Just say Ahhhhhh
p2pnet.net News:- Canada’s SOCAN is at it again.
Music industry drills dentists for royalties, says a July 23 CBC News headline here.
SOCAN was recently trounced when Canada’s Supreme Court decided unanimously that ISPs are "intermediaries" who aren’t bound by Canadian copyright legislation, to the considerable regret of Big Music which was hoping for an entirely different ruling.
The CBC header refers to what seems to be a reprise of SOCAN’s (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) under which it wanted to gouge health practicioners while their patients relaxed to the sound of music.
At the time, "This was a money grab," says Dr Jack Cotrell of the Canadian Dental Association was quoted as saying.
In its latest effort, SOCAN wants dentists to fork out a yearly fee, with $100 as the minimum.
"I just feel it’s a money grab," Vancouver dentist Kerstin Conn, who recently received a letter from SOCAN at her office, is quoted saying in the CBC item.
"We paid for our CD and we’re using it to listen to, and half the time my patients … don’t even hear the music."
"[...]the music is not their property," the report has SOCAN licensing manager Bruce Wilde stating.
"And if it’s being used in a public fashion or any kind of commercial fashion, then [musicians] deserve to be compensated for its use."
SOCAN said it has successfully collected the fees so far, but if someone refuses to pay, it could sue for copyright infringement, adds the CBC.
SOCAN recently fired a Cease and Desist letter at p2pnet for having the gall to show the organization’s logo in a story.
July 26th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
“SOCAN recently fired a Cease and Desist letter at p2pnet for having the gall to show the organization’s logo in a story”
Would it be legal to just link to the image on the Socan site directly, instead of copying the graphic onto the p2pnet servers?
We all know that “link leeching” is not considered good netiquette, (but then neither is sending C&Ds) but it should be legal since no actual copying takes place.
Maybe someone needs to create a listing for Socan-safe music, just like riaaradar.com
July 26th, 2004 at 6:51 pm
“[...]the music is not their property,” the report has SOCAN licensing manager Bruce Wilde stating.
Not our property? Then all this time, we’ve been trading $15-$20 for a piece of plastic and a license to play it?
“And if it’s being used in a public fashion or any kind of commercial fashion, then [musicians] deserve to be compensated for its use.”
Oops. Just before summer vacation started, the leader of our small church group (aside from the rest of the church) wanted to check out what kind of music is going on with us young adults and teens nowadays. So people just brought in some personal CDs and we played them on a stereo. This is definitely public performance, so should all of us have paid royalties to hear the material? We didn’t, which is ironic. Do we also have to force royalties from relatives who hear it too?
July 26th, 2004 at 7:12 pm
Zounds! A Sounds Thief!!! I’m going to turn you over to the RIAA (evil laughter ….)
July 26th, 2004 at 7:32 pm
These guys must be kidding. If they want to argue that muzak playing in a dentist’s office is a public performance, deserving of royalty payments, they should be able to prove that people are going to the dentist’s office just to listen to the music! They can’t get the double whammy of expecting the dentists to pay for the CDs and then pay again for the right to play them in a waiting area. The fact that they were willing to accept a “minimum yearly fee” clearly shows that it’s merely a “money grab”. If the music is “not their property” they what exactly did they pay for? If it was a personal license to the music but not one permitting use for waiting areas it should be stated clearly on the packaging. In fact, if they are so adamant about upholding these rules, they should have to mount a campaign to educate the public that they do not actually own the music they have purchared. Furthermore, it should be paid for by SOCAN from its own pockets, newly lined with the dentists’ money.
July 26th, 2004 at 8:31 pm
Yep.
And consider this:
All health organizations, especially the Canadian Dental Association whose members have all those nasty sharp picks and high-speed drills and so on, should demand to know if patients belong to SOCAN.
I leave the rest to your imaginations —— heh
Cheers!
July 26th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
The music industry just does not get it. They expect the public to hand over money and not to be able to lissen to what they have paid for. The next step will be for them to put out a CD of silence , but wait then who would they say owned silence. They could charge everyone in the world who does not lissen to music because they are lessoning to silence which they would now own. Far fitched , just wait that will be the next grab at your wallet.
July 27th, 2004 at 12:14 am
Yeah, if they are in pain, just reject them. hehe
July 27th, 2004 at 12:49 am
hahaha
and you know when one of the poor starving Music Stars goes to a cosmetic quack for a face life (or other ; – ) …………
July 28th, 2004 at 4:14 am
This is a new level of idiocy, both on the part of SOCAN as well as on the part of the poor idiotic Canuckistanian Dentists.
It’s a serious problem in Canada: A respect for “authority”… people will pretty much do anything they are told to, no matter how idiotic it sounds, and how little real authority they really hold.
Someone needs to smack around pretty much the whole country, and make them wake up.
But then, crushing taxes couldn’t inspire a revolution in over 200 years, so what the hell else would?
I have no idea.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:06 am
[...] Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) is trying to extort money from hairdressers: SOCAN, “wanted to gouge health practicioners while their patients relaxed to the sound of music,” p2pnet posted in 2004. Then they turned to [...]