avoid IMRO and PPI fees

Liberty__Belle

I have a small business and wish to avoid paying IMRO and PPI fees. If I play non copyrighted music, am I entitled NOT to pay these fees?

watty

You mean like music by Bach performed by your own Musicians or yourself?

Where do you get this non-copyright music? pre WWII 78s 10" discs?

Fuzzy Clam

Liberty__Belle wrote: »

I have a small business and wish to avoid paying IMRO and PPI fees. If I play non copyrighted music, am I entitled NOT to pay these fees?

Correct. If you own the copyright to any any music, or it's copyright free, you can do what you like with it. Also some music distributed for broadcast, i.e backing tracks for adverts etc may be free to use without further fees other than those to purchase the music to begin with.

Liberty__Belle

Thank you Fuzzy Clam. I appreciate your intelligent answer.

I have a few CDs of non copyrighted music so I just wanted to make sure I was within my rights to play them

watty

If they are published CDs they are copyright. Everything has copyright unless the Author gives permission or puts it in Public Domain.

If you made them yourself, YOU have the copyright. "non-copyright" CDs in literal sense of word is impossible. They are not old enough.

Of course they could be sold by someone with copyright placed in Public Domain and "free to copy" and any use permitted.

I'd love to know where to get some nice "copyright free" music on CD (i.e. no rights reserved, Public Domain).

I do have some music I recorded live and put on CD. The musicians and I jointly own the copyright.

If the musicians are playing live music that is still in copyright, then your own recording is liable for Copyright royalties to the Music Publisher of the work. So IRMA etc still applies. You'd have to pay additional royalties if you published it.

Elmo

Have such fee reduce for TV and Radio service since the launch of newer radio and tv stations or have they remained the same/increased?

BrianD

Are you talking about the royalties that radio/tv stations pay or what a shop would pay?

The number of radio stations available wouldn't effect what a shop would pay. How could it?

Jagle

watty wrote: »

If they are published CDs they are copyright. Everything has copyright unless the Author gives permission or puts it in Public Domain.

If you made them yourself, YOU have the copyright. "non-copyright" CDs in literal sense of word is impossible. They are not old enough.

Of course they could be sold by someone with copyright placed in Public Domain and "free to copy" and any use permitted.

I'd love to know where to get some nice "copyright free" music on CD (i.e. no rights reserved, Public Domain).

I do have some music I recorded live and put on CD. The musicians and I jointly own the copyright.

If the musicians are playing live music that is still in copyright, then your own recording is liable for Copyright royalties to the Music Publisher of the work. So IRMA etc still applies. You'd have to pay additional royalties if you published it.

so wrong, CC, or creative commons is a route many artists take, any also copyright expires, so they, the op could play some old music in which the copy right has expired

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

Are you talking about the royalties that radio/tv stations pay or what a shop would pay?

The number of radio stations available wouldn't effect what a shop would pay. How could it?

I know but this is broadcasting so was trying to bring it all back to the forum.

Have music licences reduced for TV and Radio in the last 20 odd years?

Markdub2000

Lovely letters IMRO send aren't they...

I used to work in a small (now liquidated) tv shop a few years back.

I got one in the post one morning and felt insensed at the time, with the rates, water and waste charges, VAT, income tax, insurance and thefts, I was lucky if I came away with 150euro a week!!

We had a commercial sky card at the time for demonstration purposes and I maintained that if the music was on broadcast on sky then the artists had already been paid their dues.

That was the last I heard from them, such a joke this country!

I do have three beautiful double CD albums of bbc royalty free test card classics!! you could always ring imro and put them on hold to some of these beauties...

I uploaded them to my ipod, I love putting callers from the gas, electric, credit card and bank on hold to them, I have also mixed tracks that say " you are 3rd in the queue" and "your call will be answered in under_ minutes" but I never ever pick them back up - now I just need to get them to call a 1550 number!

watty

Jagle wrote: »

so wrong, CC, or creative commons is a route many artists take, any also copyright expires, so they, the op could play some old music in which the copy right has expired

A CD isn't old enough was my point.

