Jim coughed up some electrons that declared:

Tim S wrote:
They are free for personal use, not for re-broadcasting to other people
via loudspeaker(s).

I am surprised that you cannot see the distinction, which should be
abundantly clear.

I'm not sure how you manage to confuse "playing audio in a limited
physical space" with "broadcasting". Most people, including the dictionary
I just looked at take "broadcast" to imply strongly that radio waves are
involved as the broadcasting medium. I've never before heard anyone talk
of playing a radio as "rebroadcasting".

If "playing a CD" or "turning on the radio" can be defined to be a
"performance" I'm not sure that the English language is on our side
here.

Yes - I'm saying the English language has been twisted to serve the PRS.

To a "normal person":

Performance: what an artist does when they present their work either
publically or for the purposes of recording.

Broadcast: What an organisation does when presenting a recorded or live work
to a mass of punters as the main purpose of its business.

I have some sympathy with requiring a performance fee for a business that
would use a copyrighted track of music or video as part of its business,
eg "on hold" music or lift musak, but to call that a "performance" is still
twisting words.

I have no sympathy for attempts to equate Kwik Fit with Radio 1!

Cheers

Tim

Tim S wrote:

I'd like to see exactly how much money the artist at the bottom of the food
chain is seeing out of this fee.


Many musicians and composers depend on the PRS for most of their income.

In contrast, you seem to want to be able to sponge off them for nothing.

Jim wrote:
Bruce wrote:
A recent survey showed that 19 out of 20 music tracks being listened to
on MP3 players were illegal copies or illegal downloads. That
represents a huge amount of revenue that is being denied to musicians
and composers.

If a high proportion of people respected copyright, prices could be
lower. The trouble is that prices stay high because only a small
proportion of music is being paid for.

You can't expect people to spend 10,000 quid to fill an iPod with music.
Compare this with a typical collection of 100 CDs which are worth
perhaps 1000 quid.


My iPod is almost entirely filled with MP3 files that I converted from
my existing CDs using iTunes, perfectly legally. The result is that
less than 5% of my MP3 files were bought as MP3 files.

You could perfectly legally have converted *all* your iPod MP3s from CDs
you already owned. So the problem you describe simply doesn't exist.

The real problem is that people want to be able to routinely steal music
without paying for it. The howls of protest that are heard anytime
someone suggests that music should be paid for demonstrate that.

tony sayer wrote:

Indeed Radio airplay was, and AFAIK still is, of great importance to
expose and advertise new music or artists etc to the public. Why they
seem hell bent of stopping it seems all arse about face;!...


But they *aren't* hell bent on stopping it!

It remains *completely free* for personal use, paid for by the TV
licence fee (on BBC Radio) and advertising (on commercial radio).

tony sayer wrote:

Radio stations have to do PRS returns as well..


Yes, and these are checked against the returns made by the people to
whom the PRS pay a small amount of money to listen to those radio
stations and note down what is played. It works well, and has done so
for decades.


I reckon a lot of this has come about due to the amount of money they
are loosing through the loss of CD sales and the rise of downloading and
file sharing...


Indeed - the level of copyright theft is absolutely appalling. And it
is easy to see why, judging by the number of people on here who clearly
believe that they should not have to pay to listen to music.

Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:


In contrast, you seem to want to be able to sponge off them for nothing.

Then I suggest that you go and attempt to fix your faulty powers of
reasoning and/or language skills, because no where did I say that or even
remotely allude to it.

Tim S wrote:
I'm not sure how you manage to confuse "playing audio in a limited physical
space" with "broadcasting".


Simple. It depends whether other people can hear it, or not.

There's absolutely no confusion, except in the minds of people who
refuse to accept the principle of paying for copyright material.

"Arfa Daily" wrote:

The distinction you are making with tedious regularity is clear to everyone


Then stop arguing!

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:33:34 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Tim S wrote:

I'd have more sympathy with the RIAA/MPAA and their ilk if they stopped
bleating, stopped encouraging ripping customers off, got with the times and
helped to make a move towards sensible internet selling at a sensible
price.


