NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

All I can say is Holy Shit!

We are waiting for RIAA to try the same here in the US. Maybe if I play my music too loud, and you can hear it from outside of my front yard, then I am publicly performing that song.....

I wonder what type of lawsuit the PRS will bring against the elevators playing the muzac

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

All I can say is Holy Shit!

yep... I agree... Holy Shit.

While I am Against Illegal Dowloading... this is taking it too far.

That's abso-fucking-lutely retarded.

I mean, I've been an ardent supporter of copyrights and intellectual property rights protections on this forum, but these folks seem to have completely forgot the purpose of having music on the radio. To achieve the broadest distribution possible, so as to permit advertisers to get their message heard.

1. This is radio being broadcast over public airwaves, anyone with a radio can pick them up.

2. The radio station pays for special rebroadcast rights, which are payed for by commercials (which can also be heard over this same airwaves).

Therefore there is no copywrite infringement, because the record labels + the artists have already been payed the royalties in association with this broadcasting of these songs.

how about we have the case and the Judge thrown out of court

This is by far the dumbest lawsuit ever.

yep... I agree... Holy Shit.

While I am Against Illegal Dowloading... this is taking it too far.This reminds me of Pantless' sig: You cannot obtain zero piracy without first achieving zero industry (or some such). Eventually, they are going to make legal means of buying music such a PITA that any no one will give a fuck anymore.

What! Radio is public broadcast media, that is the intention of the radio ... to promote and broadcast artist material.

So they are sue everyone with radio now?

I can hear my roomates music, arrest me now!

Seriously, I can't see how they'll win this. Even if they do, it is totally unenforceable.

I can hear my roomates music, arrest me now!

Seriously, I can't see how they'll win this. Even if they do, it is totally unenforceable.

They should go arrest hoons with car stereos blasting the neighbourhood with their music from the radio! See what happens there.

1. This is radio being broadcast over public airwaves, anyone with a radio can pick them up.

2. The radio station pays for special rebroadcast rights, which are payed for by commercials (which can also be heard over this same airwaves).

Therefore there is no copywrite infringement, because the record labels + the artists have already been payed the royalties in association with this broadcasting of these songs.
So this works the same as with radio/TV in the US. Stations buy the right to broadcast entertainment. People don't buy rights to listen to the radio.

They might have had a point, albeit a weak one, if they were complaining about people playing legally purchased music on a CD player that was loud enough to hear...But I doubt that too.

This is ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

If the store were broadcasting it over the main loudspeakers, I can see the concern.

Are they also going to fine people who drive with their windows down and the music loud?

Honestly, it shouldn't be considered a copyright infringement on a personal radio, regardless of how many people happen to walk by it -- the artists and music companies have been paid by advertisers for the right to publicly broadcast the music.

Only in Britain...there is no way that could stand up in court.

Only in Britain...there is no way that could stand up in court.In all honesty, everyone I told IRL thought this was happening in the US. I had to tell them it was from the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

All I can say is Holy Shit!

Jesus fucking Christ, man.

yep... I agree... Holy Shit.

While I am Against Illegal Dowloading... this is taking it too far.

Just goes to show that the whole "intellectual property rights" argument that the RIAA has been putting forth for years is just a load of bullshit designed to put schoolyard bullying in a suit, and in the case of the UK, a powdered wig.

Some one needs to just start burning down these peoples buildings. Especially since they pretend to give two shits about the artist. Fucking two-faced, capitalist pig dog, robber baron sons of bitches.

I will bet the RIAA CEO's salary that Kwik-Fit loses.

So this works the same as with radio/TV in the US. Stations buy the right to broadcast entertainment. People don't buy rights to listen to the radio.

They might have had a point, albeit a weak one, if they were complaining about people playing legally purchased music on a CD player that was loud enough to hear...But I doubt that too.even if it was a purchased CD played loudly. as long as the listeners are not being charged to listen to the music then it's not copyright infringement.

however, here in Hawaii, there is a 30 ft ruling. any noise that can be heard 30 feet away is noise pollution and thus the offender can be ticketed. but again, NOT copyright infringement.

Just goes to show that the whole "intellectual property rights" argument that the RIAA has been putting forth for years is just a load of bullshit designed to put schoolyard bullying in a suit, and in the case of the UK, a powdered wig.

Except the RIAA is NOT behind this but the PRS [Performing Rights Society]. Two, this isn't about the RIAA, nor about the US. But the PRS and the UK, so let's try not to shift the focus away from the PRS and the UK.

*** Plants loud radio outside PRS HQ ***

Wait, hang on...

If I remember correctly, don't people in the UK have to purchase licenses yearly to receive TV and radio programs? Perhaps that's the issue... people who have not bought the licenses are hearing the programs.

Wait, hang on...

If I remember correctly, don't people in the UK have to purchase licenses yearly to receive TV and radio programs? Perhaps that's the issue... people who have not bought the licenses are hearing the programs.

... I remember hearing that consumers paid for Television programs... is it the same with radio?

if that is true, then there actually MIGHT be a case for the PRS.

Wait, hang on...

If I remember correctly, don't people in the UK have to purchase licenses yearly to receive TV and radio programs? Perhaps that's the issue... people who have not bought the licenses are hearing the programs.

TV yes, but radio is free as the day is long. EDIT: There used to be a radio license, but it got dropped in 1971. I assume the TV license covers all non commercial (basically the BBC) radio now.

This clearly falls under fair use. By broadcasting music in the clear, it is intended to be heard by anyone and everyone capable of doing so. If the company charged or somehow made money by playing that radio, that would be a different story.

Any lawyers here; is my interpretation correct?

Oh dear me. Is it now illegal for me and my flatmates to have a radio in our kitchen which is on and playing music?!

Why stop there? Why not sue people who have music channels on the tv because they're both listening to and watching the artist!

Stupid judge with his stupid rulings.