There is VERY little music on CC which is scheme many people uploading photos are conned into using and they have no idea generally what CC is. CC would be a route that no professional musician would take if they knew what it is. Very few musicians use it and it's technically just terms on Copyright. By Geneva convention everything created is Copyright or Public Domain. The Copyright holder can set the terms. BSD Free, CC, GPL etc are simply "pre-packed" sets of Copyright terms.

There is Public Domain music, but it's rare on CD unless you make the CD from old records.

Also "royalty free" doesn't always mean Public Domain or Copyright free.


Where Can I get these Test Card Music CDs?

Markdub2000

watty wrote: »

Where Can I get these Test Card Music CDs?

I got them a few years back on Amazon, just did a search and they're still there...

Test Card Music 2

Test Card Classics Vol 1 - 8

Test Card Classics: The Girl, The Doll, The Music.

There are whole sites dedicated to the test card and why not its better than alot of whats on RTE these days...

I'd love to jam RTE's transmitter with an awl test card and some lovely music during Budget speeches, attacks on the public sector and state sponsered government propaganda reports on how many people have already paid the household charge...

BrianD

Markdub2000 wrote: »

I got them a few years back on Amazon, just did a search and they're still there...

Test Card Music 2

Test Card Classics Vol 1 - 8

Test Card Classics: The Girl, The Doll, The Music.

There are whole sites dedicated to the test card and why not its better than alot of whats on RTE these days...

I'd love to jam RTE's transmitter with an awl test card and some lovely music during Budget speeches, attacks on the public sector and state sponsered government propaganda reports on how many people have already paid the household charge...

So not only do you want to impoverish creative artists by encouraging them to go the ridiculous CC route but your also against freedom of speech? Jam them if I don't agree with them?

Household charge is the precusor of property tax which is the way forward. Let's hope we see a land tax on farmers too.

Back to the OP. They should welcome the fact that they can use music in their place of business and pay for it. It's good for trade. Nobody likes a quiet store. I've done OB's in retail stores before - leave the music off for any longer than a few seconds during a changeover and the manger will go mad.

dahamsta

What, exactly, is "ridiculous" about Creative Commons please?

BrianD

dahamsta wrote: »

What, exactly, is "ridiculous" about Creative Commons please?

It's not appropriate for anybody who wants to make a living out of your creative works. Fine if you want to give away your creativity and have some sort of 'by the way' recognition for it.

dahamsta

And there was me thinking CC was 100% optional.

watty

CC is a new-age version of simply saying your work is public domain, but it would be nice if people remembered who authored it. It's not actually needed at all, nor is "revolutionary". It's a copyright terms formula invented either to fleece the naive or invented by someone with very little understanding of copyright and public domain.

Of course, like any other text to weaken the automatic "all rights reserved" of any creative work, it's 100% optional. It's one of the more pointless copyright options though.

dahamsta

I'm pretty sure Lawrence Lessig was a primary driver behind CC, and I'm also pretty sure he's qualified to comment.

I think if anyone has a fundamental difficulty understanding it, it's the people posting derogatory comments about it in this thread. It's perfectly suitable for the purpose for which it was designed: licencing creations without being restricted to the one-size-fits-all that is standard copyright. If people don't understand CC and use it in their ignorance, that's their lookout.

watty

Lawrence Lessig is IMO one of the LEAST qualified people in the world to set policy on Copyright or propose changes. He has consistently shown no understanding of copyright or the needs of people that earn a living from their creative endeavours.

