Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Canada Music The Almighty Buck News

Canadian Copyright Board To Charge For Music At Weddings, Parades 349

silentbrad writes "The CBC reports, 'Money can't buy love — but if you want some great tunes playing at your wedding, it's going to cost you. The Copyright Board of Canada has certified new tariffs that apply to recorded music used at live events including conventions, karaoke bars, ice shows, fairs and, yes, weddings. The fees will be collected by a not-for-profit called Re:Sound. While the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (otherwise known as SOCAN) already collects money from many of these events for the songwriters, Re:Sound will represent the record labels and performers who contributed to the music. .. For weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows, the fee is $9.25 per day if fewer than 100 people are present and goes up to $39.33 for crowds of more than 500 people. If there's dancing, the fees double. Karaoke bars will pay between $86.06 and $124 annually depending on how many days per week they permit the amateur crooning. And parades, meanwhile, will be charged $4.39 for each float with recorded music participating in the parade, subject to a minimum fee of $32.55 per day.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Copyright Board To Charge For Music At Weddings, Parades

Comments Filter:
  • by ttimes ( 534696 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:04PM (#40181751)
    ... then you create a legal scam to charge for everything else. Let's not congratulate this by being silent.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:07PM (#40181787)

      Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

    • Right, I'll get my checkbook, you set up the sound system, and we'll have Soulskill bring his CD collection over.
    • I can see the future... in a few years, you will have to slide a credit card to enable use of your car's radio if someone is sitting in the passenger sit (be the front or back sits!)

    • by jdgeorge ( 18767 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:33PM (#40182163)

      Hmmm.... I wonder if the major effect of this will be for people to use more live musicians instead of recorded music.

    • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:43PM (#40182299) Homepage

      "You, over there! Stop bobbing your head in time to the music, we haven't paid for head bobbing!"

    • by mr1911 ( 1942298 )

      Let's not congratulate this by being silent.

      The laws were enacted by elected legislators. You deserve what you tolerate.

  • We can't expect Canadians to have the same freedoms we in the US have.

    Freedom to arrest Kim DotCom in New Zealand with no evidence.

    Freedom to fine Jamie Thomas millions of dollars.

    Freedom to let the MAFIAA do whatever they like.

    Welcome to the family, brother Canada,


  • Dancing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AkaKaryuu ( 1062882 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:05PM (#40181767)

    I would like to know if they will have representatives to ensure dancing does not occur. What if the event planner specifially states dancing is forbidden and the intoxicated guests ignore their plea? Is there a charge to sing along, tap your foot or air guitar that sick solo?

    • Re:Dancing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by trimpnick ( 1362187 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:10PM (#40181839)
      No, they'll probably tack on those fees by supposing you'll dance at a wedding party. There will be no burden of proof with this, not unlike the levy on blank media
    • Re:Dancing? (Score:5, Funny)

      by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:11PM (#40181861) Journal

      dancing is forbidden

      Looks like ATHF [youtube.com] saw this coming?

    • I would like to know if they will have representatives to ensure dancing does not occur.

      The career placement team at Geneva College is very excited about this prospect.

    • Nothing us average, ordinary folks need to worry about. The DJs will just pay the record companies through the payment service they are currently using.

      • How about mandating *in contract* that the DJ playing at your wedding will play NO Re:Sound or SOCAN music that incurs this "fee"? You say 'ordinary folks' need not worry about this, but if the DJ passes on the licensing costs to the customer (surely the provide an itemized bill that lists this expense), the ordinary folk may care more than you think. If the DJ plays said music and gets flagged by the copyright observers, he/she can personally pay out of pocket as stipulated by the contract. In a free ma

        • And what makes you think the DJ will actually get out of paying these licensing fees by not playing music licensed by "Re:Sound"? I'll bet anything that the DJ will be charged on the basis of his mere presence with equipment at a function, regardless of the contents of his playlist. These "rights agencies" have a track record of extorting their fees whether or not they have any legal rights to the music being played.

          So a contractual pledge to avoid such music simply guarantees that the customer won't be get

          • Record the event (weddings are usually documented for posterity anyhow). Ask anyone attending who recorded a video with their mobile phone/tablet/e-glasses to send you a copy of the video for the compilation DVD. Provide a copy of said material to the DJ to provide evidence that no 'infringing' music was played so no fees are warranted. Demand proof for claims that infringing material was played. Should it have happened, pay only for that, not a general fee for the event. Etc.

