How to Avoid IMRO charges

wonkyfish

Hi All

Does anyone know exactly how businesses can avoid paying IMRO charges? We have been paying these charges for years and though we feel they are excessive we understand the rights of the artists to be paid for their work. In the current climate all these non essential costs have to be cut out so we made the decision to go completely royalty free with all the music in our business. We bought royalty free retail background music, the quality is not great but we felt the trade off was worth it. Once all our locations had the new music installed we contacted IMRO to let them know that we were now 100% royalty free and would no longer be paying any invoices.

IMRO have come back to tell us that apparently royalty free music makes no difference and we still have to pay their fees in order to have any music playing. Does anyone know how they can get away with this? Is there a such thing as 'performance royalty free' music?

The reality for us is that IMRO are looking for €20k a year just for background music and the way things are at the moment if we have to pay it it will mean putting somone out of a job. We don't want to play music illegally, just find music that IMRO can't charge us for.

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks,
J

FusionNet

Hi Ive Pm'd you on this. I think I have a company who can make this 20k almost vanish! Anyone else in the same boat can PM me if you like.

Thanks

Lplated

IMRO are right in the sense that the fee you pay them is for the right to pay music in public - you would have then have to pay an extra fee (to the PPI) to cover any copyrighted (or non-royalty free) music you played.

There are a number of ways to reduce the fee - first by negotiation with IMRO, then by appeal to the Controller of Patents, Copyrights etc (based in Kilkenny).

A third, more innovative solution is to open your own licensing scheme. IMRO can only collect on behalf of the artists who are signed up to it. If you can manage to sign up artists who arent' signed to imro, and then have them play royalty free music, you manage to avoid IMRO and PPI. - Theres a bit of effort in that, but seeing as you're looking at a 20 grand fee, it would be worth it.

You could also consider joining up with other businesses to produce 'artist signed, royalty free' music, thus spreading the cost across a number of businesses.

PM me for more details (or questions you'd prefer not to ask in public, if any).

drunkmonkey

If you playing music from websites (not Irish), like talk comedy etc, do you still need to pay....

Lplated

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If you playing music from websites (not Irish), like talk comedy etc, do you still need to pay....

The key word is 'music' - IMRO has a monopoly to collect the fee in Ireland and shares some of its revenue with similar organisations in other countries.
It includes things that may not be obvious at first like 'jingles' that are background to advertisements etc...

There are various licensing schemes in place - IMRO's one benefits performers, PPI's is on behalf those that have copyright in a recording, another body collects on behalf of those that write and create music etc. etc.. Have a read of the Copyright Act 200? or the Controller of Patents etc website for more detail.

Mr.Boots

Do you need to pay BOTH imro and ppi?

Lplated

Mr.Boots wrote: »

Do you need to pay BOTH imro and ppi?

A number of different copyrights exist in music, and each copyright is collected for by a different licensing scheme, for e.g. the 'recording right' is collected by PPI, the 'performance right' is collected by IMRO, the 'mechancial right' is collected by another body (name escapes me right now).

The conceptual reason is that there are different 'components' to making music - i.e. one person writes or creates it (mechanical right), an artist performs it (performance right), a recording company makes the music available to the public on cd (the recording right).

niceirishfella

Wht if you don't play any music - and you put on a talk radio station like Newstalk, or Talksport in the Uk or whatever?

Do that then count?

old gregg

... I've just happened in upon this forum & topic a few mins ago so not a regular Biz. Man. poster ... however, along the lines of the previous poster above and just playing the radio, I wonder how you'd be fixed by either taking creative commons music from archive.org or by playing streamed 'net music that is in keeping with your business 'musical culture', there are plenty of 'net stations playing 'creative commons' licenced easy listening/ambient/downtempo music on 24 hour stream without DJ interuption.

Coincidentaly, I happen to be a business owner who is also an IMRO registered musician/composer so if you want to give me 10 grand (yes, that's half price) I'll let you play my ambient electronic music all day ... for free

Lplated

niceirishfella wrote: »

Wht if you don't play any music - and you put on a talk radio station like Newstalk, or Talksport in the Uk or whatever?

Do that then count?

Newstalk play 'jingles' in their ads, so that is included (had reason to check this up so i'm sure this was the case up to DEc 08 at any rate).

Not familiar with talksport, sorry - but assuming they do have some kind of 'jingles' either as promos or ads or intros to programmes, then they'd be included. Fact that from UK doesn't count - IMRO have 'swop' deals with most foreign jurisdictions.

