Historicist: Life in Wartime
Vandalist: Ripple Effect
Toronto Will Host 2015 Pan American Games
Weekend Planner: November 7–8, 2009
Spiral Beach have found themselves in a spot of trouble. As detailed a week and a half ago in both NOW and Eye, the band got hit with a $1470 bill [PDF] from EcoMedia Direct for putting up eight posters for last month's Opera House show on eight of the company's "SilverBox and Heritage Box Recycling Bins." Again, that's $1470 for eight small posters, like the one above made by Spiral Beach singer/keyboardist Maddy Wilde. As the letter from EcoMedia CEO Erich Genseberger emphatically points out, the bins "constitute private property," and the unauthorized postering is a "serious breach of [EcoMedia's] rights." The bill, sent to the Opera House and passed on to the band, listed the cost of "cleaning and removal of posters on boxes" as $780, "inspection and collection of evidence" as $320, and an "administration fee" of $300, plus $70 for GST.
As Eye pointed out, "the band were clearly at fault for their illegal postering—and happy to admit as much—but EcoMedia's fine did seem rather excessive." (NOW quoted Brent Bowman, of Goodbye Graffiti, who estimated that cleanup ought to have cost about $50 per poster. But Genseberger told Eye that "the cost for cleaning is much higher than we charge for it." So if you want to totally bankrupt EcoMedia, one hundred posters or so oughta do it.) And the fine may not just be excessive—it might be totally unnecessary. Rami Tabello wrote on IllegalSigns.ca that, because "EcoMedia’s contract with the City of Toronto requires it to keep their bins clean of posters" and "the amount of money EcoMedia pays the City of Toronto in return for the right to advertise on the bins was negotiated with the full knowledge that it would cost EcoMedia money to keep the bins clean," EcoMedia is "already being paid by the City of Toronto a fixed amount to keep [their] bins clean." The company, Tabello concludes, "is now engaged in an appalling shakedown scheme whereby it is seeking to be paid twice for the same thing." Moreover, Tabello believes, EcoMedia's bill constitutes a breach of their contract with the City.
While all this has been going on, Spiral Beach has been trying to come up with the money they need to pay back EcoMedia. Two weekends ago, they busked at Brunswick and Bloor, outside the ROM, and in Kensington Market; this past weekend, they played NXNE at the Horseshoe Tavern. And now, this Friday, the band is headlining a fundraising "Anti-Anti-Postering Show" at the Whippersnapper Gallery (587a College Street). In addition to sets from the band (as well as The Miles, Pavlov's Dogs Orchestra, Carmen Elle, DJs H Mom and Hard Dough), the famed comic strip itself will be auctioned off, cover is pay-what-you-can ($10 recommended), it's all-ages, and "the show will run VERY late." Call the doctor! Call the police! Call the hair stylist! Call the deep-sea diver! (Particularly if they have deep pockets.)
EcoMedia's militancy, of course, is both unwarranted and unparalled. If the City was this strict on the dozens upon dozens of illegal signs put up by major corporations on their watch, most of the advertising companies in the city would have been forced out of business—or at least forced to stop illegally advertising—long ago. Instead, a local band who pocketed a grand total of no more than $200 from their Opera House gig is getting hammered because of eight small posters unceremoniously stuck onto garbage bins (and not even the prettier ones). When will Astral and Titan get slammed for six or seven figures? And, more pertinently: when they need to fundraise to cover the costs, who will play bass?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
wait...
let me get this straight...
The activist that runs a web site dedicated to illegal advertising in Toronto is supportive of these particular illegal advertisements?
THAT IS COMIC GOLD!
p.s.
the amount of money EcoMedia pays the City of Toronto in return for the right to advertise on the bins was negotiated with the full knowledge that it would cost EcoMedia money to keep the bins clean
≠
already being paid by the City of Toronto a fixed amount to keep [their] bins clean.
Therefore
already being paid by the City of Toronto a fixed amount to keep [their] bins clean.
≠
is now engaged in an appalling shakedown scheme whereby it is seeking to be paid twice for the same thing.
so if anyone else did it would be bad but we should make an exception for a band or aknowledge it was bad but forgive the fine? logic is not your strong suit, Torontoist...and way to go on the inflammatory language: 'militancy' is sure to inspire hate on EcoMedia's - yay!
tl;dr
Also I have a funny feeling david topping is supporting breaking the law - but that's just hunch.
Meh, postering is such a waste of time anyways.
Spiral Beach are pretty good, maybe the publicity they get from this whole incident will get them a record deal or sell some albums...
It looks like the only company cited is the Opera House? Where is it mentioned that the company is going after the band? Did the opera house go after them?
"The activist that runs a web site dedicated to illegal advertising in Toronto is supportive of these particular illegal advertisements?"
I get the impression that Mr Tabello is anti-ecoMedia, not pro-postering. This seems like a pretty straightforward distinction to me.
torontothegreat, you can't infer "support" for something based on what's available here. Though I don't speak for Rami, nowhere on his blog post does he commend Spiral Beach for what they did. I've sent an e-mail to Rami seeing if he wants to drop a comment here either way.
