Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Copyright Board To Charge For Music At Weddings, Parades

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the what-about-hockey-playoff-games-oh-wait dept.

Canada 349

silentbrad writes "The CBC reports, 'Money can't buy love — but if you want some great tunes playing at your wedding, it's going to cost you. The Copyright Board of Canada has certified new tariffs that apply to recorded music used at live events including conventions, karaoke bars, ice shows, fairs and, yes, weddings. The fees will be collected by a not-for-profit called Re:Sound. While the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (otherwise known as SOCAN) already collects money from many of these events for the songwriters, Re:Sound will represent the record labels and performers who contributed to the music. .. For weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows, the fee is $9.25 per day if fewer than 100 people are present and goes up to $39.33 for crowds of more than 500 people. If there's dancing, the fees double. Karaoke bars will pay between $86.06 and $124 annually depending on how many days per week they permit the amateur crooning. And parades, meanwhile, will be charged $4.39 for each float with recorded music participating in the parade, subject to a minimum fee of $32.55 per day.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

When you can't innovate (5, Insightful)

ttimes (534696) | about 2 years ago | (#40181751)

... then you create a legal scam to charge for everything else. Let's not congratulate this by being silent.

Re:When you can't innovate (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181787)

Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

Re:When you can't innovate (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181925)

Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

I believe that is called "lobbying".

Downfall (4, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#40182171)

Watch out, soon we will have to pay to voice our protests against it.

Reminds me of the Downfall parody about Disney and Steamboat Willy Forever. One woman starts crying and the other one says to her: 'Don't cry; they own the rights to that emotion.'

It's only a matter of time. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#40182187)

I know this was meant as a joke, but it's really only a matter of time.

Re:When you can't innovate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182303)

Only if you sing your protest - wait - we would already have to pay to sing a protest song....

Re:When you can't innovate (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 years ago | (#40181803)

Right, I'll get my checkbook, you set up the sound system, and we'll have Soulskill bring his CD collection over.

Why stop at weddings? (2)

Tharsman (1364603) | about 2 years ago | (#40181841)

I can see the future... in a few years, you will have to slide a credit card to enable use of your car's radio if someone is sitting in the passenger sit (be the front or back sits!)

Re:Why stop at weddings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182025)

Phillip K. Dick has already written about this in Ubik. Sci-fi dystopia, here we come!

Re:Why stop at weddings? (3, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40182245)

They called Phil Dick a paranoid. Turns out he was the only one with a proper sense of reality. Go figure.

Re:Why stop at weddings? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40182137)

>>>if someone is sitting in the passenger sit (be the front or back sits!)


Re:When you can't innovate (4, Interesting)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 2 years ago | (#40182163)

Hmmm.... I wonder if the major effect of this will be for people to use more live musicians instead of recorded music.

They didn't create it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182175)

Government created it. Only government holds the keys to legalized injustice.

Re:When you can't innovate (-1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 2 years ago | (#40182231)

They are innovating. People stopped buying CDs so they are going to make their money off of licensing their work out to as many venues as possible.

What's a scam is to expect someone to *work*, creating a product you want and then get all snooty when they ask you to pay them for it. And $10 is very reasonable.

The dress maker expects to get paid. The caterer expects to get paid. The photographer expects to get paid. The bartender expects to get paid. The band expects to get paid. The DJ expects to get paid. And why shouldn't they? They are all working and using skills they have spent years and decades training in. They have overhead, they have expenses, they have employees... music isn't free to make. Even a simple indie album will often cost about $8k-10k on the low end to produce and that ignores everyone's time and energy to write, rehearse and perform.

But suddenly you're offended that artists also want to be paid!? Fuck you. Yes, I should be more diplomatic but I'm sick and tired of being told that I shouldn't expect any compensation for my talents as an artist because it doesn't involve physical labor. It's bad enough that many fields of art have little to no revenue source--but to take one of the few that actually can make money (sometimes) and say that they are scams because they want to get paid for their work is really offensive. I do get well paid in my field for which I'm grateful--but creativity is like writing code, it's hard mental labor and is no less valid of a product than digging a ditch.

