What song was playing in that cafe?

I have a question. I don't own a bar or anything—but if I did, and assuming I’m paying my taxes to Universal Music Group, am I legally allowed to play music from my own CDs (Eminem, 2Pac, etc.)? If I buy an original album, the fine print explicitly states that public performance is prohibited. So, how exactly are bars able to play whatever they want—provided it isn't a radio broadcast? 🤔

Betty Kim11 said:I have a question. I don't own a bar or anything—but if I did, and assuming I’m paying my taxes to Universal Music Group, am I legally allowed to play music from my own CDs (Eminem, 2Pac, etc.)? If I buy an original album, the fine print explicitly states that public performance is prohibited. So, how exactly are bars able to play whatever they want—provided it isn't a radio broadcast? 🤔

Look,

As long as you're paying Universal Music Group, you can use an original CD. That fee is exactly what it sounds like... you're paying for the license to perform/broadcast music publicly.

Once that's settled, you can use any device or medium—as long as it isn't a bootleg, obviously. Without sorting out the Universal Music Group situation, nothing should be playing in a public space like a cafe. Paying the fee gives you the blanket permission for public performance, regardless of the format... so yeah, original CDs are fine.

I don't mind cutting a check to Universal Music Group... the real issue is the cost.
We need to drop those rates down to like, maybe $2 or $3 a month. Just like an American streaming sub... nothing more than $8.25 a month...

Thanks, everyone. Feel free to lock this thread...

can we just lock this thread already...

Nope!

I’m certainly not an expert in this field—strictly speaking out of pure curiosity here—but I was wondering: are these people actually agents working directly for Universal Music Group, or what exactly is their deal?
Are they more like MTA transit inspectors who just roll into a local coffee shop once a month—or maybe more frequently?—to audit the playlist and see what's licensed and what isn't?

I mean, from a customer's perspective, there’s absolutely no way to tell if the tracks playing in the background are legally cleared or not.
Essentially, a business owner could probably run a whole stretch of... say, 10 or 20 days of unlicensed music without anyone batting an eye,
just gambling on whether or not they'll get caught, right?

And if they do get busted, how massive are the fines?

I’d say "small fry" is around 500-$333. Somewhere in the beltway range.

Samuel Bishop2 said:Look,

As long as you're paying Universal Music Group, you can use an original CD. That fee is exactly what it sounds like... you're paying for the license to perform/broadcast music publicly.

Once that's settled, you can use any device or medium—as long as it isn't a bootleg, obviously. Without sorting out the Universal Music Group situation, nothing should be playing in a public space like a cafe. Paying the fee gives you the blanket permission for public performance, regardless of the format... so yeah, original CDs are fine.

Are Universal Music Group employees seriously hunting for new clients on this forum now? Has it really come to this, where they're sending out pitches through forum posts? 🙂

ROFL

If, say, a cafe owner happens to be a songwriter and plays nothing but their own music, do they still have to pay royalties to Universal Music Group? 🤔

Laura Grant82 said:If, say, a cafe owner happens to be a songwriter and plays nothing but their own music, do they still have to pay royalties to Universal Music Group? 🤔

What exactly do you mean by "their own"?

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

The one she composed, performed, sang, and recorded all by herself.

Laura Grant82 said:The one she composed, performed, sang, and recorded all by herself.

I think I know the answer. No. Unless, I guess, you’ve explicitly contacted Sony Music and told them you’re waiving your representation rights.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether—even if you do waive those rights—they have some obscure rule that clashes with the definition of "public performance" when someone plays their own original music to entertain people in a public business space. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

By the way, check out this messy case where someone got shaken down for basically nothing:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/us.fido.law/2yQH3z8nP8k/eVCpGMzCq5oJ

They lost the lawsuit.

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

This is where it all kicked off. One of those legendary Usenet threads regarding Sony Music:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...vo/OmajuTIoQ-0

And here’s another classic case for the books:
http://www.latimes.com/crime/police-raid-wedding-celebration-tax-investigation-57823

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

Here’s another one for you guys:

As long as Jewish interests remain in control, we’re going to keep seeing these kinds of genocidal, anti-human laws—laws that I guess could only be dreamed up by the mind of a complete psychopath.

