APRA fees - do they have rights to fine me?

[Deactivated] on 18/12/2014 - 14:02

Hi ozbargainers

We own a hair salon. We got music in the background , TV in the waiting area for our customers. For years there is no problem. Recently Australian Performing Rights Association (APRA) forced us to sign a licence agreement saying we have to pay them licensing fees for the playing of music and TV at our shop.

Now they don't come cheap, we have multiple devices and they want us to pay $400+ annually . It is just another expense we don't need on top of all the pressure we have from economy downturn
Now we are thinking of just ignoring the invoices because they are just daylight robbery, money grabbing exercise.

Has any business owner out there been fined for not paying the fees? Please share your experience.

Entertainment

Related Stores

apraamcos.com.au
apraamcos.com.au

Comments

  • DrStinge on 18/12/2014 - 14:16
    +3

    Whirlpool Thread (bit old, still relevant)
    http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=984824

    Copyright Website - Few answers (mentions hairdressing salons specifically)
    http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/191679342…

  • Geewhizz on 18/12/2014 - 14:31
    +9

    Man, THAT sucks! Would you be able to have the radio playing instead?

    • Almost Banned on 18/12/2014 - 15:16
      +3

      No - this is precisely why they need the APRA licence.

      • zambuck on 19/12/2014 - 12:45
        +2

        Does that mean the taxi driver has to pay Alan Jones or some association of narrow-minded "content creators" when I'm in a cab? ;)

      • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2014 - 04:06

        I didnt know that. So any radio that is playing in a commercial location incurs a cost?

        • whooah1979 on 20/12/2014 - 07:28
          +2

          they can't issue fines, so they're only targeting shops that they think are an easy meal ticket.

  • derpdeder on 18/12/2014 - 15:07
    +12

    You are using music to entertain your customers as a business. It generally increases their enjoyment of being in your premises. Someone has produced this music and as copyright holder should be compensated. You should be holding not only an APRA license but a PPCA license too if you are playing recorded music (not radio).

    You can get royalty free music from around the place if you do not want to pay these fees.

      • rushil01 on 21/12/2014 - 00:38
        +42

        If it is being played over the radio then couldn't you argue that they are already being paid by the radio station who is earning their money by putting ads in-between the songs?

        • Peace Maker on 21/12/2014 - 10:51
          +42

          Agreed. I think the 'free haircut' is a bad example. The more appropriate APRA example is more like saying you paid for a nice haircut and everyone that enjoys looking at your nice new haircut should pay that hairdresser because they are benefiting from their creative talent.

        • RI4V4N on 24/12/2014 - 07:32
          +1

          No. Because no one has agreed to let you use their work in a public place.
          (Not saying this is nessecarily fair, just telling you what the law is).
          A tea room at the back of a bank for employees only was considered a public area too for purposes of copyright law.

    • peterw1 on 21/12/2014 - 13:08
      +2

      what about those malls that play music that keeps teenagers away. Should APRA pay nearby businesses for keeping potential customers away?

    • Miami Mall Alien on 21/12/2014 - 17:24
      +4

      It generally increases their enjoyment of being in your premises.

      Explain to me how Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj et al. increase my enjoyment of anything, other than entertaining violent murder fantasies?

      You can get royalty free music from around the place if you do not want to pay these fees.

      What, like this?

      • Tuttorix on 22/12/2014 - 22:33

        Different music tastes. And what's wrong with Taylor Swift exactly?

        • smpantsonfire on 22/12/2014 - 23:13
          +2

          Nothing, nothing at all!

        • Diji1 on 25/12/2014 - 10:55
          -2

          @smpantsonfire: She sleeps around a lot no wait I mean she sings music I don't like I mean :D

      • Ughhh on 23/12/2014 - 00:15

        How often do you see men (assuming you are a male) in a hair salon, getting their hair coloured and styled?

        • DrStinge on 23/12/2014 - 06:23
          +3

          You should visit Melbourne more often

        • PVA on 24/12/2014 - 01:11

          plenty of places.

        • Ughhh on 24/12/2014 - 01:22

          I must say, I dont remember seeing any in SA, in the smaller hair salons anyway. But still, the majority of the customers are probably females rather than males.

      • Diji1 on 25/12/2014 - 10:54

        OK so why did you go to the business again? It obviously wasn't driving you away (in this made up hypothetical scenario).

  • MITM on 18/12/2014 - 15:19

    Music is not for Public Broadcast.
    You're using it to enhance your business and thus profits.
    APRA is asking for some of the increased profits to be paid to the artists.
    I'm sure you can see the reality.
    Foxtel sells a business pack that includes the music channel for exactly your purpose.
    Or put the local radio on, the ads you'll hear cover payment to the artists.
    Not sure on Pandora or Spotify etc Someone else may have a better understanding

    • [Deactivated] on 19/12/2014 - 10:17

      MITM, that's not actually true re the adverts. You still need to pay APRA fee is you have commerical radio playing in your business, details are on the APRA site ;)

    • Diji1 on 25/12/2014 - 11:02

      Reality: People are being asked to pay for something they previously weren't paying for. Most people do not like that nor feel a particular obligation towards looking after musical artists and industry that promotes them.