Lplated

old gregg wrote: »

... Coincidentaly, I happen to be a business owner who is also an IMRO registered musician/composer so if you want to give me 10 grand (yes, that's half price) I'll let you play my ambient electronic music all day ... for free

This is not legal advice ... but you can't ... if you're signed to imro then they have a legal right to collect for you. You would have to 'de-sign' from them and sign with a different licensing scheme.. except that IMRO are the only licensing scheme who have the power to collect the performance right.

Lplated

old gregg wrote: »

... I've just happened in upon this forum & topic a few mins ago so not a regular Biz. Man. poster ... however, along the lines of the previous poster above and just playing the radio, I wonder how you'd be fixed by either taking creative commons music from archive.org or by playing streamed 'net music that is in keeping with your business 'musical culture', there are plenty of 'net stations playing 'creative commons' licenced easy listening/ambient/downtempo music on 24 hour stream without DJ interuption.

'just playing the radio' - is included in imro, see other posts.

'net stations' - some (most/all maybe) come within imro.

All you need is one performer somewhere in that chain to be signed to imro or its equivalent abroad, and then you will owe them something - you need to be very sure of where you're getting your music from, and most importantly, that it includes ALL THREE of the recording right, performance right and mechanical rights.

niceirishfella

Lplated wrote: »

Newstalk play 'jingles' in their ads, so that is included (had reason to check this up so i'm sure this was the case up to DEc 08 at any rate).

Not familiar with talksport, sorry - but assuming they do have some kind of 'jingles' either as promos or ads or intros to programmes, then they'd be included. Fact that from UK doesn't count - IMRO have 'swop' deals with most foreign jurisdictions.

ok, so how about a commercial free talk station, like a BBC one - like 5live?
no ads there? Then is it imro free?

Pat Mustard

http://www.imro.ie/faq/music_users.shtml#

"IMRO’s function is to collect and distribute royalties arising from the public performance of copyright works."

So what if you played music where the copyright had run out, such as classical music. Would it be fair to assume that IMRO have no right to collect royalties in relation to music where the copyright has expired?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/print.html#partii-chapi-sec19

niceirishfella

The Mustard wrote: »

http://www.imro.ie/faq/music_users.shtml#

"IMRO’s function is to collect and distribute royalties arising from the public performance of copyright works."

So what if you played music where the copyright had run out, such as classical music. Would it be fair to assume that IMRO have no right to collect royalties in relation to music where the copyright has expired?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/print.html#partii-chapi-sec19

good point - ring them and ask them?

Lplated

niceirishfella wrote: »

ok, so how about a commercial free talk station, like a BBC one - like 5live?
no ads there? Then is it imro free?

No ads, but does it have programme jingles or promos with music?
Still, you're getting closer to imro free heaven... but do you want to play an english talk radio all day?

Pat Mustard

niceirishfella wrote: »

good point - ring them and ask them?

Maybe an idea, but remember that they are in the business of bringing in royalties. They may not be willing to assist people in avoiding paying them. Besides, revenues are probably down these days...

eamon234

Best part is that is that in reality they have no idea what music you're playing so the money gets divided up in a trough for the bigwigs like U2, Enya and their respective publishers to feed on while IMRO pretend to "encourage" Irish music while in reality they're little more than a collection agency for the major publishing companies in Ireland and their cosy little stable of artists most of whom seem to be directors funnily enough!

talisker

besides moving to the cayman islands, or setting up a business in international waters, if you have music playing in your establishment imro will be your master. how to get around that. don't play music. get recordings of whales mating as background music - would sound a lot better than brian cowen making excuses for the economy.

niceirishfella

talisker wrote: »

besides moving to the cayman islands, or setting up a business in international waters, if you have music playing in your establishment imro will be your master. how to get around that. don't play music. get recordings of whales mating as background music - would sound a lot better than brian cowen making excuses for the economy.

or Hum?!?!?:D

Darragh29

Lplated wrote: »

IMRO are right in the sense that the fee you pay them is for the right to pay music in public - you would have then have to pay an extra fee (to the PPI) to cover any copyrighted (or non-royalty free) music you played.

There are a number of ways to reduce the fee - first by negotiation with IMRO, then by appeal to the Controller of Patents, Copyrights etc (based in Kilkenny).