You do realise that much of the reason behind CC, GPL, BSD Free etc has NOTHING to do with real world problems and issue of copyright generally but from the 1970s and the "bad blood" between US University researchers (who thought they owned UNIX) and AT&T (who thought they owned UNIX). A lot of the motivation for GPL, GNU, BSD, Linux etc is simply to "get back" at AT&T / Bell Labs. So Millions of man hours spent re-writing a 1976 OS instead of real research. Don' be fooled, most of GNU and Linux is not produced for free by people at home, but essentially "stolen" University or company time, or even University departments conned into officially doing it.

I use Linux/GNU and I think it's a great achievement. But that doesn't mean Lessig, Doctorow or other "Freetards" have a clue about Copyright or life in general. Or that any of these "new age" so called copyleft copyright terms (GPL, zlib, BSD Free, CC) are a good idea or suitable for everything or anything. CC IMO is the most pointless. I personally have used Zlib or BSD free if I'm in the mood to actually give away software.

Why should I or anyone else involved in creative activity (Not limited to Photography, composing, performing, pottery, drawing, painting, sculpture, Filming, music recording, editing etc) use CC because some cosseted US fanatics hate <insert large US corporation here>?

Copyright is REAL simple. The creator has all rights automatically by Geneva Convention. The creator can write a piece relaxing or giving away rights, or contract rights to someone else. Eventually all rights expire and the item is Public Domain. The "rights" holder can put the item in the public Domain early.

All GPL, Zlib, BSDfree and CC are about is defining "template" terms to save you engaging your brain to lessen the creators rights and define who can make money. With CC ANYONE can make money and the creator gets nothing except a name credit. CC= Public Domain + <creator's name>, it's nothing new, or especially good or special.

BSD Free and GPL have a different philosophy on commercialisation.

Google strips all copyright terms out of any source code they decide to use.

DRM is really evil as it will break the terms of ANY copyright scheme and no current DRM is time limited to expire the work as public domain. As such DRM should be illegal. It's up to "rights holders" to take a civil case against people PRODUCING copies in a manner that is contrary to their rights. Both Industry is wrong (you should not pursue consumers) and Lessig et al are wrong(You don't "solve" the problem by abrogating the creators rights).

It's not the job of consumers (or ISPs) to decide if a distributed work is fake. It's the job of the right's holder to remove the illegitimate source via civil law.

dahamsta

That's oversimplifying it in the extreme watty, and insulting to the intelligence - and qualifications - of the people behind it. I don't know why something as passive as CC would make amyone that angry. It's just a licence.

Like I said, if you don't like it, don't use it. If people do use it incorrectly, tough sh*t on them for not reading the licence. Either way, it's not the end of the world.

watty

It's a philosophy.

Elmo

I still find the IMRO, PPI and IRMA fees to be over the top.

For example there are 2 new music channels set to start on Soarview, will such fees for those channel reduce in price for a national TV service?

BrianD

Elmo wrote: »

I still find the IMRO, PPI and IRMA fees to be over the top.

For example there are 2 new music channels set to start on Soarview, will such fees for those channel reduce in price for a national TV service?

The artist is entitled to get paid for their work. If their material is going to be used on a national TV network then they are entitled to the same rate they get from similar services. It's just another customer of a particular type using their work. It would stand to reason that the more their work is broadcast, the more that they get paid. Obviously, given the size of the market, there is more dialogue between individual broadcasters and the royalties body.

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

The artist is entitled to get paid for their work. If their material is going to be used on a national TV network then they are entitled to the same rate they get from similar services. It's just another customer of a particular type using their work. It would stand to reason that the more their work is broadcast, the more that they get paid. Obviously, given the size of the market, there is more dialogue between individual broadcasters and the royalties body.

If broadcasters divide up the market there is only so much that they can make from a market. If new services come along then the value of the material is reduced per service unless its is exclusive to a particular service. I have nothing against people making money from their material.

Markdub2000

Funny, you only have to pay the US version of IMRO if you have a retail establishment greater than 2000 square feet!!

