GMM Grammy threatens to enforce intellectual property rights

[Thaivisa News]

Bangkok: – The entertainment powerhouse, GMM Grammy, has issued a warning on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The warning reminds proprietors of restaurants, pubs, bars, karaoke boxes and entertainment venues to seek advance permission and pay licensing fees before turning on the music and music videos under the GMM label.

This applies to the rebroadcast through YouTube. The company argues that YouTube is for private viewing and not for public places.

Responding to such warning, a legal website, operated by lawyer Krisada Duangcha-um, has posted a Supreme Court ruling in 2010 which said licensing fees apply in cases of using the music labels for profit seeking.

In the landmark decision, the high court said the music labels can demand licensing fees only if entertainment proprietors have added extra charges or earned profits for turning on the music or music videos.

The case involving a restaurant in Rayong was dismissed because the prosecution could not prove additional revenues or profits derived from the music played.

GMM Grammy owns the licenses for some 24,074 songs.

The company sets the annual fee of 600 baht per karaoke box with up to seven per cent discount for yearly payment in lieu of monthly instalment.

For restaurant under 80 seats, the fee is 8,000 baht per year. Department stores and supermarkets with less than 5,000-meter space would be charged 25,000 baht per year.

Airlines would have to pay 600 baht per flight.

The licensing fee for radio broadcast is 7.5 per cent of revenues. Music compilation publication is charged 150 baht per song lyrics.

[dragonfly94]

They need to crack down on pirated albums, that's what is really hurting them. Without that there would not be such a need to chase up you tube use and restaurants.

[JOC]

It might come as a surprise for GMM Grammy that their fees have collected for years by the Police!!

[alant]

"This applies to the rebroadcast through YouTube. The company argues that YouTube is for private viewing and not for public places"

What does Google say about that?

[trogers]

A barking dog seldom bite!

[khwaibah]

It might come as a surprise for GMM Grammy that their fees have collected for years by the Police!!

Yes sir..The Music Police are rubbing their hands.

[Lupatria]

Looking at all the roadside vendors in this country I assume there's a lot more pirated stuff for sale than the genuine items in the stores.

[Anthony5]

Where I come from you pay a license for playing music every year to a governing body who distributes the fee to every specific licensee.

If you don't pay they lock your door.

Thailand should have the same, a single organisation that acts as an umbrella for the multiple licensees.

[NickJ]

They will not tell you what songs they 'protect' and when the musicmafia show up they would have you believe that no matter what is playing they get money

[Bluespunk]

"This applies to the rebroadcast through YouTube. The company argues that YouTube is for private viewing and not for public places."

Is this assumption correct?

[CantSpell]

Aye, because GMM Grammy doesn't make enough money already.....

[Seastallion]

I don't condone pirating; it's theft of IP.

What gets me, though, is that if I pay for the IP, say I buy a CD, if that CD gets broken, I have to pay again. The medium broke, but I still own the IP....I should only have to pay for a new piece of plastic (the medium) and the IP licensee should not charge me for the IP all over again....just the medium and the cost of copying.

[SABloke]

GMM and IP rights You know that time when you're listening to a Thai pop song and you start humming it, because the melody reminds you of an English song's...that's because IT IS.

[dragonfly94]

Aye, because GMM Grammy doesn't make enough money already.....

It's a business not a charity, why should people use their wares to help themselves make money without paying something for it?

[dragonfly94]

GMM and IP rights You know that time when you're listening to a Thai pop song and you start humming it, because the melody reminds you of an English song's...that's because IT IS.

Lets have just the one example then please

[dragonfly94]

I don't condone pirating; it's theft of IP.

What gets me, though, is that if I pay for the IP, say I buy a CD, if that CD gets broken, I have to pay again. The medium broke, but I still own the IP....I should only have to pay for a new piece of plastic (the medium) and the IP licensee should not charge me for the IP all over again....just the medium and the cost of copying.

Did you know Grammy sell off their old stuff through Imagine and other outlets at as low as 25baht for a CD/VCD?, hardly breaking the bank if you break the original.

Edited March 19, 2015 by dragonfly94

[wave]

"This applies to the rebroadcast through YouTube. The company argues that YouTube is for private viewing and not for public places."

Is this assumption correct?

When you post a video on youtube you can set it to private viewing.....only people you wish to share with would be able to access the link.

GMM would not upload their videos as private but public, as it would defeat the purpose of promoting the artists, furthermore I imagine that GMM are already receiving some ad revenue from Google by having their own youtube channel.

If this is the case, they are asking to be paid twice.

