Canadian Music Industry Drills Dentists 555
hereisnowhy writes "CBC reports that the tranquil music that wafts through many dental offices to soothe patients and mask the sounds of the drill may soon be silenced. The music industry is putting the bite on dentists -- demanding that they pay for the right to play it. The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada would also like to extend this policy to 'coffee shops, clothing stores, lounges, elevators -- even radio tunes that people hear on the telephone while on hold.' Are any composers and authors actually in favour of this, or just the publishers?"
The scariest thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The scariest thing... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The scariest thing... (Score:3, Funny)
in further evidence that nothing sacred is safe from perversion, i offer that muzak has gone seriously downhill since the glory days of the seventies and even early eighties.
muzak used to be instantly recognizable as highly sanitized, soothing, mantovani-type music that could practically wipe your mind clean - almost physically unfocus your eyes and remove the expression from your face.
now they've gone all "hip" and environmental and electronic. i like environm
Don't kid yourself... (Score:5, Interesting)
And let me tell you: You'd better get it right in one take. 'Cause like I say, it's a high-paying gig. If you can't hack it, there's a line of musicians out the door looking to take your seat.
Re:Don't kid yourself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't kid yourself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The scariest thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately they do not use gas.
Re:The scariest thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Lets not forget.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but I can't imagine anyone actually suffering through a dental appointment just to listen to some free music. I suspect this would easily qualify as fair use. Obviously commercial establishments where people actually go to listen to the music (bars, clubs, etc.) would have to pay, but a dentist??? One could even argue that a clothing store might attract more customers by playing music, but a dentist??? Yikes, talk about picking on the wrong group.
So.... (Score:5, Funny)
In continuing on the logic train here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not the same (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if they'd sue for this. Technically, the dentist was letting me borrow his cassette to listen to it. I'd call that fair use.
Seems that a solution would be to let the patients "borrow" the CDs while they have work done.
Seinfeld (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not the same (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but that is true of a number of things, like the colour they paint their walls. You only have to pay for the paint once, when you buy it. It's not like the dentists aren't paying for the music -- they do buy the CDs in the first place.
What's missing here is the intent of copyright law. Any time anybody plays music without headphones they are broadcasting it, but that's not the intent. The intent of the broadcast rights is when the m
Re:Not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the same (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/03/216
Or maybe it is the same... (Score:3, Insightful)
... depending on your point of view.
Wasn't there a story about some music publishing group in some country to make cab driver pay royalties if they played music in their cabs. In that instance, if memory serves, the group was claiming that the car was a commercial establishment so the cab driver was supposed to pay royalties.
Re:Not the same (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh oh. (Score:3, Funny)
If so, I'm very, very sorry. Don't worry, it's not the kind of crappy music that you're worried about people hearing for free anyway. This music is good.
ASCAP & BMI... (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple of years later I ran a bar that had live music and we played CD's. We had to pay ASCAP and BMI nearly $3000 a year to cover CD's and the bands playing cover songs.
Re:ASCAP & BMI... (Score:5, Insightful)
however, 16% of $1.6 BILLION pays for a LOT of lawyers.
for example, if you only do public domain material, "trad arr." and all that, they'll still sue you because they can decide that your arraingment wasn't original, but based on an arraingment that is ASCAP protected. you can't win.
and a restaurant DOES have to pay ASCAP licensing, even if they only play the radio. all stores do.
yes, that means ASCAP gets paid 3 times over. 1) the radio station purchases the CD to play, at a higher rate than our retail version, and ASCAP gets their cut. 2) the radio station pays its broadcast license. 3) the restaurant or retail location pays a broadcast license based on the # of customers they have on average in the store at any time.
nobody wins except ascap. period.
Re:ASCAP & BMI... (Score:5, Informative)
With the rest of your comment I definately agree.
When opening your own business that are invariably unforseen costs. Imagine our surprise when we get a letter only a few weeks after getting our federal tax id. And the costs turn out to be $3000, that's a real drain when opening a business on a shoestring. I think they scan the SIC codes for new businesses and attack right away.