Taken from Royalty firm in the states:

public performances of radio and TV are specifically addressed in Title 17, Section 110(5) of the U.S. copyright law which states that any establishment, other than a food service or drinking establishment, that is 2000 square feet or larger must secure public performance rights for TVs or radios if the following conditions apply:
For TV, if the establishment is using:
- more than four TVs;
- more than one TV in any one room; or
- if any of the TVs used have a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches

Not that I am against artists getting paid, but feel that they are getting free publicity if playing in a store -

I was in a shop in the square and I heard mylo's destroy rock and roll, I instantly turned on my heels, walked into virgin and bought the album!

I also did the same with Paulo nuttini, U2 and alot of my current collection are from songs I have heard out and about and subsequently bought!

I feel that collecting royalties from small shops and businesses is really scrapping the end of the barrel, considering the artists don't seem to care if a small local shop in america is playing their tune!

I remember discussing this before with IMRO, seemly u need a license even if you don't play music out loud, but allow employee's to listen to their headphones!!

I would have thought if the employee has purchased the album they would be entitled to listen to it, on their own headphones, wherever they wish - bar infridgement of law and safe working!!

Elmo

Markdub2000 wrote: »

I was in a shop in the square and I heard mylo's destroy rock and roll, I instantly turned on my heels, walked into virgin and bought the album!

I also did the same with Paulo nuttini, U2 and alot of my current collection are from songs I have heard out and about and subsequently bought!

A collection of shop music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v9-Nw4nAZg

Markdub2000

image is blocked for me Elmo

by the way thats infringement not infridgement > overzealous typing...lol


re Brian

"The artist is entitled to get paid for their work."

There was some god awful crap playing on the radio in a shop on grafton street the other day, I ended up leaving and going to Gamestop - so would the artist contribute to a portion of the what the shop lost because they were playing their music?

dahamsta

I reckon I should be entitled to compensation for having to listen to the crap that's foisted on me every day.

Elmo

Markdub2000 wrote: »

image is blocked for me Elmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v9-Nw4nAZg&feature=player_embedded Must be rights infridgement

BrianD

Elmo wrote: »

If broadcasters divide up the market there is only so much that they can make from a market. If new services come along then the value of the material is reduced per service unless its is exclusive to a particular service. I have nothing against people making money from their material.

It's true that there's a finite number of viewers and listeners but broadcasters will "steal" audience from competitors, increase time spent listening/viewing or indeed recruit new listeners/viewers. They do this by having the right content.

But it's different for copyright holders. The more players in the market the more income from royalties. If they have an agreed rate they can earn that rate from all broadcasters who want to play their material. No plays and they earn zip. There's risk and reward in the system for artists.

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

It's true that there's a finite number of viewers and listeners but broadcasters will "steal" audience from competitors, increase time spent listening/viewing or indeed recruit new listeners/viewers. They do this by having the right content.

But it's different for copyright holders. The more players in the market the more income from royalties. If they have an agreed rate they can earn that rate from all broadcasters who want to play their material. No plays and they earn zip. There's risk and reward in the system for artists.

Only for the artist and the Broadcaster IMO. Surely it should be based on the level of the audience.

Fuzzy Clam

Markdub2000 wrote: »

I remember discussing this before with IMRO, seemly u need a license even if you don't play music out loud, but allow employee's to listen to their headphones!!

I would have thought if the employee has purchased the album they would be entitled to listen to it, on their own headphones, wherever they wish - bar infridgement of law and safe working!!

I've heard the opposite. I see no mention of headphones on their website. Only in relation to background music in a work place. However, it seems now that music played though a loudspeaker off the premises, but can be heard on the premises, you're liable for a licence. Surely that's taking it too far.

Markdub2000

Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either - but telephone conversation with IMRO office confirms, if u allow employees listen to their headphones, then Elton John has a right to be paid! (actual conversation!!!)

It's no wonder Dublin bus and Dublin city council haven't been crippled by it .....don't people listen to their headphones on their way to work everyday?