I am always baffled how it is that those who make a living off of intellectual property somehow were persuaded to be the loudest and most vocal advocates for their jobs being destroyed. Do you want to dig ditches? Do you think your intellect and intelligence has no value? Innovation is *WHAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR*, that's what creativity is, innovation. If you call innovation a scam then you're saying innovation isn't valuable and nobody who makes the work work a little better should profit from their work.

Re:When you can't innovate (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40182287)


We're sorry... your post makes the following common error...

The assumption that paying a record company equals paying an musical artist.

We realize that these common errors are are ingrained into the minds of society, but due to our allergy to bullshit we are compelled to point out the fallacy. Have a good day!

Re:When you can't innovate (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#40182299)

"You, over there! Stop bobbing your head in time to the music, we haven't paid for head bobbing!"

Canada... it's like a country... (1, Flamebait)

gavron (1300111) | about 2 years ago | (#40181761)

We can't expect Canadians to have the same freedoms we in the US have.

Freedom to arrest Kim DotCom in New Zealand with no evidence.

Freedom to fine Jamie Thomas millions of dollars.

Freedom to let the MAFIAA do whatever they like.

Welcome to the family, brother Canada,


Dancing? (5, Interesting)

AkaKaryuu (1062882) | about 2 years ago | (#40181767)

I would like to know if they will have representatives to ensure dancing does not occur. What if the event planner specifially states dancing is forbidden and the intoxicated guests ignore their plea? Is there a charge to sing along, tap your foot or air guitar that sick solo?

Re:Dancing? (5, Insightful)

trimpnick (1362187) | about 2 years ago | (#40181839)

No, they'll probably tack on those fees by supposing you'll dance at a wedding party. There will be no burden of proof with this, not unlike the levy on blank media

Re:Dancing? (4, Funny)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 years ago | (#40181861)

dancing is forbidden

Looks like ATHF [] saw this coming?

Re:Dancing? (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | about 2 years ago | (#40181879)

I would like to know if they will have representatives to ensure dancing does not occur.

The career placement team at Geneva College is very excited about this prospect.

Re:Dancing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181883)

The question mark is key here... as in "You call THAT dancing!".

Everyone knows white people can't dance - and Canadians are even whiter! They should get money back!

Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40181919)

Nothing us average, ordinary folks need to worry about. The DJs will just pay the record companies through the payment service they are currently using.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about 2 years ago | (#40182127)

How about mandating *in contract* that the DJ playing at your wedding will play NO Re:Sound or SOCAN music that incurs this "fee"? You say 'ordinary folks' need not worry about this, but if the DJ passes on the licensing costs to the customer (surely the provide an itemized bill that lists this expense), the ordinary folk may care more than you think. If the DJ plays said music and gets flagged by the copyright observers, he/she can personally pay out of pocket as stipulated by the contract. In a free market, this would provide an incentive to artists who produce enjoyable music that doesn't impose these ridiculous fees on a private event.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill (2)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#40182211)

And what makes you think the DJ will actually get out of paying these licensing fees by not playing music licensed by "Re:Sound"? I'll bet anything that the DJ will be charged on the basis of his mere presence with equipment at a function, regardless of the contents of his playlist. These "rights agencies" have a track record of extorting their fees whether or not they have any legal rights to the music being played.

So a contractual pledge to avoid such music simply guarantees that the customer won't be getting what they have no choice but to pay for, since the DJ for damn sure isn't eating the unavoidable license fee just because the customer thinks they can avoid it. It'll be buried in the overall fee.

Re:Wedding, parade, club DJs will pay the bill (2)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about 2 years ago | (#40182319)

Record the event (weddings are usually documented for posterity anyhow). Ask anyone attending who recorded a video with their mobile phone/tablet/e-glasses to send you a copy of the video for the compilation DVD. Provide a copy of said material to the DJ to provide evidence that no 'infringing' music was played so no fees are warranted. Demand proof for claims that infringing material was played. Should it have happened, pay only for that, not a general fee for the event. Etc.

Don't passively give in to extortion just because vocal cynics don't have the fortitude to and want you to do the same.