      I would just keep playing the music and if they do come after you make a big noise just like this thread: they realise they are on the public's nose ATM and this behavior will appear to be another greedy money grubbing exercise not a "noble pursuit of the rightful monies the poor struggling artists are entitled to" exercise to many people I suspect. Gimme a break, they're already on the radio LEL.

      The additional ad revenue (which is something that most people do consider reasonable) isn't enough? They are literally getting more listeners with no customer aquisition costs.

  • MasterNoob on 18/12/2014 - 15:26
    +26

    Did you find the snitch?

  • adamren on 18/12/2014 - 15:51

    Forced you to sign?

    Don't sign without consulting a lawyer.

    Maybe find a loophole of a private club rather than a public space. Membership fee $1 or reimbursed on first purchased.

    Edit: loophole is a workaround. The reason they charge is because it's a public place. If you become a private place not open to public you're…no longer um public?!

    It's just a technicality. Store operates as usual. Just a new process for first timers. Repeat clients just keep coming.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/12/2014 - 21:33

      It's not a loophole - if it were, gyms and the like would certainly be exploiting it.

      Business offices, warehouses and factories aren't "open to the public", but as non-domestic setting, they are meant to hold an appropriate licence.

      • adamren on 18/12/2014 - 22:10

        Damn, thought I was on to something here. Brainstorm.

        OK, adopt all members as 'family' LOL call the biz a home. And change to a charity. Donations in exchange for a cut and blow dry. ;-p

        LOL to negger. What a joke, why so serious?!

  • [Deactivated] on 18/12/2014 - 16:00

    Already signed.
    Didnt get your loophole idea. Care to elaborate?

    • whooah1979 on 19/12/2014 - 14:23
      +12

      it's a shame that you signed a contract before seeking legal advise.

      we used to play music from a system owned by the owner of the shop. apra wanted the owner to pay for broadcasting music. the owner said bugger off and stopped playing music. the employees then started to bring their mobile music. each got a few hours playtime using wireless speakers running on batteries. the clients were happy, the owner happy and apra couldn't do thing about it.

      just keep that in mind for the next time your contract needs renewal.

      edit
      in case you didn't understand my post. the individual employee played music from their own device at their workstation. this device was not connected with the owner of the shop in any shape or form. the owner didn't pay for this device nor did the device use the owner's resources. this device was used by the employee for their enjoyment.

      edit
      australian performing rights association can't by law issue fines.

      • Noblejoker on 19/12/2014 - 14:42

        Are you saying that streaming music e.g. spotify doesn't count for APRA (but pre-recorded e.g. CD does)
        Then there is the solution - get spotify on the mobile and plug in to stereo :)

        • RI4V4N on 24/12/2014 - 07:43
          +1

          That isn't true. Spotify does not give you a public music license.

        • Noblejoker on 30/12/2014 - 18:21

          @RI4V4N:
          My comment was a question - seems you answered it :)

      • Bunnyburger on 21/12/2014 - 01:36
        +2

        That's pretty ingenious. That'll put a stop to their racketeering.

        • fatal on 24/12/2014 - 16:07

          "Racketeering"? You mean paying the artists who make the music for you to play?

        • Bunnyburger on 24/12/2014 - 21:12
          +3

          @fatal: APRA doesn't make any music at all…

        • Diji1 on 25/12/2014 - 11:08

          @fatal: In practice that means paying them a lot less than traditional revenue streams (so clearly they are looking out for the artists interests here and not just reducing music's value to the cost of distribution right).

          People explain how they're "helping the artist" by paying some nerd who really does care less about artist's well being than music labels.

          LEL.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/11/2016 - 13:28

          @Bunnyburger: You're right, it enforces the rights of the musicians who do.

      • RI4V4N on 24/12/2014 - 07:42

        Playing device from their own device loudly enough that customers can hear it, would still be in public. It doesn't matter if it comes from works speakers or your own. A business has control over and is responsible for it's employees, it really doesnt matter who is actually doing it.

        Maybe APRA cant issue fines, they can sue you though and some parts of copyright infringement are actually criminal offenses. Part of that, is likely them asking you to pay them some money so they don't take you to court, ie, probably some of the money you owe them for already infringing their rights for quite some time.

        I'm not saying I nessecarily agree with it, just stating the state of the law in Australia (I work in an IP related role).

        • whooah1979 on 24/12/2014 - 08:10

          it looks like you've been busy bee. do you've any case laws to go with your busy work?

        • Diji1 on 25/12/2014 - 11:10

          Nice weasel word "some".

        • RI4V4N on 25/12/2014 - 16:45
          +2

          @whooah1979:

          The fact you say case laws with an S shows that you don't really know law.
          It's fine if you don't believe me, I'm not going to work for free though to help you understand it. Go study the area yourself.

        • RI4V4N on 25/12/2014 - 16:49

          @Diji1: Which "some" are you referring to?
          If you are referring to the criminal part, even if they can't issue a "fine", depending entirely on your definition of the word "fine", they can still attempt to hit you up for money as compensation for you infringing their works, because they likely have the right to take you to court to get a much larger amount of money otherwise. And I assure you, they would have a pretty easy case against you in these circumstances.

