Mr. Burger shut down by copyright authorities

[Poagao]

Mr. Burger, just behind the Red House theater square in Ximending, has been shut down by MUST (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090625/0154055355.shtml), a copyright group with superpowers, as it was playing ICRT and had the TV on in the restaurant. The owner told me that even if he shut off the TV sets, MUST was asking for NT$250,000 a month just to play ICRT or any other station, or else they'd sue and win. Apparently MUST has been going after smaller fish lately as the big boys aren't paying out as much.

Anyway, so long to the best vinaigrette omelets I've had in a long time.

[housecat]

That doesn't make any kinda sense to me. I've been in many bars/restaurants, here and in other countries, that have television or radios playing. Where's the copyright infringement in that?

If MUST authorizes the music/visual content to be played on the raidio/tv, then that's that. They can't then go into someone's home or business and tell them that they aren't authorized to view/listen to the content played on the tv or radio. Right? I mean, the Mr. Burger place isn't playing original copies of this content. Right?

[ceevee369]

First, I think your posting related to the link from 2009 is not relevant as to show MUST's "power"

Second: MUST, PRS in the UK, SABAM in Belgium - they are all the same - protecting copyright / income on artist's music / video. They do their job.
Now, I doubt the sum of 250.000 per month. There must be a rationale calculation behind this which is unclear and looks much too big (They ain't Luxy )

Last but not least - Why the hell would Mr. Burger prefer closing their doors vs. removing all audio/video equipment?
There might be another "real" story hidden behind pointing to MUST for this closure me think.

Sorry for your loss in regards to the food

[finley]

That doesn't make any kinda sense to me. I've been in many bars/restaurants, here and in other countries, that have television or radios playing. Where's the copyright infringement in that?

If you play radio or TV in public you need a "public performance license". However, like ceevee said, I really doubt that there was 250K involved, and if they'd taken it to court the judiciary would have given them the blink-blink-what's-the-problem-does-not-compute response normally associated with copyright violations, building code breaches, pollution, drunk driving, etc etc.

The restaurant could have made it all go away by simply switching to a local station that doesn't care about collecting royalties. There must be more to this than the OP suggests. Mafia involvement?

Having said that, the techdirt story does sound like the sort of stupid crap that petty bureaucrats get up to.

[ceevee369]

There must be more to this than the OP suggests. Mafia involvement?

Ta-Da ! There's the potential answer

[Poagao]

First, I think your posting related to the link from 2009 is not relevant as to show MUST's "power"

Second: MUST, PRS in the UK, SABAM in Belgium - they are all the same - protecting copyright / income on artist's music / video. They do their job.
Now, I doubt the sum of 250.000 per month. There must be a rationale calculation behind this which is unclear and looks much too big (They ain't Luxy )

Last but not least - Why the hell would Mr. Burger prefer closing their doors vs. removing all audio/video equipment?
There might be another "real" story hidden behind pointing to MUST for this closure me think.

Sorry for your loss in regards to the food

It was just a reference to how they operate. None of the artists get any of the "protection money"; it all goes to MUST's pockets. I suppose you could say that that is "doing their job", but it's laughable to think that musicians, especially little-known ones, benefit in any way from their actions. MUST's lawsuits have been challenged before in courts and they've always won. And it wouldn't matter if they played another station. They could be playing the Muddy Basin Ramblers CD and still be sued, because apparently any content creators are, according to the MUST chapter, automatically members unless they file an application renouncing their automatic membership. We could even play our own music and be shut down under the same rules.

I agree that mafia involvement is likely the most accurate reason for the uncanny power of MUST.

[housecat]

I must say, if this is really so, it's pure irony at its deepest and darkest!

[finley]

It was just a reference to how they operate. None of the artists get any of the "protection money"; it all goes to MUST's pockets. I suppose you could say that that is "doing their job", but it's laughable to think that musicians, especially little-known ones, benefit in any way from their actions. MUST's lawsuits have been challenged before in courts and they've always won.

That makes absolutely no legal or logical sense, even by Taiwan's flexible standards of logic. In other jurisdictions, that's racketeering. I can't imagine the mafia are NOT involved in this. If they're not, they must be crazy, because it sounds like an excellent scam.

[baberenglish]

Just ask for a contract through them and you will never see them again. They are nothing. I here this shit every few years. Those who pay are suckers.

[Deuce Dropper]

Just ask for a contract through them and you will never see them again. They are nothing. I here this shit every few years. Those who pay are suckers.

can you elaborate on this 'ask for a contract through them' technique?