            Don't passively give in to

            • **BUZZ**

              Assuming rationality. That's always a bad assumption!

              • The only way I know how to live. Or want to. Sucks to be me, I guess. On the other hand, being rational hasn't worked out so badly for me, so maybe the irrational assumption that rationality is bad is in fact wrong.


    • Reminds me of the old joke: Why don't Canadians fuck standing up? Because god might think they're dancing.
      • That makes no sense. The joke was about Baptists.

        God isn't in the business of collecting license fees. Granted she's not in the business of preventing dancing (except for techno 'music' that crap is from the devil).

    • Re:Dancing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dexter Herbivore ( 1322345 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:25PM (#40182033) Journal
      What gets me, is what right do they have to charge for dancing? They're theoretically charging for the performance of the music, understandable... but what the hell does dancing have to do with anything?
    • by kanto ( 1851816 )

      There'll probably just be a fatwa Pakistani style. [kuwaittimes.net]

    • by paiute ( 550198 )
      Canadian Baptists do not have sex standing up. It might lead to dancing.
  • by dstyle5 ( 702493 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:07PM (#40181791)
    What if people are smiling, double the fee again? Its sunny outside, only 1.5 times the fee? Liquor is served, 4 times fee? Its a Saturday...? Great, can't wait to see the RIAA, err SOCAN creeping up your friends wedding.
  • How about instead (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hort_wort ( 1401963 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:07PM (#40181805)

    We charge them those prices for advertising their music to everyone and associating it with a positive memory?

  • I, for one, welcome (y)our new mayonnaise-on-fries-eating cover band overlords.
  • If I sing the praises of this, will I be charged? If I'm arrested and they make me sing, will I be charged again?

    • by dtmos ( 447842 ) *

      If I'm arrested and they make me sing, will I be charged again?

      It depends. Are you going to sing a new tune, or just the same old song?

  • by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:10PM (#40181847)
    let's say there are 1000 guests and 50 songs are played. This clearly means that 50,000 record labels will never be able to make money again. The fees should be at least 47 trillion loonies per event.
  • by Herkum01 ( 592704 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:11PM (#40181867)

    I could support something like this IF, VERY BIG IF, the money goes to support the people actually produced the music. Not Copyright Board of Canada, the MIAA, or RIAA, or Sony, or any of the big companies out there. It needs to go to the artists. Otherwise it is just becomes another organization gaming the laws to become a bureaucracy that is a parasite upon other peoples works.

    • by Missing.Matter ( 1845576 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:22PM (#40182009)
      Sorry no. If you're an artist, you should make money by, I dunno, making art that people want to buy. If I pay you $15 for your CD, I'm going to play it whenever, however, and for whomever I want. I paid you your $15. So if I want to pop it in the CD player at my wedding, I don't owe you anything. This whole concept of "royalties" where an artist gets money for the next 70 years every time someone wants to sing or play his song is completely asinine, and counter to the way art/music has worked since the dawn of humanity.
      • So what do you do, as an artist, when you think that the 15-year-old with a $20 weekly allowance should only have to pay you $5 for your CD whereas a DJ who makes his living playing the same CD at weddings should pay you $100.

        If you always charge just $5 for your CD then it can be purchased by 15-year-olds, but then other people that make money off of just playing your CD in public are getting a huge discount when you did all the hard work. But if you always charge $100 now the 15-year-olds, who you want t

        • by Missing.Matter ( 1845576 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:58PM (#40182559)
          The line you're towing is the recording industry's, not the artist's. The recording industry are the ones who don't make money off of live performances, so they're the ones who need to make money off of the 15 year old and the DJ, so they're the ones offering the different licensing agreements, etc.

          AS an artist, if people aren't listening to your song, they're going to listen to someone else's. That's just a fact. Therefore its in your best interest to get your song played in as many places in front of as many people as you can. After people hear it and like it, then you hold a series of concerts around the country where everyone hearing your song gets to hear you play it live. And that's how you make your money: actually being an artist, creating and proliferating art. This whole, write once, rake in money forever scheme that's being perpetrated is complete nonsense.
    • by hidden ( 135234 )

      Actually, it does. The people in the recordings do in fact receive royalty cheques from SOCAN. Mind you, I'm not sure exactly how fair the split is, or how much of it goes to "administrative fees"

      The other thing that isn't very clear from the article is that this system is NOT new. SOCAN has always collected fees for radio play, and recorded music at public functions, shows, etc in Canada. All that's happened now is that the fee structure for certain types of event has been updated. (simplified, I think

      • by jd ( 1658 )

        In the US, the split is notoriously in favour of the labels with the labels more often than not never bothering to forward the artist's share. Labels in the US also charge artists for just about everything under the sun (plus interest), so even when there is a nominal payment it often goes back to the label to cover costs imposed on the artist. It's the perfect scam.