A third, more innovative solution is to open your own licensing scheme. IMRO can only collect on behalf of the artists who are signed up to it. If you can manage to sign up artists who arent' signed to imro, and then have them play royalty free music, you manage to avoid IMRO and PPI. - Theres a bit of effort in that, but seeing as you're looking at a 20 grand fee, it would be worth it.

You could also consider joining up with other businesses to produce 'artist signed, royalty free' music, thus spreading the cost across a number of businesses.

PM me for more details (or questions you'd prefer not to ask in public, if any).

There is an argument you can make, that I would be making, which is that a song or piece of music, is in fact a piece of advertising in itself. If no music was ever played anywhere, there would be no record sales. So I'd be actually asking the IMRO to pay me for advertising their clients products in my workplace, rather than paying them a cent, never mind 20K.

20K to pay parasites like Bono who don't even pay any tax in this country, get on your bike and get outa f*ck and bring yer spot cream with ya is what I'd be saying!

antoinolachtnai

Unfortunately that argument wouldn't have very much law behind it.

I would stick with royalty-free music if I were you.

Darragh29

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Unfortunately that argument wouldn't have very much law behind it.

I would stick with royalty-free music if I were you.

In my experience, people who quote the law very rarely understand it. What legislation are you quoting, and did you ever challenge it??? I have challenged legisation in this country and I won, so I don't accept any auld legislation when it is shoved under my nose and neither should anyone else...

antoinolachtnai

I didn't quote any legislation. You are the one who is coming up with the legal theorizing, not me.

If you really want me to point at a statute, you could look at section 38 Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 (pasted below). It is fairly explicit and obvious. How did you come up with your interpretation of it? Where is the room for challenge here?


"38.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 37 , where a person proposes to—


(a) play a sound recording in public, or


(b) include a sound recording in a broadcast or a cable programme service,


he or she may do so as of right where he or she—


(i) agrees to make payments in respect of such playing or inclusion in a broadcast or a cable programme service to a licensing body, and


(ii) complies with the requirements of this section."

Darragh29

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I didn't quote any legislation. You are the one who is coming up with the legal theorizing, not me.

If you really want me to point at a statute, you could look at section 38 Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 (pasted below). It is fairly explicit and obvious. How did you come up with your interpretation of it? Where is the room for challenge here?


"38.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 37 , where a person proposes to—


(a) play a sound recording in public, or


(b) include a sound recording in a broadcast or a cable programme service,


he or she may do so as of right where he or she—


(i) agrees to make payments in respect of such playing or inclusion in a broadcast or a cable programme service to a licensing body, and

(ii) complies with the requirements of this section."

If you define a piece of music as an advertisement, which is what it clearly is, this legislation is entirely redundant. A soundtrack is an advertisement to buy the soundtrack itself.

Furthermore, subsection (i) you have quoted above refers to an explicit agreement between two parties, as distinct from a demand for payment with regard to one party from another on the basis of a legislative entitlement.

If I'm playing an Enya soundtrack in my waiting area and a customer comes in and finds that music enjoyable and asks me who it is and I say, "That's Enya", and my customer goes off and buys an Enya album, Enya is advertising her products in my place of business.

I'll be f*cked if Enya is going to ask me for money so that she can advertise her products in my place of work so she can live in a castle in Killiney, end of story... I'll see ya in court Enya, and my money says that your IMRO loo-laa clowns will not see the case to court...

If you want to go down that road with me Enya, I'll make Michael O' Leary look like the f*cking Dali Lama...

Lplated

Darragh29 wrote: »

There is an argument you can make, that I would be making, which is that a song or piece of music, is in fact a piece of advertising in itself. If no music was ever played anywhere, there would be no record sales. So I'd be actually asking the IMRO to pay me for advertising their clients products in my workplace, rather than paying them a cent, never mind 20K.

20K to pay parasites like Bono who don't even pay any tax in this country, get on your bike and get outa f*ck and bring yer spot cream with ya is what I'd be saying!

This argument has been tried in many countries over the years and has lost each time (i dont' have the case references to hand).

In any event you wouldn't be taking this argument against imro (they only collect the performance right), it would be against PPI who collect the recording right.

Lplated

I'm really not having a 'go' at you Darragh, but...

Darragh29 wrote: »

If you define a piece of music as an advertisement, which is what it clearly is, this legislation is entirely redundant. A soundtrack is an advertisement to buy the soundtrack itself.

Your opinion may be that a soundtrack is 'clearly' an advertisement - while this is reasonable, it is not the law (common law that is).