Re:Dancing? (2)

warren.oates (925589) | about 2 years ago | (#40181997)

Reminds me of the old joke: Why don't Canadians fuck standing up? Because god might think they're dancing.

Re:Dancing? (5, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 2 years ago | (#40182033)

What gets me, is what right do they have to charge for dancing? They're theoretically charging for the performance of the music, understandable... but what the hell does dancing have to do with anything?

Re:Dancing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182107)

dancing is a derivative work performed publicly.

Re:Dancing? (1)

kanto (1851816) | about 2 years ago | (#40182103)

There'll probably just be a fatwa Pakistani style. []

Re:Dancing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182237)

Damn those Baptists!

For those unaware, both considering dancing to be as bad as sex, if not worse, and ludicrous frugality are stereotypes of Baptists in the US (though several of the large denominational organizations and many independent Baptist churches are pretty insanely anti-dancing); witness the following joke (which I first heard from a Baptist preacher, speaking from the pulpit)

A new barber came to town and set up shop. After a few weeks, the Catholic priest stopped in for a haircut, and when he went to pay, the barber said "No, I don't charge for religious leaders", so the priest thanked him and left. The next morning, when the barber came to open his shop, he found a bottle of wine sitting on the doorstep.

Next week, the Rabbi came by, asked how much, and the barber told him "No charge, for men of the cloth", so he got his hair cut, thanked him, and left. The next morning, the barber found a jar of dill pickles on his doorstep.

Eventually, the Baptist preacher came by, found out the haircut was free, thanked the barber and left. The next morning, the barber found five Baptist preachers on his doorstep.

Re:Dancing? (1)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#40182291)

Canadian Baptists do not have sex standing up. It might lead to dancing.

"If there's dancing, the fees double." (4, Insightful)

dstyle5 (702493) | about 2 years ago | (#40181791)

What if people are smiling, double the fee again? Its sunny outside, only 1.5 times the fee? Liquor is served, 4 times fee? Its a Saturday...? Great, can't wait to see the RIAA, err SOCAN creeping up your friends wedding.

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double." (4, Interesting)

Lithdren (605362) | about 2 years ago | (#40181939)

This struck me as rather absurd as well. Why, excatly, can they double a fee because people might dance along to the music? I can understand they wanting to be reimbursed for the playing of it, but why on earth do they get to decide what you can do with music already paid for to play?

Be like charging you 3 dollars for a big scoop of Ice Cream, then carging to twice that because you wanted to eat it..

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double." (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#40182139)

Perhaps it is more a supply and demand thing. Less Canadians want to dance, so to balance that scarcity the fees rise. Then again, maybe by charging Canadians to dance, they are hoping to avoid the trouble their American neighbors ran into a few years back when a young Bill Clinton forever changed the south: []

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double." (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182277)

Because dancing is illegal, didn't you see Footloose?

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double." (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181957)

I think if they start sneaking up to weddings it is a good reason to bring back shotgun weddings.

Re:"If there's dancing, the fees double." (1)

Kn45h3r (2472596) | about 2 years ago | (#40182253)

I'm just waiting for the first wedding to be called off because the way the bride moved up the aisle, in time to music, could legally be considered a type of dance.

Ice shows? (1)

Brentyl (685453) | about 2 years ago | (#40181795)

Posting from Arizona where ice is a mythical substance, but...

wtf are ice shows? Apparently they are big enough they need to be specifically enumerated in this law. Cracking me up.

Oh Fer Sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181857)

Posting from Arizona where ice is a mythical substance, but...

wtf are ice shows? Apparently they are big enough

If you ever make it up yonder to Minnesnowta, yep [] .

Re:Ice shows? (2)

grimmy (75458) | about 2 years ago | (#40181965)

Figure skating is pretty huge up here for some reason, also things like disney on ice, and probably the music played during tv breaks at hockey games.

Re:Ice shows? (1)

Brentyl (685453) | about 2 years ago | (#40182027)

That makes sense. I was picturing some spectacle like the Westminster Dog Show except with different strains of ice - "Wow Bob, look at the crystalline structure in that one." "Yes, Ted, exquisite. Truly the cube standard."