        • whooah1979 on 25/12/2014 - 17:14

          @RI4V4N:
          you're right. i'm not educated in law. this topic is not related to my industry at all.

          it's however related to your work. you probably know more about this than most of us. perhaps you've come across a link that may be of interest that you like to share?

        • RI4V4N on 25/12/2014 - 17:27

          @whooah1979:

          Fair enough. In law you don't really learn from links, you learn from case law/journal articles, many of which are usually behind a paywall. You may be able to find the APRA v Commonwealth Bank case on Austlii, where I'm pretty sure the court discusses the private vs domestic use issues (its about hold music).

          Having individuals playing their own music, would mean they are infrgining and in fundamental basic law, an employer is responsible for its employees and since the music is being used in a commercial setting and has not been stopped by the employer, they would still be held responsible. This isn't a loop hole, the law isn't written in a way that people could weasel out in this way.

    • Tech5 on 21/12/2014 - 00:53

      Should have gotten Spotify I think. $250ish a year cheaper

      • MATTDAMON on 21/12/2014 - 13:49

        Or free if you just leave it on shuffle

      • RI4V4N on 24/12/2014 - 07:43
        +2

        Spotify does not give you a public music license.

  • p1 ama on 18/12/2014 - 16:12
    +5

    Now we are thinking of just ignoring the invoices because they are just daylight robbery, money grabbing exercise.

    Ummm, daylight robbery? How would you feel if someone came into your hair salon, got their hair cut and walked out without paying you?

    That's exactly what you're doing to the artists by illegally playing their music. Their music is their intellectual property (or the record label's) and when you buy a CD from a store, for example, you are buying the license to listen to that music individually.

    You are not allowed to use that music for commercial purposes. Examples of commercial purposes include using their music to make a movie, using their music to gain business (as you have) or reselling their music.

    I don't like it when people don't respect intellectual property. We can make the case that the entertainment industry is rich and we don't need to support them, but there are plenty of people who don't respect software licenses, despite most people working in software development to be average mums and dads feeding their family. As the developed world moves away from manufacturing to an information economy, I fear that the disrespect of intellectual property sets a bad precedent.

    The time artists spend making their music, the time software developers spend writing code and the time an architect spends drawing a house plan is exactly the same as the time you spend cutting hair. That's how they make their money. It's not fair to not pay them correctly.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/12/2014 - 04:42
      +18

      It is more like we own the trees on the nature strip outside of your shop. They have been providing oxygen for you to breathe. There is no problem if you breathe in yourself but when your customers breathe we have to charge you.
      No it is not enough for the trees to get the water and sunlight to keep producing oxygen (artists get paid on CDs, concerts),we have to charge you anyway because we can and you have to breathe. If you challenge us,
      All of a sudden we don't only own the trees in front of your shop, as long as anything that look remotely like trees anywhere in the world ,we own them.
      (You have to pay even if you play overseas contents in foreign language which have nothing to do with oz artists) and we own the trees, we don't care you fork out to fertilise them(you have to pay even if you already physically bought the CDs from a music store)
      We don't have to do anything other than sending out invoices annually, some idiots are there producing music thinking we are collecting on their behalf, some other idiots are there to pay because we will enforce legal proceedings if they don't. We just there to leech off these idiots..

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2014 - 13:23
          +12

          No question music is good for enjoyment for customers. It is not really about music or artist .some music that we play are in foreign language. You really think apra will volunteer to track down and pay those foreign artists .How would you explain if the TV is on cricket whole day long. Apra would like a share of that too. You think they will volunteer and send some cheques to those Indian cricketers too?
          If we play lady gaga's music all day long, one day lady gaga's manager turns up at our salon and asks for some payment , I will say fair dinkum.
          If we use someone's car for business , of course the person should be compensated.
          It is just pure opportunistic for apra to target small businesses like us.

        • p1 ama on 20/12/2014 - 13:54
          -8

          @Iamgenerous:

          No question music is good for enjoyment for customers.

          Usage of music helps your business -> you should pay for said music.

          Makes complete sense to me, just as if you were going to use someone's car, it's exactly the same principle, you are using someone else's property to make money, they deserve to be compensated.

          It is just pure opportunistic for apra to target small businesses like us.

          So? It happens everywhere. If you drive, it's opportunistic for cops to target you for going at 5 km/h above the limit. It's opportunistic for you to get fined without a valid ticket on public transport. It's opportunistic for you to get fined overstaying a parking spot…etc. You get the point, saying something is 'opportunistic' is a defence when we know we've done the wrong thing but don't want to pay up.

          If you don't want to pay, you can use royalty-free music. It's that simple really. I don't know if you've even done your research and understood why you need to pay. I got this from their website:

          When music is played and/or performed live, made available online or copied, the business authorising that music use almost always requires a licence. This covers the rights of the songwriter, composer and music publisher who made and own the piece of music. Music directly benefits thousands of businesses in Australia: from digital download services and record labels, through to broadcasters and nightclubs, schools and cinemas to shops and restaurants who use music to attract and retain customers.