TV yes, but radio is free as the day is long. EDIT: There used to be a radio license, but it got dropped in 1971. I assume the TV license covers all non commercial (basically the BBC) radio now.

So now there isn't a case anymore.

You know, maybe the defense should bring a radio into court, play it out loud, and accuse the judge and prosecution of IP theft too.

Or rope in all the industry heads who make radios and speakers, argue that if playing it aloud is theft, then they are all contributing directly to IP theft.

Several hundred thousand angry rioting audio workers later, and I imagine they'll change their tune.

That's abso-fucking-lutely retarded.

I mean, I've been an ardent supporter of copyrights and intellectual property rights protections on this forum, but these folks seem to have completely forgot the purpose of having music on the radio. To achieve the broadest distribution possible, so as to permit advertisers to get their message heard.

1. This is radio being broadcast over public airwaves, anyone with a radio can pick them up.

2. The radio station pays for special rebroadcast rights, which are payed for by commercials (which can also be heard over this same airwaves).

Therefore there is no copywrite infringement, because the record labels + the artists have already been payed the royalties in association with this broadcasting of these songs.

If the store were broadcasting it over the main loudspeakers, I can see the concern.

Are they also going to fine people who drive with their windows down and the music loud?

Honestly, it shouldn't be considered a copyright infringement on a personal radio, regardless of how many people happen to walk by it -- the artists and music companies have been paid by advertisers for the right to publicly broadcast the music.

This clearly falls under fair use. By broadcasting music in the clear, it is intended to be heard by anyone and everyone capable of doing so. If the company charged or somehow made money by playing that radio, that would be a different story.

Any lawyers here; is my interpretation correct?
This.

I support intellectual property and am pretty anti-piracy, but I won't just support anything...and this is stupid. The music played over the radio is paid for and those rates are set by listenership, so more listenership, well-you don't need to know calculus.

This is only marginally stupider than suing speaker manufacturers, but I suspect that it's not really the mechanics, but rather a precedent for something else that they are trying to set. For that, we need NSGs lawyers to sort out what that might be.

This.

I support intellectual property and am pretty anti-piracy, but I won't just support anything...and this is stupid. The music played over the radio is paid for and those rates are set by listenership, so more listenership, well-you don't need to know calculus.

This is only marginally stupider than suing speaker manufacturers, but I suspect that it's not really the mechanics, but rather a precedent for something else that they are trying to set. For that, we need NSGs lawyers to sort out what that might be.They want all businesses to have to pay royalties in order to have music played in their workplace?

I can see that a lot of people are annoyed that this went to court, but I'm pleased. I think the judge was right to allow this to go to court - I've never heard of a case like this before in Scotland and I'm pretty sure that there is no specific legislation covering this. This will be a good opportunity for the Court of Session to rule against this claim and set a precedence to prevent similar actions in the future.

So, according to this judge:

Owning a radio is okay.
Playing a radio is okay.
Playing a radio in public is illegal.
Now, if playing the radio is illegal, wouldn't the public broadcast also be illegal?
So why is the judge allowing this lawsuit to go through, when clearly, the only one committing an illegal act is clearly the BBC, and therefore the government. But then, the station bought rights to public broadcast, in which case it is those which issued these broadcast rights (the ones bringing the suit), which have broken the law, and not the station, or the people.

If I were the judge I would find the record industry at fault, and order them to immediate pay damages to them selves, and all court costs to the courts.

They want all businesses to have to pay royalties in order to have music played in their workplace?

I honestly don't know. I remember back in the 90s there were suits against comics like The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers that were meant to establish comics as commercial art to subject them to censorship and a separate set of taxes. The FFFB were chosen because it seemed more indefensible, but then the Comics Defense Fund was founded...

So I suspect it's something akin to that, they weren't after the Freak Brothers specifically, they were trying to set a precedent that allowed them to do something larger. Overall, they couldn't care about FFFB, but they were willing to throw them under the tracks because they figured a small comic like that couldn't afford to mount a defense.

This is only marginally stupider than suing speaker manufacturers, but I suspect that it's not really the mechanics, but rather a precedent for something else that they are trying to set. For that, we need NSGs lawyers to sort out what that might be.
Right. Given that the judge didn't throw it out of court (as we are all verbally doing), this leads me to think that there must be some subtlety that we've all missed. Possibly the fact that it was within commercial premises, I don't know.

They could equally have gone up against every flipping builder in the country, but you couldn't sue them as a bunch, i guess. So my guess is this is them trying to set a precedent.

Anyway, 'lawyers, advance!'

Well atleast this won't be won in actual coourt. Though the judge is stupid I doubt the jury will agree with his twisted logic.

Having done a bit of digging, the applicable legislation for this seems to be the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. Section 72 covers "Free public showing or playing of broadcast or cable programme" where a "broadcast" is "a transmission by wireless telegraphy of visual images, sounds or other information which is capable of being lawfully received by members of the public" therefore covering radio broadcasts.

According to s72, "The showing or playing in public of a broadcast or cable programme to an audience who have not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast or programme is to be seen or heard does not infringe any copyright in any sound recording or film included in it". Furthermore, "The audience shall be treated as having paid for admission to a place if they have paid for admission to a place of which that place forms part; or if goods or services are supplied at that place (or a place of which it forms part) at prices which are substantially attributable to the facilities afforded for seeing or hearing the broadcast or programme, or at prices exceeding those usually charged there and which are partly attributable to those facilities."

So unless the customers who heard the radio broadcasts were charged a cover fee to enter the garage, or the garage was charging a premium because they were playing music, then the customers did not pay to hear the broadcast and it is not covered by copyright.

Click Stand;13118544']Well atleast this won't be won in actual coourt. Though the judge is stupid I doubt the jury will agree with his twisted logic.