A recent survey showed that 19 out of 20 music tracks being listened to
on MP3 players were illegal copies or illegal downloads. That
represents a huge amount of revenue that is being denied to musicians
and composers.

You'll find very few tears shed for the record companies among jobbing
musicians - we've long known what a rip-off the whole system is.
The key word in the phrase 'music business' is business. Talent and
fresh ideas are only ever brought to the table if there's a chance
that someone can make a fat wadge of cash out of it - and that's
unlikely to be the artist.

I did a gig a while back where I was fortunate enough to find myself
rubbing shoulders with the likes of Eric Clapton and Bryan Ferry.
We all had nice big portacabins each and there was a free 24 hour
buffet and bar and lots of nice men to pick and carry for us.
I'll admit I very much enjoyed it and certainly didn't turn my nose up
at the extravagant hospitality - but did any of us need or deserve it?
At the end of the day it's just a job, like any other that requires a
skill - but aside from a need for some extra security to keep some of
the less sane fans at bay there's really not much else that I or any
other musician needs over and above anyone other skilled worker.
Ultimately its the punters who foot the bill, and that's reflected in
the price of CDs.

If a high proportion of people respected copyright, prices could be
lower. The trouble is that prices stay high because only a small
proportion of music is being paid for.

Prices stay high because people are stupid enough to pay them - and if
you think that increased sales will result in lower prices then more
fool you. Take a look round any 'record' shop and see which artists
sell at premium prices and which artists only go for budget prices -
it's the big sellers who command the highest prices.
The new U2 album will sell by the skip-load and should therefore be a
prime candidate for a reduced price. I won't bet on it.

There are quite literally millions of artists out there would who jump
at the chance have their music recorded and distributed - and who
would do so quite cheaply - but the record industry is about
generating mass-appeal and then feeding it...and usually with
talentless bores or regurgitated and banal pap.

No doubt you will suggest that, if the prices were lower, more people
would buy legal copies. Well, I very much doubt that, because once the
principle of copyright theft is as well established as it is now, the
same people will still steal the music for nothing, and musicians and
composers will get even less.

How many artists do you listen to ( one the radio, on telly etc. ) and
'quite like' but would never consider shelling out 10 or 15 quid to
buy any of their albums simply because you're not that interested in
their music or you only like a selected amount of it?
Would a fiver an album change your mind?
Would you bother downloading a highly compressed poor-quality track at
50p when you could have the real deal for the same price?
Sure, there will always be freeloaders - and always have been ever
since the dawn of the cassette tape - but the vast majority of
listeners actually do want to buy albums...and they'd buy more if they
were cheaper.

The entire business needs a long-overdue reality check, but it's not
going to happen as long as people are prepared to pay over the odds
for albums while they watch artists being pampered like royalty - and
the easier it becomes for unknown artists to prepare and distribute
their work via the new communications technologies that are still
evolving, the harder the record companies are going to fight to keep
their hands on all that filthy lucre.
They make the banks look like charities.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:54:36 UTC, Tim S wrote:

Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:

In contrast, you seem to want to be able to sponge off them for nothing.

Then I suggest that you go and attempt to fix your faulty powers of
reasoning and/or language skills, because no where did I say that or even
remotely allude to it.

I'm not sure if he is being deliberately obtuse, or it's just that he
*is* obtuse.

He still isn't getting the point, is he?
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:22:37 +0000, Tim S wrote:

I have no sympathy for attempts to equate Kwik Fit with Radio 1!

The noise made by the Kwik Fit Fitters is more euphonious than that from
Radio 1.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Bruce wrote:
If a high proportion of people respected copyright, prices could be
lower. The trouble is that prices stay high because only a small
proportion of music is being paid for.

You can't expect people to spend 10,000 quid to fill an iPod with music.
Compare this with a typical collection of 100 CDs which are worth
perhaps 1000 quid.

My iPod is almost entirely filled with MP3 files that I converted from
my existing CDs using iTunes, perfectly legally. The result is that
less than 5% of my MP3 files were bought as MP3 files.

ITYF that's still technically illegal.

You could perfectly legally have converted *all* your iPod MP3s from CDs
you already owned. So the problem you describe simply doesn't exist.

