting societies, has taken a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees are alleged to have been listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers'. The PRS is seeking £200,000 in damages for the 'performances of the music' which they claim equates to copyright infringement. The judge, Lord Emslie, has ruled that the case can continue to hearing evidence, commenting that the key point to note was that music was 'audibly blaring from employee's radios'. Where do the extents of a 'public performance' end? Radios on in cabs?"
Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Funny)
I think the tobacco companies should sue
everyone for enjoying their products at
second ( or even third ) hand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about that absurd.
Theatrical broadcast implies a desire for an audience to hear the performance leading them to the venue. Charging admission shows enrichment. Venue must reimburse the artists in such a case. Sensible so far.
Muzak (or elevator music or bland background music, for those that don't know the slang) creates mood for a particular commercial location (restaurant, store, elevator, or even music-on-hold). This mood is carefully cultivated for whatever commercial goal by the vendor, so the vendor should be reimbursing artists for their help in making the store/restaurant mood.
But music played by workers at a construction site or a repair shop... that's for the benefit of the employees and usually at the expense of the customer. I'd no sooner wander down to the mechanic's to listen to his boom box than I'd want to eavesdrop off most strangers' ipods. Hell, I thought that was the greatest part of ipods: boomboxes became anachronistic jokes.
Charging royalties for unwanted intrusions of music is the most absurd damn thing I've ever heard of, and tries to claim economic value where none exists. It'd be like demanding royalties from the owners of all those noisy damn cars driving around with mega stereos in their trunks rattling my windows...
Hmm... on the other hand, maybe I'm in *favor* of this, if another wave of unwanted noiseboxes are silenced. Dumbass argument, desirable side effect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd no sooner wander down to the mechanic's to listen to his boom box than I'd want to eavesdrop off most strangers' ipods. Hell, I thought that was the greatest part of ipods: boomboxes became anachronistic jokes.
Not sure where you travel, but on public transport here in Melbourne, the music coming out of some people's iPods could easily be called a public performance.
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Interesting)
Nasrudin was walking down the street one day, and came upon a man arguing with a merchant who was selling stew out of a street stall. According to the merchant, the man spent all day hanging around next to the stall, inhaling the aroma of the stew, but not buying anything; the merchant was demanding compensation for the service that he provided.
Nasrudin, hearing this, took the man's money purse, held it near the merchant's head, and shook it gently for a few moments. Then he said: "Now you're even. He's smelled your food, and you've heard his money jingle."
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
The radio station then makes money from advertisers, who advertise because they consider the listener base a large enough for their commercials.
The music being played on the radio is ALREADY LICENSED for people within range of the station to listen to it, and it's in the stations interest for more people to listen.
Those people who are close enough to the garage to hear the radio, are obviously within range of the radio station and could use their own radio to listen to it if they wanted. The fact that they're not using their own radio is helping the environment in a small way by saving power. I would imagine that virtually all of the customers of this car servicing company own their own radio too, because it's a really long time since i saw any kind of car which didn't have a radio fitted as standard.
Hopefully this ridiculous case will be thrown out with the servicing company being awarded compensation for the legal costs incurred defending against such a pointless suit.
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really it. If there are 20 people in a room, and each of them has a radio, all tuned to the same station, this is apparently fine. The absurdity of this claim is that if they all listen to exactly the same content but from one radio instead of 20 radios, that's copyright infringement.
Well known law in the UK (Score:3, Informative)
Fees for playing the radio or CDs in shops or offices are well known in the UK. The law may well be an ass, but this particular law is very well known, and any businessman who claims ignorance or rebellion is going to get squished in court.
Kwik-Fit are the most well-known brand of chain garages in the UK. That they've been stupid enough to let employees
Muzak is not a slangword (Score:3, Informative)
Muzak (or elevator music or bland background music, for those that don't know the slang)
Actually Muzak (http://muzak.com) is a corporation, which exists for decades. Their mission is to grace humanity with this fine music you can hear in elevators and shopping malls throughout the world.
"Music" that is filtered and frequency optimized so it doesn't disturb your lift riding -, or shopping experience.
So no, even if a lot of people think so, Muzak is not a slang word for rotten music. Then again: The general public has hardly any dealings with Muzak LLC (apart from being forced to listen to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Muzak *is* a slang word for rotten music to precisely the degree that people think it is. It is horrifying to contemplate for some (myself included), but the rules of language are whatever people believe they are. People break the rules all the time; if a large enough number of people start breaking a given rule the same way, their way of doing things becomes a new rule, at least within whatever group(s) those people have su
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So jam it. A nice, dirty, square wave oscillator should do the trick.