Re:ASCAP & BMI... (Score:3, Interesting)
Given all the stores that play music, I imagine this setup works quite well. Music producers get compensated for the musics use, business get to use it to attract/entertain customers in their stores.
Every now and then a store does gets bust
Australian: pay for music on hold (Score:3, Informative)
-AD
Re:ASCAP & BMI... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've started to go to mutopia an
Re:ASCAP & BMI... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I wonder if you had enough for lawyers if you could sue them for tranmitting radiowaves through your business and "tresspassing". What if you have an EULA on the airspace in your resturant that says anything played in any frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum in your resturant belongs to you and if you don't want to give away your music then don't send it through the building. Woul
Can I still play music in my record store? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can I still play music in my record store? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ASCAP & BMI... (Score:3, Insightful)
Artists have choices too, and unfortunately choosing to make lots of money usually goes hand in hand w
Re:ASCAP & BMI... (Score:3, Interesting)
Article text in case of slashdotting (Score:2, Informative)
The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, which collects royalties for musicians, has targeted dental offices in its latest campaign. The group is asking them to cough up a yearly fee if they use copyrighted music to entertain patients.
Re:Article text in case of slashdotting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Article text in case of slashdotting (Score:3, Funny)
We are, after all, the country which conceived "The CCRAP" as a political party (Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party).
Subsequent to immediate expressions of concern regarding the acronym, it was of course fairly quickly changed, but the former members of that party will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of Canadians under their original title.
non SECAM music? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:non SECAM music? (Score:3, Informative)
Not going to happen (Score:2)
It's ok (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happened... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, wanting people "just to hear" your stuff is inversely correlated with "time and money invested".
Believe me, after spending a solid week in a studio and dropping more than $7,000 on an album, you'd appreciate it if someone paid you the $5 for the CD you just pressed.
Eventually, someone wanting to hear your music translates into
Re:What happened... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What happened... (Score:5, Insightful)
The highlighted words are "took it", such as denied other people the access to the painting, robbed them of the pleasure that only you can now have. That is indeed a crime.
However what happens if you only look at the painting without paying a fee?
And what happens if you look at a copy of the painting, or at its photograph? Are you still required to pay?
The problem here is the same old one: the effort of an artist (as anyone's effort) should be rewarded. But currently there is no sane upper limit on collecting. The answer to all the questions above is then "yes", and you should pay for every use, every view, and maybe even for a review of the painting that you wrote and got paid for, since it can be argued that your work is based on the painting.
But that is not a nice world to live in.
Re:What happened... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the visual artists clamboring for cash payments for public displays of their works which they have already sold.
Re:What happened... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me clue you in, then. Most of us spend the majority of our time creating intangibles, and we don't see a penny when they're copied or used, because we're salaried workers.
I must admit, I have an increasingly hard time seeing the moral argument for copyright royalties. I don't see a penny in royalties or per-copy fees for any of the intangibles I create, so why should anyone else?
Re:What happened... (Score:3, Insightful)
See my signature.
I've got not no objection to paying for hard work, intangible or otherwise. I have a big objection to paying an indefinitely large number of times for the one piece of work.
The problem has gotten so bad now that intellectual property oligopolies, ridiculously rich from repeatedly selling the one piece of work, are distorting the entire political system. The problem is compounded by the fact that the mass media oligopolies are themselves IP parasites and politicians are badly beholden to
Re:Flawed analogies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok...lets say you are that artist. Did the store in question pay for your CD when they bought it? Yes? Then STFU...you got paid. Now you just want to be paid again for someone adverising your CD in their establishment. Funny...I would have thought free advertising would be welcomed by artists. It's not as if they are burning copies in the back and handing them out to everyone. They
Re:What happened... (Score:5, Insightful)
A LOT more.
There is a huge difference between a G5 in your basement, and a studio stocked with pro gear, low S/N ratios, in a properly baffled acousticly sound room.
I have spent 750 getting the right MICROPHONE for a recording session with a particular instrument.
