[sneakernets]

I had written (in college) a small story about an "RIAA Task Force" collaborating with the FBI to raid small brick-and-mortar businesses with occupants above some fabled "listener limit" that dared to have an FM Radio or iPod connected to a boombox in the corner of the store somewhere. Everything from Barbershops to Butchershops were raided, and the small infringing devices confiscated.

Given that the RIAA tried to sue a grandmother once, This wasn't too far-fetched.

[greedo]

Actually it would be either ASCAP or BMI that enforces this fee. When I owned a small restaurant, I had to pay for the privilege of playing CDs over a stereo.

[dls2016]

ASCAP shakes down bars all the time.

https://pitchfork.com/news/ascap-hit-multiple-us-bars-with-c...

[jacquesm]

You think that's fiction? In NL we actually have this...

[cprecioso]

I live in NL and have never learned about this, do you have any more info?

[jacquesm]

https://sena.nl/nl

[ikeyany]

Why is it illegal to amplify music in your store if you paid for the music?

[bhelkey]

Should it be legal to create a drive-in that plays movies off of Netflix?

[Nextgrid]

Unpopular opinion, but I would say yes.

It doesn’t cost Netflix any more money whether one person or 10 people are watching a particular subscription.

I’d say the major appeal of the drive-in is the venue and all the accessories (big screen, sound, etc) - otherwise you’d just pay for Netflix yourself and watch it at home.

[icebraining]

> otherwise you’d just pay for Netflix

Yes, that's the point: if not for the drive-in, you'd pay for Netflix.

A more interesting question is: why can't one create that drive-in, as long as only Netflix subscribers can enter? If "it's a license, not a product" like these companies shout, trying to prevent legitimate ownership rights, the license should work anywhere.

[deelowe]

Opportunity cost is real...

[Nextgrid]

I mean I understand both sides of the argument, but it seems like physical goods manufacturers are doing fine without enforcing restrictions on how their goods are used (I am free to buy an off-the-shelf power tool and then rent it out without paying extra to the manufacturer), so why are we giving this exception to content producers?

In my opinion the law should be changed that content you pay for can be used as you wish except copying (otherwise you'd just copy it and resell). It'll drive up the prices of the "source" content, but the market will quickly fill the gap by offering affordable access to broadcasted versions of such content.

[ikeyany]

Yes. It shouldn't be illegal to have music playing in your store if the music isn't the attraction.

[SomeOldThrow]

Yes.

[jefftk]

Public performance rights are handled separately from private listening.

[ikeyany]

There is a line between a public performance and background noise.

[thatoneuser]

Because media owners paid off enough law makers such that they have insane control over how people use their products. It's analogous to a car manufacturer putting a device in your car that will drive it back to the lot if you let someone else drive it. Except it's all over software - something that costs virtually nothing if lost.

This is only for the big guys tho. Little guys get screwed harder than before.