I think there’s a problem when a restaurant is shut down because people aren’t aloud to sing pub songs,
which are in the public domain, or aren’t aloud to whistle. A patron of a restaurant was recently told
to stop whistling–to herself–badly, no doubt–while she ate lunch alone. Is that ridiculous? I think so.

Yes, artists should be paid. Yes copyright is important.

Legislative cash grabs should be avoided too. What if the musician isn’t a member of SOCAN and is playing
his or her own compositions? So they should pay to play their own music, as a non member?

Please, concerned artist, explain that.

if you don’t pay they simply shut you down.. that’s how it should be here to.. maybe people would recognize the work that we put into creating our songs.. would you like to work for free ?? think about that next time..

It amazed me to hear from a relative that a representative of this mob had walked into their coffee shop and announced that a sum of 120 pounds Stirling had be made immediately because BBC Radio Two was playing (mostly for the employees) in the background. If my relative had refused then the record industry would have lost yet another place (albeit small) to run their free advertising.

The entire industries outlook on life seems to have it’s neck firmly wrenched around 180 degrees and now they seem to spend most of their time contemplating NOT their navel. What a bunch of arseholes!

“I don’t know if SOCAN is clearly and actively pointing this exception out to business owners. I doubt it. They really should be required to do so.”

I don’t know about Canada, but the american performance societies (PRO) do not allow their music to be performed over radio without a license. Of course whoever plays the radio in a public place has no control of what is played over the radio, so paying for a PRO license is absurd.

Put differently, for a dentist to pay for a license so he can put a radio in the office makes no sense, as there is no way the dentist can tell the radio station to play only the music that is licensed to the dentist by the PRO.

Even for live music, the PRO maskes no sense. For example, a live venue cannot really tell a band to play music licensed by the PRO, as the venue does not get a list (PRINTED REPERTOIRE) of the 60 million songs that supposedly may be performed under the license.

Then there is the problem of the repertoire. The band’s repertoire may not be in the PRO repertoire or the repertoire may not be checked to see which of the band’s songs are in the latest, licensed repertoire. This is because a copy of the latest PRO repertoire is not made available.

Then there is the problem of the audiende request made to musicians and bands. I can see it know. A piano player must anounce to the audience: “Sorry, but this is a PRO restaurant and you may not request your favorite song. We have no way to check the PRO repertoire to see if your favorite song is included. Sorry”.

COPYFRAUD
Then there is the problem of copyfraud. This is whn someone claims rights to public domain works or a work that belongs to someone else by registering the work with a PRO. Theoretically the PRO then commits copyfraud by licensding the work.

THE COMPLAINT
Here in Puerto Rico a group of musicians acused a PRO of copyfraud by licensing the much performed works of a famous local composer who died in 1895, whose music (300+ works) are in the public domain. This complaint was filed over 2 years ago at our Justice Department. The musicians are still waiting. Suspicion abounds. The press is not interested.

I wonder, has anyone ever asked a PRO to explain anything?