          So according to them, they do pay the songwriter, composer and publisher. You're saying they don't - I'm not too sure if you're right. But anyway, you could always approach the license holders themselves and ask for permission and deal directly with them, which is what you're saying about Lady Gaga's manager. So why don't you call up him and ask him what he'd charge so you can play Lady Gaga. APRA is okay with this:

          It is not just important for you to have permission from the copyright owners and pay for the right to use music for the benefit of your business but a legal requirement too. At APRA AMCOS we’ve done the hard work for you so you do not have to contact the owners of each piece of music of music you play, broadcast, stream, download or copy.

          http://www.apraamcos.com.au/music-customers/why-do-you-need-…

          Also, if I may, I'd like to point out that APRA aren't fining you, they're simply asking you pay what is fair and required. That's not a fine. So your title is misleading.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2014 - 18:09
          +18

          @paulsterio:
          We conduct fair, legitimate business. We pay our suppliers on time in full, every time.We pay our employees entitlement properly. When we receive our goods and when employees spend their time working for us they ought to be fairly compensated.
          Paulsterio we just have to agree to disagree.
          I couldn't see how apra does this fairly. All licensing fees will have admin fees taken out and the artists will get very minimum out of this.
          It will be interesting if you can come up with figures of how much artists are actually paid from these licensing fees and how much admin fees they keeping for themselves. And how they determine which artist should be paid and why some are paid less than others, and some never get a cent.
          I insist this is nothing more than money grabbing exercise.

        • p1 ama on 20/12/2014 - 19:41
          +1

          @Iamgenerous:

          We conduct fair, legitimate business. We pay our suppliers on time in full, every time.We pay our employees entitlement properly. When we receive our goods and when employees spend their time working for us they ought to be fairly compensated.

          That is because you respect hard property and labour, as most people do. However, you have to see that intellectual property is equal to hard property. That is the problem. Like I have said, feel free to pay Lady Gaga herself for the rights to use her music, you can actually do that.

          The problem with intellectual property is that people don't respect that ideas and thoughts and creations are actually property. Most people would agree that stealing someone's car and using that to make money is wrong, but that it's completely fine to steal someone's great idea and use that to make money. That is a problem.

          For example, if someone comes up with a completely novel way of cutting hair that means you can get a haircut done in 20s, you'd probably be right onto that and you'd be trying to weasel your way out of renumerating said person. That's the problem. In most people's minds, intellectual and hard property aren't equal.

          Until you work in an industry where you see the effects of disrespect on intellectual property, you won't really understand. I see it all the time. Most of the students I come in contact with would never think to steal a car or even a laptop, but when it's essay time, it's completely fine to steal other people's ideas - i.e. plagiarism.

          I couldn't see how apra does this fairly. All licensing fees will have admin fees taken out and the artists will get very minimum out of this.

          Then strike a deal directly with the artists or their representatives.

          I insist this is nothing more than money grabbing exercise.

          So are many other things in society. Fair enough, play royalty free music then.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2014 - 09:36

          @paulsterio:

          Hogwash

        • StewBalls on 22/12/2014 - 12:04
          +5

          @paulsterio:

          Until you work in an industry where you see the effects of disrespect on intellectual property, you won't really understand.

          That's a bit rich coming from a bloody student.

          How's about you get a real job yourself before telling hardworking small business owners how to go about earning a crust, Paul…FFS mate, get a life whilst you're at it; seriously, if you put as much effort into your studies as you do into these dysfunctional walls of text on OzB, you might actually graduate to become a productive member of society.

        • mrmarkau67 on 22/12/2014 - 15:24
          +4

          @Iamgenerous:

          If you don't want to pay APRA, then ask a band or instrumentalist to come in and play some music for your customers.

        • mrmarkau67 on 22/12/2014 - 17:04
          +1

          @Iamgenerous:

          Who do you think owns APRA?

        • ankor on 22/12/2014 - 19:36
          +5

          @StewBalls:

          I don't think it is fair to target paulsterio in the way that you have in this post. Just because he is a student, it doesn't make what he says of any less value. The idea is to check the facts behind what he says before discounting it.

          He's provided the exact thinking behind intellectual property, and how intangible assets/property are monetised by artists, their record labels, and agents. A lot of us disagree with the way that this is done, but it is no excuse to shoot the messenger for writing 'walls of text' or lambasting him for studying.

          edit: is into are.

      • kat123 on 20/12/2014 - 12:03
        +15

        If you don't agree then its simple, stop playing the music.

        If you believe the atmosphere created is worth the $400 a year, then get over yourself and pay up…

        • ankor on 21/12/2014 - 00:29
          +2

          Just play some royalty-free music.

        • Jackson on 23/12/2014 - 08:49
          +2

          There's a 3rd option: don't agree and keep playing the music

        • kat123 on 24/12/2014 - 14:36

          @Jackson: That was an option until they went and signed a contract to the contrary, once you've done that you limit your own options.

      • AsSeenOnTv on 21/12/2014 - 22:43
        +2

        You could just download $400 worth of music instead of buying it then you are all square, but that would be illegal and i shouldn't have suggested it ;)

    • This Guy on 20/12/2014 - 14:30
      +4

      It's not illegal, it's a commercial dispute.

      You can upgrade licences with APRA and PPCA.

      Artists make most their money from touring and merch. Labels, rights groups and writers make their money from sales and licencing.

      Yes, let's respect IP but let’s also respect the intelligence of the people we are preaching to.

