German Kindergartens Ordered To Pay Copyright For Songs 291
BBird writes "Deutsche Welle reports: 'Up until this year, preschools could teach and produce any kind of song they wanted. But now they have to pay for a license if they want children to sing certain songs. A tightening of copyright rules means kindergartens now have to pay fees to Germany's music licensing agency, GEMA, to use songs that they reproduce and perform. The organization has begun notifying creches and other daycare facilities that if they reproduce music to be sung or performed, they must pay for a license.'"
this is not idle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this is not idle. (Score:5, Insightful)
UNtil the citizens of each and every country make their vote contingent on putting the recording industry back in its place via new laws, this crap will continue to happen.
What I'm sure will happen in the meantime is one of those crappy little solutions where the German government calls in recording industry executives, hashes out some little exception for children six years and under, and everyone walks away feeling really good about themselves.
Re:this is not idle. (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is not new laws, it is fewer. Copyright should be scaled back and the state should get out of the business of helping to collect licensing fees (and should use existing anti-cartel laws to prevent companies from banding together to collect royalties). If recording company A wants money from 4 year-olds for singing a song they should have to sue to school and take all the bad press that comes along with their actions. Fear of a competitor gaining an advantage this way would stop the the most ridiculous suits then.
Re:this is not idle. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
For fucks' sake, kindergartens aren't undercutting their sales and making them lose profit!
The schools aren't even distributing to outside members, they're making a couple photocopies of sheet music for the students to practice!
"Oh, I won't buy that CD, I'll just listen to a bunch of five-year-olds with a couple of hours of training instead."
Re: (Score:3)
Who says it's a trivial amount of money? $74 for one song is a lot of money. If a school teaches its children, say, about twenty songs a year, this starts to be serious money.
The net effect is that schools will tend to avoid modern songs and stick with traditional repertoire. In a country as old as Germany, that should be no problem. They have hundreds if not thousands of trad songs. So the music from the past 70 years or so will get passed over. Big deal. The net effect will be that fewer children w
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me while I laugh at your continued belief in a democratic system that was subverted a long, long time ago by : Money.
Yeah, uh, "voting" is going to fix things. Here's a song for ya: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss". Oh and to the RIAA - bite me.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, won't someone think of the seven year olds!
Re:this is not idle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, humming doesn't require paying. Neither does singing.
Reproducing sheet music does.
> The new rules came into power at the beginning of this year, but have only recently drawn attention as daycare centers have received letters reminding them that they need to sign contracts with GEMA before distributing sheet music to children to sing.
> If copies of music are made, the fee needs to be paid.
> GEMA said that the need for licenses would not have any effect on singing in kindergartens.
> "It doesn't cost anything to sing in kindergartens," said Peter Hempel. "If a school does not make any copies of music, then of course they don't need to pay anything."
While GEMA is bullshit, much like the RIAA, photocopying sheet music is a far cry from kids singing a song.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the German's don't have fair-use exceptions for schools.
From Fair Use and Copyright for Teachers [earthlink.net]:
Fair use explicitly allows use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Rather than listing exact limits of fair use, copyright law provides four standards for determination of the fair use exemption:
Re:this is not idle. (Score:4)
Fucking people over with 'sheet music' is the biggest pile of bullshit you'd ever believe. Here in Canadaland, our city orchestra's regularly get screwed over by it.
Hey what's a mere 10k-20k to allow performances? On songs that were made 250 years ago.
Re:this is not idle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect it will have an effect on singing in kindergartens as childern that young won't know the words, so the words have to be spelled out for the child.
it is really hard to teach simply by talking about a given subject.
Kindergarten age kids in Germany can read sheet music? I'm impressed...
Kindergarten teachers might do (Score:2)
Some kindergarten teachers might play the piano, or guitar, and provide music for the kids to sing along to. Not all of them will throw a CD on and play music through a sound system.
Re: (Score:3)
Some kindergarten teachers might play the piano, or guitar, and provide music for the kids to sing along to. Not all of them will throw a CD on and play music through a sound system.
If the sheet music was legally purchased, then there's no reason the teacher can't play the song on the piano in the classroom. Usually, when such sheet music is purchased, the price includes such a license. I remember from grade- and high-school band that the charts we used were specifically licensed for our use (including performance).
I suspect the real issue is that the sheet music is being photocopied and handed out -- and that's the copyright violation.