... the jury? a group of people who couldn't think of a way out of the duty? :p [/jking]

This (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm) is a link to the act I mentioned. Also, no jury will hear this case; juries are not used in civil cases in Scotland with the exception of defamation cases. It will be heard by one judge if it is the Outer House of the Court of Session, or three judges if the Inner House.

btw. The taxis here are required to pay license fees in order to listen to a radio while driving in case a customer is on board.

They also have to pay fees if they listen to CDs or watch TV while driving or offer such services to the customer.

It's all part of an implemented EU directive, I think - There's some leeway in how the directive is implemented, which explains the differing legislation across EU.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/03/216234&mode=thread

note: The actual fee is 32 or 42 euros per car per year depending on the amount of publicly (ie. the driver and the customer[s]) listenable media devices.

So, according to this judge:

Owning a radio is okay.
Playing a radio is okay.
Playing a radio in public is illegal.

Yes, pretty much like this. AFAIK it should be an EU-wide stance.

Playing a radio in public is roughly comparable to playing a CD you own in public - Both illegal unless you have the proper license.

So every party at home where drunk teenagers playing their radio too loud is also breaking copyright? This is getting silly.

btw. The taxis here are required to pay license fees in order to listen to a radio while driving in case a customer is on board.

They also have to pay fees if they listen to CDs or watch TV while driving or offer such services to the customer.

It's all part of an implemented EU directive, I think - There's some leeway in how the directive is implemented, which explains the differing legislation across EU.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/03/216234&mode=thread

note: The actual fee is 32 or 42 euros per car per year depending on the amount of publicly (ie. the driver and the customer[s]) listenable media devices.



Yes, pretty much like this. AFAIK it should be an EU-wide stance.

Playing a radio in public is roughly comparable to playing a CD you own in public - Both illegal unless you have the proper license.

I bought a CD without a rebroadcast license; the radio is coming over public airwaves... EVERYONE can already hear it (per a license already purchased by those broadcasting); so how can anyone be required to pay for something which has already been bought from the owners of the copywrite? I could understand if it was something that was not being broadcast publicly... But this is beyond absurd. It sounds more like the EU is run and controlled by the record industry.

btw. The taxis here are required to pay license fees in order to listen to a radio while driving in case a customer is on board.

They also have to pay fees if they listen to CDs or watch TV while driving or offer such services to the customer.

It's all part of an implemented EU directive, I think - There's some leeway in how the directive is implemented, which explains the differing legislation across EU.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/03/216234&mode=thread

note: The actual fee is 32 or 42 euros per car per year depending on the amount of publicly (ie. the driver and the customer[s]) listenable media devices.



Yes, pretty much like this. AFAIK it should be an EU-wide stance.

Playing a radio in public is roughly comparable to playing a CD you own in public - Both illegal unless you have the proper license.

Why should it be illegal if you are not charging for the performance or giving away hard copies of it? That sounds ridiculous.

We are waiting for RIAA to try the same here in the US. Maybe if I play my music too loud, and you can hear it from outside of my front yard, then I am publicly performing that song.....

I wonder what type of lawsuit the PRS will bring against the elevators playing the muzac
And phones. And everytime i sing/hum/whistle at work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

All I can say is Holy Shit!

And I thought the US had pointless lawsuits but damn this is a new low for the "Feed into the Stupid" patrol.

REbroadcasting is really the issue here. And even if it is coming in on the radio, it is considered rebroadcasting in certain circumstances.

I believe that it is assumed that music played in a place of business is not for personal use (as in a radio in your home or car, for which the advertisers pay for the music rights) but rather a public rebroadcast of the same music for the entertainment of customers. If the radios in question were used with headphones so they were truly private, then no issue would exist, but if the music is played loudly and even SEEMS like it is for the entertainment of the customers of the business in question (and if it can be heard by them, that is not such a wild assumption), then rights should be paid because the music is being used by the business.

Somebody mentioned Muzak, which is, in fact, a specific rebroadcast of music that IS payed for, on a subscription basis, by the companies that play it in their elevators or on their telephone hold buttons. As I recall, it is like satellite radio, and the companies have to have a specific reciever to get it.

Would it be appropriate to insert this link here since its about copyrights laws?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138192-c,copyright/article.html

Finally somebody fighting back and appealing pro record company rulings to federal appellates courts. I hope they find the industry's behavior to be unconstitutional.

Haha, I'm playing Good to be Bad by Lordi, which I downloaded "illegally", at a volume which can be heard by all in the immediate vicinity. It is good to be bad.

So every party at home where drunk teenagers playing their radio too loud is also breaking copyright? This is getting silly.

If the crowd is too big by itself - ie not only your immediate friends - you're also breaking copyright laws.

Though, while playing music, radio or TV at a bigger party is technically illegal it isn't actually controlled or enforced unless there's commerciality involved (eg. club or pub).

I bought a CD without a rebroadcast license; the radio is coming over public airwaves... EVERYONE can already hear it (per a license already purchased by those broadcasting); so how can anyone be required to pay for something which has already been bought from the owners of the copywrite?

The license of radio stations to use music only covers their own transmission.

In case you publicly have a radio playing you're legally acting as the (re)broadcaster yourself and have to pay fees according to the amount of possible listeners.

But this is beyond absurd.
I'm well aware of this.

The logic behind copyright laws here because of EU directives have gone down the drain, especially during the last few years.

Having to pay license fees for publicly playing radio is just the tip of the iceberg.

Why should it be illegal if you are not charging for the performance or giving away hard copies of it? That sounds ridiculous.It's not quite as ridiculous as you make it sound: The person who, for example, composed and performed a piece of music should be entitled to have some say to where and how the piece is used in public especially if there's some 'gain' involved (say, eg. a concert or background music at a shop).

But because no artist can protect their own music by themselves they usually either release their music more or less in public domain OR give the rights to manage their music to a roof organization like RIAA, PRS or TEOSTO in hopes of better control and money. What this means that the arbitrary licensing fees and requirements in each country are managed by select few companies who can control the availability of music under their supervision in domestic sources.....This near monopoly power leads to wild abuse of copyright laws - enforced here by in principle good natured EU directive - at the cost of consumer rights.

