Need some Good Legal Music

[davecom]

Hi I'm from www.merrickradio.com and we are in need of some good (rock/pop) music that is legal to broadcast with shoutcast and won't cost us anything.

Thanks,
Dave

BTW we're using Shoutcast under FreeBSD and it is MUCH more stable than our previous Win 98 setup.

[LollipopLustKil]

Buy the CDs, then it's legal. (I think)

[davecom]

Ofcourse I buy my CDs, but it's not legal to broadcast them without paying a ton of licensing fees. We're looking for royalty-free music or artists that allow web broadcasting.

[LollipopLustKil]

Well, find some smaller bands, and ask them if they would be intrested. That's what I've done. I've found small bands and e-mailed them and asked if they want to be broadcasted on an online radio. They gladly accepted. Don't try for bigger bands, they will just spit on you.

[SorceryKid]

For starters:

http://mp3.com/
http://besonic.com/
http://iuma.com/

Contact the artists. Most are more than eager to send you promo materials to play on the air.

--Randall

__________________
Director of Technology
SWCast.net - "The Future of Webcasting"
http://swcast.net/images/banner2.gif

[DJ Killer]

i say this, cd's are considered your legal payment ot the artists for royalty, i stream them for one reason. Tell me what part of the cd says this production cannot be streamed or publically broadcast. End of discussion. You fufilled your legal obligation, if they want any more money, thats your defense, works every time, because if they want us to pay, then god damnit so should the physical place dj's at clubs, so should grocery stores, etc... so bring it on RIAA!!!!

other than that, i run a mini record company coincidently that started only because of a band seeing us on shoutcast, liking our stream, recommending their music to us, and well all the rest you should figure out ;)

[SorceryKid]

Grocery stores and shopping malls do pay licensing fees for public performance of music. As do other commercial establishments including but not limited to amusement parks, restaurants, danceclubs, discotheques, nightclubs, bowling alleys, FM and AM radio stations, mobile disc jockey services.

Copyright law in the United States prohibits public performance of musical compositions and recordings without licensing. This is not written on the CD -- it is enforced by Federal legislation (see US-Code Title 17).

The cost of the CD compensates the producers, publishers, and artists for consumers' personal use only. This "Fair Use" does not permit a consumer taking advantage of someone else's copyrighted work for commercial or public purposes without legal authorization and monetary compensation (typically such rates are set by statute).

--Randall

[DJ Killer]

negatory, every radio station i talked to in my area, doesen't pay a dime... nor do the stores, i have confirmed this with several, but maybe they lied. We are promoting their god damn artists, they should be paying us!

(is very vocal about paying RIAA... lol)

[LollipopLustKil]

Obviously :p

[SorceryKid]

People that do wrongs, don't make it a right.

The vast majority of artists and songwriters see relatively little money from sales of CDs. Most of it goes to the record companies and producers. I wish I could find the article (I believe it's on ASCAP's site), but artists and songwriters almost always benefit more from public performance royalties than from purchases of CDs.

Ripping off artists and songwriters for their hard work is definitely not going to stop the RIAA, whose sole interest is in representing their own recording labels (the recording labels, who typically rip off the artists already as it is).

--Randall

[DJ Killer]

Well, if i got money from ads, i could see how taking advantage comes in, but if there is no ads, how can i be taking advantage?

and who's problem is it that the artists arent getting the money from cd's? hm... (is not going to point fingers)

There are hundreds of thousands of dj's who play at parties, and they dont pay... this is just another way to take money... i see it as this way. my station grosses no revenue, period. So if they want to take the 0% from me each month, go ahead, there is a whole bunch of nothing for them ;)

It should not be our responsibility to pay for the shortfalls of the record industry, let alone, how do they calculate the "royalties" for lets say an FM Station, if they cant accurately calculate the users?

[SorceryKid]

From what I recall, License fees for FM stations are typically a rate based on percentage of revenue generated and a minimum yearly fee (whichever is more). However, FM stations (as long as they are not simulcasting on the Web) are currently only responsible for obtaining licensing for use of the musical works (through ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC), not the sound recordings (SoundExchange and RoyaltyLogic).

There are special licensing rates for non-commercial Webcasters. But the principle is still the same. Use the music, and pay for it. As long as you are broadcasting someone else's intellectual property, you are benefiting. Even if it is not a commercial benefit, the music being used -- that someone else created and that someone else own's the legal rights too -- is adding value to your broadcast.