Why would you bother doing that when you can just call APRA and inform them that of an ongoing copyright violation? ;)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
Radio is supported by advertising. What does it matter if 500 people are listening to 500 radios or 500 are listening to a single radio? I understand that the idea is that "those are 500 people who will not be counted toward royalty payments", but since royalties are entirely calculated by the size of the listening audience -- how does it matter unless some of those 500 people are also part of some "Nielson" family? If they're all listening to separate radios, is some sort of magic going to occur where they can tell that 500 radios are turned on and to a specific station?
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason a royalties board cares is that they charge fees based on the estimated size of the listening audience. That is why when you submit a request to play music in a commercial or in a store, you have to establish what use it will serve and approximately how many people will hear the music in a certain period of time. Likewise, you have to gauge a radio station's audience to guesstimate how much to charge them.
My point
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Informative)
Reference:
http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/India/SaltMarch.html [thenagain.info]
Are you from the US of A? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not, but even I heard of a small case that happened on your shores when a company went to far. Ever heard of the British East India Company? It had to do with some added tax/levy or something being added to tea. I think it caused a bit of a riot in boston, local affair, easy to miss but some people were upset about it.
Offcourse, this involved goverments but since back then the lines between goverment and business was often very blurred (unlike today when we see absolutly no blurring of any kind *cough*) this might be considered a case of a very succesfull (if you are an american) embargo against a company that pushed its customers too far.
Does it work in other cases? Well, note the difference in genetically engineered products in the US of A and europe, the europeans have long since been against any such crap and so companies make it very clear that they don't put it in their products.
More or less any normal business listens to its customers, the problems start to occur when a business becomes more then just trying to sell you a product and becomes a power. Your local supermarket is a business, Walmart is close to being a Power, the RIAA is a power. What do I mean by that? You can easily shop somewhere else then your local supermarket, it has no control over you, if the local manager does something you don't like, it is easy to boycot him. It is far harder to get around Walmart. Or for the dutch, AH. If AH does something bad, you are soon faced with the problem that they own many other chain of supermarkets as well.
The RIAA is even worse, in many cases they ARE music. The have become almost a legal power like the tax offices, they can collect their music tax for any music they like even if the original owner doesn't want them too. This would be roughly the same as the police ticketing people for driving to fast on private property (they can't and don't do this, this is why racetracks can operate).
It is very hard to get around the various music copyright groups because no matter what music you listen too, they have been given control over it.
But succesfull embargo's are legion, blacks boycotting businesses in america, the India rebellion against british rule etc etc.
On a much small scale, there were temporary success against the fur trade. Against whaling and sealing.
Embargo's work, even against semi-goverment organisations, but the "people" need a lot of will power to pull it off. Often the answer is that somebody equally powerfull takes up the fight, in recent years that have been popstars, who through their fame could pull the people into a single group to raise a voice. Bit of a pity that popstars and the RIAA are in the same bed eh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I am from the US of A, and I can tell you all about your little event there. That was Custer's Last Stand, which was a legendary battle between Texans and Mexicans during the Civil War. The whole dirty affair was caused by yellow journalism. It was a sad battle, napalm was used all
Re:Are you from the US of A? (Score:5, Funny)
I know one person who won't object (Score:4, Interesting)
He is forced to use an mp3 player with other stuff on just to drown out the endless stream of drivel that is pumped out in the name of pop music. Ok its not all that bad, but I am told that when you hear the same 'hit' several times an hour for weeks on end it does not please. I sort of know what he means, I worked in a factory for a time while at university, and they did the same. I couldn't escape to an mp3 player though.
Stopping this playing of music to an entire factory floor without regard to the people actually working (who cares about the royalties collection people) would not be a bad thing in all cases.
Re:I know one person who won't object (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer is simple. When their actions become so brash that the generally uninformed public becomes annoyed with them
That won't happen. People use the mainstream media as their sole information source about what's happening around the world, but surprise surprise, the news media companies are often the same companies running these lawsuits. And since they understand that this would sully their reputation, the simply keep the information out of the unwashed masses.
This works pretty good already. Few articles about copyrights, patents, etc, are ever published in mainstream media no matter how outrageous, while unimporta
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, I recall maybe 10 years ago, some Canadian Newspapers started suing local fast food joints for permitting patrons to leave their newspapers behind for other people to read.
They are licensed for use by just one person, don't you know! No sharing, even at home!
Or I could be drunk and saw this on some old Dr. Who episode...
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Even though this is occurring in another country, this may give them some sort of precedent ...
Here in Australia, this is already long the established (APRA v Tolbush [1986]), I'm surprised that it is not already so in the UK. In Tolbush an agent from the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) asked for a car radio to be demonstrated in a shop, and when the shop keeper turned the radio on he got sued for making an infringing public performance (how that was not authorisation I don't know).
I
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the Netherlands you also have to pay outrageous amounts of money if you play music in your shop, or your cafe.