      • RI4V4N on 24/12/2014 - 07:47

        It actually is illegal and copyright infringement can be a civil and a criminal matter.

        • This Guy on 24/12/2014 - 14:33

          Which criminal law applies to this case?

        • RI4V4N on 25/12/2014 - 16:57

          @This Guy:

          Likely not much, but the definition of illegal is against law and it goes against copyright law, so hence, illegal anyway.

        • This Guy on 25/12/2014 - 23:43

          @RI4V4N:

          The Copyright Act generally dictates civil remedies.

          Most Aussies use illegal to refer to crimes (the things you can get arrested for) which in NSW are mostly defined in the Crimes Act and Federal Criminal Code Act.

          Crimes also differ from state to state.

          So if an unlicensed, non-offensive, public performance on private property is a crime, which law is it violating?

        • RI4V4N on 26/12/2014 - 00:23

          @This Guy:
          Most aussies ay mate.

          The crimes don't differ from state to state here because it's a Federal Act.
          Not sure where you are getting the private property thing from, it's in a commercial setting here. It's a pretty clear violation (and therefore crime in the actual definition of the word) of the copyright act provisions regarding such. This is why gyms and stuff nowdays all use covers (which exist in a semi grey area) or pay for the licenses.

        • This Guy on 27/12/2014 - 13:21
          -1

          @RI4V4N:

          Which law? What is the criminal punishment? IANAL, I am honestly asking.

          This isn't a law forum. Using jargon publically to instil fear of the legal system is bad form.

        • RI4V4N on 27/12/2014 - 19:20
          +1

          @This Guy:

          It's not jargon.
          You're carrying on because you don't want to lose face.
          It's illegal regardless of whether its a criminal or civil matter, learn the meaning of words.

          If your wondering which law, it's an infringement to contradict any of the rights of a copyright owner, including the right to air music in a public area. It's part of the Copyright Act. It's a federal act, you will find it on comlaw or austlii, have fun reading.

        • This Guy on 28/12/2014 - 02:47

          @RI4V4N:

          We were both wrong. It is a criminal offense defined in 132AN of the Copyright Act, with upto 5 years gaol or a fine of upto 550 penalty units.

          That took two minutes to find once I found a full text copy of the act.

          Back to me being petty. Illegal means forbidden by law. How can a purely civil matter be defined as prohibited by law? Again, honestly asking because I can't logically comprehend this concept

        • RI4V4N on 28/12/2014 - 11:13
          +1

          @This Guy:
          I'll try not to be a dick about it.
          Civil and Criminal are both kind of separate arms (sometimes working together) of the law. In a civil matter, you sue someone for breaching the law etc. In a criminal matter, the state/country takes you to court for breaching the law. In both cases you have committed an illegal act by going against the law. Of course you can't really say for certain you have until you have gone to court and been found to have committed it, but case law (court cases that have been decided before) guide in regards to how certain circumstances will be decided.

    • Miami Mall Alien on 21/12/2014 - 17:32
      +5

      I don't like it when people don't respect intellectual property.

      Life must be hard.

      We can make the case that the entertainment industry is rich and we don't need to support them, but there are plenty of people who don't respect software licenses, despite most people working in software development to be average mums and dads feeding their family. As the developed world moves away from manufacturing to an information economy, I fear that the disrespect of intellectual property sets a bad precedent.

      Spare us your crocodile tears.

      Intellectual property law is the wedge through which censorship, the erosion of consumer rights and the monopolisation of entertainment media will be driven through.

        • Miami Mall Alien on 22/12/2014 - 17:14
          +7

          I know someone, not personally, who stole code from a company he was working for and brought it to another company and implemented the novel ideas there. Is that morally okay?

          Here's a question for you ethical crusader types who love to harp on about your altruistic concern for the average Joe:

          Is it okay for these predatory watchdogs to threaten small businesses, an essentially endangered species in today's economy who barely keep their heads above water, with extortionate tactics, when mass copyright violations (e.g. the entire country of China versus Microsoft) are not only overlooked but tolerated, because they're not originating from the kinds of demographics that the pro-IP cartels want to subjugate? (Namely the young, affluent, educated, Western demographic who they see as having far too much access to information, far too much choice and far too much purchasing parity).

          They're only going after the local hairdresser or cafe because they are the proverbial babies with candy.

          When these like-minded muppets tried to get iiNet to admit complicity in copyright violations in a court of law, they were comprehensively shut down.

          What about trolling stuff such as Kickstarter? You know what a good business strategy is if you have capital and no ideas? Go on Kickstarter and look at ideas that you think will succeed and instead of paying for those ideas, you can just steal them and go and make them happen. Will the Kickstarter guys ever get you? Probably not, because they have no money. Is that morally okay with you too?

          Now wait a minute here, I do have to concede you have a point with this, because from looking at the 10 most funded Kickstarter campaigns of all time, I can definitely see that Nikola Tesla was looking down with envy and awe at those noble savants who followed in his footsteps, when they proposed the "Coolest Cooler", an esky with a built-in speaker, or the "Reaper Miniatures", a bunch of gaming-themed, small sculptures

          You considering that glorified nostalgic, circle-jerk of Silicon Valley rejects as a legitimate crucible of innovation and revolution is ridiculous.