I think Elton John should get an extra 10 cents of each passenger wearing headphones cause he's just so great!

BrianD

If employees are listening to music in the workplace then it really doesn't matter how. They aren't there in a personal capacity and if music makes them more productive then it's a benefit to the business.

It's no wonder Dublin bus and Dublin city council haven't been crippled by it .....don't people listen to their headphones on their way to work everyday?

On your way to work is not in the workplace or commercial use.

dahamsta

Surely employees listening to music on their own music players have already paid for the music? I'm sceptical about this, it sounds too ridiculous even for IMRO.

BrianD

dahamsta wrote: »

Surely employees listening to music on their own music players have already paid for the music? I'm sceptical about this, it sounds too ridiculous even for IMRO.

Most of the debate about royalties comes down to the fact that people just don't want to pay.

As for the personal radios and digital players in the workplace.

From IMRO FAQ:

"Q: The staff bring in their own radio, it doesn’t belong to the company.
A: Under Sec 37 (2) of the Act ‘the copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake’, the public performance of the work. Therefore in effect by allowing staff use their own radio in the workplace, you are, as their employer, authorising the use of IMRO copyright music on your premises and you must hold a licence to allow you and them to do so."

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

Most of the debate about royalties comes down to the fact that people just don't want to pay.

As for the personal radios and digital players in the workplace.

From IMRO FAQ:

"Q: The staff bring in their own radio, it doesn’t belong to the company.
A: Under Sec 37 (2) of the Act ‘the copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake’, the public performance of the work. Therefore in effect by allowing staff use their own radio in the workplace, you are, as their employer, authorising the use of IMRO copyright music on your premises and you must hold a licence to allow you and them to do so."

But copyright is also about greed IMO. As we can see from this part of the Act. Here we are talking Exploitation of the copyright, but for buyers of rights the question has to come, at what point to these right become non-exclusive and not worth the value placed on them?

With relation to broadcasting and the internet this occurs when there are more players in the field paying for such rights. The sale of rights therefore must be based on market share, otherwise you cocoon major media players and prevent the growth of new companies appearing and only just retain what the amount you have always taken in terms of copyright sales.

If someone is making money from your Copyright then you are entitled to get paid for it, but perhaps it should be based on how much they are able to pay for such publicity.

BrianD

Elmo wrote: »

But copyright is also about greed IMO. As we can see from this part of the Act. Here we are talking Exploitation of the copyright, but for buyers of rights the question has to come, at what point to these right become non-exclusive and not worth the value placed on them?

With relation to broadcasting and the internet this occurs when there are more players in the field paying for such rights. The sale of rights therefore must be based on market share, otherwise you cocoon major media players and prevent the growth of new companies appearing and only just retain what the amount you have always taken in terms of copyright sales.

If someone is making money from your Copyright then you are entitled to get paid for it, but perhaps it should be based on how much they are able to pay for such publicity.

I don't agree it all. If you make a living from your creativity then it is a risky way. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you are at the mercy of taste. It is fair to say that your potential to earn from royalties is (almost) un-capped but let's face it the majority of musicians only get some money from royalties. So there shouldn't be any barriers in the potential to earn.

As for broadcasters - they negotiate on basis of established rates and audience potential. There are complicated formulas for this. Just because there are more radio stations or Tv stations does not mean it should mean to the detriment of the copyright holder. It's their music as used by the station that gets the station more market share and more income. Market share varies - look at the Dublin market on how Q102 and 98 have moved about. The stations also need a level playing field in regard to royalties and have some certainty in their financial planning. The copyright holders don't want to have spend continuously on renegotiating rates etc.

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

The copyright holders don't want to have spend continuously on renegotiating rates etc.

Isn't that what IMRO and PPI have been set up to do. I have nothing against people making money from their product. It is their right. My issue is how much is it worth. In terms of the arts that is all down to taste and taste changes.

