Maybe if it is read verbatim from their dictionary in a place where it can be used to increase a businesses profit. To these royalty groups, it isn't a problem for you to listen to it or to sing the lyrics. However, if it is used as a way to influence customers such that the business see financial gain...

Come on, it has to be said - this capitalism is getting out of hand. People are getting stupid.

Capitalism? Copyright is a form of government regulation on what would otherwise be a free market. It would be more capitalist to abolish copyright.

(Disclaimer: I do not want to abolish copyright.)

This is a logical extension of current lunatic copyright laws: the IP Barons want a cut every time anyone, anywhere, performs a song they claim to 'own'. The next step will be to require everyone to wear brain-scanners so that they can charge us every time we 'play' a song inside our heads from memory.

The whole concept of Imaginary Property leads directly to this kind of stupidity, because the very idea of being able to 'own' something which has no physical existence is quite simply insane.

I guess it is time to sue the music industry for putting songs in our head.

The best way to get them to START verifying their facts then would be to treat the times they fall for hoaxes as if it's true. And let them realize they should verify info before it destroys their reputation.

As far as I'm concerned, The PRS's apology was more like an unofficial "I'm sorry, I didn't realize we can't get away with that just yet."

It already has. It's called rent seeking, and there's no shortage of examples. Certainly, overzealous copyright enforcement, patent trolling, and the like are examples we commonly see here, but they're by no means the only ones. Look at the ISPs that have crushed proposed municipal wifi plans before they could even get started, by bribing^Wencouraging lawmakers to pass laws against it the moment it was proposed. Another example is the desire of ISPs to charge for "all you can eat" plans while then throttling what you can actually do with them. That's the same type of behavior we're seeing here.

There are plenty of examples outside the tech sector as well. We had an article a few days ago about predatory student loan practices, and that's been studied quite a bit already. Telecom/cable companies' frequent monopoly/duopoly structure in most areas. The inability to become certified in many areas without a college degree even if you can prove your competence (benefitting, of course, colleges). The list goes on and on.

I'm not honestly sure that's not a consequence of trying to apply capitalism to a resource (information) which is naturally not scarce, and can only be made so through draconian rules and enforcement. With computers, it's not difficult at all to perfectly and quickly replicate most types of information, there's no real scarcity of it at all, only artificial, legally enforced scarcity. If I were in the business of selling nothing dressed up as something, and the only way people paid me was when they were forced to, I guess I might be tempted to overuse force too.

Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which makes it a tool of commerce. Songwriters are the ones who get compensated for this, and rightfully so: people are using the fruits of their labor (music) to help sell merchandise. The supermarket is a business, and licensing the music is part of the cost of doing business. It has been this way for many, many years; we are not entering a new age of PRS thuggery. Without due diligence on this and other fronts, professional songwriters (who are not, by the by, a particularly wealthy lot) would not have an income. And please don't make the claim that songwriters get paid for years for 5 minutes of work, because they write far more songs that get rejected or fail commercially than are successful. It's a job, and not an easy one.

As for the woman being asked to get a license, yes, that is absurd. Probably the representative of the PRS who made the request was new and overeager to please his or her boss, or was maybe just a douchebag. Who knows. It was a truly boneheaded maneuver.

Full disclosure: I'm a songwriter and a member of a PRS. The money I make a year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner. Without someone looking out for my interests, I'd make nothing.

Courts are also a form of government regulation. Without them, you couldn't have contracts. Sounds like fun capitalism to me, not having contracts...

Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which makes it a tool of commerce.

Sounded to me like they'd use a radio in the back that just happened to be in earshot of the front. This is opposed to the full speaker array across the store that keeps the place from being too quiet.

That's more akin to being charged a performance licence for your car radio while your windows are rolled down.

So you'll tolerate the existence of these bloodsucking organizations in exchange for a few (and I mean a few) bucks for yourself?

What's not capitalist about it? It's treating ideas and expression as a form of capital. It would be very un-capitalist not to exploit that for gain.

I've worked in the past as a musician and songwriter, and I was in radio for most of a decade. I am a published author and editor, and currently make my living as a writer.

And I say this is utter horseshit.

People do not go to grocery stores to hear Muzak. They go there to buy food.

The radio stations and music services already pay royalties in any case, and places that play recorded music in-house have already paid for those recordings. And that's where it should end.

To take your model to its logical conclusion is to suggest that, because I can hear some kid's iPod on the train because he's got it cranked up loud enough to turn his brains into jelly, either he or I should pay royalties, which is preposterous. You may claim otherwise, but this is *exactly* where it leads.

Next, you'll be telling me I should pay a performance fee whenever I read to my daughter from a copyrighted book.

Disclaimer: 'Muzak' and 'iPod' are registered trademarks of their respective owners, and they are completely welcome to them.

The company didn't realize anything. They were cowed into submission by an understandably outraged public.

> Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket
> to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they
> use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which
> makes it a tool of commerce.

Yes, and so is the building itself, the paint to make the walls look nice, and much more.

Should the builders, paint manufacturers, etc. get 'royalties' because you use their products commercially?

I don't think so. So "used as a tool of commerce" is just not a valid argument.

Just as with the building/paint/what's in the building, the radio has already been paid for. Via tax (as in NL) and/or the radio stations which pay to transmit. Everyone can freely listen to the radio privately, so why should anyone have to pay to use it in a store?

Let me repeat myself from other posts I've made in the past: the fact that you write stuff down on a piece of paper and send it to somebody does not entitle you to a check. Since this is a tech site, I'll compare this to writing software: just because you wrote some software doesn't mean that you're entitled to receive money. I don't care what the size is of the check is. Software writers are at least ahead of the curve and trying various methods to entice people to pay them directly. What I see from song writers instead is "I wrote some stuff that's used somewhere, pay me forever. And I deserve to be paid enough to not have to do anything else."

To that I can only say one thing: fuck off. I write a ton of crap. Some of it is good, some of it isn't, but I know it makes a difference. Some of it is specific to the situation and the client, some of it is generic and useful to everyone in the field. I do not expect to get paid in perpetuity for my writing, and I don't expect some third party entity to hunt down documents that kinda look like mine, or people who have something that looks like my document without proof they paid for it.

That's how it ought to be. You do work, you get paid. Wanna get paid again? Do more work. Which, by the way, is how art used to be compensated. And plenty of awesome work was created through that system - work that is arguably better than about 99.99% of the crap that came out in the last 10 years, when copyright enforcement truly started to get nuts.

They are testing the waters.

Which is lawyer-speak for "Our next target will be someone with a lot less public exposure, and much less ability to defend against our accusations in court."

Courts are also a form of government regulation. Without them, you couldn't have contracts. Sounds like fun capitalism to me, not having contracts...

Not all regulation is created equal. Copyright law and court enforcement of contracts are not equivalent regulations. The former regulation (copyright law) interferes with the natural tendencies of the free market, rendering it less capitalist, while the latter regulation (court enforcement of contracts) does no such interfering.

Not really much difference between the current system and outright anarchy when people can sue you to death.

Replace "bastard feudal lord from hell" with "giant corporation", and "peasant" with "individual" and you will find things have really not much changed.

First they took music out of the schools, Then they took the music off the radio, Now they are trying to take the music out of the mouths.

Hmmmm, sounds familiar... Oh yes! That's what the Taliban did to a whole country.

and your spell checker gets a module that suggests cheaper words to use in your sentences. And it takes in account the extra tax on words the government doesn't like. You can still write what you want but some things are really costly..

It requires scarcity to function.

Which is why people are knocking down houses in the USA...

e.g.
http://www.yidio.com/unsold-houses-knocked-down/id/395665281 [yidio.com]
http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=19580208 [msn.com]

If demand is ever satisfied, the value of the product tends to zero and therefore it is impossible to make profit or to pay the loans which make up our monetary system. This is why there will always be poverty, always be homelessness, and is of course insanity and stupidity of the highest order.

Silvio Gesell [wikipedia.org] identified this particular fundamental problem (and proposed a solution) with the nature of money itself nearly 100 years ago.

To people outside the UK, charging you for playing the radio makes no damn sense. After all, the radio station already pays for the music (if it's a standard broadcast) or *you* already pay for the music if it's satellite or CD.

The only reason people like the OP can rationalize the PRS is because they're looking at it through the lens of a culture in which it's the status quo. You see this all the time - people rationalizing or even praising elements of their particular culture that MAKE NO GODDAMN SENSE. I'm not sure whether it's done out of a sort of misplaced nationalism, a lack of imagination, or something else. But it's the only explanation I can think of for the defense of the indefensible, whether it's the PRS, the American health care system, or any other country's unique psychosis.

The irony is that for the vast majority of musicians in the UK, the burden the PRS puts on people is vastly disproportionate to the benefit received. Again, take the original poster - would s/he give up that one dinner a year in order to save business owners the incredible hassle of dealing with the PRS? Not to mention the massive amount of money the PRS must spend on enforcement, which reduces the artists' cut. If the PRS moved to a system where royalties for recording sales and broadcast were higher, and eliminated the tax on playing music in public, how much more profitable would they be?

DRM is not a problem if it's not protected by law. There's not a scheme that's been devised yet that cannot be cracked. The problem with DRM is that it is illegal to circumvent it and it has been mandated for some devices. Remove that legal protection and the content providers can add it all they like.

Than some old dear who works in a grocery store?

This is an oops. That it's an oops that is pertinent to the whole copywrong clusterfuck is of interest to Slashdotters (and should be, but isn't, of interest to Joe Public), but it is an oops nonetheless.