Here's the calculation:

80GB iPod, capacity 20,000 4 minute tracks.

79p a track from iTunes.

Cost to fill = 15,800 GBP

The real problem is that people want to be able to routinely steal music
without paying for it. The howls of protest that are heard anytime
someone suggests that music should be paid for demonstrate that.

I do not believe people should pirate music. But that's not going to
stop them, I'm afraid.

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

Indeed Radio airplay was, and AFAIK still is, of great importance to
expose and advertise new music or artists etc to the public. Why they
seem hell bent of stopping it seems all arse about face;!...


But they *aren't* hell bent on stopping it!

It remains *completely free* for personal use, paid for by the TV
licence fee (on BBC Radio) and advertising (on commercial radio).


So are those hanging around in the local garage listening to the
wireless while their waiting for their tyres to be changed not listening
to it personally?.

This is really ******** its a gut reaction by PRS to the losses caused
by file sharing..

And why has it suddenly got to be a problem -now- after all these
years?.....
--
Tony Sayer

"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:54:36 UTC, Tim S wrote:

Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:

In contrast, you seem to want to be able to sponge off them for nothing.

Then I suggest that you go and attempt to fix your faulty powers of
reasoning and/or language skills, because no where did I say that or even
remotely allude to it.

I'm not sure if he is being deliberately obtuse, or it's just that he
*is* obtuse.

He still isn't getting the point, is he?


On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Jim wrote:
Bruce wrote:
If a high proportion of people respected copyright, prices could be
lower. The trouble is that prices stay high because only a small
proportion of music is being paid for.

You can't expect people to spend 10,000 quid to fill an iPod with music.
Compare this with a typical collection of 100 CDs which are worth
perhaps 1000 quid.

My iPod is almost entirely filled with MP3 files that I converted from
my existing CDs using iTunes, perfectly legally. The result is that
less than 5% of my MP3 files were bought as MP3 files.

ITYF that's still technically illegal.


Then someone had better sue Apple Computer for providing the facility
within iTunes!

I understood that the facility was the subject of detailed negotiations
prior to iTunes' release in the UK.

tony sayer wrote:

So are those hanging around in the local garage listening to the
wireless while their waiting for their tyres to be changed not listening
to it personally?.


The key word is "those". I am surprised you didn't spot that.

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

So are those hanging around in the local garage listening to the
wireless while their waiting for their tyres to be changed not listening
to it personally?.


The key word is "those". I am surprised you didn't spot that.


Yes then those possibly around 3 or 4 and then you can hardly hear it!..

Not a -very- big issue is it?.

Its a silly argument really .. so what happens now our local garage is
having to pay for the "public" to listen to the wireless they have on
for themselves?...
--
Tony Sayer

Bruce wrote:
Tim S wrote:
I'm not sure how you manage to confuse "playing audio in a limited physical
space" with "broadcasting".


Simple. It depends whether other people can hear it, or not.

There's absolutely no confusion, except in the minds of people who
refuse to accept the principle of paying for copyright material.

But the PRS is claiming for the performing rights - not the copyright.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

tony sayer wrote:

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

So are those hanging around in the local garage listening to the
wireless while their waiting for their tyres to be changed not listening
to it personally?.


The key word is "those". I am surprised you didn't spot that.


Yes then those possibly around 3 or 4 and then you can hardly hear it!..

Not a -very- big issue is it?.


No, not a big issue in the scheme of things, but the difference between
personal use and playing it for more people to hear it is fundamental.


Its a silly argument really .. so what happens now our local garage is
having to pay for the "public" to listen to the wireless they have on
for themselves?...


They have the option of playing non-copyright music for free. But
people get far, far more pleasure from listening to copyright music, and
that doesn't come free.

Rod wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Tim S wrote:
I'm not sure how you manage to confuse "playing audio in a limited physical
space" with "broadcasting".


Simple. It depends whether other people can hear it, or not.

There's absolutely no confusion, except in the minds of people who
refuse to accept the principle of paying for copyright material.

But the PRS is claiming for the performing rights - not the copyright.