Re:Kindergarten teachers might do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You assume German law has a Fair use clause?
I don't know. Just sayin...
Re: (Score:2)
What stops a world class symphonic orchestra from doing the same and making money off of ticket sales for this music they perform in concert?
Sincerely,
-Devils Advocate
Re:Kindergarten teachers might do (Score:4)
they won't have any place to get their music from because no one would be publishing music anymore.
Yes, and that is only because of how our current capitalistic society works. If it is required of artists to demand money from people for goods that are in an infinite supply (and punish those that don't conform with artificial scarcity), then, through no fault of the artists, that is a flaw in our capitalistic society.
When someone violates someone else's copyright (such as downloading a song, for example), there are very few cases in which the person who owns said copyright is actually affected in the least. They never had the copyright infringer's money to begin with, so you can't claim that was stolen. They didn't lose the money, either, because as I said, they never had it. They remain completely the same as they were before. The only thing they 'lose' is an opportunity to have more money, but since they never had the object in the first place (and in almost all cases, they had no idea they even had such an opportunity to begin with), they haven't lost anything. Not time or resources (except the time and resources to build the initial product, but not only are those costs only incurred once, but it is not the fault of the copyright infringer).
It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily.
The time and investment costs are only incurred once. However, I never said anything about their time being worthless, so that was a nice assumption (and this isn't the only assumption you made, either).
Either you fail to grasp the concept of what the actual product is (the music that took time to create and distribute, not the paper it's printed on), or you just don't care because you're a greedy bastard that thinks laws are bad because you just want shit for free. Which is it?
Nice assumptions and false dilemmas. [wikipedia.org] I don't even listen to music, so I wouldn't download it or infringe upon copyright for it to begin with.
There is also more than two possible reasons I could have for making such an argument. I believe that artificial scarcity (and relying on scarcity to profit) harms society as a whole. I believe that we should not criminalize people who do not harm or even interact with the supposed 'victims' (for reasons stated above). That's not to say that I believe that artists don't deserve money. I believe that if someone likes a product (and they have the money to pay for it), they should, whilst in this capitalistic society, buy it.
Now, do I believe that we should just remove copyright laws and claim that the problem is fixed? No. That would just shift the suffering to the artists instead of the people we are currently criminalizing. I do suggest, however, that either society finds a business model that works so that we don't need to criminalize people who do no harm to others, or that we rid ourselves of our capitalistic practices.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it also your humble opinion that textbooks can be photocopied for free for in-class use? Exactly where you draw the line on fair use is a tricky thing. Suppose a teacher buys one copy of a sheet music book and photocopies it for 30 students. Maybe that's okay. Now maybe a school buys one copy of the book and photocopies it for 5 classes of 30 students each. Next maybe the school district buys one copy and photocopies it for dozens of schools, ending up with hundreds or thousands of photocopies of th
Re: (Score:2)
Your typical preschooler or kindergardener isn't going to know how to read very much, let alone sheet music. They learn songs by repetition and memorization.
Re:read to the parents (Score:2)
I thought that was In Soviet Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
My grandaughter who has yet to turn 2 can sing "twinkle, twinkle, little star", no sheet music required.
Re:words (Score:3)
Weird Al stands on a gold mine!
"Oh, you mean those are not the 'real' words? Sorry, but his were free and yours were not."
Re: (Score:3)
> What's next, should Dr. Suess's estate begin sueing kindergartens because they read his books aloud? Clearly this is a performance of his written work. What about when teachers show movies in class? Presentation of those films outside of home use is not allowed. (We're talking about showing movies on half days / Christmas time not the educational ones).
What about photocopying Dr Seuss books?
Again - performance of sheet music is free. Reproducing it costs a license fee.
Reading a book would be free. Repr
Re: (Score:2)
How did reading a Dr. Suess storybook enter into this? TFA is about making copies of music not singing or reading out loud. You are arguing a point that isn't even in dispute in this case.