Intellectual property rights are just an extension of that.

The propaganda purpose of calling it 'property' is exactly to trick people into falling for that fallacy. In reality it is nothing like property, even diametrically opposed in some aspects.

Property rights do not prevent production of copies, they do not enforce scarcity and they do not interfere with other peoples ownership of their property.

Intellectual 'property' on the other hand is essentially a time limited taxation right, a monopolistic right that gives someone the governments blessing to tax and control any copies made. It enforces scarcity, and it takes away the right of everyone else to do what they wish with their property, including copying, modifying and displaying it.

"incredulous at best", eh? Don't use words that you don't understand. It makes an otherwise good post seem childish.

Because the "idiot" is a license salesman paid on commission. S/he has no interest in the rights and wrongs beyond selling as many licenses as possible in order to maximise his/her commission.

What's gone wrong here is pretty similar with what went wrong with traffic wardens (parking regulation enforcement officers) in the UK. At one time they were employed by the state on salary. And they'd see it as their duty to keep traffic moving. And if they saw someone about to park in the wrong place, they would go and warn them. Now, they are outsourced, and paid on commission by the number of parking tickets issued. So now they act as huntsmen, hiding themselves around the corner from where they know people tend to park illegally, and jumping out to claim a scalp as often as they can. On occasion lying about the offence in order to issue a ticket where none should have been issued.

People in quazi-official enforcement roles should be seen as impartial appliers of rules and regulations. They should never be paid on commission. That's what's gone wrong here.

CDs are for personal use, and priced accordingly. That's fair. The radio thing is a bit weird, since radio is all about broadcast, but I suppose that is to stop nightclubs using radio to avoid paying hefty music license fees.

Still, it's horrendous that our common culture (popular songs, catchphrases, etc) are now all copyright. People used to sing folk songs, but now these have been replaced with pop songs. Perhaps we need some creative common songs?

It's obvious that the big distributors are following Microsoft's strategy. Get popular and crush the competition, then extract money from whoever has big pockets.

More than likely they apologized only because this started to generate negative news. Why didn't they realize they were "going too far" earlier? Like, oh I don't know... before they sent her a demand for money? The should have realized long before this became news that they had no right to demand payment.

This is extortionist behavior on the part of the PRS (and other similar groups). Strike hard and first seems to be the guiding rule in these types of cases, without even considering the facts.

The solution to this entire issue is to download, download and download some more. Bittorrent-style, of course. Do not pay a single cent into this system anymore. And then, when your favorite band comes to town go see and support them and buy their bloody T-Shirt. Make your money go where your ears are and cut out the middlemen!

>> Full disclosure: I'm a songwriter and a member of a PRS. The money I make a
>> year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner.

> So, you're not really a professional "song writer"

Actually he might be a professional song writer of the sort "We'll gladly sell
your music for $17.99 per CD! Here's 47 cents for you...."

"That's what this is."

This is a natural outcome of applying the concept of private property to information.

Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket to be charged for playing the radio

Damn right. A radio broadcast is free to listen to. As everyone else has already pointed out, the station has paid for the rights to broadcast it to their listeners for free.

You could hand out portable radios to every customer at the door, and they could all listen to the same thing for free, so why do you have to pay just because you make it a bit more efficient, and play this free broadcast a bit louder?

I don't know if the problem here is the actual law, or just a bad interpretation of it, but it's ludicrous, and should be stopped.

I doubt this is a hoax. This happens quite a lot in Australia, but it doesn't usually get quite so much publicity, and it usually happens to night clubs, pubs, private halls, radio stations and similar.

The regulatory body over here which primarially deals with this is called the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) [apra-amcos.com.au], basically if you want to perform a copy righted work, you need to obtain licensing.

For instance I work for a small organization which uses some of it's land for small private concerts, of a maximum of 20 people, generally playing classical works, though occasionally other stuff. Under Australian law we had to obtain licensing through APRA for us to be able to hold these private events.

A friend of the family used to work for them and although they believed in what they were doing (They saw it as standing up for the rights of the artists against profiteering companies), they did have stories on how some businesses couldn't/wouldn't pay the licensing fees, so they monitored the events closely and pursed legal action. Though in most cases the businesses just give up. Though they did have stories of how they omnipotently gave the licensing, regardless of the businesses right to pay, for the good of the people. Both of which made me sick.

Anyhow, I took this person to task on the topic one night and suffice to say we're not family friends with them anymore.

I think it's for the best.

It's obvious that the big distributors are following Microsoft's strategy. Get popular and crush the competition, then extract money from whoever has big pockets.

I think you'll find that has been the music industry M.O. for as long as there has been a recording industry. MS is the relative newb when it comes to such behavior.