While we're on the topic of wrong conclusions, panko (or, sigh, matty), nowhere at any point in my article does it say that I think anything like this: "if anyone else did it would be bad but we should make an exception for a band or aknowledge it was bad but forgive the fine." The opinion that most closely matches my own begins the second paragraph, and it's from Eye: the band broke the law and deserves to be punished for it, but I think the punishment dolled out here is extraordinarily excessive for the crime. And the word "militancy" is not inflammatory, it's appropriate: in one of its primary senses (per the OED) it means "Combative; aggressively persistent; strongly espousing a cause; entrenched, adamant." Those words all describe how EcoMedia has acted—initially and to this day—for this case.
And rej, EcoDirect Media is the company demanding payment from the band. (For the record, I mention their name twelve times in the four paragraph–long article.) They own the garbage and recycling bins in question. The Opera House hosted the band's show, and was served with a letter—which they then passed along to the band.
Bands have a global culture of non-compliance with the law. Bands are erecting illegal advertisements all over the world, wherever they can get away with it. In Toronto, this renegade, lawless industry has been acting with impunity due to bureaucratic negligence.
Our Streets are where civic capital is created. Bands monetize our civic capital, under no colour of right, by treating citizens as consumers first. Bands commodify what is unique about our neighbourhoods by turning our Streets into pages of a mass-market magazine, without regard to the law. Join us as we fight to legalize and democratize Toronto’s visual environment. Join us as we fight to Reclaim the Streets.
Why not petition for a public billboard? Duh.
>I think the punishment dolled out here is extraordinarily excessive for the crime
as my father used to say:
"Don't trouble, trouble and trouble won't trouble you"
OR
"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"
Regardless if they 'feel' it's excessive (they can write a letter to the editor and talk about their feelings). They did it, without giving it any thought at all. I suppose they'll think twice about it next time, to which the hammer of the law has proven to be extremely swift & efficient.
No doubt the company is playing its heavy hand, but the suggestion by the author that EcoDirect should come under scrutiny for seeking compensation for a breach of its rights because the City is absolutely clueless in the defence of its rights is a really odd one.
And I agree with the commentator who pointed out that the illegal signs activist's argument doesn't make any sense. All the contract specifies is that the company (and not the city) is responsible for the costs of its clean-up. Nowhere does it say or imply that they can't seek recourse against third parties who cause damages.
From Rami: "Illegalsigns.ca 100% supports the right to poster."
David, just because a dictionary definition can fit into your context, use of specific words is still a cognizant choice. And in this context 'militancy' reads more aggresive then 'adamant' for example.
Look up a very interesting editiorial from The Economist a few (?) years back where the newspaper explained why it retired phrases like: inflation rates shot through the roof or stock market plunged in favor of more appropriate and, at the same time, less anthropomirphic wording.
In any case, if many people draw 'wrong' conclusions from an article, shouldn't the writer be worried about the clarity of his or her argument?
Of course "militancy" was a cognizant choice (and an aggressive word). I like it, and I stand by my use of it. (And I'd like to read the Economist article if you can find it—while looking for it, I found a few articles that seem to demonstrate the magazine hasn't retired those phrases you mentioned.)
"In any case, if many people draw 'wrong' conclusions from an article, shouldn't the writer be worried about the clarity of his or her argument?"
In some cases, yes—but one person (matty doesn't count; he didn't read the article) isn't many. This article was pretty lucid, whether you agreed with it or not.
I wouldn't pay if I was in Spiral Beach. EcoMedia has no right to issue fines or cleaning bills and expect to be paid without a legal fight.
EcoMedia != City of Toronto.
Ridiculous. Should stores be allowed to fine you for not buying anything, and therefore loitering? Maybe taxi drivers should be able to issue traffic tickets too.
rek, your hyperbolic examples are a bit silly. Of course EcoMedia has no authority to compel them to pay. If you read the letter it is a request for payment followed by a threat of legal action if payment isn't forthcoming, i.e., the same thing you would get from any private party if you caused them damage and they were setting up a lawsuit. The band could of course fight it
You were probably misled by the author and his confused comparison of Ecomedia and the City. The City of Toronto in this scenario is just a private contractual party.
>torontothegreat, you can't infer "support" for something based on what's available here.
David. I'm not.
Read the (Rami's) blog post, it's pretty obvious who Rami supports here, and it's the illegal advertiser.
earth to torontoist. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The existence of Illegal advertising does not mean that graffitti is OK.
Both are wrong.
I make band posters and I've never received a fine. Probably because they go in record store windows and bars, not wheatpasted to garbage cans or walls.
No sympathy for these guys.
x_the_x: So in other words "EcoMedia has no right to issue fines or cleaning bills and expect to be paid without a legal fight" like I said. Thank you.
Legal fight?
lmao! Almost as gold as Rami supporting this.
what legal fight? They did it, they had their band name and a future venue/date where the company could find them to issue the order... GENIUS! What they did is not only illegal (criminally) they are libel for damages on private property.
They have no 'fight', if they really wanted to waste their money (and it would be a waste of money to 'fight' it), they should've just paid for legal outdoor advertising.
for 1500 bucks they could have called up Astral and got some bus shelters lol
I have to wonder how different the tone of/content of the story would be if we replaced the band's name with *local corporation here*, say Bell, Rogers, Shopper's Drug Mart et al...
If the author wrote gleefully about that hypothetical situation, then they should really question themselves and their train of thought.
rek: saying they have no right to make them pay is not the same as saying they have no authority to make a demand. You seem outraged by the latter.
If anyone's interested (matty?) you can also buy another one of the originals on eBay. (There are, apparently, a few originals.)