Copyright Board of Canada recently approved new fees to play recorded music at large gatherings, inc - Polidicks

[quote][B]Couples to wed this summer balk at extra music fees[/B] Some couples looking to tie the knot this summer are balking at a new fee they'll have to pay to play recorded music at their wedding reception. Couples expecting to wed should budget a little more for their big day, as the Copyright Board of Canada recently approved new fees to play recorded music at large gatherings, including weddings. The fees -- which also apply to events and venues such as parades, festivals, and karaoke bars -- are being charged in an effort to protect and compensate performers and record labels for their work. The fees range in price depending on the size of the event and how the music will be used. At events with fewer than one hundred people, the fees start at $9.25 per day. For couples planning a wedding, a reception of 400 guests will cost them $27.76. If dancing is involved, that fee doubles to $55.52. The announcement of the new fees didn't come as a surprise to Canadian businesses, as talks of implementing these tariffs began in 2007. Similar tariffs are already in place for music composers and publishers. Copyright lawyer Howard Knopf told CTV Winnipeg that the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) already collects about $275 million each year on behalf of composers and authors of music. Re:Sound – the newer collective that represents record companies and performers benefiting from this latest "live events" tariff -- is attempting to match its tariff revenues with those of SOCAN wherever it can. "This is just the record companies and performers catching up with the composers who've been doing this for years," said Knopf. While news of the fees has pleased many in the music industry, it has left some event organizers and small businesses puzzled. Paul Jordan is the chief operating officer at the Forks Renewal Corporation in Winnipeg. Jordan is in charge of organizing many of the events at the large waterfront park and marketplace. He said the new fees may cause confusion for event organizers. "The devil's going to be in the details," said Jordan. "If we've got 20,000 people here watching the fireworks show, and 20 people start to dance, are we suddenly in a new category?" The new fees are retro-active to 2008, meaning people may receive a bill for an event they've thrown in the past. There will also be inspectors who will work to ensure the new rules are being followed.[/quote] [url=http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120602/couple-to-wed-balk-at-extra-music-fees-120602/#ixzz1wkLDLgEi]Source[/url] [I]Everyone, stop dancing! Dancing isn't in our budget![/I]

I guess that's one way to stop sham marriages.

[i]What?![/i] You're parents are so poor, at the wedding they couldn't afford to play any music.

Are you fucking serious???

Its funny because this reminds me of cheepskates in cartoons who couldn't afford a band so they got a cassete with the songs. (Simpsons, when Skinner marries Edna)

All this copyright shit is getting out of hand.

Thank your Harper. Your government is the single best argument for Quebec sovereignty we've had in awhile. <3 <3 <3 xxx

That's hilariously stupid.

I somehow thought of the band 'Boards of Canada' who are incredible. Weird.

What the fuck

At $27.76 at day, why do I get the feeling that artists themselves are going to get sweet fuck all? You know, the people who actually put the creative effort and skill into music? Still, an efficient way for a bunch of suits to make money off of other people I suppose...

[quote]The fees are being charged in an effort to protect and compensate performers and record labels for their work.[/quote] So it's basically just a bonus because somebody wants more money?

[quote=article]The new fees are retro-active to 2008, meaning people may receive a bill for an event they've thrown in the past.[/quote] That's even more fucked up

what if I play Beethoven or something else that's older than the copyright laws

[QUOTE=t h e;36186855]That's even more fucked up[/QUOTE] Good thing they can't ressurect people from the dead...

[quote]The new fees are retro-active to 2008, meaning people may receive a bill for an event they've thrown in the past.[/quote] And this, there is no way this should be legal. You can't charge someone for something they did long before the price was increased. I'd say anyone who gets charged should fight it in court, but Justice is expensive, it'd be cheaper to just shut up and pay the man.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;36186866]what if I play Beethoven or something else that's older than the copyright laws[/QUOTE] Can a specific orchestra hold a copyright on a Beethoven recording? Live music should be fine.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;36186866]what if I play Beethoven or something else that's older than the copyright laws[/QUOTE] Same thing that happens when you perform Beethoven at a club, I assume. If it's an adaptation done by a musician or composer, they hold rights to that adaptation and mechanical fees must be paid. If it's the same as the original composition, no fees must be paid because no one owns rights to the music.

[QUOTE=OvB;36186816]All this copyright shit is getting out of hand.[/QUOTE] I don't know about this. Just because we have had the right to play music at weddings for so long doesn't mean that it is the correct way to do it, that it is in line with the idea of copyright.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;36186900]Can a specific orchestra hold a copyright on a Beethoven recording? Live music should be fine.[/QUOTE] Composers can if they adapt the song in some way. Let's say Frank takes Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and changes it around so that it can be played solo on classical guitar. This would be considered "Frank's Version of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony". Frank holds copyright on this music. [editline]3rd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;36186916]I don't know about this. Just because we have had the right to play music at weddings for so long doesn't mean that it is the correct way to do it, that it is in line with the idea of copyright.[/QUOTE] If the wedding isn't done for commercial purposes, it should fall under Fair Use law. That's my opinion.

[quote]The fees -- which also apply to events and venues such as parades, festivals, and karaoke bars -- are being charged in an effort to protect and [b]compensate performers[/b] and record labels for their work.[/quote] haha no

Who's going to enforce it?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36186932]Composers can if they adapt the song in some way. Let's say Frank takes Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and changes it around so that it can be played solo on classical guitar. This would be considered "Frank's Version of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony". Frank holds copyright on this music. [editline]3rd June 2012[/editline] If the wedding isn't done for commercial purposes, it should fall under Fair Use law. That's my opinion.[/QUOTE] And if the wedding is done for commercial purposes, there are bigger issues that music royalties!

Well my plans of moving to Ontario failed...

[quote]The fees -- which also apply to events and venues such as parades, festivals, and karaoke bars -- are being charged in an effort to protect and compensate performers and record labels for their work[/quote] "Compensate"? Compensate for what? They already make plenty of cash, why do they need more?

[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;36187215]"Compensate"? Compensate for what? They already make plenty of cash, why do they need more?[/QUOTE] The artists don't make plenty of cash. Ironically, these measures will probably help them out least, even though they are the most deserving and needing of the compensation.

How are they actually going to enforce it though? I mean, there's lots of batshit laws but nobody enforces them.

there is no way this will happen unless they plan on pissing off millions of canadians

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36186880]And this, there is no way this should be legal. You can't charge someone for something they did long before the price was increased. I'd say anyone who gets charged should fight it in court, but Justice is expensive, it'd be cheaper to just shut up and pay the man.[/QUOTE] Looking into Canadian legislation on [I]Ex Post Facto[/I] laws, it's only illegal to enact them if it's for criminal law, it's perfectly legal when it's civil law (which this is.)

this is what happens when label owners and music ceos pee themselves at the beginning of a musical revolution, that renders their jobs useless.