NationStates Jolt Archive

Since we haven't had one in a long time.

Today a Dutch court has ruled that Buma/Stemra (our NCAA or whatever that America organisation is called) has the right to collect money from companies where the employees are listing to music on their Ipods and Iphones. That's because they're distributing copyrighted works according to article 12 of the 'Auteurswet'.

Click here (http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2009/03/ipod_luistern_op_werkvloer_kos.html#more) for an article in Dutch, whcih I might or might not translate when I feel like it.:p

Positive thing, it's good to live in a country where we can worry about these things.:)

Assuming everything is exactly as you say it is, that's some very twisted interpretations of "distributing copyrighted works".

Are they listening to it on headphones, or broadcasting their Ipod MP3s over speakers through the office?

If the second, I can sorta see the argument.

It's not on speakers through the office. It's just like a radio on the workfloor.

It's not on speakers through the office. It's just like a radio on the workfloor.

that's what I meant though, they're broadcasting it for others to hear, not on headphones.

that's what I meant though, they're broadcasting it for others to hear, not on headphones.

Is it intentional? For instance, are they playing a radio and others happen to be within earshot, or playing it for others to hear on purpose?

Or, does intent not really matter?

It's not on speakers through the office. It's just like a radio on the workfloor.

Actually, according to the article this includes people using headphones.
Of course, it is an article on "geenstijl" ("nostyle") - so perhaps not the most trustworthy thing ever :p

2.3. ... heeft de relatiemedewerker met [C], werkzaam voor Suplacon besproken dat in de onderneming speelklare muziekapparatuur aanwezig is en dat daarmee stelselmatig onder verantwoordelijkheid van Suplacon hedendaagse, auteursrechtelijk beschermde muziekwerken openbaar worden gemaakt in de zin van artikel 12 Auteurswet (Aw). ...


For all you non-Dutchies out there: the company provides the music playing equipment to its employees.

that's what I meant though, they're broadcasting it for others to hear, not on headphones.So radios on the workfloor are illegal then.

Actually, according to the article this includes people using headphones.
Of course, it is an article on "geenstijl" ("nostyle") - so perhaps not the most trustworthy thing ever :pThe double denial make sme confused. Anyway, they've got a link to the judges reasoning.

For all you non-Dutchies out there: the company provides the music playing equipment to its employees.I want a company that gives me an Ipod. Well, maybe not.


But this means I can't listen to music while I've opened my window, because I'd be distributing music.

But this means I can't listen to music while I've opened my window, because I'd be distributing music.

No, it doesn't.
You shouldn't have loud music playing while your windows are open, because it's anti-social, but that's an entirely different matter.

It's not on speakers through the office. It's just like a radio on the workfloor.

oh they did this in England, no worries nobody cares much like file sharing

For all you non-Dutchies out there: the company provides the music playing equipment to its employees.

now thats a good union

So radios on the workfloor are illegal then.

No, for the very simple reason that a radio station has already paid for the license to broadcast the music. to the public. And since the radio station has already paid for the rights to broadcast the music to an infinite number of subscribers, having one person play the radio for 100 listeners is no different than 100 listeners each listening to their private radio on their own headphones. The very issue here is the paying for the license to broadcast the music. The radio station has paid for it, so they may do so.

Unless it hasn't, in which case, yes, it would be illegal.

For all you non-Dutchies out there: the company provides the music playing equipment to its employees.Actually, it doesn't say that. It just says there was music playing equipment present.

No, for the very simple reason that a radio station has already paid for the license to broadcast the music. to the public. And since the radio station has already paid for the rights to broadcast the music to an infinite number of subscribers, having one person play the radio for 100 listeners is no different than 100 listeners each listening to their private radio on their own headphones. The very issue here is the paying for the license to broadcast the music. The radio station has paid for it, so they may do so.

Unless it hasn't, in which case, yes, it would be illegal.True, but the court has now decided that Buma may collect money when it's possible for people passing by to hear the music playen on the workplace.


No, it doesn't.
You shouldn't have loud music playing while your windows are open, because it's anti-social, but that's an entirely different matter.I don't disagree with the last part but they can still collect money from me. In the judge's reasoning I would be distributing music (through the window).

Music licensing laws are getting beyond crazy and into the batshit insane levels.

Since we haven't had one in a long time.

Today a Dutch court has ruled that Buma/Stemra (our NCAA or whatever that America organisation is called) has the right to collect money from companies where the employees are listing to music on their Ipods and Iphones. That's because they're distributing copyrighted works according to article 12 of the 'Auteurswet'.

Click here (http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2009/03/ipod_luistern_op_werkvloer_kos.html#more) for an article in Dutch, whcih I might or might not translate when I feel like it.:p

Positive thing, it's good to live in a country where we can worry about these things.:)

we have the same thing here. the Performing Rights Society have been very aggressive with a lot of people we work with, demanding money for a licence they didn't know they needed. they're chasing us for one, but they can fuck off cos this is an office with phones, and we can't play the radio or whatever here anyway.

it winds me up, because - in the case of radio - the artist and music company is being paid once when the radio station buys the licence to play the music. now businesses have to buy a licence to listen to the music, too. so they get paid to play it, and paid again when we listen to it. same deal if its from a CD/whatever. its a complete load of balls if you ask me, and how this legislation sneaked through i don't know, cos i never heard about it until we started getting aggressive letters saying they had the legal powers to take payment if required, so pay up. its bullshit.

Music licensing laws are getting beyond crazy and into the batshit insane levels.

/thread

I don't disagree with the last part but they can still collect money from me. In the judge's reasoning I would be distributing music (through the window).

Again: no. As usual there exists neither black nor white, just infinite shades of grey.
Only an organization or entrepreneur that uses owned or leased equipment to make it possible for employees or customers to listen to music may, under certain circumstances, be required to pay these charges, and may therefore be affected by this ruling.

Holland must be invaded.

they need sane judges (whom we shall install)

and it is an outrage that they dared send the Dominican Republic out of the World Baseball Classic!

a nation named after a saint!

what an affront to them!