You know what? Several decades ago I sang in a children's choir. Every kid in the choir had copies of the sheet music, and every single one of those copies was purchased from the publisher, not photocopied. Most of them had a big "copying prohibited" watermark across every page. So whether GEMA is exactly as big a bunch of
Re:this is not idle. (Score:5, Informative)
Got a link for that? Sorry to ask for citation, but this: https://www.gema.de/presse/aktuelle-pressemitteilungen/presse-details/article/singen-erwuenscht-illegales-kopieren-verboten.html [www.gema.de] press release by GEMA (in the original German) explicitly says that in this case they have been tasked by the VG Musikedition (an entity completely separate from GEMA) with enforcing the licensing of reproduction of song lyrics and sheet music. VG Musikedition has absolutely nothing to do with performance, which contradicts your statement that singing out loud in class is performing, and that performing is covered by the same rules. Since VG Musikedition doesn't deal with performances at all, performing cannot possibly be covered by the same rules, and it would be impossible to ask for a fee for performance tomorrow under the same statutes.
I'd appreciate any corrections.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, things written 100 years ago will probably not be covered. But things written today will be covered 100 years from now.
The difference is that most works written 100 years ago probably had the copyright lapse at some point during that century. And from that time forwards they were not covered. The laws changed sometime after 1980. (In the US...different times elsewhere. After WWII, I believe, everywhere.)
N.B.: In the US works written in 1923 may still be within copyright, depending on how the
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that GEMA is going over the top by sending letters to kindergartens, there's a world of difference between humming a song to yourself and performing (in public) or reproducing a song (copying a recording of a song or copying the sheet music of a song).
Re: (Score:2)
... there's a world of difference between humming a song to yourself and performing (in public) ...
Ah, but the kids aren't likely to be humming the songs to themselves. They'll be singing the songs loudly (and out of tune) in a very public setting (the school room). It was only a matter of time before the publishing and recording industries began to "think of the children", and classify this situation as a public performance. A few years ago, we were laughing at the suggestion that such things would eventually become illegal unless the people involved have paid for a license. Now it's "eventually",
Re: (Score:2)
Performance is free. Only reproducing sheet music (and, I guess, copying tapes or CDs) is not.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I have to disagree. The apex is really one of the things we learned from Wikileaks. The big media companies are misusing the diplomatic weight of the american people to try to force other countries (Spain), to accept the corporate written copyright laws. And at the same time, the govt is hiding this from the citizens it claims to be doing diplomacy on their behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I do consider this in the idle category... Or at least in the non-news category. There is plenty of music available for kindergarten kids to sing that isn't copyrighted. Ok, so they can't sing the latest song by a current artist. Oh-Well. A good teacher will not rely on what is current or popular and still be able to provide an outstanding education.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, like those recent tunes, "This Land Is Your Land", or from any Disney movie or any Broadway musical or any of those other songs that kids sometimes sing in school. You're right. We shouldn't rely on the latest songs by current artists like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Peter Paul & Mary, Judy Garland, or any of those other faddish folk.
Of *course* you can still provide an excellent education without those songs, but if your school doesn't have lots of money to spend on copyrighted music (which few
Re: (Score:3)
this is the apex of copyright bullshit...
I think "nadir" is the word you're looking for here.
Re: (Score:3)
Those little... (Score:2, Funny)
Dear GEMA, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear GEMA, (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, how about you all fuck off and die, the world would be a better place.
No, really, it would, how the fuck do these people sleep at night?
Re: (Score:3)
No, really, it would, how the fuck do these people sleep at night?
Hellspawn need no sleep. At best they need a little rest, usually in a warm bath of blood from babies, kittens, and puppies.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourselves.
Sincerely,
The World
Hey, that happens to be the name of my newest song. Please send me my copyright fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
That's Neil Young's newest song. Please send him the copyright fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourselves.
Sincerely,
The World
Go fuck yourselves is a registered trademark of the world. If you use this phrase, we will sue your ass into oblivion. If your kindergarten-aged children use it, we will laugh and move on...We have some standards, and suing children falls below them.
Go along with it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go along with it (Score:5, Insightful)
A better option is let the kids choose. They can either sing some recent pop tune OR they can sing a public domain folk song AND have a piece of candy.
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea, unfortunately "Happy Birthday" and other common songs are not recent pop tunes, and aren't public domain.
Re:Go along with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if it gets ridiculous enough people will notice.
What do you mean, "gets"?
Re: (Score:2)
The Germans have a name for this exact process - kindersingengeld.
Predicted future news: (Score:2)
German Kindergartens told to pay copyright fees for every song, regardless of copyright status or ownership. Failure to do so will be fined on a level that makes stealing Humvees look cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Failure to do so will be fined on a level that makes stealing Humvees look cheap*.
