Sued for playing Christmas music?

[Mathematician]

Seeing as how exposure actually brings in more money through merchandise sales, which is where top musicians get most of their money anyway, I have to agree with the OP. It benefits corporations foremost, not artists.

 

[waitasec]

Seeing as how exposure actually brings in more money through merchandise sales, which is where top musicians get most of their money anyway, I have to agree with the OP. It benefits corporations foremost, not artists.

i'm sorry i'm not sure i follow.
merch goes to the artist, not the song writer.

 

[jasonwill2]

The artists rarely get a drop in the bucket of all that cash. Most bands (excluding pop sensations and rapers) get really crappy deals. I'm talking about those who truly care for their art, the rock and roll bands and such. They often get crappy deals and tour until they can't walk. Most of their life is on the road playing music, or writing music. They get time for little else.

It's pretty well known that the record companies are the ones benifiting, and not the artists.

Did you know that Linkin Park said they didn't care if people pirated A Thousand Songs, as long as people listened to the songs in order? Granted they hate their record company, but it seems to me that the ART is more important then the money. Most artists or writers, (myself included as a writer), simply want the recognition, and will take their art being everywhere over a wad of cash any day.

 

[Kathryn]

When it's within the law
for banks to create 'money' out of thin air
with nothing at all to back it
and then have the nerve to charge YOU and Me (ie, everyone else) interest for it,
things have gone WAY too far.

And yet here we are.

Sorry but what's that got to do with office workers (including bank tellers) listening to music they bought via equipment they bought?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I don't have a problem with them wanting to get paid, but I think it crosses the line into greed by sending people out intentionally to catch a company simply playing the radio or being able to sue someone for playing music too loud in their car - not b/c it's a noise disturbance but b/c they are playing it so people outside their own earshot can hear. That is what I find absurd and greedy. I don't have a problem with them charging for their CD's, downloads, or radio stations to even play the song to begin with, I have a problem with it being wrong to play it in your bank, office, etc. I'm not talking about an amphitheater full of people, but really, come on, it goes beyond ridiculous to not be able to play it in a building that likely won't have more than a couple hundred people at any given time, if that many, esp if it's being played on the radio which will be reaching thousands individually.

In Dundas Square in Toronto, they sometimes show free movies: just bring your lawn chair and popcorn and watch it on the screen they set up outside.

Does the fact that this happens mean that it's okay for you to sneak into movietheatres without paying? After all, they were showing that same movie for free to hundreds of people just last night; wouldn't it be greedy of the theatre to demand money to see it now?

The fact is that workplace music is a service that's available for a fee. When you take this service without paying for it, *that's* the greedy act.

Actually, it's more than that: it's theft.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The artists rarely get a drop in the bucket of all that cash. Most bands (excluding pop sensations and rapers) get really crappy deals. I'm talking about those who truly care for their art, the rock and roll bands and such. They often get crappy deals and tour until they can't walk. Most of their life is on the road playing music, or writing music. They get time for little else.

It's pretty well known that the record companies are the ones benifiting, and not the artists.

Did you know that Linkin Park said they didn't care if people pirated A Thousand Songs, as long as people listened to the songs in order? Granted they hate their record company, but it seems to me that the ART is more important then the money. Most artists or writers, (myself included as a writer), simply want the recognition, and will take their art being everywhere over a wad of cash any day.

And it's fine for an artist to take that stance, but that decision belongs to the artist, not to some listener who has decided on his or her own that the artist shouldn't mind a little pirating.

 

[pwfaith]

The employees paid for the radio, the CDs, etc already. The benefit to the customers is really secondary. The employees wanted to hear the Christmas music that they already paid for, themselves. But it's pretty hard NOT the let the customers hear it as well.

Honestly, it seems so petty.

Exactly, and it is petty as well as greedy. There's no other reason to go to such extremes, imo, than greed of money in this instance.

 

[jasonwill2]

And it's fine for an artist to take that stance, but that decision belongs to the artist, not to some listener who has decided on his or her own that the artist shouldn't mind a little pirating.

It's not pirating when a store plays it for Christmas... seriously, what are the customers going to do, play it in their heads for eternity without buying it?

 

[jasonwill2]

The employees paid for the radio, the CDs, etc already. The benefit to the customers is really secondary. The employees wanted to hear the Christmas music that they already paid for, themselves. But it's pretty hard NOT the let the customers hear it as well.

Honestly, it seems so petty.

I second this.

 

[blackout]

Sorry but what's that got to do with office workers (including bank tellers) listening to music they bought via equipment they bought?

It's the system.

Musicians like mySelf also owe the bank thousands and thousands of extra dollars in interest for the privlidge of obtaining a house to live in.

If we don't actually get paid for our work,
the bank kicks us out.

There are people who are paid to kick people out of their homes,
because the law says it would be 'stealing' to live there without paying all of the extra unfair fees.
(ie, undeserved interest fees)
These people are hired by the banks.

That job must really suck.

They even have to kick kids out of their homes around christmas time,
and many families have nowhere else really to go.
It's overboard. And I do mean that seriously.

The bank doesn't CARE that I can't pay them
because businesses would rather hijack (ie steal) my music
than pay for it.

They just want their principal with interest.
period.

So I MUST be paid.
period.