7,000 is peanuts.
Re:What happened... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Artists" are no different than scientists, engineers, or programmers. They all create new things as part of their job, but except for artists it's "work for hire," or -- guess what -- patronage!
But if an engineer can't find somebody who wants
Re:What happened... (Score:4, Insightful)
Artists are not entitled to money, but they are entitled to charge. You don't have to pay, but you don't get the art. This right is the same as your own at your job.
In a sane world, artists would either live on whatever they can make on performances (including street-corner ones) and donations, or get a real job too.
All of the artists I know have other jobs. It just doesn't pay well. There is a hint of disdain in your post for art as not being "real." Artists have it tough, be a little sympathetic.
Re:What happened... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, artists aren't the problem (except for the ones whining about their CDs being pirated dispite the fact that they've already made huge piles of money); the record labels are. It makes absolutely no sense to have to play for, say, "Imagine," even though John Lennon is dead.
The people whining about piracy are the ones who are just feeding off the royalties from ei
An idea: Outsource Music (Score:3, Insightful)
Outsource Music!
I'm sure we could get music cheaper if we outsourced the creation to a country like India. I mean, sure there's a bit of a language and culture gap to cross, but the lower cost of creation is surely worth some retraining.
I'll feel more sympathetic when someone tells me how I can make a living by creating what I want to create, instead of having to work for someone else. I don't really see that happening though.
"Fair use" by tradition, but not by law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Using a broadcast radio station as the hold music on a phone system actually requires a copyright license from the station from which the artists/publishers should be seeking their payment. Of course, since it'd take a lot of work to observe all of the places this is going on, it's one of those bits of copyright law that more or less has been nullified by simple non-enforcement, and therefore slipped into that consumer-friendly category known as "fair use".
Case law has more or less said in the past that if a radio station is being pumped through an amplifier system throughout a building, then whomever is doing that needs to pay because they're redistributing the station. However, if they set up a standalone radio in every room and tune them all to the same frequency, they get the same effective sounds throught the building but don't have to pay because they're not redistributing, but just letting the boom boxes do their thing. But again, that often ends up unnoticed and unenforced.
Major sports venues have to pay for copyright licenses... but your local high school football venue likely uses the same music without paying for it.
Seems like this is an RIAA crackdown just waiting to happen...
Re:"Fair use" by tradition, but not by law? (Score:5, Informative)
In the section "Playing music in a store or business", it lists that a fee must be paid in restaurants and bars 3,750 square feet or under and retail outlets of 2,000 square feet or under. Or the establishment must not have any more than six speakers throughout, and not more than four per room.
It's funny, my post probably just violated fair use, as I very nearly copied the sections without quotes. Fortunately, in my case, my intent is education not profit, and the base material is federal law, which isn't copyrighted. Though it'd still be worth an argument, as, both fortunately and unfortunately, fair use is subjective, and therefore victim to the interpretation of a judge of the week.
Re:"Fair use" by tradition, but not by law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the car stereo shop have to pay because they have more than 4 speakers in the listening booth? Or does this only apply to 4 SIMULTANIOUS speakers? What about the different listening rooms, there might be 3 or 4 seperate stations being played at the same time.
Why does the space limitation apply to spaces UNDER the listed square footages and not bigger establishments?... That simply doesn't make sense.
If th
Re:"Fair use" by tradition, but not by law? (Score:5, Interesting)
You go to bookstores and they have CDs up front of the music they are playing in the store, why aren't record companies doing the same thing at dentist's offices?
Radio time (Score:2, Informative)
Fair use, anybody? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would assume that most of these locations (stores, lounges, etc) follow the same sort of setup. My dentist played his own music, but I figure that would fall under fair-use, right? I mean, he's listening to it while he's working -
No fair use you say? Oh.....
Teeth (Score:5, Funny)
Smart radio (Score:2, Interesting)
With such radio, dentists (or whoever) can preset a couple of like-taste stations and skip all the ads and talking, it'll be like a non-stop music album.
