Dublin Bus Radio nonsense

Stephen Gawking

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote:

Reminds me of an incident a few years back where this surly IT fellow arrived down to my desk wearing headphones and listening to godawful heavy metal. Didn't even acknowledge me as he started replacing the toner cartridges in the printer. I confronted him about this and followed it up with a sternly worded letter to his line manager.

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote:

Proper order. You are paid to work, not to listen to some crank talking to Joe Duffy.

Well aren't you the Alpha male putting the upstart in his place... I'd say you're great craic on a night out.

Victor

languagenerd wrote: »

To be fair, if you look at the Port Tunnel website and/or info leaflets, the first piece of safety advice they give is "tune in to FM radio" while in the Tunnel.

A general comment. They don't expect, say, motorcyclists to comply.

TallGlass wrote: »

So do buses have intercoms..

I think you know the answer is no, not unless you count the bell.

TallGlass wrote: »

It's a HGV

Heavy goods vehicle?

weldoninhio

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Yeah you're right, I didn't read enough of the website

It does mention a cost of €5 per employee, though.

IMRO Again

I don't think they would class a moveable bus as a premises, which by definition is a fixed unit.

Bodhran

There is a royalties issue. See the following from IMRO website:

The staff bring in their own radio, it doesn’t belong to the company.

Under Sec 37 (2) of the Act ‘the copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake’, the public performance of the work. Therefore in effect by allowing staff use their own radio in the workplace, you are, as their employer, authorising the use of IMRO copyright music on your premises and you must hold a licence to allow you and them to do so.

ted1

TallGlass wrote: »

You posted a link to a two page document, which doesn't answer my question. Which is if your listening to a radio station which is broadcast on FM, why do you have to pay the charges again if that FM station has paided the fee for a public broadcast.

I am not talking any rubbish what so ever, stop getting annoyed because you know I am right. What high horse? Surely if I was on the high horse I would be agreeing with you, but I am not they should have there radio.

And by your logic again, what if the taxi is a mini bus? Should they pay, or have no radio. Cop on and get a grip of yourself, the fees are paid by the radio stations, stop trying to double charge.

The link is to FAQ and deals with your question. A radio in a public place is enhancing a service which the provider is charging for. So that's why they are charged

end of the road

TallGlass wrote: »

I'm asking for someone to provide me where it states you cannot listen to an FM broadcast on a bus. The driver isn't broadcasting, he is listening to the broadcast, there is a difference. So then too the passengers should pay if they are listening to music on there iPods or FM radio and someone hears there music, they are breaking the law according to your logic.

So should I have to pay money if I drive around listening to FM104 with my windows down and someone across from me hears the music I am playing?

Stop coming up with stupid reasons to deny these guys there radio, let them have there radios is what I say. No harm at all, every single car comes with a radio shall we ban them now? Cop on.

the problem is he is right. companies have to pay for a music licence for their staff to listen to music, that includes the radio. now personally i think it's a load of nonsense, and i have strong views on these "agencies" that collect royalties, and the whole set up but thats for a different thread.

TallGlass wrote: »

You posted a link to a two page document, which doesn't answer my question. Which is if your listening to a radio station which is broadcast on FM, why do you have to pay the charges again if that FM station has paided the fee for a public broadcast.

I am not talking any rubbish what so ever, stop getting annoyed because you know I am right. What high horse? Surely if I was on the high horse I would be agreeing with you, but I am not they should have there radio.

And by your logic again, what if the taxi is a mini bus? Should they pay, or have no radio. Cop on and get a grip of yourself, the fees are paid by the radio stations, stop trying to double charge.

you are not listening to what is being said. your issue is with those who make the law. not with dublin bus.

Gator88

end of the road wrote: »

the problem is he is right. companies have to pay for a music licence for their staff to listen to music, that includes the radio. now personally i think it's a load of nonsense, and i have strong views on these "agencies" that collect royalties, and the whole set up but thats for a different thread.



you are not listening to what is being said. your issue is with those who make the law. not with dublin bus.

It's still not clear if IMRO can charge twice for the same song being played. I had a chain of Hair salons in and around Dublin from 1885 to 2008. When IMRO first hit my door I sought legal advice & found things aren't as clear cut as IMRO make out. On their second visit to my salon I told them that it is illegal to collect the same fee twice. The young guy got all huffy & left. IMRO sent me out a demand in writing & I ignored it. Most hair salons & Barber shops do the same. They are happy to collect from whoever is willing to pay but they don't want to bring anyone to court in case the judge rules against them. They wouldn't be able to collect from any business in that case.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush it seems.

