Music in the workshop

[monkeybiter]

As I've said before on this topic, when you consider that a hardworking and talented furniture maker [for example] may spend many years struggling with financial instability while learning his craft, buying his tools, renting his premises, then just maybe eventually selling individual pieces at a decent rate and finally making a comfortable living [anybody?]. He designs and builds a magnificent piece and uses all of his accumulated contacts to sell it at a good profit. Once. It will never earn him any more money. He might make a second one, but the first piece is spent.
A musician/singer/actor/hanger-on can, with no apprenticeship, no struggle, and apparently no talent on occasion, make a large amount of money for a successful performance [which may or may not have been polished by many others]. But even though their involvement can end there [no after-sales, no warranty] they will continue to be paid over and over again for a job long finished and forgotten about.
The entertainment [?] industry has been bleating for decades about copying [remember cassettes ?] being the end of creativity and the industry, but films are still made that break box office records, and one individual 'star' can 'earn' enough in a couple of years or less to build a hospital. My heart bleeds.

 

[Jake]

More like an unfortunate side effect of Kwik Fit loosing a test case. I think we all know who the buccaneers are and who the victims are.

I was quite serious, these are not actually pirates, they are collective societies who are trying to ensure that people get paid for bothering to make music. For some reason loads of idiots seem to think that music is free, unlike everything else, and that squeeze has over the last decade resulted in musicians and musical rights owners (and other intellectual property owners) get a lot more aggressive about finding other means of payment for enjoyment of their property, as so many people think they should be free to steal them and use them for free.

Yeah what an ***** imagine not wanting to pay to listen to commercial radio or my cd collection whilst working. Rip off Britain at its best. When they targeted large organizations and caused muzak to be inflicted on us it was an acceptable argument but when they are trying to fleece small business it's not.

I don't know if you are deliberately missing my point, but if not it might help if you re-read my post more carefully.

 

[RogerS]

To be honest, Jake, after reading your post I'm not too sure where you are coming from.

Copying CDs and DVDs etc is certainly wrong - morally and legally.

And, if you ran an outdoor event, say, or a dance in a pub (especially where music played a key part) then I would also expect some form of royalty payment or licence ti be required.

BUT if you are a bloke, working by himself, with music in the background then there is no way that he should have to pay to listen to it. Even if the odd customer might wander in off the street then, again, I see no reason why he should need a licence for that.

 

[Jake]

Read from my first post, Roger, I think it is perfectly clear.

I'm not saying that this is a good development, just one that has been fueled by mass theft of music, forcing the industry to look for other, more captive, revenue streams.

 

[Kalimna]

Jake - Im not sure I understand your position either. If it is a commercial radio station being listened to, then we wouldnt normally pay for it, if it is a national radio station then we pay via TV licence fee (please correct me if I am wrong here), and if it is a CD that has been bought then it has been paid for. So nowhere in amongst that (on the assumption that it is a legit CD) are the IP (a truly abysmal piece of modern language) rights holders having payment witheld/avoided.

Adam

 

[RogerS]

Jake - Im not sure I understand your position either. If it is a commercial radio station being listened to, then we wouldnt normally pay for it, if it is a national radio station then we pay via TV licence fee (please correct me if I am wrong here), and if it is a CD that has been bought then it has been paid for. So nowhere in amongst that (on the assumption that it is a legit CD) are the IP (a truly abysmal piece of modern language) rights holders having payment witheld/avoided.

Adam

That's not what Jake is saying. He's not trying to justify the actions of the PRS etc but explain that, because of copyright theft etc, then they will try and go after whatever low-hanging fruit they can to squeeze out money. Did I get that right, Jake?

I agree with you, Kalimna. It is wrong.

 

[jimi43]

So...can you confirm if I can listen to The Archers during a barbecue this summer as long as I don't listen to the theme tune or hum to it? :roll:

Jim

 

[Tom K]

So...can you confirm if I can listen to The Archers during a barbecue this summer as long as I don't listen to the theme tune or hum to it? :roll:

Jim

Living up to your namesakes rep Jimi ? I reckon you'll be safe although technically you probably require a license to play your old radio at the bootfair :lol:

 

[monkeybiter]

as long as I don't listen to the theme tune or hum to it? :roll:

Jim

I hope you mean 'hum along', because if you hum it from memory that requires that will have in some way recorded the tune [in your head] well enough to replay it at a later date. How morally repugnant.

I've even heard of schoolchildren being used as poetry mules, forced to memorise 'IP' so they no longer need to buy a book [audio or other] to enjoy great verse.

 

[Jake]

Jake - Im not sure I understand your position either. If it is a commercial radio station being listened to, then we wouldnt normally pay for it, if it is a national radio station then we pay via TV licence fee (please correct me if I am wrong here), and if it is a CD that has been bought then it has been paid for. So nowhere in amongst that (on the assumption that it is a legit CD) are the IP (a truly abysmal piece of modern language) rights holders having payment witheld/avoided.

Adam

That's not what Jake is saying. He's not trying to justify the actions of the PRS etc but explain that, because of copyright theft etc, then they will try and go after whatever low-hanging fruit they can to squeeze out money. Did I get that right, Jake?

I agree with you, Kalimna. It is wrong.

Yes, pretty much.

There a self-serving argument that the thieves use that all performers are rich and undeserving but that is far from the truth except for a tiny minority of "stars" (who make more money these days from less stealable things like live performance and selling branded things). So collective societies have become more aggressive to try and ensure their members earn a living - those members are by and large not rich stars.