The license of radio stations to use music only covers their own transmission.

In case you publicly have a radio playing you're legally acting as the (re)broadcaster yourself and have to pay fees according to the amount of possible listeners.

Their transmission is a public broadcast, which is receivable by an indeterminate amount of people within the range of their broadcast. People hearing the music within the range of their broadcast, are already covered by the broadcast license of the station... I can understand where this is a broadcast license to a specific number of people within a closed non-private (like encoded digital, or closed hardline system such as cable/satelite) system, whereby public viewing is not covered by the broadcast agreement... But applying penalty to people for "rebroadcasting" to people already covered by the original agreement is nuts... I could even understand actual rebroadcast (sending the signal out again within a different broadcast radius than what would be covered by the original broadcaster)...

This sounds more like the labels want to charge TWICE for the same viewership/listenership...

If the crowd is too big by itself - ie not only your immediate friends - you're also breaking copyright laws.

Though, while playing music, radio or TV at a bigger party is technically illegal it isn't actually controlled or enforced unless there's commerciality involved (eg. club or pub).



That is really the heart of the matter. If there is some commercial gain (even if it is just putting ones customers in a good mood) then the recording artist who provided that service should be paid for it.

A party, even a big one, is a private event and not considered to be commercial, so it is NOT illegal to play music unless money is charged to attend. I have worked with getting licenses for using music at fund raising events, and it starts to make sense if you look at it in terms of who profits from the use of the music, and what that profit actually is.

At a club, the music brings in people who pay cover charges and pay for drinks. In a store, music soothes customers who then purchase more. A fundraiser is making money for some charity, and often times when musical rights are negotiated there, they are less than usual or free, but not always, as the artists are entitled to charge for their work even when used by a charity if they so choose.

In any event, if someone is making money because music is being played, the musical artist in question SHOULD be payed for it.

Some one needs to just start burning down these peoples buildings.

that's wasteful. expropriation ftw!

Their transmission is a public broadcast, which is receivable by an indeterminate amount of people within the range of their broadcast. People hearing the music within the range of their broadcast, are already covered by the broadcast license of the station... I can understand where this is a broadcast license to a specific number of people within a closed non-private (like encoded digital, or closed hardline system such as cable/satelite) system, whereby public viewing is not covered by the broadcast agreement... But applying penalty to people for "rebroadcasting" to people already covered by the original agreement is nuts... I could even understand actual rebroadcast (sending the signal out again within a different broadcast radius than what would be covered by the original broadcaster)...

This sounds more like the labels want to charge TWICE for the same viewership/listenership...

If each individual was wearing their own headphones, or the radio in question WERE indeed private (turned so low that only the owner could hear it) you would be correct. However, in a commercial setting, which this clearly is, a radio that is turned up loud enough for customers to hear it IS rebroadcasting by definition. The music sent out by a radio station is intended for private listeners to enjoy to their hearts' content, but NOT intended for stores to use to entertain their customers. Once a commercial exchange happens, the artists should be payed.

That is really the heart of the matter. If there is some commercial gain (even if it is just putting ones customers in a good mood) then the recording artist who provided that service should be paid for it.

A party, even a big one, is a private event and not considered to be commercial, so it is NOT illegal to play music unless money is charged to attend. I have worked with getting licenses for using music at fund raising events, and it starts to make sense if you look at it in terms of who profits from the use of the music, and what that profit actually is.

At a club, the music brings in people who pay cover charges and pay for drinks. In a store, music soothes customers who then purchase more. A fundraiser is making money for some charity, and often times when musical rights are negotiated there, they are less than usual or free, but not always, as the artists are entitled to charge for their work even when used by a charity if they so choose.

In any event, if someone is making money because music is being played, the musical artist in question SHOULD be payed for it.

Would this mean that a company would have to pay if they have an employee listening to music on their IPOD (only purchased music BTW); and thus have more productivity, and therefore make more; then be required to pay fees for such?

I think the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you're playing music as PART of a comercial endeavor (ie, a club/pub, payed to attend event) then there should be fees. If it's not for direct monetary gain (employees listening to music) then there should be no fee. In addition; if the source is a public source (radio, TV[not including cable/satelite]), then there is already a payed license for its viewership/listenership... One is under obligation of special fees for allowing public viewership of Cable/Satelite; but one is not under obligation for Local (over-air) TV.

Would this mean that a company would have to pay if they have an employee listening to music on their IPOD (only purchased music BTW); and thus have more productivity, and therefore make more; then be required to pay fees for such?

I think the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you're playing music as PART of a comercial endeavor (ie, a club/pub, payed to attend event) then there should be fees. If it's not for direct monetary gain (employees listening to music) then there should be no fee. In addition; if the source is a public source (radio, TV[not including cable/satelite]), then there is already a payed license for its viewership/listenership... One is under obligation of special fees for allowing public viewership of Cable/Satelite; but one is not under obligation for Local (over-air) TV.

I think the employee listening to their IPod comes under the heading of private... one person listening to their own music (which they have also probably paid for themselves). Even if the company gets a benefit from it, that is more of a secondary benefit (just like the employee eating or sleeping benefits the company), the music is primarily entertaining the one person who has already payed for it.

If your customers are listening to music which you, as a business owner, are providing for them, even if that music is coming off the radio, then you, as the business owner are directly benefiting, and also should be paying for it. It is the same music as if you put in a CD, and so no matter what the source, if you use someone's work for your own gain, you should pay them for it.

I think the employee listening to their IPod comes under the heading of private... one person listening to their own music (which they have also probably paid for themselves). Even if the company gets a benefit from it, that is more of a secondary benefit (just like the employee eating or sleeping benefits the company), the music is primarily entertaining the one person who has already payed for it.