Victor

Gator88 wrote: »

I had a chain of Hair salons in and around Dublin from 1885 to 2008

How old are you? :pac:

FreshCoffee

This is somewhat off-topic but the IMRO discussion is interesting. I would not be too sure that it is an issue in the Dublin Bus case.

IMRO is only one of the performing rights organisations here. Another is PPI (Phonographic Performance Ireland) which, like IMRO, tries to collect royalties where music is played 'in public'. Unfortunately for PPI, they took a case against two Dublin shoe shops in 2013 which they lost. I have not heard of any successfull appeal by PPI to this case as they appear to have lost it because of a previous European Court of Justice decision.


You can read about it here:
www.irishtimes.com/business/court-case-means-music-royalty-claims-against-retailers-now-in-doubt-1.1359057

The ECJ had previously found against the Italian equivalent of the PPI which had pursued a dentist, Marco Del Corso of Turin, whose practice had a radio playing in its reception area.

"Judge Mary Collins accepted Mr Nuding’s and Ms Heffernan’s arguments that Patrick Burke Shoes was similar to the dentist in that only small numbers of people were hearing the music at any one time. In addition, the shops were not playing the music for profit and it was not a factor in influencing whether or not people entered the stores in the first place. Judge Collins dismissed the PPI’s claim and ordered it to pay the company’s costs."


It's not really helpfull to draw from IMRO's website and quote it as a gospel position. You certainly will not find links like the above one on their website which might provide a more balanced view against their own strict position which they prefer to proffer. I suspect at least some of their revenue results from their 'bullying' of businesses who do not or cannot look to legal recourse because of the costs involved versus the cost of paying IMRO.

Kermit.de.frog

There is a simple answer to this. It's called privatisation.

chillin117

The Go To Answer for some bizarre rules everywhere...''Health & Safety''

darkpagandeath

Sure let them post on FB on their mobiles while we are at it....

chillin117

Bluetooth headset...Sorted (and easily stashed)

stoplooklisten

are you still allowed do smack on the buses?

Dr Turk Turkelton

stoplooklisten wrote: »

are you still allowed do smack on the buses?

As long as your not listening to a radio it's grand.

chillin117

stoplooklisten wrote: »

are you still allowed do smack on the buses?

Only when you have parked up at the Terminus.

stoplooklisten

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

As long as your not listening to a radio it's grand.

chillin117 wrote: »

Only when you have parked up at the Terminus.

Ah, that''s grand I was worried there for a minute they might try and close that loophole. It always was a legal grey area.

end of the road

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is a simple answer to this. It's called privatisation.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

privatization does not stop strikes or disputes. but you know this. its a "solution" because you want privatization, rather then it actually being a solution to anything (which it isn't)

somefeen

bodice ripper wrote: »

I know who they are. I haven't had a payroll team in years, probably never will have one again. But I don't doubt that if I had, they too would be cocksuckers.

Please don't use cocksucker to describe these people. Its an insult to us actual cocksuckers

Gator88

Victor wrote: »

How old are you? :pac:

I'm very slightly under 50.

andekwarhola

Haven't really followed the case as you tend to become inured to state/semi-state union antics at this stage.

Is it just for the right to listen to radio - as in recreational use - on the bus?

If so, neither come out of the fiasco looking good: the management are being a bit strict and the union sounds more than a little Citizen Smithesque.

This is probably more symptomatic of a cumulatively horrible relationship between the union and management than anything else.

suicide_circus

I'm not allowed listen to the radio in work either, better go on strike

JustShon

Looks like this one is over and done with now.

stoplooklisten

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'm not allowed listen to the radio in work either, better go on strike

don't go nuclear just yet, just spend a couple of hours per shift in the toilet

bodice ripper

Gator88 wrote: »

I'm very slightly under 50.

Any higher and the bomb arms...

stinkbomb

A great outcome for dublin bus drivers. Well done to everyone, the unions, radio nova, the public in general and individual drivers who put their heads above the parapet. It may not have been a massive issue in the grand scheme of things but for drivers like myself who love to listen to the radio, it means an awful lot.

colossus-x

weldoninhio wrote: »

Dublin Bus drivers are refusing to use the Port Tunnel from next week and looking at non-collection of fares from next week because the drivers are not allowed use a radio in their cabs.

What is the story with all of the industrial action over the pettiness of things?? Start training up bus and Luas drivers and sack the lot of the whingers. Inconveniencing thousands of people over nonsense.

I would put a tiny bluetooth device in my ear and get on with the job.