If you buy a CD or a download you buy the right to use the music for your own domestic pleasure. The license terms do not include a right to broadcast it to others, which is what this is all about.

It is more complicated with radio, where the station pays for the right to broadcast it. I do not know the details of how those are calculated (and the rights which the station acquires, which will be to broadcast to its audience, based on figures for that), or how they deal with the overlap when a station's audience includes people who are re-broadcasting to their own audiences, but I guess they have thought it through and think they have a defensible case.

I think it is regrettable and OTT to chase small businesses like this, where their use of music is incidental and for pleasure rather than gain.

My only point is that I would blame music thieves rather than the collective rights societies who have stepped up their aggression on things like this because the economics of the industry have been so undermined by mass theft by a huge part of society who have self-servingly deluded themselves that this sort of theft is not theft. I guess a secondary point is that I do not think that anyone steals music has any right to complain on this thread.

 

[RogerS]

+1 Jake

 

[monkeybiter]

There a self-serving argument that the thieves use that all performers are rich and undeserving but that is far from the truth except for a tiny minority of "stars" (who make more money these days from less stealable things like live performance and selling branded things). So collective societies have become more aggressive to try and ensure their members earn a living - those members are by and large not rich stars.

That's a fair comment, admittedly it's too easy to generalise about the industry when you are constantly bombarded in the media with all the folks on inflated incomes. No doubt the vast majority of performers are not big money makers and many may actually work long and hard in the pursuit of a better performance. I would be surprised if these less successful performers were significantly impacted by copyright piracy.

If you buy a CD or a download you buy the right to use the music for your own domestic pleasure. The license terms do not include a right to broadcast it to others, which is what this is all about.

I would agree that if you use music to generate financial gain the original group of people involved should have a right to some financial recognition. If no gain is sought or achieved then any required fee seems like a scam to me.

My only point is that I would blame music thieves rather than the collective rights societies who have stepped up their aggression on things like this because the economics of the industry have been so undermined by mass theft by a huge part of society who have self-servingly deluded themselves that this sort of theft is not theft. I guess a secondary point is that I do not think that anyone steals music has any right to complain on this thread.

Of course the collective rights societies have reacted aggressively, who could blame them, but I think the lack of sympathy is due to the ostentatious well publicised face of the industry which makes people feel like Robin Hood.

Clearly theft, as defined by the law, is theft. Criticising what I regard as the flawed copyright system, is not the same as condoning theft. Neither do I steal music so luckily I'm allowed to voice my opinion, even if it's unpopular.

 

[Kalimna]

Jake - apologies if I misunderstood your earlier post, your reply makes a lot of sense. Though it's a shame that what 'broadcasting to others' means in plain English vs legaly defined terms arent quite the same. Other folk incidentaly listening to music that I, for instance, play from a CD or radio is not what I would consider broadcasting.

Cheers,
Adam

 

[RogerS]

Jake - apologies if I misunderstood your earlier post, your reply makes a lot of sense. Though it's a shame that what 'broadcasting to others' means in plain English vs legaly defined terms arent quite the same. Other folk incidentaly listening to music that I, for instance, play from a CD or radio is not what I would consider broadcasting.

Cheers,
Adam

So all those pillocks on the bus and train with their bloody earpieces going Tss....Tsss....Tsss. should stump up and pay the PRS. Maybe I should get some PRS flyers and hand them out

 

[Kalimna]

Theres nowt wrong with PRS - damn fine guitars

Adam

 

[Tom K]

I don't think you understood the point of the post Jake. The subject title was Music in the workshop.

 

[Jake]

I don't think you understood the point of the post Jake. The subject title was Music in the workshop.

I understand it perfectly well Tom. All I can suggest is that you go back and read my first post.

 

[Tom K]

An unfortunate side-effect of internet piracy, this.

Yeah I read all of your posts on the subject Jake. Your opinion that they are just looking after downtrodden musicians is just more of your legal eagle tosh.
Just another example of the law being used to create misery . This wiki has some interesting stuff on your heros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRS_for_Music

 

[Jake]

An unfortunate side-effect of internet piracy, this.

Yeah I read all of your posts on the subject Jake. Your opinion that they are just looking after downtrodden musicians is just more of your legal eagle tosh.

I don't think I will bother to respond to "legal eagle tosh", as I have no desire to insult you in return although the way you are approaching this conversation means that I am having to apply some self-restraint.

However, do you actually understand the word "unfortunate"? And if, as I assume is the case, you do - why do you think I used it?

Just another example of the law being used to create misery . This wiki has some interesting stuff on your heros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRS_for_Music

They are not my heroes, but neither are they the real villains of the piece in my view. You slag off the point about who the money is being collected for without giving any basis - who do you think the PRS collects the money for? Do you understand the concept of a collective society?

I do not see anything on that Wiki piece which changes my views (and the internet being what it is, the negatives of the regrettably OTT part of some of their actions are always going to get a better airing than the positive things which they do as the "music should be free"/"copyright is theft" lobby has such a strong hold and being as thieves like to make themselves feel better about themselves).

 

[Tom K]

I fully understand what you are saying Jake and the reason that you constantly refer to theft and stealing to try gain the moral high ground. The opinion you express that the PRS are forced to act the way they do is balderdash the law has given them a big stick and they are using it, unfortunately the more we give in to them the bigger the stick gets.