Re:Smart radio (Score:3, Interesting)
Call the above comment half joking, half tinfoil hat musings. I used to chock it up to bad luck, but I've wondered if there isn't any truth to it: it would be in the radio stations' interests to get together and agree to overlap ad time to minimize channel surfing, wouldn't it?
Reminds me of a UF cartoon I once saw... (Score:4, Funny)
Listen to Narbotic (Score:2)
Linky [narbotic.com].
I particularly recommend "I couldn't find her heart" and "Alarm in the graduate school".
What about the rest of slashdotters? Non-RIAA independently released music you thoroughly enjoy?
I'm all for it... (Score:2)
Does Canada have a similar clause like the US does (Score:3, Interesting)
I found this out whilst doing research for opening a bar, a long term life goal I've had for quite some time.
Overall, even with the fee, it's not THAT much money - especially if you put in a jukebox. I know when I finally open up a place, I'll be more then happy to pay the money - at least until I do more research and find out the artists don't get a cent of it, then I'll be screaming hehe
Re:Does Canada have a similar clause like the US d (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it is just me (Score:3, Insightful)
This is interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Whats funny is that the article states ""The distinction is that the music is not their property," he said. "And if it's being used in a public fashion or any kind of commercial fashion, then [musicians] deserve to be compensated for its use."
Considering the horrible track-record the recording industry has for paying musicians what is owed them, does anyone think that the musicians will see a dime if such monies are collected. What isn't mentioned is that this may make it illegal for DJ's to play at weddings and bar mitzvahs without paying some sort of fee. How many times do you have to pay for music before you can really enjoy it?
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
Something like this happened in Australia (Score:3, Informative)
Why should government be a debt collector for the music industry anyway? Why should the music industry get paid several times for one product?
I don't have the right to play my own music? (Score:3, Interesting)
This just shows how much this really isn't about lost profits or dwindling sales, but about control. They want control over the industry, which is going away. But the harder they squeeze, the harder we fall through their fist. Already another industry of alternative music is rising up, and if that kind of legislation goes down, they'll completly lose to the alternative industry who doesn't charge gobs of money for their music.
And since I'm up here, I might as well plug Tales from the afternow ( www.theafternow.com , free download on the site, 24 and 128kbps). If you listen to that, from beginning to end, you'll know how they're going to try to implement the control.
Re:I don't have the right to play my own music? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're no more making money from the background music than they are from the posters on the wall, or the carpet on the floor.
Does the Carpet Industry Association of America demand licensing fees because customers walk on the carpet, so the dentist is clearly making money off their carpet?
Of course not, because that would be assininely stupid.
What makes an artist? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that a true artist would want as many people as possible to enjoy their creation. The internet and file-sharing should be a great enabler for this, as anyone anywhere with internet access can see, hear or read their art. It is truly liberating and democratizing, making art available to all instead of only those who can afford it.
Whenever I hear an artist complain that too many people are enjoying their work without paying, I smell a rat. If you are creating art to get rich, you're not really an artist, at least by my admittedly narrow definition. Art should be its own reward. A true artist would create and distribute their work even if there was no compensation for it and they had to work a day job to make ends meet. There are countless examples of this. The passion for their craft drives them, not a desire for monetary gain (though this sometimes is a byproduct).
As to record companies and other copyright holding entities, I understand that for their business to survive, they must try to protect their assets. I just happen to think that their business model is hopelessly outdated in the midst of the digital revolution.
We are at a turning point of the information age. Will information become truly free or will access to it be controlled by "information barons"?
Re:What makes an artist? (Score:3, Funny)
All else being equal, musical artists and programmer artists have the exact same goals - stay alive and get their work out to as many appreciative people as possible.
It just happens that the handy method music people have of making a living plain doesn't work for coders, which sucks.
(I just had a mental image of live stadium programming. With an announcer, of course. "It looks like he's using polymorphism! Oh no, he's misspelled 'class'. Wa
Had this happen to my employer (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone reported us / they figured out we'd been doing it and sued the employer. They 'offered' to settle if they were contracted to write up a commercial type thing. That was part of the legal 'settlement'. Complete gang rape RIAA style in the early 90s.