          Secondary to this, you seem to forget that "theft of intellectual property", was in centuries gone by, known as enlightening the world.

          Men from the likes of Newtown, Galileo, Da Vinci, Guttenberg and Pasteur all thrived because they took pre-existing, forgotten or incomplete knowledge and flourished it and in some cases, usurped lesser colleague's or competitor's works or ideas, when the demand for their knowledge was to be of dire practical significance to most of mankind.

          You know, instead of waiting around and making sure that every goddamned Tom, Dick and Harry with delicate sensibilities who once thought of being able to look at the planets with a closer perspective, wasn't going to be offended when they invented the telescope.

          That's what human history, evolution and brilliance lies in by the way, in case you actually needed that spelled out for you; except for in the topsy-turvy, make-believe 21st Century where people see fit to throw millenia of unbroken progression on it's head.

          If it were up to the kind of men who seek to anchor innovation down with a plethora of legal prerequisites, many of humanity's greatest minds would have been severely discouraged from their pursuing their breakthroughs and innovations for fear legal, social or academic reprisal.

          Thomas Jefferson said it best:
          "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

          What about patents? I develop a drug which is the result of many years of research. Another company decomposes the drug to find the chemical formula and a way of synthesizing such drug and can now sell the drug at significantly less because of less R&D costs. Of course illegal. But is that okay with you too?

          Absolutely. The pharmaceutical industry quite literally sickens the world and then offers solutions to engineered health crises at a premium, all the while barely vetting the safety of their products which furnish a cycle of prescribing drugs to combat the effects of other drugs. The best racket ever devised. Quite literally making a killing from astronomical cancer rates while stifling the cure and pumping out new treatment medication by the truckload.

          The disrespect of intellectual property is what is severely hampering the world's progress towards an information economy.

          Some of the things you say sound like they are lifted ad verbatim from ACTA or AFACT whitepapers. It is really difficult to sympathise with someone so far down the rabbit hole.

          Let me give you a few examples of what is happening in the real world so you don't think this is about consumer rights and stupid entertainment media.

          Of course entertainment media is a red herring you genius; it's a convenient tool to mobilise support for the iceberg of related Draconian laws and Federal overreaches of power, because the simpletons out there don't mind being guilt-tripped with this romanticised fable about snatching money from struggling kids with guitars, that has no basis in reality.

          Inserting far-reaching legal repercussions into a bill called the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is easy, because senators and politicians don't read bills.

          However, in the bigger world, there is an issue. Intellectual property is given a bad name because of idiotic companies like Apple pursuing others over ridiculously obscure and questionable breaches of patents

          Given a bad name?
          Bit of an understatement there.

          Were you in cave in 2012 when the Stop Online Piract Act/Protect IP acts were proposed by the MAFIAA and their Congressional lackeys?

          Parts of those bills would have made Goebbels blush.

          IP law has a "bad name" (read: Satanic vibe) because it is so much more than just a revenue raiser for the studio moguls; it has serious negative implications for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, political dissent, the concept of private property ownership, the Internet itself, content creator's rights, economic growth, entrepreneurship, scientific integrity, the ownership of patents on food/life/lifestyles/thoughts, etc.

          This is all apparently lost on you, Mr. Scrooge McDuck, because you can only see so far as the bottom line.

        • p1 ama on 22/12/2014 - 20:13
          -2

          @Amar89:

          You've just written a whole load of stuff not really relevant to the point I was trying to make in the first place. But, let me address your conclusion.

          IP law has a "bad name" (read: Satanic vibe) because it is so much more than just a revenue raiser for the studio moguls; it has serious negative implications for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, political dissent, the concept of private property ownership, the Internet itself, content creator's rights, economic growth, entrepreneurship, scientific integrity, the ownership of patents on food/life/lifestyles/thoughts, etc.

          IP law is not the same as IP. I agree that IP law is a revenue raiser for studio guys. However, I must digress on saying that it has serious negative implications for freedom of speech, freedom of the press…etc.

          That's just complete left-wing bullcrap you hear at a Socialist rally and is, quite franky, completely irrelevant to what I was trying to say. Just stop the ideological views for a while and have a think about what I'm saying.

          Amar, let's imagine you are a software developer and you want to develop a game. In order to do so, you spend a certain amount on R&D, you spend another certain amount on developers, you invest in a set of new animation workstations and most of all, you invest your own time. You then go on to sell this game for $50 because you feel like that is a fair amount for what you have spent.

          Would you be okay if someone bought your game and made thousands of copies and resold them for $5 ea. at the flea market? What about someone uploading it on a Torrent site for the rest of the world to download?

          If you don't think that is morally okay, then we agree. The implementation of IP law and its intricacies, I agree is complete bullcrap. We can continue discussion that, but it's not my point.

          If you think this is morally okay, then you're advocating all software development studios going out of business…?

        • Miami Mall Alien on 23/12/2014 - 00:01
          +3

          @paulsterio:

          You've just written a whole load of stuff not really relevant to the point I was trying to make in the first place.

          Because you're only capable of looking at this issue from a bean-counting point of view in an attempt to quantify intelligence in dollar values.

          Good luck with that.

          The issue of intellectual property and how to best appropriate it is an existential one, not merely a fiscal one, hence you need to broaden your approach to this.

