PPNZ - Licence required by anyone who plays music audio and / or video recordings in public

Forums › Off topic › PPNZ - Licence required by anyone who plays music audio and / or video recordings in public

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#997711 2-Mar-2014 18:48

I presume it can't be ok to whistle a tune while in the car or walking down the street, and one must assume that speakers are now really just a legal liability? I also wonder - How did musicians survive in the 80's with all those shoulder carried getto blasters blatantly killing the income streams of artists while playing their copyrighted music ?. Perhaps food was cheaper back then.
Will it be a copyright infringement for someone to tell me the weather forecast ?
Will the NSA monitor where you use speakers as opposed to a headset and automate the issuing of fines?
I can see how this mentality morphs into the need to record everything everyone says in order to protect the incomes of those poor poor musicians and actors . I really can't see any harm to an artist as a result of a shop owner having the bloody radio on, it's blind and boundless commercialism, 20 years ago such a thing would be laughed at, today people endorse it like it's a good thing.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#997718 2-Mar-2014 19:00

Nothing is killing an income stream. It's just a natural consequence of copyright exploitation allowed by law.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#997742 2-Mar-2014 19:41

Fred99:
Buzz Bumble:

Technically, as long as you are not charging the public a fee to listen / watch / read these materials (or doing so in a dangerous or peace-disturbing way), then there's no real reason why you should have to pay a fee to anyone else.

Morally (and from a natural justice POV) sure.
Technically though, unfortunately not. It doesn't matter whether you charge for entry, it's free entry, or you pay people to come along.

Well everyone's morals are different.

At the end of the day, the owner of the works owns it. At no point do I find that morally wrong for them to agree to any arrangements for licensing it since they own it, period.

I know full well when I purchase music or movies, I'm purchasing a license that grants me to listen/view it privately. They all say not for public performance, copying, broadcast or hire etc... either on the disc or on the screen or contain a copyright symbol on them to remind me.

I do not at any point become the owner of rights of that material, but rather licensed to hold a copy under the terms of the license according to law.

It's no different than Windows on my PC, I don't own it, but I'm licensed to use it on one computer and that's it. At no point do I own the software, just the right to have a licensed copy.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#997755 2-Mar-2014 20:04

It's also a pretty feeble fee.

I've worked in radio where we paid 2.5% of revenue and it's on the rise.

I can't believe people moan over a few hundred bucks or less for licensed use other than intended each year compared to BUYING a license copy all the music they hear on the radio and pay to deliver it to other listeners in their shop, since it's outside it's intended licensed use.

At least joe bloggs doesn't have to file a detailed log with all the information required back to PPNZ and APRA of when and where items were broadcast and fill out the lyrics and mechanical along with publishing rights when reporting on items too.

rugrat

3106 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#998438 3-Mar-2014 21:31

I just don't understand how they can charge fee for radio.

Radio was for me to listen to between customers, not customers.

Then I get to hear the weather, and news.

Surprised they don't try and charge people for listening to radio at home, same difference.

If have to pay, then there should be no advertising on radio.

Just crazy nonsense, guess put radio on talk back station, but even they play some music time to time.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#998449 3-Mar-2014 21:42

kiwirock:
At the end of the day, the owner of the works owns it.

Unfortunately, it's not up to the artists... It's the record companies that run PPNZ and they're the ones that collect.

And like you said in the next post, most people don't have to keep a log... I used to do it. I worked for a jukebox company about 12-13 years ago.. what a bunch of $*$*%# PPNZ were.. then APRA, then another for music videos...
And I still know NZ artists that never saw a cent.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#998460 3-Mar-2014 21:47

This pops up every 2 or 3 years in the news.

Some store owner unaware of the rules (rightly so, many small business owners don't even have a clue so not really their fault) complains to the media. i think prisons/oil rigs etc are usually in the fine print too.

Here you go , last year on tv3...

http://www.3news.co.nz/Store-owners-fight-fees-to-play-music/tabid/817/articleID/322945/Default.aspx

I have no real opinion formed on this matter. I can see both sides of the argument , good points from both.

