PDA

View Full Version : Copyright Police Want Truck Drivers To Have Licensed Cab Music



megimoo
03-28-2011, 02:55 AM
The Belgian music royalty collecting agency SABAM has once again stepped up to enforce their strict copyright regime. After collecting money for fake artists and forgetting to pay out to real ones, they are now targeting truck drivers who listen to music in their cabs without an appropriate license.

truckRoyalty collection agencies are known for going to extremes to claim money on behalf of artists and music composers.

They target schools and kids’ community centers, charge charities for the singing of Christmas carols without a license, and even crash weddings if they have to.

While these copyright collectors are very strict in forcing their rules onto others, they often fail to live up to their own standards. This attitude was brilliantly exposed by the Belgian TV-show Basta who exposed local music royalty collecting agency SABAM for charging people to pay non-existent artists.

This week SABAM made the headlines once again, this time claiming money from truck drivers who listen to music in their cabs. Since a truck’s cab is a place of work the drivers are obliged to pay royalty fees, they argue. Those are simply the rules according to the copyright police, but not everyone agrees.

“It’s utter nonsense,” said Maggie De Block, member of the Belgian Parliament in a response to the claim. “The truck drivers don’t need the radio so much for playing music, but for their safety. So it is illogical that they should pay for it.”

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-police-want-truck-drivers-to-have-licensed-cab-music-110327/

txradioguy
03-28-2011, 03:00 AM
I see this as the next scam the RIAA tries here in the U.S. under their false pretense that the music industry is in decline today because I download music for free.

Odysseus
03-28-2011, 09:47 AM
I see this as the next scam the RIAA tries here in the U.S. under their false pretense that the music industry is in decline today because I download music for free.

Free downloads do cut into music revenues, but trying to extort money is only going to increase the resentments that drive much of the free downloading. They'd be better off investing in better security for their content, the way that software developers do, so that they can sell online without losing their shirts. People only buy CDs as gifts. For their own listening, they download, and the will download from the cheapest and most convenient sites.

fettpett
03-28-2011, 10:00 AM
Free downloads do cut into music revenues, but trying to extort money is only going to increase the resentments that drive much of the free downloading. They'd be better off investing in better security for their content, the way that software developers do, so that they can sell online without losing their shirts. People only buy CDs as gifts. For their own listening, they download, and the will download from the cheapest and most convenient sites.

If they had embraced the internet and downloading directly early on instead of fighting the death of the hardcopy CD market, the current situation wouldn't be what it is. Instead of suing the ass off of Napster and going after single moms, and set up their own business model of selling music online, they wouldn't have this problem now.

they screwed the pooch and now are paying for it.

Odysseus
03-28-2011, 10:07 AM
If they had embraced the internet and downloading directly early on instead of fighting the death of the hardcopy CD market, the current situation wouldn't be what it is. Instead of suing the ass off of Napster and going after single moms, and set up their own business model of selling music online, they wouldn't have this problem now.

they screwed the pooch and now are paying for it.
Agreed.

It's the same idiotic mindset that drove the MPAA to oppose home video machines. Now, most revenue for features comes from DVD sales and Netflix downloads. It's their primary revenue stream. If they'd been smart, they'd have worked with Napster by offering exclusive content in return for controls and royalties, and Napster could have easily sold advertising which would have covered the licenses fees.

txradioguy
03-28-2011, 10:55 AM
Free downloads do cut into music revenues, but trying to extort money is only going to increase the resentments that drive much of the free downloading. They'd be better off investing in better security for their content, the way that software developers do, so that they can sell online without losing their shirts. People only buy CDs as gifts. For their own listening, they download, and the will download from the cheapest and most convenient sites.

The problem is...is that music downloading is just the latest technology that the RIAA has gone after with the same tired" they'll bankrupt the artist" argument.

Blank cassette tapes...VHS tapes...and CD-Rs were all said to be the end of commercial music/movies etc etc...

Yet they are all still here. And we pay a percentage of the cost of all the above mentioned products to the RIAA. It's extortion.