In nearly all cases, both the performance and the song are copyright.
You often find a CD has a C in a circle for the copyright of the song
and a P in a circle for the copyright of the performance, often with a
different year on each.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:06:17 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Simple. It depends whether other people can hear it, or not.

Should all sports car drivers using a radio or playing CD's hold a PRS
licence as every time they pass pedestrians they can hear the content
as well?

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:54:36 UTC, Tim S wrote:

Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:

In contrast, you seem to want to be able to sponge off them for nothing.

Then I suggest that you go and attempt to fix your faulty powers of
reasoning and/or language skills, because no where did I say that or even
remotely allude to it.

I'm not sure if he is being deliberately obtuse, or it's just that he
*is* obtuse.

He still isn't getting the point, is he?


On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.


So you're quite happy to work for free?

Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:06:17 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Simple. It depends whether other people can hear it, or not.

Should all sports car drivers using a radio or playing CD's hold a PRS
licence as every time they pass pedestrians they can hear the content
as well?


Of course!

;-)

Bruce wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.

So you're quite happy to work for free?

You're coming across as a bit of a copyright maximalist here.

FWIW, do you believe in the concept of fair use? Should there be a
balance between the rights demanded by artists and the payments made to
them and the rights of everyone else? Is it easy to draw the line here?
Is it a good thing sometimes for culture as a whole when works pass into
the public domain?

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:44:53 +0000 someone who may be Bruce
wrote this:-

Indeed - the level of copyright theft is absolutely appalling. And it
is easy to see why, judging by the number of people on here who clearly
believe that they should not have to pay to listen to music.

Yawn. You can make that assertion as often as you like, but so far I
haven't seen anybody in the thread saying that. If distorting what
others have typed is the best argument that you can muster then
people will draw their own conclusions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
nightjar coughed up some electrons that declared:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
...
I fail to see how a few people listening to a common radio constitutes
a "performance", especially given the radio station has already paid to
broadcast the music....

Irrespective of what you may think, that is what the law says.

Colin Bignell

Given we never heard of this nonsense 10 years back AFAIK, does that mean
the law changed, or has there merely been an "interpretation" made
recently?

Well I remember it was being discussed in the mid 80's - exactly the same
situation, a workshop with a radio blaring out.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:57:24 UTC, Bruce wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.


So you're quite happy to work for free?

Q.E.D. again. You still don't get it.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.


So you're quite happy to work for free?

Which bit of "it's already paid for by the radio station" did you miss?

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

So are those hanging around in the local garage listening to the
wireless while their waiting for their tyres to be changed not listening
to it personally?.


The key word is "those". I am surprised you didn't spot that.


Yes then those possibly around 3 or 4 and then you can hardly hear it!..

Not a -very- big issue is it?.


No, not a big issue in the scheme of things, but the difference between
personal use and playing it for more people to hear it is fundamental.


No its not .. it seems that PRS is becoming desperate in being unable to
do anything about file sharing which is what they might want to look at.


Its a silly argument really .. so what happens now our local garage is
having to pay for the "public" to listen to the wireless they have on
for themselves?...


They have the option of playing non-copyright music for free. But
people get far, far more pleasure from listening to copyright music, and
that doesn't come free.

Silly buggers argument all the same. So a few people hanging around a
garage waiting the have their car services or tyres changed is now a
matter for contention. This isn't the same as a pub with the TV on where
such events are paid for and indeed advertised or the radio that may be
in a supermarket for which they invariably have their own stations..

Even more silly when you think of all the efforts they make to get
"radioplay" to expose their product in the first place!..

Some real arse abut tit thinking going on somewhere;!..





--
Tony Sayer

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:06:17 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Simple. It depends whether other people can hear it, or not.

Should all sports car drivers using a radio or playing CD's hold a PRS
licence as every time they pass pedestrians they can hear the content
as well?


Of course!

;-)

And those with iplayer transmitters too..
--
Tony Sayer

mike wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:49 pm, "OG" wrote:

'We' means that there's more than one of you, so you need a PRS licence.

So what happens if two people are listening to two radios - either
tuned to the same or different stations?

