Copyright run amok

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Copyright board to charge for music at weddings, parades - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News

Someone please explain to me why corporations deserve to be paid for music played at a private event--say, a wedding--when that music was already purchased by the DJ?

Don't forget the extra fee(s) if there is dancing at the event.

I think the cold has frozen some brains up there in Great White North.

[cashflyer]

This should stimulate more creativity as people will now have to come up with their own original tunes for events - or else, pay the piper (so to speak).

[widgeon13]

That's BS! No reason for that, the music has already been bought.

Next they will want us to pay for radio, oh wait, we are doing that now.

This stuff just encourages piracy.

[lane912]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

That's BS! No reason for that, the music has already been bought.

Next they will want us to pay for radio, oh wait, we are doing that now.

This stuff just encourages piracy.

as prohibition encourages black markets-

[Christien]

Actually, when you buy a CD (or digital download) most of what you're paying for is a license to listen to that music. The license is for private use. Playing it at weddings or similar events constitutes a public performance, and royalties need to be paid.

[island911]

Why do we give so much financial (monopoly) protection for a bunch of derivative, inconsequential work?

It's been ridiculous for quite some time. That is, if someone steals one of my patents, I would have to sue - there is no Patent Police helping the enforcement of that relatively brief exclusive right. But some music downloader? ...yeah, that industry will have police hall his techno-nerdy ass to jail. Ergo, jingles are more important than solutions.

[widebody911]

You wanted capitalism, you got capitalism.

[onewhippedpuppy]

"The reporting process works on the honour system — it's up to the businesses to tell Re:Sound how much music they've used — though Fortier said his organization has a team of licensing professionals across Canada to ensure the rules are being followed."

AKA, bet many people don't self report it. And as with most stupidity this is about one thing - money.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by Christien

... royalties need to be paid.

Screw royalty. We fought and won a war to escape royalty.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Christien

Actually, when you buy a CD (or digital download) most of what you're paying for is a license to listen to that music. The license is for private use. Playing it at weddings or similar events constitutes a public performance, and royalties need to be paid.

Really? I'm fairly certain my wedding was NOT a public event. As a matter of fact, had there been an uninvited guest, we had several large gentlemen (not to mention my irate wife) on hand to forcibly (and gleefully) eject him from the premises.

[lane912]

if i buy a painting from the artist and charge the public to enter my living room to view it do i pay the artist a cut of the door?

[flipper35]

Whether a public or private wedding, it is still construed as a public performance. The DJ is getting paid to play his music in a "public" forum. Same as you not getting a ppv event and then charging peole to come to your house to watch it.

[Red88Carrera]

ASCAP... pay it, or don't play it for profit. Just part of having a DJ business. Even karaoke.

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by widebody911

You wanted capitalism, you got capitalism.

What he said.
If I can make a plug nickel off of any of you folks by gawd I'm going to.

[KNS]

If you purchase Bach or Mozart to listen to, how much of the sale goes to the record company and how much goes to Bach or Mozart. Is the record company making sure that they are seeing their percentage?

[targa911S]

and what police force will be monitoring and enforcing this?

[TheMentat]

If you purchase Bach or Mozart to listen to, how much of the sale goes to the record company and how much goes to Bach or Mozart. Is the record company making sure that they are seeing their percentage?

With Bach or Mozart, they are simply the composer... It is the conductor/orchestra that owns the rights to the recording.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Really? I'm fairly certain my wedding was NOT a public event. As a matter of fact, had there been an uninvited guest, we had several large gentlemen (not to mention my irate wife) on hand to forcibly (and gleefully) eject him from the premises.

There's a number that's a cutoff, though I'm not sure what it is. Something like more than 25 people listening is considered public performance. Or maybe 100, 500, I don't know. But that's how the determination is made, at least here in Canada. I'd imagine it's the same in the states.

Originally Posted by KNS

If you purchase Bach or Mozart to listen to, how much of the sale goes to the record company and how much goes to Bach or Mozart. Is the record company making sure that they are seeing their percentage?

The music itself is public domain (more than 50 years after the death of the creator), but the recording is the property of the producers, performers, etc. So a CD of Mozart would have royalties split between performers, engineers and record company, whereas a CD of Phillip Glass would have royalties split between all those people, plus the composer.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Christien

So a CD of Mozart would have royalties split between record company, record company and record company

Fixed that for you.

[stealthn]

Here's a nickle how many chicken dances can i have?