Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.1)
    Not sure if this is the exact place here for this, but it is music related. From an article found here at TorrentFreak:

    Christmas is known world-wide as a time for sharing, a time for giving. But for one charity, instead of Santa arriving with gifts, the copyright police turned up demanding money. Why? Because the charity allows children to sing carols on the premises and their kitchen radio is a little loud. You couldn’t make it up.
    • CommentAuthoreggzoomin
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.2)
    The PRS never ceases to fucking infuriate me. There are countless musicians struggling and scraping to make a living out there in the real world and all those fucking idiots can do is come up with is bureaucratic bullshit. Don't even start me on the three-in-a-bed rule. As La Winehouse once crooned, "What fuckery is this?" Oh, and meanwhile they back plans to extend music copyrights beyond fifty years, because Paul McCartney and the owners of the Presley estate - not to mention their respective record companies - need even more money. I don't even know a word to describe this level of sheer, bloody-minded stupidity - "government," possibly.
    • CommentAuthorMadeley
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.3)
    That's the thing- PRS isn't government. It's a private company that scoops up all the cash on behalf of songwriters and performers, regardless of whether they're members of PRS.
    • CommentAuthoreggzoomin
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.4)
    I know - I was using the word as an example of crass stupidity, not saying that PRS is government.
    • CommentAuthorMadeley
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.5)
    Sorry, I get you.

    Plus, if PRS really was run by central government, then its operating budget would inflate to four times its starting size, all the important work would be farmed out to incompetent contractors, its first three years would run at a net loss before being replaced by a brand new department twice as expensive, despite having all the same staff and no meaningful change in operation but a shiny new acronym.

    And no artists would be paid ever.
    • CommentAuthoreggzoomin
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.6)
    Quite possibly so. While the devil we know may be better, however, it doesn't mean that he's any good.
    • CommentAuthorrobb
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.7)
    well, if a non profit is big enough and has enough public support, the ARS and other companies do back down. after a bunch of shouting, the girlscouts of america only pay a $1 royalty or so per year for the right to sing many classic campfire songs which aren't actually in the public domain.
    • CommentAuthorrobb
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (245.8)
    interesting video on the history of rights groups banding together to organize royalties and manage content. 5 minutes into the speech he tells the history of ASCAP vs BMI:
    larry lessig
  1.  (245.9)
    Reason number 3,124 why I belong to ORG. They do good (and non-crazy) work against things like copyright extension.

    Me - I'd rather like my line of work to be based on 'royalties' - every life I save owes me money for every day of their life.
  2.  (245.10)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    how exactly does the license system work in the UK with TV and Radio, you seriously gotta pay to listen/watch?
    • CommentAuthorThe Skoot
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2007 edited
     (245.11)
    @F. David Swallow II

    The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is a publicly funded organisation, with no commerical adverts shown whatsoever. To fund this, the Government makes us pay a TV License (£120 a year, IIRC). This funds ten-odd TV channels (though some/most of them are a bit rubbish), and a bunch of radio stations. Everything else is funded through adverts as normal, with digital TV and the like having extra fees (like cable in America).

    EDIT: Here's wiki articles on the BBC and our TV license, which will explain the whole thing better than I just did.
  3.  (245.12)
    And the crazy thing about the TV License is that if someone plays something that is already covered by the TV license, the premises still have to have a performers license.

    See the recent Kwik-fit case which should get more press if only to highlight how bloody daft the PRS are.