        Maybe Canada is better, but it's dubious.

        Public functions, yes, but weddings would surely be private events. You would normally have to have an

      • >>>The people in the recordings do in fact receive royalty cheques

        Except when they don't. The Canadian companies were caught copying songs over onto "greatest hits" CDs or collections, and not paying the artists. They owed almost a billion in unpaid royalties.

        Here in America the companies owe 10s of millions in unpaid royalties. I think artists/actors actually get screwed with royalty/residual contracts. They'd be better-off to get paid a flat hourly wage like other producers of copyrighted wor

    • Don't know about this new "Re-Sound", but the US version of it, "Sound Exchange", in order to collect your share of the royalties they collect, you have to pay $50 annual "membership dues". And then they still take a percentage as "administrative costs". (And if your recording is released through a label over than your own, your share gets filtered through the record company as well.)

      (You can avoid Sound Exchange taking a share by directly licensing each and every one of your recordings to the DJs (or other

  • So glad..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:12PM (#40181885) Homepage

    That you Canadians are doing what the United States is telling you to do.

    Good lap dog!

    And yes, I am trying to enrage you, why are you people not fighting the corruption that is bleeding over the border from our country? The more you just let this stuff happen, the more they will try and roll over you.

  • by Maximum Prophet ( 716608 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:12PM (#40181887)
    Nothing I do could ever be considered "dancing", so I guess I'm safe.

    I guess now we will have the dance police ready to come down hard on scoflaws.

    Of course the kids will just make up something new to do to music that no one over 30 would ever call dancing. I propose we call it MusicF*cking.
  • by cob666 ( 656740 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:13PM (#40181903) Homepage
    Almost every karaoke machine I've ever seen, the music is NOT the original artists recording. Why then are the original recording artists entitled to a per performance fee. I would think that the mechanicals have been paid when the karaoke company licensed the song to be included in whatever package they purchased.

    Also, in the states, bars are already required to pay fees for music performed in the venue which includes karaoke.
  • It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

  • Three observations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dzimas ( 547818 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:16PM (#40181947)
    I wouldn't have an issue with this, except for three things: (1) This money won't find its way into the pockets of artists. It'll end up in the hands of publishing companies, lawyers, managers and the record label because of the onerous contracts that performers are required to sign to break into the business. (2) Songs played at weddings tend to be mass market tunes or old classics. Handing over an extra few thousand dollars to Lady GaGa or whatever company holds the rights to Frank Sinatra's tunes does absolutely nothing to support up and coming Canadian musicians. (3) The government department responsible for collecting and disbursing this fee will cost taxpayers millions of dollars for the "benefit" of collecting and forwarding revenue to foreign entertainment companies.
    • Well said and I agree with you 100% on all three points.
    • Apparently, it's not a government agency, but a separate non profit organization. Still, I agree that this entire law is garbage. Unfortunately, most wedding planners will just shrug and append the fee to the total invoice. For weddings, which cost $2000 on the rock bottom end, an extra $10 won't make too much difference.
    • Why wouldn't you have an issue with this? It's fucking insane.

      There is no need, absolutely none, to promote the creation of music. Human beings have made music since there were human beings. You could attach a death penalty to making music instead of a paycheck for your great-grandkids, and people would still make music. Everybody who has ever made a song has made that song based off of every song they ever heard. I challenge you tell me how having superstars instead of the multitude of bands that would rep

    • by Bob9113 ( 14996 )

      I like your post, and would add one more that I think should be an addendum to every discussion of copyright in the current context:

      (4) Without any empirical data showing that current copyright expenditure is lower than the optimal level.