The only place where downloading music has cut into sales is in singles. Album sales increased during the same time. People are downloading a song...deciding they like it and going to buy the album.

ASCAP...BMI...SESAC those are the primary royalty collection companies for the music industry. I know because at one time or another in my broadcast career I've had to fill out the paperwork for my station to cut a check to pay them for the music we play at the station.

Go into a bar and look at the DJ booth....you'll find a sticker. A doctors office or mall that plays commercial music over their speakers...somewhere there is a sticker from one of those companies.

So this argument that me downloading an mp3 of Bon Jovi's "Runaway" is somehow gonna send Jon, Ritchie and the boys to the poor house doesn't wash with me.

JB
03-28-2011, 12:13 PM
The only place where downloading music has cut into sales is in singles. Album sales increased during the same time. People are downloading a song...deciding they like it and going to buy the album.That's what music thieves tell themselves to justify their theft of music. Have any links to back that claim?

Here's one suggesting just the opposite:

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/)


...at the end of last year, the music business was worth half of what it was ten years ago and the decline doesn't look like it will be slowing anytime soon.

Although the Recording Industry Association of America will report its official figures in the early spring, the trend has been very clear: RIAA has reported declining revenue in nine of the past 10 years, with album sales falling an average of 8% each year. <snipped>

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/chart_music.top.gif

fettpett
03-28-2011, 12:32 PM
That's what music thieves tell themselves to justify their theft of music. Have any links to back that claim?

Here's one suggesting just the opposite:

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/)



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/chart_music.top.gif

yeah, and how much would that have been different if the RIAA and their ilk had embraced download technology from the beginning instead of being assholes about it.

Novaheart
03-28-2011, 12:32 PM
That's what music thieves tell themselves to justify their theft of music. Have any links to back that claim?



Oh poor babies.

I bought Neil Young and Led Zeppelin in vinyl and 8 track.
I bought Donna Summer and Eric Clapton in Vinyl and Cassette.
I bought Duran Duran, Vangelis, Depeche Mode, and Go Gos in cassette and CD.

I have bought Grateful Dead and artists in every medium, and I have paid for concert tickets for Zappa, Waters, BB King, Eric Clapton, Jerry Garcia, Springstein, Talking Heads, Genesis, Go Gos, Donna Summer, Mutants, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Herbie Hancock, The Shirelles, Fred Flowers, Monty Rock, Blood Sweat and Tears, and Grace Jones.

And I have paid to replace my entire collection once because it was stolen.
And now I have paid to replace most of my collection in MP3 form.

The songs I got for "free" were not available elsewhere for the most part, but even if they were I had already bought these songs at least twice before.

In short, I have done my part. If Donna Summer didn't save her pennies when i was raining gold on her head, it's not my fault. I have done my part.

JB
03-28-2011, 12:43 PM
yeah, and how much would that have been different if the RIAA and their ilk had embraced download technology from the beginning instead of being assholes about it.I have no idea and don't really feel like doing any number crunching.

I just kick a huge kick out of people that steal music but really think they aren't stealing music.

JB
03-28-2011, 12:50 PM
Oh poor babies. <snip>You probably had a console TV without remote in your living room once. Then you had a remote controlled TV after that. Then maybe a TV/VCR combo. And right now you might have a 50" flatscreen hanging on your wall.

Should you get a 3D TV for free because you bought TVs in the past?

No one made you buy MP3s to replace your collection. I bet your 8 tracks, vinyl and cassettes work just fine. Probably no need to replace what you already own. You just want the latest tech. Doesn't mean you can just steal it.

And for the record...this has nothing to do with concert tickets. Completely different conversation.

wilbur
03-28-2011, 01:07 PM
That's what music thieves tell themselves to justify their theft of music. Have any links to back that claim?

Downloading pirated movies, music, software etc, is not stealing - its copyright infringement

wilbur
03-28-2011, 01:15 PM
You probably had a console TV without remote in your living room once. Then you had a remote controlled TV after that. Then maybe a TV/VCR combo. And right now you might have a 50" flatscreen hanging on your wall.