I'm going to hum a tune... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just plain greedy.
I think we already have this kind of thing here in Australia?
Ah, to be a dentist... (Score:3, Funny)
"Oops, sorry, thought I'd given you the anesthetic....too late now, let me turn on some soothing music to take your mind off the pain....oh, wait, sorry, can't do that anymore"
Boy Scouts (Score:5, Informative)
THAT is scraping the bottom of the litigious barrel. Seriously.
TOO MANY LAWYERS.
Re:Boy Scouts (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I think that was the Girls Scouts. Doesn't make ASCAP any less scummy. Maybe even scummier.
It seems a bit backwards... (Score:5, Funny)
If you look at it that way, the music industry should be paying the dentists to not plays their music.
A standard shake-down in the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is usually, yes. The exceptions are very narrow.
(Ever wonder why restaurant chains sing hokey made-up songs instead of the nominal "happy birthday?" Licensing fees -- money -- that's why.)
One exception, in the U.S. at least, is to play only material that is in the public domain, not subject to (ascap/bmi) licensing. As an example, Fry's in Sunnyvale plays classical piano music which is free of licensing. In the U.S., there are collections of CDs full of such material.
Of course when a business takes such an approach, the licensing authorities (sic) will make the assumption that you are a crook, and they will watch carefully and wait for you to screw up -- and then sue your ass (arse, in Canada).
Consult an attorney familiar with these rackets. I imagine that there exists or will soon exist a standard set of recommendations for Canadian businesses who wish to remain free of licensing fees (and don't expect that guidance to come from the licensing societies).
Important Quote (Score:3, Funny)
"We will also be attacking auto shops,
billing some breakfast nooks,
complaining about co-ops,
demanding at doctor's offices,
enjuncting eateries,
freaking out flyers,
grabbing from greenhouses,
holding up hotels,
infringing on rights at investment offices,
jostling Jeep dealers,
kneedling some knitting stores,
leavying against lawyers' offices,
meddling at muesems,
nosing around news stands,
offending offices,
prodding price-clubs,
questioning Quick Stops,
requesting of restrants,
shaking-down a few sugar shacks,
troubling travel agents,
unhinging uppolstry shop managers,
video-taping vacuum stores,
wringing out waterparks,
X-Raying Xerox service centers,
yelling at yogurt shops,
and zig zagging around zoos. "
Good thing nothing like this ever happens in the US. *sigh*
The last time I went to the dentist (Score:3, Informative)
I did notice that they had a cd holder full of CDRs though. But that's ok, since this is in Canada and we pay fees on blank CDRs for that, eh.
It's pretty bad (Score:5, Interesting)
I was pretty shocked to say the least, but if you can believe it, even the 'on hold' music qualifies as "public entertainment" in the view of these idiots. Where most businesses used to be able to just tune a radio and plug that into the telephone, that practice has now effectively been outlawed. In fact, he's never played CDs in his office - he's only used the radio (nevermind that the stations have already paid the 'public entertainment' tax), and that appears to be a no-no as well.
The unfortunate solution to this whole mess was to:
stop playing ANY music in the office
replace the 'on hold' radio with a paid-for recording which has royalty-free music in the background
In the end, SOCAN didn't get much money from him, I don't think, because the royalty-free music was composed in-house in the firm that recorded his fancy new telephone greeting for waiting callers. But the whole idea riled him up so much I think they've lost the whole family in customers when it comes to buying music in the future. Go figure.
Musings about music (Score:5, Insightful)
What strikes me funny as the "outrage for having to pay for music" story goes another round on
I think there are two reasons:
commerce has pretended to give music to us for free: music is an expected part of the background in any store, at any event, for any time spent on hold. Radios broadcast the stuff for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.
Wait a second, no one does that. Strike that. Radios broadcast music for free because they receive ad revenue, and it is therefore in their economic interest to broadcast music without charge. Funny, stores do the same: a store with a soundtrack feels more polished to us because we aren't troubled by the chaos of other people's conversations. I suppose the ultimate example of soundtrack-polishing is Nordstrom's, with their live pianists.