          There is are so many more pertinent aspects to intellectual property than goddamned fair market values for software development, which to you is Holy Grail of intellectual property; your asinine and infantile grasp of something so abstract shows how little you care to know about any of this.

          Would you be okay if someone bought your game and made thousands of copies and resold them for $5 ea. at the flea market? What about someone uploading it on a Torrent site for the rest of the world to download?

          No matter how times these kinds of sappy anecdotes are brought up, they just never reconcile with the actual profits software companies make, which continue to grow and grow exponentially, while their actual creative output and innovation stagnates.

          Two glaring examples I can think of are Autodesk and Adobe, who after having monopolised their respective markets, have now moved to much more lucrative subscription-only models, thus further depriving consumers of tangible rights, while increasing total cost of ownership for absolutely no meaningful improvement over code from years ago.

          If you're going to be another derivative, artistically-bankrupt, mimicry who takes what has been a thousand times over and repackages it to market it as something truly unique, like virtually all of the Triple-A developers do, you don't deserve a cent.

          Let me ask you this: how much wealth is there to extract from an idea? If we treat ideas as a resource, like a mineral deposit or an oil well, how much can be extracted before you're essentially hitting rock bottom? What is the fair market value of an idea, and how transferable is it?

          To go back to your gaming analogies, as they seem to be very relatable for you: after the first 100 billion dollars of profit generated from gaming genre X, over a decade, which saw the rise and fall of thousands of developers and the publication of thousands of titles, why should we allow any backyard software dev team to come along, stand on the shoulders of men who already did all the legwork for them and let them churn out another clone of an idea that has been been done to death, so they can have their 15 minutes and millionaire status?

          Where else do we accept such a premise? A coal mine with no coal in it cannot continue to solicit investment on the promise that they might strike big again in the future.

          And yet here where are, accepting this very idea, that anyone and everyone is entitled to profit that is being generated from ideas so stale and over-exploited, that even their progenitors have deserted them.

          This is where you and I fundamentally differ; you hold the rights of corporations to be equal to or above people at all costs, I don't.

          All profit is not created equally.

        • p1 ama on 23/12/2014 - 11:10
          -3

          @Amar89:

          You're the one who is obsessed with profits, not me. I'm interested purely in the moral side of the argument. I don't care if a company is turning over huge profits or is on the verge of bankruptcy, what is wrong is wrong and what is right is right. It's like saying stealing from rich people is okay because they're rich - it doesn't really work like that.

          Let me address your points. You use a lot of big words and complex sentences, but that just masks the fact that most of what you say is just baloney.

          If you're going to be another derivative, artistically-bankrupt, mimicry who takes what has been a thousand times over and repackages it to market it as something truly unique, like virtually all of the Triple-A developers do, you don't deserve a cent.

          How much you deserve is how much the market is willing to pay. That is basic high school level economics. You can charge how much you want for a product depending on what the demand for that is, i.e. you find the equilibrium price.

          If you make a product or provide a service, you charge what you feel would make you the most profits. Whether people buy your product or service or not is the buyer's decision. You're using an emotional argument, not an economic one.

          Let me ask you this: how much wealth is there to extract from an idea? If we treat ideas as a resource, like a mineral deposit or an oil well, how much can be extracted before you're essentially hitting rock bottom? What is the fair market value of an idea, and how transferable is it?

          Ideas are different to products.

          The whole area of patent law is completely another topic which as its own set of issues and problems separate from what I am talking about now. I am talking about products.

          If you spend money developing a piece of software, that is a product. Microsoft developing Windows for example, is not merely ideas, but products. They have costs to pay, including the programmers, testers, architects, the marketing department…etc. The list goes on.

          If you compare an Intel CPU to Microsoft Windows, look at what you're getting. Intel CPUs are the product of engineering and manufacturing (in a factory). So is Windows, it is engineered by software architects and manufactured by software developers. Both provide some form of tangible benefit to you.

          Even with your example of Adobe and Autodesk, they're charging you for very tangible products. You could easily say that the CPU market is stagnated as well. How much has Intel improved over the last five years? Yet they're still charging more and more for their CPUs each day. The problem you've highlighted, namely that Adobe is stagnant and overcharging and only cares about its bottom dollar, occurs in all industries.

          This isn't unique to the software industry.

          To go back to your gaming analogies, as they seem to be very relatable for you: after the first 100 billion dollars of profit generated from gaming genre X, over a decade, which saw the rise and fall of thousands of developers and the publication of thousands of titles, why should we allow any backyard software dev team to come along, stand on the shoulders of men who already did all the legwork for them and let them churn out another clone of an idea that has been been done to death, so they can have their 15 minutes and millionaire status?

          Because people are willing to pay them that much to play their games. That's an economic concept.

          On the same note, I can also say this. Standing on the shoulders of men who have done legwork and churning out clones happens in all industries. Again, say with cars, do you think every car is unique and a genuine invention?

          Of course not, most cars are exactly the same thing, with slight differences. Exactly the same issue as the one you've outlined, yet nobody is going after car manufacturers are they?

          Where else do we accept such a premise? A coal mine with no coal in it cannot continue to solicit investment on the promise that they might strike big again in the future.