Should you get a 3D TV for free because you bought TVs in the past?

No one made you buy MP3s to replace your collection. I bet your 8 tracks, vinyl and cassettes work just fine. Probably no need to replace what you already own. You just want the latest tech. Doesn't mean you can just steal it.

And for the record...this has nothing to do with concert tickets. Completely different conversation.

Not analogous, at all.

What is one really buying when you buy some music? Are you buying the physical medium its distributed on, or are you buying the content?

Well, you buy both, actually. But the content is the important part... and content comes with fair use rights, which allow you to back up or copy the content onto other mediums, and things of that nature. So, I'm not sure if it holds water or not, but "fair use" could at least be somewhat plausibly leveraged to justify downloading copies of content that you have already own. By downloading content, you don't actually deprive anyone of anything, like you would if you stole a physical object.

enslaved1
03-28-2011, 01:22 PM
Vaguely related to the thread falling apart into an argument about artists losing money over downloads. Use free music to grow your fanbase (http://miccontrol.com/#/micschool/how-to-use-free-music-to-grow-your-fanbase/?utm_campaign=MicControl&utm_content=http:miccontrol.com/)

There are people at fault on both sides. The record business had a case of tunnel vision, many of the artists making the most noise are the ones who are making plenty of money without the record sales (I take the indie label griping about a reviewer/journalist posting his advance copies of releases to be downloaded a lot more seriously than James Hetfield griping from behind his endorsed guitars press release here (http://www.heavymetalbuzz.com/2011/03/debemur-morti-productions-issues.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HeavyMetalBuzz+%28Heavy+Metal +Buzz%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail) scroll down a ways to read the article) The fans who think the bands somehow owe them and don't buy the albums or the concert tickets or the tshirts or anything else.
I can't claim to be a saint in the musical download realm, but I do try and support groups that I sneak stuff from (usually by recording streams of songs or the occasional finding out of print albums in torrent form. Splitting hairs, so shoot me) by including them in my various libraries like lastfm, figuring that if industry folks are smart, fans on such legal streaming sites are worth as much, if not more than a single album sale. With more and more 3 and 4G mobile coverage, streaming music is more and more accessible all the time, not just at home sitting at the computer, and is likely the future of music broadcasting.
The best answer, IMHO, is to avoid all the baloney sause and stick with the artist who happily give their stuff away, and support them by telling your friends, going to the shows, and buying the tshirts and stickers. Show the RIAA and the pretentious ones that it's possible to make a living making music without suing everyone in sight or sounding like a holier than thou butt monkey.

Odysseus
03-28-2011, 01:33 PM
Not analogous, at all.

What is one really buying when you buy some music? Are you buying the physical medium its distributed on, or are you buying the content?

Well, you buy both, actually. But the content is the important part... and content comes with fair use rights, which allow you to back up or copy the content onto other mediums, and things of that nature. So, I'm not sure if it holds water or not, but "fair use" could at least be somewhat plausibly leveraged to justify downloading copies of content that you have already own. By downloading content, you don't actually deprive anyone of anything, like you would if you stole a physical object.

You're denying the artist royalties.

Fair use does permit copying for personal use, but it's hard to prove that you own a vinyl album to a website that allows MP3 downloads. The issue is that the copyright holders have a right to expect payment for their products. By not working with the new technologies, the RIAA and MPAA have created a black market and exacerbated the problem. If they had embraced downloading MP3s and made it as convenient and cheap as possible, they'd have raked in $billions, just as they did when the eventually stopped fighting the home video market.

If nothing else, they ought to make old, sold-out material available, as the cost of putting old vinyl into digital formats is negligible compared to the potential payback. If the record label can't be bothered to keep their inventory available, then they have no one to blame but themselves if people look for alternatives.

fettpett
03-28-2011, 01:36 PM
A couple years ago Barenaked Ladies (I think) released an album that was on a flash drive. another band told their fan's that they didn't care if they downloaded their music and released the album with a blank CD and bonus stuff on jacket

AmPat
03-28-2011, 01:37 PM
Downloading pirated movies, music, software etc, is not stealing - its copyright infringement

:rolleyes:

Novaheart
03-28-2011, 01:42 PM
You probably had a console TV without remote in your living room once. Then you had a remote controlled TV after that. Then maybe a TV/VCR combo. And right now you might have a 50" flatscreen hanging on your wall.