So despite appearances music is not like air, but is used as a means of enhancing commerce. But we *think* it is, because of its ubiquitous presence in our lives.
Second, the commerce model followed by RIAA and friends stands in stark contrast to the professional model followed by classical music. In general, pop music pays by a royalty system. Concerts do provide some revenue, but the primary income stream even from concerts comes from royalties for sales of CDs and T-shirts. By contrast, classical musicians are salaried or payed per gig. (Can you imagine Perlman being payed a fee for every T-shirt sold at a Kennedy center concert?) So why does this matter? Because a salaried musician is far less likely to look for ever-more oppressive ways to squeeze revenue from his art. His salary is thus-and-so, and if he doesn't like it, well then, he negotiates with his employers.
But in a royalty system, the "employers" are the consumers. The revenue-squeezing tactics we see here are really ASCAP's way of trying to re-negotiate their salary. The RIAAs talk of "fairness" really is just rhetoric to get the foot in the door, and the squeezing will never stop.
So what is the solution? I think we all need to first acknowledge that our belief that music is free like air is simply wrong. Downloaders who expect to sample for free before paying have an unworkable expectation.
But, the royalty system for music needs to go. The industry's expectation of being paid for every "instance" of their intellectual property is unsustainable. Instead, musicians should be salaried, should make most of their income from actually performing concerts for people, and should release on CD only if they fully expect their music to be copied by others. Instead of concerts being a hook to get people to buy CDs, CDs should be a hook to get people to go to concerts. That would mean higher concert prices, but it would return some sanity to a currently insane system.
/ramble
Few things (Score:3, Insightful)
Three letter counter argument: NPR. Radio financed by tax dollars, not ad revenues. Funny thing, they play classical and jazz music that isn't copyrighted and there's not a huge payola scheme to play.
As for listening before you buy, why is that an unreasonable expecation? If I wish to buy art, I can go to a gallery and for free or at most a small fee to the gallery (not the artist) go and look at works I might like to own. I pay for the work when I want a copy of it, not
Are any artists in favour of this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are any composers and authors actually in favour of this, or just the publishers?
I asked my wife, a musician, the above question. She replied with "No, that's stupid!" In addition to thinking it was stupid, she also seemed to feel that it was more important the people heard her music than that she was paid for every time it was played.
After asking her about the 'other sides' opinion that the artists need to get paid fairly for their work, she reminded me that even though she is a musician, she won't ever receive the royalties. In her case, she plays with an orchestra. This means that it is not her that is the artist, but the orchestra. And it is not her that can complain, but rather the orchestra director and (possibly) the conductor. But more likely the recording label, not the actual orchestra.
So, OK. The orchestra gets paid. That means that she gets more money because the royalties trickle down in her paychecks. Wrong. She is paid a fixed salary, independent of how much revenue the orchestra makes.
OK, so she isn't exactly a rock star, nor does she make millions with her music, but she is still a recording artist and the law does not benefit her, nor will it ever.
SOCAN sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Here are some of the other tariffs [socan.ca] charged by SOCAN.
Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music - Fee per day: $32.55 for each day on which music is performed
Skating Rinks (Roller & Ice Skating) - 1.2% of gross receipts from admissions exclusive of sales and amusement taxes
Comedy Shows and Magic Shows - Fee per show: $36.60 where use of music is incidental.
Aircraft - Fee per quarter, based on seating capacity:
a) Take-off and landing music - ranging from $40.50 to $82.50 per aircraft
b) In-flight music - ranging from $162.00 to $330.00 per aircraft
Telephone Music on Hold - Fee for one trunk line: $94.51, plus $2.09 for each additional trunk line.