Sony Music, PBS, FIFA, and all those other Jewish corporations are cursed.

Dennis Jackson6 said:I think I know the answer. No. Unless, I guess, you’ve explicitly contacted Sony Music and told them you’re waiving your representation rights.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether—even if you do waive those rights—they have some obscure rule that clashes with the definition of "public performance" when someone plays their own original music to entertain people in a public business space. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

By the way, check out this messy case where someone got shaken down for basically nothing:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/us.fido.law/2yQH3z8nP8k/eVCpGMzCq5oJ

They lost the lawsuit.

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

There isn't any legal restriction preventing an author who has waived protection from performing their work wherever or whenever they want. Once you opt out of collective protection, you can do whatever you like with your work—let anyone use it, or ban them just as easily. You can't actually give up the copyright itself, but you can certainly walk away from all the royalties and exploitation that come with it...

Andrew Murphy5 said:I’d say "small fry" is around 500-$333. Somewhere in the beltway range.

There's been plenty of talk on here about this issue already... quite a bit, actually. These fines aren't exactly pocket change. For individuals, we're looking at $2,000 up to 10 $0.00, and for corporations, it hits anywhere from $5,000 to $100,000.
In reality, you usually see lower penalties than what's on the books because judges tend to lean toward leniency, but we're still talking thousands of dollars (you can find plenty of court rulings posted on public boards)
Copyright infringement is also covered under federal criminal law, where you could be facing up to 5 years in prison.

Dennis Jackson6 said:This is where it all kicked off. One of those legendary Usenet threads regarding Sony Music:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...vo/OmajuTIoQ-0

And here’s another classic case for the books:
http://www.latimes.com/crime/police-raid-wedding-celebration-tax-investigation-57823

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

People talk about this constantly, but they miss the point. The target wasn't just a wedding party—it was the vendor. A service provider. Just like any other business, there are rules. But for years, this industry has operated in a legal gray area, if not full-on black market territory. Off-the-books staff, tax evasion, health code violations... you name it. At least when it comes to certain outfits...
When people get food poisoning at a reception, you have to wonder how a restaurant even stays open... where are the inspectors...

http://www.nytimes.com/news/wedding-incident/...903052/

You can't just paint everyone with the same brush. Maybe this caterer couldn't help what happened. But that’s exactly why laws exist... to make sure these things don't happen so often...

rowdyotter12 said:I’m certainly not an expert in this field—strictly speaking out of pure curiosity here—but I was wondering: are these people actually agents working directly for Universal Music Group, or what exactly is their deal?
Are they more like MTA transit inspectors who just roll into a local coffee shop once a month—or maybe more frequently?—to audit the playlist and see what's licensed and what isn't?

I mean, from a customer's perspective, there’s absolutely no way to tell if the tracks playing in the background are legally cleared or not.
Essentially, a business owner could probably run a whole stretch of... say, 10 or 20 days of unlicensed music without anyone batting an eye,
just gambling on whether or not they'll get caught, right?

And if they do get busted, how massive are the fines?

It’s the same deal with any other law. Take traffic enforcement, for instance... the cops aren't going to pull over every single person speeding or parking illegally, but just knowing the threat of a ticket is usually enough to keep things from turning into total chaos. Same logic applies here. Are there people breaking the rules? Sure. Is doing something illegal a risk? Obviously. It just comes down to your own conscience... how much risk you're willing to live with.

Samuel Bishop2 said:There isn't any legal restriction preventing an author who has waived protection from performing their work wherever or whenever they want. Once you opt out of collective protection, you can do whatever you like with your work—let anyone use it, or ban them just as easily. You can't actually give up the copyright itself, but you can certainly walk away from all the royalties and exploitation that come with it...

I honestly thought the ZAMP mods would have flagged this thread way sooner. I'm pretty disappointed by how slow 🙂
is being.