No, they don't play the radio to make a pleasant environment for their customers. They play the radio to make spending a day waiting on the general public go by a little quicker and to give them something to listen to while they stock shelves or install muffler systems, or whatever else they're doing.

It's music being broadcast for all to hear. Why should the supermarket pay royalties and the guy in the car with his windows down not have to? If they're playing MUZAK or a CD, fine, they should be paying for that music, but paying for broadcast radio doesn't make sense.

If you're not getting compensated fairly, talk to the radio stations playing your music, don't go after the people listening to it. It's *broadcast* -- thrown out over the airwaves for whoever wants it.

Well, at least it would be a tool, if it increased sales. The studies I found in a brief Google search indicate that both tempo and type of music can affect consumers' purchasing behavior and length of stay. However, the store was playing a radio, which gave them almost no control over the program material. A far better choice, if they're interested in using music to increase sales, would be a CD collection or subscription music service. A radio station, with its constant DJ chatter and advertising spots, isn't going to create much of an environment to enhance sales.

(and, as others have said, the royalties have already been paid by the station)

You really haven't read much history have you? Take a look at what feudal society was like and then try and tell me with a straight face that there is not much difference between what we have today and the feudal system.

We have enforcement organizations like that in the US too. We call them the Mafia.

I don't understand how they can make you pay for collecting and translating electromagnetic radiation that is incident upon your property. If they don't like you having their signal, they should stop distributing it for free or provide you with ad-free music for a fee.

When the US Governement decided it ruled the world.

I have stopped buying cd's about 7 years ago... I also used to buy many cd's a month. But lets be honest, the real reason is that I am getting old

Last CD I bought was 10 years ago. Ever since then, I download and copy from the library (it’s all legal here, though).

I don't know about Britannia, but here in the U.S. we the people have a simple fix:

"Amendment 28: Strike the phrase 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;'."

If the 50 states want to provide for copyright protection they still can, but the central government's power will be nullified, and the People will again be free to play (or sing) music and enjoy being alive.

While we're at it we should also pass Amendment 29: "Rights and privileges, both enumerated and non-enumerated, shall only apply to individual human beings, not groups or organizations." No more free speech for corporations; no more lobbying by Microsoft or bribes from RIAA. They will have no more rights than a rock or tree.

Really? Software can be objectively valued? Just to take the most recent example, what's the value of Tower of Goo? 1 Cent? 20 dollars? 0.99 dollars?

As for getting compensated for writing good programs - I'd be ecstatic if I'd get a small lump sum for one of them. Because you know what? I never got a penny for any of them. That's because I was writing them to solve specific problems that arose during normal work duties. In other words, work for hire, for which I got a salary. Copyright resides with the company.

For the rest of your argument - I won't pick it apart. It'll take me hours to point out every inconsistency, unmentioned assumption and unsupported assertion. Suffice to say that royalties are not the only method of compensation that make sense for intellectual work, as the software industry regularly demonstrates.

No it is not a natural outcome, it is a dumb outcome. There are lots of information out there that is proprietary. Some company spent time/money creating it and giving it away will make the company lose profits they could be made. A prime example is the drug industry. They spent billions in R&D - and a lot of that stuff goes nowhere (think AIDs cures/immunization research). Now imagine if there was no protection on information. Said drug company, who spent billions on research comes out with the wonder drug. They go to sell it and need to sell each pill at $X to not only recoup their money but make a profit (they are a business after all) - except joeschmoe drug company that does not research takes the free information (hey in your world information is free, but other stuff is not free) and creates the medicine. They didn't spend billions in R&D so they can sell the pill at $Y where Y
Yes there are horrible extremes, and this case with the music is one of them, but no it is incorrect to say one should not protect what they have invested time/money into - and there is no doubt that music artists, production companies, etc spend a lot of time/money into getting their music out there, getting it famous, and getting it to the point where it makes profits. This case, however, is insane. Stores have been playing radio/cd(tape) music since long before the intarweb

The problem with that solution is that you're still supporting the system you claim to oppose.

When you download songs that are owned by an PRS or RIAA (or other equivalent, depending on your country) member label and don't pay them, you give them an excuse to claim that piracy is killing their business and that they deserve all kinds of special legal treatment. We know their "piracy" statistics are completely made up, but if someone ever goes out there and does a scientific survey of piracy, your downloads push the real numbers slightly closer to the made-up ones. And when you support RIAA-affiliated bands by buying a concert ticket or merchandise, you support the RIAA-affiliated labels. Once artists/bands start to realize that the RIAA is hurting their fans, they'll stop signing contracts with them.

There is lots of good independent music out there being made by people who care more about their music than how much money it makes them or how often they get played on the radio. More is arriving all the time since music production and distribution are incredibly cheap these days. The "music industry" is obsolete. By illegally downloading their music, you're not sticking it to anyone. You're propping up a business model that's on its final legs and is determined to take anyone it can down with it.