Background Music - Annual fee: $1.23 per square metre or 11.46 per square foot; half the annual rate for establishments operating less than six months per year. (In all cases, minimum fee of $94.51)
Classical Music sounds good (Score:3, Interesting)
The other problem is that the RIAA hasn't tried to sue the US gov't. I would love to see them try and sue the Pentagon, DOJ or the Whitehouse for playing tunes to guests or workers. Big political no,no that you'll never see. But then again, when everyone else pays
Where this is all going . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
The End of the Internet
http://mymac.com/showarticle.php?id=494
(Some time in the near future)
I finally found a way to make money off the Internet. I did it by writing a book about how the Net died.
Not that I made any money while it existed, you see. No one did.
Oh, like everyone else, I loved the Internet for all the freedom it gave me, and the wealth of information and idea exchange, where everyone profited from that free flow of thought and information. But, you know how Man is. Never underestimate his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
Why did it end? Simple: It was greed.
First it started with the Spammers. There got to be so much Spam, that even Congressmen were snowed under with the daily deluge. No one could get their legitimate mail because of the thousands of fake letters these inventive Spammers were sending out with their Web bots. Congress finally made a law strong enough that any of them could be shot on sight. Some hacker then posted on the Web a public list of the lot of them, and soon they were all dead.
The public, long laboring under all that Spam, liked what they did so much, that they killed off all the hackers too. This had a profound effect on people taking computer science and engineering classes, did you know that?
That was the first nail in the coffin of the Net. We should have all paid attention to it. But no one did. We were all too busy trying to make a buck off of the Net.
The next coffin nail came when the Music and Movie companies finally paid Congress enough money to have the copyright laws changed. It was easy once Disney got them to extend copyright privileges another hundred years. The new law that Congress passed was very comprehensive! In fact, no one could listen to the music without breaking the new laws!
Now it was a Federal offense to even read or see anything that was copyrighted. If you did, there would be an unauthorized copy in your brain that you could access just by remembering. Oh, you could legitimately purchase a copy of anything copyrighted in the stores, but you could never open that copy and view it or listen to it. Tough law!
That's why all the libraries in the country were permanently closed. Right after that the schools and colleges were all shut down, and their teachers and administrators put away for using copyrighted materials in their classrooms. Students, however, were forgiven their offense in this, but all their books and notes were confiscated and burned.
The next nail came with the legal view of computer hardware. That legal POV stated that the desktop, palmtop, or laptop computer you were using could also hold, however briefly, yet another copy of any copyrighted material you might put into it, for transfer to a CD, or perhaps downloaded off the Web. Congress just attached this to their Anti-Terrorism Bill for Secure Systems Standards. Remember, these devices were considered guilty until proven innocent, just as their owners were. It seems the very existence of these machines was now suspect, because someone, somewhere, might use them for pirating copyrighted material!
Therefore all these computing devices became illegal to even own. No more Computers!
The music companies, having now gotten their way with Congress, finally had a law written that was so powerful, even they were locked up! They were all sent to prison for having a copy of their own music, which they had bought (or rather stolen) from the artists. Just deserts!
Then the movie producers and the owners of movie theaters were locked up for the same violation of this powerful new copyright law! They were sent away for distributing more than one copy of their movies.
Then the music artists and singers were all locked away for the same reason. Worse, for under the new law, many were sent up the river for playing their own songs too many time
What next? Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who else shall pay the price for common sense???
My Dentist just sings (Score:3, Funny)
Magnatune (Score:5, Informative)
http://magnatune.com [magnatune.com]
All Magnatune music is licensed under the Creative Commons license with terms of Attribution, NonCommercial, and ShareAlike.
http://magnatune.com/info/openmusic [magnatune.com]
I just studied the "Licensing" page, and I think that playing music for your customers is a "commercial" use and you would need a commercial license from Magnatune. But they offer their whole catalog for commercial use, and if you license from them, you know that 50% of whatever you pay goes straight to the artist.
I'm not sure how much they would charge for a dentist to play music for customers, but the "Public Space" license (e.g. for playing music in the dining room of a restaurant) is $45 per year for one album.