 

[Drolefille]

I was just giving five dollar bills out of my till for Christmas! It's just petty that they're checking my drawer and trying to stop me. I mean it's a big company, and it's Christmas! They can totally afford to lose money! Greedy jerks!

Any other industry other than music (or perhaps any form of art) and people would all of a sudden 'get' it, but copyright infringement is different.

I don't agree with the RIAA and MPAA that copyright infringement is inherently theft, however it is illegal. Complain about the law, but blaming the people who want to get paid is called missing the point.

 

[Songbird]

What in the world? Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous to ban any kind of radio play based on licensing? Mech and comp licenses for live cover music is different, but free radio broadcasting that's already paid for by the station? Jeez. ASCAP said smaller stores can play tunes:

"Exemption from payment for radio and TV music for eating and drinking establishments of less than 3,750 gross square feet, and for retail businesses of less than 2,000 square feet, plus additional equipment exemption for some larger establishments. Medium to larger establishments are still required to pay for music licenses."

ASCAP - The Evolution of Music Licensing: Point by Point

All other licensure issues aside, I think the radio play one is ridiculous.

 

[blackout]

When it's against the law for bank tellers to listen to a CD they bought on a CD player they bought, and their company can get sued for it - things have gone a bit too far.

If you REALLY want christmas music in the bank
and the bank won't pay for it
ask management if you, the employees,
can put together your own fund
to pay for the service.


Or get yourself some bluetooth (wireless) earpieces and play your background music quietly
from your own device. You can easily turn your device on, off, up or down accordingly,
right from the earpiece
and enjoy music to your own taste.
If your bank won't allow either of those options,
then their policies all around regarding music in the workplace
obviously don't serve you well.

 

[jasonwill2]

Forget Christmas music, this is all too controversial.

We need to play Satanmas music next year! It's such a small niche that they can't afford lawyers to sue us. muahahah!

Weird joke aside....

Well idk anymore, im dropping out of this convo. cant see it going anywhere

 

[Drolefille]

What in the world? Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous to ban any kind of radio play based on licensing? Mech and comp licenses for live cover music is different, but free radio broadcasting that's already paid for by the station? Jeez. ASCAP said smaller stores can play tunes:

"Exemption from payment for radio and TV music for eating and drinking establishments of less than 3,750 gross square feet, and for retail businesses of less than 2,000 square feet, plus additional equipment exemption for some larger establishments. Medium to larger establishments are still required to pay for music licenses."

ASCAP - The Evolution of Music Licensing: Point by Point

All other licensure issues aside, I think the radio play one is ridiculous.

OP works for a big bank. One branch might be small but they're part of a larger organization.

I've seen businesses play radio but a lot don't like it because of the ads and the volume disparity. It depends on the style of business. Does the bank want to play the radio - even the Christmas music station - and risk ads for a competitor? Versus the local pool probably doesn't care.

I think the law can overreach here at times but that the fundamental principle is that music should get paid for. And if you disagree with the law, you don't just break it (because lets face it, this isn't civil disobedience, this is just "i wanna hear music") you work to change it or work out a compromise.

 

[waitasec]

It's not pirating when a store plays it for Christmas... seriously, what are the customers going to do, play it in their heads for eternity without buying it?

the store, if they are playing any kind of music, paid a licensing fee...
because it is a place of business

you can play your music for your friends in your home because it isn't a place of business.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What in the world? Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous to ban any kind of radio play based on licensing? Mech and comp licenses for live cover music is different, but free radio broadcasting that's already paid for by the station? Jeez. ASCAP said smaller stores can play tunes:

"Exemption from payment for radio and TV music for eating and drinking establishments of less than 3,750 gross square feet, and for retail businesses of less than 2,000 square feet, plus additional equipment exemption for some larger establishments. Medium to larger establishments are still required to pay for music licenses."

ASCAP - The Evolution of Music Licensing: Point by Point

All other licensure issues aside, I think the radio play one is ridiculous.

Interesting. If the licensing rules allow it for small businesses, then I think it's okay in that case. My main objection was to the attitude I perceived in the thread that artists shouldn't have the right to control how their art is used abd distributed, and that people are somehow entitled to the product of other people's work.

 

[blackout]

Don't business have to pay extra fees for the use of lots of things,
(that do not apply to personal home use)
simply because they are a place of business?


ex,
Programs used on the computer networks,
fees for using clip art for business purposes... etc.

 

[blackout]

Another thing.

If employees are all allowed to bring in their own music devices
and the CD's of their own liking
and there is not concensus amongst employees,
well everyone can't just go playing their own CD
in their own cubicle.
It would be annoying and distracting to everyone.

Thus it does become a workplace issue
instead of a "personal" one.

 

[blackout]

And my last thought for now....
(aren't you all so glad)

Forgetting the fees entirely,
I can only think of one radio station in my area
that plays round the clock christmas music in the month of Dec.
Is it a very big surprise that it is a christian radio station?

If there is one thing that would drive me MORE INSANE
than having to listen to christmas music all day at my job
it would be having to listen to christian christmas music
with christian advertising and programing all day long at my job.
And the only thing worse than christmas music pumped all day by my employer
(who at least pays me to be there)
would be christmas music pumped in by a fellow employee.
(who does not pay me either to be there, or to listen to their musical playlist all day).


Call me a scrooge, but I WOULD complain to management.