Remember, when you buy a CD you are only buying the media itself and a license for personal use. You are not buying ownership of the musical work or the sound recording contained on the CD. Those rights are still owned in-full by the person who created them. It is a founding principal of copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/about.html

Authors, publishers, and producers shouldn't have to pay anyone for other people's unauthorized use of their creations. That is the protection they are afforded by the U.S. Constitution.

--Randall

[DJ Killer]

Then there is no use in purchasing CD's obviously. You mighta s well pirate the music you distribute because you end up paying more royalties in the end are u not?

[DJHotIce]

pfft all I can think of is "What a wonderful world" wait I can't play that thats a copyrighted song!


ahh Back to the drawin board (I sure hope thats not a copyrighted song!)

[DJ Killer]

hahahaha nice one djhotice

well, i read the copyright law... heres an excerpt

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit

If its for non-profit use, it can be used freely. If the law is too confusing, i guess they need to fix it. The above constitutes a fair right defense. If my radio station. KRR was made as a non-profit organization to educate the public or my listeners on the mainstream and new music, how could the stream be illegal? muahaha...

Loopholes in laws i see... i will find the loops, and will use them to my full extent, but unless the RIAA or government bitches at me, they can take a hike.
educational purposes;

[JonB]

Originally posted by DJ Killer
hahahaha nice one djhotice

well, i read the copyright law... heres an excerpt

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit

If its for non-profit use, it can be used freely. If the law is too confusing, i guess they need to fix it. The above constitutes a fair right defense. If my radio station. KRR was made as a non-profit organization to educate the public or my listeners on the mainstream and new music, how could the stream be illegal? muahaha...

Loopholes in laws i see... i will find the loops, and will use them to my full extent, but unless the RIAA or government bitches at me, they can take a hike.
educational purposes;


so if it is for non profit then you do not have to pay a fee?

[LollipopLustKil]

Nope. Nice work on DJ Killer for taking the extra step and looking it up.

[DJ Killer]

thnx lollipoplustkil.

Well from what im reading, you dont, there are some strings to that, which you have to prove that you are doing it for educational use, which i can to an extent, and i also tend to play more unknown than known artists, and i still see the fact that if i was a regular joe wanting to stream, and i had some cd's, the cd's say nothing about do anything or paying royalties, so i would assume its ok. Its the lack of knowledge fo the law in the US.

So in effect, if you were taken to court, the lack of knowledge could help you, but the fact is, the law is too damn complicated and in this world, people cant afford legal counseling, so i continue my movements and actions, and until someone stops me, im gonna keep going. I see no problem with it, but thats me.

[JonB]

All I have to say is great job DJ Killer!

[SorceryKid]

For a broadcast to be educational, it must be representative of an accredited educational curriculum or institution. And for it to be non-commercial, it must have filed for non-profit/tax-exempt status with the IRS.

There are licensing fees for noncommercial and commercial broadcasts. As stated previously, it has nothing to do with what is printed on the CD. Copyright law protects artistic works regardless of what is printed on the media itself.

If someone buys a photograph, for example, that doesn't give the person the the right to republish that same photograph on a Website or even on a postcard (free or for profit) without the express permission of the original photographer. The same restrictions apply to music. Streaming is a form of publication, and requires licensing. Even community colleges (which are educational institutions themselves) must still pay a fee for their student-operated radio station. SoundExchange recently worked out a deal to provide more affordable licensing rates for schools as well as non-commercial Internet broadcasters.

--Randall

[DJ Killer]

ok, the regular old joe is not going to read into the damn law, so what im tring to say, is most of the time, their crap will have no bearing. Regardless, RIAA and them will not go after you unless your radiostorm or something like that... im not going to pay any "Corporate Entity" who claims to pay these artists and then get gyped or find out it doesent go to them, screw that.

I can make a security site, showing vulnerabilities, that would be educational, you dont have to be accredited or any shit like that, i know that for a fact. Organizations CAN file with the IRS or with their residing state for that matter, but chances are, its not going to cause any commotion whether your registered or not.