P.S. I'm a happy customer of Magnatune; I admire what they are doing and I hope they succeed. I have no other ties of any sort to them.
steveha
What is real difference in (Score:3, Interesting)
I suggest people who are sick and tired of this make organised "silent listening" parties in protest of stupid note counting: Get together, mention the title, no, title could be a trademark, run a chain of asociations to the part, untill everybody say "I got it" (don't bring clueless friends with you), then someone makes the "start" gesture (whatever it may be) and everybody "listen to the music together" (some very sync people could even dance to it) in ridicule of conduct of music industry and demonstration of the fact that hearing music once is owning it forever.
Where this heads, soon you would be required to use headphones (with real head detection) to stop accidental leaking of their music to someone who did not pay. Loudspeakers would be illegal, unless all precautions are met to keep all the sound inside the room, and everyone in the room payed the playprice. (Not so bad after all... then none would bug you with loud music any more or they would be sued by RIAA for unauthorised handing out of their property).
The point is that information can only be sold the way secrets are sold (remember, by definition something is information for you only if you haven't already knew it). That goes for all new (software, video) and old (written stuff, music, even patents) flavours of information. Any other attempt to price and deal it in material kind of way is like trying to hold the water in the basket, plow the sea, or heard the snails.
Information is precious and should be priced very high accordingly, but any attempt to steer it afterwards is pointless, doomed, expensive, troublesome and, as most of us feel, tiranic. Get your money now and keep your nose out of my business! The problem they (information producers and dealers) have with this natural state of affairs is twofold: 1) they wish to sell directly to great number of people who hasn't got that kind of money, but as there are so many of us, 'en masse' ('the market') we have huge amount of it (and they think they shold get all of it and more) and 2) they are huge machinery wich pays its own record manufacturing. The solution is so obvious and natural but, hidden behind the long rooted law system, information industry doesn't want to change and subsidize itself:
First, the information carrier imprinting (record production) industry should be separated from information producing industry.
Second, there should be information exchange market, like there is stock exchange market. The information brokers would buy brand new (and expensive!) information (music, software, films,
Of course, the buyers will have to be very cautios who they get into business with. Maybe some of their co-buyers can make fast sell into their target market and close them out (think "first newspaper to publish the news"). But, going large scale may be too expensive. New owners of information can choose to sell several copies to other interested parties, at more affordable (medium or small businesses affordable) price covering their expenses plus profit in sum.
At some pont, record producing industry will buy the information and publish it at very affordable price (i.e. like Linux or BSD distros of today), but of course they will compete and try to get it sooner then competition do. Still, somewhere, very soon, you will be able to get it for smaller price, home
No free music. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
WHAT?! (Score:2, Funny)
God has a hard on for dentists, because we kill everything we see. He plays his games, we play ours. To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh teeth. God was here before Dentistry, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the industry!
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupid (Score:3)
Make Them Pay !!! (Score:3, Funny)
In order to make it palatable, the dentists need a publicist to headline a few high-profile cases where poor dentists are shown losing everything because nobody is buying new dental work anymore. Picture it: a few talking heads discussing how this will even
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Although the music itself may be in the public domain, most performances of it would not be. Perhaps some conservatory students could start putting out free performances?
Your point is weaker than you think. (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, I won't deny there is some truth to your point, the pay for dentists is high. But there are a couple things you've forgotten.
1) Setting up as a dentist costs a _lot_ of money. At least $100k in training, and more than that for the practice. Sure, you might die rich, but I think it takes 15 years before you're better off than someone who leaves school for a job at McDs. Of course, you don't have to buy a practice, but pay rates for associates are quite a bit lower. I know we had a lot more disposable money now than we did a couple years ago, and I expect we'll have more in a few years.
2) Your argument is used by pretty much everybody to lump costs on dentists. Guess how much it costs for the piece of paper saying you can use the radiograph, a rubber-stamp with no checking that has to be renewed every? How much for the annual practicing certificate? How much for litigation insurance? How much for continuing eduation (some courses cost $1000/day). Roughly speaking, for every $100 you pay your dentist, they will get $15 cash they can spend.
Corrin (Pissed off because we bought an iPod yesterday for my wife to use at work)