Should you get a 3D TV for free because you bought TVs in the past?

No one made you buy MP3s to replace your collection. I bet your 8 tracks, vinyl and cassettes work just fine. Probably no need to replace what you already own. You just want the latest tech. Doesn't mean you can just steal it.

And for the record...this has nothing to do with concert tickets. Completely different conversation.

According to the RIAA , I am not buying the recording, because if I were then I could use it as I choose. According to the RIAA all I am buying is essentially permission to liten to the song when I choose as long as I am not making money off it. In that case, I should only have to pay once.

fettpett
03-28-2011, 01:43 PM
According to the RIAA , I am not buying the recording, because if I were then I could use it as I choose. According to the RIAA all I am buying is essentially permission to liten to the song when I choose as long as I am not making money off it. In that case, I should only have to pay once.

it's the same idea that the software and gaming companies have been using with DRM and Licensing.

JB
03-28-2011, 01:45 PM
"fair use" could at least be somewhat plausibly leveraged to justify downloading copies of content that you have already own.I'll give you that.

But downloading something you don't own, but should have paid for, is stealing. No matter how it's justified. And saying people are downloading singles and then buying the album is ridiculous.

wilbur
03-28-2011, 02:07 PM
I'll give you that.

But downloading something you don't own, but should have paid for, is stealing. No matter how it's justified. And saying people are downloading singles and then buying the album is ridiculous.

The operative difference is that stealing actually deprives someone of something, necessarily.

When it comes to copyright infringement, you're really violating the rules put in place that grant copyright holders a limited monopoly over their creations (its supposed to be limited, anyways). It is true that in some cases, those violations will deprive them of actual sales... in many others though, they will experience no loss at all.

And its always worth keeping in mind, that the terms of copyrights have increasingly, over the years, been tilted in favor of the copyright holders - far, far, beyond their original design - through intense lobbying by organizations like Disney, the RIAA, and the MPAA.

In short, I think the morality is a lot fuzzier when it comes to copyright infringement - than it is with actual theft.

AmPat
03-28-2011, 02:52 PM
These truckers should revert back to the pre-radio days and sing incessant verses of 99 bottles and Row, row, row yer boat. :cool:

Odysseus
03-28-2011, 03:50 PM
The operative difference is that stealing actually deprives someone of something, necessarily.

Such as royalties?


When it comes to copyright infringement, you're really violating the rules put in place that grant copyright holders a limited monopoly over their creations (its supposed to be limited, anyways). It is true that in some cases, those violations will deprive them of actual sales... in many others though, they will experience no loss at all.

No, the copyright laws formally assign copyright holders ownership of their creations. In every case, the distribution of copyrighted material to a third party denies the creator royalties.


And its always worth keeping in mind, that the terms of copyrights have increasingly, over the years, been tilted in favor of the copyright holders - far, far, beyond their original design - through intense lobbying by organizations like Disney, the RIAA, and the MPAA.

In short, I think the morality is a lot fuzzier when it comes to copyright infringement - than it is with actual theft.

It only seems fuzzier because there is no physical reproduction of the product. If I were to sneak into a record plant and run off additional copies of an album on vinyl and then distribute them, you'd agree that I was violating the law. But if I make a digital copy and distribute it, I'm doing the same thing. Now, I agree that RIAA and MPAA have fought to narrowly tailor copyright laws to an absurd degree, but that doesn't mean that the owners of copyrights aren't entitled to compensation when you take their work. Copying a CD so that you can have a copy in your car is not a copyright violation, since you have paid for the original CD and are only acting to extend the life of the product, but selling the copy to someone else is a violation. It's no different from buying bootleg videos on a disc.

megimoo
03-28-2011, 07:53 PM
Such as royalties?



