I agree that if you make money from playing, performing, or otherwise re-selling/re-packaging Other People's Music, you should pay fees for such usage. If you use music in a soundtrack, you should pay. If you use music to draw people into your nightclub, office, or other place of business, you should pay. If you run a radio station, even an Internet webcast, you should still pay.

Likewise, the people who are downloading whole albums, burning them and reselling them, like they do over in Europe and Asia, should pay for the privilege. After all, they are making a PROFIT from the activity.

And that's where my personal disconnect with P2P is. I firmly believe that the people who stand to PROFIT from re-distribution of music (and that includes audible broadcast and performance) should have to abide by licensing terms.

The grey area is in the consumer arena. Call my cynical, but I truly believe that in ten years, there will be almost NO money to be made in selling recorded music to the Average Joe or Jane.

But back to the latest point: if the dentist's office in question is paying a subscription fee to a piped-in musak service, then he/she shouldn't have to pay AGAIN to allow the music to be heard by people in the waiting room. If it's just a radio tuned to an FM station, the station pays for it in the form of PRO fees. In any case, the real question is: does this person substantially profit from use of the music and therefore pay a licensing fee? In the case of the dentist, my gut reaction is a firm "no."

------------------
Scott Andrew and the Walkingbirds
DIY acoustic pop and weirdo country thing
Hear it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/music
Buy it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/records

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 09-24-2003).]