      The purpose of copyright is to make our world a better place by rewarding creatives for an activity that the free market cannot naturally price. We choose to create artificial scarcity to establish a profitable market for creative work. When the government steps in to creat

  • You do know that's public air you're consuming? You;re lucky I'm not writing this ticket for breathing heavily, that's a moving violation. I'm going to let you off easy this time but don't do it again. Sign here. What? Oh the fine. It's $148.
  • I hope Canada doesn't win any gold medals at the Olympics this year -- because if they play the National Anthem, ... I mean, there's gotta be at least 50,000 in attendance, plus millions watching on TV, the fees could bankrupt the planet.

  • The fees will be collected by a not-for-profit called Re:Sound.

    That is misleading to say that Re:Sound is not-for-profit, when the apparent function of the organization is to ensure more money comes in to the music industry. And since I cannot imagine that much of that revenue is needed to fund Re:Sound, it seems like most of the money is simply profits. Which, to me, makes it seem like it exists solely for profits.

    TL;DR - Company lies to try an look better. News at 11.

    • Not-for-profit just means that there aren't shareholders that expect a payout. The executives can get paid all they can get away with, and it still be not-for-profit.

      There may be precious little left over for the real artists.
  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:25PM (#40182031)

    I don't know what sounds more ludicrous to me...

    The concept of "music police" running around trying to enforce such nonsense, or...

    trying to convince anyone that any organization affiliated or representing the record labels would be considered a "not-for-profit".

    Give me a break.

  • by kidgenius ( 704962 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:27PM (#40182057)
    Anyone want to explain how this is different than ASCAP/BMI requiring you to have a license to play music in public? For instance, any DJ should have paid licensing fees to ASCAP/BMI to be able to play music at weddings, gatherings etc.
  • At the church you have the organist and the choir, and hire a band rather than a deejay for the reception.

  • Certainly narrows down the activites available to drunken bridesmaids. Should be easier to get them to shed the one-time-only dresses now that dancing is off the agenda. Perhaps this is a good development.
  • They need to charge a fee for loud car sound systems. About a dollar a watt would be about right.

  • Enforcement (Score:5, Informative)

    by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:41PM (#40182281) Homepage
    Enforcement will be via Predator drone.
  • Just curious if something like this happened in the US... we're not planning any dance music (neither of us enjoys it, despite being in our 20's we may as well have been born in the 20's). My fiance (a music teacher and professional classical saxophonist) and I have decided we're going to have a string quartet for the ceremony, and a live jazz band playing standards for the reception. So, would they still try to shake us down?
  • by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:45PM (#40182333)

    I don't get it. You don't enter into any kind of legal agreement when you purchse a CD. You don't sign anything at all.

    So how can an entity just arbitrarily send you a bill? does this mean there is precendence in canadian law that would allow me to charge SOCAN a processing fee that will always be twice the cost of what they are charging me?

  • by kawabago ( 551139 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:45PM (#40182345)
    Campfire songs are probably one of the biggest threats to the music industry today! Every weekend in summer there are thousands upon thousands of illegally sung songs, it's absolutely criminal! Once we stop that we'll have to work on the next big threat, humming. People have been humming tunes to themselves for generations and not a single cent has been paid to the writers for these illegal performances. It is criminal and must be stopped! Soon the technology will be available to read what people are thinking, and finally the music industry can put a stop to people remembering a tune. Remembering a tune you have heard is actually an illegal copy and people should rightly be imprisoned for illegally remembering music!
    • Summer camps that sing some of the "popular" christian songs (like the Christian pop music you sometimes see being sold on TV) have to pay songwriters fee and additional fees if they want to do things like show lyrics on an overhead projector. That's no joke. They pay these fees by clearinghouses that are like BMI and ASCAP that specialize in collecting the fees from the church community.

  • whether it be dodging the draft in 1960s or go where you can make booze in prohibtion era. Canucks have their weddings in USA to dodge music payments (before it's too late as MAFIAA will want to implement same in USA). Now if Mexico were to implement same laws.... not sure how they will enforce them (may be kind of rough though).
  • 1. "Footloose" is NOT a documentary on how to impose regulations on dancing
    2. "weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows" are all private events, so unless the lawyers got tickets or invites, they're not allowed to attend
    3. Charging people who go to karaoke for artists' time is amusing given that any karaoke tracks I've heard are just MIDI renderings of the score and never involve artists at all
    4. Karaoke attendees are suffering enough and therapy is expensive

  • > represent the record labels and performers who contributed to the music

    Who will get the most out of this... Hmmmmm?

  • Oh look, welfare (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nanosphere ( 1867972 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:51PM (#40182441)
    What do you call it when you collect additional money without performing additional work?

