Turn down that radio! Or else.

I don't know about auto repair shops, but this happens all the time in the U.S. in restaurants. Individuals working for the Recording Industry of America (RIA) regularly visit restaurants in the U.S. to see if they are playing radio music for patrons. If so, they are required to somehow subscribe to pay for it. This happened to some relatives of mine who own a restaurant. They killed the radio music rather than pay RIA or install "muzak" system which also costs money.

"in the 40s, in the 50s, in the 60s-of course, when I hadn't been born yet-my first perception was that people rose up in arms to struggle against the empire. Now, I see quite the opposite, that it's the empire that's raising up arms against the peoples."-Presidente Evo Morales

indeed Sr. Pres.

Playing the music over a company owned site might be considered copyright infringement. But since it was coming from the radio, has not the recording studios been paid by the radio station for playing the song I think this judge is an idiot.

At Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in the Mojave Desert, they used to have KRXV played over the complex page 24 hours a day so that the Echo site secretary could hear the radio when she went to the ladies room or to lunch. The meant everyone working at every site on every shift of every day had to endure Las Vegas lounge music and advertisements for Whiskey Pete and Cactus Kate.

It took a threat of prosecution for using government equipment to broadcast commercial advertising (not the music) to get the practice stopped.

This is the height of ridiculousness. It got so bad at one place of employment that we tuned the radio for our music-on-hold service to the local NPR affiliate to stave off the ASCAP/BMI folks.

But at my prior place of employment we all had and shared our iTunes libraries. That's got to be a violation, right?

Or how about the cars with the boomin' systems. They're essentially broadcasting. Why don't we have ASCAP/BMI revenuers pulling them over and demanding they pay the public performance fee.

ASCAP/BMI goes after the low hanging fruit.

Probably not an idiot Revere. Its the difference between adjudication and enforcement. The barristers have brought the action in defense of the law that they probably had no little part in putting into effect. I am also sure that there were repeated warnings, letters, etc.

"A public space or a public place is a place where anyone has a right to come without being excluded because of economic or social conditions, although this may not always be the case in practice. One of the earliest examples of public spaces are commons. For example, no fees or paid tickets are required for entry, nor are the entrants discriminated based on background. Non-government-owned malls are examples of 'private space' with the appearance of being 'public space'."

So if you just adjudicate it by the law then you are totally wrong. ON the other hand can I get the police to arrest these gomers in Memphis who are playing their car radio and CD's loud enough to be heard in Atlanta? Probably not. Might be nice though not to have to get a hearing check after being at a stop light with them.

These guys better hope that this doesnt get before a jury to be heard because as stated before they can only render judgement based upon the law as its presented to them by the court. That court will be one of the judge who will say something to the effect as to what the law reads, the prosecution or plaintiffs will present that case, the defense theirs and they will render a judgement based likely only upon the law. Not generally speaking what you or I think, but the law. Its like sitting down at a pool party with the radio on. That is NOT a public place, but it is a mass distribution of a copyrighted material and that indeed is an infringement. Kind of makes you wonder what a disco does playing the music to dance to though now doesnt it. Do they pay? I dont know. I do know that a radio station would likely want everyone up to about 20 light years away to hear every advertisement there is. On the other hand, the recording/movie industry would probably have their hands out to get a piece of the pie. Its a business, can you blame them?

If the recording and movie industry isnt careful though the backlash could be severe from the public as these cases begin to move forward. Changes in the laws could result in big time losses in the face of smaller ones for infringements. What do they do if the government decides to enforce an anti-trust action against them for basically monopolizing the entertainment industry? They end up deciding what you are going to get to see/hear on the tube, at the theaters, dancing, in the bathroom, in the car, on billboards.... Sure sounds like a monopoly to me.

There are some really stiff laws about that too. Build an empire only to have it destroyed with one or two little pieces of legislation and enforcement of existing ones. Until then, buy stock in Sony.

Randy; I don't think there will be a jury here. This is England. And think about it. This is a garage. You've never been in a garage where the workers were listening to the radio? Come on.

Yeah you are right Revere. But even I have to comply with the law. I used to have a local radio station on my office phone for the hold button. Some jerk came by and asked me to sign a contract to be able to "rebroadcast " it years ago. This isnt something new. They are just like any business trying to gain everything they can.

Legally they have these guys by the short curly's. I dont think the English legal system will allow them to fair much better than the last gig we hit on. Its the law. Maybe a boycott or two and they will get the message. Or that filing of antitrust action against them. This is a knife that cuts two ways.

OBTW-I agree with you fully that this sucks.....

I see this as another nail in the coffin of the RIAA.

Work it out. I believe that anybody can find public domain songs and pay up front for a recorded performance.

Is there any reason why some entrepreneur could not just make such a "paid for" performance into a CD, and sell copies on the internet for $5? As I understand the law, such a recording would not owe a wooden nickel to RIAA.

By it's greed the RIAA is making such an option an economic possibility, and money will soon follow that opportunity. Then the players of those songs will become popular at the expense of RIAA "artistes".

For one who wants others to tell the truth, your comment that the judge must be an idiot after trimming the original article shows that you are happy to use standard denialist techniques, quote-mining what suits you, hiding what does not. The BBC article ends by saying that the judge said that he should not be taken as accepting that the PRS would necessarily succeed in their claims.

The judge said (in effect) that he could not just simply throw the claim out summarily, it has to be decided properly. The judge was explicitly saying that he was not agreeing with the claims.

The judge must be an idiot? Your statement shows that you must be a liar.

Sam t'C: I included the link so you or anyone else could see the entire article. The fact that he was hearing the case at all is idiotic. This is exactly what the IP nazis want, raising the hassle factor and costs to deter people extra judicially. I never said he had decided the case. That he said there is a case at all and not summarily dismissed is malfeasance.

If recording artists want people to buy their music, the people have to hear it. Didn't there used to be a problem with bribes to get the songs on air? Anyway, if I walked into a garage and heard a song I liked, I'd be interested in knowing who was the performer and might consider treating myself to a new CD. My music is much more diverse because of being exposed to stations I don't normally listen to.

With all due respect, Revere, it is not England, it is Scotland. :) Different legal system. Scots law doesn't always equal English law.

This case is still idiotic, of course.

Cassandra: Oops. My error. Thanks.

And Radiohead just released their new "album", available only by download, pay them whatever you choose, down to, and including nothing. Obviously, the choice of garage [bands] everywhere.

MoM: Was talking about this with a colleague at lunch. We've all heard of this. This is going to be one of the new business models. Musicians won't need the record companies any more. They are committing suicide. Good.

I have been surprised by what judges won't dismiss. They seem like they want to give both sides the opportunity to discover and present before they will grant a summary judgement, unless the case is just patently bogus.

Maybe you can register as intelectual propierty the intelectual propierty itself in order to stop or at least delay the spread of this contagious "lunacy" Sincerely Luis