Darragh29 wrote: »

Furthermore, subsection (i) you have quoted above refers to an explicit agreement between two parties, as distinct from a demand for payment with regard to one party from another on the basis of a legislative entitlement.

The reason the subsection refers to 'an explicit agreement' is that elsewhere in the legislation, it is a legal requirement that before the music is played, the 'player' has entered such an agreement.

Darragh29 wrote: »

If I'm playing an Enya soundtrack in my waiting area and a customer comes in and finds that music enjoyable and asks me who it is and I say, "That's Enya", and my customer goes off and buys an Enya album, Enya is advertising her products in my place of business.

Thats not an unreasonable opinion, but as above, it is not the law and has not been since the 1800's. The law in this area in common law jurisdictions (to be begin with), and now in civil law jurisdictions as well, is very well settled.

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'll be f*cked if Enya is going to ask me for money so that she can advertise her products in my place of work so she can live in a castle in Killiney, end of story... I'll see ya in court Enya, and my money says that your IMRO loo-laa clowns will not see the case to court...

The law says, in effect, that you use Enya's music for your customers enjoyment.

In any event, Enya does not ask you for anything. A recording company requires you to pay a fee representative of your use in their copyrighted recording. Imro requires you to do similar in respect of the recognised performers right in music. The MCPS requires you to do similar in respect of the mechanical rights in music.

You may have had success in challenging one piece of Irish legislation - unfortunately, in my experience, those that have had such success, in fact many who have appeared in court simply as a party to a case or to answer a charge, regularly consider themselves experts on 'the law'. There's a reason it takes six or seven years to study law, and its not because there is so little of it that it can be understood by reference to one case or one experience in court.

In any event, your putative challenge to this legislation isn't simply a challenge to a section or sections of the Copyright Act - you're actually proposing to challenge over a hundred years of law that is well settled world wide.

Darragh29

Lplated wrote: »

I'm really not having a 'go' at you Darragh, but...



Your opinion may be that a soundtrack is 'clearly' an advertisement - while this is reasonable, it is not the law (common law that is).



The reason the subsection refers to 'an explicit agreement' is that elsewhere in the legislation, it is a legal requirement that before the music is played, the 'player' has entered such an agreement.



Thats not an unreasonable opinion, but as above, it is not the law and has not been since the 1800's. The law in this area in common law jurisdictions (to be begin with), and now in civil law jurisdictions as well, is very well settled.




The law says, in effect, that you use Enya's music for your customers enjoyment.

In any event, Enya does not ask you for anything. A recording company requires you to pay a fee representative of your use in their copyrighted recording. Imro requires you to do similar in respect of the recognised performers right in music. The MCPS requires you to do similar in respect of the mechanical rights in music.

You may have had success in challenging one piece of Irish legislation - unfortunately, in my experience, those that have had such success, in fact many who have appeared in court simply as a party to a case or to answer a charge, regularly consider themselves experts on 'the law'. There's a reason it takes six or seven years to study law, and its not because there is so little of it that it can be understood by reference to one case or one experience in court.

In any event, your putative challenge to this legislation isn't simply a challenge to a section or sections of the Copyright Act - you're actually proposing to challenge over a hundred years of law that is well settled world wide.

I wouldn't pay it, end of story. And if someone came into my premises demanding a payment of anything on this basis, they'd be shown the door and told to come back when they have a search warrant.

This kind of stuff makes me angry, saps like Bono waltzing around the world in a private jet telling other people how to live their lives and he is a f*cking tax exile...

Whether it is Enya or a recording company who is claiming copyright, I wouldn't give an RA, that is an advertisement in my workplace which I am not prepared to pay for, end of story.

I once had the most expensive employment law Barrister in Ireland, along with his Solicitor, give me advice that I rejected, I took a case on my own merits against the advice of this idiot and I won it, against the advice of a guy who laughed at me when I said I was going to do this. The law is an absolute ass, and the people who practice it are also associated with that area of atonomy.

shanethemofo

Any chance someone could explain these charges to me a little bit?

If you own a café for example and play a cd or the radio in the background (2fm for arguements sake) are you saying that you have to pay these imro charges?

niceirishfella

shanethemofo wrote: »

If you own a café for example and play a cd or the radio in the background (2fm for arguements sake) are you saying that you have to pay these imro charges?

Yes.

talisker

and boy do they (imro) like to visit, and its not too far from the brown shirt brigade.