    Does your boss continue to pay you for work he already paid you for years ago?
    Can you bill your neighbor again for mowing his lawn years ago when he already paid you once?
    Do manufacturers get to continue billing for parts that were manufactured and paid for years ago?
    Does the waiter come to house and ask for another tip for the dinner you had months years ago?

    Why is it IP owners are the only people that get to keep charging for a work they were already compensated for? I'm sorry but if you want to make more money you have to perform more work and get paid for that.

    If it's illegal to effortlessly copy a work it should be illegal for everyone including the IP owners. Why should they make profit without performing additional work if no one else can? Stop demanding free handouts.
  • by superflippy ( 442879 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:55PM (#40182511) Homepage Journal

    ...to do a Protest Dance.

    If there's dancing, the fees double.

  • by Khashishi ( 775369 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:56PM (#40182525) Journal

    I was trying to think of the logistics of tracking which artists get paid based on which recordings the venue decides to play, and basically, it's impossible to do with an umbrella organization like SOCAN or Re:Sound. There's no way for SOCAN or Re:Sound to keep tabs on this stuff, so my assumption is that they just plan on cutting a check to the various record corporations. Really, if you wanted to compensate the artists, a "fee-collecting agency" isn't necessary. Pay them directly. This is just a ruse to cash in on other people's work, i.e. theft.

  • by epp_b ( 944299 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @03:30PM (#40183995)

    I don't get this.

    In what other industry is the creator or seller of a product allowed to tell you how you can and cannot use the product and charge you extra at a whim because of some imaginary perceived value?

    Ford cannot charge you extra for carrying passengers in your car. Stihl cannot charge you per tree you cut down with your chainsaw. Microsoft cannot charge you for each piece of software you install on Windows. Nikon cannot charge you for each picture you take with your camera.

    The examples are endless. I cannot think of any other industry that actually expects to create one product and have it carry them for life without updating it, adding to it, improving upon it and replacing it with a newer product.

    Copyright needs to end so we can weed out these useless culture saps, leaving only those willing to actually work for a living. Art and culture will be better off for it.

  • by ryanisflyboy ( 202507 ) on Friday June 01, 2012 @05:04PM (#40186055) Homepage Journal

    First, I will charge you the sitting fee. Then the printing fee. Then I'll add a special fee on blank printing paper to cover my losses every time someone steals one of my pictures. Part of that is your fault, obviously. Then I'm going to charge a fee for delivering the print to you. A charge for placing it in your album. A fee for placing it on Facebook, another one for your iPhone, another one for your digital picture frame, another one for... well, you get the point. I'll charge yet another fee _every time_ you look at the picture for the next 110 years. Finally, if you show the picture to someone else I'm going to charge you double. If you show it to 5 or more people then you'll need to pay $100. If you describe the picture, you'll need to pay a fee. If you use part of my picture in another picture, fee. If you want to re-interpret the picture, fee. If you want to digitize the picture - HELL NO! Not allowed. I'm going to hire lots of lawyers to threaten you with lawsuits if you break any of these rules. I will also be hiring private investigators to pose as your friends to try and trick you in to showing the pictures. If you show them my picture of you without paying the fee, then off to jail with you, you dirty crook. When the police raid your home to search for your criminal copying device (printer), I will be there with them going over all your albums. I am sure you are a thief. When I find the unauthorized images I know you stole, you'll pay $10,000 per violation. If you place any of my images of you on the Internet, then your ISP will be shutting off your connection, confiscating all your website addresses, and barring you from even seeing a computer for years. Simply looking at my image of you without a license is theft, and you are a no-good-rotten-thief deserving shame, public ridicule, and jail time. You are making me, the lowly artist, starve! Oh, by the way, I am not actually going to do any of this. I'm going to sell all the rights to my images to a large multi-national global corporation with incredible political power who will do all of this. Not for me or on my behalf, but for them. You can pretend it is for me, if that makes you feel any better.

    Now, who would like to sign up for a session with me? You know you want my goods and services! If I don't have a line out the door by end of day, then it is because all of you are all STEALING my work. I suffer at least... $2 billion... in losses a year (yeah, that sounds right). If you weren't stealing my pictures, then I'd clearly have plenty of customers. It is all your fault my business is suffering, you rotten crooks... er, I mean customers!

"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." -- Cal Keegan