* which costs $243.85 btw.
Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to confess, i am very happy about this. This created a lot of waves and even the most conservative media outlets reported very critical about it. I think the copyright mafia used this time a shotgun for volley fire into their own feet. Though i am sorry for the kids, i am thankful for the allies this generated. The evil demasked itself...
CU, Martin
Re: (Score:2)
I helps to show how viscous those "pirates" who abuse copyright really are. Now that people might realize that pre-school children are being labelled pirates, people might start to think that the RIAA and friends (GEMA, CIRA, etc.) are really mobsters. Though a fresh case of the industry screwing the actual artists would help too. Maybe screwing over the now ancient Tina Turner [wikipedia.org] or Leonard Cohen [leonardcohen.com] out of their royalties. Hopefully they go after unlicensed performances of music at senior centres next.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'I helps to show how viscous those "pirates" who abuse copyright really are'
Pirates are pretty gooey. They ooze right through the cracks in the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
The license is for copying sheet music. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that this only applies to making copies of sheet music, not merely singing the songs (or arranging, or performing, or anything else). Same sort of thing is in effect here in Canada, and I'm sure many other places. Not a wonderful policy, but not the culture-destroying terror that the summary implies.
You obviously are new to /. Actual RTFA, comprehending what it says and making a rational comment are not the norm. You need to read the sensational headline, and then post a diatribe about the evils of copyright, the music cabal, and anyone that actually wants to make money of what they create; and make a bad car analogy and then rant against anyone who violates the GPL.
I think we will see more of this - as traditional revenue streams dry up, companies will look to extracting money from areas they previo
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while since I even thought about this, but I thought (at least in Canada), you could simply write to the publisher and get an educational exemption for reproducing lyrics. My elementary school choir had to do this.
School bands aren't affected by this because when I was in band (Oblig: "this one time, at band camp...") we each had to buy our own copy of the music book. The few times we had copies, the band teacher did have to get permission from the publisher or she bought the special "band" ed
Re: (Score:3)
> what revenue is affected by a bunch of 3 year olds singing a copyrighted song?
None
> What revenue is due?
None. You're missing his point that there are absolutely no fees due when they are singing the songs, only when they're photocopying the sheet music.
Devil's advocate (Score:2)
Let me play devil's advocate:
Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Every culture out there in recorded and unrecorded history has had music and song. Heck, they even dug up a bone flute from 35,000 years ago. It's only in the last 70 years or so that it's become a business.
Song and dance is innate to human existence, just like food or breathing. Heck, animals sing and dance. Watch any mating pair of herons.
So now you're teaching those kids that singing a song is a business proposition, not a joyous thing. You pay to play. Talk about taking the fun out of something. And, maybe, just maybe, there won't be as many musicians because a lot of schools will eliminate music. It's just plain stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
it has been a business for a long time. you really think all the medieval traveling musicians played for free? how did they buy food?
big difference in the last 70 years is RECORDED MUSIC. you no longer need a band to play music live. that's the reason for copyright
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
So are you saying that the kids should be paid for signing? I'm confused.
Signing for the joy of it should be free. Playing music for the joy of it should be free. Just as dancing is free. I can copy a ballet and dance without royalties. What makes music special?
Education is a different business from any other; your product is not measured in profitability but rather in making better kids and citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying that the kids should be paid for signing? I'm confused.
Solved!
So we'll make preschoolers pay to licence their singing...but we'll also make the GEMA pay royalties for them singing their songs.
Not only is that a win/win, preschoolers get a free economics lesson on top of it all!
Re: (Score:2)
Giuseppe Verdi would argue against that --- he was prominent in the formation of the Societa Italiana Degli Autori Ed Editori (SIAE) in 1882 --- which was scarcely the first such effort ~128 years ago --- GEMA itself was formed in 1915 (95 years ago) out of an organization which started in 1903 (107 years ago).
If you want music to be free, limit yourself to public domain stuff (Roger McGuinn's Folk Den http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/folkden-wp/ [ibiblio.org] is an excellent source which often includes sheet music) or write
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright's purpose is being abused, that's what's happening here.