Re:Ice shows? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#40182155)

I would expect any venue for any sort of "show" to already be covered by ASCAP licenses and whatnot.

Trying to tax weddings is a really low blow.

Re:Ice shows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182051)

Disney on Ice was just in Phoenix in April

No dancing? (1)

Daas (620469) | about 2 years ago | (#40181799)

" If there's dancing, the fees double."


Re:No dancing? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#40181933)

If the kids can't dance, I guess they'll have to screw...

How about instead (4, Insightful)

hort_wort (1401963) | about 2 years ago | (#40181805)

We charge them those prices for advertising their music to everyone and associating it with a positive memory?

Once you provide CC-BY(-SA) music (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40181875)

That can happen once you provide original recordings of original music under a license for free cultural works as a replacement for major labels' non-free music.

Solution: (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | about 2 years ago | (#40181821)

I, for one, welcome (y)our new mayonnaise-on-fries-eating cover band overlords.

Sing Song (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#40181823)

If I sing the praises of this, will I be charged? If I'm arrested and they make me sing, will I be charged again?

Re:Sing Song (1)

dtmos (447842) | about 2 years ago | (#40181971)

If I'm arrested and they make me sing, will I be charged again?

It depends. Are you going to sing a new tune, or just the same old song?

ToW (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181833)

By coming to or viewing my wedding, you lose any right to charge for the music played.

Too complicated, just charge admission fees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181959)

With the people from Re:Sound or other agencies having the low low admission of a few million

Now, if I can find a lawyer friend who specializes in divorce and multiple weddings...

That's way too low... (5, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 2 years ago | (#40181847)

let's say there are 1000 guests and 50 songs are played. This clearly means that 50,000 record labels will never be able to make money again. The fees should be at least 47 trillion loonies per event.

My only thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181865)

What the hell is this crap?

Who is receiving the money? (4, Insightful)

Herkum01 (592704) | about 2 years ago | (#40181867)

I could support something like this IF, VERY BIG IF, the money goes to support the people actually produced the music. Not Copyright Board of Canada, the MIAA, or RIAA, or Sony, or any of the big companies out there. It needs to go to the artists. Otherwise it is just becomes another organization gaming the laws to become a bureaucracy that is a parasite upon other peoples works.

Re:Who is receiving the money? (3, Interesting)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 2 years ago | (#40182009)

Sorry no. If you're an artist, you should make money by, I dunno, making art that people want to buy. If I pay you $15 for your CD, I'm going to play it whenever, however, and for whomever I want. I paid you your $15. So if I want to pop it in the CD player at my wedding, I don't owe you anything. This whole concept of "royalties" where an artist gets money for the next 70 years every time someone wants to sing or play his song is completely asinine, and counter to the way art/music has worked since the dawn of humanity.

Re:Who is receiving the money? (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40182267)

So what do you do, as an artist, when you think that the 15-year-old with a $20 weekly allowance should only have to pay you $5 for your CD whereas a DJ who makes his living playing the same CD at weddings should pay you $100.

If you always charge just $5 for your CD then it can be purchased by 15-year-olds, but then other people that make money off of just playing your CD in public are getting a huge discount when you did all the hard work. But if you always charge $100 now the 15-year-olds, who you want to be able to afford to experience your music, can't afford to?

That's why we have different licensing agreements for different forms of usage for intellectual property, particularly that which is hard to create and easy to duplicate.

Yes, there are plenty of problems with IP and IP law but the solution is not necessarily to just throw it all away.

Re:Who is receiving the money? (1)

hidden (135234) | about 2 years ago | (#40182013)

Actually, it does. The people in the recordings do in fact receive royalty cheques from SOCAN. Mind you, I'm not sure exactly how fair the split is, or how much of it goes to "administrative fees"

The other thing that isn't very clear from the article is that this system is NOT new. SOCAN has always collected fees for radio play, and recorded music at public functions, shows, etc in Canada. All that's happened now is that the fee structure for certain types of event has been updated. (simplified, I think?)