If a new entrant enters the Radio market the value of that market does not go up, that new entrant eats into an existing market. There is only so much exploitation that you can receive money on.

If you sell your music to appear on ads that is one way of exploiting your copyright.

Fuzzy Clam

Markdub2000 wrote: »

Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either - but telephone conversation with IMRO office confirms,

It only mentions loudspeakers on the website, not headphones so i wouldn't care too much about what you were told.
It has always being the general understanding that headphones are ok to use and i see nothing to suggest otherwise.

Elmo

Also if I turn on a radio in work, should I pay the radio station or IMRO? or is the radio station not paying for such rights?

BrianD

Elmo wrote: »

Also if I turn on a radio in work, should I pay the radio station or IMRO? or is the radio station not paying for such rights?

You would pay IMRO for the use of copyright music on a business premises. Playing the radio is treated the same as playing a CD or MP3. It just happens to be how the copyright music is being played.

The radio station also pays IMRO for the use of music.

=Isn't that what IMRO and PPI have been set up to do. I have nothing against people making money from their product. It is their right. My issue is how much is it worth. In terms of the arts that is all down to taste and taste changes.

If a new entrant enters the Radio market the value of that market does not go up, that new entrant eats into an existing market. There is only so much exploitation that you can receive money on.

If you sell your music to appear on ads that is one way of exploiting your copyright.

They do negotiate and collect on behalf of their members but they are not going to repeat that process every time a station goes up or down a point in market share.

When it comes down to the value of music - taste doesn't really play a part in dictating the rate. All music should be on the same scale otherwise you could spend eons working out the value of one track or artist over another. In a way "Market taste" is decided by whether a track gets airplay and the frequency of that airplay. If taste changes, airplay drops and the payments to that musician drop.

If a new broadcaster enters a market the value of the market can increase as can the time spent consuming that media. It could go the other way either.

The royalty collection bodies have to act in the interest of their members and take the revenue where they can. It's like any business.

Markdub2000

Come to think of it, I don't think Irish radio stations do actually play music anymore...lol.. Are they still liable for IMRO?

I wonder do rte pay them, or have they set up their own internal body that does it themselves - like the broadcasting complaints - is it not a bit ridiculous that rte handles it's own complaints?

Elmo

Markdub2000 wrote: »

I wonder do rte pay them, or have they set up their own internal body that does it themselves - like the broadcasting complaints - is it not a bit ridiculous that rte handles it's own complaints?

The BCC (Broadcasting Complaints Commission) AFAIK was set up in the 1970s, it was merged with the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) last year and it became the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI). These organisations took care of all broadcasting complaints from Independent broadcasters, TG4 and RTÉ.

As part of changes to policies the BAI decided to implement a new policy where Broadcasters took complaints directly rather then first to the BAI has had previously been the case. If you are not happy with the reply from the Broadcaster you many then complain to the BAI.

I agree broadcasting complaints should be looked at by the BAI from the beginning. But then they did signal this change as they always do.

RTÉ pay rights for music with IRMO and PPI.

@BrianD IMRO and the PPI both organize these rates surely they change as time goes on. The market of Radio and TV can go up but currently it is going down and any new competitor will only eat into the currently amount of money being spent on advertising in Radio and TV. Why should rights holders of non-exclusive content look for an increase in fees when new entrants appear?

Anyway anyone have prices charged by IRMO and PPI for fees?

BrianD

Correct.

If you have a complaint you should make it first with the broadcaster. If dissatisfied then escalate it to the BAI. This makes perfect sense. Most issues can be resolved at this level. I have worked on a few of them myself. Every station has a code of practice and complaints forms on their website.

The recent complaint against RTE regarding Prime Time Investigates was so serious that it warranted a higher level investigation. It was the right course of action as it was being handled badly.

I'm not sure what you mean by non-exclusive content? The broadcasters pay for access to the content and not exclusivity. When a new broadcaster starts, it doesn't mean an increase for other royalty payers as you suggest. All it means is one more paying customer for the rights holder. If a new family moves into a neighbourhood should the price of milk decrease at the local store?

