avoid IMRO and PPI fees

Fuzzy Clam · 15-02-2012 01:02AM

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 · 15-02-2012 08:58AM

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 · 15-02-2012 11:28AM

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 · 15-02-2012 12:24PM

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 · 15-02-2012 01:01PM

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 · 15-02-2012 01:52PM

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 · 15-02-2012 02:51PM

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 · 15-02-2012 03:02PM

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 · 15-02-2012 03:08PM

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 · 15-02-2012 03:09PM

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 · 15-02-2012 07:16PM

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 · 16-02-2012 08:56AM

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 · 16-02-2012 12:56PM

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 · 16-02-2012 05:13PM

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 · 16-02-2012 08:47PM

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 · 17-02-2012 11:09AM

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 · 17-02-2012 11:38AM

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 · 17-02-2012 01:04PM

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 · 17-02-2012 03:08PM

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 · 17-02-2012 04:05PM

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.

BrianD · 17-02-2012 06:55PM

Elmo wrote: »

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.

The broadcaster will of course explain why something happened an the rationale behind it. Most of the time they'll indicate what steps have been taken to remedy the matter. It really depends on the nature of the complaint.

The RTE complaint went substantially beyond a one-on-one incident and was the cause of justified concern mainly because of the fact it is publicly funded and the appeared to have ignored legal advice.

Personally, I always thought the Play TV was more of a RegTel (ComReg) issue than a broadcasting issue.

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

Even more so if you put a full stop before the but and delete everything after it. The retailer just needs to replenish his fridge more often.

Elmo · 17-02-2012 07:10PM

BrianD wrote: »

The broadcaster will of course explain why something happened an the rationale behind it. Most of the time they'll indicate what steps have been taken to remedy the matter. It really depends on the nature of the complaint.

The RTE complaint went substantially beyond a one-on-one incident and was the cause of justified concern mainly because of the fact it is publicly funded and the appeared to have ignored legal advice.

Personally, I always thought the Play TV was more of a RegTel (ComReg) issue than a broadcasting issue.

Even more so if you put a full stop before the but and delete everything after it. The retailer just needs to replenish his fridge more often.

Ah RegTel the good 'aul self-regulator. Should be applauded on how they handle such issues. TV3 are the broadcaster they have a licence with the BAI. RegTel could have also weight in as it would also be an issue for them.

The nature of complaints was clearly set out by the BAI/BCC so they weren't going to get really trivial issues, and if so the BAI could just say it is out of their remit. Even then it is good for the public to know what complaints are arriving. And a handy piece of research for the BAI.

Bring the convo back to the PPI and IMRO discussion.

A new radio station launch gets is music rights sorted. Now as far as I am concerned this new station will eat into the music radio market rather then creating a new market. Should the new radio station pay the same price as Today FM and 2FM for music rights? Now the initial payment might be big or some arrangement will be got for the first 6 months but once the JNRL stats come along shouldn't the price they pay be based to their listenership? Perhaps that is how it works.

icdg · 17-02-2012 07:47PM

Elmo wrote: »

Ah RegTel the good 'aul self-regulator. Should be applauded on how they handle such issues. TV3 are the broadcaster they have a licence with the BAI. RegTel could have also weight in as it would also be an issue for them.

RegTel no longer exists. They were nationalised back in 2010 and are now part of ComReg.

Elmo · 17-02-2012 07:57PM

icdg wrote: »

RegTel no longer exists. They were nationalised back in 2010 and are now part of ComReg.

Nationalized lol, please lets just assume they closed and ComReg just began to regulate.

Markdub2000 · 18-02-2012 09:28AM

do/did pirate radio stations pay imro?

Markdub2000 · 18-02-2012 09:30AM

-sorry for the double post -- how does one determine if music is covered by imro or ppi or some other group.

Say if a radio station played only music from ppi and you had a licence from IMRO, surely you've paid your fees to the wrong group?

Fuzzy Clam · 19-02-2012 02:09AM

Markdub2000 wrote: »

do/did pirate radio stations pay imro?

I don't think so.
Radio Nova in the '80's claimed to have offered to pay whatever but due to the illegality were refused.
I doubt whether any of the smaller stations since then would have even considered it. Certainly non that I've been involved with.