No, the copyright laws formally assign copyright holders ownership of their creations. In every case, the distribution of copyrighted material to a third party denies the creator royalties.



It only seems fuzzier because there is no physical reproduction of the product. If I were to sneak into a record plant and run off additional copies of an album on vinyl and then distribute them, you'd agree that I was violating the law. But if I make a digital copy and distribute it, I'm doing the same thing. Now, I agree that RIAA and MPAA have fought to narrowly tailor copyright laws to an absurd degree, but that doesn't mean that the owners of copyrights aren't entitled to compensation when you take their work. Copying a CD so that you can have a copy in your car is not a copyright violation, since you have paid for the original CD and are only acting to extend the life of the product, but selling the copy to someone else is a violation. It's no different from buying bootleg videos on a disc.
When you buy a CD or any form of music distribution the RIAA argues that you don't have any rights to the music other than listening to it from the original CD.

You technically may not copy it to your computer drive or load it onto and listen to it on any other device. The artist signs all rights to the music over to the label and makes no money from the sale of music by the labels.

The RIAA represents the labels not the artists.The artists make their money from touring and shows.

fettpett
03-28-2011, 08:06 PM
When you buy a CD or any form of music distribution the RIAA argues that you don't have any rights to the music other than listening to it from the original CD.

You technically may not copy it to your computer drive or load it onto and listen to it on any other device. The artist signs all rights to the music over to the label and makes no money from the sale of music by the labels.

The RIAA represents the labels not the artists.The artists make their money from touring and shows.

actually a court ruled just recently that one can do that. in the Apple Jailbreaking ruling


Jailbreakers are the customers who refuse to fall into line. They hack their iPhones so they can use T-Mobile or other carriers, and they download unapproved software from websites like Rock Your Phone, which bills itself as an "independent iPhone application store." Some of the jailbreakers are classic tech-geek rebels. But others insist that they are acting out of necessity, because Apple's approved products do not meet their needs.
Apple has fought back. It has warned customers that if they install unauthorized apps they risk damaging their iPhones. It has told them that jailbreaking may invalidate warranties. And it has accused jailbreakers of violating copyright law.
(See the top iPhone apps.)
Now the Library of Congress, which operates the Copyright Office, has taken away Apple's copyright argument. Jailbreaking is "fair use," it decided, and therefore not a copyright violation. This ruling on jailbreaking was one of several good decisions issued by the Copyright Office this week. Another one makes it easier for college professors and documentary filmmakers to use small video clips without running afoul of the law.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2006956,00.html#ixzz1HwSROylr

The jailbreak ruling cover's CD's and DVD's and other media for personal use, so the RIAA has no standing on that argument

megimoo
03-28-2011, 10:39 PM
actually a court ruled just recently that one can do that. in the Apple Jailbreaking ruling



The jailbreak ruling cover's CD's and DVD's and other media for personal use, so the RIAA has no standing on that argument
Every American teen in creation who has songs on their MP3 players have hacked music .They all share the latest with each other and there's no way the RIAA can do anything about it.The RIAA prefers to go after college kids because they're easier to track and they know their family's have money or at least they did before they sent their kids to college !

fettpett
03-28-2011, 10:56 PM
Every American teen in creation who has songs on their MP3 players have hacked music .They all share the latest with each other and there's no way the RIAA can do anything about it.The RIAA prefers to go after college kids because they're easier to track and they know their family's have money or at least they did before they sent their kids to college !

tell that to the single mom in Minnesota that they've tried to destroy for the last 5-7 years

Odysseus
03-28-2011, 11:33 PM
When you buy a CD or any form of music distribution the RIAA argues that you don't have any rights to the music other than listening to it from the original CD.

You technically may not copy it to your computer drive or load it onto and listen to it on any other device. The artist signs all rights to the music over to the label and makes no money from the sale of music by the labels.