If your customers are listening to music which you, as a business owner, are providing for them, even if that music is coming off the radio, then you, as the business owner are directly benefiting, and also should be paying for it. It is the same music as if you put in a CD, and so no matter what the source, if you use someone's work for your own gain, you should pay them for it.

Well, technically I am paying for it.

-The broadcast is coming from the radio station.
-The station buys the music with a broadcast license.
-The station charges companies to place ads, which pay for the license
-The people listening buy products, which make money for the companies, buying the ads, which pay for the license.
-My customers are listening to the ads (same as everyone else) buying those products, making money for those companies buying the ads, which pay for the station to buy the license...

If anything, I just increased profit margins to the companies placing ads, which buy more ad time, to pay for more licenses, which make the record companies more money in selling these licenses.

If anything, it sounds like they owe ME! for assisting in the increase of their profit margins... Course, I'll just take them leaving me alone as a counter-offer.

Would it be appropriate to insert this link here since its about copyrights laws?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138192-c,copyright/article.html

Finally somebody fighting back and appealing pro record company rulings to federal appellates courts.

1. We are dealing here with different copyright laws in different jursidictions. There are things about Ms. Thomas's case that seem odd to those from different legal paradigms. (In addition, many here are hostile to intellectual property right protections in general.)

2. Having gambled on a trial and lost, I'm not sure Ms. Thomas should so glibly appeal. The article says she is appealing but gives no grounds for such an appeal. She should probably be looking for a settlement to get her out of the hole she's dug for yourself.

3. I wouldn't overestimate Ms. Thomas's chances on appeal.

I hope they find the industry's behavior to be unconstitutional.

What are you talking about? How would the industry be violating the Constitution? What part of the Constitution are they violating?

(BTW, copyrights and patents are expressly provided for in the U.S. Constitution.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

All I can say is Holy Shit!

I'm keeping a safe distance from this debate.

On it's face, that OP article certainly appears to show a rather silly court case.

That the OP article isn't really very informative about the actual legal issues involved doesn't help the armchair-judging.

Moreover, much of the discussion of the case is merely a clash of paradigms legal concepts from one jurisdiction may not apply in another jurisdiction. Different nations can do things differently without those differences being wrong. It is rather clear that most of those in this discussion don't understand the relevant law.

Finally, the pro-priracy element seek to distort this case as an example of copyright gone too far. Again, this exploits people's ignorance of both the facts of the case and the right legal framework for discussing.


This article is much more informative about the merits of the case:

Kwik-Fit face claim over shop floor radios

The car tyre and exhaust repair firm Kwik-Fit are currently embroiled in a court case with the Performing Rights Society (PRS) concerning the playing of music at their repair centres. Due to the employees of Kwik-Fit listening to their personal radios while they work on customers' cars the PRS, which is an organisation that collects royalties for music publishers and songwriters, is claiming some £200,000 in fees it feels that Kwik-Fit should have paid for a licence to play music on their premises. The claim is based on the ability of Kwik-Fit patrons being able to hear the music coming from the radios.

While such legal action may seem frivolous and without merit at first glance, the PRS in fact are on a sound legal footing as regards their claim against Kwik-Fit in copyright law. Section 19(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 restricts the performance of a copyrighted musical work in public, and sections 19(2) and 19(4), along with cases such as Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Tolbrush Pty Ltd [1986, Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia], make it clear that the playing of a radio in public constitutes a 'performance'.

For their claim to be successful however, the PRS will also have to demonstrate that the performance can be said to be in public. This is an indefinite proposition but nonetheless the PRS can find some support for their claim in case law. In the case of Performing Right Society v Camelo [1936] the playing of a radio in a private room adjoining a restaurant was held to be a public performance as the music could be heard within the restaurant. This case would appear to put forward the view that if a performance can be heard by the public, it is a 'public performance'.

Whether the music can be heard by the public in Kwik-Fit's premises is exactly the question in hand in the PRS claim. At an early hearing of the case the presiding judge, Lord Emslie, enquired as to whether it would be a public performance given that if four different radios are being listened to by employees in different work bays it would amount to 'a cacophony of noise driving members of the public away', particularly when coupled with the noise generated by the work that the employees would be undertaking.

Kwik-Fit have claimed not to be responsible for any copyright infringement in any case as they have in fact banned the playing of radios by their employees at work. Despite this, the PRS claim to have found that of Kwik-Fit's 600 operational units around 51% could be found having radios playing, which could be argued to demonstrate that Kwik-Fit are somewhat lax in enforcing their rule. Though it is normally the individual breaking the copyright that is liable for any claim, an employer may be found vicariously liable if the infringement is done in the course of an employees' employment.

Thereafter it may be the case that if the PRS can prove that music coming from Kwik-Fit employees' radios is audible to the public their action could be successful. The next stage of the case will be a two-day procedural hearing to deal with preliminary legal points, the date for which has yet to be setlinky (http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/article/751-1460/kwik-fit-face-claim-over-shop-floor-radios/current/)

I'm keeping a safe distance from this debate.

On it's face, that OP article certainly appears to show a rather silly court case.

That the OP article isn't really very informative about the actual legal issues involved doesn't help the armchair-judging.

Moreover, much of the discussion of the case is merely a clash of paradigms legal concepts from one jurisdiction may not apply in another jurisdiction. Different nations can do things differently without those differences being wrong. It is rather clear that most of those in this discussion don't understand the relevant law.

Finally, the pro-priracy element seek to distort this case as an example of copyright gone too far. Again, this exploits people's ignorance of both the facts of the case and the right legal framework for discussing.