Really, you have to admire these guys for the amazing scam they've set up. First they get a copyright payment when the recording is sold (times the number of people who buy the recording). Next they get another payment when a radio station wants to license the right to 'perform' it (times the number of radio stations). Finally (?) they get yet another payment when anyone wants to play (the radio or the recording) in a public place (times the number of cafes, shops, etc etc).
Then the have the audacity to call this stuff intellectual property! What other species of property can you lease so many times simultaneously, without ever having to surrender your own use of it? Wicked!
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
It is already a licensed public transmission, only the number of devices used to alter the unencrypted signal to a human audible range is in question.
So it is a flagrant and complete corruption of the principles of copyright, which corrupt politicians in collusion with drunken drugged up minstrals have implemented to rip of and steal from the general public.
The only possible infringement would be a long since passed patent infringement on the process of converting the signal. So either the corrupt government stick to the law and administer justice and ban all personal listening devices in those locations and at those times or they accept the proper interpretation of the law and the number of devices used to play a publicly broadcast signal should not affect copyright.
By the current clearly dishonest interpretation, if I use more than one device at a time, so two radios at once, am I and the broadcaster entitled to a discount and pay half price, just like where two people listening to the same device should pay double.
A flagrant and glaring example of corporate and government corruption.
Re:Somebody please, stop the madness (Score:5, Informative)
They sure are greedy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They sure are greedy (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the artists. In fact, the artists will never see a penny of this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not my understanding. PRS log every track and when/where it was played - they wouldn't bother if it didn't get to the artist. In fact I knew someone who used to make a fair living starting a multitude of 'bands' with similar names and relying on typos when keying in data for picking up a few quid here and there e.g. calling himself U3 and self publishing a single called 'New Years Eve' then picking up a % of U2
One Radio, one person. (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that the basic logic is not entirely off. In that, snarkiness aside, each premise does follow from the others. The hard part for them to claim is that
sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:sigh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sigh (Score:5, Funny)
I buy at least 4 copies of each CD, with a separate player and headphones for each. When friends come over, we synchronize playback with the familiar 3-2-1 countdown. Are you saying you don't follow the procedure?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Using the radio/CD/Casset player for anyone other than the owner is AGAINST THE LAW, AND MAY LEAD TO HARSH FINES."
Disturbing.
seriously??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:seriously??? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many years ago I was in Ireland and went to visit some cliffs. There was a wall on meter tall well back from the cliffs. On that wall as a warning sign to not cross go past that wall. Everybody was just s
Must be quite a performance.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All the carwash fundraisers cheerleading squads like to do are pretty clearly performances, even if they wouldn't like to admit it.
This isn't *all* bad... (Score:5, Funny)
But if they win, it provides precedent to sue anyone driving by with their car stereo too loud, so at least we get something out of the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That really is stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thumpmobiles (Score:5, Funny)
Damn right -- get the hell off my lawn.
It's the law (Score:5, Insightful)
On the flip side, this is what happens when record companies get desperate. That is a good thing, it means they're losing.
I'm all for people getting compensated for their hard work, but by any standard, this is ridiculous.
(Are the headphone makers sponsoring this?)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I have no idea how to contect them, but hopefully it's a process that involves a lot of pain on their part.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess spelling nazis do have their place, besides, that was kinda funny.
Re:It's the law (Score:4, Funny)
Then they laughed at us.
Then then fought us (costing many of us fines of several thousand, and some people were fined everything and live in squalid bankrupcy to this day)
Then we win (except for everyone sued or taken to court and/or the cleaners by the system that supported the big companies)
Um... Yay?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not Surprising (Score:5, Informative)
I was once approached by a BMI agent about the music playing in the kitchen for this same reason. ASCAP and BMI will go after restaurants for royalties from jukeboxes, or bands playing cover songs -- and even your kitchen crew playing their favorite tunes while they work, if it's audible to the customers. That was the stipulation, it had to be quiet enough not to beard from the dining room. Of course, we wanted it that way anyway so as not to interfere with the house music, but on lulls sometimes sound travels.
I thought it had gone too far at that point, without the madness from the RIAA and their relatively recent infringement suits. They've been out of line for a while, folks!
How about a counter suit, just for fun? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like every week, Slashdot will get outraged about some extremely old news. Outraged!
"What's next?", they ask. Well, it's been 20 or 50 years, so what was next?
On hold (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when I worked for the state government road authority we ran a small call centre for breakdowns, etc. The audio switcher had an input for an on hold message and for a long time we fed in a signal from a commercial radio station.
The theory is that they are broadcasting N copies of their signal anyway, and a few extra listeners are also going to be hearing the advertisements which pay for the broadcast. It scales, so what is the problem?