Would GMM be willing to share any monies they collect from bars, restaurants or shops with youtube on the basis that they are providing the platform....I somehow doubt it.

[dragonfly94]

The reason Grammy set up their own channel was not to make money as such from YT but to promote their artists and to counter the crap quality of their material uploaded by the public. Grammy's material is set to public, but that does not imply it;'s for free public broadcasting by other businesses.

[maidee]

this start to sound like the extortion in my home country from the "music lobby" aka maffia

after money from doctors waiting room music to private offices who do not get any visitors, but still are made to pay fees for playing even a cd that someone bought & paid taxes on

[dragonfly94]

You are from Italy then?

[wave]

The reason Grammy set up their own channel was not to make money as such from YT but to promote their artists and to counter the crap quality of their material uploaded by the public. Grammy's material is set to public, but that does not imply it;'s for free public broadcasting by other businesses.

Nonetheless Grammy would be receiving ad revenue from Youtube

Many businesses already pay fees to Grammy (and other labels) for the right of Public Performance. This should cover any Public Performance of the companies copyrights.

I'd imagine what Grammy are whinging about is that no longer will they be able to bust in to someones business, remove the computer, search the hard drive to find some of their material on it. If being streamed from you tube it is somewhat harder to prove infringement....

You could equally argue that due to the ad supported model of you tube any business playing this material has fair usage rights as each play would derive income for the copyright holder.

Interestingly the OP it refers to a landmark court ruling ...."the high court said the music labels can demand licensing fees only if entertainment proprietors have added extra charges or earned profits for turning on the music or music videos." which I imagine draws in to question the legality of fee collection from many establishments already.

[dragonfly94]

GMM is a public company that has a duty to it's shareholders, but I don't think that includes breaking into peoples computers. Their digital TV is yet to make any money and the share price, from what I recall, is not recovered to the 97/98 days. Although they did have a good year in 2012. They are as justified to go after licence money as a cable TV concern is from people bootlegging their service or a software company taking action over copied material.

[khunPer]

»GMM Grammy owns the licenses for some 24,074 songs.«

24 thousand songs are minor - other similar organization abroad represent millions of songs, close to all recorded music.

[dragonfly94]

so what has that to do with GMM and Thailand?

[apetley]

GMM and IP rights You know that time when you're listening to a Thai pop song and you start humming it, because the melody reminds you of an English song's...that's because IT IS.

Lets have just the one example then please

Wifey was listening to some Carabao the other day and one of the riffs was practically note perfect for some GnR's.

[wave]

GMM is a public company that has a duty to it's shareholders, but I don't think that includes breaking into peoples computers. Their digital TV is yet to make any money and the share price, from what I recall, is not recovered to the 97/98 days. Although they did have a good year in 2012. They are as justified to go after licence money as a cable TV concern is from people bootlegging their service or a software company taking action over copied material.

Of course they are justified to collect license money but they are already receiving compensation for public performance via their you tube channel.

Are they able to collect it twice?

Would be interesting to see whether they would be able to successfully pursue a court case based on this.

[useronthenet]

Amazing .. when it effects Thais then something is done. When piracy only involves foreign content no problem, carry-on as usual !

[dragonfly94]

GMM and IP rights You know that time when you're listening to a Thai pop song and you start humming it, because the melody reminds you of an English song's...that's because IT IS.

Lets have just the one example then please

Wifey was listening to some Carabao the other day and one of the riffs was practically note perfect for some GnR's.

Well Carabao is utter crap anyway IMO would not be surprised he copied, it's just western music with Thai words and he's not progressed in 30 years. He could not even give his band a Thai name, can't stand the bloke.

[kurce]

So GMM want venues to pay to promote there artists for free to the public through a free platform.

GMM benefits by having there artists exposed to a larger number of people for free. In return the venue is able to provide entertainment for its customers for free.

I certainly can't understand why GMM wouldn't be happy about having there artists exposed to larger numbers of the public at no cost to them.

I guess GMM only want themselves to benefit form what should be seen as a fair trade off between promotion and entertainment.

Time to pop down to the local for a few and listen to some Thai tunes on You Tube that I would never of heard before if it were not for the bar promoting GMMs' artist for free and providing entertainment for free in return.

Cheers.

[SoilSpoil]

I don't condone pirating; it's theft of IP.

What gets me, though, is that if I pay for the IP, say I buy a CD, if that CD gets broken, I have to pay again. The medium broke, but I still own the IP....I should only have to pay for a new piece of plastic (the medium) and the IP licensee should not charge me for the IP all over again....just the medium and the cost of copying.

How true. Most music I download are albums or cd's I once bought.