SAMRO

[IMHO]

July 09
Samro settled the Brenda Fassie case out of court to avoid having their financials looked at. There was an issue of getting independent auditors and reviewers in their to scope them out, but all is quite since February this year. I do not know if there has been any follow up on this issue but it seems that samro is just there for samro, hucking all and small for a slice of their pie without offering anything in return. It would appear to be another parasitic organisation set up with good intentions but the smell of money has lured them on a different path.

I am so fed-up with all these (government?) organizations standing in a que to slurp up business profits. I pay a full SABC TV license and DSTV bouquet for every room with a TV in the guest house. Does that not cover music being played by these institutions? SAMRO insist I must pay them for every room with a TV. That can not be right? Even 'music on hold, radio station', is being slapped with a fee. I changed that to royalty free music now, but the TV's I can not get rid off.

[AndyD]

Don't worry, when SAMRO have finished pulling your pants down then SAMPRA will appear with another bill for you.

http://www.restaurant.org.za/pdf/MUS...NVIRONMENT.pdf

Some more info

COSATU were recently bemoaning the flaMboyant and arrogant nature of SAMRO

[IMHO]

How can n private room that someone rent, be classified as public? It is not a public place!

[AndyD]

What is it? ie is it a hotel or rented accomodation? See the second link I gave above for classifications of 'public performance'.

[IMHO]

Andy, thanks. I will not pay a cent again. They can fly a kite.

background users (like restaurants, retail establishments and hotels);

The room you rent with TV is not supplied with background music. Background music is played in restaurants and dining rooms in hotels, guest houses. That is public places. As I have said, I removed the music on hold and I removed the radio from the dining room. A room is as private as you can get.

I will not pay for that again!

If I could afford it, I would sue for all the money they took illegally from me.

[AndyD]

I wish you luck but once you're on their radar as a soft target I doubt they'll let you out of the net that easy.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Interesting development.

Copyright:*Shop music tariffs declared invalidThe atmospheric music played in shops has given rise to a dispute between a group of 10 major retailers – including Pick n Pay, Foschini, Mr Price and Clicks – and the SA Music Performance Rights Association (Sampra) over tariffs, notes a*Business Day*report. In a judgment delivered on Friday, Judge Legodi Phatudi, sitting in Pretoria as a commissioner of the Copyright Tribunal, found the association’s tariffs to be invalid.*Phatudi set aside Sampra’s tariffs and replaced them with lower ones, effective for the period 2008 to next year.*Phatudi said the tariffs were not determined by the economic value of the background music retailers played in their stores – there was no evidence before him that allowed him to determine such value – but rather for them to appropriately remunerate the owners of the royalties. He said that if he had confirmed the tariffs set by Sampra, some retailers might cease to play sound recordings, which would ‘change for the worse’ the ambience in public places and could also take the bread from the tables of the royalties owners. According to the report, Phatudi said post-2014 fees could be set according to the consumer price index or be agreed upon between retailers and copyright owners.

[AndyD]

I see this as good news. I also don't see how they can justify basing their charges on the perceived revenue being generated by the end use ie in this case a retail outlet.

I think there's another dspute going on between SAMRO and the event organisers of oppie koppie festival (or maybe another similar festival) where extortionate levies were made as a percentage of the gate takings. Maybe this jugement will set a helpful precident.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

This has really piqued my interest.
Ive long wondered how do they decide who gets paid what.
I understand a radio station submitting reports etc, but a restaurant, B&B, shop etc..you have no idea what music they play.
And if I play DSTV music, who already paid royalties, why pay again?
I want the muso's to make their money, but there are obviously some flaws that deserve scrutiny.

Ill try get the judgemnet in teh mean time, shoudl be interesting background in there.

[AndyD]

Yeah, the whole system is so complex I don't understand it. Samro supposedly collect on behalf of the composer and SAMPRA collect on behalf of the actual performers. Then there's some kind of needletime tax as well which I honestly can't make head or tail of.

There's several things I do know however;

1. Copyright was never about ensuring organisations or artists make money. As far as I'm concerned artists and distributors should run a business the same as anyone else and model it in such a way they can sucessfully monetise their product. Criminalising the entire populaton so every time their phone has a ringtone or they blog about their favoutite movies or songs by the introduction of protectionist laws isn't an acceptable state of affairs.

2. The entire set up is one massive cash cow for just about everyone except the artists whom it's supposed to be protecting. Yeah 0.001% of the artists make massive money but if you're not in that bracket you're lucky if you make enough money to feed yourself.