This article is much more informative about the merits of the case:

Kwik-Fit face claim over shop floor radios

The car tyre and exhaust repair firm Kwik-Fit are currently embroiled in a court case with the Performing Rights Society (PRS) concerning the playing of music at their repair centres. Due to the employees of Kwik-Fit listening to their personal radios while they work on customers' cars the PRS, which is an organisation that collects royalties for music publishers and songwriters, is claiming some £200,000 in fees it feels that Kwik-Fit should have paid for a licence to play music on their premises. The claim is based on the ability of Kwik-Fit patrons being able to hear the music coming from the radios.

While such legal action may seem frivolous and without merit at first glance, the PRS in fact are on a sound legal footing as regards their claim against Kwik-Fit in copyright law. Section 19(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 restricts the performance of a copyrighted musical work in public, and sections 19(2) and 19(4), along with cases such as Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Tolbrush Pty Ltd [1986, Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia], make it clear that the playing of a radio in public constitutes a 'performance'.

For their claim to be successful however, the PRS will also have to demonstrate that the performance can be said to be in public. This is an indefinite proposition but nonetheless the PRS can find some support for their claim in case law. In the case of Performing Right Society v Camelo [1936] the playing of a radio in a private room adjoining a restaurant was held to be a public performance as the music could be heard within the restaurant. This case would appear to put forward the view that if a performance can be heard by the public, it is a 'public performance'.

Whether the music can be heard by the public in Kwik-Fit's premises is exactly the question in hand in the PRS claim. At an early hearing of the case the presiding judge, Lord Emslie, enquired as to whether it would be a public performance given that if four different radios are being listened to by employees in different work bays it would amount to 'a cacophony of noise driving members of the public away', particularly when coupled with the noise generated by the work that the employees would be undertaking.

Kwik-Fit have claimed not to be responsible for any copyright infringement in any case as they have in fact banned the playing of radios by their employees at work. Despite this, the PRS claim to have found that of Kwik-Fit's 600 operational units around 51% could be found having radios playing, which could be argued to demonstrate that Kwik-Fit are somewhat lax in enforcing their rule. Though it is normally the individual breaking the copyright that is liable for any claim, an employer may be found vicariously liable if the infringement is done in the course of an employees' employment.

Thereafter it may be the case that if the PRS can prove that music coming from Kwik-Fit employees' radios is audible to the public their action could be successful. The next stage of the case will be a two-day procedural hearing to deal with preliminary legal points, the date for which has yet to be setlinky (http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/article/751-1460/kwik-fit-face-claim-over-shop-floor-radios/current/)How dare you bring an unbiased report into my thread.

This seems...odd. But, with my admitted unfamiliarity with foreign IP law, and the scant details in this article, I'll keep my mouth shot on it.

So if I drive down the street blaring my radio, I'm violating IP laws??? Because if it's blaring, that means other people can hear it.

They want all businesses to have to pay royalties in order to have music played in their workplace?

Before going to uni, I worked for a electronics company. We were told that we could not bing radios to the workplace and plug them in. Because if we did, then the company would have to pay licens. The solution was that the company supplied us with batteries for free. That way they didn't need to pay licens.

Stupid, but true...

So... if every employee brought his own radio, all tuned to the same channel... there would be no problem ?

So... if every employee brought his own radio, all tuned to the same channel... there would be no problem ?

As long as the radios were batterypowered - no...

So the solution is to remove all radios, give employees cheap iPods with built-in radios so there is no "public performances"?

But then those illegal downloaded songs will turn up on the iPods, but that's another matter.

Would it be an infringement of copyright to let every customer borrow a small radio for the duration of the visit to the store ?

Public broadcasts are only legal in private. Wonderful.

The music sent out by a radio station is intended for private listeners to enjoy to their hearts' content, but NOT intended for stores to use to entertain their customers.

They weren't using them to entertain their customers, they just happened to be loud enough for the customers to hear.

Would it be an infringement of copyright to let every customer borrow a small radio for the duration of the visit to the store ?

Not as I understand the situation. And that's basically why this and those laws are bullshit.

So, according to this judge:

Owning a radio is okay.
Playing a radio is okay.
Playing a radio in public is illegal.

Where do you get that idea?

He is allowing the case to proceed, not finding for the PRS

Now, if playing the radio is illegal, wouldn't the public broadcast also be illegal?
So why is the judge allowing this lawsuit to go through, when clearly, the only one committing an illegal act is clearly the BBC, and therefore the government.

How does the BBC get implicated in this?

(PS: it is independent from the government)

If I were the judge I would find the record industry at fault, and order them to immediate pay damages to them selves, and all court costs to the courts.

I like that idea :D

This falls on the stupidity continuum between "tax is theft" and "property is theft," with "tax is theft" being less stupid and "property is theft" being more (absolutely, in fact) stupid.

Is there any way I could turn this around and say sue Mika every time I involuntarily had even the tiniest amount of his 'music' inflicted on me? It certainly causes me trauma.

how the fuck is it copyright infringement if the radio is free to fucking air?? :headbang:

if it were personal CDs or something it might make at least some sense, but radio? :confused:

how the fuck is it copyright infringement if the radio is free to fucking air?? :headbang:

if it were personal CDs or something it might make at least some sense, but radio? :confused:

don't you see? by being capable of receiving signals freely broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum, you have entered into a binding contract with the broadcaster. this contract is non-negotiable and set entirely by parties other than yourself - by the broadcaster, in fact.

*gets transmitter*
*charges anyone who even briefly picks up the signal $21.64*

don't you see? by being capable of receiving signals freely broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum, you have entered into a binding contract with the broadcaster. this contract is non-negotiable and set entirely by parties other than yourself - by the broadcaster, in fact.

*gets transmitter*
*charges anyone who even briefly picks up the signal $21.64*

its ridiculous (though that sounds like a good money making scam ;) :p)

radio is free at the point of consumption. always has been, really. the royalties are paid by the broadcaster, who generates revenue to pay these fees through advertising, or (in the case of the BBC) via license fees. whether its public or private entities tuning into the radio, it makes no difference: reception is free. and this case is bullshit.