Re:Who is receiving the money? (2)

jd (1658) | about 2 years ago | (#40182145)

In the US, the split is notoriously in favour of the labels with the labels more often than not never bothering to forward the artist's share. Labels in the US also charge artists for just about everything under the sun (plus interest), so even when there is a nominal payment it often goes back to the label to cover costs imposed on the artist. It's the perfect scam.

Maybe Canada is better, but it's dubious.

Public functions, yes, but weddings would surely be private events. You would normally have to have an invitation to attend. To charge private events for royalties is definitely a major expansion.

Re:Who is receiving the money? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40182239)

>>>The people in the recordings do in fact receive royalty cheques

Except when they don't. The Canadian companies were caught copying songs over onto "greatest hits" CDs or collections, and not paying the artists. They owed almost a billion in unpaid royalties.

Here in America the companies owe 10s of millions in unpaid royalties. I think artists/actors actually get screwed with royalty/residual contracts. They'd be better-off to get paid a flat hourly wage like other producers of copyrighted works. Like engineers and programmers.

Re:Who is receiving the money? (1)

WeatherServo9 (1393327) | about 2 years ago | (#40182119)

I'm going to go with NOT OK still, even if 100% collected goes straight to the artists. I'm fine with artists getting paid, but this is getting really out of hand (especially the dancing clause mentioned! Seriously?!). I'm ok with artists getting paid when they sell a CD or a download (whatever their contract works out to for that), I don't care so much that this goes on for long time after the recording is made, they should get paid for live performances, probably even for commercial use such as in a movie or tv show, but I see no reason they need to get paid for every single playing of the song - this seems completely unreasonable to me and appears as nothing more than a greedy money grab that does little other than make me annoyed. The DJ bought the song/album, that's it; he should be able to play it whenever for whomever after that, the whole "public performance" thing is pretty much bullshit to begin with. My no-name cover band should be able to perform it without paying fees, and so on...The ridiculous ways they're trying to scrounge up every last penny is really getting to be tiresome (ok, never mind getting to

So glad..... (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40181885)

That you Canadians are doing what the United States is telling you to do.

Good lap dog!

And yes, I am trying to enrage you, why are you people not fighting the corruption that is bleeding over the border from our country? The more you just let this stuff happen, the more they will try and roll over you.

Re:So glad..... (1)

ddusza (775603) | about 2 years ago | (#40182003)

Somewhere in America an RIAA exec is reading this and after a stout facepalm, asking "Why didn't we think of this first?" So, how much are they going to charge building owners for their piped in elevator music/muzak? After all, that is recorded somewhere, and someone may even be dancing to it in an elevator....

Re:So glad..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182073)

Muzak is already paid for. You don't think they just play the radio in there, do you? It's a subscription service.

Re:So glad..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182017)

Proof? Liar, another slash dot America hater.

Re:So glad..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182047)

The main reason? Our dictatorship government that is copying all of the bad things the USA did 10 years ago... super prisons, copyright, decriminalisation of marijuana, etc, etc... Even after being told by the people that made all those rules did not work we are still adopting them.

We brought Conrad Black back to Canada and somehow don't have a problem with that but we won't fight for Mark Emery (did not break canadian laws and we extradited him... and we wouldn't let him serve his time in a Canadian jail... bend over much?)

Re:So glad..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182141)

We already have this in the United States. Although in the US venue gets to pay THREE different collection agencies (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) and fees are substantially more.

Summon the Dance Police (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#40181887)

Nothing I do could ever be considered "dancing", so I guess I'm safe.

I guess now we will have the dance police ready to come down hard on scoflaws.

Of course the kids will just make up something new to do to music that no one over 30 would ever call dancing. I propose we call it MusicF*cking.

Re:Summon the Dance Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182123)

Yeah I wondered about that. Will I be penalized with a greater fee for bad dancing, or will I get a lesser fee?

Music is now like prostitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181895)

How much you pay depends on the manner in which you partake.

Fuck music. I certainly won't be picking it up for a hobby.