Publication is considered a permanent record and unles the websters dictionary changed to add "streaming" to publication, then i dont see any issues. Like it says in the dictionary:

"pub·li·ca·tion Pronunciation Key (pbl-kshn)
n. The act or process of publishing printed matter.
An issue of printed material offered for sale or distribution. Communication of information to the public."

let alone, our government is not making action to make a SINGLE provider for licensing of copyrighted works. If they cannot provide this, i am not going to get into any "licenses" because i will be paying probably SoundExchange, ASCAP, and BMI for the same fucking artist and waste money in the process. Its not worth it. When the industry learns to organize itself, i may think differently, but until then, im not bothering to waste my time paying them or lining anyones pockets who provide services who do it.

Again, my opinions and im quite vocal as you can tell, but money is precious in this world and unless you got a billion dollars sitting, the RIAA ain't gonna touch you. Let alone, street teams should be shot execution style, since that would be distribution or a form of publication which they didnt pay for the paper license, so they are comitting a crime.

Welcome to the new world, where laws are demented and the government is corrupted, bad thing is, nobody does a damn thing about it, and they let it go on.... PATHETIC!

[SorceryKid]

Terms in the legal sense often have less of correlation with their denotational meaning.

In this case, the "concept of publication" of copyrighted music has a far greater connection to Internet broadcasting than terrestrial radio (due to the digital copies of the sound recording being created during transmission).

The distinction between entertainment and education is cut and dry, and would not pass muster in the court of law. Accredation is by no means necessary, but the fair use in coursework has far greater exemption potential than an anonymous person claiming to be using copyrighted material for educational purposes during an entertainment Webcast.

How you file for non-profit status is irrelavent. But ASCAP, BMI, and SoundExchange all require proof of eligibility from the IRS.

The government doesn't create royalty agencies, they create and enforce the statutory terms and rates which apply to the royalty agencies. ASCAP for example, is owned and operated by the composers and songwriters whom comprise its membership. This is far better a solution than a government-controlled agency to represent the rights and interests of music authors and publishers.

ASCAP/BMI and SoundExchange represent two entirely different groups of people. While I in no way agree with the current licensing rates, it is still worth noting that there will likely never be one PRO (performance rights organization) in the U.S.

--Randall

[DJ Killer]

you didnt get my response, i said the government should step in and fix this shit... basically regulate the entertainment industry in that respect because nothing is productively getting done.

There are 29 different licensing groups that i have found, with similar and different artists, all wanting $500 minimum a year, which means to myself, $14,500.00 for a minimum license from them all. This = highway robbery to me. SoundExchange, ASCAP/BMI have too many problems.

Think of it like the legal distribution of MP3 files. Most companies wont do it. Hopefully the record company i am trying to build, but failing miserably at the moment, will make the industry raise a brow and change how they conduct their policies.

When profits are more worthful than the performers or a humans free-expression, whats the worth of music?

And by government control, i mean a non-profit organization devised in which all record companies use (this is where regulation comes in) to license works digitally. Like ICANN which i know is a POS but maybe this would work, but with our current government leadership im afraid that cant be done jim... wtf... ok star trek over-ride...

anywho i think we have made a quite intelligent debate here ;) what do u think? lol

[SorceryKid]

This is an interesting discussion. I certainly don't want to come across as a fan of the current royalty situation, since I for one have never approved of the legal problems surrounding copyrighted music. Most of the laws are far outdated and have resulted in hacks like the DMCA in attempts to accomodate modern technology (but failing miserably). I could go on a whole rant about the backwards nature of music performance rights, but I've been saving most of those discussions for the Live365 boards :)

[davecom]

You're very ignorant if you think big government is the solution to anything. Just go ahead and register with the freakin' IRS. It only costs $75 here in New York. It's a single 503c form(or something like that). That's what I'm doing. And quite honestly, if you have enough money to get a computer to broadcast your station then you have enough money to get registered or can save enough in a short period of time(cut the cable or beer for a month!)

If you're purposes are truly commercial, well then you should know that people have a right to be paid when you use their music for your profit. When you circumvent paying, you hurt not just the millionaire artist, but also every producer and assistant getting paid minimum wage.

This is just common sense. I know there are some crazy liberals among us that would like ineffective big government to solve all of our problems, but I rather be accountable for myself and my own success.

[jd99]

Ok the people who told you they don't pay Royalties are full of shit. Every year a radio station has to pay lic fees wich include music royaltie fees. My station Wild949 in San Francisco Pays over 45,000 a year. So yes we do pay.