More to the point, if I listen alone in my car and an advert comes on then I will change to a different station. If I am listening to somebody else's radio then I have to listen to the advert, so by that argument they should be encouraging people to share radios.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me, the desires of the radio stations and the desires of the record companies DO NOT agree in this area. If it were up to the radio stations they would happily have you blaring their tunes (and ads) to high heaven.
Missing the point of the social contract (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a copyright violation as it's "publicly performing" things that were already sent out over public airways. Really, it's almost equivalent to the idiots suing because people used the "hacking technology" of HTTP to get the files they publicly offered.
It has been like this for a long time.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Muzak (Score:3, Interesting)
Precisely.
BTW, you haven't lived until you've heard the Muzak instrumental version of Pink Floyd's "Run Like Hell" followed back-to-back by the Muzak version of Tom Petty's "Refugee". Absolutely breathtaking.
Advertising? (Score:5, Insightful)
This way they can cannibalize the radio audience for a few bucks and keep charging the same royalties. I think I should patent a business model.
I bet their next action is to sue people selling CDs. They'll go after a big offender like Virgin.
Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL -- My understanding in the US, is that it would be ok to listen to the RADIO in this setting, but not to bring in your own CDs and blast them out. The difference being that the Radio station is paying the royalties for a public performance. Any lawyers want to comment?
Re: (Score:2)
It's no better here.
Re:Wow -ACTUALLY, NOT EXACTLY (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, not exactly. While radio does pay royalties to the song writer, it is the only major country that DOESN'T pay royalties to the record company and/or performers. Why? Because it's considered free advertising for the sale of that song and the concert performances for the artists.
In fact, to borrow the In The Soviet Union line...
In the United States, Payola goes to the radio station.
Re: Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
HEY! Performing Rights Society.. (Score:4, Funny)
My
Ass
Seriously. WTF do you want? Payment for each and every set of ears that might be in close proximity to a set of speakers that is playing stuff you've already been paid for.
Let me reiterate...
Kiss. My. Ass.
Re: (Score:2)
The recording industry is simply a racket with the full support of lawmakers.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Radio (Score:2)
What?! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But that does call to mind a good strategy. Rat them out to the RIAA.
Tesco (Score:2)
I'm all for it! (Score:4, Insightful)
The more the recording industry engages in these batshit-crazy pursuits of extra money, the more people will come to realize that the entire "intellectual property" legal system needs to be completely rethought. The EFF can only dream of being able to this kind of support; these bozos manage to do the job well enough on their own.
Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no damages when a radio is played in public, the advertising gets sent out to even more people, and the radio station makes money and the recording company makes money. There can be no damages due to loss, only the Chinese company that makes the radios can claim there was some sort of damage, and that is outside the scope of copyright laws.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with UK case precedence, so like most people on Slashdot, my opinion counts for diddlysquat.
Copyright Infringement (Score:2)
ENOUGH FUCKING ALREADY!!!
dear slashdot posters (Score:2)
please don't sue me
The king is dying... (Score:2)
Until now I had suspected the music industry was just run by stupid people. This just makes it look like those running it are deliberately trying to destroy the "music industry". Guy Hands (EMI boss) admitted today that artists don't need the labels for distribution so what are they good for then...
I can only hope that the defense representatives in this case take the court out for a walk around the block to count the number of radios that can be overheard. Someone mentioned suing speaker manufacturers and
This is the norm in Germany (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an organisation called "GEMA [www.gema.de]" who actively look out for their customers' interests, which includes scouting round for shops, restaurants etc. who commit the heinous crime of playing music from CDs, radios etc. they already own.
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jesus.. I mean.. seriously.. do they even care about their perception with their customers anymore?
I've been taking it one step further than everyone who refuses to buy RIAA/CRIA/UKIA(?) recordings. I make my living in music and I'm doing everything I can to achieve and maintain my measure of "success" while not succumbing to these measures. Just a few weeks ago, I truthfully walked away from a potential career "discovery" because of the terms and games that would have been required to accept - I wasn't willing to sacrifice who I am, what I believe and what my art means to me. I don't know what I may have missed out on.. I can imagine certainly, but I do know exactly how much I wouldn't respect myself and that's far more important to me.
The whole entertainment industry is disgusting. I hope they keep blacking and withering their essence, they are their own cancer that's going to kill them slowly from the inside out.
There may be an upside... (Score:4, Funny)
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, that kind of exercise is not supposed to have a practical application - it's supposed to be fleshed out before the bill is signed into law.
That's really where the system is breaking down - strong lobbies and stupid lawmakers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:End to elevator music? (Score:4, Insightful)
Elevator music exists because royalties exist. Basically, someone/an organization puts together a CD (or whatever) of crappy/cheasy compositions (what we know as "elevator music") and sells it with a license allowing it to be played in public. This is much cheaper (and easier) than negotiating with individual record companies and artists.
Elevator music aptly demonstrates how copyrights promote the arts.