Why karaoke? (2)

cob666 (656740) | about 2 years ago | (#40181903)

Almost every karaoke machine I've ever seen, the music is NOT the original artists recording. Why then are the original recording artists entitled to a per performance fee. I would think that the mechanicals have been paid when the karaoke company licensed the song to be included in whatever package they purchased.

Also, in the states, bars are already required to pay fees for music performed in the venue which includes karaoke.

Odd amounts (0)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 2 years ago | (#40181905)

By any chance are the Canadians actually using US currency, just issuing their bills in weird denominations ?

Damnit Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181911)

God damnit Canada, what the hell is wrong with you lately? I used to be proud to be a Canadian. Whenever there was a thread or message board post from someone in the USA or elsewhere saying how terrible the laws/etc were there, I'd always urge them to move to Canada.

I find myself less and less willing to suggest that nowadays. Especially so under the rule of Harper, who's been trying as hard as humanly possible to turn Canada into the USA.

We used to be the shining beacon of North America, trying to show the USA and Mexico how good things can be. But now this country is just a husk of it's former self. If only I didn't have such strong roots here, I'd be tempted to look into work abroad. I work as a customs broker, so skills in that can be useful in just about any country.

C'mon Canada... pick yourself back up, dust yourself off, and show the world that you haven't fallen quite as far as everyone thinks.

But alas... that's just a wishful dream that I know will never happen. Harper will continue turning Canada into the USA, and I have absolutely no confidence that the next person after him won't follow the same road.

Wish I could log in from work, since I'm not ashamed to admit that Canada is quickly becoming a far less desirable place to be. Username Kabuthunk for those curious.

Hahaha. F*** off! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181913)

Go to Hell. No, seriously.

That's a really nice culture you have there... (1)

ebunga (95613) | about 2 years ago | (#40181931)

It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Disclamar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181943)

We know no bounds to lowness and have no shame or notion of self-ridicule.

Three observations (5, Insightful)

Dzimas (547818) | about 2 years ago | (#40181947)

I wouldn't have an issue with this, except for three things: (1) This money won't find its way into the pockets of artists. It'll end up in the hands of publishing companies, lawyers, managers and the record label because of the onerous contracts that performers are required to sign to break into the business. (2) Songs played at weddings tend to be mass market tunes or old classics. Handing over an extra few thousand dollars to Lady GaGa or whatever company holds the rights to Frank Sinatra's tunes does absolutely nothing to support up and coming Canadian musicians. (3) The government department responsible for collecting and disbursing this fee will cost taxpayers millions of dollars for the "benefit" of collecting and forwarding revenue to foreign entertainment companies.

Re:Three observations (1)

alphax45 (675119) | about 2 years ago | (#40182007)

Well said and I agree with you 100% on all three points.

Re:Three observations (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40182035)

Apparently, it's not a government agency, but a separate non profit organization. Still, I agree that this entire law is garbage. Unfortunately, most wedding planners will just shrug and append the fee to the total invoice. For weddings, which cost $2000 on the rock bottom end, an extra $10 won't make too much difference.

Gay weddings are exempt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181975)

To protect our special, very precious and rare gay citizens.

creeping bureaucracy (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | about 2 years ago | (#40181981)

You do know that's public air you're consuming? You;re lucky I'm not writing this ticket for breathing heavily, that's a moving violation. I'm going to let you off easy this time but don't do it again. Sign here. What? Oh the fine. It's $148.

Canadian National Athem at the Olympics? (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#40181991)

I hope Canada doesn't win any gold medals at the Olympics this year -- because if they play the National Anthem, ... I mean, there's gotta be at least 50,000 in attendance, plus millions watching on TV, the fees could bankrupt the planet.

not-for-profit? (2)

MSesow (1256108) | about 2 years ago | (#40181999)

The fees will be collected by a not-for-profit called Re:Sound.

That is misleading to say that Re:Sound is not-for-profit, when the apparent function of the organization is to ensure more money comes in to the music industry. And since I cannot imagine that much of that revenue is needed to fund Re:Sound, it seems like most of the money is simply profits. Which, to me, makes it seem like it exists solely for profits.