Although, is the complaint about the fact it is the radio rather than music cd's?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#998466 3-Mar-2014 21:52

The licensing site linked earlier was not specific on that point. It just used the word 'music'. Imho they should be specific on that point instead of creating confusion by not mentioning it.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#998472 3-Mar-2014 21:57

Would be interesting to see a breakdown of their accounts:

- how much money they collect
- how much is chewed up in "overheads"
- how much is distributed to artists
- how artists become eligible, and
- where/to whom the rest goes.

I more than half suspect we would find that very little of the money collected actually reaches NZ artists, and that many NZ artists on whose behalf the money is collected don't actually see a dime.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#998514 3-Mar-2014 23:27

rugrat: I just don't understand how they can charge fee for radio.

Radio was for me to listen to between customers, not customers.

Then I get to hear the weather, and news.

Surprised they don't try and charge people for listening to radio at home, same difference.

If have to pay, then there should be no advertising on radio.

Just crazy nonsense, guess put radio on talk back station, but even they play some music time to time.

To be fair, could you imagine the backlash if they made it mandatory for radio to broadcast a copyright notice each hour? I'd love to see that happen, it would change the rules faster... nothing speaks more than money/boycotting.

In an ideal world though, you would bill them for advertising music to the public that they may then go out and purchase because they heard it in your shop. I've bought a few CD's after hearing them on in-store radio.

It would appear to be a double dip on the surface charging the radio station then the shop owner, even though it's legally and technically not. Just like if another radio station re-broadcast a programme they should also be expected to pay a license fee especially if they are making another profit of the copyright owner's works. This is how they see a shop that plays music originally intended for personal use but could be making commercial gain off their back even if the shop owner is unware of the 'atmosphere' the radio provides. It's like a patent, intellectual property rights when it comes to reproducing something (unless the law is changed around it).

The hardest part is, there's no real tangible record keeping that proves music was bought because of this, or that the shop made more money because music put their customers in a good mood. That would involve deeper diving in to the lives of people and less privacy. It's confusing, but as Theresa Gattung former CEO of Telecom said along the lines of, confusion is a marketting tool.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#998533 3-Mar-2014 23:41

rugrat:

Just crazy nonsense, guess put radio on talk back station, but even they play some music time to time.

You could try argue a lower rate for talkback.

Radio stations that play less than a certain percentage of music pay less of their revenue as a percentage. I don't think that exists for shop owners. But I wouldn't like your luck of trying that.

To also keep the argument balanced on the fence post, the likes of LPFM stations who aren't really in it for commercial gain, they pay $250 a year to each, but limited to $10,000 revenue to re-coup costs (so in other words the 2.5% of revenue target again). No record keeping has been requested to be handed in, yet, so they're pretty lenient in my eyes.

So a fee less than $250 a year would be okay for a company turning more than $10k a year based on those rates considering you probably have more foot traffic than listeners to an LPFM station.

Remember it's free to listen to the radio for personal use, but the law changes when the public and commercial gain are possibly involved.

Perhaps before they campaign for more copyright law changes, the existing laws should be made more public.

Unfortunately though, the law is the law, if it's broken - ignorance is not really a defense to get off scott free. If all you got was a warning so you had the option to not use the radio in a shop if you were unaware of the rules, that's a pretty reasonable offer.

rugrat

3106 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#998935 4-Mar-2014 16:58

Just against them charging for radio in public place, as in my eyes adverts on the radio do not provide ambience.

Playing cd's I see differently as they're sold for personal use.

Easy to get around radio one, just don't have it turned on, at end a day it's loss of revenue to radio broadcaster as they have less listeners, and guess the better their ratings the more money they get for their adds.

Just think that the law is wrong if they're able to charge for radio.

Not in shop any more. Working for someone else now so not my worry, guess the day will come when they take our radio off us lol.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#999241 5-Mar-2014 08:54

Just buy some royalty free music and let them try to hound you then..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#999253 5-Mar-2014 09:21

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread ....

The double dipping thing really annoys me. The stories about jukeboxes and Radio stations (station pays, listener also pays)...

Going back to the radio though. We have some radio stations here in NZ which are essentially owned by the community. These radio stations, Life FM for example, rely totally on funding from the community to be able to broadcast. Whats the story here?

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#999289 5-Mar-2014 10:19

old3eyes: Just buy some royalty free music and let them try to hound you then..

Exactly.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5