Every business in Belgium pays a small royality fee to SABAM.

So it's nothing new.

Is there any way I could turn this around and say sue Mika every time I involuntarily had even the tiniest amount of his 'music' inflicted on me? It certainly causes me trauma.

Let us know how that goes, I wouldn't mind sueing Mika myself.

Every business in Belgium pays a small royality fee to SABAM.

So it's nothing new.

interesting.....

even if it was a purchased CD played loudly. as long as the listeners are not being charged to listen to the music then it's not copyright infringement.

however, here in Hawaii, there is a 30 ft ruling. any noise that can be heard 30 feet away is noise pollution and thus the offender can be ticketed. but again, NOT copyright infringement.

To publically broadcast music, whether its cds, radio, etc, you need a PRS licence. All shops, pubs, clubs etc that have music playing need one. It just depends on the definition of "public broadcasting" I guess. Maybe Kwik Fit just need to turn the radio down :P

FYI, the PRS are not the British equivalent of the RIAA like a lot of people seem to think.

And I thought we Americans ruled the ludicrous lawsuits.

So this works the same as with radio/TV in the US. Stations buy the right to broadcast entertainment. People don't buy rights to listen to the radio.

They might have had a point, albeit a weak one, if they were complaining about people playing legally purchased music on a CD player that was loud enough to hear...But I doubt that too.

yeah, it's like movies vs. tv

we can show a televised football game on church property usually no problem, but when we show a movie, we have to pay some fee or something......

To publically broadcast music, whether its cds, radio, etc, you need a PRS licence. All shops, pubs, clubs etc that have music playing need one. It just depends on the definition of "public broadcasting" I guess. Maybe Kwik Fit just need to turn the radio down :P

FYI, the PRS are not the British equivalent of the RIAA like a lot of people seem to think.
ah, but what is the legal definition of public broadcast in the eyes of the UK law?

Playing a CD/Radio at a party? while having a picnic? if the article that Cat-Tribe noted sets the precident, then playing music that can be heard in another room is public broadcast. Time to line walls with egg cartons and foam if you ask me. :p

I'm keeping a safe distance from this debate.

[snipped for length]

[/INDENT]linky (http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/article/751-1460/kwik-fit-face-claim-over-shop-floor-radios/current/)

would be interesting to hear from any UK lawyers (or whatever you chaps call em.) :p

So... if every employee brought his own radio, all tuned to the same channel... there would be no problem ?

I think it would if the music were clearly heard by the customers.

Would it be an infringement of copyright to let every customer borrow a small radio for the duration of the visit to the store ?

Yes, I think it would.

Public broadcasts are only legal in private. Wonderful.



They weren't using them to entertain their customers, they just happened to be loud enough for the customers to hear.


But it is difficult to prove that it was NOT to entertain customers, and that is what this case hinges on.

ah, but what is the legal definition of public broadcast in the eyes of the UK law?

Playing a CD/Radio at a party? while having a picnic? if the article that Cat-Tribe noted sets the precident, then playing music that can be heard in another room is public broadcast. Time to line walls with egg cartons and foam if you ask me. :p
It probably depends on the purpose and the location...I don't know where the line is drawn though, and the PRS website doesn't really help. Kwik Fit isn't some mates at a party though, it's a business thats playing music the public can hear. This requires a licence.

It probably depends on the purpose and the location...I don't know where the line is drawn though, and the PRS website doesn't really help. Kwik Fit isn't some mates at a party though, it's a business thats playing music the public can hear. This requires a licence.
possibly. not familiar with UK Copywrite laws. so actually not really arguing either/or.

The RIAA is completely right on this one. You are stealing from your boss, the radio station and the artists as well as making your coworkers partners in crime. You should all be ashamed of yourself.

When yo are walking thru a store and they are playing some satellite radio station over the loud speakers you are decimating the music industry a thousand fold. Wear ear plugs and you'll be alright though.

Here is another way to look at this problem.

Anyone can pop in here and read these postings. As the writers of these postings, how would you all feel if I were to collect them, put them into book form (without re-writing, just copy them down), and sell a hundred million copies, but not give you a dime?

When a business uses an artists music without paying, it is the same thing. Yes, the radio does broadcast them, and anyone could go listen to the radio... but once someone else starts making money off the work of the artists, shouldn't the artists be paid for it?

To publically broadcast music, whether its cds, radio, etc, you need a PRS licence. All shops, pubs, clubs etc that have music playing need one. It just depends on the definition of "public broadcasting" I guess. Maybe Kwik Fit just need to turn the radio down :P

FYI, the PRS are not the British equivalent of the RIAA like a lot of people seem to think.The PRS website seemed to be suggesting that any business needs a license if it is to broadcast media, even if only within its premises and to its employees.

They neatly sidestep the issue as to whether it counts if the music is not provided by the employer, but personally by the employee.

The RIAA is completely right on this one. You are stealing from your boss, the radio station and the artists as well as making your coworkers partners in crime. You should all be ashamed of yourself.

The RIAA has no say in this one. the PRS however says they have a case.

The RIAA has no say in this one. the PRS however says they have a case.



facts schmacts *continues to talk out of ass*

facts schmacts *continues to talk out of ass*

Well, as long as you are not broadcasting music out of it, it is ok. :D

Well, as long as you are not broadcasting music out of it, it is ok. :D

well, that stinks. :D

Well, as long as you are not broadcasting music out of it, it is ok. :D

I can gas out a popular melody if you like. Don't worry it will be public domain.

I can gas out a popular melody if you like. Don't worry it will be public domain.

... just don't clear your thoat first.

I can gas out a popular melody if you like. Don't worry it will be public domain.

Do you live VERY far away from me? If so, go right ahead. Or right behind, if you will. :p

I dunno but I can really carry a tune.



ouch




Also, torture is illegal, right? Do you think I can perhaps get my coworker arrested for listening to his Christian music station next to me here at the office?

http://209.85.12.227/11914/116/emo/suicide3.gif

Also, torture is illegal, right? Do you think I can perhaps get my coworker arrested for listening to his Christian music station next to me here at the office?


