Comments on: Where copyright rules … http://www.p2pnet.net/story/766 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/766/comment-page-1#comment-563 Reader's Write Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:46:31 +0000 #comment-563 You can play the CD in your own home or in a private party or in your own car. But you cannot play or broadcast your CD in the public to your paying customer (such as in a taxi cab, a restaurant, a shopping mall, a nightclub or "music-on-hold" or to the internet). That will be public (not private) performance of music for which a license is needed, especially if it is used commercially. But the royalty fee for playing your CD in a restaurant is quite reasonable, about 10 cents per square foot (of your business area) per year, plus GST. If your restaurant has Karaoke, the royalty fee is about $215 per year, plus GST. If you want to play music on the internet (ie, upload or stream mp3's), the royalty fee is about 25 cents per listener per month, plus GST. Note that a listener can log on to your website for as long as he wants and downloads as many songs as he wants but you only pay the royalty fee of 25 cents per month (tariff #22). Of course, if your restaurant plays the Waltzes by Johann Strauss, Junior, you do not have to pay any royalty fees to anybody. You can play the CD in your own home or in a private party or in your own car. But you cannot play or broadcast your CD in the public to your paying customer (such as in a taxi cab, a restaurant, a shopping mall, a nightclub or “music-on-hold” or to the internet). That will be public (not private) performance of music for which a license is needed, especially if it is used commercially.

But the royalty fee for playing your CD in a restaurant is quite reasonable, about 10 cents per square foot (of your business area) per year, plus GST.

If your restaurant has Karaoke, the royalty fee is about $215 per year, plus GST.

If you want to play music on the internet (ie, upload or stream mp3’s), the royalty fee is about 25 cents per listener per month, plus GST. Note that a listener can log on to your website for as long as he wants and downloads as many songs as he wants but you only pay the royalty fee of 25 cents per month (tariff #22).

Of course, if your restaurant plays the Waltzes by Johann Strauss, Junior, you do not have to pay any royalty fees to anybody.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/766/comment-page-1#comment-545 Reader's Write Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:40:45 +0000 #comment-545 First! downloading in Canada is LEGAL! uploading or sharing is maybe! illegal So a question? I own a jukebox in a restaurant and I charge to play a song, am I infringing on the copyright even though I purchased the CD. Or I'm a D.J. for hire and I play music at a dance and I charge to do that, am I infringing on the copyright even though I bought the CD. What exactly will the law allow and is the law the same in all circumstances Ken First! downloading in Canada is LEGAL!
uploading or sharing is maybe! illegal
So a question? I own a jukebox in a restaurant and I charge to play a song, am I infringing on the copyright even though I purchased the CD. Or I’m a D.J. for hire and I play music at a dance
and I charge to do that, am I infringing on the copyright even though I bought the CD.
What exactly will the law allow and is the law the same in all circumstances
Ken

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/766/comment-page-1#comment-490 Reader's Write Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:09:58 +0000 #comment-490 "It's fitting, therefore, that the quote in the introduction is from an April 18, 2002, Globe & Mail article by University of Ottawa Law School professor Michael Geist." Come on people, moronic language like this and you loose cred. Do you really mean to say that it is fitting that the quote is from a Globe & Mail article, written by such and such on such and such a day? Find yourself a copy editor before you start blathering on, please. “It’s fitting, therefore, that the quote in the introduction is from an April 18, 2002, Globe & Mail article by University of Ottawa Law School professor Michael Geist.” Come on people, moronic language like this and you loose cred. Do you really mean to say that it is fitting that the quote is from a Globe & Mail article, written by such and such on such and such a day? Find yourself a copy editor before you start blathering on, please.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/766/comment-page-1#comment-480 Reader's Write Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:49:30 +0000 #comment-480 Oh, no! Not Again. What we need is shorter copyright durations (10 years, renewable once) and a ban on copy protection measures. In addition, we need laws that ensure that any information that CAN be released into the public domain, DOES get released into the public domain without interference from businesses or anyone else. Oh, no! Not Again. What we need is shorter copyright durations (10 years, renewable once) and a ban on copy protection measures. In addition, we need laws that ensure that any information that CAN be released into the public domain, DOES get released into the public domain without interference from businesses or anyone else.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/766/comment-page-1#comment-478 Reader's Write Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:36:53 +0000 #comment-478 lets face these issues recording industries are complaining about the wrong reasons they claim that downloading music and movies off the net is infringement of copyrights say a 20$ cd that has only 1 or 2 songs that you listen too the artist actual only gets 2 cents off I am tired of coffers stealing money from which it belongs too lets face these issues
recording industries are complaining about the wrong reasons
they claim that downloading music and movies off the net is infringement of copyrights
say a 20$ cd that has only 1 or 2 songs that you listen too
the artist actual only gets 2 cents off
I am tired of coffers stealing money from which it belongs too

]]>