The RIAA represents the labels not the artists.The artists make their money from touring and shows.
As Fett pointed out, the RIAA got spanked on that point of law.

actually a court ruled just recently that one can do that. in the Apple Jailbreaking ruling



The jailbreak ruling cover's CD's and DVD's and other media for personal use, so the RIAA has no standing on that argument

The RIAA and MPAA are despicable hacks, but that doesn't change the fact that copyrights exist and deserve protection. Ripping an MP3 from a CD for your own personal use is fair use. Mass distribution of someone else's work without compensation is theft.

RobJohnson
03-29-2011, 02:46 AM
These truckers should revert back to the pre-radio days and sing incessant verses of 99 bottles and Row, row, row yer boat. :cool:

:D

txradioguy
03-29-2011, 05:08 AM
Oh poor babies.

I bought Neil Young and Led Zeppelin in vinyl and 8 track.
I bought Donna Summer and Eric Clapton in Vinyl and Cassette.
I bought Duran Duran, Vangelis, Depeche Mode, and Go Gos in cassette and CD.

I have bought Grateful Dead and artists in every medium, and I have paid for concert tickets for Zappa, Waters, BB King, Eric Clapton, Jerry Garcia, Springstein, Talking Heads, Genesis, Go Gos, Donna Summer, Mutants, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Herbie Hancock, The Shirelles, Fred Flowers, Monty Rock, Blood Sweat and Tears, and Grace Jones.

And I have paid to replace my entire collection once because it was stolen.
And now I have paid to replace most of my collection in MP3 form.

The songs I got for "free" were not available elsewhere for the most part, but even if they were I had already bought these songs at least twice before.

In short, I have done my part. If Donna Summer didn't save her pennies when i was raining gold on her head, it's not my fault. I have done my part.

QFT

txradioguy
03-29-2011, 05:14 AM
JB to answer your question. I can't find the report I cited anymore. To be quite honest it was part of some show prep I used when I was a PD for Clear Channel.

I did find this interesting tidbit from a 2008 article.


Interestingly, an examination of the RIAA’s marketing and sales charts shows that the real decrease in CD sales actually began in earnest after Napster ceased operating. In fact, during the 2 1/2 years that Napster was operating, CD sales increased by over $500 million dollars from what they were in 1998. Since 2001, CD sales have continued to decrease steadily.



That seems to back up what I said about people downloading a song then going and buying the album.


However, most of the RIAA’s problems and frustrations arose from poor business decisions on the part of the music industry and not from the loss of revenue due to illegal downloads. Lost sales resulting from illegal downloads is not as great as the RIAA would have the public believe. The music industry is making money. While its profits might not be a large as they would like, the problem is not so much that illegal downloading is causing a decrease in sales but rather the fact that the number of new releases greatly exceeds the number of releases that are played on the radio. In other words, only an extremely small percentage of music gets airplay today. People are simply not being exposed to the same amount of new music they were years ago when music directors and DJs created the playlists and gave more new artists airplay. Today, radio station playlists are formatted by the marketing and advertising departments of large corporations. The majority of music played on today’s airwaves is the same generic sound that has been recycled time after time.

http://www.besttechie.net/2008/04/14/illegal-music-downloading-look-at-the-facts/


The RIAA also left out one little tidbit in the chart you cite from them. Sales are down compared to previous years because not as much content is being shipped from the labels.

fettpett
03-29-2011, 10:46 AM
Instead of looking at sales records of CD's and hardcopy media, we should look at sales records of online media distribution, like Itunes and Netflix.

The biggest difference between the Hardcopy media age (from Records to CD's) is the HUGE profit margins that companies could rake in. the cost of a blank CD and imprinting that CD with the music cost a company less than a dollar, add to that the marketing costs and it was maybe $3 tops. They turned around and sold CD's for anywhere from $7-$30 depending on the artist, if it was a special edition and other factors. they were making a KILLING off of these sales because there were very few ways of getting the music any other way. Until Napster came along. Digital music is MUCH less profitable (typical song costing $.99, >$10 for an entire album) and they have to deal with a much more competitive market.

RIAA and MPAA both could have come in at the start, worked with companies to start media distribution early on and set the price points much higher and people would have paid it. but because they didn't they screwed themselves AND made it much easier for new artist to get started without singing contracts with the big companies.