TL;DR - Company lies to try an look better. News at 11.

Re:not-for-profit? (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#40182189)

Not-for-profit just means that there aren't shareholders that expect a payout. The executives can get paid all they can get away with, and it still be not-for-profit.

There may be precious little left over for the real artists.

Teen Open House Parties (1)

metarox (883747) | about 2 years ago | (#40182021)

Can't wait for them to crack down on teen open house parties!

Complete comedy of errors (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#40182031)

I don't know what sounds more ludicrous to me...

The concept of "music police" running around trying to enforce such nonsense, or...

trying to convince anyone that any organization affiliated or representing the record labels would be considered a "not-for-profit".

Give me a break.

Doesn't go far enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182037)

What about those freeloading cunts who play music when inviting guests around? My girlfriend put in some mood music, and all I could think of was the injustice inherent in my hearing the music at no additional cost beyond buying the disc. Just as the adverts suggested, after hearing this illegal performance I stole a car and sent 300 dollars to the Hamas Paypal account. Posting anon because I'm a Catholic Pope, Ja.


kidgenius (704962) | about 2 years ago | (#40182057)

Anyone want to explain how this is different than ASCAP/BMI requiring you to have a license to play music in public? For instance, any DJ should have paid licensing fees to ASCAP/BMI to be able to play music at weddings, gatherings etc.

Fun ...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182059)

All these groups and laws are doing is sucking the pleasure out of music, movies, etc. They are destroying their own industries.

Pure Stupidity (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 2 years ago | (#40182065)

What the hell Harper?

Oh Canada .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182071)

And here I thought you were sane, and have recently considered moving your way ...

Why is it almost every western country, was going to say Democracy but that made me laugh, sucking the dicks of the Recording and Content Lobby's? Seriosly!! Are they being blackmailed? Do they have the the people in power on film with dead hookers or something? What is this? Of all the pressing shit that goes on with running a country, how does utterly useless crap like this even see the light of day?

So as an American I really can't bitch too much, seeing as our Government by proxy of Corporation, would like us to all be plebians and seemingly have no rights other than to buy goods, but I really do wonder if and when the voting public is just going to grow tired of it all and stand up to nonsense like this. I'd like to think that sort of thing will go on here in the US, but I've found there's too much lunacy, apathy, and unbridled police power to really allow such a thing to proceed.

In short, this post really adds nothing, other than to remark on my continued dissapointment with the current state of my, and your, society.

As to not be a total downer, it's lunchtime here, and it is Friday, so I guess a beer is in order to improve the day. Happy Friday everyone!

So, just use live music then (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40182095)

At the church you have the organist and the choir, and hire a band rather than a deejay for the reception.

No dancing? (2)

LazyBoyWrangler (760913) | about 2 years ago | (#40182101)

Certainly narrows down the activites available to drunken bridesmaids. Should be easier to get them to shed the one-time-only dresses now that dancing is off the agenda. Perhaps this is a good development.

Canada = the western branch of Airstrip One (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182161)

Canada has become a place to avoid for too many reasons to list here.

One has to wonder, do the majority of Canadian people approve of their
government, or are they just out of ammo ?

Gotta wonder (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182177)

I have to wonder when I will have to start paying these asshats for singing in the shower!


Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182185)

Now you're under copyright law at your own god damn wedding.

FUCK THE RIAA. Just by playing your boombox you've become a practitioner of civil disobedience.

Boom Boom Boom (1)

Nethead (1563) | about 2 years ago | (#40182251)

They need to charge a fee for loud car sound systems. About a dollar a watt would be about right.

Enforcement (4, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 2 years ago | (#40182281)

Enforcement will be via Predator drone.

How would this apply for me? (1)

scubamage (727538) | about 2 years ago | (#40182283)

Just curious if something like this happened in the US... we're not planning any dance music (neither of us enjoys it, despite being in our 20's we may as well have been born in the 20's). My fiance (a music teacher and professional classical saxophonist) and I have decided we're going to have a string quartet for the ceremony, and a live jazz band playing standards for the reception. So, would they still try to shake us down?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?