It's not like the teachers are trying to produce pirated sheet music to undermine the legitimate owners' monopoly, or to make a profit themselves. Traditionally educational purposes have always been exempt or less restricted than personal and commercial enterprises when it comes to copyright. The reason is that educating children is more important than the petty profit of today. Education isn't a competing business interest, it's a complement
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the problem with points. They are illustrated better with metaphors -- the more the better -- but each metaphor introduces an opportunity to poke holes in the example [instead of what it is a metaphor of]. I've
Re: (Score:2)
Let me play devil's advocate:
Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?
Just because you create something doesn't mean that you own it, especially if you expect to be paid for something when you don't do any additional work.
They should pay for sheet music they are using, CD's that are played, or videos that the kids watch. However, groups of people have been singing songs together since time immemorial.
Do you want your teachers spending time trying to write their own songs? Do we need advertisers to sponsor the kids singing times, so that your kids are always singing abo
Re: (Score:2)
Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?
In most countries around the world freedom of speech/expression is an inherent right. Copyright law is a restriction on that right enacted in order to encourage the production of new works of art and science, i.e. if you make up a new song, you can make money off of it because we will restrict the free speech of others until you are paid.
So, since the only justification for copyright in the first place is its benefit to society, benefit that must outweigh the restriction on inherent freedoms, don't you thin
Re: (Score:2)
So, since the only justification for copyright in the first place is its benefit to society
I wouldn't say that artificial scarcity is a benefit to society. I think society would benefit far more from attempting to change itself so that criminalizing people for victimless crimes just so someone can make a profit is no longer needed.
Excellent opportunity (Score:3)
for song writers to create children's songs as free marketing material, license them CC or free for school usage.
Re: (Score:2)
If GEMA is anything like ASCAP or BMI, it won't matter. They will just insist on paying for licensing anyways [techdirt.com] even if it's original content or permitted reproduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sound funny now but in a future when implants could be a popular as an iPhone, this could happen.
The only reason we see this ludicrous use of copyright is because the music business is saturated and is competing amongst other distractions (e.g. Internet, TV, sex, drugs, etc). As the competition increases, so will the abuses by useless middlemen.
Everything Old is New Again! (Score:2)
Doubtless many of the "copyrighted" songs are derivative from earlier folk works that are long out of copyright. This is utterly silly.
Pirates to the rescue! (Score:5, Informative)
strike back (Score:4, Informative)
The Pirate Party reacted by releasing a song book of freely licensed notesheets and song texts. That's basically a big "fuck you too" to the content cartels and their fee-squeezing lackeys. The more they're doing that sort of bullshit, the more the people are willing to rebel.
http://musik.klarmachen-zum-aendern.de/nachrichten/gemeinfreie_notenblaetter_fuer_advents-_und_weihnachtslieder_3_update-588 [klarmachen...aendern.de]
Old McDonald.. (Score:3)
Unlimited Greed (Score:2)
Now if I can just get a copyright on prayer. Think of the income from the Lord's Prayer alone. Why should corporations be limited in their right to beat down the public and take every cent from their pockets?
Re: (Score:2)
Bad publicity? (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody at GEMA looked at this lawsuit and said "Holy shit, guys, we're suing toddlers!" and had second thoughts?
No publicity is bad publicity, I know, but this is pushing it just a bit too far.
Not the first time (Score:2)
We all knew this would happen again sooner or later, what with all these new anti-consumer copyright laws either already enacted or pending legislation around the world.
For those who don't remember, ASCAP threatens to sue girl scouts for exactly the same thing: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html [umkc.edu]
Well, apparently GEMA... (Score:2)
...thinks Horst Wessel's family needs to get their royalty checks.
Hmmmm (Score:2)
We'll soon reach the point of no return.
Sooner than expected, though, but considering what these idiots are doing - it's not really a surprise.
It won't be pretty :(
Epitome of Greed (Score:2)
Again with the little girls (Score:2)
how do they come up with this.. (Score:2)
Gross misunderstanding (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It serves them right! (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck those little bastards. They think they can sing whatever song they want and get away with it? What gives them the right? They are pretty much stealing from music industry executives. I say make them pay, retroactively even. And if I ever hear any of you so much as hum a single bar of the theme song for the show The Greatest American Hero, I will be reporting you to the proper authorities! A free education while they leach off the system and their parents isn't enough for them, oh no, they will not be satisfied until they are able to sing any song they wish without paying the publishing company that owns the song. You see, the world isn't going to end now, it is going to end when those little rug rats grow up and it will be all because they thought they could sing someone else's song for free. Well guess what, not on my watch!