Elmo · 19-02-2012 09:51AM

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

I don't think so.
Radio Nova in the '80's claimed to have offered to pay whatever but due to the illegality were refused.
I doubt whether any of the smaller stations since then would have even considered it. Certainly non that I've been involved with.

So much for being pirates if they did pay. I assume that Community Radio stations have some exception as voluntary organisations? Anyone have the cost of putting music on to a TV programme or Film? e.g. how much would it cost to produced this sequence:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgd46QiHz4I

I am sure I can't post that!

Mike 1972 · 09-03-2012 01:33PM

Markdub2000 wrote: »

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!!!)

If headphones are being used how does an employer know whether an employee is listening to Elton John, The Dead Kennedys, an all-talk radio show/pod cast or even their own compositions ?

If IMRO really said this then there an even bigger bunch of chancers than I give them credit for.

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Radio Nova in the '80's claimed to have offered to pay whatever but due to the illegality were refused.

Sunshine were the first station to reach a settlement with the rights bodies they made quite a big deal out of this at the time claiming that everything about their operation (other the lack of a broadcasting licence) was 100% legit and "above board" and that this set them apart from most of the other stations of the period (although later in the decade other stations made moves to regularise their position as well).

Back in the 80's there were separate rights bodies for for "performers" (or more usually their record companies) and composers. Some smaller stations claimed to be paying "copyright" fees but in reality were only dealing with one of the two bodies and/or were making token "ex-gratia" payments on a take it or leave it basis. (The situation with the 1960's offshore stations was pretty similar)

And yes in the very early days rights bodies refused to deal with pirates however there were a few years during which this policy was dropped owing to pressure from members. After 1989 such dealings became illegal.

There is a debate in some quarters whether radio stations even should be required to pay royalties given that radio airplay is a powerful stimulant for record sales and rather than the radio station being the sole beneficiary the relationship is more of a "mutually beneficial" one. IIRC the rates levied on Irish radio stations are per-listener among the highest in the Western world which some might contend serves as a barrier to new entrants to the radio market,

BrianD · 09-03-2012 02:14PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If headphones are being used how does an employer know whether an employee is listening to Elton John, The Dead Kennedys, an all-talk radio show/pod cast or even their own compositions ?

If IMRO really said this then there an even bigger bunch of chancers than I give them credit for.

Sunshine were the first station to reach a settlement with the rights bodies they made quite a big deal out of this at the time claiming that everything about their operation (other the lack of a broadcasting licence) was 100% legit and "above board" and that this set them apart from most of the other stations of the period (although later in the decade other stations made moves to regularise their position as well).

Back in the 80's there were separate rights bodies for for "performers" (or more usually their record companies) and composers. Some smaller stations claimed to be paying "copyright" fees but in reality were only dealing with one of the two bodies and/or were making token "ex-gratia" payments on a take it or leave it basis. (The situation with the 1960's offshore stations was pretty similar)

And yes in the very early days rights bodies refused to deal with pirates however there were a few years during which this policy was dropped owing to pressure from members. After 1989 such dealings became illegal.

There is a debate in some quarters whether radio stations even should be required to pay royalties given that radio airplay is a powerful stimulant for record sales and rather than the radio station being the sole beneficiary the relationship is more of a "mutually beneficial" one. IIRC the rates levied on Irish radio stations are per-listener among the highest in the Western world which some might contend serves as a barrier to new entrants to the radio market,

In the USA, AM/FM stations don't pay royalties on the basis that airplay promotes the artist and sells records. They have been hit on their online streaming for royalties. Some national royalty bodies aren't keen on collecting money for US artists on the grounds that nothing comes back for airplay of their artists in the USA.

Back in the day, the royalty agencies refused payments from pirates on the basis it was a tacit recognition of their status. The popular story was that it pressure was applied from RTE who would have been the largest payer of royalties at the time.

Royalties could not be considered a barrier to entry for radio broadcasters. There has never been a shortage of applicants for franchises. The 20% news and current affairs is more of a barrier to entry.

It's not a matter of paying IMRO or PPI. Usually it's both and there's also MCPS which wouldn't apply to retailers.

Hiring the string quartet is probably easier from an admin point of view!

I've no connection to this site but worth a gander: http://www.slieverua.com/tag/royalties/

avoid IMRO and PPI fees

Comments