Is This A Joke? (Music copyright issues)

[I_H8_Crawford]

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../13523026.html

The Toronto-based, not-for-profit licensing company, Re:Sound, formerly known as the Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada (NRCC), is in the process of billing businesses that play recorded music including CDs, MP3s and satellite radio in their establishments.

So restaurant owners have to pay for Satellite/CDs/iTunes MP3s AND they have to pay more on top of that because other people can listen to it?


Really????


What's next? Anyone who has their car windows down and others can hear the music will have to pay as well?

[Da_Chief]

Doubt it goes through, they won't play their music than. Play something else.

[Galakanokis]

Afraid not. It is all about royalties. We got hit hard here in Vancouver because we had a radio station playing over our on hold music. Technically any business playing music is rebroadcasting it so royalties are due. A little ridiculous I know.

Same sort of thing for PPV's that bars order over normal cable as any resident would. Not allowed to do that as you could be considered to be making money off of the event. You are suppose to pay for the license to rebroadcast which of course is a much higher cost.

I think our fine was in the $20, 000 range. Some time last year this happened.

[You Need a Thneed]

Most licensing for these types of things is for private, personal use only. A restaurant is a public place under the law, and thus, regular media cannot be played "legally."

TV, DVDs, etc - all the same.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Not allowed to do that as you could be considered to be making money off of the event. You are suppose to pay for the license to rebroadcast which of course is a much higher cost.

It's illegal even if you can prove that you aren't making any money off of it.

[Azure]

Wow.

So any business that plays music over the phone when you're on hold with them is liable to have to pay fines.

[The Yen Man]

So what if a bar has a few tvs and is just showing random channels on TV? Technically royalties are also owed for rebroadcasting right?

[troutman]

I don't think this is anything new.

http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/pub/index.jsp

SOCAN is the Canadian copyright collective that administers the performing rights of more than 90,000 composer, author and music publisher members by licensing the use of their music in Canada. We collect licence fees on their behalf and distribute royalties to them.

If you play recorded music or hire live musicians to enhance your business, a performing rights licence from SOCAN gives you access to virtually the entire world’s repertoire.

[valo403]

The legal basis is sound, but it's yet another case of the music industry tripping over itself in the PR department. They just can't seem to get it through their heads that the issue is with their distribution models, and that going after regular people and small business owners just makes the general public more willing to screw them every chance they get.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wow.

So any business that plays music over the phone when you're on hold with them is liable to have to pay fines.

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

So what if a bar has a few tvs and is just showing random channels on TV? Technically royalties are also owed for rebroadcasting right?

I believe royalties are required in both of those cases.

I'm sure there are services that exist (probably from the regular providers) that allow companies to show TV, and play music channels (with the royalties taken care of).

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I believe royalties are required in both of those cases.

I'm sure there are services that exist (probably from the regular providers) that allow companies to show TV, and play music channels (with the royalties taken care of).

I know for a fact that companies that play music while people are on hold do have to pay royalties for it. My brother in law worked for a company for a while where part of his job was making sure that got taken care of.

As for the tv. I'm fairly certain that for say a bar to play tv they just pay higher cable/sattelite fees to Shaw, or whoever to cover that part of it.

[Bobblehead]

There were a number of cases like this in Britain over the past few years.

In one a soup kitchen got levied fines because the cooks in the back had the music loud enough for people out front to hear. In order to pay the fine they held a Christmas concert - and they were dinged again for the rights to the music that was performed.

I have no problem with the idea that people should receive benefit for the music they write/perform, but those benefits should be reasonable and things like this just make me angry.

[yads]

Nothing new, we had to pay royalties for our wedding as part of the venue rental.

[CaptainCrunch]

Pay your royalties.

[Nage Waza]

They should charge the musicians for 'advertising' their music!

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

In order to pay the fine they held a Christmas concert - and they were dinged again for the rights to the music that was performed.

Did they get a band to perform songs live? As long as you don't display the lyrics anywhere, there are no royalties to pay for that.

If the concert was recorded and sold, then they'd have to pay royalties on the songs.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

They should charge the musicians for 'advertising' their music!

While I think a small business owner playing CDs he's already paid for paying another royalty on top of that is really dumb, your statement is even worse. Let me guess, your favorite band is Nickelback and you drive a Chevy, right?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Did they get a band to perform songs live? As long as you don't display the lyrics anywhere, there are no royalties to pay for that.

If the concert was recorded and sold, then they'd have to pay royalties on the songs.

I may be mistaken but I think the rules are stricter in Britian, especially if the venue is taking any money like they would be at a fund raiser.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I may be mistaken but I think the rules are stricter in Britian, especially if the venue is taking any money like they would be at a fund raiser.

That could be. In Canada, you don't have to pay any kind of royalties to play a song live.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Did they get a band to perform songs live? As long as you don't display the lyrics anywhere, there are no royalties to pay for that.

If the concert was recorded and sold, then they'd have to pay royalties on the songs.

The songwriters get royalties, too. "Happy Birthday to You" is still under copyright in many places.

In European Union (EU) countries the copyright will expire December 31, 2016,[7] while in the United States, the song is currently set to pass in to the public domain in 2030.

In March 2004, Warner Music Group was sold to a group of investors led by Edgar Bronfman Jr. The company continues to insist that one cannot sing the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics for profit without paying royalties: in 2008, Warner collected about $5000 per day ($2 million per year) in royalties for the song. This includes use in film, television, radio, anywhere open to the public, or even among a group where a substantial number of those in attendance are not family or friend to whoever is performing the song.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_B...pyright_status


Edit: And of course the Hockey Night in Canada theme is a well know Canadian example.