          This is irrelevant. You cannot get coal from a coal mine with no coal. However, people might still enjoy playing games that have been done to death. That's the big difference.

          And yet here where are, accepting this very idea, that anyone and everyone is entitled to profit that is being generated from ideas so stale and over-exploited, that even their progenitors have deserted them.

          No, nobody is entitled to any profit. They are entitled to charge what they want and people are allowed to choose to buy or not. If you develop a piece of software, you are entitled to charge for it the way that a car manufacturer is entitled to charge for producing a car.

          Whether you turn a profit or not is a completely separate concept and depends on how much people are willing to pay. You need to separate what people's right to charge and a customer's right to choose what to pay for.

          This is where you and I fundamentally differ; you hold the rights of corporations to be equal to or above people at all costs, I don't.

          Free markets are a fundamental part of capitalist society. You, as an individual, or a corporation have the right to charge however much you wish for a product or service. Whether people choose to buy your product or service is completely another matter.

          You're good at spewing left-wing ideological nonsense that we all hear at socialist rallies, the typical anti-corporation, anti-rich sentiment. Those ideas get a lot of ideological support, but are economically garbage.

          Are you saying that you can really dictate whether someone should be allowed to charge or not for their product depending on whether it's a clone or not? That's ridiculous.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 23/12/2014 - 15:44
          +5

          @Amar89:

          This is all apparently lost on you, Mr. Scrooge McDuck, because you can only see so far as the bottom line.

          Hey! Leave me outta it.

        • dezza112 on 23/12/2014 - 20:59

          @paulsterio:

          Hey Paul let's imagine you were in a jungle and a male gorilla impreganated you from behind. Then after that gorilla forces you to pay child support. Well since you're such an upstanding citizen you would do exactly that wouldn't you….considering gorillas have rights too and all that….

  • earths_pacifist on 18/12/2014 - 16:14
    +8

    Do you do any advertising on Radio. I know a few stores that organised free or cheap advertising so long as they played their station all day? Not sure if that is an option? Suppose you could do something similar with TV Station?

  • RandomNinja on 18/12/2014 - 20:58
    +6

    What would happen if they were to switch to streaming international online radio stations or stream Youtube?

  • derpdeder on 18/12/2014 - 21:44
    +1

    It is the content, not the method of delivery.

  • r2160 on 19/12/2014 - 09:50

    It depends on the type of music you are broadcasting. Look further into this as there is a lot of music that isnt covered by this.

  • zambuck on 19/12/2014 - 12:51

    You could always consider alternatives like http://moodmixes.com/, which is related to magnatune.com. They offer music from artists who they work with directly, and unless your salon is huge, it'll probably cost you A$15/month.

    You won't get big name artists, but depending on the type of music you're after, that doesn't really matter. I'm not affiliated but I am a subscriber to magnatune, mainly for their Jazz.

  • c2k on 19/12/2014 - 13:24
    +10

    I like to know how much of this money is going to the artist?

    • tomsco on 20/12/2014 - 08:23
      +9

      and how do they know which artist to,pay?

    • Miami Mall Alien on 21/12/2014 - 17:28
      +4

      The square root of jack.

      • mrmarkau67 on 22/12/2014 - 15:27

        According to APRA's website, it is 87%. Do you have some evidence that it isn't?

        • Miami Mall Alien on 22/12/2014 - 15:33

          Self-reported statistics from an RIAA front company. That's cute.

          In 2009 they proposed changes to NZ copyright law that would make it possible to punish people accused of, but not proven to have committed, copyright infringement.

          This outfit's cavalier attitude and Mafia-style extortion tactics speaks volumes about their nature. If you think they give a shit about performance artists, you're wrong.

        • mrmarkau67 on 22/12/2014 - 15:47
          +1

          @Amar89:

          That's a bunch of name calling and rude words. Got any actual evidence?

        • Miami Mall Alien on 22/12/2014 - 15:59
          +1

          @mrmarkau67:

          That's a bunch of name calling and rude words. Got any actual evidence?

          Ironically, that's exactly what APRA deal in.

          I found your factoid. A one line statement with no references to studies, artist's opinions nor 3rd-party validation. Well I'm overwhelmed, that settles it.

          The onus is one those guys to actually make their claims believable.

        • mrmarkau67 on 22/12/2014 - 16:54
          +2

          @Amar89:

          Would you believe the numbers in financial statements audited by KPMG and lodged with the ACCC?

          http://www.apraamcos.com.au/media/3596/2013-apra-financial-r…

          What evidence do you have?

        • mrmarkau67 on 23/12/2014 - 16:14
          +1

          @Amar89:

          Yep I thought so. You got nothing except empty words.

        • Miami Mall Alien on 23/12/2014 - 23:56
          -1

          @mrmarkau67: There you go again; grain of salt.

          It took me less than 30 seconds to skim-read APRA's Financial Year 2012-2013 cashflow statement and financial statement ending June 30, 2013 which shows a total of $347,583 dollars paid out in royalties, offset against a total revenue from license fees of $1,172,220 for that same period.

          That's a percentage of 29.65% given back to actual content creators in the financial year ending June 30, 2013.

          You were saying… Mr Eighty-Seven Percent.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join