There are a number of variables in the royalty calculation and it is reviewed. At the end of the day, copyright holders have to face the music (excuse the pun) when it comes to economic downturn and be realistic about it. At the same time they have to preserve their income like anybody else.

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

If you have a complaint you should make it first with the broadcaster. If dissatisfied then escalate it to the BAI. This makes perfect sense. Most issues can be resolved at this level. I have worked on a few of them myself. Every station has a code of practice and complaints forms on their website.

I completely disagree with this, the BAI are supposed to be the Regulator the audience should go to them first. Just look at TV3's handling of PlayTV. And RTÉ's initial handling of the Prime Time Investigates programming.

In relation to the milk, if a new family move in the shop should consider buying in more milk, but if it has to start spliting a pint of milk into half pints then the new family shouldn't be expected to pay the full price of a pint of milk.

BrianD

That's the Joe Duffy approach - go on national airwaves to sort out a trivial matter that could be sorted out face to face with the store.

Most complaints that broadcasters receive are trivial - they are genuine but minor issues. They can be sorted out the explaining the situation and 'fessing up if necessary. If the BAI receives a complaint they refer it to the broadcaster anyway for a response.

I would agree that there are certainly some issues - like the two your mention -that do require a high level approach.

JohnFalstaff

watty wrote: »

You mean like music by Bach performed by your own Musicians or yourself?

Where do you get this non-copyright music? pre WWII 78s 10" discs?

Musopen have a selection of Bach pieces that are in the public domain.

http://www.musopen.org/music/by/composer/Bach-Johann-Sebastian

Musopen is a project that creates recordings of classical works that have fallen into the public domain. The music can be used in any way people like. Their aim is to 'set music free'.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/musopen-raising-40000-to-set-classical-music-free.ars

More power to them I say.

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

That's the Joe Duffy approach - go on national airwaves to sort out a trivial matter that could be sorted out face to face with the store.

Most complaints that broadcasters receive are trivial - they are genuine but minor issues. They can be sorted out the explaining the situation and 'fessing up if necessary. If the BAI receives a complaint they refer it to the broadcaster anyway for a response.

I would agree that there are certainly some issues - like the two your mention -that do require a high level approach.

It gives the BAI a public face.
They can pass trivial issues on to broadcasters.
Any of the complaints that I saw going to the bai/bcc weren't that trivial. Such complaintS processes came under the act and both the BAI and BCC clearly put the reasons for such complaints on their site.

BrianD

Elmo wrote: »

It gives the BAI a public face.
They can pass trivial issues on to broadcasters.
Any of the complaints that I saw going to the bai/bcc weren't that trivial. Such complaintS processes came under the act and both the BAI and BCC clearly put the reasons for such complaints on their site.

The new system is far superior. Don't like what you heard then complain to where you heard it - and it doesn't matter what the nature of the complaint. If you don't get satisfaction there your fall back is the BAI. That's BAI policy as on their web site. Your first port of call has to be the broadcaster which is fair and square.

ANyway back to royalties and the price of milk.

Elmo

BrianD wrote: »

The new system is far superior. Don't like what you heard then complain to where you heard it - and it doesn't matter what the nature of the complaint. If you don't get satisfaction there your fall back is the BAI. That's BAI policy as on their web site. Your first port of call has to be the broadcaster which is fair and square.

ANyway back to royalties and the price of milk.

BAI who? You will never really get a satisfactory answer to a complaint since the company will always defend their side, did you ever see a situation in the old system were a broadcaster actually admitted they were WRONG? TV3 still don't think they were wrong in relation to PlayTV. The complaints are not of the minor nature of the Late Late Show set or the TV3 Green Screens. Just ads a layer of Red-tape.

I thought my continuation of your milk metaphor was quite good.