3 ms·

In Australia if you play the radio/CD/stream music in a business you have to pay a license fee. If the hairdresser turns on the radio, they have to pay. https

In Australia if you play the radio/CD/stream music in a business you have to pay a license fee. If the hairdresser turns on the radio, they have to pay. https://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au/blog/playing-music-your-workplace https://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au/blog/playing-music-your-... I'm not sure why Australians are happy with this but not with what the ACCC is doing? That said, it's fun to watch this go down.

stephen_g 6y ago
What Google and Facebook are mostly doing is telling you to go and listen to a particular song somewhere else. Linking to content. Driving valuable traffic to the content provider's sites. Their sites, where the news content providers can show their own ads... I think most Australians wouldn't be aware about the playing music in small businesses thing too, so I wouldn't use that as a benchmark.
dclusin 6y ago
That's the same in America. You need to purchase a license for the music to use in a business or buy it from a service that licenses it for use in a business.
carbonatedmilk 6y ago
That never made any sense to me either. It's not like there's a huge pool of people saying 'Oh I really like that new Taylor Swift song, should I buy the album, or just go to the hairdressing salon and listen to it there?'. It's not a substitute good. In the case of Facebook, I imagine there are people who read the headline + snippet on Facebook, look at the photo and then don't click the linked article, which seems more like actual infringement of the copyright. It's not the same as taking the entire newspaper and replacing all the ads with your own, but it's a bit like that, enough that I can see what the intention of the law was. It's all complicated by the fact that the news organisations currently facilitate the process, and obviously at some point they thought it was worth it

stephen_g 6y ago

What Google and Facebook are mostly doing is telling you to go and listen to a particular song somewhere else. Linking to content. Driving valuable traffic to the content provider's sites. Their sites, where the news content providers can show their own ads... I think most Australians wouldn't be aware about the playing music in small businesses thing too, so I wouldn't use that as a benchmark.

dclusin 6y ago

That's the same in America. You need to purchase a license for the music to use in a business or buy it from a service that licenses it for use in a business.

carbonatedmilk 6y ago

That never made any sense to me either. It's not like there's a huge pool of people saying 'Oh I really like that new Taylor Swift song, should I buy the album, or just go to the hairdressing salon and listen to it there?'. It's not a substitute good. In the case of Facebook, I imagine there are people who read the headline + snippet on Facebook, look at the photo and then don't click the linked article, which seems more like actual infringement of the copyright. It's not the same as taking the entire newspaper and replacing all the ads with your own, but it's a bit like that, enough that I can see what the intention of the law was. It's all complicated by the fact that the news organisations currently facilitate the process, and obviously at some point they thought it was worth it