avoid IMRO and PPI fees

Liberty__Belle · 06-02-2012 09:00PM #1

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 · 06-02-2012 09:25PM

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 · 06-02-2012 11:30PM

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 · 07-02-2012 09:50AM

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 · 07-02-2012 10:51AM

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 · 09-02-2012 04:26PM

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 · 09-02-2012 08:06PM

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 · 09-02-2012 08:13PM

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 · 09-02-2012 08:27PM

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 · 10-02-2012 01:04AM

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 · 10-02-2012 09:16AM

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 · 10-02-2012 10:55AM

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 · 11-02-2012 10:17PM

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 · 12-02-2012 01:18AM

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

BrianD · 12-02-2012 02:35PM

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 · 12-02-2012 03:29PM

And there was me thinking CC was 100% optional.

watty · 12-02-2012 05:12PM

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 · 12-02-2012 05:47PM

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 · 12-02-2012 06:10PM

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 · 12-02-2012 06:27PM

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 · 13-02-2012 01:23AM

It's a philosophy.

Elmo · 13-02-2012 05:07PM

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 · 13-02-2012 07:46PM

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 · 13-02-2012 07:59PM

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 · 14-02-2012 10:25AM

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 · 14-02-2012 12:45PM

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 · 14-02-2012 01:40PM

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 · 14-02-2012 01:48PM

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

Elmo · 14-02-2012 02:01PM

Markdub2000 wrote: »

image is blocked for me Elmo

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

BrianD · 14-02-2012 06:59PM

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 · 14-02-2012 07:15PM

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.

avoid IMRO and PPI fees

Comments