The Listener's License (Score:4, Insightful)
(from transcript http://thinkforyourself.vaillife.net/assets/afternow/01tota.streamjack.doc [vaillife.net] ) -
It was a few years later when the REAL crackdown came. The Listener’s License. What a fantastic concept. I can’t believe it. See it happened like this. There was this - there is all this piracy, see everybody was - piracy was - Uh, piracy is now what they now consider a theft. See in order to combat piracy which was getting really rampant, all this information was flowing around nobody really liked that so they wanted it gone. And they wanted to get rid of piracy. But they couldn’t stop it.
The Internet was growing everyday. No one could stem the flow so they created the Listener’s License. Started real easy. See music, legitimate music to purchase, was, you know, say 20 bucks. And then what they did was, if you signed up to get this card, you know like a loyalty program card of the day. You’d get 75% percent off. So a 20 dollar CD became a 5 dollar CD. And you could buy it legitimately. For 20 bucks you would walk out of there with 4 CD’s. Amazing.
Of course people were signing up for it in droves, I mean why wouldn’t ya? You could go buy a pirate CD for 6 bucks or you could buy the reall thing for 5. Consumers are such mercenaries. So they signed up en masse.
2 years went by, 2 years. Then it became mandatory. See if you didn’t have your listener’s license, if you couldn’t present your card, well you weren’t able to buy music. Part of the licensing agreement came when you got the card. And all of sudden people were out in the cold.
But it wasn’t just the music you know. The listener’s license was created by the conglomerates. They all got together. If you wanted to see a movie, hey if you had your listener’s license you could get in for 2 dollars. (chuckle) 2 bucks. Oh you don’t have a listener’s license, well you can’t get in. See they couldn’t control the piracy so they stopped it at its source.
If ever you were found to be a pirate or if your computer was ever found to have MP3s that weren’t appropriate on it you were eliminated, your listener’s license was revoked and you were out of the loop. It's all private enterprise, you don’t have a right to music, you never had a right to it. It's all private.
No more movies no more shows. Can’t even buy art. Cause you can scan it. What if you scanned that picture? So, regulation of course is always the first step to total domination. But we didn’t see that either. We weren’t ready for the horror.
At that time the listener’s license had huge power. Not the power it has today, I mean now. If you do not have a valid listener’s license. I mean - well in our time you can’t do anything, I mean, you’re a pirate. If you can’t present, that is part of your paperwork. It’s part of your identification. See the listener’s license, after they came out with that. That was a huge step one.
But everyone was so focused on the listener’s license they didn’t see where the REAL power play was made. See everyone was so whipped up, and the media again, you know the corporately controlled media. Got everyone focusing on the benefits and the drawbacks, a big debate over the listener’s license. But then what they didn’t see was, was the regulations that went into play on the recording equipment. See that was the one that really came back. They started putting these standards on microphones and any kind of recording media. You wanted to record, well you gotta adhere to this standard. Because this is the future. Got to make sure the quality is there.
Chips were put into place. All recording med
They probably got the idea in Belgium... (Score:4, Interesting)
see here [expatica.com]
Youth organizations, neighborhood parties and small businesses that play radio during work already had to pay for this (or risk being raided by the copyright cops).
Re: (Score:2)
"Didn't the Nazis leave behind a bunch of drinking songs?"
The Allies spent vast amounts of treasure and millions of troops to ensure no one in Europe would resist corporate serfdom. Don't make us do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me about it.While I don't consider myself to be a "neo nazi" it certainly puts things in a new light when you actually sit down and think about history a little instead of repeating back what you're told like a parrot. Germany suffered the same fate as France did under Napoleon. While yes, they pursued an aggressive policy of expansion into the East until attacked by the West, they can hardly be called out for it by a country that at the time was occupying 1/4 of the Earth's land surface and all of its
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all churches already pay a license fee to display the music on the overhead projector. It's the CCLI number in the corner of the projection. They've been doing this for years.
http://www.ccli.com/ [ccli.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"Nazis........I hate those guys."
This is derivative of The Blues Brothers from ten years earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2EoOZKjAjlk#t=90s [youtube.com]
Please send a royalty payment to Universal Studios - $1.00 per page view.
.