I can't burn CD's for my girlfriends new restaurant!

whart thoroughly covered that in Post #14 of this thread - as he aptly described, the "Aiken exemption" is dissimilar to your scenario on post 25 because it involved radio, not CD or Tape.
Let's zero in on what dm n stuff pointed out on Post #17; if your gal's restaurant is under 3,750 square feet, you have an out when it comes to radio.
That's good, but dm n stuff previously hinted on Post # 15 that when it comes to Commercial establishments, Cable rates are higher, and FWIW, Commercial hookups are sans Movie Channels. That's the downside.
The upside of Cable TV Music, as I hinted at on Post #9:
(A) No Commercials
(B) Blues/Jazz Music on Cable Music Channel is as tasty as the food in your gal's Blues/Jazz Joint.
(C) See (A)

Otherwise, with laws being what they are, as other posters have attested to, the only way to avoid paranoia/nightmares is the trusty Jukebox.

 

I wonder how many people will get pissed by working at their $8/hr Barnes and Noble or Abercrombie and Fitch gig because they are forced to listen to only hootie and the stinking blowfish all day in a loop.

Does one have to pay royalties for having a radio station for 'onhold' music?
Do people that have load car stereos have to pay royalties because of their loud speakers?

 

Music "on hold" is a public performance. Rerouting a radio signal to perform that function is a "retransmission " (ie its no longer passive playing of radio, as in the Aiken example) and is subject to licensing.
As to suits against the Mom's and Pop's, these have been going on for years and years, against all kinds of commercial establishments. BTW, jukeboxes used to be exempt. Anybody wanna guess why? (Hint- the Italian connection). No longer.

 

Well,

Could I take a book out of the library, walk into a bar, give a free reading to anyone in the bar, perhaps the collective group, and leave without having to pay a royalty to the author or having violated any laws?

Now, that's assuming the group in the bar doesn't kill me for trying this stunt.

Also, giving photocopies to everyone is conveying a permanent copy of the material, playing music over the loudspeakers is not, is it?

 

Publicly performing the book would implicate the copyright owner's right of public performance. Buying a book or video triggers the "first sale doctrine" which extinguishes the copyright owner's control over the right of further distribution (thus, you can give the book away, resell it, or in the case of video stores, rent it to members of the public for a fee for them to perform it "privately" in their homes). The first sale doctrine does not extinguish any of the other copyright owner's rights, eg right of reproduction (making copies) or the right of public performance.
Although there are some legal differences that flow from whether or not a tangible copy changes hands, the fact that a copy is not being distributed, but the work is merely being publicly performed (eg a broadcast) does not take it out of the ambit of the copyright owner's control. The public performance right is of considerable value to copyright owners, hence exploiting a work without making and distributing copies of it is still a cognizable act.

 

Is the copy protected in perpetuity?

Does someone pay a royalty when they perform Shakespeare, or does his being dead eliminate the issue, does it pass to heirs? When does it become public domain?

Am I making money from the use of music on hold? Is it a for profit venture? If the radio station has paid for the use, and my re-broadcast is limited in scope to the three people on hold at a time, where's the harm/monetary damage or loss.

By the way, I do believe in paying for what I use. I paid BMI all those years I owned a bar. I'm just seeking the logic behind some of what ASCAP and BMI charge for.

 

Copyright has a limited term, as mandated by the enabling clause of the US Constitution, eg. "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.8.
Copyright can endure beyond the life of the author and vests in heirs designated by law and/or by the Copyright Act itself (so-called "statutory heirs" which may be different than the persons who take under a will or by a state's law of intestacy).
Works in the so-called "public domain," for copyright purposes may be exploited with impunity. However, it is not always easy to determine if a work is in the "public domain. " ( I use the term "public domain" advisedly, because it means different things to different people. Some take it to mean that the info, work or material is publicly available or accessible, without regard to whether it is still protected under one or another forms of intellectual property law. Here, i use the term very specifically to refer to that which is no longer protected by copyright due to expiration of the term of protection).
Keep in mind though, that if one makes material changes to a public domain work, they can claim a copyright in their "new matter." This will not prevent someone from exploiting the underlying public domain version, but to the extent the "new matter" from the revised version is copied or exploited, infringement of that may occur.
The US Copyright Act does not define an infringing exercise of rights in terms of "profit." Generally, an exercise of one or more exclusive rights (eg, reproduction, distribution, public performance) is actionable whether or not a profit is made or a fee charged by the alleged infringer. The "profit" element does come up in certain exemptions (a carve-out permitting specified activity that would otherwise constitute infringement) and defenses (like "fair use"). The presumption in copyright is that you are getting some intangible benefit by using music on hold. Otherwise, why do it?
As to only three people receiving the signal at a given time, that may be true but even three people can constitute a public. Realistically, over time, in the aggregate, far more will be receiving the signal, though. And the Copyright Act defines public performance to cover situations where people receive the performance at the same time and place (a concert hall) or at different times and places (pay per view).
Hope this answers your questions without my sounding smarmy about it.

 

Nope, not smarmy at all. Actually a very concise explanation of a not too concise subject.

Seems to me, layman that I am, that the rule is, "just don't" and you won't get into trouble.

Exceptions being old stuff, not clearly defined, or the unmodified version of old stuff that has been modified.

Old stuff, new version, like colorized versions of old b&w movies are protected, but the b&W version is not?

Thanks,

Dave

 

Colorized versions of black and white movies are as good an example as any. Just be aware that even if the film went pd, the copyright in the underlying book on which it may have been based may still be in good copyright, and as a result, exhibiting a pd film could still be infringement of such underlying rights. (There is a whole line of cases on this very fact pattern). Regards.