Can you see there's a difference between each person having their own
radio on loud enough for them to hear (personal listening) and a single
radio stuck on a shelf with the volume turned up so that everyone in the
room can hear (performance)?


And why don't the PRS go after those buggers on the train who play
their Walkmans/iPods loud enough for other people to hear?


Give them a chance! They've only just started on garages and workshops
that make your life a misery with having the radio on too loud.
:-)

"Big Grin" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:

How about a Sony DAB tuned to Radio 4?

So why would the PRS think that Radio Four is any different to Radio one
when you play it publicly?


Look up what the PRS are there for, and then consider against most of the
output of Radio 4.

"Clive George" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.


So you're quite happy to work for free?

Which bit of "it's already paid for by the radio station" did you miss?


Which bit of "only for personal use" do you choose not to understand?

Jim wrote:
Bruce wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.

So you're quite happy to work for free?

You're coming across as a bit of a copyright maximalist here.


Thank you.


FWIW, do you believe in the concept of fair use?


In this case, no, I don't.


Should there be a
balance between the rights demanded by artists and the payments made to
them and the rights of everyone else?


Yes, exactly as defined by the law.


Is it easy to draw the line here?


I have no difficulty, because I regard an intent to steal copyright
material as being just as reprehensible as an intent to steal anything
else.


Is it a good thing sometimes for culture as a whole when works pass into
the public domain?


Yes, the law provides for that after a period of time has elapsed.

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:44:53 +0000 someone who may be Bruce
wrote this:-

Indeed - the level of copyright theft is absolutely appalling. And it
is easy to see why, judging by the number of people on here who clearly
believe that they should not have to pay to listen to music.

Yawn. You can make that assertion as often as you like, but so far I
haven't seen anybody in the thread saying that.


Have you considered adult literacy classes?

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Clive George" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
"Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:32 UTC, Bruce wrote:

On the contrary, the point is clear. People expect something for
nothing, and howl with displeasure when someone asks them to pay.

Q.E.D.


So you're quite happy to work for free?

Which bit of "it's already paid for by the radio station" did you miss?

Which bit of "only for personal use" do you choose not to understand?

Hey, I'm not the one who claims that listening to something which has
already been paid for is the same as getting work for free. If the radio
station wasn't paying their PRS levies, you may have a point, but since they
are, you're talking crap.

The rules you prefer create a distinction where there ought to be none, and
we can illustrate that distinction very easily with the walkman example
given earlier. The rules are wrong.

Bruce wrote:
FWIW, do you believe in the concept of fair use?

In this case, no, I don't.

Then does every business need a PRS license in your view?

Is it easy to draw the line here?

I have no difficulty, because I regard an intent to steal copyright
material as being just as reprehensible as an intent to steal anything
else.

I think your use of the word "steal" is wrong here, and inflammatory. I
wouldn't "steal" your clothes by dressing the same as you.

Certainly people can infringe copyright, they can share music without
paying the record company, but you can't steal a copy.

Is it a good thing sometimes for culture as a whole when works pass into
the public domain?

Yes, the law provides for that after a period of time has elapsed.

I presume you are aware of the recent efforts of the recording industry
to extend copyright to 95 years? Should artists really be demanding
further concessions to further their "rights"?

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Arfa Daily"
saying something like:


I 'spect Drivel will be along in a minute to tell us that there's a reason
for it, and we should stop reading the Daily Mail ... d;~}

I am not Drivel, nor do I play one on TV, but I noticed this the other
day.
Large chains like Tesco have cut right back to almost zero on playing
copyrighted music in their stores, falling back on bingly-bongly muzak
or royalty-free stuff made by unknowns. The staggering amount Tesco, to
take one example, were paying per annum is doubtless noticed quite
severely by the PRS and others involved, so they're now chasing up all
the small guys who had got away with it un-noticed until now.
I know that the Irish PRS were relieving Tesco of 100K p/a for 88
stores, so scale that up for the UK stores - I'd not be surprised if it
reaches a couple of million.

googles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-numbers.html
2700 stores in the UK.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

Perhaps your selective dyslexia led you to overlook that point.

Or, more likely, you are just another chancer who wants something for
nothing.

**** off, Bruce.