You just need to find yourself a good, vocal, pro-homosexual, left wing talk radio show and play it at your desk. :D

A party, even a big one, is a private event and not considered to be commercial, so it is NOT illegal to play music unless money is charged to attend.

This is not so: Money doesn't have to be involved in order to make it illegal. The key is public broadcasting.

Money usually just makes it more certain that rights of the roof organisa...erm...the artist are upheld.

Would it be an infringement of copyright to let every customer borrow a small radio for the duration of the visit to the store ?

No. AFAIK that would be all right as the broadcast license of the radio station covers exactly that situation.

Public broadcasts are only legal in private. Wonderful.

Yes, this is exactly so.

The "logic" is that in case you're playing radio in a situation where it can be heard by public you're acting as a (re)broadcaster yourself and therefore you're required to have a broadcasting license for yourself.

edit:
Apparently PRS (http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/about_us/yourquestionsanswered/Pages/WhohastohaveaPRSMusicLicence.aspx) handles things bit differently than our roof organization:

Any location or premises, outside of home, where music is played from clubs to concert halls, from discos to dentists’ waiting rooms and from trains to takeaways. The owner/proprietor of the premises is normally responsible for obtaining a PRS Music Licence for the public performance of copyright music.

Where as here even a party in private home *can* be considered illegal if the crowd is too big (a law that's not enforced or controlled in any significant way).

that looks like a joke.

i know artists often (all the time) get screwed over by the music corporations that all to often end up holding the copyrights to the music that others (musicians) created,
but there are still a lot of musicians in support of the lawsuits against the likes of napster and those like them,

even so, i find it hard to believe musicians and artists support this one.
the craperations have overstepped their bounds once again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

All I can say is Holy Shit!

I agree with you; that's just pure unhydrogenated idiocy!

We are waiting for RIAA to try the same here in the US. Maybe if I play my music too loud, and you can hear it from outside of my front yard, then I am publicly performing that song.....

I wonder what type of lawsuit the PRS will bring against the elevators playing the muzac

SHHHHHH, big-mouth! Don't give them any more ideas than they already have!

yep... I agree... Holy Shit.

While I am Against Illegal Dowloading... this is taking it too far.

Ditto here.

That's abso-fucking-lutely retarded.

I mean, I've been an ardent supporter of copyrights and intellectual property rights protections on this forum, but these folks seem to have completely forgot the purpose of having music on the radio. To achieve the broadest distribution possible, so as to permit advertisers to get their message heard.

Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. Stopping people from stealing or illegally downloading music is one thing; but trying to stop them from PLAYING IT ON THE RADIO?! Duuuhhhh! They sofa king we todd did!

If you get my drift. lol :D
1. This is radio being broadcast over public airwaves, anyone with a radio can pick them up.

2. The radio station pays for special rebroadcast rights, which are payed for by commercials (which can also be heard over this same airwaves).

Therefore there is no copywrite infringement, because the record labels + the artists have already been payed the royalties in association with this broadcasting of these songs.

Exactly! But try telling that to this idiot judge and the "RIAA", whatever that is.

how about we have the case and the Judge thrown out of court
This is by far the dumbest lawsuit ever.

100% agreement here on both counts

This reminds me of Pantless' sig: You cannot obtain zero piracy without first achieving zero industry (or some such). Eventually, they are going to make legal means of buying music such a PITA that any no one will give a fuck anymore.

I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, if a few people are stealing your songs, that's a sign that you're POPULAR and FAMOUS! That doesn't make the thefts right, I know, and I am 100% AGAINST stealing/illegally downloading music, but don't attack a flea with a nuclear bomb.

What! Radio is public broadcast media, that is the intention of the radio ... to promote and broadcast artist material.

So they are sue everyone with radio now?

I wouldn't put it past them if they thought they could get away with it.

They should go arrest hoons with car stereos blasting the neighbourhood with their music from the radio! See what happens there.

Nothing will happen, because the "hoons" will sue for "racial discrimination".

Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. Stopping people from stealing or illegally downloading music is one thing; but trying to stop them from PLAYING IT ON THE RADIO?!
The PRS has been around for ages, needing a licence is nothing new.

Exactly! But try telling that to this idiot judge and the "RIAA", whatever that is.

The RIAA has nothing to do with this case. The PRS is not the RIAA, it's the UK society that collects royalties on behalf of the composer.

If the crowd is too big by itself - ie not only your immediate friends - you're also breaking copyright laws.

Though, while playing music, radio or TV at a bigger party is technically illegal it isn't actually controlled or enforced unless there's commerciality involved (eg. club or pub).



The license of radio stations to use music only covers their own transmission.

In case you publicly have a radio playing you're legally acting as the (re)broadcaster yourself and have to pay fees according to the amount of possible listeners.


I'm well aware of this.

The logic behind copyright laws here because of EU directives have gone down the drain, especially during the last few years.

Having to pay license fees for publicly playing radio is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's not quite as ridiculous as you make it sound: The person who, for example, composed and performed a piece of music should be entitled to have some say to where and how the piece is used in public especially if there's some 'gain' involved (say, eg. a concert or background music at a shop).

But because no artist can protect their own music by themselves they usually either release their music more or less in public domain OR give the rights to manage their music to a roof organization like RIAA, PRS or TEOSTO in hopes of better control and money. What this means that the arbitrary licensing fees and requirements in each country are managed by select few companies who can control the availability of music under their supervision in domestic sources.....This near monopoly power leads to wild abuse of copyright laws - enforced here by in principle good natured EU directive - at the cost of consumer rights.

Again, I could understand it if the store were playing it over their in-store speakers as muzak... but a personal radio? That's a bit much.